Propaganda - search results
U.S. propaganda cites NATO’s PR agency’s confirmation that “evidence is overwhelming” Russia manipulated U.S....
Video: “The Desperate BBC Propaganda Machine Blames Assad For Chemical Attack Before Any Investigation.”
Video: ‘Russian propaganda on steroids’: Senate holds first hearing into alleged Russian hacks, blames...
Video: ‘Degradation of democracy’: Putin responds to EU Parliament resolution on Russian media ‘propaganda’
Video: Julian Assange: Leaked DNC Emails Shows Democrats Waged “Propaganda” Campaign Against Sanders
Video: British scholar arrested in Istanbul over ‘terrorist propaganda’ in Kurdish holiday invitations
Common Dreams: Credulous Reporting of Deceptive Propaganda Made Planned Parenthood Attack Inevitable
This is not what the GMO industry wanted to see: banner headlines in major newspapers and across the internet exposing the fraud behind GMOs. But this constitutes much more than a PR nightmare. The story behind the headlines shakes the very foundations upon which the industry is built.
“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”
“convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.”
“Druker describes how amazingly successful the biotech lobby has been – and the extent to which the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths. Moreover, it appears that a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.”
“It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it creates. Although this book tells a story that’s in many ways distressing, it’s important that it has finally been told because so much confusion has been spread and so many important decision-makers have apparently been deluded.”
“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”
“Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GM deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply.”
Guilt By Insinuation How American propaganda works. Paul Craig Roberts Why hasn’t Washington joined Russian President Putin in calling for an objective, non-politicized international investigation by experts of the case of the Malaysian jetliner? The Russian government continues to release…
The Iraq War Ten Years Later: Declassified Documents Show Failed Intelligence, Policy Ad Hockery,...
Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News – Hollywood gave the green light to begin the film production of Israel’s Six-Day War in 1967 based on Abraham Rabinovich’s ‘Battle for Jerusalem’ An Unintended Conquest’, the film will be called ‘Jerusalem 67’ The Times of Israel reported that Hollywood is onboard to shoot the film in Israel and that it would not be “Sugarcoated” according to Joseph Schick and Jacob Septimus who are the producers of the film. The article titled ‘No sugarcoating’ as first movie on ’67 battle for Jerusalem takes shape’ claims that Egypt, Jordan and Syria wanted to “drive the Jewish State into the sea” which was not the case according to several past statements made by Israeli officials including a statement made in 1972 by General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the Six-Day war and one of the 12 members of Israel’s General Staff in a political literary club in Tel Aviv who said “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.” According to the Times of Israel:
The Six Day War changed the perception of Israel throughout the world. Schick describes a sense of inevitable doom many outsiders had when Egypt, Jordan and Syria allied themselves to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The euphoria that followed what Septimus calls the “ultimate come-from-behind” has evaporated in many corners with today’s current, indirectly related conflict
IDF forces preemptively and without cause attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan; they massacred more than 2000 Egyptian soldiers and 300 Syrian villagers in the Golan Heights. More than 300,000 Palestinians were displaced, many fled to the Jordan River’s east bank, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war started on June 5th when Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Egypt mobilized its military forces on the Israeli border as the war intensified. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) launched attacks against Israeli targets while Israel forces raided Jordanian-controlled West Bank which resulted in a Syrian-Israeli Aerial battle. Syria and Israel exchanged artillery attacks on both sides. Within six days, Israel had won the war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem from Jordan. Syria had lost the Golan Heights.
Hollywood is a propaganda machine. But it is also fair to say there were several films that actually told the truth especially those directed and produced by Oliver Stone (Platoon and Born on the 4th of July) or Mel Gibson (Braveheart). Will Hollywood tell the truth of what actually happened during the Six-Day War in 1967? I highly doubt it. A website based on the film called www.jerusalem67.com states the events that lead to the war:
In May 1967, the city remained divided by walls and barbed wire fences. On May 14-15, 1967, Jerusalem hosted the annual Independence Day festivities. As the Israeli residents of Jerusalem celebrated the anniversary of their independence, they could hardly know that events were conspiring to bring a war that would completely transform their city, their country, and the Middle East. In weeks, the city of Jerusalem and the entire Middle East was completely transformed. What had been a two millennia old national yearning for Jews became a 20th century reality: a united city under Jewish control; the defining symbol of the rebirth of the Jewish people. Those who had celebrated Independence Day in divided Jerusalem walked to the Old City and stood at the Western Wall less than one month later. The walls and barbed wire were removed, but not without cost in human blood.
In the nearly half century since, the united city of Jerusalem has been transformed from a backwater into a beautiful and thriving metropolis. But it is only the city that was reunited, not its populations. Jerusalem would be seen as the heart of the Arab-Israel dispute, even as it would also become a city in which Jews and Arabs live alongside each other in relative tranquility
As the Times of Israel wrote:
Despite a few “smoky room” sequences with historical figures (Uzi Narkiss and Moshe Dayan atop Mount Scopus discussing Titus’ pledge to destroy the city will make an appearance, as will Rabbi Goren blowing his shofar) the film is very much told from the point of view of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. We’ll see the battle through the eyes of an ambulance driver/single mother and her love interest called up to the Jerusalem Brigade.
“These were people that when trouble broke walked to the base – they weren’t deployed overseas,” Schick points out. The backyard nature of the conflict calls to Schick’s mind a friend he had who went to Jenin in 2002. “He fought a brutal battle, saw many of his comrades killed or wounded, and was back at work two days later. Where else does that happen but Israel?”
Will there be the point of view from the Egyptians, Syrians or Palestinians who were involved in the war? It will be interesting to see how the film would depict the Arab population during that time.
“Shick and Septimus refute the notion that a project with even a whiff of Zionist sentiment will have trouble in the marketplace.
“The ‘elites’ in New York and Los Angeles consider Israel a controversial topic, but most of the rest of America supports Israel. Middle America who goes to church and doesn’t even know any Jews, they like Israel. Justin Timberlake was just as the Wall. Jay Leno was there. Claire Danes wrote a piece for the New York Times Magazine. The Rolling Stones are in town. Sure, there’s BDS, and Danny Glover doesn’t like Israel and neither does Mel Gibson – I guess the next ‘Lethal Weapon’ won’t shoot there.”
Based on the Times of Israel ‘Jerusalem 67’ seems like it will be a propaganda film. In a time when the Israeli government is on the verge of annexing more Palestinian territories and with Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu’s demanding that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”, ‘Jerusalem 67’ will attempt to gain more support for the state of Israel from the international community, especially in the US.
I don’t have any interest in making a propaganda film,” Septimus says. “The Yom Kippur War and Lebanon, and also the Entebbe Raid have been covered exhaustively. When you look back at the documents from the time, people were asking ‘who will make the Hollywood movie about this?’ and it never happened. It is similar to how in America no one touched Vietnam for years. People were afraid to touch it because of the legacy. But the legacy is the legacy – the story is still the story. Telling the story may make the legacy seem a little clearer
If Mr. Septimus is not interested in propaganda, then he should include various statements made by prominent Israeli officials over the years including what Mr. Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government had said about the war. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory” according to a 1971 report by Al-Hamishmar, an Israeli newspaper. Then you might have a movie worth watching.
Americans, as a whole, have been kept in the dark about this cozy arrangement because the CIA, via Operation Mockingbird, has largely controlled the media’s message. Allen Dulles forbade any bad press about his rogue agency from leaking to the public. He recruited publishers, reporters, news directors, and network executives into the fold, and CIA-friendly propaganda was widely disseminated. But the length and breadth of the Dulleses’ power is not shocking to foreigners, especially those whose self-rule and duly elected leaders were overthrown by Allen and Foster. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, southeast Asia, and Chile are just a few of the places where we are reviled. The foreign press knows more about our own country’s history than we do. Witness this article, written by Peter G. Prontzos, which appeared recently in the Vancouver Sun:
“While all governments try to manipulate public opinion, arguably none has had such dire global effects as the United States during the Cold War, when Washington portrayed the Soviets as an ‘evil empire’ trying to conquer the world. Central to that campaign were Allen Dulles and his brother, John Foster Dulles. As heads of the CIA and the State Department respectively, they had more impact on Washington’s foreign policies in the 1950s than anybody except president Dwight Eisenhower himself.
“Their bloody record is reconstructed in a fascinating history by Stephen Kinzer, a historian and award-winning journalist for the New York Times.
“Foster (as he was called) and Allen were sons of privilege, born in ‘a haven for New York millionaires on the shore of Lake Ontario.’ As young boys, they ‘dined with ambassadors, senators, cabinet secretaries, supreme court justices’ as well as presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As adults, they were the ultimate insiders, both in Washington and on Wall Street.
“Not surprisingly, the Dulles brothers accepted the view, as common now as it was then, that the United States is an ‘exceptional’ nation because it is ‘inherently more moral’ than other countries. As a superpower, then, Washington had both the right and the duty to, ‘not only topple governments but guide the course of history.’
“The third element in their world view may be even more fundamental: ‘protecting the right of large American corporations to operate freely in the world,’ regardless of the wishes of the ‘unenlightened’ people in other nations.
“One early incident foreshadowed their cold-bloodedness. When Allen was working for the U.S. government in Switzerland during the First World War, he was told that a woman he was dating was passing information to Austria and must be ‘liquidated.’
“One night after taking her to dinner, Allen delivered her to two British agents. As Kinzer notes: ‘She was never heard from again.’
“The brothers reached the height of their power in 1953, when Eisenhower became president. One of their first crusades was to target the democratically elected government of Iran, headed by the nationalist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Iran’s sins included its decision to take control of the oil industry, at the time almost completely owned by the British.
“The final straw, however, was the Iranian parliament’s refusal to accept a deal with a U.S. business conglomerate which would cost that country more than half a trillion dollars (in today’s currencies). The company, OCI, was a client of Allen Dulles, who, working with the British, directed a successful coup that overthrew Iran’s democracy and replaced it with the dictatorship of the Shah who, coincidentally, was also a client of Allen.”
Global Research and Countercurrents 6/5/2014 and Deccan Herald 9/5/2014
The majority of the British public who hold a view on genetically modified (GM) crops are against them (1). Yet the push to get them into the country and onto plates is in full swing. Strategically placed politicians like Secretary of State for Rural and Environmental Affairs Owen Paterson and scientists such as Professor Jim Dunwell and Sir David Baulcombe are conveying the message that GM food is both safe and necessary.
"… has cast biased press briefings such as one on GMOs, funded by Monsanto and invited unwitting and time-starved journalists… The quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered, distorting the ability of the public to make decisions about risk. The result is a diet of unbalanced cheerleading and the production of science information as entertainment." (5)
“The problem is that SMC pretends it's promoting the best science, but in fact it promotes a certain kind of science; those kinds of science that corporations and governments stand by in the area of science policy and want to see developed in terms of markets, like cloning, GMOs and to some extent pharmaceuticals as well. These are areas where there's a huge amount of potential profit to be made. Once it steps from supporting science to supporting science policy, SMC becomes political, even though it pretends not to be." (6)
"Extremely dangerous because it manages to convince the public and the mainstream media that it is an independent voice of science, whereas actually it is a small selection of industry-friendly scientists who are hand-picked." (6)
Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News – The New York Times reported that Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev wrote a Facebook post that said “Blood has been spilled in Ukraine again,” wrote Mr. Medvedev, once favored in the West for playing good cop to the hard-boiled president, Vladimir V. Putin. “The threat of civil war looms.” According to the New York Times article ‘Russia Is Quick to Bend Truth About Ukraine’, said that “He pleaded with Ukrainians to decide their own future “without usurpers, nationalists and bandits, without tanks or armored vehicles — and without secret visits by the C.I.A. director.” The New York Times followed with a statement regarding Medvedev’s post. It said the following:
And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week
Now let’s look at the facts. First, blood has been spilled since the beginning of the crisis. Back in February, USA Today published a headline that declared many people were killed. The title read “As many as 100 killed in New Ukraine Clashes” proves Mr. Medvedev’s claims. The Ukraine’s unelected government is made up of Nationalists and bandits. They are the same people who don’t even agree with each other as they resorted to violence during sessions of the Ukrainian parliament. Here are some of the photos below:
Seems like banditry to me. The New York Times states that “Conspiracy Theories” are coming out of “State-Controlled Russian Television” constantly. Well, Reuters did confirm that the head of the Central Intelligence Agency did visit Ukrainian officials. “We don’t normally comment on the CIA director’s travel but given the extraordinary circumstances in this case and the false claims being leveled by the Russians at the CIA we can confirm that the director was in Kiev as part of a trip to Europe,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.” How about that other conspiracy theory concerning the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria “F**K the EU” Nuland and US Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt and their conversation on how they can install a “Puppet” government in the Ukraine by nominating Bat’kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister and have Udar Party leader and former Boxer Vitaly Klitschko step aside. At the same time, Nuland and Pyatt agreed to discredit the Svoboda party, a Neo-Nazi political party they originally backed. These are not conspiracy theories, these are the facts. However, the New York Times did admit that “There is no question that the new Ukrainian government and its Western allies, including the United States, have engaged in their own misinformation efforts at times, with officials in Kiev making bold pronouncements in recent days of enforcement efforts that never materialized. On Tuesday, some American officials were spreading unverified photographs allegedly showing Russian rocket launchers carried by pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern Ukraine.”
The anti-Russian crusade carried out by the American mainstream media is more apparent as the crisis continues. The media reports are even sometimes laughable. The New York Times is at least truthful in one sense; they do report “All The News That’s Fit To Print.” Nobody in the alternative media would ever disagree with that statement.
Climate disruption and population growth are increasing the pressures on food supply. The challenge is to get more from existing land in a sustainable way, or people will go unfed.”
“We should have confidence in the scientific evidence which concludes that, when properly controlled, GM products are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”
Genetic scientist Jonathan Jones has weighed in by claiming:
“How anyone could think this is a bad thing boggles the mind. We need to better explain that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the GM method.”
"By no stretch of the imagination can these people be described as independent scientists. Their views should be treated with the same scepticism we would apply to any sales pitch."
"A group of scientists with financial interests in the success of GM wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in November, but waited four months to tell the press about it: just in time for EU discussions about regulation. Something certainly smells a bit fishy."
"This extraordinary report, published very conveniently to coincide with Owen Paterson’s attempts within the EU to dismantle GM regulations and to repatriate powers to the
, is in turns naive, biased, disingenuous, cynical, and downright dangerous. We find it incredible that five senior scientists can have been so dismissive of the work of scores of independent scientists who have discovered that GM organisms are directly and indirectly harmful to mammals and to the environment. In the world of science there should be respect for those whose findings are 'inconvenient." UK
"They are not employed by government or industry, and each works for different publicly funded universities and research institutes. For better or worse, it’s not unusual any more for universities and institutions to get bits and pieces of funding from government, charities and industry – indeed many can only access public money on condition that they raise a proportion of their funds from commercial or private sources. This does not automatically undermine their independence."
"It’s really just not good enough for a group of scientists who have a strong interest, it seems, through their funding sources, in persuading a reluctant public to accept the growing of GM crops in the UK, to be the ones who attempt to write the rule book on how that should happen."
Propaganda Rules The News Paul Craig Roberts Gerald Celente calls the Western media “presstitutes,” an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt…
Would you like to have an RFID microchip implanted under your skin? If you are anything like me, you would never allow such a thing to be done. But many others, especially among the younger generations, see things very differently. RFID microchip implants and other forms of “wearable technology” are increasingly being viewed as [...]
By James F. Tracy
Today a good deal of what qualifies as propaganda is much more subtle than overt. When an entire civilization or way of life is to be significantly altered the tried-and-true method of “repeating a lie until it becomes truth” needs to be done over a period of many years and in a multitude of varying ways to take hold and change the very assumptions and beliefs of a people.
This process is especially vital for reaching a given society’s more elite demographic—the opinion leaders who perceive themselves as “smarter than the average bear” and thus impervious to simple appeals and indoctrination.
A case in point is the agenda backed by powerful global elites and recognizable under names such as “climate change” and “sustainability.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, released on September 27, 2013, came replete with an assemblage of legitimizing features along these lines (“scientific,” “scholarly,” “authoritative,” “peer reviewed,”). Also termed the “Climate Bible,” journalists and policymakers alike regard it as “authoritative” and “the gold standard” of climate science. The public is told that the official body’s findings are now clearer than ever: “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Among the most vociferous agitators for the IPCC’s climate change orthodoxy are the foundation-funded, tax-exempt, progressive-left media that sit alongside the bevy of similarly tax-exempt, foundation-funded environmental organizations that together uphold and publicize the theory of CO2-based anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC). Self-professed as “independent,” “investigative,” even “educational,” the so-called “alternative media” turn a blind eye to seriously scrutinizing the highly questionable IPCC’s “scientific” review of the climatological literature and its implications for the array of ambitious programs and policies stealthily introduced throughout the industrialized world, many of which are seldom subject to popular plebiscite. Think “smart grid” and “smart growth.”
Logical questions from such apparently independent organs might include, “How does the IPCC produce its findings?” and “Who benefits?” Instead, there is an almost knee-jerk response on behalf of progressive-left editors and readerships to trust and support the UN group’s purportedly objective and meticulous review of the peer-reviewed climatological literature.
Between August and December 2013 such progressive outlets published dozens of articles and commentaries whole-heartedly touting the IPCC report. For example, Truthout.org posted 25 articles, Alternet.org ran 40, MotherJones.com circulated 38, and DemocracyNow.org featured 11.
These were often presented with bleak headlines accenting the urgent appeals found in the IPCC publicity. For example, “International Scientists Warn Climate Deniers Are Enabling Earth’s Suicide” (Truthout, 9/13/13), “6 Scary Conclusions in the UN’s New Climate Report” (Mother Jones, 9/27/13), “Greenhouse Gas in Atmosphere Hits New Record: UN,” (Alternet, 11/1/13), and “’Africa is Being Pushed Closer to the Fire’: Africans Say Continent Can’t Wait for Climate Action” (Democracy Now! 11/22/13).
Uncritical advocacy of the IPCC’s anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming extended beyond headlines to media criticism. In December, for example, the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) observed that corporate controlled network newscasts routinely failed to link “extreme weather” to “global warming.” “In the first nine months of 2013,” FAIR observes,
there were 450 segments of 200 words or more that covered extreme weather: flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes and heat waves. But of that total, just a tiny fraction–16 segments, or 4 percent of the total–so much as mentioned the words “climate change,” “global warming” or “greenhouse gases.
What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these “extreme weather” incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun. As University of Winnipeg climatologist Dr. Tim Ball explains (here at 35:00), the IPCC’s “terms of reference” through which the body proceeds to generate its findings exclude the sun and its many demonstrable atmospheric effects as factors in the warming and cooling of the earth’s climate. It is thus no wonder that at best fringe or nonexistent causes of “climate change”–such as minuscule alterations in atmospheric gases–are pointed to with great alarm by the IPCC and its proponents.
Despite far more unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations the notion that “carbon emissions” are the foremost cause of natural climactic events has become something of a religion, and this is especially the case on the progressive-left, where adherents mechanically accept the curious agenda and its ostensibly “scientific” basis while vehemently condemning non-believers as “climate deniers.”
As Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has documented in her important 2011 exposé, the IPCC’s scholarly personnel is in fact heavily weighted toward what are often third-or-fourth-rate scientific talent whose eco-political stances are strictly in accord with the IPCC’s “research” agenda pushing anthropogenic climate change. IPCC authors often include climatology graduate students and even environmental activists from organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund—indeed, figures with little-if-any scientific training but with clear agendas to promote.
LaFramboise further found that one third of the literature reviewed and cited by the IPCC in its 2007 report was–contrary to IPCC chief publicist Ragendra Pachauri’s pronouncements–not even peer-reviewed, and in many cases included citations of promotional literature devised and distributed by environmental activist organizations.
These unethical and compromising relationships are not difficult to explain if one is to recognize the IPCC for what it in fact is—a powerful political organization with the overarching objective of manufacturing consent and achieving transnational policy harmonization around the largely discursive construct of anthropogenic carbon-centric climate change.
The fact that the IPCC is capable of forthrightly carrying out one of the greatest scientific frauds in human history, setting long range governmental policies while enlisting allegedly intellectual sophisticates and “progressive” news media as its most devoted foot soldiers, is no small-scale feat. It is, rather, an immense achievement in modern propaganda and thought control that only hints at the powerful forces behind a much more far-reaching agenda.
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Human Influence on Climate Clear: IPCC Says,” Geneva Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. The notion of “a 97% consensus” has itself become a common mantra for climate change fear mongering and grounds for labeling someone a “climate denier.” Yet there is limited evidence of any such consensus concerning ACC among climatologists. The oft-cited 2009 American Geophysical Union survey alleging a 98% consensus among scientists on ACC cannot sustain even modest scrutiny. See Larry Bell, “That Scientific Global Warming Consensus … Not!” Forbes.com, July 7, 2012, and “Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like a Myth,” Investors Business Daily, February 15, 2013. Another study held up as “proof” of scientific consensus, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” asserts only carefully qualified claims along these lines. “A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself,” the authors point out, “the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.” The brief paper assesses “an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers” to conclude that the scientific expertise and prominence of those who accept the IPCC’s ACC tenets surpass those who remain “unconvinced.” This begs the question, To what degree are the requisites of foundation funding related to espousing IPCC/ACC opinion? William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.
 James F. Tracy, “The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism,” Global Research, November 12, 2013.
 “TV News and Extreme Weather: Don’t Mention Climate Change,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, December 18, 2013. It might be added that corporate media and progressive-left counterparts uniformly fail to consider other possible causes of such unusual weather events, such as geoengineering and similar “environmental modification techniques” acknowledged by the US military and undertaken in many industrialized countries. See, for example, Michel Chossudovsky, “Climate Change, Geoengineering, and Environmental Modification Techniques,” Global Research, November 24, 2013.
 Independent journalist James Corbett has published several insightful interviews with Tim Ball, available for download here.
World leaders have been talking about the so-called economic "recovery" that never was and in the video report below from X22 Report exposes those lies as the propaganda it was and is. Housing, unemployment, retail, etc... has been hyped as improving, but as they point out, that has always been the case right before massive economic collapses in history.
Politicians and leaders are always talking about raising taxes, but what they don't speak about, the secret hidden in plain sight is that without workers paying into the system, no amount of raising anyone elses taxes can sustain the spending, so unemployment is the key. Put people to work, you have money fed into the system, put people out of work, you have less going in, but far more spent on unemployment insurance, EBT and food stamps, and all the other welfare benefits allotted to those people.
Bottom line, tax increases aren't needed, jobs are.
On a semi-related note because it certainly deals with the national and global economy, a must-read piece from this morning at Before it's News should be seen and paid attention to, titled "Dr. Jim Willie Drops Gold Bombshell – World Bank Whistleblower Karen Hudes Is Right!"
Cross posted at Before It's News
Hollywood Propaganda: American “Heros” and Somali “Savages” — “Captain Phillips” Obscures US Crimes in...
Hollywood Propaganda: American “Heros” and Somali “Savages” — “Captain Phillips” Obscures US Crimes in...
Structural Inclinations — The Leaning Tower of Propaganda: Chemical Weapons Attacks In Ghouta, Syria
Last year, the then British Agriculture Minister Jim Paice told the Cereals 2012 conference that the public is softening its views towards GM crops (1). He said more work needed to be done to communicate the ‘full facts’ about GM crops. He stated:
“Emphatically we should be looking at GM … I’m very clear it would be a good thing… The trouble is all this stuff about Frankenstein foods and putting poisons in foods. There are real benefits, and what you’ve got to do is sell the real environmental benefits. Those benefits include a reduction in the use of pesticides because some GM crops are pest-resistant.”
“There’s about 160 million hectares of GM being grown around the world. There isn’t a single piece of meat being served [in a typicalLondon restaurant] where a bullock hasn’t eaten some GM feed. So it’s a complete nonsense. But, the humbug! You know, large amounts of GM products are used across
Speaking to The Independent newspaper on 3 July, Mr Goldsmith said:
Heavy rocket fire, thousands of tanks rolling towards Seoul as North Korean paratroopers invade from the sky – Pyongyang has released just another propaganda video, this time about attacking the South.
The four-minute video, uploaded to a government news and propaganda YouTube channel 'Uriminzokkiri', shows the South Korean invasion scenario.
The clip entitled ‘A Short, Three-Day War’ begins with the scenes of heavy artillery fire and then shows North Korean troops in action as they run across a field holding a national flag as bombs explode here and there, producing bright flashes and clouds of smoke. Four thousand tanks and 3,000 armored vehicles will take part in the operation, the narrator says.
After the scenes of the staged ground operation, the video switches to North Korea aviation, showing planes dropping bombs and scores of paratroopers above Seoul.
Meanwhile, the narrator describes that “troops will occupy Seoul and other cities,” taking 150,000 US citizens as hostages.
South Korea’s US expatriate population is estimated at a little over 130,000, while there are also 28,000 US troops based in the country.
This is not the first time Pyongyang has released video about military assaults. Earlier this week Uriminzokkiri published the provocative propaganda clip ‘Firestorms will rain on the Headquarters of War’, portraying a simulated attack on the White House in Washington, DC.
In February the isolated state created a video depicting US President Barack Obama and American soldiers through a background of flames, ending with the a simulation of a nuclear explosion underground.
The clip was released following the successful third nuclear test carried out by Pyongyang. The news of the test was condemned by Washington and Seoul and exacerbated already strained relations between North Korea and the two states.
Another contentious point between the three was the joint US-South Korean military drills taking place in March.
North Korea has issued numerous warnings to Washington and Seoul, threatening to launch a nuclear attack and to break the 60-year armistice that ended the Korean War.
March 14th, 2013
Read by 18,459 people
The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.
Edward Bernays, 1955
In his 1928 book Propaganda, Edward Bernays, the architect of modern day public relations and marketing, argues that manipulation of public opinion is necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society. It’s a strategy that his been implemented for centuries, but most notably during the last hundred years. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Hussein found propaganda to be an extremely effective mechanism of control over their populations, as have modern-day governments of the Western world where “freedom of the press” and government transparency are supposed to be a key tenet of an open society.
It’s often a soft-sell strategy, repeating a message hundreds, even thousands of times, so that the consciousness of an entire people can be shifted to accommodate the plans of those in positions of power.
Sometimes, however, the propaganda is so over the top that it leaves you wondering if it’s even real. The following video from notorious ‘Axis of Evil’ member North Korea leaves no doubt that propaganda is alive and well in our modern world.
According to the following documentary, reportedly disseminated to millions of North Koreans, conditions in the United States are so deplorable that Americans are being forced to eat wild birds and drink snow coffee just to survive.
This ridiculously blatant example of government manipulation is a must-see, not necessarily because of the irony of it being from North Korea, where Western journalists have reported that hundreds of thousands of people themselves are starving to death, but because it demonstrates how far leaders are willing to go to ensure their narrative is the only one that’s accepted by the masses, rendering all alternative opinions moot or conspiratorial.
Before we start pointing the finger at North Korea’s propaganda machine, however, we must look at our own government, and the manipulations regularly proclaimed as truth to the American people.
One of the most infamous and well known lies perpetrated by our own government has led to a decade’s long war, taken the lives of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of civilians and left our country trillions of dollars in debt.
Watch, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell provides justification for why we must take our country to war, a move he later acknowledged was “one of my most momentous failures, the one with the widest-ranging impact.”
As Colin Powell later realized, the propaganda was so widespread that not even he was aware of it, having been manipulated by his superiors just like the American people.
Lies and half-truths abound, even in a society where the information is purportedly free-flowing.
Make no mistake – if you see it on TV, and the same information is being repeated over and over, you are being fed a line of complete bull.
It’s all theater:
Pushing the envelope:
It should make every one of us question the legitimacy of what we’re being told.
Is our economy really on its way to recovering like our best and brightest say it is? Is the war in the middle east really coming to a close and will our soldiers really be coming home soon? Is the agenda to remove Americans’ access to semi-automatic rifles really because it will reduce gun violence?
Don’t believe any of it for a second. In today’s day and age we must be our own investigators if we want to know the real truth, because our government and their propaganda alphabet news agencies are doing everything they can to hide what’s really going on.
It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.
Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 18,459 people
Date: March 14th, 2013
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
One of the most pervasive trends in 21st century western culture has become somewhat of an obsession in America. It’s called “Hollywood history”, where the corporate studio machines in Los Angeles spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to craft and precisely tailor historical events to suit the prevailing political paradigm.
‘Hollywood history’ is very much in fashion these days. From Linclon to Dubya, and from Blackhawk Down to The Iron Lady, they constitute a significant portion of today’s major releases. There’s only one problem however, with tailoring a story to fit neatly into a prevailing political paradigm… and over the last 100 years, the Germans and the Soviets did this too – with devastating effect, but back then we just called it propaganda.
No film embodies the Hollywood historical treatment more than the much celebrated cinema release of Zero Dark Thirty, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, and one of the favourites to grab an armful of Academy Awards this weekend in LA including Best Picture, Bigelow for best director, Mark Boal for best screenplay, and Jessica Chastain for Best Actress.
The film’s main premise is constructed around a female CIA officer, played by Chastain, and her dogged determination to find the highly elusive mastermind of 9/11 and the al Qaeda’s MVP, Osama bin Laden. Chastain’s performance, critics claim, has also ‘empowered women’ by showing how her film character caught bin Laden, but it didn’t actually happen that way. We’ll get to that later…
Where this film starts to take heat is with its sensational on screen CIA torture scenes. Unlike previously less celebrated but more integral, intellectual cinematic efforts at taking on torture – like Rendition and Lions for Lambs, Bigelow seemed incredibly bent on going the distance to glorify (through her attempt at Cinéma vérité) the troubling practice of torture by the CIA – as a means to glean intelligence about the whereabouts of various Islamic terrorists scattered throughout the
world’s third world cesspits.
Actor Jessica Chastain unaware that that ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ was a work of total fiction.
Bigelow and her writing team’s artistic license on the effectiveness of torture even prompted one screen legend, actor Susan Sarandon, to brand the film as a piece of manipulative political entertainment. The veteran human rights defender issued a written statement saying that when watching Zero Dark Thirty, “you should know that the movie has generated controversy because it leaves a mistaken impression: that the CIA’s torture of prisoners ‘worked’ by providing information that led to bin Laden.”
In fact, the US Senate Intelligence Committee spent four years investigating the CIA’s torture program, and according to Senators Diane Feinstein and John McCain, the CIA’s vaunted torture program under Obama did not lead to bin Laden (that’s the only true statement you will ever hear surrounding the government’s Osama bin Laden tale).
Zero Dark’s glorification of torture is merely the first level of moral descent however, because you see, there’s still the thorny issue of Osama bin Laden to deal with…
One thing was clear when watching this film, and also by the reactions of theatre goers at my screening in Brixton, South London, that Zero Dark marks a new low point in America’s now fashionable politicised culture, and Bigelow must be aware of this because she seemed to play this card shamelessly in her highly politicised film.
Never before in the history of cinema has there been such a break-neck rush to complete and release a motion picture so soon after the said event, to serialise the legendary “Hunt for Bin Laden”, and “the greatest manhunt in history” by a gallant Seal Team 6, ending in the siege of the terror kingpin’s alleged place of abode – a compound located in Abbotabad, Pakistan.
Apparently, Bigelow’s production was already in motion in May 2011 in advance of the White House’s announcement that Seal Team 6 had killed Bin Laden, and Bigelow it seems, was either persuaded or herself decided (it’s not clear which one it was), to rewrite the film’s script in order to theatrically chronicle what President Obama had put forward as his greatest achievement since taking office. This was the birth of Zero Dark Thirty. Others are investigating whether the movie’s filmmakers received quiet government funding to promote torture, since they did obtain classified information, according to many reports. Unfortunately for Bigelow, and as some of us learned with Iraq, so-called ‘classified’ information is only as credible as its source (US intelligence unfortunately has a spotty record of late).
Was bin Laden really killed by Seal Team 6 that day? Examine the evidence, if you can find any.
Hitler’s Reich relied on talent filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl, to write the government’s version of Nazi history.
If Pentagon propaganda, or bolstering President Obama’s political trophy were the motives, then one could compare this film’s creators to similarly well-paid cinematic forebears like Albert Speer, or Leni Riefenstahl.
Female cinematic icon Riefenstahl’s involvement in crafting Nazi government propaganda was eventually her undoing. After the Reich fell in 1945, she still maintained that her films were ‘works of art’ and claimed that they had nothing to do with Nazi politics and propaganda. With all the lies and propaganda swirling around Washington’s own criminal class, it will be interesting to see how filmmakers like Bigelow will defend their own ‘art’ in years to come.
But it’s hardly the first time Hollywood has been accused of gross misuse of its creative license. It’s become the norm, rather than the exception.
Other Hollywood attempts to hold the government’s line on history include the box office debacle, “Flight 93″, which derived its plot, characters and production design solely from the federal government’s own Official 9/11 Report. Evidence fleshed out since points to the obvious scenario that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a US jet fighter, with its debris spread over 20 miles in and around Shanksville, PA in 2001. No matter, Hollywood kept to the government’s original outdated script of “let’s roll!”.
The sheer volume of mistruths which have been fed downwards by the US government and its corporate media apologists over the last decade is staggering, and has had quite of profound, polarising effect on media consumers North America and Western Europe. The avalanche of state-sponsored and corporation-sponsored propaganda over the last decade in particular, appears to have successfully divided society into two groups: those who believe official propaganda and government released narratives of major events – and those who question it.
It’s safe to say that the sort of people who would never admit in public to questioning the government’s official explanations about what happened on 9/11 – are generally the same section of the population who would accept a film like Zero Dark Thirty as recorded history. These might also be the same type of people who believed in advance of America’s bombing and invasion of Iraq – Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The bin Laden mythology is powerful, however, and millions of people will walk away from this film feeling as if they’ve learned something about what its like working in gritty side the CIA.
Under normal circumstances, I would not pay for a ticket to see a historical production which I believe was based on a fictional narrative. I made an exception in this case because it was the only way I could review the film in time to write this piece. But the most profound realisation I got whilst watching the movie was a very sad one. I felt sorry for the director, the cast and all the production crew who put in their hard work and sweat, and probably believed that bin Laden was indeed in the Abbotabad compound in May 2011, and that they were reenacting a rare and proud piece of American history.
In order to believe this, they would also would have to have believed the somehow, that same bin Laden also masterminded a multi-pronged assault that managed to bypass the whole of the US Defense apparatus – all from his legendary cave in Tora Bora.
It’s no surprise how much both the Bush and Obama governments and the corporate military industrial complex has benefited from maintaining the mythology of a living Osama bin Laden since 2001. Unfortunately, the mythology does not measure up to reality, with multiple admissions in public by heads of state by Pervez Musharraf, and Benazir Bhutto, as well as by Madeline Albright and others, and even mainstream media reports going all the way back to 2001, stating that Osama bin Laden was dying, or had in fact died in late 2001.
Knowing all this, when I heard the news of Obama and the Navy Seal Team 6 raid on bin Laden, I knew immediately that not only was this almost certainly a fiction, but that their would be no photographs and videos released, because a dead man cannot come back to life after 10 years for a photo session.
As predicted, a few days later the White House confirmed my suspicions, announcing that indeed, ‘no photos or video will be released’…
On top of that, we were also told that they dumped bin Laden’s body at sea 48 hours after allegedly killing him. Fancy that? But even that pillar of the official fell apart later when it was revealed that no US sailors aboard the USS Carl Vinson ever saw the alleged burial at sea, and that no images exist in any government records of bin Laden aboard the decorated US sea vessel. Hard to believe, but only if you believe the government’s official fiction on the fate of Osama bin Laden.
Also, unknown to Kathryn Bigelow and her crew at the time of production, there was no DNA identification of bin Laden by the Pentagon either, and no autopsy was done. It’s as if he was merely a ghost. Does that mean that White House announcements to the contrary back in May 2011 were lies? Yes, it does.
So let’s get that straight. There no evidence to prove that bin Laden was even there at Abbotabad in May 2011 (or alive for that matter), and Zero Dark Thirty is based on the idea that he was there because the CIA said he was. We can imagine Albert and Leni getting excited right about now.
These facts certainly give my own statements on the incident even more credibility, but that’s nothing to cheer about. We were lied to, again.
Zero Dark is also flanked this year by another historical effort which has relied heavy on Hollywood brand of artistic license is Ben Affleck’s Iranian hostage drama, Argo, which most analysts agree was heavily padded with imaginative characters, written-in backstories and invented obstacles, all woven together to create an ‘interesting’ and entertaining piece of film much the same way Charlie Wilson’s War was a jovial depiction of the CIA’s gun-running in the Soviet-Afghan War, painted by Hollywood as a story of American heroism for the ages. There are literally dozens of other examples of invented Hollywood history, these are only a few.
Rarely is ever – has Hollywood ever actually challenged the political paradigm or the power of the Pentagon in one of its ‘historical productions’. Argo and Charlie Wilson’s ‘semi-fiction’ might seem like harmless Hollywood history to many movie goers, but altering history for entertainment purposes is not just deceptive, besides the fact that it’s not true yet its being passed off as history, it also borders on mass brain washing, further distorting generational truths about what our nations’ governments actually get up to on tax payers’ time.
Rather than betting the farm on a quirky piece of historical trivia, will film goers ever see the day that a director like Affleck might try to tackle the Iran Contra Scandal and the CIA running guns to Nicaragua and Cocaine into Louisiana and Arkansas airports? Or reveal how the same CIA, with the help of the FBI, being responsible for introducing crack cocaine to the streets of Los Angeles during the 1980′s, or even about the CIA shipping heroin out of Afghanistan after 2001? Likewise, ignoring the true historical context that it was the very same CIA, with the help of Saudi oil money, who created and trained the present day al Qaeda by employing the likes of Osama bin Laden to handle the terror group’s finances over the decades.
Sadly, spending $150 million on a film production that could reveal actual history, and out govt corruption – is probably asking too much from Hollywood’s bold and beautiful. No, no, stick to quirky revisions of history, non-events, or outright inventions, and then bask in all the pomp of Oscar night.
Perhaps, upon doing a little research, Kathryn Bigelow might consider doing a sequel to Zero Dark Thirty – and tell us what happened to that famous “Navy Seal Team 6″ after the bin Laden raid. That would make a good story, and one many people would like to know more about.
In the end, Zero Dark can only be summed up as one big, expensive lie in celluloid, in the Riefenstahl and Speer tradition. Regardless of how many awards it wins this winter – that’s how history will eventually label Kathryn Bigelow’s latest piece of moving art.
The good news is the truth has no expiration date, and political propaganda eventually collapses under the weight of its own inflated sense of purpose.
All we are seeing here, is simply… Hollywood drifting further towards Washington DC.
How much money does it cost to get populations to think a certain way? Answer: it requires a blank cheque. But can Americans really afford it?g and
Chief among the pitfalls of managing any global empire – persuading the natives overseas that Rome will in fact bring prosperity and open new markets for them, and bring advanced Roman culture. In those days, it can be argued that indeed, Roman civilization had something to offer back then. But it’s unclear today what exactly the Anglo-American Empire has to offer the world at large, aside from taking control of regional markets and resources – and of course, exporting their number one product in the 21st century – war.
In previous years, the Pentagon was tasked with defending the nation from real and potential state actors overseas, but under the new Obama collective, the military arm will continue to focus on ‘managing reality’ – by any means necessary, including (in their own words):
“…persuasive and coercive means to assist and support joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational partners to protect and reassure populations and isolate and defeat enemies.”
The tradecraft here is otherwise known as ‘propaganda’, or federally-funded mass-brainwashing to be more precise.
Americans might bother asking in the run-up to the next Obama budget… “Does represent it value for money?”
In a country which is actually bankrupt on paper, Americans can only guess how much this futile operation will ultimately cost them, and ultimately add to the US government’s already bloated budget deficit. Cracks are already beginning to appear in the Federal machine at home this week, with a draft memo being circulated by the White House:
“Based on guidance to federal agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), says the administration may “have to consider placing employees on temporary furlough, or taking other personnel actions, should sequestration occur.”
‘Austerity at home’ we are told, but there seems to be plenty of money available for experimental military propaganda psychological operations overseas, and also at home too.
According to the masterminds at the Pentagon the PR managers at the Washington Post:
“As part of planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld decided to place reporters with military units. With “embedding,”many reporters who had never been in the military service shared time with troops and essentially became part of the outfit they covered. It mostly worked to the Pentagon’s benefit.
That lesson is key to the new manual’s approach. The best way to keep Americans informed, it says, is “through the actions and words of individual soldiers.” And the best way to do that is through army units that “embed media personnel into the lowest tactical levels, ensuring their safety and security.” There is to be “a culture of engagement in which soldiers and leaders confidently and comfortably engage the media – as well as other audiences,” the manual says.
Embedded reporting was probably the single most negative developments in modern press history. The main target of this opaque effort was not populations overseas, however, it was the American people themselves. What’s more incredible though, is that there are still many who believe that the illegal war and occupation of Iraq was some sort of resounding success. Of course, all this while Bradley Manning sits rotting a military prison cell for allegedly leaking information which the world already knew.
Likewise, Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels probably thought he was doing really well with his state information arm – for a while at least, until it collapsed under the weight of its own self-regarding nature.
Herein lies the ultimate problem with constructing such an iron bubble, who we are told, manages to burn through trillions of US dollars, and cannot even properly account for it….
The U.S. Army has embraced what civilians would call public relations as a key part of military operations for the 21st-century battlefield.
“Combat power is the total means of destructive, constructive and information capabilities that a military unit or formation can apply at a given time,” according to a new Army field manual released publicly last month.
Added to the traditional war elements — among them movement and maneuver, intelligence and firing against an enemy — is the new “Inform
and Influence Activities” (IIA). As the manual states, IIA “is critical to understanding, visualizing, describing, directing, assessing, and leading operations toward attaining the desired end state.”
I’ve written before about the military moving into PR. But this manual shows just how serious the Army has become about it. There’s now a member of a commander’s staff with a G-7 pay level whose job is for “planning, integration and synchronization of designated information-related capabilities,” the manual says.
Listed on the Web site of the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea is its assistant chief of staff, G-7, who is “responsible for planning, coordinating and synchronizing Information Engagements activities of Public Affairs, Military Information Support Operations, Combat Camera and Defense Support to Public Diplomacy to amplify the strong Korean-American alliance during armistice, combat and stability operations.”
The G-7 for the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., “assesses how effectively the information themes and messages are reflected in operations . . . assesses the effectiveness of the media . . . [and] assesses how the information themes and messages impact various audiences of interest and populations in and outside the AO [area of operations].”
Two years ago, Lt. Gen. Robert L. Cashen Jr., commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, wrote in Military Review magazine that Army doctrine would adopt words as a major war element, saying it “was validated in the crucible of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
With bureaucratic-speak, he described IIA activities as employing “cooperative, persuasive and coercive means to assist and support joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational partners to protect and reassure populations and isolate and defeat enemies.”
Translated: Under the “inform” element, commanders will be responsible for keeping not only their own troops aware of what is going on and why, but also U.S. audiences “to the fullest extent possible,” the manual states. Commanders abroad will be required to inform their foreign audiences, balancing disclosure with protecting operations.
The “influence” part is limited to foreign populations, where, according to the manual, the goal is to get them to “support U.S. objectives or to persuade those audiences to stop supporting the adversary or enemy”…
A general view shows the coastline on Kunashir, part of a disputed chain of islands known as the Southern Kuriles in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan (Reuters / Yuri Maltsev)
Tokyo is preparing to promote Japan’s position regarding its territorial dispute with Russia, as well as with other Pacific nations, by opening a new government agency.
In an effort to win over global opinion over the disputed South Kuril Islands, Tokyo’s new government agency, called the Territorial Sovereignty Office of Planning and Coordination, will “address issues involving territories and sovereignty,” Yoshihide Suga, Japanese chief cabinet secretary, told a news conference in Tokyo on Tuesday.
The South Kurils – comprised of Kunashir, Shikotan, Iturup and the Habomai Rocks – fell under control of the Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are now considered part of the Russian Federation. Tokyo, meanwhile, argues that the Northern Territories, as it calls the island chain, are Japanese property and should be returned.
The dispute, which continues to hamper Russian-Japanese relations, prevented a formal peace treaty from being signed between Moscow and Tokyo following the end of World War II.
According to Suga, the new office will be assigned the task of studying and analyzing the positions of other countries regarding the issue of territorial problems.
Japan has territorial problems with nearly all of its closest neighbors – Russia, China, and South Korea.
In addition to laying claim to the South Kuril Islands, Japan also declares ownership of the uninhabited Dokdo Islands (called ‘Takeshima’ by Japan), which are now administered by South Korea.
The territorial dispute between Tokyo and Seoul escalated in August 2012, when South Korea's then-President Lee Myung-bak paid a visit to Dokdo, triggering a harsh response from Japan.
The uproar was reminiscent of the diplomatic fallout that occurred between Moscow and Tokyo when Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev visited the South Kurils in July, 2012, calling the island chain “an important part of Russian territory.”
In February 2011, then-President Medvedev invited Japan to work with Russia in the South Kurils.
"We are prepared for the joint use of the islands, to offer opportunities for investment, to protect Japanese investment and create conditions for doing business,” Medvedev said.
Tokyo, however, argued that the two countries should first solve their sovereignty dispute over the islands before there can be talk of any joint initiatives.
Meanwhile, Tokyo is involved in yet another territorial dispute with China over a group of uninhabited islands in the East Asian Sea – known as the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan – that both nations claim.
PBS ombud Michael Getler (1/31/13) responded to FAIR activists who wrote to him about the recent Nova special on drones (1/23/13) that was underwritten by Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor and drone manufacturer.
FAIR (Action Alert, 1/28/13) pointed out that this connection violates PBS‘s guidelines concerning sponsorship and conflicts of interest.
Getler agreed, explaining that “the Lockheed funding does present a perception and commercial test problem for PBS. My feeling is that this particular program would have been much better off without Lockheed support.”
There was a further lack of disclosure. Getler noted that he
saw no mention of Lockheed when I watched the program online or when I looked at the Nova website. And there was never any mention of Lockheed in the body of the program, even though that huge defense company is heavily involved in drone development, which I didn’t know and I’m sure vast numbers of online viewers–unless they are in the Air Force or CIA–also probably did not know.
That lack of disclosure left Getler feeling “deceived by Nova“–though he noted that “Lockheed Martin was clearly identified on screen” as a funder in the broadcast version of the program.
Getler concluded by writing, “I think Nova handled this situation poorly and did not comply with the spirit, at least, of the guidelines when it came to being upfront with viewers.”
Nova thought otherwise. Its statement began:
WGBH fully adheres to PBS funding guidelines and takes our public trust responsibility very seriously. With regard to Nova “Rise of the Drones,” Lockheed Martin’s sponsorship of Nova is not a violation of the PBSunderwriting guidelines.
Nova’s defense is that Lockheed “had no editorial involvement in the program.” But as the PBS guidelines make abundantly clear, this is not a defense at all. The fact that a funder’s interests exist is a problem–not just whether the funder interfered in the editorial content of the program:
When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder’s actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.
Since it is indisputable that Lockheed manufacturers drones, the guidelines as written say this is “unacceptable.” Since Nova does not believe the underwriting guidelines mean what they say mean, the real issue here is whether PBS itself believes in its rules. As FAIR has pointed out (Press Release, 4/3/02 ), PBS has historically found certain funding arrangements problematic–when the funder is a labor union, or a producer of a film about domestic violence is the leader of a battered women’s support group. Major corporate funders, though, get a pass.
Nova also argues that including a guest who has a business relationship to the funder “has no relevance to the story.” But basic journalistic ethics–for any medium, not just public television–tell you that such disclosures are important.
Nova seemed to prefer that viewers not know Lockheed’s connection to the subject of the program at all. The program’s response to the FAIR alert did mention that they “will include Lockheed Martin in the list of funders on the Nova website for full transparency.”
FAIR thanks the hundreds of activists who wrote to PBS, and to ombud Michael Getler for writing a thoughtful response.
Although ignored by all major news media, one of the most important parliamentary speeches was made recently by Laurent Louis, a young Belgian deputy in the Chamber of Representatives (la Chambre des Représentants).
In his speech Louis denounced the French invasion of Mali which he described as “neo-colonialist”.
Mr. Louis also pointed out that the mainstream media are simply organs of state and corporate propaganda.
“The leaders of Western countries are taking their people for fools, with the help and support of the press, which today is nothing more than the propaganda organ of the powers that be.”
Not mincing his words, the intrepid Belgian politician lambasted the foreign policy of Belgium and the European Union:
“Everywhere in the world, military operations and destabilizations of regimes are becoming more and more frequent. Preventive war has become the rule. Nowadays in the name of democracy or the war on terrorism our states appropriate the right to violate the sovereignty of independent countries and to overthrow legitimate leaders. There was Iraq, Afghanistan, the wars of American lies, followed by Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and thanks to your decisions, our country participated in the front line in crimes against humanity in order to overthrow, every time, every time, progressive and moderate regimes and to replace them with Islamist regimes, whose first desire was to impose Sharia law”
Louis went on to accuse the Belgian government of sponsoring terrorism in Syria.
“It’s the same right now in Syria, where our government is shamefully financing the arming of Islamist rebels who are trying to overthrow Bachar Al-Assad; this in the middle of an economic crisis while Belgian citizens have difficulty paying their rent and eating correctly and keeping warm. And our Foreign Minister decides to offer 9 million Euros to the Syrian rebels!”
Louis lashed out at the hypocrisy of the French government, pretending to fight terrorism in Mali while funding and supporting it in Syria. He also condemned NATO’s war in Afghanistan where he accused the latter of making money from drug trafficking.
The Belgian politician did not mince his words:
“ I dismiss all the so-called do-gooders whether they are on the left, the centre or the right who are at the heart of this corrupt power and who like to ridicule me. I piss of our leaders who play with their bombs like children in the playground, and who pretend to be democrats while they are nothing but low-life criminals. I have no respect either for the journalists who have the cheek to treat dissidents as madmen while they know that these dissidents are perfectly correct.”
Louis predicted that NATO’s next target would be Algeria before the final showdown with Iran. He noted that NATO could also decide to wage a terrorist campaign in Europe to justify more repression and foreign wars. This was the reason, he said, for the attacks of 911.
Louis was no doubt alluding to Operation Gladio, a covert terrorist campaign carried out by NATO intelligence in Europe from the 1960s to the 1980s in order to criminalize left-wing groups and increase the power of the capitalist state. Although, investigated by the Belgian and Swiss governments, as well as confessions by many involved to the BBC, many aspects of the terrorism campaign remain mysterious and unresolved.
Before concluding Louis gave the Belgian parliament a brief lesson on Mali’s abundant natural resources, in particular uranium, which the French nuclear energy multinational Areva will now be able to exploit as Malians die of hunger and malnutrition, while the French military will occupy the country with military bases to prevent any revolt of the people.
The thirty three year old politician said more for the ordinary man in one speech than all the parliamentary waffle of the last few decades. In these lugubrious times of ubiquitous lies and obscene evil, Louis’ courage and integrity should serve as an example to other politicians who tread in the corridors of power to speak out and denounce this tyranny now before it destroys all possibility of denunciation.
Listening to Louis’ passionate oratory brought to mind these lines from W.H Auden written in September 1939, on the eve of World War II:
“Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame”
Contradictory reports of an explosion at Iran’s uranium enrichment site have been emerging. Iran denies it ever happened, calling it “Western propaganda” while Israel confirms it, putting tensions around upcoming nuclear talks.
Reports of the explosion at the underground Fordow plant, near the city of Qom, central-northern Iran, originally surfaced on Friday after a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Reza Kahlili, published his report on the WND.com website.
Iran has denied the reports, while Israel and some of US media reported that the explosion occurred and caused significant damage.
The West has maintained that the Fordow plant (which was discovered in 2009) has been producing uranium enriched to 20 per cent fissile purity since late 2011, compared to the 3.5 per cent level required for nuclear energy plants, and has been operating 700 centrifuges there since the start of the year.
‘Sabotage’ and ‘propaganda’
Iran has accused Israel and the US of trying to influence upcoming nuclear negotiations due to happen in coming weeks.
"The false news of an explosion at Fordow is Western propaganda ahead of nuclear negotiations to influence their process and outcome," Reuters quoted the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Saeed Shamseddin Bar Broudi, as saying.
While Israeli intelligence has confirmed that the explosion occurred and caused serious damage, but the area had not been evacuated, The Sunday Times reported.
Israel is still in the "preliminary stages of understanding what happened and how significant it is," the UK newspaper quoted one official as saying. It is still unclear whether the explosion was “sabotage or an accident”.
Another source within Israeli intelligence has confirmed the same to The Times of London.
“Israel believes the Iranians have not evacuated the surrounding area. It is unclear whether that is because no harmful substances have been released, or because Tehran is trying to avoid sparking panic among residents,” the source said.
The first to report about the explosion was Reza Kahlili for WND.com. The explosion “destroyed much of the installation and trapped about 240 personnel deep underground” including scientists and workers, many of whom are foreign nationals, Kahlili wrote.
The report cites a “source in the security forces protecting Fordow,” who states that the explosion occurred last Monday and that the plant itself is located inside a mountain to protect it from aerial attacks.
“The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran-Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast,” the report said.
The emergency exits have collapsed at the site and regime fears more loss of life due to possible radiation.
On Monday, Kahlili, speaking to the Jerusalem Post, confirmed that the explosion could have been very damaging in terms of radiation leaks.
"This is the center of the Iranian nuclear program. It's essential for the regime, its activities, and its nuclear program. If such a blow was given to Fordow, it definitely harms [Iran] drastically. They were reaching for 20 per cent uranium enrichment, and were increasing output," he added.
Kahlili believes that the alleged explosion will be “receiving more coverage in the US” and that "more information" will become available to verify the incident.
But the credibility of the report has not been confirmed by most of the international media.
And the main problem with it remains that there are no supporting evidence to confirm it, according to Haaretz.
The objectivity of the report’s author has been called into question. Kahlili worked for CIA in the 1980s while living in Iran, collecting information, then in a few years he was moved to the US with his family.
“Kahlili himself is a frequent speaker at events in US organized by right-wing organizations and those that support the right in Israel … He also compared the regime in Tehran to that of the Nazis, and called upon Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear installations”, Haaretz journalist Anshel Pfeffer reported.
Right now he makes his living writing books and giving lectures on Iran. Kahlili claims “to still have an impressive network of sources in various government agencies.”
He has never revealed his face, citing fear of retribution as the reason, appearing always in