Google gets to decide what is real news and what is fakenews

Google’s Censorship Of Independent News – RINF Becomes Latest Victim

AFP Photo / Lionel Bonaventure

Mick Meaney

(RINF) – ‘Fake news’ is a term designed to fool the weak minded into believing the corporate media are the only reliable sources of information.

You and I both know that is a total lie.

Since you’re reading this, you already know that we’re living in a totalitarian society where anything that does not sit inside the tightly controlled margins of ‘acceptable debate’, is painted as an enemy of the people.

You might recall that late last year, following Hillary Clinton’s defeat, Google announced they were going to war against supposed ‘fake news’ websites.

This week I received an email from Google Adsense informing me that my account would be disabled if I didn’t comply with their demands to censor this website.

They demanded that I remove an article that exposed Israel’s corruption and crimes against humanity (there are hundreds of articles like this here).

In fact, it was merely a portion of an article with ‘read more’ link to TruthOut.

So I was faced with a tough decision:

Comply; delete the offending article, keep earning from Adsense and hope they don’t come back and demand that I remove more.

Or I could refuse to be bullied and lose 80% of RINF’s revenue.

So I decided to put Google to the test. I TEMPORARILY removed the article and told them it was gone. I waited patiently to see what their next move would be.

Then the next day, as I expected, I received another email telling me to delete a second article. This time it was an article about Donald Trump, written by Eric Zuesse.

Again, Google claimed the article had been ‘scrapped’ – code for stolen from somewhere else.

We have a strict editorial policy here, we never republish articles in full unless we have explicit permission or right to do so. In many cases an author will submit an article directly.

If we don’t have permission to publish an article in full, then a small portion of the article will be published and a ‘read more’ link to the source will be added.

This is called ‘content curation’ and is a widely accepted practise.

Eric publishes articles here himself, under his own RINF author account. Of all the places that article has appeared across the Internet, it was published on this website FIRST. Their advanced algorithm is smart enough to know when the article was published.

And of course I reinstated the article that triggered their initial censorship demand.

My choice is now; let Google dictate what information is acceptable, or significantly reduce the amount of time I spend devoted to RINF.

There are other ad networks out there, I’m currently using Media.net – but none can compete with the earnings of Adsense, it’s significantly higher than any other network. That’s why it’s so popular.

Either way Google wins, but they’re NOT going to control what kind of information we publish here. I refuse to be bullied by Google and the threat of losing my income isn’t enough to pressure me into compliance.

Maybe that’s the nature of independent news; we are a target, something else that needs to be manipulated and controlled – because we’re a barrier between the propaganda laced mainstream media, and an informed population that won’t accept it.

Google have an agenda. They outright admitted it and now they’re enforcing it

@LouiseMensch ‏is delusional, which is why she gets to write for the New York Times

What Constitutes Reasonable Mainstream Opinion

Louise Mensch is delusional, which is why she gets to write for the New York Times

By Nathan J. Robinson and Alex Nichols | Current Affairs | March 22, 2017

For some time, certain critics have been suggesting that the mainstream press gives a little too much credence to dubious conspiracy theories about Russia, theories which many Democrats have embraced out of their desire to undermine Donald Trump. Liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are beginning to sound a bit like Glenn Beck during the peak of the chalkboard-years. Any claim about nefarious doings by Vladimir Putin—for instance, that Russia hacked Vermont’s electric grid, or that the Naked Capitalism blog is Russian state propaganda—is spread widely by pundits without particular regard for the actual substantiating evidence.

Of course, one may disagree with this. One may believe that the media’s treatment of the Russia-Trump nexus has been sober and reasonable. But a new data point suggests otherwise: the New York Times recently published a piece on Russian hacking by Louise Mensch. And a world where the Paper of Record publishes Mensch is not a world with a sane public conversation about Russia.

Mensch is a British former Conservative MP and chick-lit author who these days spends most of her time on Twitter issuing frenzied denunciations of imagined armies of online “Putinbots.” She is—and this is no overstatement—one of the least credible people on the internet.

Let’s be clear: with Mensch, we are not talking about someone who merely “takes a hard line” on the Russia question. Mensch is legitimately paranoid and deluded. She sincerely believes that Andrew Breitbart was murdered by Vladimir Putin, that Russia is secretly operating the public wifi networks in her neighborhood, and that the 15-year-old-girl whom Anthony Weiner sexted was in reality a hacker on the Kremlin payroll. (The Daily Mail, of all places, offered a thorough debunking.) When a journalist from the London Times visited Mensch, he found her manically babbling about a “giant web” of Russia connections invisible to anyone else, her ADHD having given her a “temporary superpower.” Mensch told the reporter that a mobile florist in her neighborhood could in fact be a Russian operation dispatched to intercept her communications, an assertion that sounded like a joke but appeared to be serious. Even ex-intelligence officer Malcolm Nance, a strong believer in the Trump-Putin connection and author of The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election, has said Mensch is “batshit crazy” and a “fruit loop.” Mensch’s children, too, seem to think she is out of her gourd. As she confessed: “These days when anything goes wrong in our house, one of my kids will say: ‘Is it the Russians?’ It’s a standing joke. ‘Pizza went cold. Is it the Russians?’”

Mensch’s Russia commentary is not limited to speculations on the country’s secret misdeeds. Far more worryingly, she actively encourages the United States to start an armed conflict. In December, she tweeted: “What Russia has done to America is an act of war… I want precision bombing raids. Mass cyber war. Bank hacks… Vladimir Putin has committed an act of war… Obama must strike.” Mensch literally wants bombs to be dropped on the world’s second most heavily armed nuclear power, without any consideration for what this might mean. By publishing Mensch, then, the New York Times has established as a legitimate political commentator someone who thinks the florists on the Upper West Side are monitoring her internet, and is actively using Twitter to encourage the United States to start World War III.

Getting an op-ed into the New York Times is notoriously difficult, as the paper’s editors treasure its selectivity and prestige, for the obvious reason that a NYT byline confers an extraordinary amount of credibility on the writer. Thus the Times makes particular choices about the voices that are worth listening to, and the voices that are not. And by printing the Mensch op-ed, the Times has said that Mensch is a person whose thoughts ought to be in the paper. But one can only think this if one has abandoned all standards for what constitutes reasoned opinion on Russia.

The op-ed itself is simply a repeat of the various charges Mensch has been frantically making on Twitter for months, framed as a series of questions for Congressman Adam Schiff to ask a number of proposed witnesses. Some of the questions are worth knowing the answers to. Others are downright ludicrous. (“Was the president’s tweet about a wiretap at Trump Tower, to your knowledge, illegal? If so, to whom have you reported this offense?”) The questions are all conspiratorial in their undertones, but don’t seem to fit together under any underlying theory of what is supposed to have happened. Like many conspiracy theorists, Mensch tries to poke holes and offer a series of dark insinuations and mysteries without actually defending any affirmative propositions. It’s stunning that the Times editors allowed Mensch to write an op-ed this way; the format exempts her from the responsibility of actually having to make an argument using evidence. The editors also permitted Mensch to use, without clarification, the popular but meaningless phrase “hacked the election.” (You can’t hack an election, you can hack computers to leak files to influence an election or you can hack voting machines. The phrase “hacked the election” is used to avoid having to be precise about what exactly is being alleged.)

We are also left with the question of why the New York Times decided to issue Mensch a platform at all. It’s not as if Mensch had a previous record as a credible commentator. Even before she began ranting about sinister Russian florists, Mensch was known mostly for her constant tweeting. Beyond a brief and ineffectual stint as a Tory politician, she seems to have no qualifications or background whatsoever that would suggest her as a Russian affairs expert.

In fact, Mensch does not really have a background in anything at all. Having left Parliament after just two years—and thereby handed her seat to the Labour Party—she dabbled in failed venture after failed venture. She started a widely-mocked fashion blog called Unfashionista, which soon folded. She then started a widely-mocked social media app called—absurdly—“Menshn,” which soon folded. She was appointed to head a new Murdoch venture called Heat Street, a right-wing clickbait site essentially exactly like Breitbart but with more news about GamerGate. But her constant bizarre tweets allegedly factored into News Corp’s decision to part ways with her in January. Instead, Mensch now runs a WordPress blog called “Patribotics” dedicated almost entirely to elaborating her theories about Putin, and examining her various “suspects” like Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The only thing Mensch seems to have done successfully is tweet, and only if we measure success by quantity rather than quality. In fact, Mensch has become notorious on social media for her ineptitude and ignorance, which has led to a series of embarrassing blunders that have done little to diminish her self-assurance. In 2014, Mensch declared that anybody who used the term “Zionist” was anti-Semitic. When someone asked whether this would make Theodore Herzl an anti-Semite, Mensch replied: “Who? If he uses Zionist then yes. Cheap code word for Jew. Antisemitism. Not having it.” She appeared to believe Charlie Hebdo was actually a single man called Charlie. She offered proof that Russia was “joyless” compared to America by pointing to the (Canadian) Leonard Cohen. She suggested people who called others “subhuman” should be banned from the platform, before it turned out that she herself flung the word at other tweeters. Perhaps her lowest point came when she was accused of bullying and harassing a 17-year-old girl over the girl’s support for Ed Miliband. (If you were once an MP but are now harassing teenage Labour voters on Twitter, it is time to log off and have a long think about your life.)

Throughout this, Mensch persisted in considering herself an investigative journalist who “broke stories.” But we might gain some sense of Mensch’s standard of journalistic excellence from her enthusiastic endorsement of disgraced ex-BuzzFeed writer Benny Johnson. Mensch called Johnson “brilliant” and “very talented,” despite the fact that he could not even produce articles like “The Story Of Egypt’s Revolution In ‘Jurassic Park’ GIFs” and “Ronald Reagan’s 31 Most YOLO Moments” without engaging in a pattern of serial plagiarism. (One could debate whether Johnson failed upward or downward into his subsequent position at the Independent Journalism Review, but the point is moot—just days ago, Johnson was suspended from his new employer after publishing an unfounded conspiracy theory suggesting collusion between Obama and the Hawaiian judge who challenged Trump’s second travel ban. It was at this point that Mensch decided to reaffirm her admiration for Johnson’s integrity and journalistic skill.)

It may not be fair to laugh too much at Mensch, however. Based on her recent statements, sincere concern is probably a more appropriate reaction. Mensch is an admitted sufferer of mental health problems, having said that her earlier use of hard drugs “messed with her brain” and has caused ongoing difficulties. She has admitted that much of her present theorizing is driven by her ADHD, and one should legitimately worry about someone so paranoid that she thinks the Russians are watching her from the street corner.

The question remains, though: what was the New York Times thinking by printing Mensch’s conspiratorial questioning? Granted, the Times has a somewhat ignominious history with guest op-ed columnists, having given Woody Allen space to defend himself against molestation allegations, and allowed Bill Clinton to issue a weaselly justification for offering pardons to his wealthy cronies—a column so full of evasions that a paragraph-long editor’s note had to be attached to the end. (And if you want to advocate bombing North Korea, the Times will happily act as your megaphone.) But even by the existing standard, publishing someone like Mensch is extraordinary.

There are a few implications we can draw here. First, once you’re in the elite, you’re in the elite, and nothing you can say or do will convince people you’re foolish. If you have an Oxbridge accent and have held a government position, you are a permanent expert and people will continually assume you must be intelligent, even when you have showed no actual signs of it.

Second, the press’s standards for Russia commentary are lower than at any point since the Cold War. Required qualifications for opining on Putin or Russia are essentially at the “skimming the Wikipedia entry” level. (It’s not just the Times. MSNBC, too, has regularly given airtime to Mensch, and she will appear on Bill Maher’s show this week.) Liberals are so eager to attack Trump over Russia stories that even a totally fringe conspiracist can have her claims treated as serious and worthwhile contributions to the discourse. In response to Mensch’s op-ed, cultural critic Virginia Heffernan said she “wish[ed] this were book-length” calling Mensch “the Sy Hersh of our time.” Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe praised Mensch as “impressive” and “incomparable.”

There’s a useful parallel to the 1979 film Being There, in which Peter Sellers plays a dopey gardener whose aphoristic pronouncements about plants are taken for insightful political metaphors, leading him to become the toast of the D.C. elite. Washington’s notion of wisdom is so vacuous that even a gibbering fool can be taken for a genius if they suit the needs of the political class. Likewise, talk about Russia has gotten so facile, with allegations requiring so little evidence, that a schizophrenic raving about Putin sending radio waves through their dentures could get a permanent gig with MSNBC if they had a PPE degree from Oxford.

One could certainly argue that left-wing criticisms of excessive Russia coverage are ignoring crucial evidence, and have a debate about that evidence. But one cannot argue that media dialogue about Russia is in any way serious or rational, so long as mainstream legitimacy is offered to a person who literally thinks Vladimir Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart and who is checking florists’ vans for antennae.

Stephen Pollard, David Duke and Victor Ostrovsky

By Gilad Atzmon

From the Jewish press we learn that Britain’s House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has summoned executives from Google, Twitter and Facebook for a hearing in order to slam the social media giants for failing to block ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ content from their platforms. It seems that Labour MP Yvette Cooper took issue with the refusal of YouTube to remove a video in which David Duke accused Jewish people of “organizing white genocide” and Zionists of conducting ethnic cleansing.

I’m left wondering, what it is that motivates British MPs to launch a war against freedom of speech?

Can MP Yvette Cooper or any other British MP for that matter, tell us, once and for all, what exactly are the boundaries of our freedom of expression? Is calling Israel an ethnic cleanser a crime in the UK? But what if Israel is an ethnic cleanser? Is truth not a valid legal defence in modern Britain?

Astonishingly, it was, of all people, Stephen Pollard, Britain’s arch-Zionist and editor of the Jewish Chronicle who stood up for Duke’s elementary freedoms. In The Telegraph Pollard wrote. It’s clear that the video is indeed antisemitic. In it, Mr Duke says: ‘The Zionists have already ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, why not do the same thing to Europeans and Americans as well? No group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews. By dividing a society they can weaken it and control it.’ So there’s no debate that this is Jew hate in all its traditional poison.”

Is it really hateful to admit that Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine? By now, this is an established historical fact that is sustained by current Israeli Law of Return, designed to prevent ethnically cleansed Palestinians from coming back to their land. Is it really hatefulto suggest, as does David Duke that “no group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews.” In fact, Yvette Cooper’s grilling of the Google CEO on behalf of the Labour Friends of Israel only confirms Duke’s observation.

I’m left wondering whether George Orwell was, in fact,  the last of the prophets. After all, he did foresee British Labour transitioning into a tyrannical institution.

Yet, later on in his piece, Pollard, takes an unexpected turn. He clearly accepts that interfering with elementary freedom is a dangerous development:  “Had the video told viewers that their duty was to seek out Jews and attack them – as many posts on social media do – then clearly it should be banned. Incitement to violence is an obvious breach of any coherent set of standards.” Pollard then concludes that banning views simply because many, or even most, people find them abhorrent is a form of mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes.”

I find myself in complete agreement with this ultra-Zionist: “mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes” is a poetic, yet still truthful, description of current progressive populism. Incitement to violence should obviously be strictly banned, but if we wish to maintain Western ‘values’ then surely open debate in our system must be sustained. If Yvette Cooper doesn’t agree with Duke, she should invite him to the House of Commons and challenge him to debate rather than using her political power to silence him, or anyone else.

But one question remains. What led Yvette Cooper to operate so openly in the service of one particular Lobby group.  I guess that veteran Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky may have an answer to offer…

https://youtu.be/jyJYwCZOCD4

Harvard’s Fake Guide to Fake News Sites

Harvard’s Fake Guide to Fake News Sites

by Stephen Lendman

Is this what parents pay $63,000 annually for tuition, room, board and fees – so their children can be ill-served and ill-taught?
Following the 2014 Obama administration Kiev coup, replacing democracy with fascist dictatorship, Harvard expressed concern about nonexistent “Russian aggression.” Some faculty members called for US military intervention.
Not a word about US-supported putschists seizing power. Nothing about the most brazen European coup since Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome.
No explanation about a scheme orchestrated in Washington. Silence about a major crisis in Europe’s heartland still ongoing. Trump inherited Obama’s mess, so far not indicating clearly where he stands on Ukraine.
Harvard is at it again. It’s University Library published a fake guide to “fake news, misinformation, and propaganda.”
It recommends using FactCheck.org, Politifact, Snopes.com, Washington Post Fact Checker, and other self-styled fact-checkers, biased against truth-telling on all major issues, acting as censors, trashing reliable alternative sources of news, information and analysis.
It endorses sanitized content acceptable to America’s deep state, abandoning support for speech, media and academic freedoms.
It recommended “tips for analyzing news sources.” Ignore them. Common sense is the best guide, along with distrusting and avoiding media scoundrels. They’re paid to lie, deceive and feature fake news – what powerful interests want people to know, what’s most important suppressed.
Harvard published a list of hundreds of sites it calls “bias(ed),” “conspira(torial),” “unreliable,” “fake,” and otherwise mislabeled.
Some I’m familiar with are reliable sources, (polar opposite media scoundrels paid to lie), including:
21st Century Wire
Activist Post
Antiwar.com
Before Its News.com
Black Agenda Report
Boiling Frogs Post
Common Dreams
Consortium News
Corbett Report
Countercurrents
CounterPunch
David Stockman Contracorner
Fort Russ
Freedoms Phoenix
Global Research
The Greanville Post
Information Clearing House
Intellihub
Intrepid Report
Lew Rockwell
Market Oracle
Mint Press News
Moon of Alabama
Naked Capitalism
Natural News
Nomi Prins
Off-Guardian
Paul Craig Roberts
Pravda.ru
Rense
Rinf
Ron Paul Institute
Ruptly TV
Russia-Insider
Sgt Report
ShadowStats
Shift Frequency
SJLendman.blogspot.com – my alma mater recommends avoiding my writing; new articles posted daily; featuring truth-telling on major issues
Solari
Sott.net
South Front
Sputnik News
Strategic Culture.org
The Anti-Media
The Duran
The Intercept
The People’s Voice
The Saker
The Sleuth Journal
Third World Traveler
Voltairenet
What Really Happened
Who What Why
WikiLeaks
Zero Hedge
These and other sites Harvard’s Library urges avoiding are ones readers should rely on – avoiding The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and other fake news proliferators.

Syria: Another failed FSA propaganda stunt

 

Asaad Hanna, a political officer for the Free Syrian Army, recently posted an image of a young girl on Twitter, claiming that she had been imprisoned 3 years ago in Syria, and has still not been released.

This little girl still in prisons since more than 3 years

Firstly, the girl in the image appears to be around 4-7 years old. Therefore, based on Asaad Hanna’s Tweet, she was imprisoned when she was 1-4 years old. If true, this would be the first report, even considering unverified reports, of a child of such young age being imprisoned in Syria.

The reason of her imprisoning is also ambiguous. For propaganda purposes, it is typically alleged that the majority of current inmates in Syrian prions were detained for opposing the government/peacefully protesting.

However, in 2014 (the year of her apparent imprisoning), there weren’t any protests occurring in Syria. Protests began in Syria in March 2011, and by mid-2012, the country was engulfed in a full-scale civil war. Therefore, it seems there is no logical explanation as to why she would imprisoned.

Attempts by members and supporters of the armed opposition to portray the Syrian authorities in a negative light are expected, but this is a particularly poor effort, as there is not only no proof, but the entire story is baseless, and doesn’t conform to the principles of logic.

Follow Reporter on Twitter for Updates: @SulimanM98

Suliman Mulhem is a British-Syrian journalist. He writes for @SputnikInt, a Russian Media Outlet, and @TheArabSource.

FakeNews week: Assad and Russia’s Slaughter in Syria’: Deconstructing the Media’s Fake ‘War Crimes’ Narrative

By Barbara McKenzie – 21st Century Wire – February 15, 2017

1 BANNER - Fake News Week

In response to the establishment media’s contrived ‘fake news’ crisis designed to marginalise independent and alternative media sources of news and analysis, 21WIRE is running its own #FakeNewsWeek awareness campaign, where each day our editorial team at 21st Century Wire will feature media critiques and analysis of mainstream corporate media coverage of current events – exposing the government and the mainstream media as the real purveyors of ‘fake news’ throughout modern history…

1 no fly zone SyriaBarbara McKenzie

21st Century Wire

NATO and its allies are waging an immoral and illegal war against Syria.  Despite mainstream media denials, the fact remains that their proxies on the ground are criminal gangs with an extremist ideology, committing atrocities on a daily basis.

The crimes against Syria by the hand of western governments and their agents, however, are totally ignored by institutions that support the West in its plan to effect regime change. The agenda stretches from Washington DC, to the US-led ‘Coalition’ governments, right through to the United Nations.

Instead, the West has constructed a narrative of Russian and Syrian ‘war crimes’ which, although refutable at every level, is maintained and promoted by Western politicians, diplomats, UN officials, the corporate media, and social media trolls. The fake narrative is achieved through a comprehensive set of strategies:

MSM Fake News in Syria

.

The following is a catalogue of fabricated or misleading stories disseminated by western media in Syria:

The Haas school bombing

On 26 October 2016, news came of a lethal Russian or Syrian airstrike on a school in the village of Haas in Idlib province, northern Syria.

UNICEF smartly issued a statement by Executive Director Anthony Lake, with an implication that the world is remiss in not taking action:

NEW YORK/AMMAN, 26 October 2016 – “Twenty-two children and six teachers were reportedly murdered today when their school compound was repeatedly attacked in Idlib, Syria.

“This is a tragedy. It is an outrage. And if deliberate, it is a war crime.

“This latest atrocity may be the deadliest attack on a school since the war began more than five years ago.

“Children lost forever to their families … teachers lost forever to their students … one more scar on Syria’s future.

“When will the world’s revulsion at such barbarity be matched by insistence that this must stop?”

Principal sources cited in the media are ‘Syrian Civil Defense’ commonly known as the White Helmets, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), and ‘locals’ or ‘activists’. Pictures are provided by either ‘activists’ or the Revolutionary Forces of Syria, an anti-government media outfit.

The Guardian also cites ‘a doctor who […] asked that his name and the name of his medical facility not be used’. Both the BBC and the Independent quote UNICEF, presumably for its response rather than as a source, as UNICEF has no permanent presence in Idlib, let alone Haas.

The Guardian added value to its article by quoting of Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Stephen O’Brien’s previous report to the UN on the Wednesday (which refers to Aleppo, but not the Idlib school incident). Like Anthony Lake above, O’Brien suggests that some kind of action is called for.

“O’Brien added that he was “incandescent with rage” over the security council’s passivity. “Peoples’ lives [have been] destroyed and Syria itself destroyed. And it is under our collective watch,” he said. “And it need not be like this – this is not inevitable; it is not an accident … Never has the phrase by poet Robert Burns, of ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ been as apt. It can be stopped but you, the security council, have to choose to make it stop.”

All the Western media quoted here assume that the attack actually happened. The Washington Post goes further, implying that civilians are deliberately targeted: ‘the seeming denial of targeting civilians in Haas suggests that more of them will die in this horrific conflict.’

Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, responded to the reports, saying: “It’s horrible. I hope we were not involved. It’s the easiest thing for me to say no, but I’m a responsible person, so I need to see what my ministry of defence is going to say.”

While the Russians maybe have been cautious in their initial response, others had no doubt at all. Politicians, diplomats, UN officials and human rights organisations were quick to condemn the attack. The Guardian quoted White House spokesman Josh Earnest:

“We don’t know yet that it was the Assad regime or the Russians that carried out the airstrike, but we know it was one of the two.”

French Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, Jean-Marc Ayrault, issued a statement condemning the bombing:

“The Syrian regime and its supporters – far from implementing the announced truces – have stepped up their bombing campaign. These attacks constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

Gordon Brown, UN envoy for education and former British Prime Minster, at a formal press briefing, described the attack as a ‘descent into barbarism’, and a ‘war crime’, calling on the Security Council to refer ‘the worst assault on school children in Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Brown pronounced himself eager to take up Russia’s suggestion of an investigation.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General likewise called for an investigation. A statement from his office read:

“The Secretary-General is appalled by reports of attacks that killed students and teachers in a school complex in Haas village, Idlib governorate, Syria on 26 October. If deliberate, this attack may amount to a war crime.

The Secretary-General calls for immediate and impartial investigation of this and other similar attacks against civilians in Syria. If such horrific acts persist despite global outrage, it is largely because their authors, whether in corridors of power or in insurgent redoubts, do not fear justice. They must be proved wrong.”

There Was No Air Raid

.

Even to the casual observer, the claim of an airstrike, based on the evidence provided to the media by the sources on the ground, looks ridiculous.

The following picture, which was distributed widely, including by the Independent, does not suggest an airstrike, so much as someone attacking the wall with a hammer. The desks are upright and undamaged, and other pictures make it clear that the roof is quite intact.

idlib-school-strike

The video in the Reuters report, Air strikes in Syria’s Idlib kill 26, mostly children: rescuers, monitor” contains very clear footage, which again does not fit with claims of an airstrike.

The Russians promptly sent out a drone to take photos of the area said to be bombed in Haas, and also examined the supposedly incriminating evidence provided by photos in the media. They concluded that ‘the nature and the extent of the damage sustained by the school were not similar to the destruction caused by airstrikes’, noting that the school roof was undamaged, likewise the fence, nor was there was no sign of surrounding buildings being struck.

In this video from RT, ex-Pentagon official Michael Mahloof points out that in an airstrike would have blown the buildings to smithereens, and certainly roofs destroyed.

Others agreed with the Russians’ conclusions.

Comments below the Independent report included the following:

shameWADA_

Oh, another dose of fake info from pseudo-journalists. Actually this

fake was exposed pretty fast. Those ones who interested feel free to

check out photos made by russian UAV a day ago where clearly recorded

TOTAL absence of destructions characteristic for airstrikes – no

destructions of roofs of the buildings, no ANY craters which must be

left after airstrikes etc., plus analysis of photos taken from the

“place of the crime” by those journalists. Cheap fake, as it was with

“attack” on humanitarian convoy on 19 september. Oh, liars and slanderers…

spalpeenuillean

What a huge steaming pile of propaganda. Latest reports on BBC and Al

Jazeera are now saying no children were killed. Also saying that the

school was hit by a ‘missile’, not a bomb. Local people interviewed on

AJ confirm that the school was used by terrorists as a command centre

and ammunition store.

Although the evidence provided to the media by their sources proves, if anything, that there was no airstrike, not one of the corporate media outlets quoted here questioned the veracity of the story.  It seems as if the media’s narrative took priority over factual reporting.

Claim: Russia and Assad ‘Target Hospitals’

.

A number of people have written on the fraudulent and hypocritical nature of reporting on hospitals, including two excellent reports:

The claims of Russia targeting civilians and public buildings such as schools and hospitals – and deliberately, began soon after it entered the war in the fall of 2015, reaching a crescendo during the liberation of Aleppo in December 2016. Often the claims lack detail and are impossible to verify; sometimes the hospitals have names like ‘M10,’ and are unregistered, or are completely unknown to the people of Aleppo with some likely to be ‘rebel’ (terrorist) field hospitals or pop-up triage units. On the rare occasion that mainstream media reports offer any specifics, once again they turn out to be fake news.

On October 20-21st, western media accused Russia of bombing hospitals in six municipalities in Syria. Russia investigated and found that in five towns there were no hospitals at all, while the sixth town, Sarmin, had a hospital that, contrary to reports of it destruction was quite intact.

The fact of specific claims being debunked, or of ‘civilian hospitals’ being shown to be military facilities used by gazetted terrorist organisations, never halts the progress of the narrative, and despite the long list of misreporting and disinformation in this area of coverage, retractions are rarely, if ever reported by western media outlets after the fact.

How Media, Politicians, NGOS and UN Deliberately Use Illegitimate Sources
.
The lesson to be learned from this is not only that the media occasionally publish anti-Russian or anti-Assad stories which are incorrect, and then when the stories are exposed as fake forget to apologise. The crucial problem is that the media rely as a matter or course on discredited sources, or sources funded by the very same governments who are responsible for arming and finding the ‘rebel’ terrorist fighters attempting to destabilize and overthrow the government in Syria.

Both the White Helmets and the SOHR were created by the British Foreign Office (and in the case of the White Helmets directly funded by the US State Dept and other NATO member states and Qatar ) for the express purpose of devising propaganda to the detriment of the Syrian government and of Russian operations in Syria.  Their sole function is to discredit ‘Assad’ and Russia in order to fulfill the eternal hope of the FCO of gaining approval, either from the UN or the British public, for a Libya-style No-Fly Zone. In addition to this, their video material purporting to show ‘brutal atrocities from Assad and Russia’ are circulated through Gulf media and are effective recruitment propaganda for prospective jihadist fighters wanting to join the fight in Syria.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is based in Coventry, England. The man who runs it, Osama Suleiman, goes by the false pseudonym of Rami Abdulrahman, and was formerly imprisoned as a criminal in Syria before the war began in 2011, and is an unabashed supporter of the ‘revolution’ and has the flag of the ‘armed opposition’ prominent on the banner of the SOHR twitter account, @syriahr.

Regarding the White Helmets, the very name “Syrian Civil Defence” is a travesty, as it usurps the name of the legitimate REAL Syria Civil Defence. White Helmets are intertwined with terrorist gangs in regions like Aleppo and Idlib, and most notably with the ISIS-aligned Nour al-Din al-Zinki group. They have been filmed with groups waving terrorist flags, abusing prisoners, and taking part in terrorist operations. Even if there were truth in the fable that their primary function is humanitarian, to consider them as an “impartial source” is ridiculous.

The antics of the White Helmets are often so obviously staged that it is hard to imagine that anyone would be taken in.  Again, however, that is not the point. Even if they had better actors, even if the shoots looked less like glossy commercials and instead achieved the immediacy and conviction of, for example, like the real scenes shot by RT in the hospitals of Western Aleppo, the fact remains that they are heavily partial and should never be given the benefit of the doubt.

Since the beginning of the Syrian War, the western media have exclusively used a bevy of ‘unnamed activists’ as their sources on the ground, activist meaning members of extremist groups aligned with al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) or ISIS, and journalists who have been based in the northern Syria and Turkey and who openly support the ideology of these Salafi and religious extremist groups (and are therefore acceptable to them). American Bilal Abdul Kareem, a born again takfiri, reported regularly for the BBC and CNN from Aleppo before liberation.

During the liberation of Aleppo these journalists were portrayed by Al Jazeera , CNN and others, as ‘average people’ able to speak for the people of Aleppo, all dramatically filing their “last message” – presumably before the “brutal Assad regime” finally converged on them.

Civilians in Aleppo are filming their goodbyes.

All these news sources are illegitimate, and known to be illegitimate, and thus all reports from these sources should be treated as fake news. It is dishonest and unprofessional for the media to rely on any of these sources.

The corporate media and humanitarian organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accept or seek out the fake news from these discredited sources, and publish and republish it without a qualm.

The humanitarian fake news is then picked up and amplified by politicians, diplomats and United Nations officials, including the UN Secretary General himself.

The inherent illegitimacy of sources like the White Helmets, and the examples of proven dishonesty and fakery, has done nothing to prevent them being used as evidence by media and politicians alike. On 25 September, TIME Magazine ignored all the evidence that there was no bombing of the UN humanitarian convoy, and reiterated the White Helmets story, and furthermore claimed that the White Helmets were being deliberately targeted by Russian and Syrian air power – and the media’s ‘source’? Once again, being the White Helmets.

Atrocities by Western-backed Terrorists are Routinely Ignored or Downplayed

The reaction to the alleged bombing in Haas by media and spokespeople alike stands in sharp contrast to the response to the crimes of the insurgents. Terrorists have shelled schools in government areas throughout the conflict, with frightful consequences but these atrocities are reported only in passing, if at all, with little or no comment from human rights agencies and United Nations officials.

On 28 October there was a genuine attack on a school in Haidaq al-Andalus.

A Google search for the attack under the name of the school gives no hits from the corporate media, though they had all reported on the alleged bombing of the Haas school a couple of days earlier.

Eva Bartlett assesses the responses to attacks on Syrian schools in the piece, “UN covers up war crimes in Syria, citing U.S. backed Al-Qaeda propagandists,”  as well as considering the evidence for the Haas school ‘bombing’. With reference to UNICEF’s response to the Haas bombing claims cited above, Bartlett observes:

“With supreme audacity, UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake further claimed that this “airstrike” may be “the deadliest attack on a school since the war began more than five years ago.”

Perhaps Lake was otherwise distracted when on October 1, 2014, terrorists car and suicide bombed the Akrama Al-Makhzoumi School in Homs, killing at least 41 children by conservative estimates, or up to 48 children by other reports, along with women and other civilians.

[…] no similar statement of condemnation and anguish for the children murdered at the Akrama school bombings can be found on UNICEF’s website, even prior to Lake.”

 When all else fails, the media construct their own fake news.

Media distortion and fabrication is nothing new, and Syria is no exception.

On 30 September 20 year old Mireille Hindoyan and her 12 year old brother Arman were killed by terrorist shelling of the Armenian quarter of western Aleppo. The story was largely ignored by the corporate media, but one who did pick it was the Independent, who created the impression that the children were the victims of Russian bombing:

[The incident] came after medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said there had been a “bloodbath” in Aleppo amid a sustained assault on the city by pro-Assad forces backed by Russian warplanes.

In September 2013 the BBC Panorama documentary ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ and related BBC News reports claimed to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Urm Al-Kubra, Aleppo. In his analysis, Fabrication in BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children‘, independent media analyst Robert Stuart has shown that sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of the attack were completely staged.

 

Deflectionpicture. The editing was sloppy …

 Fake news demonising Syria and Russia is used to deflect attention from war crimes by NATO’s proxy agents on the ground, i.e. the terrorist groups, and also by NATO itself, both in general and in specific instances.

The terrorist groups operating out of eastern Aleppo until liberation in December 2016, all of which are aligned with ISIS and/or Al Nusra, the two branches of al Qaeda in Syria – shelled the 1.5 million residents of government western Aleppo on a daily basis for years. During the weeks RT’s Murad Gazdiev was reporting the gruesome details from Aleppo hospitals, RT documented many of these horrific scenes.

The western and Gulf-backed ‘rebel’ terrorists in eastern Aleppo were known to have carried out mass executions in eastern Aleppo. Reports of these atrocities were largely ignored in the West. The corporate media spread a series of fake news stories of ‘Russia and Syria deliberately targeting hospitals, schools, animal shelters’ etc to deflect from the reality of the hell people in all parts of Aleppo were experiencing at the hands of the terrorists.

The fact of terrorists shooting at people fleeing from terrorist-held eastern Aleppo into the government-protect western part of Aleppo during liberation of the city was inverted by the media into the nonsense story of ‘Syrian soldiers shooting fleeing residents,’ a lie widely distributed, and again, one which relies on the testimony of the White Helmets.

Around July 19, 2016, a video emerged of the last moments of a 12 year old Palestinian boy in Aleppo named Abdullah Issa, who had his head sawed off by a mocking Nour al-Din al Zinki terrorist group. The story was too horrific to be ignored even by the Western media.

However, Abdullah’s grizzly death was eclipsed in the eyes of the world’s media just a few weeks later by the story of little Omran Daqneesh, the little boy who was pulled out of the rubble. The video below shows how staged the whole affair was; the boy was released a few hours later with nothing but scratches – essentially a fake story of a non-event. The still picture took the corporate media by storm, with the whole affair descending into farce when CCN’s Kate Bolduan was apparently reduced to tears by the sight of the shocked, confused or simply bored Omran.

It is unclear why the White Helmets and the Aleppo Media Center needed to stage these performances, when supposedly there are thousands of real victims of Russian/Syrian bombing. Regardless, the armed opposition’s media operation is unrelenting.

In mid-October 2016, 6 year old Mahmoud Halyaf, who was born without arms, lost his legs when he triggered a terrorist landmine in Aleppo province.

The Mahmoud story received little coverage in the Western media, who were determined that Omran be the face of Syria’s children, not Abdullah, not Arman Hindoyan, nor Mahmoud. Whereas TIME Magazine, for example, has had at least 7 articles on Omran, a Google search reveals no TIME articles exist on Mahmoud, Abdullah or Arman. A search for the name Arman Hindoyan only gives the dishonest Independent article insinuating his death was caused by Russian bombing.

Deflection from NATO’s War Crimes

.On September 17, 2016 NATO forces bombed Syrian troops who protect the city of Deir ez Zor, just prior to an attack by ISIS. The US claims that is was an accident. However, the Syrian government believe that NATO was consciously cooperating in a previously agreed plan. Over 60 troops died in the sustained air attack, with some reports suggesting over 80, and scores more were wounded. Even if this horrific attack on Syrian troops was a mistake, it can hardly be termed ‘friendly fire’, as the action of NATO military forces in Syria is illegal under international law.

Russia requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council. The US response was extraordinary. Samantha Power, the US envoy, derailed the closed meeting by leaving as soon as Churkin got up to speak, choosing instead to address the press outside the chamber. Her strategy was to go on the attack with a tirade against Russia: Power insisted the Russians were trying to score “cheap points” by making so much of the US attack; the meeting described as ‘a stunt’, a ‘diversion’: ‘when you don’t like the facts, try to create attention somewhere else’.  There was no apology to the Syrian people – the US attack on Syrian troops and the ensuing loss of life were completely trivialised.

The UN Humanitarian Convoy

.

NATO’s airstrike on Syrian troops, and the accompanying loss of life, was quickly forgotten when, just two days later, there were reports of a ‘Russia/Assad’ airstrike on a humanitarian convoy headed for Aleppo. The source for the story was members of the White Helmets.

Video evidence relating to the alleged bombing is less than convincing. Despite the distance, White Helmet Ammar el Selmo knows the location of the incident, and exactly what is being ‘bombed’. Giving the date in a moment of excitement also seems unlikely.

Gareth Porter analysed in some detail the discrepancies in the various reports offered by Ammar el Selmo and other White Helmets operatives, including:

  • Selmo insists the attack was carried out by Russian bombers and ‘Assad’ helicopters dropping barrel bombs, while another White Helmet spokesman, Hussein Badawi, claims that missiles were launched from the ground.
  • Selmo changed his story several times: after first claiming to be a kilometre away, he then decides he was having tea across the street. Helicopters dropped first 2 barrel bombs, then 4, then 8.
  •  The forensic evidence provided does not make sense, e.g. Selmo points to a small hole in the ground and claims it was made by a barrel bomb – barrel bombs leaves craters at least 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep.

The NATO/Atlantic Council-linked blog Bellingcat, which specialises in pseudo forensic reports (based on internet research) specifically designed to always prove Russian and Syrian culpability in warcrimes, produced its own interpretation which turned out to be counterproductive, as shown by Patrick Armstrong in his article, Bellingcat proves the Russians didn’t do it.

The UN launched into accusations of war crime, but Russia denied carrying out an airstrike in the area and the UN had to back down when evidence suggested that damage to the convoy was not caused by bombing.

While the affair provoked much ridicule on social media, the corporate media were quick to assume that the UN convoy was bombed, on the authority of the White Helmets, ‘locals’ and even the UK based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The incident provided a pretext for renewed verbal attacks on Russia and Syria, but was almost certainly devised for the express purpose of diverting attention away from US-NATO’s horrific attack on Deir ez Zor. That the UN convoy incident was quickly debunked made no difference – the diversion was achieved, and in any case, fake or not, contributed to the ongoing narrative.

‘The Last Hospital in Aleppo’

.Purely on the basis of White Helmet evidence, there was a barrage of reports of ‘Assad/Russia’ taking out the last hospital in Aleppo, the last bloodbankthe last clown, and a ‘world-famous’ cat sanctuarySouthbank found 21 last hospitals alleged to have been bombed; here is summary from another source:

“When a hospital in East Aleppo is destroyed, 10 new spring up in its place.” – Syrian proverb. https://twitter.com/annie_sparrow/status/799743773420859392 

The lie of Saddam Hussein pulling neo-natals from Kuwaiti incubators was rehashed when news came that the last children’s hospital in Aleppo had been destroyed and babies had to be rescued from incubators, with accompanying video. We are led to believe that it was the Independent report of the story that inspired Anna Alboth to organise the Civil March for Aleppo.

The story was obviously fraudulent – no-one ever handles a newborn baby the way the supposed healthcare professional handled the doll (I hope it was a doll) in the video (from 2:31). That the mainstream media widely promoted the story without question reveals the extent of their complicity in the propaganda campaign against Syria.

Barrel Bombs: Weapon of Mass Distraction

.
The term barrel bomb has become a politically charged trigger as part of the wider new western nomenclature for what they call Syria’s ‘civil war’. 
The intention is that barrel bombs should have the same resonance as cluster bombs, to suggest something particularly sinister and particularly powerful.

There is no evidence that barrel bombs have properties on a par with cluster bombs, or napalm, nor are they especially destructive compared to other munitions. The attribution of particularly sinister powers to barrel bombs by the likes of John le Mesurier, founder of the White Helmets, who claimed they had the ‘seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake‘, is clearly nonsense. See Vanessa Beeley, Syria: Consign “Barrel Bombs” to the Propaganda Graveyard

Whether or not the Syrian Air Arab Airforce has ever resorted to such weapons, the conceptualisation of barrel bombs as being particularly evil, the very use of which is a war crime, is a fake construct.

 

Soft Fake News

.The goal is to create an assumption of extensive and relentless bombing by Russia of places where civilians, and especially children, congregate. In addition to specific claims of atrocities, the message is accompanied or followed by ‘soft fake news’, designed to reinforce, amplify and humanise the message.

Project like Bana, the little girl who tweets from Aleppo, the ‘Civil March for Aleppo’ and the ‘People’s Convoy’ were specifically designed to create this kind of soft fake news. Their principal role is not so much to construct fake news stories, as to create the impression that Russia/Assad war crimes (‘bombbing’ in Bana’s parlance) are an established fact.

The organiser of the People’s Convoy is Rola Hallam, who also participated in the fraudulent BBC Panorama documentary ‘Saving Syria’s Children’.

Hyperbole

Having dishonestly created, as they hope, an assumption of Russian and Syrian excess, the point is then rammed home by politicians, the corporate media and on social media in the most extravagant terms.

At a UNSC meeting on 25 September 2016, Washington’s then UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, reiterating the accusation that Russia is bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals and first responders, talks of Russia’s ‘barbarism.’

At the same meeting the UK envoy Matthew Rycroft claimed ‘the regime and Russia’ have instead plunged to new depths and unleashed a new hell on Aleppo. In a further meeting on 30 September Power claimed what ‘Assad and Russia’ were doing in Aleppo was ‘soul-shattering‘, ‘sowing the doom of Syria, were providing a gift to ISIL and Nusra Front’. According to the Guardian Power also talked of “the most savage week we’ve seen in an incredibly savage five-plus-year war”, with more than 1,000 people killed by 1,700 airstrikes on east Aleppo alone (sources presumably being the White Helmets).

The same meeting heard a diatribe from United Nations aid chief Stephen O’Brien, who urged the 15-member U.N. Security Council to stop “tolerating the utter disregard for the most basic provisions of international humanitarian law.” He stated:

‘East Aleppo this minute is not at the edge of the precipice, it is well into its terrible descent into the pitiless and merciless abyss of a humanitarian catastrophe unlike any we have witnessed in Syria.

‘The only remaining deterrent it seems is that there will be real accountability in the court of world opinion and disgust – goodness knows, nothing else seems to be working to stop this deliberate, gratuitous carnage of lives lost.’

At a meeting on 8 October at which Russia vetoed a UN resolution to stop bombing in Aleppo, New Zealand envoy Gerard van Bohemen, in a speech worthy of Samantha Power, told the Security Council that ‘Russia and Syria are using counter-terrorism as a pretext for the mass murder of civilians‘, while the US deputy ambassador, David Pressman, claimed that ‘Russia has become one of the chief purveyors of terror in Aleppo, using tactics more commonly associated with thugs than governments’.

Given the intemperate language of politicians and diplomats, one would hardly expect the media to moderate theirs, thus the Mirror‘s, ‘Russia has now joined [Assad’s] bloodsoaked campaign, sending its own warplanes to inflict even more destruction upon Syria, especially Aleppo. Social media, needless to say, did not pull any punches either:

Hey @RaniaKhalek, as an unbiased individual, do you think a no-fly zone over Syria is good? Or counterproductive in fighting Daesh?

@BrotherAbuRahma I don’t think it will stop the Assad/Russia slaughter & will fuel more bombing from all sides w/ potential for ww3

Aleppo is liberated, the truth uncovered, but the narrative rolls on regardless

.The liberation of eastern Aleppo, and the testimony of its residents, should have put paid to many of the myths about the Syrian war, not least the bogus claims about the White Helmets.  However the fake narrative of ‘Assad/Russian’ war crimes continues – nothing is to be allowed to slow its progress, neither the exposure of fake claims and invalid sources, nor the new revelations coming out of  Aleppo. Paul Mansfield comments in After the Liberation of Aleppo Comes the Psyops War, which looks at the allegations of crimes by Syrian and allied troops.

The tired and hungry residents of Aleppo are being provided with much-needed food, medical treatment, clothes and blankets and shelter in internally displaced persons camps. The images of this are unmistakable. Despite this we still hear from the western media that people are fleeing the fighting, that regime soldiers have taken over the devastated city, that people trapped inside East Aleppo have held out for four years of bombardment and siege and that far from being a battle of liberation this is a Russian and Syrian regime “onslaught.” The word liberation is nowhere to be found. A bit like the honesty and integrity of the mainstream fakerstan media.

Samantha Power, in her final speech to the United Nations on 17 January 2017, was still quoting the White Helmets, ‘the brave first-responders’.

We saw it in 2015, when Russia went further by joining the assault on the Syrian people, deploying its own troops and planes in a campaign that hit hospitals, schools, and the brave Syrian first-responders who were trying to dig innocent civilians out of the rubble. And with each transgression, not only were more innocent civilians killed, maimed, starved, and uprooted, but the rules that make all our nations more secure – including Russia – were eroded.

The total disconnect between the NATO narrative and any regard for truth is further illustrated by the Atlantic Council’s latest report, dramatically entitled, “Breaking Aleppo.”  Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins is listed as one of the writers; sources include the Aleppo Media Center, which like the White Helmets operates as part of the vicious al Zinki group, Bellingcat, the White Helmets, and the Syrian American Medical Society, which is funded by George Soros. The report has a special section dedicated to hospital attacks, which repeats the same propaganda peddled throughout the war and, without blinking, relies on the same discredited sources.

Maj. General Igor Konashenkov, speaking on behalf of the Russian Defense Ministry, was unimpressed with both the report’s ‘lame duck authors’, and its content:

it is not a coincidence that the report never mentions the mined schools, the warehouses of ammunition and firing positions in closed hospitals, the militant warehouses stuffed with groceries, drugs and medical equipment, mass graves of civilians shot in the head: from children to the elderly’

Meanwhile, NATO war crimes, even the use of depleted uranium (raised again as an issue now but actually reported back in October 2016) continue to be ignored or downplayed.

This is what George Orwell meant

.

Western governments and their agents have used every dishonest stratagem they could think of, in order to create a fake narrative, so that public perception of the Syrian conflict is an inversion of reality.

The NATO strategy is to:

    • Shut down debate on the nature of its proxies on the ground, and of their criminal acts;
    • Shut down debate on its own warmongering and its support for criminals who are anathema to the Syrian people;
    • Shut down debate on the legitimacy of the position of the Syrian government and its allies, and their right to defend Syria; and above all
    • Ensure that it is Syria and its allies who are portrayed as war criminals, rather than NATO, its allies and its agents.

From beginning to end, the mainstream media’s coverage of Syria has been intentionally distorted, portraying fake news as fact, in order to support an aggressive geopolitical agenda by the West.

***

Author Dr Barbara McKenzie is an independent researcher and special contributor to 21st Century Wire. Visit her research blog here

George Soros joke: Trump threatens the New World Order

Most-Dangerous-Man-990x260-HOME

 

soros_talk_in_malaysia-1

Billionaire globalist George Soros has penned a panicked rant in which he decries President-elect Donald Trump as a “would be dictator” who threatens the future of the new world order.

In an article for Project Syndicate, Soros begins by mentioning how he lived under both Nazi and then Soviet rule in Hungary before asserting that “various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise”.

This claim is confounded by the facts, which show that, “The share of the world population living in democracies (has) increased continuously.”

Soros writes that in voting for Trump, Americans “elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president,” and that his defeat of Hillary Clinton means America will be “unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world” (because that policy worked so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya).

Soros also slams Trump’s new cabinet as containing nothing other than “incompetent extremists” and “retired generals.”

Explaining how he supports the European Union because it is a successful attempt at “social engineering,” Soros laments the fact that the body has become “increasingly dysfunctional” and its disintegration has been accelerated, “first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.”

Soros also bemoans Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged undue influence during the presidential election.

“At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected,” writes Soros.

Soros says Putin “felt threatened by ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere,” without mentioning that Soros himself played a key role in bankrolling these contrived uprisings, as well as the color revolution being fomented against Trump.

The irony of an ultra-rich elitist who has bankrolled the overthrow of innumerable governments insisting he cares about “democracy” and the will of the people is particularly rich.

The whole tone of the piece is clearly fraught with concern that the populist movement sweeping the west poses a direct threat to the plutocratic new world order that Soros has spent his entire life helping to build.

He concludes by warning that “the EU is on the verge of breakdown” due to stagnant economic growth and the out of control refugee crisis (that Soros himself again helped create in the first place as a way to obtain political power).


owners-do-look-like-their-pets-george-soros-hillary-clinton


SOURCES:
by Paul Joseph Watson
Newstarget from Infowars
Submitted by Lone Bear
War Press Info Network at :
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/soros-claims/
~
%d bloggers like this: