BACK TO THE USSR: HOW TO READ WESTERN NEWS

Patrick Armstrong explains, much more eloquently than I ever could, why I have such distrust for Mainstream Media.

BY PATRICK ARMSTRONG 
IN PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE; THE WORLD IS CHANGING; WAR ON RUSSIA

The heroes of Dickens’ Pickwick Papers visit the fictional borough of Eatanswill to observe an election between the candidates of the Blue Party and the Buff Party. The town is passionately divided, on all possible issues, between the two parties. Each party has its own newspaper: the Eatanswill Gazette is Blue and entirely devoted to praising the noble Blues and excoriating the perfidious and wicked Buffs; the Eatanswill Independent is equally passionate on the opposite side of every question. No Buff would dream of reading the “that vile and slanderous calumniator, the Gazette”, nor Blue the ”that false and scurrilous print, the Independent”.

As usual with Dickens it is both exaggerated and accurate. Newspapers used to be screamingly partisan before “journalism” was invented. Soon followed journalism schools, journalism ethics and journalism objectivity: “real journalism” as they like to call it (RT isn’t of course). “Journalism” became a profession gilded with academical folderol; no longer the refuge of dropouts, boozers, failures, budding novelists and magnates like Lord Copper who know what they want and pay for it. But, despite the pretence of objectivity and standards, there were still Lord Coppers and a lot of Eatanswill. Nonetheless, there were more or less serious efforts to get the facts and balance the story. And Lord Coppers came and went: great newspaper empires rose and fell and there was actually quite a variety of ownership and news outlets. There was sufficient variance that a reader, who was neither Blue nor Buff, could triangulate and form a sense of what was going on.

In the Soviet Union news was controlled; there was no “free press”; there was one owner and the flavours were only slightly varied: the army paper, the party paper, the government paper, papers for people interested in literature or sports. But they all said the same thing about the big subjects. The two principal newspapers were Pravda (“truth”) and Izvestiya (“news”). This swiftly led to the joke that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestiya. It was all pretty heavy handed stuff: lots of fat capitalists in top hats and money bags; Uncle Sam’s clothing dripping with bombs; no problems over here, nothing but problems over there. And it wasn’t very successful propaganda: most of their audience came to believe that the Soviet media was lying both about the USSR and about the West.

90% of US media owned by 6 corporations

But time moves on and while thirty years ago 50 corporations controlled 90% of the US news media, today it’s a not very diverse six. 

As a result, on many subjects there is a monoview: has any Western news outlet reported, say, these ten true statements?

People in Crimea are pretty happy to be in Russia.

The US and its minions have given an enormous amount of weapons to jihadists.

Elections in Russia reflect popular opinion polling.

There really are a frightening number of well-armed nazis in Ukraine.

Assad is pretty popular in Syria.

The US and its minions smashed Raqqa to bits.

The official Skripal story makes very little sense.

Ukraine is much worse off, by any measurement, now than before Maidan.

Russia actually had several thousand troops in Crimea before Maidan.

There’s a documentary that exposes Browder that he keeps people from seeing.

I typed these out as they occurred to me. I could come up with another ten pretty easily. There’s some tiny coverage, far in the back pages, so that objectivity can be pretended, but most Western media consumers would answer they aren’t; didn’t; don’t; aren’t; isn’t; where?; does; not; what?; never heard of it.

Many subjects are covered in Western media outlets with a single voice. Every now and again there’s a scandal that reveals that “journalists” are richly rewarded for writing stories that fit. But after revelations, admissions of bias, pretending it never happened, the media ship calmly sails on (shedding passengers as it goes, though). Coverage of certain subjects are almost 100% false: Putin, Russia, Syria and Ukraine stand out. But much of the coverage of China and Iran also. Many things about Israel are not permitted. The Russia collusion story is (privately) admitted to be fake by an outlet that covers it non stop. Anything Trump is so heavily flavoured that it’s inedible. And it’s not getting any better: PC is shutting doors everywhere and the Russian-centred “fake news” meme is shutting more. Science is settled but genders are not and we must be vigilant against the “Russian disinformation war“. Every day brings us a step closer to a mono media of the One Correct Opinion. All for the Best Possible Motives, of course.

It’s all rather Soviet in fact.

So, in a world where the Integrity Initiative is spending our tax dollars (pounds actually) to make sure that we never have a doubleplusungood thought or are tempted into crimethink, (and maybe they created the entire Skripal story – more revelations by the minute), what are we to make of our Free Media™? Well, that all depends on what you’re interested in. If it’s sports (not Russian athletes – druggies every one unlike brave Western asthmatics) or “beach-ready bodies” (not Russian drug takers of course, only wholesome Americans) – the reporting is pretty reasonable. Weather reports, for example (Siberian blasts excepted) or movie reviews (but all those Russian villains). But the rest is some weird merger of the Eatonswill Gazette and Independent: Blues/Buffs good! others, especially Russians, bad!

So, as they say in Russia, что делать? What to do? Well, I suggest we learn from the Soviet experience. After all, most Soviet citizens were much more sceptical about their home media outlets than any of my neighbours, friends or relatives are about theirs.

My suggestions are three:

Read between the lines. A difficult art this and it needs to be learned and practised. Dissidents may be sending us hints from the bowels of Minitrue. For example, it’s impossible to imagine anyone seriously saying “How Putin’s Russia turned humour into a weapon“; it must have been written to subversively mock the official Russia panic. I have speculated elsewhere that the writers may have inserted clues that the “intelligence reports” on Russian interference were nonsense.

Notice what they’re not telling you. For example: remember when Aleppo was a huge story two years ago? But there’s nothing about it now. One should wonder why there isn’t; a quick search will find videos like this (oops! Russian! not real journalism!) here’s one from Euronews. Clearly none of this fits the “last hospitals destroyed” and brutal Assad memes of two years ago; that’s why the subject has disappeared from Western media outlets. It is always a good rule to wonder why the Biggest Story Ever suddenly disappears: that’s a strong clue it was a lie or nonsense.

Most of the time, you’d be correct to believe the opposite. Especially, when all the outlets are telling you the same thing. It’s always good to ask yourself cui bono: who’s getting what benefit out of making you believe something? It’s quite depressing how successful the big uniform lie is: even though the much-demonised Milosevic was eventually found innocent, even though Qaddafi was not “bombing his own people”, similar lies are believed about Assad and other Western enemies-of-the-moment. Believe the opposite unless there’s very good reason not to.

In the Cold War there was a notion going around that the Soviet and Western systems were converging and that they would meet in the middle, so to speak. Well, perhaps they did meet but kept on moving past each other. And so, the once reasonably free and varied Western media comes to resemble the controlled and uniform Soviet media and we in the West must start using Soviet methods to understand.

Always remember that the Soviet rulers claimed their media was free too; free from “fake news” that is.

Corbyn Claims NATO Founded to 'Promote Cold War with Soviet Union' in 2014 Video, is He Right?

I hate it when I agree with someone from the far-left of the political spectrum,

but Corbyn is right on this issue again.

(L) Jeremy Corbyn MP © Elliott Franks/Global Look Press (R) NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

© Yves Herman/Reuters

Labour's Jeremy Corbyn suggests “NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union,” in a 2014 video that has surfaced on social media, prompting fierce debate about the validity of such claims - is he right?

The Labour leader was speaking at an anti-war demonstration in Newport, Wales, when he told protestors: “1948, NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union. That resulted in the formation of the Warsaw Pact.”

 Nuddering

@NudderingNudnik

 Watch Jeremy Corbyn state that:

"NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union."

Corbyn’s claims have unsurprisingly divided opinion on social media with some suggesting he completely misunderstands or is deliberately lying about the formation of NATO. Others have defended the Labour leader’s position, claiming “He’s right though. NATO should have been disbanded after the Cold War.”

Steve Smith

@torrenttweet99

Replying to @walking_fox and 2 others

No. Shocking to hear his complete misunderstanding or deliberate lies on the subject. 

Do you really think that less than 10 years after the world's bloodiest conflict, ending in the use of the A-bomb that the Western world would be keen to start another one?

Steve - A cold war is very different from a hot one! A cold war requires hundreds of billions of dollars spent on arms without any intent of ever using them. That was the whole point. Global industrialists made a killing during the two World Wars and, in NATO, found a way to continue to make a killing without actually killing anyone.

Xan Phillips

@XanPhillips

Replying to @NudderingNudnik

Thanks for that. Far better to hear the whole spech. He's right though. NATO should have been disbanded after the cold war. As usual too many vested interests. Look at May in Nigeria. Selling arms. Take arms sales out of GDP would be a start.

Ronan Burtenshaw ✔

@ronanburtenshaw

 Unlike galaxy brain @JeremyCliffe, who is smart enough to know NATO's only historical role was spreading democracy and human rights.

        Jeremy Cliffe ✔

        @JeremyCliffe

        He's... he's really quite thick isn't he?

        https://twitter.com/nudderingnudnik/status/1034494951822946310 …

Max Blumenthal, RT contributor and senior editor at the Grayzone Project, backed up Corbyn, tweeting: “Corbyn’s neocon opponents are spreading footage of him making indisputably factual statements to impugn him.”

Max Blumenthal✔

@MaxBlumenthal

 Corbyn’s neocon opponents are spreading footage of him making indisputably factual statements to impugn him. That someone in UK has had the courage to publicly proclaim inconvenient truths like this one only deepens my respect.

In the unedited version of Corbyn’s speech available on Youtube, the now Labour-leader explains that the creation of NATO, and the subsequent founding of the ‘Warsaw Pact’ in 1955, has meant “60 years of a ludicrous arms race which cost us all billions of pounds and dollars and damaged the civil liberties of people all over the world."

NATO, which stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established after the Second World War in 1949 with 12 founding members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. There are currently 29 members.

NATO’s website states, “Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.”

It’s this “countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union,” which divides opinion on NATO. Does “countering” solely take on a defensive interpretation or does it in practice equate to aggressive posturing?

Brian Johnson

@Saggydaddy

 Corbyn: "NATO was founded to promote conflict with the Soviet Union"

Press: "How dare he the thicko. That's outrageous. Sack him"

NATO: "Err.....we don't mean to point out the obvious but....."

Press: "Sshh you, with your facts. We're journalists we don't need facts" #Corbyn

Lord Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, stated in 1949 that the organization's objective was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” A philosophy seemingly intact to this day, at least with regards to Russians and Americans.

NATO has continued operating even after the end of the Cold War in 1990 when it could have been the perfect time for the alliance to “shut up shop, give up, go home and go away,” as Corbyn suggested. Instead, they have expanded member nations east of Germany and along Russia’s border, and made questionable forays into wars in Afghanistan and Libya, further exacerbating tensions.

Precisely what I have been saying for a few years now - NATO is obsolete and should be abandoned!

Lest you be confused, I am not a Jeremy Corbyn fan; his antisemitism scares me. There is enough antisemitism in the UK without having a government that is such. Mind you, I fully expect that will be the case, and I expect the next, or possibly the second next government in the USA will also be antisemitic. Then the fun will really start! 

Ukraine Celebrates National Heroes and Mass Murderers of Jews

Ukraine opens monument to nationalist icon Petliura

blamed for anti-Jewish pogroms

Ataman Simon Petlyura (С) and his staff © Sputnik

A monument to Symon Petliura, who fought for Ukrainian independence after the 1917 Russian Revolution, and under whose leadership thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms, has been opened in the city of Vinnitsa in western Ukraine.

The sculpture was erected in the courtyard of the building that formerly hosted the Ministry of Post and Telegraph of the self-proclaimed Ukrainian People’s Republic, which was headed by Petliura in 1917-1921. The Ukrainian nationalist icon is portrayed sitting on a bench with a map of the country in his hands.

The Vinnitsa authorities unveiled the monument on Saturday, when the country marked the Defender of Ukraine Day – a new holiday ordered by President Petro Poroshenko in 2014.

“He was a man who sincerely loved his country, his native language, who tried to be honest with his own people,” Valery Korovy, the chairman of the Vinnitsa Region administration, said of Petliura, claiming that the Soviets did everything to “malign this honest man,” as cited by Ukraina.ru.

It is the first monument to Petliura in Ukraine, which previously only had a bust erected in the capital, Kiev, and a memorial sign in Poltava.

35,000 - 50,000 Jews killed

Petliura fought for Ukraine’s independence from Soviet Russia, following the October Revolution of 1917. During his time as the head of the Ukrainian People's Republic, between 35,000 and 50,000 Jews were killed in a string of pogroms.

This, apparently, occurred in just 4 years and had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

After his cause failed Petliura fled to Paris, where he was killed in 1926 by a Ukrainian-born Jewish watchmaker, Sholom Schwartzbard. Despite Schwartzbard being caught red-handed, he was later acquitted by a French court, which ruled that he was acting in the heat of the moment after 15 of his relatives were killed in the pogroms.

Petliura’s apologists claimed he was personally against the pogroms, but lost control of his armed forces who engaged in killing Jews. Schwartzbard’s defense and some historians, however, hold Petliura directly responsible as the head of the government who did nothing to prevent them as he wanted to avoid a spat with his forces.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian authorities have been facing criticism over their attempts to glorify controversial nationalist figures, including those who openly sided with the Nazis.

In 2000, they awarded ‘Hero of Ukraine’ titles to Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and were involved in mass killings of Jews and Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. 

The decision was later annulled under condemnation from the European Parliament, but Bandera and Shukhevych still have monuments and streets named after them across Ukraine.

NATO is Making up Russian Threat to Justify its own Existence – Former French Intel Chief

This is what I have been saying for years, in fact, since the war

in the Balkans broke out after the collapse of communism.
In fact, I believe NATO is the biggest threat to start a war on this planet.

© Ints Kalnins / Reuters

NATO became obsolete after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bloc is purposefully representing Russia as a security threat to justify its own existence, Yves Bonnet, former head of French counter-intelligence, told RT.

The Russians “are no longer ‘villains,’ the Soviet threat has vanished – primarily because the USSR doesn’t exist anymore,” Bonnet said.

The claims of Moscow’s aggressive behavior coming from the US-led military bloc’s officials are “exaggerated,” the former head of Directorate of Territorial Surveillance, or DST as its French abbreviation goes, which was dissolved in 2008, added.

“I believe that NATO intentionally fuels the perception of Russia as a threat… Like any organization, the North Atlantic Alliance wants to continue existing and the only reason for prolonging its existence is you… the Russians,” he said.

Picturing Russia as in international menace “doesn’t work anymore. I can assure you that the French people, fortunately, no longer believe it,” Bonnet added. 

Doesn't matter - Americans and British still believe it.

The former intelligence chief told French-language media outlet RT en Français that he was “very sad that France has again joined NATO.”

Paris withdrew from NATO in 1966 due to questioning its ability to resist the Soviet Union and developing its own nuclear deterrent, and only returned to the bloc 30 years later.

In the current historic moment, NATO “isn’t a useful organization, but a dangerous one,” Bonnet said, adding that “the North Atlantic Alliance should be disbanded altogether.”

 NATO “isn’t a useful organization, but a dangerous one,”

“I saw what NATO did in Yugoslavia [in 1999], waging a war there without an international warrant… Now NATO is invading Afghanistan, although this country isn’t in the North Atlantic,” he said.

The intelligence veteran slammed the bloc’s policies towards Russia, saying that “it makes no sense to make the Russians worry. It's completely pointless to make [the Russians] nervous. Don’t tease the ‘Russian bear.’”

He also dismissed claims that Russia tried to meddle with the French presidential elections, voiced shortly before the April 23 vote by the candidate of successful candidate Emmanuel Macron.

“I think that it’s exactly the opposite. The Russians didn’t interfere in the French election. But there was an open influence on the presidential campaign from numerous financial interests, both French and international, in particular Israeli, who supported the presidential campaign of Emmanuel Macron,” Bonnet said.

U.S., Russia - Long History of Election Interference

He expressed regret that “for political reasons” Paris is neglecting cooperation with intelligence services of Russia, Syria and other countries that are “directly fighting against terrorism.”

Such international cooperation would be more effective in tackling extremism in France than the emergencies law and other measures currently imposed by the country’s’ authorities, the former intelligence chief said.

NATO countries in Europe