Emigre Super Blocs Part VIII:The Quasi-Legal Coup-Hillary Clinton Information Operations In Election 2016

[Photo: Hillary Clinton at rally in Phoenix, AZ. Credit: Gage Skidmore]

=By= GH Eliason, Distinguished Collaborator

Editor's Note
This article represents the conclusion, and we might say crescendo, of Eliason's Emigre Series. It provides critical information about the role and power of emigre voting bloc in US politics. In this final article is critical material about Information and Disinformation campaigns aimed at controlling the 2016 presidential election.


"The purpose of "Inform and Influence Operations" is not to provide a perspective, opinion, or lay out a policy. It is defined as the ability to make audiences "think and act" in a manner favorable to the mission objectives. This is done through applying perception management techniques which target the audiences emotions, motives, and reasoning.

These techniques are not geared for debate. It is to overwhelm and change the target psyche.

Using these techniques information sources can be manipulated and those that write, speak, or think counter to the objective are relegated as propaganda, ill-informed, or irrelevant. ~ Global Research, US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine."

What if the strife, rumor, and clamor that the world has seen in the presidential campaign were part and parcel of an Inform and Influence Operation against Americans to determine the election outcome? Bear with me for a moment as I lay out the proofs. The quote above is from an early 2015 article with the author showing what it could look like in the civilian world. 

” What would we do? Disrupt, deny, degrade, deceive, corrupt, usurp or destroy the information. The information, please don’t forget, is the ultimate objective of cyber. That will directly impact the decision-making process of the adversary’s leader who is the ultimate target.” – Joel Harding

IO or IIO (Inform and Influence Operations) as defined by the US Army includes the fields of psychological operations and military deception. All of this is used in the civilian world the same way by private contractors.

 In this election, private contractors were hired to focus their capacity to influence the American population. This is proven and you deserve a step by step look at it if you are voting.

What Project Veritas shows is damning evidence of what I have been documenting in the emigre series articles since spring 2016.

 By using mainstream media, they started an integrated approach which includes influencing their political opponent’s decision making. Media is given messages that follow the same themes and fill the entire information space by using an across the board effort. The effort drowns out any other message.

According to the Observer, this has been happening throughout the election cycle to benefit Hillary Clinton. “Rather than informing voters to enrich democracy, the mainstream media has developed a feedback loop between support for particular candidates and the political agenda they intend to support. The freedom of the press is necessary for a democracy to function.” The article further points out that it was the media that helped rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Wikileaks has clearly shown the interplay between mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. And they have shown clearly that most of the mainstream media are working to influence the election. This goes beyond partisan electioneering. All of this follows the exact pattern, a well planned Information Operation against the American public.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was also the Ex-Officio Board Member of the BBG. The BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) run RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty). Most of the 8-member board, appointed by the President of the United States, are the who’s who of powerful media moguls in film, news, print, and radio. Appointment to the BBG is like being awarded an ambassador position for the media industry. It’s also why big media carries the same line or themes.

The 7th member of the board of directors which runs RFE/RL is Mathew Armstrong. He is a longtime friend and mentor to retired Brigadier general Joel Harding. He provides Harding a lot of access and influence in media. Armstrong’s background is public relations. He is an expert in IO and IIO operations. His bio: Author, lecturer, and strategist on public diplomacy and international media. He has worked on traditional and emerging security issues with both civilian and military government agencies, news organizations, think tanks, and academia across several continents.

In what appears to be a conflict of interest, at least two BBG board members are working actively for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Karen Kornbluh is helping refine and to get Hillary Clinton’s message out. ” All of them are names to watch if Clinton wins — and key jobs at the FCC and other federal agencies are up for grabs.”

According to her bio: Karen founded the New America Foundation’s Work and Family Program and is a senior fellow for Digital Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Karen has written extensively about technology policy, women, and family policy for The AtlanticThe New York Times and The Washington PostNew York Times columnist David Brooks cited her Democracy article “Families Valued,” focused on “juggler families” as one of the best magazine articles of 2006.

Michael Kempner is the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of MWW Group, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, and may get a greater role if she is elected.  Kempner is a member of the Public Relations Hall of Fame. Michael Kempner hired Anthony Weiner after the sexting scandal broke in 2011.

Jeff Shell, chairman of the BBG and  Universal Filmed Entertainment is supporting a secondary role by being an honor roll donor to the Atlantic Council. While the BBG is supposed to be neutral it has continuously helped increase tensions in Eastern Europe. While giving to the Atlantic Council may not be illegal while in his position, currently, the Atlantic Council’s main effort is to ignite a war with Russia. This may set up a major conflict of interest.

According to journalist Robert Parry “The people that will be taking senior positions and especially in foreign policy believe “This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East.”

 Parry goes on to say that at the forefront of this is the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO. Their main goal is a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

The Atlantic Council is the think tank for the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition) which is associated with NATO. The CEEC has only one goal. The question it poses to candidates that mattered is “Are you willing to go to war with Russia?” Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. 

The Central and Eastern European Coalition represent the various Central and Eastern European countries to the US government. What makes them special in an election is that they control a 20 million person strong bloc vote in key states across the country and sway elections by themselves. The price of a Clinton win is war with Russia.

While the rest of the BBG board support Clinton’s proposed policy of closing Syrian airspace, the CEEC wants it because it will mean direct conflict with Russia. Hillary Clinton’s first foray into Islamic politics led to genocide and made the way for ISIS setting up training camps in Kosovo.  Hillary Clinton has been friendly with jihadists for as long as she has had a national political career. According to US Special Forces on the ground in Syria training the moderates, there are NO moderates to train

Green Berets are forced to train jihadis that they know will eventually attack us. Support our troops? Give them good, honorable missions. They deserve better, don’t they?

As you go through the above links, the information is staggering. Shown are large groups of people strategically located in swing states that will do anything to get her elected. The question is why?

Politically, we have a two party system. If you say you are Republican, people have at least a general idea of what you mean. For Democrats, it’s no different. There are different kinds of politics that fit easily under each umbrella. But the point is they are recognizable and we know where they stand on issues.

Tell me, what are OUNb beliefs? OUNb is a political party and set of beliefs just like Republican or Democrat. The reason I am asking is that you can’t tell me. The odds are you haven’t heard about it before. When the Atlantic Council or The Project for the New American Century takes all the senior positions in the Clinton White House, it will be filled with OUNb and similar political partisans for the first time without dissenting voices.

“Unity to act when required has been the diaspora’s mantra – this cannot be disputed.

As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see that two wings of the OUN – (OUNb)Banderivtsi and (OUNm)Melnykivtsi – are working actively on the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about becoming a single entity again.”

The OUNb political party started under Stepan Bandera and their political beliefs are quite literally Nazi. In the 1930’s they swore undying loyalty to Adolf Hitler and the Diaspora was directing Waffen SS battalions from America secretly even as other Ukrainian emigres were fighting them. The UCCA is the head of OUNb thought in America and now they want America to celebrate their totalitarian beliefs with them. If you disagree with totalitarian politics, you are the enemy. After a brief description of what kind of beliefs the people have from the Atlantic Council that are taking up cabinet positions, the proof it is happening now follows.

The OUNb were the SS that manned the concentration camps during the Holocaust. They successfully murdered 3 million war prisoners by starving them to death. The OUNb killed over 250,000 Jews, 500,000 Ukrainians, and committed the first Holocaust at Babi Yar. Today the UCCA is funding and running the volunteer battalions raping and killing in Donbass the same way.

They and the other emigre group leaders are also behind buying the media headlines and reach, damage control, and the Information Operation against Americans today. If you want to know what American politics will look like within a few years, look at Ukraine. 

There are people who live abroad, who do not feel fully accepted as a minority, and here there is a phenomenon which I call long-distance nationalism. . .The members of the diaspora create for themselves an image of the home land, which is a stronger emotional investment than the country in which they live…One negative consequence of the diaspora experience is the emergence of what Ander-son calls non-responsible politics: diaspora participation in the politics in the country with which they identify can often be toxic, and their impact can be felt through the funding of particular political figures, nationalist propaganda, and even weapons…-Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta– Pers Anders Rudling

With the field day the Emigres and paid media had with Donald Trump over David Duke, they forgot to tell you that Ukrainian emigres supporting Hillary Clinton hired Duke in Ukraine as a professor of history and sent their American kids to learn there. Almost all Ukrainian politicians have been through this fascist education system known as MAUP. The Ukrainian American and other likeminded ethnics are the people that will fill the senior foreign and domestic cabinet positions.

OUNb leader Ivan Kobasa also took responsibility of making sure the Ukrainian-Americans received the proper secondary education at Ukrainian nationalist schools(MAUP) in Ukraine. From the mid-2000’s enrollment in this educational system has skyrocketed into the hundreds of thousands. Today almost all members of the current Ukrainian government are graduates of this ideological system that was taught to them by moderates like David Duke who is also a graduate of the MAUP system.”

“I do care about social and economic issues affecting every American, but given the war in Ukraine, there is only one issue that we as Ukrainian Americans must focus on: Ukraine.

The Ukrainian issue “trumps” all other personal issues!

A vote for Trump is a vote against Ukraine!

When it comes to U.S. elections, Ukrainian Americans are a statistically minor, divided, unorganized voting group.  The Central and East European Coalition is a coalition of U.S.-based organizations that represent their countries of heritage, a voting group of over 20 million people. The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and the Ukrainian National Association are member organizations of the CEEC. Americans of East and Central European heritage can make a significant difference and influence the election result if their attention is focused.” Ukraine Weekly The Presidential Election: Can We Make A Difference

Hillary Clinton’s response is she will defend Ukraine’s borders! Even though it has no eastern or northern border to defend. She has guaranteed to start a war with Russia if she is elected.

Not only is Clinton buying the media through these second parties, but they are hiring professional, former military psyops professionals to deny pertinent information from voters and disrupt her political opponents message. At the same time, they are paying an across the board mainstream media to simultaneously publish articles and video that lift her campaign up, disrupt, destroy, and drown out alternate messages. 

Wikileaks noted this when it exposed the Clinton campaign’s program to incite violence and obfuscate the point. The Huffington Post example of this is” Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S”.

 “We understand the Clinton camp has hired beaucoup and Zwanzig (a lot) of trolls, we also understand the Kremlin has done the same. We just do not know if Trump has followed suit. From a counterintelligence perspective, this is confusing as heck.

 One of the really neat things about this election is seeing all my information operations and information warfare friends on social media, contributing and commenting, looking darned intelligent! Theirs is normally the voice of reason, maturity, and intelligence.” Joel Harding

 By systematically and continually attacking the voter’s psyche, Americans are being treated in the same way our government treats countries they overthrow. The right to make an informed vote has been denied to support any particular candidate.

What does an Inform and Influence Operation entail against the American public? Read the following carefully. The term “anti-western” refers to anyone that disagrees with whom he is working for. In this case, he works for the Ukrainian Emigres. This also covers Syria. Every media outlet or journalist writing about these subjects that aren’t carrying the line he lays out is the enemy. These are the tactics being used today during the election.

  “I am building a database of planners, operators, logisticians, hackers, and anyone wanting to be involved with special activities I will call ‘inform and influence activities’. I have received a few different suggestions to help organize operations – of all sorts – against anti-Western elements. No government approval, assistance or funding. This skirts legalities. This is not explicitly illegal and it may not even be legal, at this point. That grey area extends a long way. I am only trying to assess the availability of people willing to participate in such efforts. Technology, equipment and facility offers are also appreciated. If you would like to be included in my database, please send a tailored resume to joel_harding@”

 If you don’t think this is possiblethis has been going on around you for a long time. look at the credentials of retired Brigadier General Joel Harding and decide for yourself. But first look at what he promises he can do for you when you hire him.

Information operations and warfare, also known as influence operations, includes the collection of tactical, operational and strategic information about a competitor as well as the dissemination of information and propaganda in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an competitor or adversary in the corporate, government or military realm.

It is our job to maximize your advantages over your competitor while minimizing your competitor.   We work on the national level down to the individual level.  We seek to give you every advantage possible in order to advance your position, increase your reputation, and maximize your standing in your field.”

Bio- Joel Harding spent 26 years in the Army; his first nine years were spent as an enlisted soldier, mostly in Special Forces, as an SF qualified communicator and medic, on an A-Team. After completing his degree, Joel then received his commission as an Infantry Officer and after four years transitioned to the Military Intelligence Corps. 

In the mid 1990s, Joel was working in the Joint Staff J2 in support of special operations, where he began working in the new field called Information Operations. Eligible Receiver 1997 was his trial by fire, after that he became the Joint Staff J2 liaison for IO to the CIA, DIA, NSA, DISA and other assorted agencies in the Washington DC area, working as the intelligence lead on the Joint Staff IO Response Cell for Solar Sunrise and Moonlight Maze. Joel followed this by a tour at SOCCENT and then INSCOM, working in both IO and intelligence.

 Specializing in Russian Information Warfare for the past 30+ months. Consultant, advisor and subject matter expert on Information Operations, Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy with more than 19 years practical, policy in IO, SC and PD. 35 years experience in broader defense and national security matters. I have lectured all over the world about Information Warfare and Cyberwar and have spoken at numerous conferences.
I am currently focusing on the Ukraine/Russia information war with a simultaneous heavy emphasis on the accompanying hybrid war. I currently teach classes about Russian Information Warfare and a second class on Propaganda/Agitprop. 
Specialties: Information Operations/Information Warfare, Public Diplomacy, Strategic Communication, Counter-Disinformation, Electronic Warfare, Deception, Operational Security, Cyberwar, Intelligence, Special Forces and Special Operations.
Primary author Ukraine National Strategy for Information Policy, submitted in 2015 and again in 2016.”

 With his resume, no guess work is needed to understand how effective his friends are. Before going further, ask yourself if this is what elections are supposed to be? 

As a litmus test take Hillary’s name out and put down what is known just through Wikileaks in a list. Put McCain’s name, Kucinich, Paul, Bush, and ask yourself would this be an acceptable candidate? Add what’s been shown here. Is there an acceptable candidate?

If any of them would be acceptable, sorry like many others you drank the kool-aid already. 

I’ve seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I’ve seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It’s unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won’t continue to be until the good Lord takes me.” Cesar Vargas

Hillary Clinton is not a Nazi. But every position of relevance will be filled with people that really are political Nazis. They are technically integral nationalists. They look down on democracy in any form. At least now you know what kind of government you are voting for.

Regardless of who wins, there are 2000 tanks, artillery, and rockets pointed my way, waiting for this election to be over. I am an American that lives in Donbass, and wrote many of the early breaking stories and much of the background about the conflict in Ukraine.

If you cannot objectively look and see a more sophisticated version of what happened here through 2014 is going on, I can’t help you. Soon the OUNb will order the volunteer battalions to start killing civilians on a large scale again. I will go back to reporting on the war.

If all these things weren’t being done, I would keep it simply about policy. Russia is not an enemy of the United States. Instead, I believe I am witnessing a quiet coup that demands legality in America.

If this Information Operation is allowed to win the 2016 presidency, then elections are fruitless. Every other election will be based on the same strategy. They will have to be for any candidate to win.

Your voice, your views, your informed choice will no longer matter. The IIO practitioner kills dissent. That’s their job. They’re only doing their job. 


GH Eliason
GH Eliason Mr. Eliason lives in Ukraine. He writes content and optimizes web based businesses across the globe for organic search results, technical issues, and design strategies. He is also a large project construction specialist. When Fukushima happened it became known that he was a locked high rad specialist with a penchant for climbing. He was paid to climb a reactor at a sister plant to Fukushima 3 because of a "million dollar mistake". His now works in  project safety.

 




The Intercept Outs Neocon Democrat’s Smear Against Trump as ‘Putin’s Puppet’

horiz-black-wideDispatches from Eric Zuesse
pale blue horiz



On November 1st, The Intercept headlined “HERE’S THE PROBLEM WITH THE STORY CONNECTING RUSSIA TO DONALD TRUMP’S EMAIL SERVER”, and the reporting team of Sam Biddle, Lee Fang, Micah Lee, and Morgan Marquis-Boire, revealed that:

“Slate’s Franklin Foer published a story that’s been circulating through the dark web and various newsrooms since summertime, an enormous, eyebrow-raising claim that Donald Trump uses a secret server to communicate with Russia. That claim resulted in an explosive night of Twitter confusion and misinformation. The gist of the Slate article is dramatic — incredible, even: Cybersecurity researchers found that the Trump Organization used a secret box configured to communicate exclusively with Alfa Bank, Russia’s largest commercial bank. This is a story that any reporter in our election cycle would drool over, and drool Foer did.”

The Intercept team concluded their detailed analysis of the evidence by saying:


Franklin Foer /ˈfɔər/ is an American journalist and former editor of The New Republic. Foer was a 2012 Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation. Wikipedia

Franklin Foer is an American warmonger and p.r. agent, a Democrat, and former editor of The [scurrilous Neocon] New Republic. Foer was a 2012 Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation. 

“Could it be that Donald Trump used one of his shoddy empire’s spam marketing machines, one with his last name built right into the domain name, to secretly collaborate with a Moscow bank? Sure. At this moment, there’s literally no way to disprove that. But there’s also literally no way to prove it, and such a grand claim carries a high burden of proof. Without more evidence it would be safer (and saner) to assume that this is exactly what it looks like: A company that Trump has used since 2007 to outsource his hotel spam is doing exactly that. Otherwise, we’re all making the exact same speculation about the unknown that’s caused untold millions of voters to believe Hillary’s deleted emails might have contained Benghazi cover-up PDFs. Given equal evidence for both, go with the less wacky story.”


However, they failed to dig deeper to explain what could have motivated this smear of Trump: was it just sloppiness on the part of Slate, and of Foer? Hardly — it was anything but unintentional:


A core part of the Democratic Party’s campaign for Hillary Clinton consists of her claim that Donald Trump is secretly a Russian agent. This is an updated version of the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy’s campaign to “root communists out of the federal government,” and of the John Birch Society’s accusation even against the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that, “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” 

Neoconservatives — in both Parties — are the heirs of the Republican Party’s hard-right, which now, even decades after the 1991 end of communism and the Soviet Union, hate Russia above all of their other passions. Neoconservatism has emerged as today’s Republican Party’s Establishment, and (like with the Democratic Party’s original neocon, U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the “Senator from Boeing”) they’ve always viewed Russia to be America’s chief enemy, and they have favored the overthrow of any nation’s leader who is friendly toward Russia, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad. Hatred and demonization of Russia is the common core of neoconservatism — the post-Cold-War extension of Joseph R. McCarthy and the John Birch Society.

Neoconservatives — in both Parties — are the heirs of the Republican Party’s hard-right, which now, even decades after the 1991 end of communism and the Soviet Union, hate Russia above all of their other passions.

Both Slate and especially Foer have long pedigrees as Democratic Party neoconservatives — champions of U.S. invasions, otherwise called PR agents (‘journalists’) promoting the products and services that a few giant and exclusive military corporations such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Dyncorp, and the Carlyle Group, offer to the U.S. federal government. I’ll deal here only with Foer, not with his latest employer (in a string, all of which are neocon Democratic ‘news’ media).


Foer wrote in The New York Times, on 10 October 2004, against ‘isolationist’ Republicans, who regretted having supported George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and he headlined about them there, “Once Again, America First”, equating non-neoconservative Republicans with, essentially, the pro-fascist isolationists of the 1930s. He concluded that they would come to regret their regret: “Conservatives could soon find themselves retracing Buckley’s steps, wrestling all over again with their isolationist instincts.” That’s how far-right Franklin Foer is: he’s to the right of those Republicans.
 ..
On 7 June 2004, Foer, in a tediously long, badly written and argued, article in New York Magazine, “The Source of the Trouble”, described the downfall of The New York Times’s leading stenographer for George W. Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, their reporter Judith Miller. He closed by concluding that “the source of the trouble” was that Miller was simply too earnest and tried too hard — not that she was a stenographer to power: 
 ..
“People like Miller, with her outsize journalistic temperament of ambition, obsession, and competitive fervor, relying on people like Ahmad Chalabi, with his smooth, affable exterior retailing false information for his own motives, for the benefit of people reading a newspaper, trying to get at the truth of what’s what.
 ..
(She was anything but “trying to get at the truth of what’s what.” She was the opposite: a mere stenographer to George W. Bush and to the Administration’s chosen mouthpieces, such as the anti-Saddam exiled Iraqi Ahmad Chalaby.) 

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n 20 December 2004, when the question of whether to bomb Iran was being debated by neoconservatives, Foer, who then was the Editor of the leading Democratic Party neoconservative magazine, The New Republic, headlined in his magazine, “Identity Crisis: Neocon v. Neocon on Iran”, and he introduced a supposed non-neocon from the supposedly non-neocon Brookings Institution, Kenneth Pollack, to comment upon the conflict among (the other Party’s) neocons: 
“In part, the lack of neocon consensus [on whether to, as John McCain was to so poetically put it, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’] can be attributed to the nature of the problem. Nobody — not the Council on Foreign Relations, not John Kerry’s brain trust — has designed a plausible policy to walk Iran back from the nuclear brink. Or, as Kenneth M. Pollack concludes in his new book, The Persian Puzzle, this is a ‘problem from Hell’ with no good solution.”
But, actually, both Pollack and Brookings are Democratic Party neocons themselves; and among the leading proponents of invading Iraq had been not only Pollack but Brookings’s Michael O’Hanlon. Brookings had no prominent opponent of invading Iraq. (Brookings has a long history of neoconservatism, and routinely leads the Democratic Party’s contingent of neocon thinking, even urging a Democratic administration to have its stooge-regimes violate international laws.)

The real reason why neocons (being the heirs of the far-right extremists’ Cold-War demonization of Russia, even after communism is gone) wanted to conquer both Iraq and Iran, was that both countries’ leaders were friendly towards Russia, and were opposed by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, which family quietly worked not only with the U.S. government but with Israel’s government, against both Iraq and Iran, as well as against Syria — those three nations (Iraq, Iran, and Syria) all being friendly toward Russia, which both the Saudi aristocracy, and not only the U.S. aristocracy, hate.

It’s not just the conservative ‘news’ media that are neoconservative now. The so-called ‘liberal’ media are so neoconservative that, for example, Salon can condemn Donald Trump for his having condemned Hillary and Obama’s bombing of Libya. Salon condemned Trump’s having said “We would be so much better off if Qaddafi were in charge right now” — as if Trump weren’t correct, and as if what happened after our overthrow and killing of Qaddafi weren’t far worse for both Libyans and the world than what now exists in Libya. (But, of course, for Lockheed Martin etc., it is far better). CBS News and Mother Jones condemned the Trilateralist Joseph Nye for having veered temporarily away from his normal neoconservatism. Then, Nye wrote in the neocon Huffington Post saying that David Corn of Mother Jones and Franklin Foer of The New Republic had misrepresented what he had said, and that he was actually a good neocon after all. Nye closed: “In any case, I have never supported Gaddafi and am on record wishing him gone, and also on record supporting Obama’s actions in recent weeks. We now know that Gaddafi’s departure is the only change that will work in Libya.” Sure, it did. Oh, really? It’s Trump who is crazy here?  
More recently, Foer headlined at Slate, “Putin’s Puppet: If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests — and advance his own — he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.” Foer proceeded to present the view of Trump that subsequently became parroted by the Hillary Clinton campaign (that Trump=traitor). Wikipedia has a 450-person ”List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016″, and it’s almost entirely comprised of well-known neoconservatives — the farthest-right of all Republicans, the people closest to Joseph R. McCarthy and the John Birch Society. Foer cited many neoconservative sources that are not commonly thought of as Republican, such as Buzzfeed; and he even had the gall to blame the Russian government for having made public its best evidence behind its charge (which was true) that the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 was no authentic ‘democratic revolution’ such as the U.S. government and its ‘news’ media said, but was instead a very bloody U.S. coup d’etat in Ukraine, which was organized from the U.S. Embassy there, starting by no later than 1 March 2013, a year beforehand. Foer wrote:
“The Russians have made an art of publicizing the material they have filched to injure their adversaries. The locus classicus of this method was a recording of a blunt call between State Department official Toria [that’s actually ‘Victoria’] Nuland [a close friend of both Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney] and the American ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. The Russians allegedly planted the recording on YouTube and then tweeted a link to it — and from there it became international news. Though they never claimed credit for the leak, few doubted the White House’s contention that Russia was the source.”
To a neoconservative, even defensive measures (such as Russia’s there exposing the lies that America uses to ‘justify’ economic sanctions and other hostile acts against Russia) — indeed, anything that Russia does against America’s aggressions against Russia, and against Russia’s allies (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych) — anything that Russia does, is somehow evil and blameworthy. And, of course, America’s aggressions are not. 


The U.S. government and its neocon propagandists are outraged that some people are trying to expose — instead of to spread — their lies. The American government isn’t yet neocon enough, in the view of such liars.   


About the author

EricZuesseThey're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

 NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS




The Doubt Machine: Inside The Koch Brothers’ War on Climate Science

[Photo: Before and after mountain top removal for coal extraction. Devastation brought to you by the Koch Brothers. Credit: Earth Justice.]

=By= The Real News Network

Editor's Note

We are at the point in Earth history, the breaking point. Humanity, (let's be fair shall we?) western "civilization" has virtually killed the only home we have. There is no place for homeless humanity to go when this home becomes habitable only for cockroaches and similarly hardy beasts. Those in the worst offender nation, the United States, have allowed themselves to be pacified into disbelief that we are, or even can, destroy the only home we have. Much of that willing disbelief is founded on a welll orchestrated propaganda campagn carried out by the fossil fuel industry and the owners of it such as the Koch Brothers. The video below examines this decades long campaign that has been waged to lead a willing populace to the graveyard of humanity.

We are literally at a point where days matter in reversing course. We (humanity) do not have centuries to address this problem. We don't even have decades. Some argue that if something significant is not done by 2017 to radically reduce the production of global warming gasses that it will be too late to avoid the worst that is coming at us. We are talking months - not years. Recognizing the urgency, many organizations and publications are devoting major effort to addressing the destruction of our world. The Real News Network is starting a Global Climate Change Bureau. The Greanville Post and Uncommon Thought Journal are dedicated to bringing you consistent news, analysis, and engagement opportunities focused on ACD (Anthropogenic Climate Disruption) - as Dahr Jamail argues, ACD clear puts the blame for the problem on humans. Please join us in this effort and send pertinent materials to Rowan Wolf at managing.ed@greanvillepost.com.

 

From The Real News Network

Scientists say Temperatures Will Rise to Critical 2° by 2050

The Real News Network is Building a Global Climate Change Bureau

2014 and 2015 each set the record for hottest calendar year since scientists began measuring surface temperatures over 150 years ago, and 2016 is shaping up to be even warmer. This will be the first time that we’ve seen three consecutive years with record-breaking temperatures.

A temperature increase of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels will now be reached much sooner than earlier predicted according to a report by seven leading climate scientists.

“The 1.5°C target could be reached by the early 2030’s and the 2°C target by 2050” says the report that included Sir Robert Watson, former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists say that even if all the pledges made by the signatory countries to the Paris agreement are fully implemented, climate will pass this dangerous mark in 34 years.

This is a threshold that most scientists have warned cannot be crossed without dire consequences, including a rise in sea levels of several feet that would flood many coastal cities in the U.S., longer droughts, more intense heat waves that cause a major disruption in the world’s food supply, and large migrations of people from countries of the global south.

It is also a point where it becomes far more difficult to reverse the warming trend. Some scientists suggest temperatures by the end of the century could rise as much as 4-6°C above pre-industrial levels. [1°C equals 1.8°F, so this is a temperature rise of 7.2-10.8°F]

The report titled The Truth About Climate Change says, “Much of the public believes that climate change is only going to happen by the end of the century,” and that this is a misunderstanding of the urgency. Unless there is a dramatic change in current public policy, most people alive today will live to see the 2°C threshold crossed.

The report continues: “Climate change is happening now, and much faster than anticipated.” Climate change related floods, droughts, more intense storms, heat waves, and wildfires have already had devastating effects on livelihoods, infrastructure, and lives.”

If the 2°C threshold is to be avoided, the report calls for far more aggressive targets than those set by the Paris Agreement and for that action to begin immediately. The report says, “To meet the 2°C target, global CO2 emissions should be net zero by 2060-2075.”

The threat is catastrophic, the science overwhelming. So why aren’t solutions to the climate change crisis at the top of the political agenda?

Why don’t we see millions of people in the streets demanding decisive action? Why isn’t this a major issue in the election debates? Why are politicians who deny the existence of human-caused climate change even elected to office?

The lack of American public engagement in the climate crisis is a global concern. If U.S. policy doesn’t change, human life as we know it and thousands of other species will not survive.

According to a Yale survey, 70% of Americans now believe global warming is real. If so, why isn’t there more political pressure to face up to the crisis?

Dig further into the numbers and the state of public opinion is more fully revealed.

  • Of those who believe climate change is real, only half (53%) think that global warming is mostly human caused. One in three (34%) believe it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment.
  • Only about one in ten Americans understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) are convinced that human-caused global warming is happening.
  • Over half of Americans (58%) say they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming, but only 16% say they are “very worried.”

Why are only 16% of people surveyed very worried about what 90% of scientists think is a catastrophic threat?

The Koch Brothers’ war on science certainly plays a major role in promoting doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. They spend millions financing witch hunts against climate scientists and funding “research” designed to confuse public opinion.

The Kochs and other billionaires with a vested interest pour hundreds of millions into the coffers of politicians willing to obstruct legislation that would regulate fossil fuel and promote a green sustainable economy.

Perhaps as responsible for the gap between public opinion and scientific evidence is corporate television news, “The gatekeeper of public consciousness.”

Firstly, they ignore the crisis. The report cited above was not the lead story on television newscasts. We can’t find evidence it was carried by any U.S. television news outlet at all.

According to a Media Matters report, the four major corporate TV networks aired a total 146 minutes of climate change coverage in 2015. ABC only aired 13 minutes of coverage and Fox’s coverage consisted mostly of “criticism of efforts to address climate change.”

The report continues:

CNN aired almost five times as much oil industry advertising as climate change-related coverage in the one-week periods following the announcements that 2015 was the hottest year on record and February 2016 was the most abnormally hot month on record.

Only 16% of Americans are “very worried” about global warming because corporate TV news doesn’t want us to worry about it.

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says:

While US foreign policy is mostly responsible for the growth of militant terrorist groups, the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack is existential. Think about what we’ll do when 500,000 people are killed in New York City. We will declare martial law nationwide. We will be the most draconian tyranny you’ve ever seen on the face of this earth. But still I consider climate change a greater danger because it is a threat to the very survival of the human race.

What are the reasons for corporate TV’s lack of interest in the major news story of the century?The obvious answers are pressure from certain advertisers, the interests of corporate ownership, and the political intrigues of the fossil fuel industry.

But I think it goes even deeper.

In 2009, two years after the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report said, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” TV coverage of climate change was at its height – a whopping 205 minutes for the entire year. Even former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appeared in an ad with Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling for action on climate warming.

Then something happened.

A large section of the elites looked at what it would really take to meet the target scientists said was necessary to mitigate and stop the terrible consequences of climate change. They said, “No way.”

The transformation required to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and move to a green economy would change who has power and how business is done. There is no way to achieve the necessary reduction in carbon emissions without serious government regulation, a strengthening of the public sector, and massive public investment. All this requires a reduction in the political power of the fossil fuel industry and the financial elites associated with it.

Gingrich renounced the Pelosi ad in 2011.

The majority of the billionaires who control the commanding heights of the economy and politics are more interested in short-term profits and immediate personal gratification than some “long-term” threat. They either fight against all climate change legislative action or support relatively weak measures to reduce carbon emissions – better than nothing, but far from what scientists say is required.

For most people of wealth it comes down to a simple calculation: My family and I will be ok. As the IPCC puts it: “Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.”

People who understand the scale of the systemic risk are marginalized by corporate media and thus are marginalized in politics.

A critical task in engaging large numbers of ordinary people in fighting and voting for a rational climate change policy is breaking the corporate monopoly on daily video news. We must create an independent, uncompromising source of global climate change news and investigative reports.

The very first story ever produced by TRNN in 2007 was an interview series with George Monbiot on the urgent climate change threat. We produced a series titled “Who Cares About Bangladesh” soon afterwards.

We reported directly from the COP21 Climate Conference in Paris.

We did in-depth interviews with climatologists like Dr. Alan Robock and Dr. Michael Mann who both worked on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Economist Robert Pollin has appeared in numerous interviews with specific proposals for a transition to a green economy.

We recently interviewed the esteemed actor Emma Thompson while she was onboard a Greenpeace vessel in the Arctic.

We’ve reported on environmental activism from all over the world.

We will soon be releasing the documentary “The Doubt Machine: The Koch Brothers War on Climate Science” narrated by Emma Thompson.

With our limited resources we have produced more than 535 reports on climate change since the fall of 2007 when we started our service. In 2015, we produced 1029 minutes of programming about climate change. That’s more than seven times of all the major networks combined.

We have produced more than 10,000 reports and interviews overall since we began our daily production. We also cover international and national news and now have a bureau in Baltimore reporting on the problems and solutions to the crisis of urban America. Millions of people have watched. We average 1.5 million views per month.

While we have worked hard to keep a focus on climate change, what we have accomplished is far from enough. We need a Climate Bureau with sufficient resources to become a major daily video climate news service for online and TV.

The power of daily video news is what shapes most people’s world view and the field is dominated by news organizations that will not seriously address the problem or are in fact, part of the “doubt machine.”

It is clear that a radical change in the way the world produces and uses energy is required. Currently, about 82% of energy produced in the world is obtained by burning fossil fuels. How we produce energy without burning fossil fuels will be critically important as the world population is expected to grow by 40% to 10 billion by 2050.

 

Please go to The Real News in order to read the rest of their plans for their new Global Climate Change Bureau (GCCB).

 

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PMLearn more about The Real News’ Global Climate Change Bureau. The Real News Network

Source: The Real News Network.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis

=By= Patrick Cockburn

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PM

This is box title
Where lie the lies and what lines due cross when [dis]information is tossed? Is it allies who are funding ISIS (and other extremists), or is this yet another service that one "friend" does for another? A favor perhaps, that additionally offers plausible deniability? Or is this just one of those things that a friend overlooks in polite company, but jests about among friends - like farting at a state dinner? One thing is certain, and that is that in matters of bad guys, big money, and covert operations, virtually nothing is as it seems. And buy the whey, which side is the war on terrorism buttered?

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

The memo says: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.” This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the “War on Terror” would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan].” But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg inThe Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama “questioned, often harshly, the role that America’s Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally”.

It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that “a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as ‘Arab-occupied territory’.”

Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates “were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world”. Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian “moderates” capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump’s demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar “to dominate the Sunni world”. But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PMSource: The Independent via Znet.


 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





The Catcher in the Lie

=By= William Stonkton

cb-news-the-catcher-in-the-lie-youtube

Kremlin

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PMThis edition of CB News examines the “information war” that has been started against Russia. This is an international effort that provides a drumbeat of propaganda against Russia. These types of orchestrated campaigns are very difficult to counter as it falls it the category of “you hear the same thing everywhere,” and that rapidly turns into just “something that everybody knows.”  Lies become a default truth, and like ripples on a pond the lie spreads out almost evenly across a population. Stonkton illuminates the various perpetrators of this campaign and how it is being carried out. What is really happening here is a “disinformation war.”

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PMWilliam Stonkton  is a Russian videographer living in Omsk, Russia. You can follow him on youtube at William Stonkton Channel.


 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.