Russia hacked! Russia colluded! Russia...trolled!

How much further can the goalposts be moved?

Personally, I think the ‘collusion’ theory is dead, and has been for ages, and this latest indictment undermines it even further - if there was ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and these 13 Russians, why were the Trump officials ‘unwitting’ during their interactions? (NB when I say that I think the collusion theory is dead, I mean collusion between Trump and the Kremlin, not Trump and Russian mafia - money laundering etc - I don’t rule this out).  

The entire Russiagate narrative has been shaky, to say the least, from the off, and the media coverage has been...well, completely bonkers. But I have always thought it entirely plausible that the Russian government would be meddling in some way, as many countries do. I just think evidence is quite important, and it has been quite clear since Trump was elected that the 'mainstream' corporate media has focussed on the Russiagate narrative, ignoring the lack of evidence and any contradictory info, in order to undermine Trump’s authority, distract from Hillary’s embarrassing defeat, and manufacture consent for ‘deep state’ ambitions. (Also, my priority is to focus on American meddling, as I believe that to be at the root of most of the unrest in this world.  It really is the ultimate form of supremacist exceptionalism for Americans to get so riled up at other governments meddling in their affairs!). 

If the Kremlin has been meddling, and if this ‘Project Lakhta’ is legit, (and if it can be shown that the Russians involved were acting on behalf of the Kremlin, and it wasn't just a commercial trolling scam), it was pretty pointless, considering that the so-called ‘Putin puppet’ Trump has worsened relations with Russia - he has clamped down on Kremlin-funded media, armed the anti-Russian regime in Ukraine, occupied northern Syria, and expanded NATO into Montenegro; all very anti-Putin moves. 

But is it legit? Was ‘Project Lakhta’ definitely a Kremlin operation? Could it not have been some wealthy actor in Russia operating independently? Or could the whole thing be a CIA operation? Who knows. 

Putin had every reason to desire a Trump/Bernie presidency over a Hillary presidency. Russia has been gradually encircled by NATO military bases, and Trump expressed desires for friendlier relations (and Bernie was the anti-war candidate - well, comparitively). Whereas Hillary was a known hawk and wanted a no-fly-zone in Syria, aka likely direct conflict with Russia, aka possible nuclear Armageddon. So the Kremlin had (and still has) every reason to seek to 'sow dissent' in America, to burst the corporate media war propaganda bubble, and encourage Americans to see that, with America’s imperial foreign policy, the world is headed in an extremely dangerous direction. Kremlin-funded tv network RT does this. Is it propaganda if it's the truth? 

Thus, if this was a Kremlin sanctioned operation, I see it as entirely defensive, not offensive. Imagine what America would do if a Russian military alliance encroached on them, and if Russia carried out a coup in Mexico (as America did in Ukraine) - they would do slightly more than what Putin is alleged to have done, that’s for sure!

It is also becoming clearer that the powers that be in American are seeking to smear all dissent against the status quo, from which they benefit, on the alleged Russian interference campaign. This is ridiculous - Americans do not need Putin's help to feel enraged at the state of their country. (Or maybe they do. RT sure seems to do a better job of covering it all than the American 'free press' does!).

Whether or not it is true that the Kremlin has been meddling, it is clear that the Russiagate hysteria has ended up being used to justify internet censorship and to quell dissent, to distract from examining the real reasons behind Trump’s win - the Washington Post has acknowledged that there is little evidence that alleged Kremlin meddling had any effect on the election - and to justify a dangerous escalation in tensions with a nuclear power, (to benefit the military industrial complex).

Let’s not forget that, as I said, this whole narrative began on very shaky grounds, with evidence-lite allegations of Russia ‘hacking the election’/‘hacking the DNC emails'. Let’s not forget that we know Hillary’s team planned to use these allegations to undermine Trump’s presidency, (no doubt using their propagandists in the corporate press). Let’s not forget the litany of Russiagate ‘fake news’, and how it has dominated headlines for over a year, sidelining so much. Let’s not forget that Obama legalized psychological operations.

And let’s not forget that the plan of the American Empire; of the neocons, and the neoliberals, is that of global domination. They have Russia in their sights. And China. And Iran. And North Korea. And Venezuela. And Yemen. And they’ve not given up on Syria. 

Russia's (recently reduced) military budget is $70billion. NATO’s combined budget is $1trillion. Russia IS NOT A THREAT, but the Neocons and the war profiteers need us to think they are. Putin is not a madman. From the evidence I see, all he and the majority of Russians want, is independence and security.

To the 'anything but Trumpers' - direct your anger at the hegemonic war mongers in America. Direct your anger at the plutocrats who profit off war and have a hold over both parties, not just Trump. Don’t direct your anger and fear at Russia. Don’t play into the hands of the military industrial complex and help edge us closer to catastrophe. They have you in the palm of their hands. Your understandable desperation to oust Trump has led you to cheer for a new Cold War. 

Response to a Trump Supporting Nutter

Here's a response I wrote to a friend of my brother's, who is a massive Trump/American Empire supporter, after he called me a 'leftist terrorist':


You’re an imperialist who believes in violently spreading your (evidently atrocious) ideology around the world. That's your prerogative. Allow me to have mine.

You believe this ideology to be ‘free market capitalism’ but in reality, what you support is the military industrial complex, and corporate plunder; western corporations & plutocrats stealing resources and enslaving countries in debt. Just look at what Tillerson is doing in Iraq right now. America invaded that country, let it to go to shit, million+ dead, and now they send in the corporations to ‘invest’. Big Oil has got into Libya too now. I guess the support we gave to a racist/jihadi rebellion, the resulting slave markets, the refugee crisis etc, were worth it. And no, this doesn’t mean I liked Saddam/Gaddafi. It means I appreciate the reality of the (thankfully waning) mass murdering American Empire, and it means I respect indigenous people’s right to decide their own fate and not have their lands plundered.

America has consistently supported tyrants and terrorists since WW2, and suppressed democratic movements. Just the threat of their predatory presence in the world prevents democratic movements in independent nations, as the people have to unite around that threat instead, (and authoritarian leaders obviously take advantage of it).

Why do you think America is consistently voted to be (by far) the greatest threat to world peace? Do you know better? You, in your privileged position at the heart of the Empire; No chance of America terrorising you. Well, maybe if Corbyn gets in...

What I want for now is a multi-polar world in which all nations adhere to international law, and sovereignty is respected; not a world where America/NATO can occupy countries, bomb children, arm jihadi barbarians... just generally consistently break international law and get away with it. Not a world in which the US/NATO gradually encircle Russia and China with military bases, risking nuclear Armageddon. Not a world in which corporations and a tiny % of plutocrats have all the wealth and power; the power to rule over our governments and destroy any chance of real democracy.

Eventually, I’d like borders to be broken down, but that needs to be done democratically, by the people, not by international corporations who’s priority is profit, not workers. It’s this neoliberal globalism that has led to the discontent that we see now in the west; the rise of the far right. If the true Left doesn’t pull together and offer an alternative fast, I think we’re fucked.

Is that ok? Am I allowed to think and want these things? Or are these views not allowed in ‘free’ America? Am I to be incarcerated for being a ‘commie’/‘leftist terrorist’ and join the near 1% of American adults currently in jail in this great nation?

Is Trump turning 'liberals' into nationalists?

With the release of the Nunes memo we’ve got 'liberals' fiercely defending security services and calling anyone who doesn't, 'unpatriotic'. And we’ve got conservatives being critical of them. What the fuck has happened?! When did liberals become fierce defenders of the security state and the 'national interest'? The FBI/CIA etc are not our friends!

Has ‘President Donald Trump’ basically been turned into one big psychological-operation by the establishment to turn ‘liberals’ into fierce defenders of the ‘deep state’, and advocates of American hegemony, Cold War escalations, corporate censorship, and the surveillance/security state?

Hypocritical David Baddiel

I’m trying to comprehend what David Baddiel writes in this article. He criticizes Ken Livingstone for a lack of compassion, (for stating that Hitler supported a Zionist movement, to rid Germany of Jews), and states that he does not support the ‘appalling actions of the current Israeli government’. But then, he goes on to contradict himself and show a complete lack of compassion by saying that he ‘does not care that much about Israel’ - ie he does not care that much about the current persecution of Palestinians. Is this not immense hypocrisy? 

I looked up this article following a recent twitter spat between Jewish comedian, David, and fierce Palestinian rights activist and anti-Zionist, George Galloway, in which George accused David of purposefully smearing anti-Zionists as anti-Semites. Following this, George is now, as he often is, being smeared as an anti-Semite. I don’t know the background here, and what led to this accusation – perhaps it is the aforementioned article, in which David states that many anti-Semites do use anti-Zionism as a cover. I’m sure there is truth in this, but there is also a hell of a lot of truth in the allegation that many Zionists seek to conflate the two, in order to prevent any criticism of the Israeli regime, and indeed of Zionism in general. It's a pity David couldn't have mentioned this in his article as well. 

The actions of the Israeli regime obviously do not represent the values and desires of all Jewish people, however much some Zionists say they do. But is it necessarily anti-Semitic to suggest that Jewish people should speak out against these actions? Is it anti-Semetic to request that they don’t seek to fuel this current agenda to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? Perhaps it is insensitive, but anti-Semitism seems a leap. (Either way, as I explain later, George’s criticism has nothing to do with David being Jewish). 

If an ‘LGBT country’ had been created by imperial powers, ostensibly to give all persecuted LGBTs a homeland, and this country was created via ethnic cleansing that continues to this day, would I, as a gay man, feel a duty to speak out about it? I’m almost certain that I would, but if I didn’t, and people criticized me for it, would I assume that they were homophobic for doing so? I’m not sure, but either way, I’d like to think that I would still absorb the criticism, and become more conscious of the persecution, and seek to show my solidarity with the oppressed. I’d like to think that I’d become horrified at those who claim to represent the oppressed, becoming the oppressor of another people. I imagine that I’d become nervous about it fuelling another era of, reactionary, oppression towards LGBTs.

Whether or not the people criticizing me were homophobes, I like to think that I would offer more than indifference to what is a clear case of occupation and persecution.

This seems to be what David is offended by. He feels that those who assume he should speak out against the persecution, just because he is Jewish, are being anti-Semitic. Why should he have to speak out against the crimes of a colonial movement, just because those in this movement profess to represent the desires of he and his ancestors?

Is it the same as demanding that all Muslims speak out against ISIS, whom profess to represent all Islam? (This, I find repulsive, given that ISIS, and their campaign of terror, is undoubtedly blowback, following decades of imperial plunder of the Middle East. Thus, it is beyond sick for westerners to demand this from Muslims, having just played a part in destroying the lands of their families and ancestors).

I do agree with David - his Jewish heritage does not mean that he should be expected to speak out about this more than anyone else. But, he chose to enter this arena, by writing that article. He is now a player in this agenda to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. And the fact that he is Jewish celebrity does undoubtably give what he has to say on the matter more impetus. But his Jewishness is NOT the reason that George, and others, are criticizing him. He faces criticism purely for pushing this ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’ agenda, and for showing a hypocritical lack of compassion. As he states in his article, he cares deeply about anti-Semitism, but not so much about Israel’s destruction of Palestine.

RIP Robert Parry

My message to Robert Parry's son, following an article that he has written about his father, who passed away a few days ago:


Dear Nat,

Since escaping the false reality of corporate media just over a year ago - on the day of east Aleppo’s liberation, in Syria - I have come to rely on Consortium News as one of my most valued news sources. I had previously, naively, thought that most journalists in the liberal mainstream, such as those at the Guardian, were fairly partisan and could be trusted. How wrong I was!

I suddenly felt quite lost, not knowing what information to trust, so it was such a relief to find people like Mr Parry, who truly just care about the facts, and are willing to actually question ‘official sources’ and the powers that be. If only it was possible for journalists with such integrity to work in the mainstream!

It has been so depressing following the Russiagate hysteria; seeing how easily manipulated the masses can be. Your father’s incessant debunking of every outlandish claim has been invaluable for me.

He has inspired me to always question everything, including my own judgements and conclusions. It has been a scary but enlightening journey, learning about the real ways of this fallen world, and I will continue to learn by reading the many other great journalists who contribute to Consortium News, (and will continue donating monthly).

Condolences,
James

The Post: a film about a newspaper doing their job, for a change

Is The Post basically a film that lionizes the Washington Post for, ya know, actually doing their job for a change? I think I'll pass. 

The real story should be about how it came to be that we ended up under the impression that we have a 'free press'. As The Post shows, this 'free press' has to deliberate about actually telling us the fucking truth! How many times have stories NOT been published? Many, many times. THIS is the story. Propaganda by omission.

FYI: The Washington Post is now owned by richest-human-alive Jeff Bezos, who has a $600 million contract with the CIA. But yeh, free press!