Neoliberalism or Populism: What's The Problem?
First the neoliberal masters kill the peoples, then they blame them.
It is a rather cunning strategy that the neoliberal masters of the universe implement these decades: first they infiltrate all the Western political ‘left’, ‘middle’ and ‘labour’ parties with neoliberal ideology. Bill Clinton was most influential in this, with his election strategy of ‘Third Way’ politics and his motto ‘To end welfare as we know it’. Then Tony Blair (with the help of UK sociologist Anthony Giddens) further rationalized and made the strategy explicit with his ‘Third Way’. This was picked up by German social democrat Schröder, who won the leadership in Germany. It was even picked up by the Danish right wing ‘liberal’ party leader (the well known liar for Bush on Iraq and later NATO secretary) Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The ‘success’ of the Third Way made most politicians into ‘blairites’ no matter what country, we are talking about. And most countries have done nothing but neoliberal ‘reforms’ for decades now – AGAINST the people.
Next, as the people are being suppressed, arrogantly dismissed and made still poorer with still less welfare etc., what can the people do? Now, in this neoliberal atmosphere there are almost only ‘sane’ alternative political messages appealing to the people’s interests on the right wing. You know, critiques of the EU, messages that we cannot afford welfare because of all the immigrants and refugees etc. So, as many people realize that there is absolutely for sure no good future with the neoliberal parties, they put in their two pence and their vote for Brexit, Trump, populists in Italy etc.
The right wing and populist solutions are not always exactly true, to say the least. But the peoples' choices here are very understandable from a sociological point of view. Especially when you add that the peoples have received nothing true and objective information about the neoliberal political development, and about what causes it and how the neoliberal politicians have betrayed them for decades. The people have received nothing but neoliberal lies and propaganda to make them accept their own suppression.
And this, of course, does not stop now. So, instead of trying to understand the people and make sense of the political movement, as people move to the right and vote for 'populist' parties, the people are once more dismissed, suppressed and lied both to and about.
Today all the neoliberal establishments with all their well clothed politicians and fine words speaking academics in all the national and corporate controlled media go on and on shaming the people, as the people protest against the no-mercy neoliberal killing and suppression.
What are the establishments saying? They say that the people are becoming 'populistic' as they listen to non-establishment politicians; and that the people are becoming stupid and are misled as they listen to non-establishment information.
In short, the very well crafted rationalized message that the corporate masters of the universe and all their 'mitmachen' academic and journalistic lackeys want the world to absorb is that 'populism', 'non-establishment information' and 'the peoples' are the biggest problems today.
Who are we and what is the meaning of neoliberalism?
"The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation. (..) .. the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases. In this way, a Darwinian world emerges - it is the struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support through everyone clinging to their job and organisation under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress." - Pierre Bourdieu, The Essence of Neoliberalism, 1998, Le Monde Diplomatique
"The state nobility, which preaches the withering away of the state and the undivided reign of the market and the consumer, the commercial substitute for the citizen, has kidnapped the state: it has made the public good a private good, has made the 'public thing', res publica, the Republic, its own thing. (..) The national states are undermined from outside by these financial forces, and they are undermined from inside by those who act as the accomplices of these financial forces, in other words, the financiers, bankers and finance ministry officials. I think that the dominated groups in society have an interest in defending the state, particularly in its social aspect." - Pierre Bourdieu, Acts of Resistance, 'Against the Destruction of a Civilization', 1998: 25
"One might say that in the headquarters of the corporations, whose collective interest is clearly reflected in American government policies, nostalgia has lingered on for the good old days of Hitler’s Third Reich, which was a paradise for German as well as American and other foreign firms: no left-wing parties, no unions, unlimited numbers of slave labourers, and an authoritarian state that provided the necessary discipline and arranged for an “armament boom” and eventually a war that brought “horizonless profits..." -Jacques Pauwels, Author Big Business and Hitler
"The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London. (...)
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish. (...)
When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.
If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." - Harold Pinter, 2005, Nobel Prize Lecture
Resistance: What to know and think?
"We are destroying our civilization because of a wrong economic thinking." - Warren Mosler
"95% of all declared 'progressives' are effectively operating in a neoliberal space." - Bill Mitchell
People should not believe any of the establishments' lies about economics, welfare or our wars for one more second. No matter how polite the words and how well dressed the establishment speakers may seem. Instead, people need to stick to the true intellectuals, who can show the true colours of our establishment people, as they are all nothing but ignorant and heartless neoliberal thugs dressed up as nice people.
We need to organize outside the established political parties or revolutionize them from the inside, if we are to destroy the neoliberal power grip. First step is to see the neoliberal plan and suppression for what it is: a plan to destroy our civilization as we know it. To destroy all Western civil, welfare and workers' rights and all realistic hope for a decent future for the peoples' children.
In short, we need to do away with our neoliberal establishments before they do away with us and the rest of the peoples of the world. This requires the spread of intellectual resources and knowledge. People need to know reality to be able to act most sensible.
People need to know about Pierre Bourdieu, Harold Pinter and Warren Mosler, who have the absolutely most crucial analyses of our social reality. Moreover, they agree on the diagnosis, namely that the US and the Western corporate masters are on their way to destroy our civilization. Of course, our establishments work to suppress the brilliant insights of all three. So, chances are that you don't even know about their analyses.
People may regard my blog post here to be both 'populistic' and 'alternative information'. So, I urge you to learn the stuff below, for yours and mine children and for their children:
Watch (and read the transcript) Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize Lecture explaining how it has been possible to make the Western people accept the past seventy years of US wars made upon lies and propaganda; as he explains that the Western establishments have always - consciously and unconsciously - supported and even defended the US lies and propaganda (the BBC did not air it): Harold Pinter - Nobel Lecture Art, Truth & Politics, 2005
People need to realize that the Western corporate power elites and their hired and mitmachen establishments, the media, the academics and the politicians generally bring them nothing true and good. These are not empty words, as the Western establishments are working on ways to ridicule, suppress and censor alternative information such as mine here as 'fake news'.
Please read and share this information everywhere
Lars Jorgensen, sociologist, Denmark
9/11 Beginners 101 - January 2018
Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of America, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.” -- Howard Zinn
"Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. -- Lynn Margulis
"Even though Dr. Lynn Margulis was best known for her breakthroughs in science, perhaps her greatest contribution was her public support for a real 9/11 investigation." Dr. David Ray Griffin
#Tower7Explosions #WittnessessAndExperts (die) #NISTLied #AssangeNotInterested
Physics and Insurance Companies don't buy the Official Version
"Given the fact that before September 11, 2001 no high-rise steel-frame building has ever collapsed from fire alone (Taylor, 2011), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The NIST Reports did not address the total collapse of the Twin Towers, truncating their study at “collapse initiation.” Overall, our peer-reviewed literature results collectively yield a very strong prima facie argument for controlled demolition."
"If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction codes, have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance companies do not accept the PC hypothesis."
Demolition Experts knew from day one it was controlled demolitions
You want to listen and know this: "Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) [World's leading demolition company] Tom discusses the complex process of preparing a building for controlled demolition and sites the reasons why WTC building 7 had to have been a controlled demolition." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg
As certain was this expert: "Danny Jowenko was a Dutch expert in controlled demolition who testified that WTC7 collapse ould only be due to controlled demolition." Wikispooks
12.000 Pages Testimony about 'Explosions' on 9/11 - suppressed
The Official NIST Report Lied (one example)
Professor in Religion Studies, David Ray Griffin writes:
"NIST’s timeline is also directly contradicted by the testimony of Jennings, who said: “After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark . . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing. Because I looked . . . one way, looked the other way. . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing.”8
The strongest evidence against NIST’s timeline, however, is Hess’s interview with UPN 9 News. Defenders of the official account, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7, might challenge the truth of Jennings’s testimony. But if Hess was giving an interview almost a half mile away before noon, then NIST’s timeline, according to which the two men were not rescued until after noon, is objectively disproved. This is the case whether we accept the 11:34 or the 11:57 starting time for this interview.
Given the fact that the interview occurred almost a half mile from the WTC, it would probably have taken Hess at least a half hour to get there after he was rescued (he surely would have talked to firefighters and other officials about the ordeal before taking off). So if the interview began at 11:34, he and Jennings would have been rescued before 11:05. If the interview began at 11:57, they would have been rescued before 11:30." http://911truth.org/nist-lied-barry-jennings-michael-hess-…/
Barry Jennings' Important Testimony on WT7 - Two Interviews
Barry Jennings was not interviewed for the NIST investigations until a few YEARS after 9/11. He was later threatened and tried to retract his testimonies. Then, finally he died(was killed under mysterious circumstances a couple of days before the NIST report was published.
"Barry Jennings was an important eyewitness to the events of 9/11. At the time, he was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. Together with Michael Hess, the New York City Corporation Counsel (an associate of Rudy Giuliani), he was rescued from WTC Building 7 before it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. On several occasions, Jennings stated that an explosion trapped them in WTC Building 7 (before the collapses of WTC 1 & 2) and that explosions occurred throughout the building until they were saved after attracting the attention of a team of firefighters through a broken 8th floor window. Jennings reportedly died in 2008, in highly suspicious circumstances." Wikispooks
(a site made becauce we cannot trust Wikipedia - just check what the two sites writes about Jennings, for example)
Assange not interested in 9/11, nor 'Explosions', nor Jennings
"I spoke to Assange at the National Press Club in DC when he presented the video he got from Chelsea Manning. I asked him to look into JenningsMystery.com - He refused.
Jennings story is such an amazing indictment of corporate media: Summary of Case
On August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess. Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut..
However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC. The cause of Jennings' death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with the investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings' position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements." https://www.quora.com/What-9-11-secrets-were-revealed-by-WikiLeaks
The JenningsMystery: "He worked for the City of New York. He was Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department. He was in WTC Building 7 on 9/11, and he saw too much." http://jenningsmystery.com/
Much more 9/11: HS page on the subject http://homosociologicus.com/the-crime-of-911
Prism: Charles Wright Mills Review of 'Behemoth' (1942)
Franz Neumann's analysis of the German nazi society Behemoth 1933-1944 is no doubt one of the most advanced prisms to help us understand our neoliberal situation today.
Once more everything seems to be or is actually turned on its head. And our public 'intellectuals' cover up truth instead of telling it. In the public we only have 'intellectuals' working for the neoliberal war-locomotive. In short, we have "Behemoth" once more:
"the Nazi organization of society involved the collapse of traditional ideas of the state, of ideology, of law, and even of any underlying rationality."
“Hardly any other ideological element is held in such profound contempt in our civilization as international law. Every generation has seen it break down as an instrument for organizing peace, and a theory that disposes of its universalist claims has the obvious advantage of appearing to be realistic. The fallacy should be equally obvious, however. To abandon universalism because of its failures is like rejecting civil rights because they help legitimize and veil class exploitation, or democracy because it conceals boss control, or Christianity because churches have corrupted Christian morals. Faced with a corrupt administration of justice, the reasonable person does not demand a return to the war of each against all, but fights for an honest system. Likewise, when we have shown that international law has been misused for imperialistic aims, our task has begun, not ended. We must fight against imperialism.” —Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism 1933-1944
Excerpts from Charles Wright Mills' review of Behemoth below (1942):
"The analysis of Behemoth casts light upon capitalism in democracies. To the most important task of political analysis Neumann has contributed: if you read his book thoroughly, you see the harsh outlines of possible futures close around you. With leftwing thought confused and split and dribbling trivialities, he locates the enemy with a 500 watt glare. And Nazi is only one of his names."
"One of the generic errors of those who do not see the German economy as capitalistic is Marx’s view that capitalism is an anarchy of production. Of course, as Max Weber contended, modern Western capitalism is nothing of the sort. It is rationalized and planned. The more monopolization continues, the more capitalism is controlled and planned."
"These are the rulers and the rest are the ruled, but these form at times an uneasy front, and the ruled may well be watching carefully. From these four angles, interests, anchored in the entire social structure but especially in violence and production, coalesce into the central aim: continual preparation and maintenance of imperialist war. To grasp this clearly is to see the structure of the regime as a total thing, called Behemoth.
War gives National Socialism not only glory but a stabilization of its power; to industry it gives profits, conquers foreign markets and accumulates booty capital. Neumann sees the bureaucracy, relatively unchanged by the Nazi conquest of power, marching with the victorious."
"Ideologies and social structure are seen conjointly, which is the only way to see either in accurate and telling focus. For in some situations nothing that is said can be taken at its face value, and it is more important to know meanings than to test for truth. Indeed, the way to political reality is through ideological analysis. This is the way that Neumann has taken, and this is why his account of Nazi ideology is at times definitive and always interesting. His account of the blending of geopolitics and international law to form a “Germanic Monroe Doctrine” is a model for such analysis."
"Ideas are political cloaks. The ideology of Gemeinschaft, e.g., masks the impersonality of a rationalized society."
"...anti-Semitism operates as a surrogate for class struggle by heaping hatred upon one “enemy”; in the same act it seeks to “unify” the Aryan community. The manner in which Nazi doctrine is shaped by the need to ensnare various strata is neatly illustrated by its inclusion of perverted Marxist elements."
"In a similar contradiction Neumann shows that as the political power of the state has increased, the doctrine of the totalitarian state has been rejected by Nazi intellectuals."
"Not only does acceptance or rejection of Neumann’s analysis set the type of understanding we have of Germany, it sets our attitude toward given elements in other countries, sights the act of our allegiance, places limits upon our political aspirations: helps us locate the enemy all over the world. That is why Franz Neumann’s book is not only the most important to appear about Germany; it is a live contribution to all leftwing thinking today. His book will move all of us into deper levels of analysis and stragegy. It had better. Behemoth is everywhere united."
Comparing Nazi & Neoliberal Reality
Book excerpts from Nazi Era to Enlighten today's Neoliberalism
The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II, 2013, J Spritzler:
"There is the official view of World War II—the one we have all been taught—then, there is the one presented here: very different, and very disturbing. This alternative view argues that the aims of the national leaders were not democracy and self-determination, but were, as wars generally are, opportunities to suppress class rebellion. Furthermore, Spritzler maintains, the myths of World War II are the same myths that are being used today in the "war against terrorism" by government and corporate leaders to control people and pursue ends that have nothing to do with protecting us from terrorism."
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, M. Mayer [excerpt]
“What happened here [Germany then] was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.”--from Chapter 13, “But Then It Was Too Late”. Amazon
Behemoth: Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944
"Neumann was one of the only early Frankfurt School thinkers to examine seriously the problem of political institutions.() the Nazi organization of society involved the collapse of traditional ideas of the state, of ideology, of law, and even of any underlying rationality."
War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, 2012, E Black:
"War Against the Weak is the gripping chronicle documenting how American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of "human genetics." Some 60,000 Americans were sterilized under laws in 27 states."
A One-And-A-Half-Truth for Pinter and Pilger
"...across the world the extinction and suffering of countless human beings could be attributed to rampant American power. "But," said Pinter, "You wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." Pinter's words were more than surreal. The BBC ignored the speech of Britain's most famous dramatist." - John Pilger
“BBC, in short, ensured that the British and other peoples did not know about the most crucially important speech about the Western states' war crimes since 1945 (see the list on left bottom). In Pinter's own words: "You wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." - Homo Sociologicus
The Sociological Question: which sociological mechanisms may explain Pinter's observation on the Western states' neglience of its consecutive state war crimes on a Nuremberg scale. From Korea & Vietnam to Yugoslavia, Libya & Syria etc.?
The Answer: corporate power relations control the Western political systems to a still larger extent. Not least on ‘foreign policy’. The states' intel agencies are generally corporate tools. They control the most important media, while hired academics at the universities and especially 'think tanks' write the demanded 'non-fiction' & 'analysis reports' to tell the media and the academic world, what to think. Basically, all (the rest) Western academics take the propaganda 'non-fiction' literature and 'analyses' seriously as if it had any resemblance to truth, while the media simply use and peddle the ‘well-established’ information as if it was sincerely researched information. You will probably only have to watch this one minute video expose of the US 17 'intel agencies' to see a vital glimpse of the the truth and have your trust in the official sourced changed radically. But you wouldn't know, it never happened etc., if you trust the BBC and other (state or corporate) Establishment media.
It is important to realize the incredible size of the US' so-called 'security complex': "In 2010 (..) Washington Post reported that the national security state had swelled into a “fourth branch” of the federal government ― with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year." Exploring the Shadows of the US Security State: How I Learned Not to Love Big Brother, August 24, 2017, By Alfred McCoy
Bill Clinton de-regulated the US media laws in the 1990ties thereby opening up for almost total corporate media control. Today six companies owe the right to tell 90% of all American media employees, what to tell the people and how. The European politicians, academics and journalists simply have to accept the information given to submise and enlargen the US (deep) state's control to Europe. This, they do. The added corporate control of the media also helped change the political development even further to the right. This has also made it easy for both national state and corporate media to more systematically employ right wing sympathetic journalists, who will not pose critical questions but will applaud the corporate sources and its neoliberal scripts for ideological reasons. In Denmark, for instance, we often see former right wing spin doctors portray as political analysts on national tv. And the once most trusted program is today also regularly hosted by a former right wing spindoctor.
The late German editor of the Frankfurter Allegemeiner Zeitung, Udo Ulfkotte, published a book a few years ago, where he confessed to twenty five years of working for the CIA telling stories they wanted or gave him. Again, this should come as no surprise if you know even a bit about the CIA's history of infiltration in Western states. But of course, you wouldn't know it... The CIA and MI6 and other 'intel agencies' influence all over the media to have their (corporate masters') agendas represented as they want. The former US war hero and Pentagon employee Richard Ford has stated that the 'Syrian Laboratory for Human Rights', you know, the man in Coventry Link, who has supplied Western media with information on Syria the past years - is simply a MI6 front.
The CIA and other Western intel agencies hire and pay thousands of analysts and journalists to write the 'news'. No less problematic, from a democratic and anti-war perspective, is the apparatus' ability to pay big money to PR companies and hire thousands of people to smear and work against critical academics and journalists both under cover in the public and on the social media. A single PR company was paid $500 million dollars to do propaganda for the war on Iraq: "A former contractor for a UK-based public relations firm says that the Pentagon paid more than half a billion dollars for the production and dissemination of fake Al-Qaeda videos that portrayed the insurgent group in a negative light." 2016, The Independent LINK
This article can be considered critical important information. But such critical information always come too late, with the goal of backing up the media's own credibility so as to able to be function as effective tools for the next big lie and propaganda project. The only thing we can know for sure about the establishment media is that they will never tell the most important truths about their way of doing journalism for the corporate agenda. Just as they will never tell the truth that NATO has employed jihadist mercenaries for the past forty years, where media such as the BBC and the Independent still systematically suppress the truth and help lie for more of the corporate empire's wars. Link
The corporate powers even get useful idiots volunteering to support the apparatus, when for instance sincere 'critical' academics, lacking the skills to understand it all, voluntarily suppress themselves and everybody else, when they go out to defend the established media and write ridiculing texts about 'conspiracy theorists’.
This chaotic 'behemoth' public sphere, where nobody knows who and what to trust, is a great achivement. The politicians are never put to account. Everybody in the public sphere 'work together', from covert and overt hired hands to cunning intel agents, sincere and insincere politicians, academics and journalists, indistinguishable from each other, they simply present the peoples with a more or less uniform but mostly completely false information. This way, critical thinking and the truth on all subjects is systematically suppressed. This way, the Western peoples are presented with a most biased and often completely false corporate ordered information about reality. This way, we have gained a still more ‘totalitarian’ Western public sphere. This way, we can now more than ever appreciate the warning by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who said that the concerted assault on critical thought in the eighties and nineties is a great danger for our democracies.
The Evidence: the apparatus is as extremely powerful as it is dangerous. The information is so clearly false, when compared to the information available on the alternative media. But It is easy to understand if most people cannot imagine the description above to be the truth and prefer to think that the Western academics are trustworty, and that the media produce journalism.
But... there is an insurmountable logical problem, for the apparatus and all its implicated cunning-intel-hired-hands-and-non-critical-minded-useful-idiots-academics-journalists-and-neoliberal-politicians. That is, if one thinks about it. For the apparatus’ very success and still greater success in mobilizing the Western peoples to applaud consecutive state war crimes on a Nuremberg scale (destroying nation after nation with still less noteworthy academic, political and journalistic opposition and critique) is simply the greatest possible evidence of its totalitarian nature. When we apply critical historical knowledge on the former wars, what we know today, and confront it with the uniformly presented information given to us up to and under the wars, it is obvious that the Western public spheres have functioned as one big totalitarian apparatus.
To mention just one example. Today we know, and the British Parliament has acknowledged it as a fact, that basically all information leading up to and under the NATO war on Libya was false. We also remember - or can go back and check the given information - that there was No oppositional information back then. This lays bare the naked truth. Because, when we know today that basically all information was false and nobody contradicted the information then, it must be logically true that everbody talking about Libya then, all politicians, all academics and all media must have been telling the same lies. There is simply no way of denying this. It is what Karl Kraus and Ludwig Wittgenstein would call a one-and-a-half-truth.
This way, everybody can know for a fact that every period's information has shown up to be evidence that our states and public spheres are rotten to the core. This applies both to domestic and foreign policy.
To bear witness and enlighten people about the kind of totalitarian world we actually inhabit, I research to collect the best critical (= true) academic knowledge and journalistic information on different topics. Not least the former wars. People may find the most trustworthy information about the former wars and the totalitarian lies that accompanid them on my pages on Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria etc.
The Big Picture: it's all about powerful conspiracies!
"Those who tell the stories rule society." - Plato
The Big Business People that were convicted at Nuremberg as being the real culprits running Hitler's 'Foreign Policy' for thirteen years only got a few years jail. While some of their ground men soldiers were hanged they were free i a couple of years. One of the Nazi generals even was appointed to head of NATO later...
It is the same Big Business that have run the world ever since. They had the US/CIA make the Great German Europe that they had Hitler 'working' on. The same Big business Power Relations destroyed Yugoslavia (together with MI6, CIA, British SAS special forces etc) on complete lies, fabrications and NATO's illegal bombs on Serbian civilian infrastructure etc.
It is the same Big Business that run the EU today - and more than ever. They destroyed Greece - also on complete lies (95% of the loans given to Greece went directly back to German, French, British etc. big shareholders that had given very risky loans to private banks in Greece - only the 95% loans were now 'nationalized' and thereby put on the Greek people as an even much bigger burden. So, the 'loans' were not loans but burden).
And the same scheme is going to be applied to other EU nations in the South that don't have their own currency. NB. Own currency = Own state = Own policies. Most economists don't protest the EU. Because either they don't know this (many of them) or they simply still want an EU with one currency. Why? Because that so would fit their 'pure' economic models on their minds. Please notice that everything important going on in the EU is happening behind closed doors. And that the Western media completely and lie, suppress and make propaganda on the EU issues, too.
That is because it is the same Big Business that run all the Western 'Foreign Policy' today and control the media. Where they are not in control they have had right wing 'globalist' enthusiastic politicians and journalists hired so that they will do and say, what Big Business want out of ideological reasons. It is enough, actually a qualification, if you are not too bright either as a journalist or as a politicians to fall their globalist propaganda, just look at the academic world that have promoted the 'globalist agenda' still more for the past thirty years. If you try to explain that the civil liberties, workers' rights and welfare state rights are all hung up on the national states, they still won't listen and says that the 'future' is globalism...
Here we come to the best part of it. The same Big Business had their CIA hitmen make even the very question of asking what is going on 'illegal'. That is, they fabricated the 'conspiracy meme' in the sixties and had it circulated all over the US media (later it is also over all the European media - as everybody knows). So, you cannot tell - in fact not even ask questions - about the Big Business, politics, media and 'intel agencies' connectedness of things as I lay out here.
The only differences between me and Colin Powell stating such a (hidden) conspiracy theory, are, that I am not working for Big Business that I care about people and that I mean what I say, when I say: 'These statements are not assertations, these statements are based on facts, solid facts'. Only the British Parliament have acknowledged that all the info on the war on Libya was false. But that is of course something. Important. So, why do the UK continue the exact same false, illegal and insane war on Syria. NATO systematically back, fund, arm, train, lead and bomb for al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. BBC just covered it up as a 'mistake'. They are corrupt. Completely.
I have made pages with relevant if not crucial information on all these subjects and many more. Not least on the factual knowledge we have today that the US/NATO wars killing millions of people on lies and propaganda for Big Business were all illegal - and actually as a matter of fact insanely more cruel than the nazis's 'wars'. NATO do not so much go into war, they more accurately destroy nations. So:
"You wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." Harold Pinter
That is all for now! I must run (boy to football ;) ) - sorry about misspellings etc.
CIA gør os til tåbelige mordere
"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise." Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister Propaganda 1933-45
"Dr. Ulfkotte says the corruption of journalists and major news outlets by the CIA is routine, accepted, and widespread in the western media, and that journalists who do not comply either cannot get jobs at any news organization, or find their careers cut short. (..) I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service. Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says he planted stories for CIA in 25 years", 2015 LINK
Hvorfor skal du interessere dig for min tekst her? Fordi din regering, alle danske politikere, en lang række akademikere og stort set alle danske journalister lyver for dig (bevidst eller ubevidst) og får dig til at støtte NATO og al Qaeda i Syrien, der har været igang med et folkemord på den syriske befolkning i de forløbne seks år. De store internationale NGO'er lyver også stort, dels ved at viderebringe information fra al Qaeda i Syrien og dels ved ikke at fortælle sandheden, om hvad der reelt foregår.
Lad mig begynde med at give en ide om hvor kolossalt stort USAs propaganda-apparat, i virkeligheden er, som et perspektiv til at forstå, hvor omfattende fabrikationen af 'viden og information' relateret til USAs krige er. Det er er ufatteligt stort. Danske politikere, akademikere og journalister kan simpelthen nøjes med at koble sig på den 'viden og information', som de får gratis fra det kolossale apparat samt officielle amerikanske regeringskilder, hvormed de kan blive fyldt med løgn og propaganda. Det eneste, de behøver at gøre, er, ikke at tænke kritisk eller søge information andre steder:
"In 2010, almost a decade into this secret war with its voracious appetite for information, the Washington Post reported that the national security state had swelled into a “fourth branch” of the federal government ― with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year." 'Exploring The Shadows Of America’s Security State
', Aug, 2017. Prof. Alfred W. McCoy
Vestens politiske offentlighed bliver på denne måde overklistret med EN stor Washington-fabrikeret løgn om Syrien endda langt ind i den akademiske verden. Det er så falsk, som jeg skal vise, at det er tydeligt tåbeligt, hvis man ridser lidt i logikken. Fx fabrikation at den syriske hær har brugt kemiske våben, bombet sin egen befolkning osv. Men det er samtidig så massivt, at det er endda vanskeligere at tænke, at det kan være falsk.
Sandheden om denne komplet omfattende ukritiske amerikanske indflydelse i medierne, i politik og i den akademiske verden er ganske enkelt u-udtalt idag. Hvilket gør den total. På den måde bidrager alle til deres egen undertrykkelse af viden om realiteterne i Syrien, samtidig med at de selvsikre fylder befolkningernes hoveder med propaganda, så det i dag er næsten umuligt at få folk til at lytte til modstridende information. De vestlige medier er på syvende år igang med dagligt at fremføre de samme løgne. Hvor alle vores politikere, akademikere og journalister systematisk og til stadighed bruger de samme enslydende propaganda- forklaringer. På den måde bliver hele den vestlige verden indhyllet i den form for informationståge, som Harold Pinter blotlagde i sin fine Nobelpris-tale om en amerikansk udenrigspolitik:
Jeg skal give en sociologisk forklaring af, hvad der reelt foregår og vise, hvordan medierne i samarbejde med al Qaeda skaber Disney-agtige falske anklager om, at 'Assad' bruger kemiske våben. Sådan som medierne nu har gjort i seks år.
Min baggrund og metode
Min baggrund for at udtale mig om Syrien er flere års intensiv forskning i emnet. Jeg tvivler stærkt på, at der findes en eneste person i Skandinavien, der har brugt blot nær så mange timer på at forske i holdbar og uholdbar litteratur og information om krigen i Syrien, som jeg har. Jeg har hver dag igennem flere år krydstjekket praktisk talt alle vigtige påstande ved at kigge på kilder fra begge sider og fra et utal af kilder (min artikel i Arbejderen havde 115 noter hver med mange kilder). Fra NATO-siden og fra kritiske folk, der har viden og indsigt om Syrien.
Jeg krydstjekker gerne med - men støtter mig yderst sjældent til - kilder fra Syrien eller fra den syriske regering. Selvom de oplagt ville være de bedste kilder til at oplyse, hvad der sker på jorden og imod dem. Jeg støtter mig især til vidende folk, der ikke har noget på spil (sjovt nok er det kun dem, der er til at stole på), såsom tidligere våbeninspektører, uafhængige journalister, diplomater og Syrien-ambassadører; dog gør jeg en undtagelse med alskens gejstlige fra forskellige religioner i Syrien, da de så samstemmende siger det samme, som jeg nu ved er virkeligheden i Syrien
Jeg har tidligere skrevet en længere artikel i Dagbladet Arbejderen
, hvor jeg forklarer, hvordan det har været sociologisk muligt at skabe et komplet falsk billede af realiteterne i Syrien. 'Mediernes ansvar for krigen i Syrien':
"Hvis der havde været kritiske journalister og akademikere i de vestlige medier, der havde fortalt sandheden om Syrien, ville krigen være stoppet for år tilbage. Den var måske aldrig begyndt."
Marts 2017 LINK
Jeg har aldrig forsøgt at få en artikel om Syrien i Information eller Politiken eller lignende, da de danske (og vestlige) medier er så falske på virkeligheden, at jeg antager det for at være umuligt.
De historiske erfaringer fra Libyen afslører løgnen om Syrien
De historiske fakta fra krigen mod Libyen udgør en uhyre vigtig løftestang til åbne op for sandhedenn om Syrien. For vi ved i dag faktuelt, at samtlige vestlige politikere, akademikere og journalister præcist lige så systematisk fremførte, hvad vi idag ved var en stor omfattende løgn omkring situationen i Libyen. Nærmest ikke ét eneste kritisk modstridende pip fik lov til at komme frem i de toneangivende medier dengang. På den måde lykkedes man fx også med at få Enhedslisten med på at Bombe i Libyen. Enhedslisten virker næsten endnu mere opsatte på at 'gøre noget' i Syrien. De er ligesom alle andre i dag, de rene tåber i CIAs spin, indopererede med amerikansk falsk bevidsthed, så de fx taler for 'a no fly-zone', der er den rene vare med hensyn til at dræbe Syrien for amerikanske løgne.
Norske piloter forklarede et par år efter deres medvirken til bombardementerne af Libyen, at i 75% af deres togter måtte de selv finde de mål, som de mente var værd at bombe. Tænk hvis det var fly, der blev sendt ind over Danmark... Og vid så at det hele var falsk. Ikke alene løgnene om Gadaff op til krigen. Men du ved formentlig heller ikke, at Gadaffis Libyen faktuelt var Afrikas bedste land at leve i. Hvor skulle du også vide dét fra! Min side om Libyen her Link
Jeg ved, at jeg har ret. Ikke blot på grund af min omfattende research. Men også fordi de mennesker, som jeg støtter mig til i forhold til analysen af Syrien også havde den korrekte analyse af Libyen. Op til og under NATOs bombardementer af Libyen. Hvor de vestlige medier løj på præcis samme måde, som de nu har gjort i seks år om Syrien. Hvis man ønsker at gøre opmærksom på, at jeg aldrig har sat min fod i Syrien; og derfor ikke kan udtale mig. Så lad mig erindre om, at ingen dommer i en dansk ret nogensinde har sat sin fod i de sager, som hun skal dømme i.
Det britiske parlament har fastslået (2016), at al information omkring Libyen op til bombingen i 2011 var grundlæggende falsk. Herunder, som det diplomatisk indrømmes, at civilbefolkningen ikke var i den store fare, som man havde antaget, samt at islamismisk fundamentalisme (al Qaeda) var et større element blandt oprørerne end antaget: "In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element." 'Libyan intervention based on erroneous assumptions; David Cameron ultimately responsible'
Hvis man har hørt om Hillary Clinton's Wikileaks-lækkede emails, så har man måske også hørt, at al Qaeda blev transporteret til Jordan for at lave et tilsvarende 'folkeligt oprør' i Syrien? Dette er ganske enkelt USAs og NATOs måde at føre proxy-krig på i dag. Og de vestlige politikere, akademikere og journalister har så til opgave at dække over realiteterne. Hvilket de gør, når de følger samme historie af økonomiske, ideologiske grunde og/eller blot agerer nyttige idioter for USA. Løgnen om Libyen var den samme og der skete nøjagtig det samme, som alle også siger vil ske i Syrien, hvis NATO bomber der: "British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse" 2016, U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies, Salon
Se min hjemmeside om denne strategi fra da Thatcher og Reagan offentligt støttede Mujahideen til senere, hvor vesten i stigende takt skjulte, at man støttede Taliban, al Qaeda, al Nusra og ISIS mv. Homo Sociologicus Western Criminal Foreign Policy
Vestens strategi består i at betale, træne (i Jordan), bevæbne, lede og beskytte al Qaeda proxi-lejesoldater, under dække af at de er 'moderate oprørere. For at den strategi kan lade sig gøre, er det bydende nødvendigt, at de vestlige medier undertrykker sandheden om deres opgave og udelukker den lokale befolkning (i Libyen og nu Syrien) fra at fortælle de vestlige borgere, at der er tale om udefrakommende ekstremistiske lejesoldater. Måden de vestlige medier dækker over virkeligheden på består derfor i systematisk at dæmonisere landets leder, så alle der støtter ham fremstår som en tåbe (som 'Assad-støtte') og dels at tale med al Qaeda folk og sympatisører (måske 4-8% af Syrerne), og få det til at fremstå som om fx Gadaffi og Assad er brutale diktatorer, der slår egne borgere ihjel.
Fra Libyen til Syrien: Propaganda-apparatet kører i samme rille
Præcist samme program og løgne fra Libyen genfinder vi i dækningen af Syrien. Ligesom vi finder mange af de samme propagandister på Syrien, som vi i dag ved løj og arbejdede for al Qaeda i Libyen. Fx den dansk-syriske læge Haifa Awad, der udelukkende opererede for og i al Qeada-kontrollerede områder i Libyen. Hun har også udelukkende opereret for og i al Qada-kontrollerede områder i Syrien. 'Hun hjalp de sårede oprørere
på libysk hospital'
, 2011, Dagens Medicin Link
. Men disse fakta er der naturligvis ingen danske medier, der nogensinde har gjort opmærksom på.
Orwell siger, at den største løgn består i udeladelsen. De vestlige medier udelader mindst 90% af den syriske befolknings perspektiv, selve sandheden om situationen i Syrien, sandheden om vestens strategi med at bruge al Qaeade og endelig, naturligvis sandheden om sig selv, at vestens journalister systematisk interviewer og bringer historier fra al Qaeda. Her et citat fra min artikel i Arbejderen:
"Alle, der har talt med syrere udenfor ’oprørernes’ områder, rapporterer, at syrerne sætter stor pris på og støtter Assad, samt at alle andre af vestens historier om Syrien er løgn. En af de mest overbevisende rapporteringer kom i august 2016, hvor en amerikansk fredsdelegation med fredsaktivister og fagforeningsfolk vendte hjem fra Syrien og stærkt indignerede fortalte, at alle syrere bekræftede de mange kritiske rapporter om, at alt, hvad Vestens medier har fortalt om Syrien, er løgn. De beretter i øvrigt også, at den vestlige propaganda sad så dybt i dem, at den var svær at gøre sig fri af." Link
Lad mig fremhæve nogle bemærkelsesværdige danske undtagelser, der bekræfter min forklaring. Da Rasmus Tantholdt var i Aleppo, som man måske kan huske, så løb han begejstret rundt og viste billeder af folk i swimmingpools, idet han forklarede, at "det er, fordi den syriske hær beskytter befolkningen imod ISIS i den besatte del af byen". Dette var og er sandheden om Syrien. Men de vestlige medier fortæller os dagligt nu på sjette år, at 'Assad bomber, gasser og torturerer civilbefolkningen'. Hvordan giver det mening ift. Tantholdts reportager? Tantholdt selv var så fuld af vestens propaganda, at han var helt bestyrtet i sit interview med Assad, hvor Tantholdt udbrød til Assad: "Vil du sige, at du beskytter den syriske befolkning!?" En besynderlig bestyrtelse i betragtning af at Tantholdt selv få dage forinden havde rapporteret netop det.
Eller tag Adam Holms dokumentar Tilbage til Damaskus (2016), hvor vi så et fredeligt og harmonisk Damaskus, hvor samtlige mennesker, som Holm talte med i byen sagde, at de vestlige medier løj om Assad, og at de alle støttede Assad osv. Hvordan giver det mening i forhold til de daglige historier, vi hører om Syrien? Hvordan i alverden kan det give mening, at alle syrere Holm taler med støtter Assad, hvis han bomber, gasser og torturerer befolkningen? Skal vi tro, at syrerne er tåber? Det var tydeligvis ikke tåber, Holm talte med i Damaskus. Vores medier lyver konsekvent. Der er tale om propaganda.
Nu nævner jeg blot de to danske journalister, som rent faktisk har sendt reportager, der viser virkeligheden i Syrien. Fra områder der ikke er besatte af al Qaeda men som er beskyttede af Assad, så de kan tale frit! (på YouTube kan man se videoer fra Aleppos befrielse, hvor befriede syrere fortæller om mareridtet under belejringen af al Nusra Front). Men jeg har hørt enslydende udlægninger fra hundredevis af vidt forskellige kilder, journalister, præster, ambassadører, diplomater, fagforeningsfolk, akademikere og syrere i og udenfor Syrien.
Sandheden er, at alle danske politikere, journalister og akademikere fortæller os de samme amerikanske propagandahistorier og rapporterer al Qaedas version af situationen i Syrien. Den patetiske sandhed om dansk journalistik indrammes af det faktum, at Nagieb Khaja og Puk Damsgaard og andre har gjort alt for at undertrykke det syriske folks version (vist af Holm og Tantholdt), og alt for at fremme det muslimske broderskabs og al Qaedas løgne om Syrien. Journalister som Puk Damsgaard har besøgt og interviewet al Qaeda. Mens Khaja har lavet propaganda-'dokumentarer' for al Qaedas Hvide Hjelme. Jeg ved ikke, hvor mange danske journalister, der bliver betalt af CIA. Men det er oplagt, at det er en mulighed. For hvorfor i alverden skulle de ellers ønske at lyve så forfærdeligt destruktivt?
Tåbelighedens præmisser: Vestens narrativ om Syrien
Lad mig begynde med at aflive det sejlivede spøgelse om, at den syriske hær brugte kemiske våben i 2013. Først faktuelt dernæst sociologisk. Den vestlige propaganda er kan dårligt holde til, at man tænker over den.Jeg skal appellere til logik og lidt almindelig menneskekundskab i forhold til påstanden om, at den syriske hær brugte gas i 2013 og senest også i april 2017. Selvom FN har frikendt den syriske regering i 2013 og peget på jihadisterne, så er det forhåbentlig oplysende at se det klare mønster af himmelråbede tåbelige vestlige anklager fra 2013 til 2017.
FN har forlængst renset Assads syriske hær for anklagen om et giftgas angreb i 2013. FNs Carla Del Ponte, som undersøgte sagen i 2013, konkluderede: Det er IKKE den syriske hær, der har brugt kemiske våden. Alt peger på, at det er ’oprørerne’. Denne historie blev faktisk spredt overalt i de vestlige medier. Her fx i BBC ”UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'”
. Og det er aldrig nogensinde blevet bevist sidenhen heller, at den syriske hær har brugt kemiske våben. Alligevel bliver alle vestlige aviser ved med at tale som om, det er et faktum, at den syriske hær har brugt kemiske våben.
Der har været adskillige anklager mellem 2013 og 2017. Men for ikke at bruge hele vores liv på at gennemgå dem, så vil jeg nøjes med to og gå i dybden med anklagen fra april 2017. Hvor diskrepansen mellem vores mediers præsentation og virkeligheden er særligt fremtrædende.
Lad mig minde om at det kemiske angreb (eller hvad det nu var i 2013) skete samme dag, som FN inspektørerne landede i Damaskus for at tjekke, hvorvidt Assads hær brugte kemiske våben. For det første er man nødt til at tro, at Assad og hans generaler er de dummeste mennesker på denne jord for at tro på den historie. At tænke sig at de ville gøre det netop den dag, hvor FN kommer på besøg. Ud fra en dagsorden om, at Syrien risikerer at blive bombet, hvis det viser sig, at de har brugt/bruger kemiske våben.
Denne form for tåbelighedens præmis gør sig gældende for så mange ting i den vestlige historie om Syrien', herunder alle efterfølgende rapporter om, at den syriske hær har brugt kemiske våben. Husk at det engelske parlament stemte nej
til konservative premierminister David Camerons forslag om at bombe Syrien i 2015. DERFOR.. blev det ikke til noget stort NATO-bombetogt dengang. Og derfor har NATO - og de big business interesser der ønsker Assad væk - et motiv til at få det til at se ud som om, at den syriske hær bruger kemiske våben.
Syrien og de syriske generaler har absolut intet motiv for at gøre det. De skulle virkelig være uendeligt dumme og ønske deres egne familier bombet, hvis de gav NATO den undskyldning. Men det er allivel præcist den samme grundlæggende historie, der bliver brugt i de vestlige medier gang på gang på gang. "Assad", siger man, "har en eller anden interesse i at bruge kemiske våben". Det er virkelig intelligens-fornærmende. Som det forstås gør vestens journalister vestens befolkninger tåbelige gennem deres 'rapporteringer'.
Hele verden kigger på Syrien - og den har gjort det lige siden i hvert fald 2013. Så hvis den syriske hær virkelig var så dum at bruge kemiske våben blot én eneste gang, så ville de give NATO lige nøjagtig den undskyldning for at bombe, som NATO har ønsket sig i de forløbne seks år. Hele det 'narrativ' som vesten har skabt er baseret på samme form for komplet tåbelige præmisser. Hvordan kan man fx tro på de vestlige mediers konstant gentagne historier om, at Assads hær bomber civilbefolkningen? Man er nødt til ikke at tænke sig om. Assads hær er befolkningen! Der er ikke en eneste familie i Syrien, der ikke har familiemedlemmer i hæren. Der er heller ikke en eneste syrisk familie, der ikke sørger over, at et eller flere af familiemedlemmerne er blevet dræbt i de forløbne seks år. Hvordan kan man være så uendelig dum at tro, at soldaterne i hæren ville gå med til at bombe deres egne familiemedlemmer!
Sandheden er en helt anden og iøvrigt også den samme hver gang. Hver eneste gang, der har været en ny påstand om, at den syriske hær har brugt kemiske våben, så er der tale om en fabrikeret historie. Hvor de NATO (og Saudi og Qatar mv.) -finanserede jihadister har brugt kemiske våben og derefter rapporterer, at det er den syriske hær, der står bag. Og da de vestlige medier ikke har taget den syriske regerings meldinger alvoligt i de sidste seks år, så har det vestlige propaganda-apparat i samarbejde med de betalte jihadistiske lejesoldater i Syrien kunnet koble virkeligheden fra. Bemærk venligst. Det er ALDRIG bevist, at det er Assads hær. Ikke i et eneste tilfælde. Tværtimod.
Desuden er sandheden rent faktisk også, at Assad er uhyre populær (hvilket man heller ikke har en chance for at forstå, når man læser vestlige medier). Selvfølgelig ville Assad ikke være så uhyre populær – ligesom han end ikke ville have hærens støtte, hvis han virkelig gav ordre til at bombe civile. Der var et hold internationale valgobservatører ved sidste valg, hvor flere af dem var dybt rørte over, hvor meget befolkningen støttede Assad (han fik omkring 90% af stemmerne. Syrere i udlandet blev forhindrede
i at stemme til valget fx i Canada). Se evt. videoer på YouTube, hvor befolkningen viser deres støtte. Eller se de to videoer øverst til højre på min side om Om Syrien her.
Scott Ritter og Ambassadør Ford om ’Giftangrebet i april i Syrien’
Jeg kunne finde andre vigtige folk, eksperter, der har undermineret påstanden om, at Assads hær brugte kemiske våben i april 2017. Men jeg skal begrænse mig til et par stykker og logisk argumentation. Lad mig begynde med den tidligere FN-inspektør Scott Ritters artikel fra Huffington Post. Inden jeg forklarer hans budskab, så lad mig lige forklare, hvem Ritter er. Han var FN-observatør i Irak inden Irak-krigen. Og han var måske den skarpeste kritiker af den dengang forestående Irak-krig. For han vidste, at våbeninspektørerne med (ham selv og) Hans Blix i spidsen havde fået al den nødvendige adgang til Iraks våbenlagre, som de havde behov for – til at kunne slå fast, at der IKKE var masseødelæggelsesvåben. Men han blev undertrykt i medierne dengang. Nu bruger han sin store ekspertise i kemiske (og andre) våben til at underminere, at det var Assads styrker, der stod bag (april 2017):
”Remember it was Ritter, a weapons inspector in Iraq, who warned that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs as the US and UK were making precisely the opposite, mendacious case for war. Ritter’s voice was excluded from the corporate media in 2002-03, precisely when it might have pulled the rug from under those in the political and media establishments cheering on the disastrous US-UK invasion of Iraq.“ 'The Useful Idiots Who Undermine Dissent on Syria', Juli 2017, by Jonathan Cook
Cook er en uhyre kompetent journalist, som har skrevet vigtige bøger om Israel og Palæstina. Ligesom han har skrevet for en række aviser som The Guardian
Men Scott Ritter har ikke alene den besked, at det ikke var den syriske hær i april. Han skriver en vigtig artikel i Huffington Post, hvor han piller ’beviserne’ i stykker, så selv børn kan forstå det, mens han samtidig forklarer, at det var Al Nusra, der gav ’beviserne’ til de vestlige myndigheder i april. Dette kan kun undre, hvis man ikke har fulgt med i de seriøse kilder og medier omkring Syrien. Det har været den konstante måde, hvorpå de vestlige myndigheder har fået ’beviser’ på (som jeg også gjorde opmærksom på i mit brev til dig, så har AL info fra Syrien siden 2013 gået gennem jihadisterne. Ja, også til Amnesty, Læger uden Grænser osv. osv.). Fx har de ’Hvide Hjelme’ (al Qaeda) leveret rapporter til FN, som har ligget bag FN beslutninger. Dette gjaldt også i april (læs selv hele Ritters artikel).
Men nu til Ritters pointer omkring det påståede gasangreb. En MEGET vigtig pointe er, at den syriske hær og russerne i den grad var ved at vinde i krigen og havde overtaget i dette område på dette tidspunkt i april 2017 (som de generelt har gjort lige siden). Hvorfor i alverden skulle Assad og russerne ønske at tiltrække NATOs bomber på det tidspunkt?! Fuldstændig idiotisk hvis man tænker sig om blot en anelse.
Til gengæld var Al Nusra meget pressede i netop det pågældende område, på netop det pågældende tidspunkt i april. Så selvfølgelig var motivet der i allerhøjeste grad for DEM! Til at bruge kemiske våben og få USA til at bombe. Altså: Motivet var der KUN for dem. Og PÅ INGEN MÅDE for den syriske regering og hær. Min udlægning støttes fx af den engelske ambassadør Peter Ford i en kort video
. og af Scott Ritter i et af de uddrag, som jeg har kopieret ind fra hans vigtige artikel fra april nedenfor:
”A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population.”
“Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend. If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.
The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons capability after 2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack?
Such analysis seems beyond the scope and comprehension of the American fourth estate. Instead, media outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources,…”
Nedenfor forklarer Ritter, hvorfor beviserne er så uendeligt selvmodsigende for ikke at sige latterlige. Ritter udstiller dermed også, at de danske aviser er komplet falske omkring dette angreb. Sådan som de har været i de sidste seks år. De er i dag rene NATO-CNN propaganda-outlets:
“Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a “Sarin nerve agent” attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.
And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account. Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by “White Helmet” rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the “White Helmets” is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a “White Helmet” base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.
The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)”
Informations udlægning i april 2017
Men… Information er tydeligvis ikke interesseret i at tjekke noget som helst information, der kommer fra deres 'kilder' i Syrien og USA. Ligesom Information oplagt ikke interesserer sig for logik, almindelig snusfornuft om menneskelige motiver givet situationen på daværende tidspunkt i Syrien, afgørende grundlæggende viden om Syrien eller afgørende faglig viden fra våbeneksperter som Scott Ritter. Så dengang i april bragte Information som sædvanlig en helt ualmindelig almindelig ulødig artikel af Charlotte Aagaard, der vender alting på hovedet og er så fuld af løgn, som det er muligt. Det handler ganske enkelt kun om at få det sædvanlige totale propaganda-budskab frem, og det STORT. . Sådan så Informations overskrift og manchet ud:
”Assad bruger sine kemiske våben til at udstille USA’s manglende handlekraft
Assad-regimet bruger kemiske våben til at terrorisere oprørerne og civilbefolkningen til overgivelse, til at udstille USA’s manglende handlekraft og til at cementere sin magtposition over for det internationale samfund, vurderer eksperter” LINK til Artiklen
Man bør vide på, at det er journalistik som Aagaards og Informations her (ganske typisk for dansk journalistik på området, på nær Dagbladet Arbejderen), der har sørget for, at holde enhver viden om vestens ansvar og samarbejde med Al Qaeda væk fra deres dækning af Syrien. Der er slet, slet ingen tvivl om, at (også) de danske journalister bærer en stor del af ansvaret for de omkring en halv million døde mennesker, der er blevet slået ihjel i Syrien. Indtil nu. Foragt er ikke dækkende for mit forhold til dansk journalistisk i dag.
Men sandheden er faktisk langt værre. For sandheden er også, at NATO-landene støtter ISIS i Syrien, altså de jihadister, der stolt sælger kvinder med påklistrede prissedler og brænder syriske piloter i levende live. Det var således ganske typisk, at det amerikanske bombeangreb på baggrund af ’beviserne’ om Assads brug af giftgas i april gavnede ISIS. NATO har som bekendt også tidligere bombet syriske soldater ’ved en fejl’, hvorefter jihadisterne også dengang straks angreb og overtog den bombede position. Eksperter sagde, at dette kun kunne ske så hurtigt, som det gjorde, hvis det var koordineret på forhånd.
Jeg er hundrede procent overbevist om, at ISIS også er en USA ’proxy’, præcist lige så vel som Thatchers og Reagans Mujahideen var vestlige værktøjer. Det blev så blot senere til mere skjulte varianter som al Qaeda og nu i dag altså Al Nusra og ISIS, den såkaldte Free Syrian Army osv. Der har blot været tale om forskellige ’re-brandinger’. Det var angiveligt Condoliza Rice, der fandt på 'ISIS'. Se evt. min hjemmeside med omfattende dokumentation for den påstand på min side om vestens historie og strategi her
(husk at se helt ned på den side for at finde artikler, der konkret bakker denne påstand op). Her er min side med to bøger, der kontant forklarer, at ISIS is US
Alle uafhængige analytikere, journalister og akademikere osv. med viden om krigen i Syrien ved i dag, at de vestlige medier er komplet fulde af løgne og propaganda. Alle ved fx også, at de Hvide Hjelme er en falsk organisation drevet af Al Qaeda og Al Qaeda affilierede folk. Det er sådan set komplet ukontroversielt. Scott Ritter selv griner højt, når han i videoer forklarer, hvordan de Hvide Hjelme kommer folk til undsætning, der er blevet udsat for kemiske våben uden beskyttelse. Det er bogstaveligt talt Disney-tegnefilm og Hollywood. Men som jeg også skrev i mit første brev til dig, så ved jeg, hvor vanskeligt det er at frigøre sig fra den historisk set massive propaganda. Som de danske medier selvsagt har hovedansvaret for, når det gælder danske borgere.
BBC har lige annonceret, at de bringer en dokumentar, der viser, at de engelske politikere har sendt penge til Syrien, der er kommet Al Qaeda etc. terroristerne til gode. Der er helt formentlig tale om et forsøg på at dække over BBC selv og andre vestlige medier, der i seks år har systematisk har løjet og propaganderet omkring Syrien (den danske udenrigsminister Anders Samuelsen er også ude, så jeg lige, og komme med sin version af virkeligheden). Desuden er BBC-udsendelsen givetvis et forsøg på at begrænse den massive systematiske støtte til jihadisterne til et spørgsmål om en enkelt eller flere program-fejl (jeg har ikke set udsendelsen). DET ER FALSK! De Hvide Hjelme er (som bekendt) på alle NATO landenes budgetter. Og det er vist fx ikke betegnet som en fejl i denne BBC-udsendelse. Men det er peanuts i forhold til, hvad vesten har brugt af midler på at forsøge at fjerne Assad. Men da jeg ikke lige er klar over, hvor meget den engelske eller danske stat har sendt ind af penge og våben til Al Qaeda og ISIS mfl., så vil jeg begrænse mig til at gøre opmærksom på, hvad USA har oplyst at have brugt af penge på terroristerne i Syrien. En milliard (eng. Billion), eller tusinde millioner dollars har USA brugt. Vel at mærke det beløb, som de indrømmer, New York Times
, august i år: 'Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria.'
Men i betragtning af at vi tidligere har fået oplyst, at USA brugte 500 millioner til et enkelt PR-firma i krigen mod Irak, så er beløbet selvfølgelig langt større.
Folk kan komme med hvad som helst, som de vestlige politikere, akademikere og journalister har sagt og skrevet, der går imod, hvad jeg skriver her og i min artikel - og hvad man ellers ønsker uddybet. Jeg kan pille det i stykker med tilsvarende logisk tænkning og tilsvarende kritiske kilder. Jeg har her begrænset mig til at fokusere på en enkelt case. Men det er præcis samme logik i alt, hvad der er sket og ’rapporteret’ omkring Syrien de sidste seks år. De danske medier har systematisk ikke interesseret sig for, hvad der rent faktisk foregår. De har ganske enkelt forfulgt USAs og NATOs dagsorden og propagandahistorie - jævnligt fødet med 'information' fra al Qaeda i Syrien. Puk Damsgaard og så mange andre danske journalister har (som bekendt?) også rejst rundt med al Qaeda. Who cares, det er jo blot syrere, der bliver voldtaget, dræbt eller endda brændt levende. Og nej, der er ikke tale om film-trick, når de brænder syriske piloter levende. BBC har endda lavet en følelsesmæssigt appellerende artikel, hvor det tydeligvis er meningen, at vi skal holde med og få sympati for de små pus, der udgør ISIS. 'The secret lives of young IS fighters', 2017, BBC
Som jeg så ofte har sagt det på Facebook de sidste par år, nazisterne var amatører i forhold til, hvad NATO landene er istand til i dag.
- - -
NB. I mit forsøg på at google mig frem til de danske artikler med Del Ponte fra 2013 (som jeg tidligere let kunne google frem, sic!), faldt jeg retfærdigvis over denne relativt balancerede artikel af Lasse Ellegaard. Herunder med den vigtige pointe, at Syrien uden Assad vil være et land kontrolleret af al Qaeda. Jeg har set denne sande forklaring fra et utal af forskellige kilder. Ellegaard kommer her interessant nok med en kilde fra Israel:
”For under en uge siden (den 8. september) erklærede den israelske minister for videnskab og teknologi, Jacob Perry, ifølge avisen Ha’aretz, at »Assads efterfølgere vil være det værste for den jødiske stat«, eftersom de vil være »fundamentalister og al-Qaeda«.
” 'Assad vil ikke gå væk', LEDER, 2013, Information
Is Alternet's Ben Norton on CIA's Payroll? #NATOLibya
"In 2010, almost a decade into this secret war with its voracious appetite for information, the Washington Post reported that the national security state had swelled into a “fourth branch” of the federal government - with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year." Alfred W. McCoy
You'd probably have to know about CIA's unimaginable history of infiltration in the world, not least in the Western world in the twentieth century, to even consider that the esteemed Alternet could be involved with the CIA. So let me begin by referring a bit history from another time, where people also had no idea of the extent of the CIA infiltration and dirty influence in the Western states.
It is well documented how CIA had an incredibly big and dirty anti-democratic influence all over the world. But that was also true, perhaps more surprisingly, when it comes to CIA's role in the Western states. Everybody should know that throughout the twentieth century the CIA systematically sponsored and played, if not everybody and everything in the Western world, then at least so much that it begs belief. CIA's (corporate) agendas were about destroying left wing politics and political views and about protecting and covering up US imperialism as if it was a rational policy. CIA needed people and writing that would cover up for the Western mass murders and destructions of democracies and nations worldwide and the very real robbing of the peoples' resources. CIA was also working systematically to destroy all understanding and sympathy for communist, socialist, and even social democratic political ideas and philosophies. Here is an excerpt from Edward Said's review of Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, 1999
Frances Stonor Saunders (Book link
"E.P. Thompson called it the ‘Natopolitan’ world: that is, not just Nato plus all the Cold War military and political institutions that were integral to it, but also a mentality whose web extended over a lot more activity and thought, even in the minds of individuals, than anyone at the time had suspected. Of course there were the revelations in the mid-Sixties about Encounter and the CIA, and later in the US and Britain a stream of disclosures about covert counter-insurgency in every form, from secretly underwritten academic research to assassinations and mass killings.
Yet it still gives me an eerie feeling to read about people like George Orwell, Stephen Spender and Raymond Aron, to say nothing of less admirable characters of the Melvin Lasky stripe, taking part in surreptitiously subsidised anti-Communist ventures – magazines, symphony orchestras, art exhibitions – or in the setting up of foundations in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. One of the rare dissenters, Charles Burton Marshall, is quoted here as saying that this bizarre operation to ‘counter Communism’ by trying ‘to break down ... doctrinaire thought patterns’ and anti-American attitudes throughout the world was ‘just about as totalitarian as one can get’." 'Hey, Mister, you want dirty book?' Edward Said, LRB,1999 Link
Western Media function like in a Totalitarian State
"Dr. Ulfkotte says the corruption of journalists and major news outlets by the CIA is routine, accepted, and widespread in the western media, and that journalists who do not comply either cannot get jobs at any news organization, or find their careers cut short. (..) I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligen-ce services, especially the German secret service." Editor of major German newspaper [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] Says He Planted Stories for the CIA, Link 2015
There is no doubt that the CIA today, more than ever, has an enormous power over the Western media. Yet, most Western people do not have the faintest idea about CIA's involvement in the media. This is as it should be, seen from CIA's desks, for to be able to exert the most effective influence it is crucial that it is done in the dark. It must be done in a manner, so that the CIA's planted stories and controlled narratives are seen as the natural outcome of actual journalism. And this is clearly done so perfectly that even the mentioning of CIA with regard to influence in our media would be disregarded as laughable 'conspiracy theorizing' by most people. In short, CIA has managed to make it a taboo to talk about them in relation to the Western media. Just as it is a taboo to talk about CIA's dirty role in current foreign policy. And of course, unless people are officially employed by the CIA, we never see anyone, journalists or academics admitting in the public that they work for the CIA. So, as everybody knows, we never see any Western politician, journalist or academic criticize CIA's role in the world.
On the other hand, we have a reality where the Western media more than ever sing in concert and never come up with reports and view points that contradict NATO's agenda and constructed narratives. This is obviously not to say that all the different media say precisely the same thing on each (fabricated) narrative. Already Goebbels was acutely
aware of the necessity of a big orchester playing tunes from an apparently plethora of independent source.
Alternet is one of the more respected American media sites with often important critical journalism. Ben Norton has a reputation as a particularly critical minded journalist, when it comes to US foreign policy. Given that Norton exists in a very large choir of Western media completely non-critical and subservient to the US offical line, it is easy to understand Norton's reputation. And it is easy to understand the sympathy his writings get from like-minded readers critical about US foreign policy.
My case-study critique here of Ben Norton's recent report on Western media, NATO and Libya's alleged slave trade can best be understood as a symptom of how much our media generally work for NATO's agendas and provides legitimacy for illegal wars. My hope is that by showing how problematic one of the most critical journalist is on an important issue, people can begin to appreciate that we need much, much more critical reporting if we shall be able to counter NATO's narratives - and 'interventions'.
The problem is that NATO's and CIA's narratives to legitimize 'interventions' [read: wars] are so completely false and deceitful that unless one contradicts them completely, one supports them. Only the most cynical analytical approach to NATO's motives, lies and fabricated 'evidence' can do justice to what the Western nations actually do around the world. It is here that we need to scrutinize and criticize the most apparently critical journalism, for if it do not do the job, it is most likely helping the very agendas and narratives that it purports to go against.
If we shall have any hope of putting a stop to NATO's nation destructions, people must understand the very deadly consequences of Western media, when they legitimize NATO 'interventions'. It is a sociological fact that all the late NATO interventions would be impossible without our journalists' willingness to support the lies. The Western media's support of the lies is a necessity for Western imperialism and NATO interventions. If the journalists began reporting the critical information available they would stop the wars. But the journalists cannot do it by themselves. They need academic support to be able to gain the necessary social power. A more concerted intellectual dismantling of the lies provided by corrupt journalism can therefore, in principle, save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. It is no accident that journalists were also convicted at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The totalitarian Character of the Western Media
People finally need to realize that Western journalists work so completely together to legitimize the rationality if not necessity of NATO interventions - as if they were controlled to do so. Now, such a complete conspiracy behind Western media is exactly what the former German editor of Frankfurter Allgeimene Zeitung said is the reality. And after having followed the Western media close the past couple of years, everything suggest that the German editor told us the truth.
how can we realize this .. will write tomorrow..
Media Lens, Fair and Sputnik are tricked by the overt semantics
Ben Norton has written an article on NATO's responsibility for the alleged 'slave trade' in Libya today. In the article he criticizes the Western mainstream media for not telling about the slave trade and for not reporting on NATO's responsibility creating the situation in Libya today. It is certainly true that NATO bears the responsibility for the situation in Libya today (but there is more to the story than meets the eye). And Media Lens, Fair and Sputnik enthusiastically shares his story and explanations. Here is what Media Lens wrote on their Facebook wall (November 29, 2017):
"This is a superb piece by Ben Norton about the shocking slave trade in Libya: a consequence of Nato's bombing campaign in 2011 and Nato's support for extremist racist 'rebels'. And how the corporate media has essentially buried these uncomfortable facts.===Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya
'Twenty-first century slave markets. Human beings sold for a few hundred dollars. Massive protests throughout the world.
'The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets. Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.
'...to acknowledge NATO’s complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATO’s role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya in the first place'."
Norton leaves out the most critical points for a true explanation of NATO's agenda and dirty involvement i Libya. While he in effect come to support the CNN narrative and opens up for yet another NATO 'intervention'.
I have great respect for Media Lens, so this is just what it is: a critique of Norton's explanations. To help Media Lens, Fair and Sputnik spreading truth instead of lies. Below is my sociological reasoning for accusing Ben Norton and - consequently - Alternet.
Below his words Norton asks for new NATO Intervention in Libya
“Omission is the most powerful form of lie.” – George Orwell
Let me begin by telling you what Ben Norton actually did tell us of importance. The then move on the focusing on what he did not but should have told us. I will use his article in Fair and his interview on Sputnik: 'All things Middle East on today's episode of By Any Means Necessary. Show favorite Ben Norton joins Eugene and Sean for the hour." Nov 29, 2017
Enough for today. More tomorrow.
What George Monbiot Covers Up on Yugoslavia
I really don't care what Monbiot says. He is covering up and legitimizing the Guardian's systematic suppression of the Western people. I regard him as a betrayer of journalism helping to kill people at home and abroad. But recently I have come to learn that he systematically covers up for NATO's lies and attacks journalists, who actually fight to tell people the truth about, what is going on in the world. How NATO lies, fabricates and deliberately destroys nations - inclusive committing mass murder in the hundred thousands. Just as Monbiot is a complete liar, attacking the best people to cover up NATO's lies on Syria today, I have come to learn that he was also a complete liar on Yugoslavia, covering up for NATO and attacking one of the very finest and most important academics in the twentieth century, Edward Herman. Thanks, but no thanks, I am disgusted Mr. Monbiot. So, I take this as a welcome opportunity to put my ressource page on Yugoslavia into some practical use.
The most important lesson from Yugoslavia is not only that all NATO nations lied in the most totalitarian manner, used false flags, fabrications and extremist Mujahideen mercenaries there. The most important lesson is that the War in Yugoslavia made NATO and the Western nations into a single completely cynical totalitarian info- and war machine. It is in this perspective that Monbiot's attacks show their true colour in all its horror. He is trying to shut up the last remaining people, who are working to inform people about the truth of our nations.
Lies? Nah, rather fabrications on an unheard scale, false flags and NATO soldiers killing civilians to blame the Serbs and legitimize bombing the Serbian people on a false pretext
So it begins. It is almost false to simply say that all information in the Western media, by the politicians, NATO etc. was false. It is worse than that. It is more accurate to say that all information on Yugoslavia, used to conduct and legitimize the war on Yugoslavia relied on fabrications.
To destroy Yugoslavia, NATO and its corporate masters succeeded in recruiting the Western left politicians. Joschka Fischer and the German social democratic government with Gerhard Schröeder as Prime Minister deliberately misinformed the German people and everybody else of course. This was a necessity to bring Germany into war for NATO and most helpfulp in mobilizing the European peoples. Evidence can be found in an important German documentary from 2001. A NATO spoke person praises the German politicians for their lies that were instrumental in dragging Germany back in to war. A very experienced Swedish peace researcher with connections in NATO, Tunander later informed the world at a peace conference, that high-ranking NATO people had admitted to him that they knew the truth and had lied deliberately.
Then we come to the even more criminal aspect of the war on Yugoslavia. British SAS special forces made false flags and deliberately killed civilians. Together with Mujahideen extremist mercenaries they attacked civilians and blamed the Serbs. A French colonel from the French Foreign Legion later wrote a book, where he explained that his men had fought NATO’s forces at Pristina, with the title Europe died at Pristina (in French). Another French officer, Bunel gave the Serbs information about coming NATO bombs. There were Western journalists at the time trying to inform people that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy and important media station, to kill the Yugoslavian journalists, who were informing the Yugoslavia people about what was happening. Bunel was imprisoned. He also wrote a book on it. It should also be mentioned that some of the Spanish pilots refused to fly and bomb in Yugoslavia.
To mention only thing about the after-play. NATO later denied Milosevic Russian medical help in prison, so he died. One of his lawyers, Christopher C. Black is rather sure he was killed deliberately this way, by NATO making sure that he was not getting the proper treatment. But even though Milosevic was set up in a completely NATO controlled false trial, he was still evicted posthumously in 2016. I guess there are still some judges with decency.
The Western media never reported how false, they had all been on Yugoslavia. Nor did the UN, the politicians or NATO. Of course they did not. If they did the wars that followed would not have been possible and all the implicated Western politicians would have been forced out of politics, completely dishonored if not trialed, jailed and perhaps even hanged.
Former advisor to JFK and most knowledgeable on economics, US intelligence and history, Sean Gervasi, husbond to Heather Cottin, predicted it years before it happened. He talked about it and warned about the coming war on Yugoslavia. Gervasi held a lecture in 1996, ..., where he among other things explained this:
Text excerpt from Gervasi's Warning on the real situation - 1996
"The Struggle for Mastery in the Balkans
We have been witnessing, since 1990, a long and agonizing crisis in Yugoslavia. It has brought the deaths of tens of thousands, driven perhaps two million people from their homes and caused turmoil in the Balkan region. And in the West it is generally believed that this crisis, including the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, was the result of internal Yugoslav conflicts, and specifically of conflicts between Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. This is far from the essence of the matter.
The main problem in Yugoslavia, from the first, was foreign intervention in the country's internal affairs. Two Western powers, the United States and Germany, deliberately contrived to destabilize and then dismantle the country. The process was in full swing in the 1 980s and accelerated as the present decade began. These powers carefully planned, prepared and assisted the secessions which broke Yugoslavia apart. And they did almost everything in their power to expand and prolong the civil wars which began in Croatia and then continued in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were involved behind the scenes at every stage of the crisis.
Foreign intervention was designed to create precisely the conflicts which the Western powers decried. For they also conveniently served as an excuse for overt intervention once civil wars were under way.
Such ideas are, of course, anathema in Western countries. That is only because the public in the West has been systematically misinformed by war propaganda. It accepted almost from the beginning the version of events promuligated by governments and disseminated through the mass media. It is nonetheless true that Germany and the US were the principal agents in dismantling Yugoslavia and sowing chaos there.
This is an ugly fact in the new age of realpolitik and geo-political struggles which has succeeded the Cold War order. Intelligence sources have begun recently to allude to this reality in a surprisingly open manner. In the summer of 1995, for instance, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, a respected newsletter published in Great Britain, reported that:
The original US-German design for the former Yugoslavia [included] an independent Muslim-Croat dominated BosniaHerzegovina in alliance with an independent Croatian and alongside a greatly weakened Serbia. 
Every senior official in most Western governments knows this description to be absolutely accurate. And this means, of course, that the standard descriptions of "Serbian aggression" as the root cause of the problem, the descriptions of Croatia as a "new democracy", etc. are not just untrue but actually designed to deceive." LINK TEXT
A note on the NATO controlled after-play
Gervasi died later that year from from stomach cancer in Belgrade, LINK
. His talk was later honored on the launching of the important media site Global Research
. A site all Western journalists and academics to this day have suppressed and stigmatized, thereby doing the greatest service to Western media propaganda and political lies, and to NATO, CIA, MI6 etc. hindering the Western people - and themselves - from taking the most crucial critical information seriously.
I also used to be rather sceptical about Global Research, but after reading critical information on NATO's wars and destructions for a couple of years now, every day and from hundreds of sources, my mind and vision have gotten accustomed to knowing that Global Research generally, we all make mistakes, provides some of the most crucial important information out there. And of course, nobody has an immaculate perception seeing reality with the bare eyes, an illusion Nietzsche warned about, so it does take time to get out of the false Western world view created attending Western propaganda and lies for years if not decades. Just as it takes a couple of years for chemists working in a lab to be able to see correctly and clearly in a microscope.
Read the text excerpts in the middle of my home page on Yugoslavia. And know that the truth is completely different from what we have heard for decades. I must also mention Luciana Bohne here. Her heartbreaking informative articles, writing from her own childhood experience with German bombs in her village and the horror of German soldiers killing village men to today's bombings in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria etc. Luciana's knowledgeable mind put me into begin knowing all of this only a couple of years ago, where I went into her and other knowledgeable people's Facebook University. If I had not come to know her via Facebook, I would probably never have come to completely changing my mind away from everything, that I thought I knwe about NATO, our politicians and the wars from Yugoslavia. This was the beginning of me finding out the truth about, what the EU did to Greece (a corporate/Goldman Sachs' economic war on the nation) and that everything we hear on Syria is completely false.
Perhaps it is possible for readers now,
given the sketchy critical perspective above, to appreciate Edward Herman's text 'The Srebrenica Massacre was a Gigantic Political Fraud', 2016, Global Research LINK.
Herman died a short while ago. RIP Herman. To paraphrase Erwing Goffman, I wish that I had been even close to almost meeting both Herman and Gervasi.
Dear reader, you can go to my page on Yugoslavia to read a longer summation on NATO's war on Yugoslavia made by excerpts from important literature on the subject. Link below together with other links related to NATO's 'foreign policy'.
Merci bien 😉
Lars Jørgensen, sociologist, Denmark
My first interview on the Herland Report, on Syria:
The weather in Sweden - let's talk about that
CRITICAL QUESTIONS on Ex-CIA Giraldi [A Case Study]
We know that the US/NATO have bombed for ISIS and today clearly protect ISIS in Syria (links below). And we have John Kerry's leak from 2016, that the Obama Administration had a clear policy of wanting ISIS to grow in Syria to remove Pres. Assad from power.
So, why does the alleged well informed Ex-CIA Giraldi in an interview on Russia Today [in 2015] say that ISIS is the enemy in Syria, which the US should go after? Why, when that is exactly, what the US propaganda wants the world to believe? In the interview, Giraldi also explicitly echoes Obama's words on the need to 'contain' ISIS. And he - as is a great habit from US analysts - excuses US policy as a matter of 'poor planning'. Yes sure ... Not.
If Giraldi wanted to tell the most important truth, so that people should be able to get the correct picture of US 'foreign policy', he would say that the Mujahedins, Al Qeada and now Al Nusra, ISIS etc. were always very well planned and funded US foreign policy tools. He doesn't.
He is also completely silent about the fact that the US interference and presence in Syria is illegal under international law. Actually on a Nuremberg level. Finally, Giraldi explains the situation in Syria as being 'very complex' thereby effectively discouraging people from thinking that they can (easy) understand, what is happening.
The General Point
The simple truth is that the US (UK etc.) deliberately use terror groups by design, that they support, fund, train, arm, protect and even bomb for Al Nusra and ISIS etc. And that they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on CIA paid and controlled journalists and PR companies to cover up reality with lies, propaganda and fabrications. Such as the White Helmets etc.
The fact is that his commentary supports the propaganda frame instead of explaining reality. He does not provide the most necessary cognitive tools to break and escape the official 'foreign policy' propaganda. In short, Giraldi leaves people with the understanding that the US makes mistakes but is fighting terrorism. Just like the US officals always do.
It is not of much practical importance, whether Giraldi is being polite or diplomatic or if he deliberately provides a kind of controlled 'critical information' as an advanced form of CIA propaganda, a so-called 'controlled opposition'. This analysis is not an ad hominum critique of the person Philip Giraldi. His person is not interesting from a sociological point of view.
The analysis is a case study of a general tendency of critical commentators not really telling the critical truth and therefore silently supporting the Big lie of US as a law-abiding legitimate player in world politics.
All such 'critical' commentators might as well talk about the weather in Sweden, if they are not going to explain the elephant in the room anyway: that the US 'foreign policy' is using terrorism by design - on a big scale.
A few links to back up the critique
Prof. F. Boyle: 'A Baseless Justification for War in Syria', June 2017_LINK
NB. This began as a fb post that I saw did not do so well on Facebook. So, I thought I would try to disguise it a bit. Below is a little edited copy of the post. (Lars Jørgensen har delt HomoSociologicus' opslag — sammen med Luciana Bohne og 48 andre. 19 min. - I have shared this post several times, now. Tagging fifty people in it. But it not on my wall.. So I try again.).