|
Global Research, February 26, 2016
Strategic
Culture Foundation 26
February 2016
Theme: Media
Disinformation
On February 20th, the anti-Russian
propaganda site Newsweekheadlined «How We Can Defeat Putin» and presented an
essay from Evelyn Farkas, of the NATO-generated Atlantic Council, but didn’t
indicate her being controlled by the same people who control NATO (the US
aristocracy). (Newsweek hid her connection to NATO – gave no indication of
it.)
NATO is run by the North Atlantic Council, and its main PR agencies are the Atlantic Council and the
Atlantic Treaty Association, both of which receive funding from international
corporations. The head of the Atlantic Council is billionaire Jon M.
Huntsman Jr., the
former US Presidential candidate, and a member of the Bilderberg organization, which was founded in 1954 to engineer a
takeover of
national governments’ regulatory abilities and a replacement of national
economic regulations by international economic treaties, which will supersede
any national authority and will not be answerable to any voters except the
controlling stockholders in international corporations. (Bilderberger David
Rockefeller then created the Trilateral Commission in 1974, to extend the
globally controlling aristocracy to include also Japanese aristocrats, and
Huntsman is also a member of that Bilderberg spin-off: he’s a member of
the Trilateral
Commission’s
ruling Executive Committee.)
Farkas’s propaganda-piece opened:
«Russia poses a geostrategic threat to the United
States and our interests. Indeed, earlier this month Defense Secretary Ash
Carter listed it first among the threats faced by our
nation.»
She continued:
«The Kremlin’s objectives are clear:
1) Retain
Vladimir Putin’s position as the leader of the Russian Federation, preserving
the autocratic political system and mafia-style crony economy that together
make up ‘Putinism’; 2) restore Russia’s status as a great power; 3) rewrite
the international rules and norms to prevent intervention in states to
protect citizens; 4) maintain political control of Russia’s geographical
periphery; and, if possible, 5) break NATO, the European Union and
trans-Atlantic unity».
One could turn that around against the United States
by saying that we Americans have a depersonalized, institutionalized, form of
dictatorship, which doesn’t require continuance of the same person to be in
control, but which provides foreign policies that extend little changed from
one President to the next, even if the rhetoric differs considerably between
individual Presidents, such as it did and does from George W Bush to Barack
Obama, with little real difference in policies except this: tortures such as
waterboarding might possibly now be actually forbidden here. However, Putin’s
international policies have been changing far more than that. (They changed a
lot after Obama overthrew the democratically elected and pro-Russian
President of Ukraine in February 2014 and instituted a rabidly anti-Russian
fascist regime there.)
Domestically, Obama continued Bush’s Wall Street
bailouts and reduced the prosecutions of white-collar crooks (and
also of higher-level «financial fraud»), even lower than was the situation
when Bush was the nominal President. Also, the prosecutions of government
corruption declined under Obama. This was not the type of «change»
that Obama’s voters had been voting for, but it’s what we got.
The only scientific
study that has
been done of whether or not the US is a democracy or instead a dictatorship
(rule of the public by an aristocracy, which may or may not have a king or
other nominal dictator that rules answerable to that elite but not to any
broader public) found that the US, at least since 1980, has been a
dictatorship (the authors called it an «oligarchy»). That doesn’t sound much
different from what is typically said about Russia, either.
The readers of Ms Farkas’s propaganda-article, if
one judges by the reader-comments there, were far less damning against Mr
Putin than they were against the con-job that had just been delivered to them
by Newsweek (and so perhaps that ‘news’ site’s constant ads seeking
new subscribers to the site are not producing nearly as much income as are
the propaganda-services Newsweek delivers on behalf of their
international-corporate advertisers). To read those comments from readers,
Americans are getting jaundice from reading America’s propagandistic ‘press’.
Here were two typical such comments:
«I have been reading and watching western media and
Russian media equally. There is no bad guy here in geopolitics. If there is
then its the US».
Another said:
«Meanwhile Putin plays chess Americans play
checkers. And the Americans (Obama) are sold as chess players (at least they
make themselves believe it) to start with… Now they have propaganda outlets
like this one, that want to sell you a ‘checkers’ play to win the game».
Of course, such cynicism is also widespread among
Russians, against their own nation’s media.
The Newsweek propagandist wrote in
her article: «We must be united with our allies and partners
worldwide and resolute toward Russian bad behavior». But, what about
America’s «bad behavior»: unjustified and catastrophic invasion and
destruction of Iraq in 2003, of Libya in 2011, and of Syria in 2013, and
Obama’s keeping in power the coup-regime
in Honduras that
was installed there on 28 June 2009?
That’s not very nice, either – and, unlike anything
that can be charged against Russia, there’s no NATO-like organization against
the United States to have provoked our invasions, as there is with regard to
Russia, which had long ago terminated its equivalent, the Warsaw Pact (in
1991). They disbanded theirs; we continued and still continue ours, even
though its alleged raison d’être likewise ended in 1991 (and
NATO and its propaganda-arms now drown us with propaganda such as Newsweek published
here). Clearly, the US is the international aggressor, par
excellence, and it needs propagandists – the US press – in order to
make the American public fear «Saddam’s WMD» (to invade Iraq in 2003) and
«Russian bad behavior» (to attempt a «color revolution» against Russia’s
leader, Putin, whose approval-rating among his people is nearly twice as high
as Obama’s own – and yet America calls itself a ‘democracy’ that brings ‘democracy’ to places such as
Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and Russia).
More and more Americans are learning that they’re
suckers if they pay for their ’news’ – if they pay their
hard-earned money in order to be manipulated by their insatiable corrupting
aristocracy. And now, with Chrome’s free Google
Translate feature,
one can receive the news from the media in every country, immediately
translated into English, and thereby get a read not only on America’s
propaganda but on that of the countries that the US aristocracy want
Americans to overthrow (in overthrows that are becoming a very bad
habit of this country,
and that drain America’s tax dollars for rotten
weaponry and
a bloated army but enrich the ‘defense’ contractors that our aristocrats invest
so heavily in, so as to conquer the lands
they don’t currently control). Americans are increasingly coming to
recognize that
they’ve been (and are being) had: by ‘their’ government and by ‘their’ ‘free
press’, if not by the aristocracy that controls them both.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author,
most recently, of They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and
of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
The original source of this article is Strategic
Culture Foundation
Copyright © Eric
Zuesse, Strategic
Culture Foundation, 2016
|
No comments:
Post a Comment