Fool Me Once: Failed Arkady Babchenko Psyop Further Exposes Atrocity Propaganda of the West

by Scott Creighton

Atrocity propaganda is the spreading of information about the crimes committed by an enemy, which can be factual, but often includes or features deliberate fabrications or exaggerations. This can involve photographs, videos, illustrations, interviews, and other forms of information presentation & reporting. It is frequently used as part of psychological warfare campaigns as well as to rally popular support against real atrocities, and distinguishing between the two applications can be very difficult.

The Arkady Babchenko story is just the latest example of a type of psychological warfare campaign (see unconventional warfare ch. 6-1) and irregular warfare) being run by our assets in the endless Global War OF Terror campaign, what they now call the Global Contingency Operation or what I call the Global Free Market Wars.

Atrocity propaganda has been used by nations to demonize an enemy and turn a population toward the acceptance of war for almost as long war has existed. In the U.S. it was especially popular in WWI but used with much less frequency in the following world war mainly because it had been exposed to a great extent in the years following the first (see Creel Commission and the Committee on Public Information) and a people who were understandably eager to avoid another major war were acutely aware of what it looked and smelled like.

During World War II, atrocity propaganda was not used on the same scale as in World War I, as by then it had long been discredited by its use during the previous conflict.[26]

It’s the story of the boy who cried wolf. When the war propagandists go to the well once too often with their copy and paste “hearts and minds” campaigns (see Army War College (PDF)), the people become not only indifferent to their manipulations but also angered at the attempt to manipulate them… once again. The “Fool me once” phenomenon sets in.

Continue reading

When Democracy Rears its Head in Italy, Globalists Attack

The idea that a democratic government is of the people, by the people and for the people is apparently a treasonous concept in our neoliberalized West. Italy is just the most recent example of citizens voting the wrong way.

Continue reading

Globalization the EU and the Road to Serfdom

by Frank Lee from OffGuardian

It might be a good idea to start with some theoretical clarifications. Firstly, nationalism should not be confused with national sovereignty. Nations which are effectively ruled by outside agents – from Greece to Honduras – are not sovereign; they are colonies or vassals of some larger agency. And since they are not sovereign, the cannot be democratic, since decision making, and policies have been abrogated to an external ruling power. Secondly, nationalism: the term which in general is generally regarded as the all-weather bête noire by the orthodox left, can be and often is aggressive, racist, imperialistic, and so forth.

But this is only half the story and there are ample reasons to believe that this view is both simplistic and narrowly focussed; ‘nationalism’ can be either a reactionary or a radical/progressive force, depending on the local and political circumstances. This is simply an historical fact. The latter phenomenon is particularly true of those nations which struggled under the yoke of imperialism – from Algeria to Vietnam both ex-French colonies – and who actively engaged in national repeat, national, liberation struggles involving a broad coalition of political forces.

However, according to the conventional wisdom of the hyper-globalists both nation states and the whole concept of national sovereignty are now defunct. Their reasoning is based upon the following premises.

  1. Most products have developed a very complex geography – with parts made in different countries and then assembled somewhere else – in which case labels of origin begin to lose their meaning.
  2. Markets when left unfettered will arrive at optimal price, allocative, and productive efficiency.
  3. This means that capital, commodities and labour should be free to move around the globe without let or hindrance to achieve these goals.
  4. Any barriers to this process – capital controls, trade unions, exchange rate controls, welfare expenditures, minimum wage legislation, wages and even public goods – will result in price and allocative distortions. Q.E.D.

Such globalization (neo-liberalism writ large) has come to be seen and defined by its proponents as the ‘natural order’, almost a force of nature; an inevitable and inexorable process of increasing geographical spread and increasing functional integration between economic activities. This current orthodoxy goes by various other names, Washington consensus, market liberalisation, neo-liberalism and so on and so forth. In fact, there is nothing ‘natural’ about this stage of historical development, since the whole phenomenon has been politically driven from the outset. (Of which more later).

It is important to note, however, the difference between contemporary imperialism in its present stage – i.e., globalization – and the classical imperialism of pre-1914 vintage which preoccupied Hobson, Lenin, Bukharin and Rosa Luxemburg. Classical imperialism was characterised by a shallow integration manifested in arms-length trade in goods and services through independent firms and international movement of portfolio capital and relatively simple direct investment. Note also that the British state granted Charters to investment entities such as the East India Company and the British South Africa Chartered Company to ‘develop’ (i.e. exploit) these colonial possessions.

Thus, even at this early stage the British state actively intervened to facilitate and open up markets for British capital in India and Africa. This was the liberal epoch trade of the 19th century. Full-on globalization did not develop, however, due to inter-imperialist rivalries and mercantilist policies being carried out by the competing imperial powers (which eventuated in WW1). The opening up and liberalization of markets – which did not at that time occur – was and still is the conditio sine qua non for the development of full-blown globalization, which even today is nowhere near total…

[read more here]

Fox News Pushing ANOTHER “Assad Used Chemical Weapons” Lie from White Helmets

Remarkable. Even Fox “News” viewers are telling these clowns that they are lying. But still, the overpaid talking heads keep pushing the lies anyway. Absolutely remarkable.

You can support my work through my PayPal account. Thanks https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=GJTKTZYVYFCN4

links after the break

Continue reading

Why are we really in Niger? It ain’t for the human rights, I’ll tell you that (AE video)

So why are we in Niger? It has nothing to do with “teaching respect for human rights”

by Scott Creighton

As has been the case in every fascist state of the past, we are told that we can’t question the glorious generals. They are beyond reproach. What they say is sacrosanct. What they do, unassailable. This is AFTER “shock and awe” killed a million Iraqis based on lies. This is AFTER Gitmo. This is AFTER Falluja.

If you want to go after Gen. Kelly, that’s up to you. But, I think that that – if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that’s something highly inappropriate.”

The question put before our glorious heroLEADER Kelly had to do with some banal debate between he and some clown of a congress-critter and whether or not she was self-promoting a couple years ago over the funding or the naming of a new FBI center in Florida. It was, by definition, a nothing burger no matter how you looked at it and yet, THAT was the most important question that occupied the ENTIRE complicit media all day yesterday.

But there was  a better question asked, one that didn’t get much coverage ((notice, the cowering reporter had to qualify his question by first uttering the standard, fawning praise):

“Q Well, thank you, General Kelly. First of all, we have a great deal of respect — Semper Fi — for everything that you’ve ever done. But if we could take this a bit further. Why were they in Niger?”

And here was the answer our glorious general gave (notice, the GodKINGgeneral didn’t feel the need to thank the reporter for “everything he’s ever done”):

“So why were they there? They’re there working with partners, local — all across Africa — in this case, Niger — working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights; teaching them how to fight ISIS so that we don’t have to send our soldiers and Marines there in their thousands. That’s what they were doing there.” Glorious Kelly the Untouchable

So we are teaching them how to fight “ISIS™”? Does that mean we are teaching them how to let them leave Manbij in hundreds of Toyota/Helix trucks or how to book em some chartered buses so they can leave Raqqa?

Oh wait… we are teaching them how to respect human rights. Ah, got it.

NIGER 2016 (State Department) HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

The most serious human rights problems included attacks by armed groups that resulted in death, disappearances, and abuse ; harsh and life -threatening prison and detention center conditions ; and trafficking in persons, including forced labor and caste -based slavery . Other human rights problems included : security force killings of civilians and abuse of detainees; arbitrary arrest and detention ; prolonged pretrial detention; executive interference in the judiciary; forcible dispersal of demonstrators ; and restrictions on freedoms of press and assembly. The government restricted opposition political parties . Corruption was pervasive, and discrimination and violence against women and children were problems , including female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) and child prostitution . Societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI ) community was a problem. Forced labor, child labor, and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability continued. The government took some steps to prosecute officials who committed abuses, but impunity was a problem

Lets see what kind of government our troops are there to help protect:

  • government backed death squads
  • disappearing opposition leaders
  • torture
  • human trafficking
  • slavery
  • arbitrary arrests
  • judicial system is a joke
  • cracking down on protests/demonstrations
  • no freedom of press
  • massive corruption
  • violence against women
  • violence against children
  • poor treatment of gays
  • child labor

Gee, that doesn’t seem good especially when you consider that report concerned Niger in 2016 and ObamaGod sent troops into that country starting in 2013. Guess we aren’t teaching em much about that whole “human rights” thing, now are we? Or maybe we’re just teaching em REAL SLOW LIKE.

I wonder why it is we support a country like that?

Might it have something to do with this?

Continue reading

As Wall Street Vultures Circle, Demands for Immediate Puerto Rico Debt Relief

from Common Dreams

While Wall Street vultures circle amid an ongoing humanitarian crisis and try to entice Puerto Rico with “relief” offers in the form of more debt, advocates for economic justice are demanding immediate debt relief and federal stimulus spending to rebuild the island’s devastated infrastructure.

“Puerto Rico needs immediate humanitarian assistance before many more lives are lost thanks to America’s latest climate catastrophe, and reconstruction aid to help them rebuild their infrastructure,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, wrote for Common Dreams on Friday. She continued:

The hurricane only made a bad situation much, much worse: Puerto Rico has been reeling from austerity measures for years that were put in place by Wall Street, which has been calling to recoup the debt. One of Donald Trump’s first responses to the mounting humanitarian crisis was to remind people of the “billions of dollars” the territory owes to the bank, “which must be dealt with”—signaling what the priorities will be.
“Instead, we should consider forgiving Puerto Rico’s debt and federally fund its reconstruction,” Hauter added. “It’s important to demand federal funding for our precious water infrastructure before disasters happen as well; indeed, this funding was cut off to Puerto Rico because of its debt, making a bad situation much worse when the hurricane hit.”

[read more here]