Global Events || Ideas || People || Studies || Opinions || Echoes || Topics To Follow
- Category: Media
- Hits: 9
- Category: Middle East
- Hits: 35
The move is a diplomatic victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin and a big snub to the United States.
In a seismic shift in the alignment in the Syria conflict, Turkey has confirmed it is ending support to anti-government forces in Syria. Additionally, the umbrella political group National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is to have its recognition from Ankara withdrawn.
This represents Turkey’s position on Syria going full circle since Ankara entered the conflict in the year 2012.
Prior to 2012, Turkey and Syria enjoyed normal relations. As part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s pivot to the Arab world, a policy some had called neo-Ottomanism, Ankara increasingly saw itself as a key king-maker in Arab affairs, in spite of the fact that few Arab countries sought Turkey’s alliance with the exception of Qatar. In this sense, Turkey’s move to support anti-government forces in Syria was more about opportunism than ideology. Although Erdogan had since his early political career advocated for what many call a Muslim Brotherhood style of Islamist politics, this had never previously prohibited him from having normal relations with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prior to 2011.
Put another way, Turkey wanted to join the winning side and until Russia’s intervention in Syria at the behest of the Syrian government, many speculated that various anti-government forces which were heavily backed by Barack Obama’s government, would win.
Russia’s intervention combined with the incredible endurance and steadfast patriotism of the Syrian Arab Army has changed this and now both conventional wisdom and battlefield intelligence would point to a victory for the legitimate forces in Syria. ...
See full article @ The Duran
- Category: North Amerika
- Hits: 66
--- Russiagate and more sanctions on Russia BASED on completely fabricated fake story. ---
Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
- Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.
This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting. ...
- Category: Society
- Hits: 57
- Category: North Amerika
- Hits: 91
Die folgende Analyse widmet sich der Frage, wie sich die auffallend negative Berichterstattung der traditionellen westlichen Medien über die Trump-Präsidentschaft schlüssig erklären lässt. Dabei zeigt sich, dass keine der üblichen Erklärungen – die angebliche Inkompetenz Trumps, eine angebliche »Linkslastigkeit« der Medien, Einschaltquoten oder Partikularinteressen einflussreicher Lobbys – stichhaltig ist.
Vielmehr dürfte die negative Berichterstattung auf geostrategische Aspekte und die (bedrohte) Rolle des Council on Foreign Relations als oberstes geopolitisches Gremium der Vereinigten Staaten zurückzuführen sein. Die Berichterstattung westlicher Medien weist denn auch deutliche Parallelen zur koordinierten Medienaktivität im Rahmen früherer Regime-Change-Operationen in Drittstaaten auf.
Zur einführenden Lektüre empfohlen: Das American Empire und seine Medien
Ausgangslage und Erklärungsversuche
Die Ausgangslage ist eindeutig: Gemäß einer Harvard-Studie berichteten die traditionellen westlichen Medien bislang überwiegend negativ über die Trump-Präsidentschaft: So fielen insgesamt 80%, bei der New York Times 87%, bei CNN 93%, und bei der ARD sogar 98% der wertenden Beiträge negativ aus.
Zur Erklärung dieser einzigartig negativen Berichterstattung werden im Allgemeinen vier mögliche Varianten diskutiert, von denen jedoch keine stichhaltig ist, wie die folgende Analyse zeigt:
- Trump sei ein unsympathischer und unfähiger Politiker, über den die Medien kritisch berichten müssen: Diese These scheitert schon daran, dass rund 50% der US-Wahlbevölkerung dies offenbar nicht so gesehen haben. Doch selbst wenn die Einschätzung zutrifft: Die USA hatten auch in der Vergangenheit Präsidenten mit teils fraglichen Qualifikationen, über die ebenso wohlwollend berichtet wurde wie über US-Verbündete, die nicht eben Sympathieträger sind. Hinzu kommt, dass dieselben Medien über denselben Trump in der Vergangenheit zumeist positiv berichtet haben.
- Die Medien in den USA und in Europa seien eben »linkslastig« und würden den konservativen Trump deshalb ablehnen: Diese Erklärung steht im Widerspruch zur positiven Berichterstattung über frühere republikanische Präsidenten und über republikanische Mitbewerber Trumps. Zudem haben gemäß der Harvard-Studie selbst konservative Medien wie FOX News entgegen einer weitverbreitenden Annahme tendenziell kritisch (52%) über Trump berichtet.
- Verantwortlich seien Partikularinteressen einflussreicher Lobbys, etwa der Rüstungs-, Öl- oder Finanzindustrie oder der »Israel-Lobby«: Auch dieser Erklärungsversuch kann nicht überzeugen, denn keine dieser durchaus potenten Einflussgruppen hat Grund zur Klage über Trump: Trump setzte sich stets für eine Aufrüstung des US-Militärs und der NATO ein und schloss historische Waffengeschäfte mit Verbündeten wie Saudi-Arabien ab. Zudem machte er den CEO des Ölgiganten Exxon Mobil zu seinem Außenminister und setzte sich für die Förderung fossiler Energieträger ein. Überdies holte er zahlreiche Wall-Street-Banker und Finanzmilliardäre in sein Kabinett, und versprach mehr Unterstützung für Israel sowie eine mögliche Anerkennung Jerusalems als Hauptstadt.
- Ausschlaggebend seien die durch Skandale erzielbaren Zuschauerquoten und Leserzahlen: Tatsächlich sorgte der polarisierende Trump schon immer für hohe Einschaltquoten. Dies gilt indes für beinahe jede Art der Berichterstattung über ihn, keineswegs nur für eine negative. Zudem verfolgt die beobachtete Berichterstattung zweifellos politische und nicht nur medienökonomische Ziele.
Offensichtlich vermag keine dieser Varianten die überwiegend negative Berichterstattung schlüssig zu erklären. Der tatsächliche Grund dürfte denn auch tiefer liegen – und geopolitischer Natur sein: Trump kam mit seiner national orientierten, »isolationistischen« Politik den globalen Ambitionen des amerikanischen Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in die Quere.
Wie in einem früheren Beitrag aufgezeigt wurde, prägten der Council on Foreign Relations und seine inzwischen knapp 5000 Mitglieder in Spitzenpositionen von Politik, Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Medien seit Jahrzehnten die Außenpolitik der Vereinigten Staaten. Dabei haben die Council-Strategen nie ein Geheimnis daraus gemacht, dass das Ziel darin besteht, ein globales, »benevolentes« Imperium unter amerikanischer Führung zu etablieren (die sogenannte Grand Area Strategy). ...
See the full article @ Swiss Propaganda Research
- Category: Fare east
- Hits: 48
- Category: Media
- Hits: 77
With the war between mainstream and independent media heating up, YouTube has weaponized a new content censorship program,calling it an effort to “fight terror content online.” With standards set by groups like the Anti-Defamation League, political agendas are sure to intrude.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA — Ever since “fake news” found its place among the various explanations used by the Clinton campaign and supporters to account for their candidate’s loss, there has been a quiet but concerted effort on the part of establishment media, technology, and telecommunications companieshttps://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/18/what-to-do-about-fake-news/', ' to thwart the surging popularity');" target="_blank"> to thwart the surging popularity of independent media.
The rise of the independent media has been hugely detrimental to the once privileged position of the mainstream media, who have nowhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx', ' lost the trust');" target="_blank"> lost the trust of the vast majority of Americans and – along with that trust – their ability to control political and social narratives.
Chief among the groups seeking to clamp down on independent media has been Google, the massive technology companyhttps://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e', ' with deep connections');" target="_blank"> with deep connections to the U.S. intelligence community, as well as to U.S. government and business elites.
Since 2015, Google has worked to become the Internet’s “Ministry of Truth,” first through its creation ofhttps://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/18/what-to-do-about-fake-news/', ' the First Draft Coalition');" target="_blank"> the First Draft Coalition and more recently via major changes made to its search engine that https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html', 'curtail public access');" target="_blank">curtail public access to new sites independent of the corporate media. ...
See the full artice @ MintPressNews
Adam Garie's Analysis, Latest, News: Saudi Arabia’s ethnic cleansing of its Shi’a minority is blacked out by MSM
- Category: Middle East
- Hits: 39
America's top Arab ally is engaging in blood-soaked ethnic cleansing of its Shi'a Muslim minority, but the story has been suppressed by the western mainstream media.
See the full artice @ The Duran
- Category: Society
- Hits: 51
More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been.
But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis...
See the full artice @ Zerohedge
- Category: Society
- Hits: 44
Tourism, like all globalised trends, can be a force for good, but can also wreak immense localised damage
In Barcelona this summer, I was shown a protest sign written in English that said: “Why call it tourism season if we can’t kill them?” Anger over unhampered tourism is getting ugly, even in Barcelona, where the mayor, Ada Colau, is one of the few politicians dedicated to reining in the industry. Residents told me they have had it with skyrocketing rents, thousands of tourists from cruise ships swamping the city’s historic centre and partygoers keeping families up into the night. And they are increasingly sceptical about the economic benefits for the average citizen.
Every time I find myself smirking at another photograph of drunken tourists crowding a gracious town square, I think of Venice. The annual tourist traffic of more than 20 million visitors to La Serenissima has impoverished, rather than enriched, most Venetians. They have been pushed out, the population cut in half to fewer than 60,000 people. The survivors continue to protest and vote against giant cruise ships and mindless tourism. But the powers that be have done little. Even the United Nations has warned that the genius of Venice, its culture, art and way of life are being drowned by tourism. ...
See full article @ The Gardian