Americans, Wake Up!

Your country has not suddenly lost it’s ‘greatness’, with Trump.

If you look objectively at history, it’s an obvious truth that US foreign policy is about spreading corporate power - not human rights/democracy.

Your corporatist governments have been, either directly or indirectly, slaughtering people in disobedient nations since WW2; toppling progressive governments and installing/propping up right-wing regimes; stealing resources, and enslaving these nations to work in the interests of international plutocrats/corporations. Millions killed in the process, and it continues.

American ‘freedom’ = corporate freedom, to plunder for profit. The mainstream, CORPORATE media assists with this agenda, propagating as necessary, on behalf of the oligarchs/corporate powers, and the unelected US foreign policy makers - the neoconservatives, CIA...

Your country is considered to be, by far, the greatest threat to world peace, and for good reason (Gallup poll 2013). Your politicians serve elites and the war machine, and who knows where this will eventually lead. It is out of control.

As citizens in this Empire, it is our duty to help put an end to this destructive order, and that requires drastic change towards people power, away from corporate power. This will not come about simply by removing Trump, who is just a product of this imploding imperial, neoliberal system.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/12/how-free-markets-defame-democracy/

Can the US accept a multi-polar world before it is too late?

The US unipolar world order is coming to an end. They’ve lost in Syria, and their failing neoliberal system has given rise to President Trump, making them a global embarrassment. 

This is what all the ‘Russian meddling’ propaganda, the ‘fake news’ agenda, and subsequent internet censorship, is about - the US power establishment have their heads in the sand; they are losing their grip over the world, and are seeking to delay the inevitable. Russia is the distraction, and the means of manufacturing consent for censorship, a final desperate attempt to control the populace.

I think it was always inevitable really - for this unipolar world order to fully come to fruition, the big adversaries, China and Russia, would need to submit. Let’s hope that the power structures in the US are able to accept the implausibility of this, asap. With NATO on Russia’s borders, and military bases gradually surrounding China, let’s hope that they do so before it is too late.

RT ‘deranking’

Manipulating the visibility of particular news outlets, at the request of government, is definitely not censorship. It’s totally pro democracy and pro free speech. Yes. I am a pliable humanoid and I will believe whatever you say Mr Eric. Those media outlets with a long history of war propaganda are definitely the most truthful of all. I will only read them. Thank you.

The Imperial Hypocrisy Of Demonising RT

Western elites and media are now condemning the Kremlin for retaliatory measures against western funded media in Russia, after the US forced RT to register as a ‘foreign agent’, yet these elites and media kept silent about, or even supported, the attacks on RT.

The outlets being targeted by Russia, such as Voice Of America, are proven to propagate for US interests, in Latin America, for example.

It is such grotesque, imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, that they manage to twist a retaliatory measure by the Kremlin into an attack on ‘press freedoms’ in Russia, and that they stay silent about the long history of disinformation by western and corporate funded media outlets to foment support for coups and regime change in target countries, (often with the aim of installing a far worse regime).

When Trump slams the war-propagating corporate media, (albeit generally for partisan reasons), ‘liberals’ go berserk about attacks on press freedoms. But when it comes to international or alternative media being attacked - nothing.

Are we on a slippery slope? Eventually, are all perspectives from Pentagon-designated ‘enemy’ countries to be silenced? Are western citizens to be fed a monotonous stream of Pentagon and corporate propaganda, so that consent, for war etc, remains easy to manufacture?

The fact is, the Russian perspective is not represented remotely fairly in western corporate media (ditto other ‘enemy’ nations), so unless we do want to just stay in a bubble of Pentagon and corporate propaganda; unless we do want to allow the US to continue getting away with murder; to continue encircling Russia and China with military bases thus increasing the likelihood of a global calamity, we should all be standing up for RT, and speaking out against censorship. If we don’t, I fear for the future.

The US is considered to be, by far, the greatest threat to world peace (Gallup poll 2013). All those unfortunate enough to have been born into ‘enemy’ countries, need us to stand up for them - that is what RT does, often by employing journalists who, as per Noam Chomsky’s theory, have been pushed out of mainstream outlets for not towing the party line; a line which so often happens to match up with that of the Pentagon/State Department.

The US have been, and still are, bombing, destabilising, and invading countries around the world. This has been the way of things since World War 2 and, since the fall of the Soviet Union, nothing has stood in their way. There has been no counterbalance to the US, unipolar, neoliberal world order. A re-assertive Russia (with backing from China and others) now offer this counter, and until they show signs of imperial actively, (rather than defensive, as in Ukraine and Syria), I will trust Putin when he says that he simply desires a fair, multi-polar world. (NB. this does not mean that I love Putin!).

Whatever happens in the future, remember - America, not Russia, created these new tensions between the two countries, as there is little evidence of ‘Kremlin meddling’ in the 2016 US election, or of RT being untruthful, (at least, in comparison to western corporate media!).

Kremlin meddling, or a set up?

It makes perfect sense that Putin would have wanted Trump to beat Hillary, and for Leave to beat Remain. In Russia’s position, with NATO expanded to their borders & potential direct conflict in Syria with Hillary’s proposed no-fly-zone, the US would have done far worse than a social media campaign! 

But I still think it more likely that this is either a set up by the US, or carried out by other actors in Russia (not the Kremlin). Or a bit of both. Few people thought Trump/Leave would win. Unless Putin is a fortune teller, neither did he. To meddle would have been a huge risk, as obviously the US/UK would find out, with big repercussions (as we now see).

And obviously, if they did meddle in these relatively minor ways, it is absolutely ridiculous for the constantly meddling (and invading) US/UK to be playing the victim!!

Russia-gate deception

It’s frightening witnessing such mass deception; seeing so many supposedly respectable journalists fall in line. If you still have trust in mainstream media, why? They are by far the guiltiest of ‘fake news’; full of careerist sheep, unable to speak out against a tide of deceit, as to do so sees you branded a dictator apologist, a conspiracy theorist, a genocide denier, a Kremlin troll, etc. And quite possibly, fired. 

It seems Russia-gate is just the latest example in a long history of propaganda campaigns. This is by William S Herman, (co-author of Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Of Consent’), who passed away a few days ago.

Did Yeltsin kill journalists too?

More journalists in Russia were murdered under corrupt US puppet Boris Yeltsin than under Putin. 

Did he get blamed for them as Putin does? No. Because he was a compliant stooge who let the US/corporations plunder Russia for all it was worth.

All non-compliant world leaders/governments are demonised, (via corporate media propaganda), to manufacture consent for sanctions and war.

What happened to Al Jazeera is now happening to RT

During the Iraq War, the US/UK tried to silence Al Jazeera, for telling the other side of the story re the invasion, (even bombing their offices/transmitters in Baghdad. And they did the same during the Afghanistan invasion, bombing AJ offices in Kabul). 

Similarly, they are now trying to silence/discredit RT and Sputnik, for telling the other side of the story re the Syrian war, the Ukrainian war, Kremlin meddling... i.e. for debunking Pentagon propaganda.

Iran on notice?

Yemen is being destroyed by Saudi and the US, (with U.K. bombs), yet one retaliatory rocket, from the allegedly ‘Iranian backed’ Houthis, gets an almost top news slot on BBC.

Also today, the pro Saudi Lebanese PM resigned, in so doing condemning Iran for ‘sowing fear and destruction’.

Are the CIA/Neocons and Saudi, with the compliant mainstream media, trying to manufacture the threat of ‘Shia terrorism’ from Iran, to create a pretext for invading Iran?

I’m pretty sure Iran, like most of us, just want the western imperialists to get the fuck out of the Middle East.

Don’t Let Them Silence Us

I hope everyone realises by now how laughably absurd it is to blame Russia for the disillusionment throughout much of the western world in the imperial, neoliberal system. And how laughably absurd it is for global terrorists the US of A to be harping on about a few Facebook ads or whatever, (that we don’t even know were Kremlin sponsored).

How many people have been killed by US-led meddling, (drone bombs, covert arming of terrorists, assisting Saudi in Yemen, etc), whilst Russiagate has dominated the headlines? For how long will we allow ourselves to be distracted? 

I imagine most of the world is laughing at this monstrous hypocrisy.

If you care about democracy and freedom of speech, ignore this nonsense, and instead start speaking up about censorship - government collusion with big tech to subjugate anti-US imperialism/anti-neoliberal news sources. Do you want to think for yourself or be told what to think?

We can only gain control of the narrative; from the corporate powers that manipulate/control the media and politicians, if ordinary people speak up on mass. Don’t let them silence us. 

We need a peaceful revolution!

Eminem's Anti-Trump Rap

It is not in any way courageous for celebrities to join the herd in speaking out against Trump. It raises their profile and makes them $. And just focussing on Trump, as though the current turmoil started with this one idiot, is not helpful at all. In fact I reckon it has the opposite of it's desired effect, as there will be more Trumps in the future if we keep avoiding critiquing the root causes of his popularity. By defending Obama, war monger McCain, etc, Eminem is encouraging this avoidance. 

Speaking out about these root causes; against Obama/Clinton/neoliberalism/militarism/imperialism etc - THIS requires courage.

Here's a great rap response to Eminem

Bernie Sanders, false prophet?

So much good in this speech, but so much bad as well.

I fear Bernie's absolute faith in unproven Kremlin meddling just shows how easily manipulated he would be by the Security State/Neocons/corporate media, as President. And why does he keep banging on about Putin? Being non-interventionist means not insulting other countries leaders.

He condemns Russia and Iran for helping Syria slaughter people - they are fighting ISIS/al Qaeda, the death cults created by US wars. How dare they!

He calls the Iraq war a 'blunder'. It wasn't a 'blunder'. It was planned, pre 9/11. And they achieved their goal, to topple Saddam. 

He doesn't once condemn the CIA or Neocons by name, (though he does condemn US meddling in Iran, Chile etc). 

No mention of continued US war games on North Korea's borders.

And too much praise of Churchill. He killed millions of Indians!

I think Bernie could be truly dangerous. He says he wants to stop the wars and reverse militarism, but he has previously voted for them (Yugoslavia). So why would I trust his word now? Obama said similar, before bombing seven countries and arming al Qaeda affiliates. But he charmed his way out of any real scrutiny. Anti-war protest non-existent. Might it be the same with Bernie?

Five Days in Russia - Diary

August 2017


Touch down in Moscow!

It didn't take long to experience the non-political correctness, for which I have heard Russians are famous. As we awaited our exit from the plane, having touched down at gloomy Moscow airport, one of the two female BA pilots emerged from the cockpit; the cheery Russian man next to us was visibly surprised, saying (not quietly), 'you women get everywhere these days!'. The pilot smiled back politely.

...................................................................................................................................................................


We are now sitting aboard the express train into Moscow. Getting through arrivals was very swift; immigration officers no more unfriendly than in most other countries I've visited, (nowhere is as bad as America in my experience!).

...................................................................................................................................................................



Having arrived at Mockba train station, we made our way underground and caught our first glimpse of the impressive Moscow Metro, built under Stalin's rule. The stations are vast and ornate; lots of marble and chandeliers. Eventually we found the line we needed to get to our hotel - signage was all in Russian, so it was a little tricky! (Thankfully, on board train announcements are in English as well as Russian).

We reached our destination station, Komsomolskaya, and walked to our hotel, the Hilton Leningrad.

...................................................................................................................................................................



Unfortunately both myself and my other half ended have up with man-flu, just in time for this trip, (we went to Ibiza last weekend which may have something to do with it). So we crashed out early on Friday night, hoping to recharge enough for some serious sightseeing.

...................................................................................................................................................................



After a heavy sleep, we headed into Moscow centre at about midday, quickly finding our feet on the metro. We got to Tretyakovskaya station, and walked towards The State Gallery. However, we decided that neither of us were really in the mood for art; we needed to make the most of our energy, and the decent weather. We made our way over to Moskva River from where we caught first sight of the landmark St Basils Cathedral, and the walls of Red Square.

Red Square was preparing for a military tattoo, a competition of parades between militaries of many countries. It was good to see that many NATO countries were happily competing in Russia, given that they are currently building up on Russia's western borders, in response to so-called 'Russian aggression' - the annexation of Crimea. (See here for an alternative to the western mainstream media narrative re these events, written by I.F. Stone Winner, Robert Parry).

Also in the famous square, there was another temporary arena which, as we passed, was host to several horse backed riders, some with Russian flags, some with Chilean flags. And some dancers too. I don't really know what it was all about, but the control that the riders had over their horses was impressive! And it was quite a spectacle with the State Historical Museum, and GUM department store, as a backdrop.

We had a quick look inside the GUM department store, a beautiful building inside and out, with many high-end shops.

Back onto the square, we wondered passed another stage with a youth band performing enthusiastically.

We had planned to visit the Kremlin museum, but there was a long queue, and we were conscious of our waning stamina, so we headed away from the historical centre, via stunning streets of classical architecture, towards Patriarch Ponds.

As we approached, we quickly realised that we had reached a very cosmopolitan area of the city, with trendy restaurants, numerous expensive cars, and glamorous people, (and a 'Chanel Cafe'!).

Whilst walking around the pond itself, we passed two guys walking a small dog. I can't know for sure, but I'd bet that they were a couple. As is widely known, Russia is not a particularly LGBT friendly country. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian general populace sought religion (Orthodox Christianity) as a replacement belief system. The Orthodox Church are vehemently homophobic. Furthermore, homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1994, having been illegal under the Soviet Union.

In 2013, the infamous 'gay propaganda law' was passed in the Russian Duma, which makes it illegal for anyone to suggest to children that 'non traditional relationships' are equitable to 'natural' opposite sex relationships. This has, I have read, emboldened the already gay fearing Russian populace.

Whilst my solidarity is very much with LGBTs in Russia, I think it is important to understand that Russia, as a modem state, is very young, and I strongly believe that societal change must come from within. (Read this for some opinions of young gay Russians).

On a positive note, a bill was put forward in the Duma last year by two members of the Communist Party, which would ban all public displays of affection between two men; this bill has not (yet) passed, and I can find no evidence that suggests it will.

So anyway... it was good to see this couple happily strolling in the park. As a same sex couple ourselves, we were of course slightly apprehensive about coming to Russia. Not just because of the anti-gay stuff, but also, I believe we in the west have been brainwashed to extent, to fear 'the Russians'. The country is always presented in a negative light in western media, and in films, (how often is the 'baddie' a Russian?). With the Cold War ending relatively recently, I guess it is only natural, but with tensions between the US and Russia again rising, based on contestable evidence of 'Russian meddling' in the US election, and the previously mentioned events in Crimea, it would seem that anti-Russian sentiment is going nowhere. If you need proof of how manipulated people are by the media, just mention to someone that you're off to Russia on holiday - you will most likely get a look of mild horror. (We even had this from the Check-In lady at Heathrow!).

After several hours of taking in the sights and exploring the impressive streets, we headed back to the hotel to recoup. I had planned on a wild night out, seeing what Moscow has to offer in terms of gay nightlife, but annoyingly we were both still feeling pretty awful. So we just headed to one club - Ice Club. We couldn't face the metro so we got a taxi back into town. It dropped us off in clearly quite a fashionable area, and we eventually found the club hidden in a car park just behind a fairly busy street of bars. It was 23.45 when we got there, and having paid the 250 Rouble entry fee (£2.50) to the friendly bouncer, we realised that we had come too early; the club was completely dead. Literally no one there but us. Having grabbed a couple of vodka cokes we sat and waited. It wasn't until about 1am that people started arriving. By 1.30, the small dance floor was packed. The music thumped, the diverse crowd gyrated, shots were downed; it was no different to being in a small club in the UK, (but with more smoking!). We left at 2am, having forced ourselves, despite our sickness, to sit for two and a half hours in a stuffy basement club with head ache inducing music. Perhaps it was a bit stupid of us, but I was eager to see that gay nightlife does indeed exist in Moscow.

There are other, bigger, gay clubs elsewhere in the city - Central Station I think is the most popular. Hopefully we'll get there next time!

...................................................................................................................................................................


Understandably, we didn't rise the next day until midday. My planned itinerary for our second day was to visit the out-of-town Izmailovsky Market, followed by the Gulag museum. Having lost much of the day, and in need of some decent food, we decided to skip the former, and headed back to Patriarch Ponds to grab something to eat. Thankfully many restaurant menus are written in both Russian and English. We found a very nice looking place, Saxon + Parole, that was doing all day breakfast. I had a berry tea and a really tasty eggs-benedict-like dish - poached eggs and salmon, on fish cakes (I think).

After brunch, we gradually made our way north east, in the general direction of the Gulag museum. Looking at my map I noticed we were walking near to Moscow Hermitage Garden, so we made a slight detour. There was a locals food/craft market being held here, complete with a temporary stage and an opera singer, so we had stroll around and got a feel for Russian family life in Moscow. It didn't feel dissimilar to being at an English village fair.
 

I had decided that I wanted to visit the Gulag Museum having had an argument on Twitter with an American who seemed convinced that Russians still longed for the days of the Soviet Empire, and were in denial about the atrocities of Stalin's rule. I'm sure there is truth in it, just as many in the UK look back at the murderous British Empire with high regard. But if this museum, endorsed by their President, is anything to go by, it seems to me that Russians are more than capable of accepting their country's dark past. All of the harrowing details regarding Stalin's Gulags are presented, including via video interviews with former detainees. Definitely worth a visit!

...................................................................................................................................................................


For our last evening in Moscow, we went to a restaurant called Propaganda. It transforms into a club at 23.30 every night, and has regular gay nights. The crowd was quite young (I felt old!), the food was decent, and the waiter's very smiley and welcoming. My gaydar isn't amazing but there was definitely all sexual orientations present! (We noticed one pair who had been at Ice Club). In the microcosm of this restaurant at least, it felt no different to being in the liberal cities of the west.

...................................................................................................................................................................


St Petersburg


We took a 1.5 hour flight from Moscow up to St Petersburg, boarding the plane behind a lady carrying a hairless cat (random). The temperature difference was instantly notable, but at least we had left the rain behind. Thankfully it had remained dry in Moscow for the two full days we were there, but it was chucking it down on our final morning.

On the taxi ride into the city it became apparent that we were entering one of the most beautiful cities I have ever been to. Street after street of majesty and palpable history.

As a surprise (it's my birthday next week), Mark had booked us into the Four Seasons - he travels a lot with work and had earned enough points for a two night stay. As you'd expect, it is a stunning hotel!!


As we only have two nights here, we wanted to get sightseeing straight away. I decided that a good
way for us to get a good overview of the city, and get our bearings, would be to jump on a boat tour. We chose Anglo Tours, and set off at 17.00 for a one and a half hour cruise. We motored along the canals, under extremely low bridges, passing many of the most famous sights of the city; too many Palaces and colourful churches to mention. The English speaking guide was great, and I would definitely recommend taking one of these tours; particularly good for photography.

The tour finished at 18.30 and we had just enough time to grab some dinner before an evening at the ballet. It felt rude to come to Russia and not see either some ballet or Opera. Unfortunately the most famous theatres seem to be out of action in August, but I eventually found that the Alexandrinksy Theatre was not, so we booked seats for Swan Lake. We splashed out and went for the front row - about £70 a seat.

The theatre itself is impressive, quite intimate but very grand at the same time. And I'm no expert, but the ballet seemed top notch to me, with stunning sets, staging and music. The audience was a mix of Americans/Europeans, offloaded from nearby cruise ships, and Russians. Some in the audience were smartly dressed, but many were very casual. You definitely don't need to worry about wearing black tie/gown!

On our walk from the theatre back to the hotel, it struck me how lively the city still was, late night on a Monday. The numerous bands busking on street corners, mostly playing western music, which we had passed earlier in the day, were still playing. And we even passed a Russian 'rap battle'!

...................................................................................................................................................................


For our one full day in St Petersburg, we decided to very loosely follow this Frommers recommended itinerary. Highlights include climbing the spiral staircase to the top of St Isaacs Cathedral, a great vista for panoramic views of the city. (High chance you will pass several wedding parties/couples around the cathedral).


We decided to go to the renowned Hermitage museum late on in the day - you could easily spend most of the day here, but as we only had a short stay in the city, and as the weather was decent, we preferred to take in the city sights as much as possible.

Prepare for the spectacular main staircase inside the Hermitage, with excessive gold, ornate carvings and ceiling art. It's quite mesmerising. This lavish theme continues throughout the vast museum.


In the evening, we ate at a Georgian restaurant - 'Cha Cha', located by one of the canals, between the Kazan Cathedral, and the Cathedral of the Saviour of Spilled Blood. It was just about warm enough to sit outside, so we did so, surrounded by interesting architecture, as people of all stripes passed by - great people watching spot.

After dinner we strolled along to the 'Spilled Blood' cathedral, a building similar in style to St Basils in Moscow. It looked great lit up in the night sky. We then walked a couple of streets parallel to a Jazz bar, '48 Chairs', which had been recommended. I imagine this place is lively at weekends, but this was a Tuesday night, and there were only a handful of people there. Still, the atmosphere was pleasant, and the pianist was incredible.


Unfortunately our last night ended on a sour note. After having stopped for 30 seconds to listen to a street band performing a Russian (I think) rock song, on our way back to the hotel from 48 Chairs, I got robbed. I stupidly had my DSLR hanging over my shoulder, and on the corner of a busy street, just by where this band were playing, four guys encircled me and I felt the lens of my camera un-click. I was slightly tipsy, and by the time I'd realised what had happened, two of the guys had wondered off, whilst the other two stayed nearby distracting me, one of them pulling an orange out of his backpack, to show that this was all he had on him. (I didn't hear the other two talk, but these two did not sound Russian).

I got complacent. I have genuinely felt very safe both in Moscow, and especially in St Petersburg, but like any other city, they have crime. I really should not have been walking around at 23.30 with a very expensive camera hanging over my shoulder!!! I would never do this in London.

DO NOT LET THIS PUT YOU OFF VISITING RUSSIA. If you do, you should basically never visit London. Or New York. Or Paris. Etc. Just be streetwise, unlike moi. Crime rates in St Petersburg are actually quite low.

(We got our hotel reception to call the Police and report the crime, as we needed a police statement for our insurance. A police officer came to the hotel the following morning.)

...................................................................................................................................................................


The following morning, having met with the policeman, we went for some breakfast at a nearby cafe, and then for the last couple of hours before our flight home we decided to first return to the 'Spilled Blood' Cathedral, to see it in the daylight. From here we walked through the Mikhailovsky Gardens, and then over a canal, passing more amazing buildings, to the 'Summer Garden'. The weather on our final morning in Russia was clear and bright, and the sunlight filtering through the tall trees of green in this park made for a peaceful oasis.

...................................................................................................................................................................


I arrived in Russia with some nerves. As said earlier, I feel I had been manipulated to an extent to make certain pre-judgements about Russia and her people. But we have found our experience to be welcoming and friendly. Which I actually find quite surprising - given that Russia is constantly maligned by western countries, and media, you would think they would hate us, ecpecially given all the US-led, UN imposed, sanctions. I'm sure some do.

The irony is that Russia, it seemed to be, is overtly 'westernised'. I think I have heard more UK/US pop music in Russia than I have heard in many European cities. And just in case anyone somehow still thinks Russia is communist (I have argued on Twitter with some who do!), it most definitely is not. High-end shopping and fast food chains are commonplace.

In terms of Russian attitudes to LGBTs, you will probably have problems if you are into PDAs, but as we are not, we have felt no different to being in any European city. And I think PDAs by LGBT people, even in parts of London, will bring trouble.

Media's Moral Compass

Corporate media is angry at Trump for revealing a 'classified' CIA program on Twitter; this program had actually been public knowledge for ages. And what was this program? - to arm a jihadist led opposition in Syria. 

The media is attacking Trump for tweeting something that wasn't even a secret, rather than attacking the actual program itself, and complimenting him for ending it. THE CIA HAVE BEEN ARMING JIHADISTS SINCE AT LEAST 2012. THEY BASICALLY CREATED ISIS. SURELY THIS SHOULD BE THE STORY!!! 

Just in case we needed any more proof as to the shocking moral compass of the mass media. 

It also demonstrates how the media picks a narrative and sticks with it at all costs. NOTHING GOOD MUST BE SAID ABOUT TRUMP. EVER. DO NOT WANT TO BE LABELLED AS TRUMP APOLOGIST. All objectivity out the window.

Defending RT (Russia Today)

The Iraqi Vice President recently criticised America for taking the credit regarding the liberation of Mosul from Daesh. In doing so, he blamed America for the creation of Daesh in the first place, and said that the Iraqi government will not allow America to build a permanent military base in Iraq, (to add to their 800+ bases around the world).

How do I know this? I read it on RT (Russia Today); the international TV news network funded by the Russian government. I did not read this on the BBC, the Guardian etc. It was omitted in western mainstream media. You would think, given that our governments have consistently meddled in Iraq for decades, resulting in literally millions of deaths, that our media should report something like this, and hold our governments accountable for the Vice President's accusations, or at least look into it. But no; we (the west) invaded their country based on a lie, armed jihadist insurgents in Syria (which the Pentagon knew would likely create an Islamist principality - Daesh), and now we ignore them. Is the truth simply too uncomfortable to bear?

(I could list many other examples of news stories reported by RT that have been omitted/skewed in western media).

I started watching/reading RT earlier this year, having begun questioning the narrative purported by western media regarding the conflict in Syria. At first, I was very wary. I had been led to believe that RT was simply pro-Russian propaganda; and I'd been fed a constant stream of anti-Russian sentiment throughout my life; it is always depicted as some kind of uniquely horrible country; a 'rogue state'. In films, the villain is often a Russian. With the Cold War ending only 30 years ago, I guess this is all natural to an extent.

So I assumed that RT would be a particularly untrustworthy news source, with journalists controlled somehow, by the allegedly oppressive leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Having spent some time watching RT America, my eyes were opened. I was surprised to see that Larry King, and Ed Schultz (formerly of MSNBC), were on the network. I quickly became hooked on 'Redacted Tonight', a left-wing satirical news show presented by the often hilarious Lee Camp. I enjoy 'On Contact', presented by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winner formerly of the New York Times, (he was pushed out having refused to go along with the NYT's generally pro-Iraq war stance). Also Crosstalk, with Peter Levelle, offers great debates on world affairs, and Going Underground, with Afshin Attansi, includes a diverse variety of interviewees, from Nigel Farage to John Pilger to many sitting MPs, to the winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race.

Having noticed the highly partisan coverage of Aleppo's liberation (or 'fall') in western media last December, I embarked on a mission to find some kind of truth regarding the situation in Syria; talking to Syrians online, and reading the work of independent journalists who had actually been to the war torn country. RT's coverage seemed in line with my conclusion that the war was largely caused by outside intervention from numerous countries with vested and long-standing interests in toppling the Syrian government; and that they did this by funding and arming an array of jihadist insurgent groups, putting an end to any genuine revolution, (if such a thing was ever really on the cards). RT offered facts and perspectives entirely omitted in my usual sources of news (Channel 4 News, BBC, and the Guardian, mainly).

Unlike the corporate media, RT is not beholden to advertisers or commercial success, as it is mainly funded by the Kremlin. So it's presenters can say whatever they like about western policy, without fear of losing advertisers or viewers. (NB the presenters are very open about where their funding comes from). Would I rely on RT as my sole source of news, and to offer the truth regarding Russia's affairs? No. But do I trust them at least as much as corporate media, much of which is proven to propagate war, collude with politicians, and is owned by just a handful of media moguls/corporations? Yes. Do I think it is essential to follow news from media networks outside of 'the west'? Absolutely. For anyone who considers themselves a 'globalist' to not do this, seems incredibly arrogant.

Having concluded that it isn't a uniquely propaganda-ridden news network, I have become extremely alarmed by the recent demonisation of RT, (and indeed, of Russia), by the corporate media and western governments.

Another area in which they have offered more balanced and nuanced coverage is the alleged 'Russian hacking' of the US election. In what I have seen, RT have simply reported the facts; there is no hard evidence that the Kremlin was responsible for the hack/leak of the DNC emails, or that they 'colluded' with Trump's campaign in some nefarious way to win him the election. Even the NSA is only 'moderately confident' that Russia was behind the hack/leak, and this was based on intelligence from an agency that has subsequently been discredited - Crowdstrike, (and that was paid for by the Clinton campaign).

This is in contrast to the hysterical corporate media, which seemingly has become lost in conspiratorial assumptions and neo-McCarthyism, in their desperation to impeach Trump. Anyone who disbelieves or questions their narrative is now labelled a 'Putin agent', or pro-Trump. In such an atmosphere, all media is disinclined to report the facts/remain partisan, in fear of being labelled as such, and losing viewers/readers/advertisers.

Here is just one example of where RT (and other alt-media) have been ahead of the game -

Until recently, CNN, the New York Times, etc, have been reporting that '19 intelligence agencies' agreed that Russia was responsible for the hack/leak. This was a lie, which they have since acknowledged. It was 3, and none of the agencies offered  irrefutable conclusions. The intel officials who wrote the reports were also hand-picked by the Democrats, who had just suffered a highly embarrassing election defeat, and so the reports were very possibly politicised; seen as a way of distracting from their loss, and simultaneously smearing the new President as a 'Putin puppet'. Leaked emails show that they had already used this tactic during the campaign. We know that this kind of collusion between politicians and elements of the intelligence community happens - just think back to the WMD dossier pre the Iraq war.

If you'd been reading RT, or many other alt-media outlets, you'd have known about the myth of '19 intelligence agencies' long ago. (It may have been reported in corporate media too, but not prominently).

Corporate media seem to choose a narrative and run with it; going with whatever attracts viewers/readers. Just look at how popular Rachel Maddow has been on MSNBC. Her rants about every possible bit of circumstantial evidence that could possibly prove some kind of nefarious Kremlin involvement in the Trump campaign have been ratings gold for the network. RT on the other hand, does not have the same need for commercial success, though of course, all media, including RT, is susceptible to falling foul of 'groupthink'.

I am worried about where we are headed. RT has been attacked consistently both by the corporate media, and by the western governments that the corporate media appear to serve. The US intelligence report regarding Russia's alleged hack included several pages of criticism of RT. It alleges that RT ran a disinformation campaign during the run-up to the 2016 election in order to help Trump, simply because they dared to discuss the content of the hacked/leaked DNC emails; because they dared to interview third party candidates; because they dared to discuss everything and anything without fear of being slammed as 'conspiracy theorists' or 'pro Trump'; because they dared to criticise western foreign policy/NATO, and the brutal wars that have destroyed an entire region of the planet and caused a humanitarian refugee crisis.

Isn't this what we want? A media where nothing is unsayable; where criticism and questioning of our government's actions is a priority; where there is no 'political correctness'? Isn't free speech and a free media paramount to a free society?

Shouldn't it be down to individual judgement as to what is propaganda and what isn't? We have the internet at our fingertips. We can all do our own research and find the truth; decide for ourselves which media outlets and journalists are trust-worthy. Are we really going to rely on politicians, who are proven to misinform, and lead us into disastrous wars, to start cherry picking news for us?

It would appear that media liberty is not what some elites in the west desire. The new President of France, Macron, has condemned RT, even shutting them out of a news conference during his election campaign. He is now at the forefront of pushing for internet censorship in order to crack down on what he calls propaganda. Is this where we're headed? Towards a society where any media that reports facts and perspectives disliked by western governments is censored? And there was me thinking Miss Le Pen was the fascist candidate in the French election.

We are in turbulent times, what with the unexpected election of Trump, the Brexit result, the increased popularity of non-centrist parties in Europe. It is quite evident that Russia has been scapegoated as a way of explaining away all of this turmoil. They have been accused of running both disinformation campaigns, and of serial hacking, in order to unsettle the western world. In France for example, they were accused of meddling in the election to help Le Pen. It was barely reported however, that the French Intel chief has since said that there is no evidence of this. Similarly, as explained, when you really investigate their alleged hacking in the US, it becomes clear that the evidence is not very strong at all.

In reality, what seems clear to me, is that RT simply reports news that upsets western establishments; opening the eyes of many westerners to what it is that our governments have been up to in the Middle East, for example. They are reporting facts and perspectives omitted in western media, and anyone who truly wants a free society, should welcome this. 

Is this Putin’s masterplan, to bring down US hegemony? Or does the Kremlin simply want to project the Russian perspective internationally (and combat anti-Russian bias)? The UK government, via BBC World Service, seeks to ‘promote our values and interests around the world’ - one rule for us and another for Russia?

A recent Pentagon report reveals that the US establishment fears the continued decline of US Hegemony; their strategy for reversing this is more military dominance, more surveillance, and more propaganda. So we know that propaganda techniques are being utilised by the west. No doubt, Russia are as well. In my view, we should remain aware of both; we should question everything. Watch RT with the knowledge that it is funded by the Kremlin. Watch corporate media with the knowledge that they are, by their very nature, compromised; and proven to propagate war. We need to use our own brains and not rely on governments, or certain media outlets, to decide official truths.

Stop Being Distracted by Russiagate

So Trump Jn met with a Russian lawyer during the election campaign; the meeting being set up by a British publicist, Rob Goldstone, with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Has anyone got any strong evidence that Goldstone had authority to speak on behalf of the Russian government? He said, in an email to Trump Jn, that 'the Russian government' supports Trump, (I mean, obviously they did - like most sane people, they were quite keen to avoid Hillary's no-fly-zone in Syria, aka possible WW3. Plus Trump was the first Presidential candidate to talk about Russia with some respect, for some time). 

Goldstone managed a Russian singer, the son of a Russian billionaire; in the eyes of the obsessively hysterical/Russophobic mainstream media, this is all the evidence they need. He's a music publicist; isn't it possible that he is simply an opportunist? Or, if there is something nefarious going on, isn't it more likely to be some deal between Trump and this billionaire, rather than with Putin? 

Trump Jn tried to get dirt on Hillary from a Russian - this is fact, and great news for those high on this hysteria. But isn't it only illegal if money is exchanged? And if 'dirt' is actually exchanged? It would seem this Russian lawyer offered nothing incriminating, and instead wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. And as mentioned, where is the evidence that this is 'collusion with the Kremlin' and not just collusion with a foreigner? There is little evidence that either Goldstone or the lawyer have any authority to speak on behalf of the Russian government.
 

Also, didn't Hillary do worse? Her campaign paid a British spy to find dirt on Trump, via Russian contacts. 

Is this yet another 'nothing-burger', pushed by many supposedly respectable media outlets, specifically the New York Times? 

When will this particular psy-op end? Only when Trump is impeached? Who cares if it is largely based on nonsense, and increases tensions with a nuclear power? Who cares if it is distracting from all the horrible policies that Trump is implementing? Who cares if it encourages Trump to bomb stuff in order to prove he isn't a 'Putin puppet', and to gain some positive media coverage? (The media love a good bomb, as evidenced by the reaction to his bombing of Syria). Who cares if it distracts from much needed focus on reforming the disastrous Democrat party? 

This reform of the Democrats will only come about if lefties put their energy into it, rather than the Russiagate hysteria which, seemingly, will go on indefinitely. The Democratic establishment do not want reform; they want to remain as war-mongering neoliberals; so they will keep pushing Russiagate, making good use of their pals in the corporate media, who also are keen to keep the neoliberal status quo.

Trump is being attacked for things that 'establishment' politicians are as guilty/guiltier of - Hillary hiring the spy to 'collude' with Russians, for example.

The UK's left-wing leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, also is being attacked for things for which the Tories/Blairites are guiltier of - for eg, 'supporting terrorists', (the Tories have been supporting jihadists in the Middle East and harboured them in the UK pre the destruction of Libya).

The 'establishment', including the mainstream media, is the bigger enemy here; even bigger than Trump. They will do their utmost to prevent change by smearing anyone who holds views which stray significantly from the status quo. They fear socialism; is this Russia-Trump hysteria largely an effort to distract from the reasons behind Hillary's loss - the failure of neoliberalism? 

Trump deserves to be scrutinised by the media for a variety of reasons, but in my view, his desire for better relations with Putin, is a positive for the planet. Could there be some corruption involved? Possible, but shouldn't we wait until actual clear evidence emerges for this, and focus our energy elsewhere in the meantime?


Chomsky's' 'Manufacturing of Consent' is in overdrive right now

https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M

Manchester Attack: Chickens Home To Roost?

Theresa May and her ilk arm people like this Manchester bomber in foreign lands, to achieve imperial aims; people who decapitate children and carry out attacks like this on a daily basis. Our governments do this with little thought about the incredibly complex nature of the Middle East - just topple a perceived dictator using barbaric jihadists and all will be well! Truth is, they don't care. They just want the oil and the power; plus perpetual war is a huge money making business. 

Meanwhile, we allow people from our country to go and fight for these jihadist groups. We can't possibly start arresting them, because the public would then become wise to the nature of these militant groups and our monstrous 'foreign policy', and it would be politically incorrect. So we'll just let them back in no bother. 

Yes, we all need to stick together at times like these, and not give in to the scaremongering of the Right, who want to blame an entire religion. But we also need to react angrily; not towards each other, but towards our governments, who via all their wars and their geopolitical alliances, are fuelling this violence both abroad and at home. 

We also need to acknowledge that we now have a problem with radicalism in this country, that is being allowed to fester and expand, partly as a result of Saudi Arabia's exporting of Wahhabism throughout Europe, and the world; of our continuous bombings of Muslims; of the fear of being politically incorrect; and of neoliberal policies destroying communities. It's a perfect storm of chaos. 

The Right needs to understand that it is only a hateful sect of 'Islam' that is the problem. The Left needs to acknowledge that it exists, or else the Right will become increasingly infuriated and racist. And we both need to direct our anger at our 'establishment' and foreign policy. 

If our governments really wanted to tackle this problem, they would challenge Saudi Arabia's funding of ultra conservative/hateful Mosques around the world; and their direct support of ISIS/al Qaeda. But no, instead we sell them tonnes of weapons! What is the point in evermore surveillance and security, if none of this is addressed? Could it be that 'they' want this? - keep the public under threat, under surveillance and carefully controlled. Isn't this what rulers have done throughout history? Is it naive of us to think that we live in this enlightened time of freedom and transparency where there is nothing sinister going on? 

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense to me, and these are my thoughts.

Islamist Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis

It's difficult, perhaps impossible, to acknowledge the problem of islamist extremism/terrorism, without encouraging Islamaphobia against the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and refugees. But it IS a problem, and to tackle it, shouldn't our governments be targeting the root causes of it? 

The extreme islamist ideology, Wahabism, originates in Saudi Arabia (and Qatar). They export it, by funding/arming Jihadist groups (including Al Qaeda and ISIS), and by building and funding Wahabi Mosques around the world (including many in Europe). Note that most 9/11 attackers were from Saudi.

Another major root cause has been military interventionism in the Middle East by NATO countries, along with our Gulf allies (Saudi, Turkey, etc). Undoubtedly, this has destabilised the region, and caused mass suffering - during the first Gulf war, not only did many die during the conflict, but following it, over 500,000 children died as a result of cruel US sanctions. Some have estimated that 4 million Muslims in total have died since 1990 as a result of western intervention. These are crazy, unthinkable, Holocaust-esque figures. 

Is it any wonder that this encouraged a deep hatred of the west from these Wahabi fundamentalists, and enabled them to easily recruit more fighters/followers? The resulting power vacuums from these interventions has allowed them to rise up and create their barbaric, west hating, 'Islamic' Caliphate. 

Many in the west still genuinely believe that all these interventions have been for 'humanitarian' reasons, despite significant evidence that this is not the case. We were lied to about WMDs in Iraq. We were lied to about Gadafi's intentions in Benghazi, Libya. We were lied to about chemical weapons usage in Syria, (there is plenty of evidence that the 'rebels' had such weapons too, possibly supplied by Saudi). 

Look up neoconservatism, and watch this video, filmed in 2007. All countries mentioned in this video have now been bombed by the US, (except for Iran...). Many argue that the destabilisation of the Middle East has been the plan of the US all along - in order to help protect Israel, open up markets, and access oil. Is there truth in this? Given all the interventions based on lies, it does seem likely that there were ulterior motives.

Under Obama, NATO created a failed state in Libya, previously the most successful country in Africa in terms of GDP. Wikileaks have revealed that the bombings had little to do with humanitarianism. I'm still researching Gadafi, but I think it likely that he was somewhat misrepresented by our media. (A former well respected German journalist, Dr Udo Ulfkoffe, has revealed that he was paid by intelligence services to write fabrictaed, inflammatory articles about Gadafi in the lead up to NATO's bombing of Libya). Gadafi certainly did a lot of 'good' for Libyans, providing free healthcare and education. Of course, he was authoritarian, and he did some 'bad' as well, but the west CLEARLY cannot take any moral high ground on doing 'bad' - 500,000 child deaths? And, as evidenced now, perhaps a degree of authoritarianism is, sadly, needed in the region, to quell the rise of islamism?

In Syria, the US are still arming so-called 'rebels', despite it being widely acknowledged, (outside of the mainstream media), for several years now that they are mostly Jihadists, and that there is barely any genuine pro-democracy/pro-human rights revolution movement. A genuine revolution requires significantly more of an uprising than what has been seen - it's an important fact that the (predominantly Sunni) Syrian army has largely remained loyal to the government, despite huge losses; and President Assad still has huge support. Saudi backed militants (amongst others) hijacked the peaceful protests from the outset, but this is rarely explained in the media; there are many other factors in this war that have been continuously ignored by most of western mainstream media.

Tulsi Gabbard, a US congresswoman, is currently trying to get a Bill through congress to 'Stop Arming Terrorists' in Syria. If the fact that congress require a Bill to 'stop the US arming TERRORISTS' doesn't make us all question US intentions in the Middle East, then nothing will. (Of course, the media are currently, and shamefully, doing their utmost to discredit Tulsi. Her Bill goes completely against their narrative).

Neoconservatism is basically USA/Western imperialism; we seem to think that we have authority on the best system for running a country, with our corporation influenced 'democracies', our huge inequality, our child poverty, our horrid treatment of 'whistleblowers' (aka 'traitors'), our homelessness, our institutional racism (how many unarmed black men were shot dead in the US last year?), our Guantamino Bay, our drone bombing of civilians, our expensive education and healthcare (US), our erosion of freedoms (internet surveillance), our corruption, our housing crisis, our loyalty to barbaric Saudi, our 'boom and bust' economies, etc.

It may be true that, overall, we have it best, but we certainly have no right to interfere in sovereign nations and inflict upon them our extremely imperfect neoliberal ideology. Genuine revolutions should be undertaken by those who dwell in the given country, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab Spring.

Western destabilisation of the Middle East, and Saudi (et al) funded extremism terrorising the region, have directly led to the current refugee crisis. In order to help solve this crisis, we must tackle both these causes. We 'liberals' and 'lefties' have been focussed on welcoming refugees, and that's great, but it's both a short term solution, and is encouraging a reactionary rise of nationalism throughout the west, (Trump, UKIP, Le Pen).

One reason for the popularity of Trump (et al) is that he calls islamic extremism/terrorism what it is, unlike Obama, who never mentioned it, fearing he'd fuel Islamaphobia. We have had numerous islamist terrorist attacks, (and other crimes), in Europe recently, some carried out by so-called refugees, and most inspired by ISIS. Is it really that unreasonable for this to have scared people? Personally, I am totally against making a group of people suffer based on the actions of a minority; I am totally pro welcoming refugees into our country, particularly because they are largely coming from countries that have been destabilised, in part, by the actions of my government; but if there is any truth in what this former Syrian refugee is saying, is it not understandable for some of our citizens to be weary? Nationalism is generally considered a dirty word, but a desire to protect your homeland from any potential threat is only natural. 

It would all be well and good for our leaders to stay quiet about it, (like Obama did), if they were actually tackling it at the root, but they haven't been, and this has led to immense frustration. Instead, our governments method for tackling islamist terrorism is to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the wider region (?!); and to implement ever more powerful 'spying' laws - they can now look at pretty much anything we do online. There are some who believe this is a big conspiracy - allow terrorists into the country and use this as an excuse to crack down on our civil liberties. I'm not sure about this at all; at most, I'd say it is a convenient by product. But it certainly is suspicious, or just downright idiotic, that our governments sell weapons to these terrorist supporting countries, and never seem to tackle the root causes of these problems.  

At the moment, everyone is focussed on Trump's actions now that he is President; the far bigger issue, and what we should be focussing on as well, is to try and understand what led to his popularity. There are various factors, but the refugee crisis and terror attacks in Europe are certainly significant. There has been scaremongering and exaggeration, yes - Trump did play hugely to peoples fears. And yes, the US have other, bigger threats (white supremacist terrorism, for example), but that doesn't mean that islamist terrorism isn't also a threat. Following the multiple attacks in Europe, it is very reasonable for US citizens to be fearful of the refugees. It may be discrimatory and illogical, but by implementing his 'Muslim Ban', (on 7 majority Muslim countries previously singled out by Obama's administration), Trump is ensuring that, having examined the vetting process himself, his administration will be accountable. 

Furthermore, we simply will not be able to convince all westerners to live happily alongside those who are of a very different culture whilst we have such poverty and lack of opportunities in our current neoliberal society; taking this into account, hostility towards 'outsiders' is understandable. Ultimately, the most effective way to lessen nationalism, in my opinion, is via decent education and opportunities for all. Without this, a cohesive, multicultural society is unrealistic, and will only lead to more Trumps and Farages. I'm also not sure we have the infrastructure for such mass migration; not without significant investment, which we won't be seeing in the current times of austerity. 

So, in my opinion, it is vital that we tackle the refugee crisis at the root. This means ensuring that, in four years time, the US doesn't end up with another neoconservative puppet like Obama, as president, who will continue meddling in foreign nations and causing mass displacement of people. We must focus on what is to come after Trump, by building a movement of genuine progressives who will put an end to military interventionism, focusing on diplomacy; we must acknowledge the threat of islamism whilst focussing on being extra friendly towards our Muslim neighbours, constantly addressing any Islamaphobia; and we must pressure our governments to do more to help those who have been left behind by decades of unfair globalisation, and neoliberalism. 

We must pressure our governments to stop their neoconservative regime-change interventions, and we must pressure them to limit any relations, business, and arms sales with Saudi Arabia. We must also pressure our governments to drop all sanctions - futile sanctions are currently harming Syrian citizens, which will only encourage more anger towards the west, and the creation of evermore extremists. The cycle will continue. Quite adversely, we should pressure our governments to send significant aid to these countries, so that one day, the refugees who wish to, can return home.

Fake News and Fascism

The current political trend in western countries has been described by the mainstream media, and the political establishment as a 'racist movement', a 'fascist movement', etc, (or at least, it has been implied). But just because racists support a movement, does not make it a 'racist movement'. What are these movements actually about?

What if all this is actually an anti-neoliberal, anti-globalist uprising? Has inequality become too great? Are people just fed up being treated like a 'commodity' by faceless corporations, paying them stagnant wages, primarily caring about profits for shareholders? Are people fed up with having to rely on zero-hour contracts to provide for their families? Are they fed up with a lack of good education and opportunities, for all? Are they fed up with government cuts taking any sense of community away from them? Are they fed up seeing our governments intervene militarily abroad at huge expense whilst doing nothing about rising homelessness and poverty back home? Are they fed up with having more and more, dare I say it, immigration, 'forced upon them'? In an ideal world, I would love everyone to embrace immigration and multiculturalism, but whilst so many are struggling to get by, it is unrealistic. (And being anti-mass migration is not racist). 

Yes, there ARE racists in these movements; racists have always existed and will always be attracted to any remotely nationalist movement. There is also a lot of 'xenophobia', but as I say, it should not be surprising, given the circumstances that a lot of people live under (low pay, few opportunities), that hostility towards 'outsiders' will fester. Thus, a degree of nationalism is understandable, and only a result of decades of poor government policy.

It makes perfect sense for the 'establishment' and for the media (aka corporations) to wish to smear these movements; they want to keep the status quo, for financial reasons, and to please their middle class, liberal readers. The people who support them are shunned, insulted, patronised, and generalised; everyone MUST be on board with the free-market, corporate, globalist agenda; anyone who isn't, is on the road to Nazism.

(Conservative tabloid media hasn't done this so much. Rather, it was the constant and sensationalised coverage of immigration, in newspapers like the Daily Mail, that encouraged the nationalist sentiment).

In my opinion, it is partly as a result of these movements that we now have this 'fake news' agenda, being pushed heavily by the political establishment and media. They're either being purposely deceitful, or they actually genuinely believe, that ONLY Trump and Brexit voters were looking at 'fake news'. There's simply no other explanation as to how these events could have come to pass; Brexit/Trump voters are all idiots and can't decipher real and fake. It's not like there was any 'fake news' from the EU Remain campaign is it? I'm pretty sure we're meant to be in a recession by now...

Interestingly, tabloids like the Daily Mail (and conservative news like FOX, in USA) are not pushing the 'fake news' agenda as much. I'm sure it's probably cynical, but it's interesting, given that the DM were/are one of the only newspapers on the side of the 'nationalists'; it supports my argument that this agenda is only being targeted at them. 

Personally, I'm yet to come across any actual 'fake news'. I think it's existence is being purposely exaggerated by the liberal media and politicians. If Remain had won the EU vote, and if Hillary had won the US election, would anyone be talking about 'fake news' right now? The liberal establishment lost and they need a scapegoat; Anything to avoid looking at the ACTUAL reason for this swing against them. If I were a Brexit voter (or a Trump voter), I'd be offended by the insinuation that 'we' are the only believers of 'fake news'.

All news is biased, to varying degrees, but little is 100% false. Yes, there are some sites that tell complete lies, but they have been around for a long time. There's nothing new here. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use critical thinking and to research everything they read, rather than censoring? And yes, a lot of news outlets are creative with the truth, but if we're going to start closing all of them down, we will also need to close down much of the mainstream media, who are often very 'creative'.

The hypocrisy of the mainstream press (and politicians) demanding an end to this so-called 'fake news' is laughable. As seen during the EU referendum campaign, the media propaganda and bias in the UK is immense. Also just look at the biased and excitable coverage of our disastrous, imperialistic, neoconservative 'regime change' wars in the Middle East, or the way Jeremy Corbyn (and Bernie Sanders) have been treated with such contempt, or the way the west's arms sales to Daesh supporting and Yemen bombing Saudi Arabia is barely reported, or the way the current NHS crisis is being ignored by some. THIS is 'fake news'. I've spent the last month trying to understand what's been going on in Syria, having seen through so much misinformation and biased reporting on the day of east Aleppo's liberation; I've had to rely almost entirely on independent news sources in order to find some kind of 'truth'.

The liberal establishment and media are threatened, and this 'fake news' agenda is an attempt to distract from the realities of these anti-establishment movements; to take back the readers being lost to these 'fringe' sites; and to regain the control that the internet is taking from them. Anybody who goes against the mainstream is a 'conspiracy theorist' and any news not reported by a 'reputable news organisation' will soon be labelled fake. Facebook are already hiding certain articles from timelines, and Youtube (Google) are now demonetising some videos that go against mainstream opinion. 

'Fact check' websites will be used more and more by these 'reputable news organisations', but these too will have a bias. Politifact, for example, is seen as having a left-wing/liberal bias. Plus Facebook's new 'fact check' system is funded by Democrat donors.

Will these 'fact checking' websites be checking the mainstream (liberal) media, or just independent news, and statements by politicians?

We now have a situation where much of the mainstream media, a lot of which is owned by just a few very wealthy men, (some of whom often collude with politicians), and most of which are politically aligned to neoliberalism, is trying to take back full authority on news publishing; AND we have the reality that western governments have gradually been bringing in tighter controls on civil liberties, (they can now monitor pretty much everything we do online), supposedly purely to prevent (western created) terrorism, but it will also conveniently allow them to more easily handle any possible 'nationalist' (anti-capitalism/neoliberalism) uprising.

If you're concerned about fascism, perhaps you should be focusing your concern elsewhere...

(Edit: ITV have reported that the government are now considering setting up a committee for looking into 'fake news'. This is turning into full-on government censorship).