Putin & Assad Have Liberated Syria from the U.S.-&-Jihadist Alliance

black-horizontalhoriz-black-wide

—DISPATCHES FROM ERIC ZUESSE—

EricZuessearrow-black-small-down-circle copypale blue horiz


syrian-StreetRuins

The murderous but supremely hypocritical US-led coalition has managed to kill hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, created a huge crisis in Europe, and turned most cities in Syria into piles of rubble. Democracy, anyone? Meanwhile Washington, protected by its filthy presstitutes, does not dare level with the American people about the true motives for this heinous war. The Big Lie continues.—Editors


 

syriadamage2

It has been an alliance between the leaderships of U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE; but, regardless of whether it’s called “the U.S. alliance” or “the Saudi alliance,” or even (possibly) “the Turkish alliance” (and it could be called by any of those three names), it’s the jihadist alliance, and it now seems to be near its final defeat, by, quite clearly, the Russian alliance: Russian air power has enabled the Syrian army (called the SAA or “Syrian Arab Army”) of Bashar al-Assad, plus Lebanon’s Shiite warriors (called “Hezbollah”), plus organization by Iran’s generals, to exterminate thousands of ISIS jihadists. The pro-Syrian alliance, under Russian air-power, are now making final preparations to finish the job, in the Syrian headquarters of ISIS — the city of Raqqa, where ISIS’s “Caliph” is, who could soon be meeting his end.

syrianBalkanizationMap

This major military victory, in Palmyra — the center of the Jihadist-controlled region of Syria (and located south of Raqqa, separated from it only by desert) — was announced on Easter Sunday, 27 March 2016, by the website Syrian Perspective (one of the world’s two great news-sites covering the Syrian war, the other being Al Masdar News), as they headlined, “Palmyra Liberated! General Ayyoob Reviews Troops in Aftermath of Enormous Victory; What’s Next?” Reporter Ziad Fadel opened:

HOMS: The rats inside were finally given the go-ahead to withdraw to Al-Sukhna, Al-Raqqa and Dayr El-Zor, but not by the rodent commanders in Al-Raqqa. This was a desperate order by Abu-Ihaab Al-‘Iraaqi, the local commander who, evidently, values his life on earth a lot more than what was promised to him by the shamans of ISIS. This morning at 5:00 a.m., the SAA had confirmation from sources inside the city that the piece-meal escape was taking place. The Syrian high command ordered troops to stand down until the last rodent had left, after which time the SAAF and RuAF would take to the skies to see how many of the stragglers could be exterminated. It’s over.

The Syrian and Russian Air Forces have been directed into the air to block any movement of terrorist ISIS rodents to any area considered a stronghold. This means that no deal was ever struck between the army and the murderers inside the city. Instead, what happened was the army was commanded to permit a withdrawal with the understanding that escaped rats would still be targets once the city was liberated. As I write, SAA engineers are everywhere inside the city removing IEDs, booby-traps and mines. It’s a thankless task replete with danger, but, it must be done in order to return the population to a safe city.

He went on to explain that the head of SAA’s Special Forces unit, called “Tiger Forces,” “is very keen on being the leader of the force which will liberate Al-Raqqa and his forces to the east of Aleppo are preparing for exactly that.”

The key question now is whether a deal can be reached with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS’s leader or “Caliph,” in Raqqa — a deal which won’t require the entire population of Raqqa to be massacred, in order for the Russian alliance to eliminate all of ISIS’s leadership, and all of its jihadists there. Ideally, some way will be found to salvage at least some of the civilian population who are being held, essentially as slaves, by ISIS. However, Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, has stated, on several occasions, that what’s most essential is for the jihadists in Syria, and in Iraq, to be killed where they are — not allowed to escape to become terrorist cells in Russia or anywhere else (as has been happening, though not on the huge scale that would result if Baghdadi and his jihadists are allowed to escape.

In a related event that also signals the defeat of the terrorist alliance, Middle East Eye, yet another of the key independent reporting sites regarding the war in Syria — and specializing on the entire Middle Eastern region — headlined on Friday the 25th of March, “Jordan’s King Accuses Turkey of Sending Terrorists to Europe,” and David Hearst reported:

King Abdullah of Jordan accused Turkey of exporting terrorists to Europe at a top level meeting with senior US politicians in January, the MEE can reveal. 

The king said Europe’s biggest refugee crisis was not an accident, and neither was the presence of terrorists among them: “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.”

Asked by one of the congressmen present whether the Islamic State group was exporting oil to Turkey, Abdullah replied: ”Absolutely.”

In other words: the U.S. alliance is coming apart, at least at the edges, when the reality becomes revealed — despite the long hiding of this fact on the part of Western ‘news’ media — that the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-Turkish-UAE-Israeli alliance has been supporting jihadist Sunni groups in order to weaken the only non-Sunni-run nations in the Middle East, Syria and Iran, both of which (and Syria’s government is more properly to be called non-sectarian  than Shiite, because the Ba’athist Party, which has been leading Syria since the 1950s, is ideologically committed to secularism and against sectarianism of any type, neither Shiite nor Sunni) have allied themselves with Russia, instead of with the U.S.

The origin of the CIA aspect of this operation was well covered in an extraordinary BBC documentary in 1992, (see also video below), and the broader aristocratic operation was reported in my article, “The Two Contending Visions of World Government.” During Obama’s Presidency, one of the major physical battlefields in this global war has been in Syria; another, in Ukraine, Obama’s coup there, was well covered here.




ABOUT ERIC ZUESSE

Eric ZuesseThey'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.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

 




Gallup Poll Shows Americans Prefer Terrorist Nations Over Iran. Why?

black-horizontalhoriz-black-wide

—DISPATCHES FROM ERIC ZUESSE—

EricZuessearrow-black-small-down-circle copypale blue horiz


The edifice of lies perfected by the West—mostly created  and led by the US and eagerly buttressed by the British and now Germany—in effect a totalitarian Ministry of Lies as Orwell defined it—constitutes one of the gravest dangers to peace and the survival of life in our planet. Orwell had it wrong: the threat to peace and civilization was not in the Soviet Union but in “democratic” America. The propagandists’  crimes are and should be regarded as world-class capital crimes. 

Americans have been lied to for many generations. Reality manipulation is an old

Americans have been lied to for many generations. Reality manipulation is an old pillar of the ruling cliques’ legitimacy.

A February 17th Gallup Poll showed that Americans prefer the chief nation that sponsors international terrorism, when given a choice between that terrorist-sponsoring nation and Iran. The disapproval shown of Iran is 79%; the approval is 14%. Back in 2014, the disapproval/approval were 84%/12%. At that time, Saudi Arabia had figures of 57%/35%. Iran was seen by Americans as being even more hostile toward Americans than is Saudi Arabia.

Americans are profoundly misinformed about international relations — and there’s a reason for this: the deep corruption within the American Establishment (the people who shape American political opinions).


Here are the facts: 92% of Saudi Arabians approve of ISIS. That country’s leadership — both the Saud family who own the country, and their clerics — teach them this way. In fact: on youtube you can see the “Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we do,” and he has high religious authority in Saudi Arabia. And, so, how can the Saudi public be blamed for believing what they hear in their churches — the mosques — such as that ISIS are devout believers, like they themselves are? Those clerics keep the ideology, and keep the royal family in power. That’s why the Saud family fund their clergy.
 …
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and the bookkeeper/bagman who had collected, in cash, every one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda up till 9/11, said under oath, in U.S. court-testimony which Western news-media have hidden from the public: virtually all of the Saudi Princes, and many of their close friends (each of which individuals he identified by name) were $1M+ donors to the Al Qaeda organization; and, without those funds, any attacks such as 9/11 would have been simply impossible for them to do.

The bag-man and bookkeeper for Osama bin Laden was captured by the United States and was sent to a maximum-security U.S. prison where he is unable to speak to anyone, but the 9/11 families managed to get his testimony in a court case that they were bringing against Al Qaeda — against the people behind it, the people who fund it, the people who enabled Osama bin Laden to hire and train the 9/11 hijackers — and this man who had personally picked up in cash each one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda, named many of the leading Saudi Princes and their closest friends as having been the people who had provided the funds. And he said: “Without the money of the — of the Saudi, you will have nothing” of Al Qaeda.

Here’s one exchange:
Q: To clarify, you’re saying that the al-Qaeda members received salaries?
A: They do, absolutely.
The royals’ ‘charity’ that pays not only Al Qaeda but ISIS and other such organizations, is from the donors, to their warriors; the warriors are being paid by those ‘charitable donations.’ That’s what pays their salaries. Jihadist organizations are religious charities — whose aim is to spread the Islamic faith (which is why the mullahs or ‘holy men,’ who are also being paid by that same Saud family, approve of the Sauds to be the rulers).
Here’s another exchange:
 …
Q: What — what was bin Laden’s attitude towards the Saudi ulema [the religious scholars, the clerics]?
A: It was of complete reverence and obedience. [It was like a Roman Catholic’s attitude] toward the Pope.

Saudi Prince “Bandar Bush” has been a key figure in many Western criminal shenanigans, including the manufacturing of false flag attacks in Syria. [CC BY-SA by Tribes of the World]

Among the mega-donors that he could remember off the top of his head were Prince Waleed bin Talal al-Saud, Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Saud, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (affectionately known in the U.S. as “Bandar Bush” (he was Saudi Arabia’s U.S. Ambassador at the time of 9/11; he later became Chief of Saudi intelligence).
The bagman explained:
 …
The Saudi government is — they have two heads of the snake, they have the Saudi, like Al Saud, and the Wahhabi [clerics] were in charge of the Islamic Code of the Islam [the lawmakers and judges] — or Islamic power in Saudi Arabia, okay, and that’s why they have the name ‘Wahhabi,’ okay, okay. So the Saudi [the Saud royal family] cannot keep [the Executive or ruling] power in Saudi Arabia without having the agreement, okay, of the Wahhab, the Wahhabi, the scholar [the clerics, who interpret the Quran, the nation’s real Constitution), okay.
 …
One might reasonably wonder, then: why do Americans hate and fear Iran, over and above even the nation — the royal family and their clerics — that were actually behind 9/11? Might it be, perhaps, because the Shia clerics of Iran are as fundamentalist as the Sunni ones in Saudi Arabia? Not at all; but, yet, Americans seem to assume that that’s the case.
 …
The American public are duped by lying ‘news’ media, which don’t let them know the reality — the American people are kept in the dark.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Sauds, the one family who own Saudi Arabia, hate the Iranian public, just as much as they hate the American public; and they do so because they (the Saud family) intend ultimately (their descendants) to conquer and rule over both, and over the entire world. But first, they need to kill all Shiites (and Iran is ruled by Shiites), because otherwise even the Islamic world itself won’t be united. Without a united Islam, how could they have a chance ultimately to conquer the non-Islamic world? It wouldn’t even be possible — and they know this. In fact, their nation was created in 1744 by a mutual oath between Mohammed Ibn Saud and Mohammed Ibn Wahhab that embodied it.

John Foster Dulles, Wall Street's man in Eisenhower's State Department, was nothing but the quintessential American imperialist, a moral vulture in international relations. With sibling Allen, head of the CIA, the brothers cast a long and sinister shadow on US policy for far too many years. Too bad nothing is actually changed in those quarters.

John Foster Dulles, Wall Street’s key man in Eisenhower’s State Department, was nothing but the quintessential American imperialist, a moral vulture in international relations. With sibling Allen, head of the CIA, the brothers cast a long and sinister shadow on US policy for many years. Too bad nothing is actually changed in those quarters.

The U.S. aristocracy have been allied with the Saudi royal family for decades. When the fascist John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles had Kim Roosevelt — Teddy Roosevelt’s fascist grandson — organize the 1953 CIA overthrow of the progressive democratic secular freely elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and install there the barbaric Shah and his torture-chambers, it sparked the Iranian public to hate Americans, who had brought this hell to them. The Eisenhower Administration did this.


Then, in 1979, came the Iranian revolution installing not a Mossadegh-type secular democracy such as America overthrew, but instead a Shiite clerical dictatorship, to replace the American fascist one, which had been entirely alien to Iran (though this alien regime used a local dictator, the Shah, as its figurehead — who answered to Washington). In succession now, Mossadegh’s two enemies — first the U.S. aristocracy, and now the Shiite clergy — have replaced an alien, U.S., dictatorship by a native one. But that native one (after 1979, the Shia clergy) has no international-jihadist ideology. Though Shia clerics hate the apartheid Israeli regime and fund Hezbollah to fight it, there is otherwise nothing that’s even remotely comparable to jihadism, in the Shia branch of Islam. Jihad (global conquest) is strictly a Sunni phenomenon, and it centers around the Saudi government, which is owned by the Saud family, and whose laws are made by the Wahhabist (the Sauds’ extremely fundamentalist Islamic) clergy, which is financed by the Sauds and by the subjects that the royal family own — the ‘citizens’ of Saudi Arabia. This is why 92% of the Saudi public think that ISIS is good. (By contrast, in the multicultural nation of Syria, which is allied with Iran and Russia and is ruled by a decidedly non-sectarian and secular government that’s composed mainly of Shia, and which has been invaded by Wahhabist-Salafist foreign fighters who are financed by America’s jihadist allies, 78% of the population disapprove of ISIS, and 82% blame the U.S. as being the chief power behind ISIS.)


The original sin that has shaped America’s role in the Mideast (other than our siding with the apartheid nation of Israel and so being widely despised around the world by Muslims) occurred when America’s aristocracy took over Iran in 1953, for their oil companies. But Americans hate Iranians as a result  of that original sin, which was done by the Dulleses to Iranians on behalf of U.S. oil-company friends, which include the Sauds. The American people are getting the blowback from the American aristocracy’s international crimes abroad.


And, now, as Gallup is consistently finding, Americans hate the Iranians. That’s because the Iranians have called America “the great Satan” because that’s what America (our aristocracy and its agents) had actually been to them — to the Iranian people. Iran’s public are right, even though the clergy that rule over them are wrong — but Americans don’t know that distinction, and so condemn the Iranian nation.


Meanwhile, the Sauds, from whom the American public have suffered 9/11 and lots else, are ‘American allies’ according to the duplicitous U.S. press. They are not allies actually of the American public, but of the American aristocracy, which the American press don’t even expose to the public: this country, after all, is (not) a ‘democracy.’


On February 22nd, Gallup headlined “Four Nations Top U.S.’s Greatest Enemy List” and reported that they were: North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China. Those were the four nations whose names had been volunteered by respondents in answer to “What one country anywhere in the world do you consider to be the United States’ greatest enemy today? (open-ended).” The complete list of nations identified by one or more of the 1,021 respondents included 25 nations. Saudi Arabia came near the bottom of that list. (On 22 April 2015, CNN issued a poll finding that the same four nations came up as posing the biggest “threat” to the U.S.; but also finding that ISIS was considered by Americans to be a far bigger threat than any nation.)


And our government won’t prosecute, nor attempt to prosecute, the people who actually fund terrorism — not even the terrorism that hits here, never mind in Europe etc. That refusal to prosecute the people who were behind the 9/11 attacks is also what the expurgated 28 pages in the U.S. Senate’s 9/11 report are all about. (And, since the American public don’t know, there’s no pressure from the public on that, either.)


Instead, our lying politicians, who are empowered (in both Parties) by money from the same people, constantly call Iran the major backer of international terrorism, though they know that the allegation is rabidly false. Hillary Clinton says, “We have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism.” But, actually, she and the other agents of America’s aristocracy are the ones who have to stop their constant lying, because plenty of American suckers believe their lies — and it ends up showing in the Gallup and other opinion-polls, and ultimately in the people that the thus-deluded American public vote for  to serve in Congress and the Presidency. Americans are deluded by their aristocracy’s constant lies.

After all: it’s not hard for any authentic news-reporter to prove that Hillary herself is aware that what she said there was false — that her remark was a lie, not merely a slip-up. When she was the U.S. Secretary of State, one of the first things she did (after assisting the fascist junta that had taken over in Honduras on 28 June 2009 to stay in power) was to send a cable to the U.S. Ambassadors in all of the capitals where the donations to Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups, were coming from, requiring those Ambassadors to the local aristocracy to tell them to stop doing that; these were the Ambassadors only in fundamentalist-Sunni-run countries: Saudi Arabia (the center of it all), Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Pakistan. It’s because Sunni-run countries are where almost all of the jihadists and especially the funding for jihadism come from. In that private cable, she even said things like: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” “Qatar’s overall level of CT [Counter Terrorist] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” “Kuwait … has been less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait. Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point.” “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.”


Those are our ‘allies’? She knows that Al Qaeda and ISIS received no money from Shia. She knows that Al Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni-only groups, which hate all Shia — they want to defeat Iran, they don’t represent  Iran. (But the American public seem to be unaware of that reality.)
Garbage like what Hillary said there against Iran makes it into Presidential candidates’ debates; and none of the ‘press’ says the person was either lying or else incredibly ignorant for saying such a thing. A statement like that poisons the well of U.S.-Iranian relations, even more than a half-century after it had already been poisoned big-time, back in 1953. Why is this poisoning so persistent?

This lie that Hillary Clinton and so many other American politicians spout, is one of many lies that our ‘news’ media can’t expose, because to do that would also expose themselves — that the media themselves have deceived the American public by not pointing out that the politicians are lying about these major, determinative, issues. In this regard, it’s similar to the lie that Bush didn’t lie but merely had been mistaken about “Saddam’s WMD”: how could the press now acknowledge that Bush had lied, when they refused to even examine his lies while they were being made, which is when it counts? And that’s why politicians such as Clinton can get away with their lies against Iran.


America is now piling up with lies, which the nation’s ‘news’ media can’t expose without exposing themselves as being part of the deception of the American public. (After they had stenographically reported George W. Bush’s lies about ‘Saddam’s WMD,’ they could never admit how rotten the U.S. press were — and still are. They have  to hide that, too.) This piling-on of lies is now becoming extremely dangerous, even to the very possibility  of restoring democracy to America. Without an honest press, democracy is impossible. Without an honest press, democracy won’t be able to be restored in America.

There is no doubt that the U.S. press is as  dishonest about Russia as toward its traditional allies, such as UkraineSyria, and Libya. (And: Iran — because America since 1953 has joined with the jihadist Sunni royal families on that, and virtually forces Iran to ally with Russia for protection against us.) And this nest of subjects includes the entire topic of jihadism, which America’s aristocracy secretly back (and use as a tactic against Russia and its allies) but which Russia’s aristocracy and public both oppose, consistently — and not only by tokens such as killing Al Qaeda’s leaders, but by getting done the entire ugly job that needs to be done (which was described there with a remarkable lack of bias, in a recent issue of the New Yorker magazine, by Joshua Yaffa, headlining “Putin’s Dragon”). There is no way to defeat jihadism without destroying the jihadist culture, itself. Instead, the U.S. has been and is allied to it. Not just in Saudi Arabia, but also in the other Arabic Sunni oil-kingdoms: Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE — and, more recently, also in the resurgently-Sunni NATO ‘ally’: Turkey. So: our ‘press’ must lie big-time, and with only very few exceptions of honesty, about these matters.


That’s what is merely being reflected in Gallup’s latest, and prior, polls about the opinions that Americans have regarding Iran. This is a severe, worsening, and dangerous, sickness of the American ‘press.’ And nobody seems to have any solution for it. How can the people of a nation boycott its corrupt press? How can they even know that they should? How can they ever know that they are “being had” — that they are being governed by lies? That their government, politicians, and press, surround them with those lies?
(Crossposted with strategic-culture.org)



ABOUT ERIC ZUESSE

Eric ZuesseThey'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.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

 




Conveniently forgotten: U.S. Drops to 49th in World Press Freedom Ranking


horiz grey linetgplogo12313


EditorsNote_WhitePolitical memory is a precious thing, but in the modern world, with its non-stop bombardment of news, pseudo news, half-truths and plain “noise”, the average mind, already distracted and crippled by personal matters, appalling confusion and often ignorance, can do little to acquire, let alone remember many vital facts brought to light by those who push back against the establishment’s lies. So here it is again, for the benefit of our audience, a report worth pondering, which we are willing to bet you never saw.

By Glenn Greenwald

ICH” – “The Intercept” – Each year, Reporters Without Borders issues a worldwide ranking of nations based on the extent to which they protect or abridge press freedom. The group’s 2015 ranking was released this morning, and the United States is ranked 49th.

That is the lowest ranking ever during the Obama presidency, and the second-lowest ranking for the U.S. since the rankings began in 2002 (in 2006, under Bush, the U.S. was ranked 53rd). The countries immediately ahead of the U.S. are Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso, El Salvador, Tonga, Chile and Botswana.

Some of the U.S.’s closest allies fared even worse, including Saudi Arabia (164), Bahrain (163), Egypt (158), the UAE (120), and Israel (101: “In the West Bank, the Israeli security forces deliberately fired rubber bullets and teargas at Palestinian journalists”; 15 journalists were killed during Israeli attack on Gaza; and “the authorities also stepped up control of programme content on their own TV stations during the offensive, banning a spot made by the Israeli NGO B’Tselem that cited the names of 150 children who had been killed in the Gaza Strip”).

To explain the latest drop for the U.S., the press group cited the U.S. government’s persecution of New York Times reporter Jim Risen, as well as the fact that the U.S. “continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.” Also cited were the numerous arrests of journalists covering the police protests in Ferguson, Missouri (which included The Intercept‘s Ryan Devereaux, who was tear-gassed and shot with a rubber bullet prior to his arrest).

It should come as no surprise that the U.S. continues to plummet in press freedoms under Obama. In October, 2013, the Committee to Protect Freedom issued a scathing denunciation of the U.S. government’s attacks on press freedoms, the first time the U.S. was ever the subject of one of its reports. Written by former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., it detailed the multiple ways the Obama administration has eroded press freedoms, and concluded:

The administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate. The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent.

That warning echoed the one previously issued by James Goodale, the General Counsel of the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers battle, who said: “President Obama wants to criminalize the reporting of national security information” and “President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”

© First Look Media. All Rights Reserved

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.


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




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.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PM

Nauseated 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.




black-horizontal




Presstitutes at Work


 

CBS' Pelley: One of the overpaid "media brands" in the US market of commodified presstitutes.

CBS anchor Scott Pelley: One of the overpaid “media brands” in the US market of commodified presstitutes.

DETOXIFY YOUR MIND. LEARN TO RECOGNIZE THE SYNTAX OF IMPERIALIST DISINFORMATION.
Just offering a record of their atrocious lies. Study and collect for future reference.

Compilations and running commentary by Patrice Greanville

The American network CBS (Calumny Broadcasting System) is at it all the time, planting lies in the minds of a largely clueless public, and so are its sisters at home and abroad, including NBC, ABC, BBC, FOX News, and even the supposedly more ideologically neutral PBS (which has been rightfully nicknamed, the “Petroleum Broadcasting System”. Guess why.) PBS’ famed and wrongly admired news show, The Newshour, is an excellent example of liberaloid disinformation at its sanctimonious best. (See The Political Function of PBS, by Alex Cockburn). Note that these propaganda memes against opponents of the empire go on for years, even decades, until the goal is accomplished: the total demonization of a nation and its leaders, with the tacit implication that righteous America has the moral right to intervene by any means necessary to re-establish “freedom and democracy”. Yes, the sacred duty to intervene “for the good of the people and the world.” This is the insalubrious, arch-hypocritical project these overpaid presstitutes are involved in, along with the less visible producers, editors, and naturally media owners—sitting comfortably at the apex of the American power pyramid and pulling the strings. Note how the propaganda memes used against Pres. Assad and Syria have been running pretty much the same since 2011, the possible point of inception for the effort to destabilize Syria in accord with the decisions of the American-led supranational deep state.

Note that someone at CBS (or Google, or both) has noted that some of their own videos are being used in some oppositional sites, like The Greanville Post, to dissect and expose their imperialist lies, using such as prima facie evidence of their crime of complicity, and they have decided to torpedo the effort by disabling in many cases the instant onsite replay. Thus if you click on any of these videos and you get the capricious announcement that you will have to schlep over to YouTube to watch the video (despite YouTube’s making it possible to “share” such videos widely) you’ll have to do just that. That’s what happens when massive private property rules over the moral right of the citizenry to be truthfully informed.


 


THIS POST PRESENTS A SAMPLER OF AMERICAN DISINFORMATION REGARDING THE OVERTHROW OF SYRIA’S PRES. BASHIR AL-ASSAD.

The Presstitutes persecution of Syria’s president Assad has been nothing if not unrelenting in their effort to facilitate his removal by any means necessary—including all-out war.  In pursuit of this goal,  Assad has been grotesquely slandered and is always portrayed as a vicious “dictator” and his government, a sordid “regime” (code word to tip the audience about his “illegitimacy,” and also suggestive of tyranny sustained by brutal force.)

Syrian refugees flee to Turkey by the thousands

CBS Evening News

Published on Feb 8, 2016

With the help of Russian airstrikes, the Assad dictatorship in Syria is close to surrounding the rebel (sic) stronghold of Aleppo. Meanwhile, refugees of the war continue to face obstacles in their search for a safe haven. Holly Williams reports from Turkey.

 

Published on Feb 9, 2012

“In Syria, dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces have surrounded the city of Homs – the center of the 11-month rebellion. Clarissa Ward reports from inside Syria where life has become a cycle of funerals and gun battles…” Yada Yada Yada. All lies. And Clarissa Ward, the field correspondent, is notorious for her eager participation in these media ambushes. 


Below: A CBS affiliate sings the same tune in Atlanta.


Published on Feb 8, 2012

CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley – On the frontlines with Syrian rebels

In Syria, there has been no let-up in President Bashar al-Assad’s attacks on his own people. His military has killed more than 5,000 people in 11 months. Clarissa Ward reports from the frontlines with rebels fighting to overthrow the 40-year Assad dictatorship.


Published on Feb 7, 2012

CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley – Inside Syrian rebels training session

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 6.34.59 PM

The Assad government has banned independent (sic) reporting within Syria But CBS News’ Clarissa Ward was able to sneak in and spend time with the rebels fighting to overthrow the regime.


Inside the Free Syrian Army (1)

Note: This is one of the earliest “reports” disseminated by CBS and other networks, already accusing the Assad government of all manner of sinister motives and actions. The lie about the “moderate Syrian rebels” —relabelled by the Washington propaganda mavens as “Free Syrian Army”—is rolled out in this segment to prepare the soil for further deception along the same lines.

Published on Dec 6, 2011

CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward was able to sneak inside Syria to lift the open the veil of secrecy placed on the country. She provides an inside look at what the band of former Syrian soldiers who have taken up arms against the dictator’s regime

black-horizontal

The Daily Beast 

mediaCritters-mosaic

  • Dateline MEDIA  08.08.12 

You’re Worth How Much? TV Anchors, by the Numbers

Cooper. Sawyer. Blitzer. They have multimillion-dollar contracts and perfect hair. But which newsmakers deliver the most bang for their boss’s bucks? We do the math.

For all the buzz about how much television news anchors earn these days—Matt Lauer recently made waves after reportedly signing a $25 million–a–year contract with NBC—a more important question often remains unanswered: are any of these enormous paychecks, in fact, worth it?

To try to answer the question, The Daily Beast divided the individual salaries of some of the top talking heads by the number of viewers their shows bring in. By looking at how much these guys earn per viewer, we hoped to get a sense of who’s delivering to their network bosses the most bang for the buck.

Of course, TV news stars don’t make it a habit of publicly disclosing their salaries. So we first looked for media reports about what each makes, and then ran those numbers by industry sources. Audience figures are based on Nielsen ratings for the week of July 16 for network shows, and July 16 itself for cable.

The results were surprising. For example, while the overall numbers might indicate that networks pay more than cable, on a per-viewer basis, that’s not always true. ABC’s World News anchor Diane Sawyer makes $12 million to Anderson Cooper’s $11 million. But with roughly 608,000 people tuning into CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, the anchor is one of the highest paid on TV, pulling in more than $18 per viewer. Considering Sawyer has an audience of 7.32 million, she seems like a relative steal for ABC, at $1.63 per viewer.

By some measures, MSNBC appears to be more generous with its staff than network sister NBC—especially if you’re a man. Joe Scarborough, of Morning Joe, earns $4 million and has an audience of 367,000, which comes to $10.89 per viewer. In contrast, even at $25 million, Matt Lauer is only costing NBC $5.88 per viewer, considering the Today show’s audience of 4.2 million. 

In general, on both network and cable, women are still paid less than men; if you’re in doubt, check out Today cohost Savannah Guthrie’s reported salary—at less than 50 cents per viewer, she’s a relative bargain for NBC. Among the networks, generally considered more august than their rabble-rousing cable cousins, the exception is ABC, which pays its women more than the men. CBS is a close, penny-pinching second, and CNBC wins the thrifty award for cable.

Dan Gross and Paula Froelich dissect anchors’ salaries.

ABC and CNBC didn’t return calls seeking comment. Fox, NBC, CNN, and CBS declined to comment, as did MSNBC, though a spokeswoman for that network said our salary estimates were “wildly inaccurate.”

Industry experts say viewers—or potential viewers—are just part of the calculation that goes into salaries. The value of an anchor also depends on how much advertising can be sold against his or her show, for example. While the size of the audience plays into that, so do the demographics. A show might only attract a few hundred thousand viewers, but if those viewers are relatively well off, the show can command a premium for coveted ad spots. Advertisers also pay a big premium for younger audiences. Anchors who deliver the 18-to-35 or 25-to-54 age range are compensated accordingly, especially since the news audience tends to skew older. Networks, more so than cable, also compensate their anchors in part for being available to fly around the world when a big story breaks or a disaster takes place.

Television’s anchor salaries aren’t “much different from the movie business,” says Derek Baine, a senior analyst at SNL Kagan, a media-consulting firm. “It’s supply and demand—their agents check the market and try to drum up competition to make it seem as if that person has other options to go elsewhere.”

Indeed, anchors are increasingly one-person brands, and the bigger that brand’s star power, the more likely they are to land big interviews and specials, which can be syndicated and rake in huge profits above and beyond their regular programs.

“Look at Matt Lauer—is he worth it?” says Stephen Battaglio, the TV Guide business editor who edits the annual salary issue for the magazine. “Matt is central to [Today]—if he left, ratings would plummet and NBC would lose at least $100-125 million in ad revenue. His salary generates the ratings and audience that will keep advertisers paying what they do.”

Same with a guy like Brian Williams, who “brings stature, and physically represents NBC,” says Battaglio. “There are some intangibles there as well. People who deliver the news for you, the personalities you’ve developed over the years, they become your brand and there is a value that can’t always be quantified …This is built up over time—stature, connection, relationship with the audience. It’s an investment.”


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





Washington Post’s Wild Swings at Sanders

horiz grey line

//


 

By Dean Baker
FAIR
WaPoSanders

The Washington Post (1/27/16) tells you to disbelieve in Bernie Sanders’ “future to believe in.” (image: Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires. Therefore the trashing of Sen. Bernie Sanders in an editorial, “Bernie Sanders’ Fiction-Filled Campaign”  (1/27/16), was about as predictable as the sun rising.

While there is much here that is misleading, it’s worth focusing on the central theme. The piece tells readers:

The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system. The evolution and structure of the world economy, not mere corporate deck-stacking, explained many of the big economic challenges the country still faces. And even with radical campaign finance reform, many Americans and their representatives would still oppose the Sanders agenda.

If we can confront the Post’s “reality check” with real-world reality, it is worth noting that the largest banks are in fact much larger than they were before the crisis, as a result of a wave of mergers that was approved at the peak of the panic. Furthermore, the industry as a whole is getting bigger, not smaller. It was under 17.0 percent of national income in 2007; last year it was almost 18.0 percent.

It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires.

There has been research in recent years from both the Bank of International Settlements and International Monetary Fund showing that a large financial sector is a drag on growth. For this reason, Sanders’ proposal for a financial transactions tax, which would be a big step towards downsizing the industry, would be well-received by a more reality-based newspaper.

As far as the rest of the story, longer and stronger patent protections were not just the “evolution of the world economy.” They were the result of deliberate policy that had the effect of redistributing income upward to the pharmaceutical companies, the entertainment industry and the software industry. The same is true of a pattern of international trade that was quite explicitly designed to put manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world.

At the same time, we maintained or increased barriers that protect highly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers. The predicted and actual consequence of this pattern of trade was to reduce the pay of the bulk of the workforce, that either work in manufacturing or compete with people who work in manufacturing, to the benefit of the most highly paid workers. This sure looks like stacking of the economy.

Naturally, the Post also gets into its complaints about how Sanders doesn’t address the long-term budget deficit, apparently not noticing that if Sanders is successful in reforming health care, then this problem largely goes away. Of course, for most of the country, a hugely underemployed economy that has not produced real wage gains for most workers in the last four decades is a much higher priority than the possibility that somewhere in the next decade or two we might see tax increases of the sort we had in the decades of the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. It is understandable that the Post and the millionaires and billionaires would like us to focus on taxes, but the rest of the country is much more worried about their before-tax income.


Economist Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. A version of this post originally appeared on Medium (1/28/16).

Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.


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 PM

Nauseated 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.