From Caitlin Johnstone

 

My eclectic news feed looks odd as the hours count down to the end of the Trump administration. Westerners are largely celebrating the exit of Donald Trump himself, whereas with those I follow from areas targeted by US imperialism, the man they’re happiest to see the back of is Mike Pompeo.

It looks very bizarre, as this part of our weird collective adventure comes to an end, how Pompeo’s tenure first as CIA Director and then Secretary of State were almost entirely unmarred by criticism from the political/media class. This is after all a man whose word and deed have been easily more depraved than Trump’s during this profoundly corrupt administration, yet both rank-and-file Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans have been kept only dimly aware of his existence amidst the nonstop scandalous shrieking about the president and his other goons.

... , like its latest Yemen sanctions which the UN World Food Programme executive director says is “literally is going to be a death sentence to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people”, its Venezuela regime change ops which have starved untold tens of thousands of civilians to death, its murderous brinkmanship with Iran, and its world-threatening cold war escalations against Russia and China. The man who openly boasted about lying, cheating and stealing in the CIA. The man who privately said the US would intervene to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister in the UK. The man who admitted the US is slamming Iranians with starvation sanctions to force them to rise up against their government. The man who designated WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” as Julian Assange’s imprisonment was being orchestrated.

This person is disgusting. You could hardly find a worse specimen of human life than Mike Pompeo. Yet amid all the mainstream news media’s relentless histrionics about the Trump administration, criticism of Trump’s own Secretary of State has remained a rare sight there, and shrill vitriol like that to which we’ve become accustomed with the rest of Trump’s inner circle has never existed. After all this time and after all his depraved actions, he is walking away with nary a scratch of media criticism on him.

This is because Mike Pompeo’s depravity is the “normal” kind. The kind we’re all meant to be used to. The psychotic, mass murdering American exceptionalist imperialism that the billionaire news media exists to protect and facilitate.

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and you don’t attack the man who serves the same empire as you. Gotta maintain that access journalism. This could be your next president, after all.

Pompeo’s exit provides a very short respite between the time he leaves for whatever lucrative neocon think tank gigs he winds up with and the time he re-emerges from the sea like Cthulhu to once again try to devour the world. He will be replaced as secretary of state in that interim by Tony Blinken, who is another psychopath because that is a job requirement.

The US Department of Defense used to be called the Department of War, which would be a much more honest label today for a military which virtually never operates in any way that could be described as defensive. An even more suitable name would be the Department of Eternal War.

The State Department was meant to be the counterpart to the War Department, focusing on diplomacy and peace. What ended up happening as the US government morphed into a globe-spanning empire dependent on endless violence and aggression is that the State Department wound up focusing more and more on manufacturing interventionist narratives on the world stage to gin up international support for starvation sanctions, proxy wars and war coalitions.

So in practice the US ended up with two war departments: the DoD and the State Department. Which is why you’ve seen the nation’s Secretaries of State becoming more and more jingoistic and psychopathic, to the point where some sort of antisocial personality disorder is really a job requirement for the position. Hence Psycho Mike.

I wish humanity a pleasant sigh of relief on Pompeo’s exit. Please enjoy it as much as possible until the Biden administration does whatever horrifying things it’s going to do, and until the eldritch monster re-emerges from the sea.

 

 

Read more:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/01/19/psycho-pompeo-exits-with-nary-a-scratch-of-media-criticism-on-him/

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbKBjLaBHOg&feature=emb_logo

 

 

Read from top

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” ― Albert Camus

It is difficult to imagine a time when such words rang more true in their foretelling of Tyranny or more poignantly accurate in their description of the precipice we all in fact find ourselves staring at.

The decision by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on January 7, to suspend Donald Trump’s page, essentially acting a grand silencer over the 45th President of the United States, represents not only the most profound assertion of power by Big Tech over a democratic nation’s political life, but underlines the need for greater oversight by elected state representatives over the ever-growing powers social media executives wield over nations, and maybe more to the point nations’ ability to formulate their own socio-political narrative.

January 6 events, the violence we all witnessed on Capitol Hill cannot be used as an argument in favour of censorship. Censorship cannot and should not be rationalised.

Such an exercise is simply too callous and too egregiously dishonest for any sensible individual to entertain. Especially if one considers that Donald Trump was more than just an individual, he was an elected civil servant; his office was that of the Republic. For better or for worse he was the carrier of a democratic tradition whose duty remained to the Constitution and the people it served, represents and acts on behalf of. How one feels about the former president is irrelevant to the debate.

John Stuart Mills’ words ought to ring loudly over the fray now that a new Inquisition dawns.

“…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

 

One does not simply silence a sitting president. And if indeed many may feel that the President crossed a line in his calls for actions against what he perceives as the “Big Steal”, then such individuals are free to seek refuge in the law and draw from America’s robust legal system to redress whatever ill irks them so. But to invoke the weapons of tyrants to allegedly bring another to heel, is far too Kafkaesque … if I may dare say so I would argue that the Democrats’ cries of self-righteous anger on January 6 only prove how morally bankrupt they truly are, not to mention devoid of all intellectual consistency.

Free Speech cannot be left open to interpretation. Free Speech is THE benchmark by which all democratic states can measure the strength of their institutions.

In an attempt to justify his unilateral decision to ban Trump from his social media platforms: Facebook and Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg published what can only be described as a rhetological fallacy. He writes:

 

“The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.”

Twitter soon joined the dance by announcing that it’d too suspended Trump’s access to its social media platform – our modern day public square. Twitter was thorough in its purge too since it targeted not one but three of the former president’s accounts: @realDonaldTrump, @POTUS and @WhiteHouse. In good fashion the move was conveniently labelled as necessary “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

If only Twitter and its counterparts proved consistent in their reproach of violence … we might have lent an ear to their arguments.

What we witnessed was a deliberate and unilateral attack on a democratically elected president by corporations which have proven to wield powers and influence that are such that they now threaten the very foundations of the Republic. At the push of a button, unaccountable tech billionaires decided to cancel out the voice they wished no longer to be heard.

And though today left-wingers cheer Zuckerberg’s move, for it falls within the confines of their ideology, I recall a time not so long ago when Facebook’s positions against antifa irked Democrats to no end. Big Techs serve their own interests and so far they answer to noone but themselves.

Lin Yutang once wrote:“When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means the sun is about to set.” Ironically, Trump foresaw such shadows … he actually worked to oppose them by building structures to rein in their otherwise unfettered powers.

I give you May 28, 2020 Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship. It reads,

 

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows … Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.”

And

 

“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.”

Enough said … I would hope!

 

Catherine Shakdam is a research fellow at the Al Bayan Centre for Planning & Studies and a political analyst specializing in radical movements. She is the author of A Tale of Grand Resistance: Yemen, the Wahhabi and the House of Saud. She writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/01/21/an-egregious-attack-on-free-speech-sends-democrats-cheering/

 

 

Read from top.

U.S. Blacklists Strategic Culture Foundation in Attack on Independent Journalism and Political Dissent

 

 

BY Finian CUNNINGHAM —  Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

 

Washington’s real objective is to criminalize critical journalism and indeed any form of critical dissent.

In an audacious attack on free speech, journalists and writers based in the United States have now been banned by the U.S. federal authorities from publishing articles with Strategic Culture Foundation. We interview one of those authors affected by the ban, New York City-based journalist Daniel Lazare who shares his thoughts on the profound implications for free speech, independent journalism and political dissent.

Lazare is one of several U.S.-based writers who formerly published regular columns with Strategic Culture Foundation. Our online journal greatly appreciated their intelligent insights and analysis of U.S. and international politics. Sadly, we will no longer be able to publish their columns because of the threat levied on them by the U.S. federal authorities who accuse SCF of being an influence operation directed by the Kremlin. The allegations and threats are baseless and draconian.

If U.S.-based writers defy the ban, they have been threatened with astronomical financial penalties of over $300,000. The prohibition has only emerged in recent weeks. It follows earlier moves by the U.S. State Department and the Treasury Department accusing SCF of being an agent of Russian foreign intelligence. No evidence has been presented by the U.S. authorities to support their provocative claims. The Editorial Board of SCF categorically dismisses the allegations. In a statement, the editors said: “We reject all such claims by the U.S. authorities that the journal is an alleged Russian intelligence operation. We have no connection with the Russian government. We provide an independent forum for international writers to debate and freely critique major topical issues of world importance.”

Strategic Culture Foundation’s editorial production is based in Russia and the journal has been publishing articles by international authors for over a decade. The online journal has gained respect and readership primarily in North America for its critical and diverse coverage of geopolitics. It seems that the official move to ban SCF by the U.S. government is really aimed at shutting down independent journalism and critical thinking under the cynical guise of combating a “foreign enemy”. This has baleful echoes with the Red Scare Cold War years in the U.S.

By banning American voices from the journal, Washington is attempting to bolster its smear against SCF as being a sinister intelligence agency. But the real objective is to criminalize critical journalism and indeed any form of critical dissent. Arguably, the draconian attack by the U.S. authorities has to be seen in the wider context of persecuting Julian Assange and other whistleblowers who have exposed Washington’s crimes and corruption.

Daniel Lazare is a veteran newspaper journalist who specializes in U.S. constitutional law and rights. He formerly worked for Consortium News and Strategic Culture Foundation among other outlets. The New York City-based writer now publishes a regular column for The Weekly Worker, the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Interview

Question: You mentioned that you were approached by members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning article contributions as a columnist for Strategic Culture Foundation. Can you expand on those circumstances? When were you first approached, how recently, and did they specify SCF and the reasons for why the journal was being targeted?

Daniel Lazare: A couple of FBI agents knocked on my door on a blazing hot day in July 2020. My memory is fuzzy, but I distinctly remember them asking whether I could tell them about SCF and its alleged links with Russian intelligence. I replied that I wasn’t interested because I regard the entire avenue of inquiry as bogus and a product of the anti-Moscow hysteria that’s running rampant in Washington. So the agents left. Everything was polite and low-keyed, and the entire exchange took no more than four or five minutes.

Question: Other U.S.-based writers who have had articles published by SCF also say they were warned by the FBI to halt writing. They say they were warned that such activity could incur massive financial penalties. Was such a penalty cited to you?

Daniel Lazare: Yes it was. Early in November this year, that is 15 or 16 months after the initial visit, one of the FBI agents showed up at my door again with a letter from the U.S. Treasury dated October 15, 2021, warning that, “pursuant to Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018, … all property and interests in property of SCF that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.” The letter further advised that “each violation… is subject to a statutory maximum civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.” I’m not even sure what “up to the greater” means. But I got the message that my savings could be wiped out if I didn’t desist.

Question: The U.S. State Department and Treasury have sanctioned SCF on the basis of allegations that the journal is an instrument of Russian foreign intelligence and the Russian foreign ministry. The SCF editorial board rejects those allegations. What do you make of the U.S. accusations? Are they credible?

Daniel Lazare: No, they are not credible. Anyone who takes one look at the SCF website will see that it features articles on foreign policy and world affairs that, politically speaking, cover the map from conservative to Marxist. To be sure, most of the articles published are critical of U.S. policy, but that’s the only consistent thread. So I can’t see how this benefits the Kremlin in any significant way since such viewpoints are common throughout the internet. Everyone knows that the United States is a global bully, so why bother adding to the chorus? Of course, if the U.S. authorities provided something by way of tangible evidence of an intelligence link, things might be different. But since they haven’t, we are left with nothing more than an assertion that is dubious on its face.

Question: Presumably, the U.S. authorities will not pursue legal and financial action against U.S.-based authors who desist from further writing work for SCF. That is, there will be no retrospective litigation for past work. That suggests the move is an expedient and unscrupulous one aimed at intimidating writers. How do you see it?

Daniel Lazare: I see it that way too. As part of its sanctions campaign, Washington is not only trying to impose an economic blockade on Russian companies but a journalistic blockade as well. And it thinks nothing of trampling on Americans’ First Amendment rights in doing so.

Question: Do you think perhaps that the U.S. authorities are exploiting hysteria over alleged Russian interference and influence as a pretext to close down critical independent speech? It seems the “Russiagate” narrative that began as a way to undermine the Trump presidency in 2016 is alive and well.

Daniel Lazare: The implications in terms of free speech and critical thinking are profound. By forcing journalists to line up behind U.S. foreign policy in this way, the Washington federal government is telling them that dissent has its limits. Intelligence and analysis are fine as long as they don’t deviate from the official line. This was certainly the case during Russiagate when journalists who dared question the “collusion” thesis found themselves effectively sidelined. And it’s still true even though Russiagate is supposedly behind us. The bottom line is that critical thinking will hurt your career, so don’t indulge yourself too much if you want to get ahead.

Question: In your long experience of working as a newspaper journalist, have you seen anything like this effort by the U.S. government to censor? Historically, how does it compare with the McCarthyite Cold War era of persecuting alleged fifth columnists for the Soviet Union?

Daniel Lazare: Unfortunately, the campaign against SCF is far from unprecedented. Since the days of anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, the government has worked overtime at narrowing the bounds of acceptable discourse. Free speech has never been verboten as a whole. Indeed, it was perfectly OK – even voguish in certain quarters – to argue that “Tailgunner Joe”, a nickname by which McCarthy was mocked, was going too far, that he was running roughshod over civil liberties, etc. As long as you were careful to stress that communism was still a threat, you were fine. But arguing that the McCarthyite Red threat was overdone while also arguing that communists might actually be right about certain things, such as the poisonous levels of racism in the U.S. South, that was completely off-limits. Journalists had to engage in careful self-censorship so as to preclude any suggestion of fundamental ideological disagreement. The effort is alive and well during the age of neo-McCarthyism known as Russiagate.

Question: In the sinister age of persecution of whistleblowers like Julian Assange by the U.S. authorities, it seems that independent journalism is being criminalized. Do you see a connection between the Assange case and what the U.S. government is doing with regard to prohibiting U.S.-based journalists from working for Strategic Culture Foundation?

Daniel Lazare: I do see a connection in that the aim in both cases is clearly to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. On one hand, the U.S. government wants us to swallow the absurd lie that Assange is guilty of espionage merely because he has received inside government information, something that investigative journalists do seven days a week. On the other, it wants journalists to agree not to write for a website on the grounds that it’s an arm of Russian intelligence even though the government has provided nothing by way of evidence. It’s impossible to do either without tossing critical faculties by the wayside. But that’s exactly what the U.S. government wants us to do – so as to eliminate political dissent.

 

Read more:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/18/us-blacklists-strategic-culture-foundation-in-attack-on-independent-journalism-and-political-dissent/

 

Read from top. 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW≈•¶•¶†ÔÓ©ÏΙŒÅ∑ÍÍÍÍ∑∑∑∑∑∑!!!!