May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 
 

May 182017
 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Reuters Reports Trump Campaign Had 18 Undisclosed Contacts With Russians

Reuters reports the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians. Then clearly states in black and white “The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far”

From Reuters:
Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians – sources

Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.

In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

Read more of the Bullshit…

 
 

May 122017
 

No one cared when China colluded with the Clintons to interfere in the ’96 Election; “Back in 1996, China helped then-President Bill Clinton get re-elected by funneling money to the Clinton campaign”

China Colluded With The Clintons To Interfere In The 1996 Election

The Mainstream Media has devoted exhaustive coverage over the allegation that Russia may have interfered with the 2016 election, as most recently seen in their massive reporting of the James Comey hearings. But there was a time when they didn’t care when a foreign country tried to buy a U.S. election (Hint: It helped a Democrat).

Back in 1996, China helped then-President Bill Clinton get re-elected by funneling money to the Clinton campaign. During Clinton’s re-election campaign against Republican Bob Dole, the Chinese Red Army (via fundraiser Johnny Chung) donated $300,000 to the Clinton campaign. After Clinton won, his administration quietly approved the export of key technology that aided China’s ballistic missile program.

Despite scoops by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Washington Post, The Washington Times that detailed connections between Chinese contributions and espionage efforts, as well as exhaustive Congressional hearings the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all but buried the Clinton-Chinese fundraising scandal.  

And even when they did cover the scandal, anchors and reporters were dismissive. The late ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings, on his April 10, 1997 show, thought the investigation into the scandal wasn’t worth the effort: “When we come back, two investigations of fundraising abuse, two of them on Capitol Hill. Is it a waste of time and money?”

When the late-Senator Fred Thompson’s Governmental Affairs Committee took up the matter in the summer of 1997, ABC correspondent Linda Douglass was quick to claim there was nothing to the investigation: “Senator [Fred] Thompson is clearly tired of taking a beating from the Democrats, who every single day point out the fact that he’s failed to prove there is any Chinese plot in connection with the Democratic presidential campaign.”

On June 17, 1997 then Today co-anchor Katie Couric absurdly asked The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

And while today the liberal media is playing up the sinister KGB past of Vladimir Putin, back then they were offended by any labeling of China as communist or “red.” On the April 4, 1997 CBS Evening News, reporter Phil Jones huffed: “Republicans call this money ‘a direct slap at those brave young Americans who spilled their blood defending freedom.’ China is referred to as ‘Red China.’ Why not just call it ‘China’? Why ‘Red China’?”

The following are some of the major discoveries from that era and how they were or were not covered: 

China’s Army Funds the Democrats.

On April 4, 1999 the Asian fundraising scandal culminated in a Los Angeles Times report: Johnny Chung told Justice Dept. investigators that the chief of Chinese military intelligence gave him $300,000 to donate to the Clinton campaign. None of the broadcast networks touched this bombshell until Chung appeared before Congress on May 11, but even then the ABC and NBC morning shows and the CBS Evening News ignored him.

China Acquires U.S. Missile Technology.

Beginning in April 1998, The New York Times reported the Chinese government had been given technological expertise that “significantly advanced Beijing’s ballistic missile program,” and the head of one of the offending defense contractors was the largest individual contributor to Democrats in 1996. The number of evening news reports on this story since April 1998? ABC: 7. CBS: 3. NBC: 2. ABC outnumbered these 12 pieces in a 24-hour period highlighting their Monica Lewinsky interview.

China Acquires U.S. Warhead Technology.

One year after that discovery, The New York Times found that the Chinese government had stolen technology from U.S. nuclear labs that would help them miniaturize their nuclear warheads. In the first ten days the Big Three aired only 11 evening stories and six morning stories, then dropped the issue. The networks have since ignored several significant revelations and conducted only one morning show interview.

Clinton’s Denials Exposed.

When pressed by print reports about whether he knew Chinese espionage was occurring on his watch, President Clinton claimed in two press conferences that he was told nothing about espionage occurring during his term. When new print reports revealed him to be lying, the networks again refused to give viewers the evidence. 

 
 
via

May 022017
 

Today’s New York Times front page shows the horrific picture of the French police officer engulfed in flames from a Molotov Cocktail, but the caption is so strangely generic that you have to wonder if the editors tacitly support the rioters (Spoiler: THEY DO)

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today's New York Times Front Page

Full PDF scan:
scannat

 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Romney vs. Obama Speaking Fees

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Romney vs. Obama Speaking Fees
Apr 292017
 

The Fake News Media Jabbed Romney for 2012 Speaking Fees; Defends Obama’s in 2017

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Romney vs. Obama Speaking Fees

Slate took then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney to task in early 2012 over his claim that $360,000 in speaking fees in one year was “not very much.” Five-plus years later, the liberal website is now brushing off the one-time, $400,000 speaking fee former President Barack Obama is receiving from investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald.

Matt Yglesias (who is now at Vox) zeroed in on Romney’s hesitance to releases his tax returns in a short January 2012 item for Slate’s Moneybox blog, but soon underlined that the Republican candidate “lacks perspective on what constitutes ‘not very much’ income.”

 
 
via

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President
Apr 282017
 

The Washington Post’s headline is that “Trump now agrees with the majority of Americans: He wasn’t ready to be president” even though Trump does not say anything like that in the article!!!

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President

Donald Trump spent a great portion of 2016 insisting that being president would be easy — at least for him. HuffPost compiled a number of examples of him dismissing the problems that accompany the job as being easily dispatched. Building a wall on the border with Mexico is easy. Beating Hillary Clinton would be easy. Renegotiating the Iran deal would be easy. Paying down the national debt would be easy. Acting presidential? Easy.

To a reporter from Reuters this week, though, Trump had a slightly different assessment of the presidency.

“I love my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life,” Trump said. “I thought it would be easier. I thought it was more of a … I’m a details-oriented person. I think you’d say that, but I do miss my old life. I like to work so that’s not a problem but this is actually more work.”

It wasn’t the first time that Trump copped to the job being trickier than he anticipated. In November, NBC News reported that Trump had told former House speaker Newt Gingrich that “This is really a bigger job than I thought.” (Gingrich’s response? “…good. He should think that.”) Then there are individual issues. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated,” he said at one point. At another, he revealed that it took a conversation with the president of China to realize that the situation on the Korean peninsula was “not so easy.”

There’s an element of surprise in Trump’s comments, a hint of bafflement that having responsibility for the welfare of 320 million people entwined in a global economy and international relationships might end up being trickier than running a real estate and branding shop from midtown Manhattan. One group that probably wasn’t surprised that Trump wasn’t prepared? The majority of Americans.

At no point over the course of the 2016 campaign did a majority of Americans think that Trump was qualified for the job of the presidency. Polling from The Post and ABC News shows that views of Trump as unqualified dominated throughout the campaign. The only group that consistently viewed him as qualified to hold the position were the working-class white voters that constituted the core of his support from early in his candidacy.

Read more of this very fake news…

 
 
 

Apr 282017
 

There was no booing: Ivanka Trump with Christine Lagarde and Angela Merkel in Berlin

There Was No Booing Of Ivanka In Berlin

America’s Leftist Fake News would have you believe otherwise!

From BILD:

Many people were surprised by Ivanka Trump’s performance in Berlin. Contrary to the stereotype, the daughter of the US President made a sophisticated and level-headed impression at the panel discussion with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, and head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. The glamorous White House ambassador also cleverly handled a controversial issue.

US media, however, are focusing on something else: they claim that Ivanka was booed and sneered at.

At the “Women20 Summit”, there was in fact a moment during the panel discussion when the audience began murmuring. Panel moderator Miriam Meckel asked Ivanka whether she was speaking as the First Lady – in Melania Trump’s place – or as the new advisor to the President. Ivanka replied in a disarmingly honest way: „This role is quite new to me, it has been little under 100 days.” She said that she would be happy to bring what she learned here home with her and that she would discuss it with her father.

She also said: “I am very proud of my father. Long before he came into the presidency, he has been a tremendous champion of supporting families and enabling them to thrive.”

At this point, there was some unrest in the audience. There was no booing or heckling at all, however.

US media are outraged about the audience’s reaction

This makes it even more surprising that US media are painting an entirely different picture of Ivanka’s appearance in Berlin. The murmuring that could be heard as Ivanka defended her father against criticism was interpreted as massive booing of the President’s daughter.

The alleged hostility toward Ivanka during her visit to Berlin was a lead headline at US outlets such as ABC, CNN, and Fox, along with several major newspapers.

In a discussion broadcast by the Trump-friendly TV station Fox on Tuesday night (local time), the audience of the Berlin event was heavily criticized. A report on the Fox website featured the headline: “Germans jeer Ivanka Trump for defending her father”.

The fact is: Miriam Meckel pointed out that some of Trump’s past utterances with respect to women do raise doubts about whether he in fact supports the empowerment of women.

In the US, it would be rather unusual to pose such a critical question to the President’s daughter. Ivanka, however, reacted with confidence.

She stated that she did of course follow the media reports about this issue. She also emphasized that her own experience and the fact that “thousands of women” have been working with, and for, Donald Trump for decades when he was in the private sector “are a testament to his belief and solid conviction in the potential of women and their ability to do the job as well as any man”.

She herself grew up in a liberal household, said Trump’s daughter. “There was no barrier to what I could accomplish beyond my own perseverance and my own tenacity. There was no difference between me and my brothers.”

Observers and participants agree that the relaxed mood at the summit in Berlin on Tuesday was somewhat rare.

Even the Chancellor seemed to be more relaxed than usual, as did the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, who often makes a tough impression. The great women of world politics welcomed the White House envoy with open arms – and the latter clearly seemed to enjoy herself, laughing, joking, and whispering.

During the joint dinner, Merkel and the “First Daughter” also seemed to get along splendidly.

Merkel explicitly thanked the presidential advisor on Tuesday night for her participation in the W20 Summit. “I am very happy that you travelled to Germany. I hope that we were a good audience for you and that you can also travel back with some new ideas,” the Chancellor said during dinner on Tuesday night.

The Chancellor also promised Ivanka Trump that her idea for a new loan programme for women in emerging countries will be part of the German G20 presidency.

The brief wave of criticism during the podium discussion did not taint the further course of the debate and the subsequent talks with Chancellor Merkel in the slightest. On the contrary – Ivanka Trump has proven that she can also confidently handle delicate questions.

 
 

25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

 Political  Comments Off on 25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
Apr 262017
 

These 25 ways are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on social media.

25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
  1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
  2. Become incredulous and indignant
  3. Create rumor mongers
  4. Use a straw man
  5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
  6. Hit and Run
  7. Question motives
  8. Invoke authority
  9. Play Dumb
  10. Associate opponent charges with old news
  11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
  12. Enigmas have no solution
  13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
  14. Demand complete solutions
  15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
  16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
  17. Change the subject
  18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
  19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
  20. False evidence
  21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
  22. Manufacture a new truth
  23. Create bigger distractions
  24. Silence critics
  25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
  1. Avoidance
  2. Selectivity
  3. Coincidental
  4. Teamwork
  5. Anti-conspiratorial
  6. Artificial Emotions
  7. Inconsistent
  8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino’s character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days — just as it was at the People’s Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known ‘liar’s’ testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance — the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution — very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role — the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of “higher standards” of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid — and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or — put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don’t apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused — reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

(1) Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz ‘confession’ testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby’s newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane’s remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

(2) Become Incredulous and Indignant

Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

Example: ‘How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America’s finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 – become incredulous and indignant)?

(3) Create Rumor Mongers

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

‘You can’t prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his ‘proof’ that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn’t. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that’s been floating around the Internet for months.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre’s document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger’s credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 – create rumor mongers)?

(4) Use a Straw Man

Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: ‘If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don’t exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 – use a straw man)?’

(5) Sidetrack Opponents with Name-Calling and Ridicule

This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: ‘You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics — does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 – sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?’

(6) Hit and Run

In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

Example: ”This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.’ Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading ‘this crap’, why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?’

(7) Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: ‘With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are ‘lies’, why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – question motives)?’

(8) Invoke Authority

Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

‘You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8’s (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams — for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I’m not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite ‘Jane’s-like’ information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 – invoke authority)?’

(9) Play Dumb

No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: ‘Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (Rule 9 – play dumb)?’

(10) Associate Opponent Charges with Old News

A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: ‘Flight 553’s crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won’t revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 – associate charges with old news)?’

(11) Establish and Rely Upon Fall-Back Positions

Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: ‘Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 – establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?’

(12) Enigmas Have No Solution

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: ‘I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?’

(13) Alice in Wonderland Logic 

Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Example: ‘The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story — often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there can’t have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony ‘confession’ by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn’t print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 – Alice in Wonderland logic)?’

(14) Demand Complete Solutions 

Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: ‘Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray’s innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

(15) Fit the Facts to Alternate Conclusions

This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: ‘The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.’

Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?’

(16) Vanish Evidence and Witnesses

If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

Example: ‘You can’t say Paisley is still alive… that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can’t you accept the Police reports?’ This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren’t his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it — all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 – vanish evidence and witnesses)?’

(17) Change the Subject

Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: ‘There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn’t happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.’ Assistant’s response. ‘You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what’s wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on…’ One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one…

Proper response: ‘You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic — a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?’

(18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents

If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

Example: ‘You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.’ After a drawing an emotional response: ‘Ohhh… I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let’s here it — preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 – emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?’

(19) Ignore Proof Presented, Demand Impossible Proofs

This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: ‘All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press — as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team — as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, — about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren’t qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 – ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?’

(20) False Evidence

Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy ‘confession’, since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose ‘Solidarist confession’ was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 – false evidence)?’

(21) Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or Other Empowered Investigative Body

Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA’s METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

(22) Manufacture a New Truth

Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own “research findings”, that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

(23) Create Bigger Distractions

If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about — or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the ‘news flap’ or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

(24) Silence Critics

If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 — send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn’t work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

(25) Vanish

If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don’t, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

 

 
via

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

 Political  Comments Off on Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets
Apr 132017
 

Who are the White Helmets? This is a question that everyone should be asking themselves.

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

The White Helmets – here are a few facts that you need to know. Share this with your family and friends who rely on the Western Mainstream Media:

 
• The White Helmets, also called Syria Civil Defence, are not who they claim to be. The group is not Syrian; it was created with USA/UK funding under the supervision of a British military contractor in 2013 in Turkey.

• The name “Syria Civil Defence” was stolen from the legitimate Syrian organization of the same name. The authentic Syria Civil Defence was founded in 1953 and is a founding member of the International Civil Defense Organization (1958).

• The name “White Helmets” was inappropriately taken from the legitimate Argentinian relief organization Cascos Blancos / White Helmets. In 2014, Cascos Blancos / White Helmets was honored at the United Nations for 20 years of international humanitarian assistance.

• The NATO White Helmets are primarily a media campaign to support the ‘regime change’ goals of the USA and allies. After being founded by security contractor James LeMesurier, the group was “branded” as the White Helmets in 2014 by a marketing company called “The Syria Campaign” managed out of New York by non-Syrians such as Anna Nolan. “The Syria Campaign” was itself “incubated” by another marketing company named “Purpose”.

• The White Helmets claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” and to “serve all the people of Syria” is untrue. In reality, they only work in areas controlled by the violent opposition, primarily terrorists associated with Nusra/AlQaeda (recently renamed Jabhat Fath al Sham).

• The White Helmets claim to be unarmed is untrue. There are photos which show their members carrying arms and celebrating Nusra/AlQaeda military victories.

• The White Helmets claim to be apolitical and non-aligned is untrue. In reality they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO intervention in violation of the norms of authentic humanitarian work.

• The Right Livelihood description that “Syria Civil Defence” saved over 60,000 people and “support in the provision of medical services to nearly 7 million people” is untrue. In reality the zones controlled by terrorists in Syria have few civilians remaining. That is why we see “cat” video/media stunts featuring the White Helmets.

• The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defence and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

• The recent Netflix movie about the White Helmets is not a documentary; it is a self promotional advertisement. The directors never set foot in Syria. The Syrian video, real or staged, was provided by the White Helmets themselves. From the beginning scenes showing a White Helmet actor telling his little boy not to give mommy a hard time until the end, the video is contrived and manipulative. The video was produced by a commercial marketing company Violet Films/Ultra Violet Consulting which advertises its services as “social media management”, “crowd building” and “campaign implementation”.

The true face of the White Helmets:


 

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

Who are the Syria White Helmets?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and CodePink

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/white-helmets-deceive-right-livelihood-codepink/

White Helmets cat video showing terrorist zone with no civilians.  “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.”  How fake does it get?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfcE-Drnas

White Helmets are caught staging rescue only to claim they were making a mannequin challenge video.

http://archive.is/5D2Ew

 


 

 
via

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline

 Political  Comments Off on Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline
Apr 122017
 

A CIA document from the early 1980s details a US plan to destroy Syria — in much the same way the United States has been doing for the last few years.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline

Geostrategically crucial Syria has been at the center of a decades-long plot by the United States to depose the sovereign government and install one supportive of goals in the Middle East must be revisited — and quickly — before the beating of war drums drowns out the truth of our government’s recently-espoused mission.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated President Bashar al-Assad for ordering a gruesome mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. This accusation sparked a bolstering of support for the Syrian regime from both Moscow and Tehran.

“Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

While the preceding bears the names of leaders and nations familiar to current headlines, that assessment, cogently titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria,” from former CIA officer Graham Fuller in actuality discusses Syria under Assad’s predecessor — his father, Hafez al-Assad — and is dated September 14, 1983, amid the Iran-Iraq War.

CIA-RDP88B00443R001404090133-0

 
Fuller’s analysis, points out Activist Post’s Brandon Turbeville, evinces Assad as a nuisance hindering American empire’s lust to control vast fossil fuel stores and protect ally, Israel, against multiple threats in the Middle East. Destabilization of Iraq and Iran also features prominently in the intricate U.S. plan to deal with the irritant, elder Assad — who, incidentally, recognized Western ulterior motives for what they were.

As the six-page document continues,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:

— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;

— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

CIA Document screen shot

With Iraq seeking to enjoin support internationally in the war, the U.S. had to scramble to prevent the shutdown of a pipeline — a dilemma Fuller suggests could be alleviated through a change in narrative to present Syria as a more deviant enemy than even Iran. That, alone, would have changed the face of the war bearing the names of the two principal adversaries — Sunni majority, Iraq, and Syria-allied, Shi’a, Iran.

Fuller asserted,

“The US should consider urging Iraq to take the war to the other key source of its predicament: Syria.”

Further, he continued,

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.

“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.

“Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.”

In context, then-President Ronald Reagan faced pressure both to insert military power in Lebanon — a theater of stated neutrality for the U.S. — and to prohibit actual military assistance in the fraught regional entanglement.

That is, until a suicide bomber decimated a U.S. Marines barracks encamped at an airport in Beirut, killing hundreds — just one month subsequent to the date on Fuller’s Syria action plan.

Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — an albeit establishment- and Deep State-connected think tank — in “When America Attacked Syria,” wrote in 2012:

“The October 23, 1983, suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport would kill 241 U.S. military personnel; simultaneously, another suicide bomber killed fifty-eight French servicemen of the MNF several kilometers away. (Two weeks later, yet another truck bomb exploded in the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, killing sixty.) A FBI forensics assessment called the Marine barracks bombing the ‘biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II.’ According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was ‘tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.’ Within weeks, the CIA determined that ‘the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.’”

That the CIA — master meddler in the affairs of sovereign nations — determined fault for the bombings rested with Syria and Iran left both plausibly responsible, with public perception largely following suit.

That a situation eerily similar — in behind-the-scenes string-pulling and long-term U.S. commitment to deposing an Assad from rule in Syria — appears to be playing out nearly three-and-a-half decades later, bellows resoundingly on failures of interventionist foreign policy.

Or, perhaps, its successes.

“Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies,” Fuller explained in the document.

“This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.”

Syria is now a landmine for the Trump administration — as it has been in varying intensity for a lengthy succession of presidents before.

 

 

 
via

Why Trump Launched A Missile Strike On Syria

 Political  Comments Off on Why Trump Launched A Missile Strike On Syria
Apr 072017
 
Three years ago, the Obama administration was celebrating that they had completely removed chemical weapons from Syria. Obama drew that Red Line and the Syrians and everybody else realized the bad actor they were dealing with, and they cowered in fear, and they did remove 100% of their chemical weapons. Wrong… Trump just removed them!

It is now clear that Obama and everyone in his administration lied to the American people when they said that 100 PERCENT of Syria’s chemical weapons were removed.

Obama was the one in bed with Russia all along. The Trump Russia narrative has been destroyed!

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

Good analysis on the missle attack from The Lid by Commander J.E. Dyer USN (Ret.):

In the early morning hours of 7 April in Syria – between 8 and 10 PM Eastern on 6 April, in the U.S. – two U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers began launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at an air base in Syria just east of the city of Homs. In total, the ships launched at least 59 cruise missiles. All were reportedly directed at the single air base, indicating the attack was meant to take the facility out of operation.

President Donald Trump, in a recorded address explained that USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Porter (DDG-78) were striking the air base in Syria from which the chemical weapons attack that inflicted ghastly damage on civilians in Idlib Province was launched on Tuesday.

The target, according to the latest reporting, was Shayrat Air Base, located about 15 miles southeast of Homs. Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin indicated in the 10 PM hour that the Pentagon would be providing a track of the Syrian Su-24 Fencer – a tactical bomber – that it says conducted the chemical weapons attack on 4 April. In other words, the U.S. military has direct evidence that the attacking aircraft was a Syrian bomber jet. (This is not only feasible, it’s probable and routine.)

Shayrat Air Base was never one of Assad’s biggest, most developed bases. It is overshadowed by T4 air base (often referred to as Tiyas Air Base) further east, which has been the front line of the fight against ISIS for some months now.

Shayrat Air Base

But Shayrat has seen a lot of use for combat logistics in the last 18 months.  The Russians persistently denied it, but there have been numerous reports that they made improvements to Shayrat in 2015 in order to use it as a base.  And Arabic and social media have recorded Russian helicopters making use of Shayrat as an interim base for logistics stops, including mission refueling.  (Fox reports that the U.S. military used its hotline with Russian forces to give them warning of the attack.)

Some reporting has indicated that the Iranians have delivered weapons and material there too, and that “Iranian squadrons” were to operate from the base once it was improved by the Russians.  (The Iranian presence in T4/Tiyas has been better documented.)

The Russians’ use of the base means, at a minimum, that the U.S. has put Russia as well as the Assad regime on notice that there will be no tolerance for chemical weapons attacks.

 

Hillary said this yesterday. Is somebody still leaking to her?


 

In January, Susan Rice Assured NPR the Obama Admin Removed Chemical Weapons From Syria


 

 
via

Apr 062017
 

The Chemical attack in Syria has all the hallmarks of a false flag

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets, an al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, have reportedly staged another chemical weapon attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.

 
A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced “Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians.” This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets filmed much of the footage being released on the chemical attack. They have also been known to stage “rescue” videos in the past. However, this time it appears children were indeed killed in the making of this “media campaign.”

Several children appear in the videos suffocating from an unknown chemical substance, while others appear to have unexplained head injuries. It is known 250 people were kidnapped by Al-Qaeda last week from the nearby city of Hama, which is the same number as the current body count of wounded and killed civilians.

In another “coincidence,” a Pakistani British doctor who at the time of the attack was taking interview requests instead of helping the injured who were flooding in, and additionally received gas masks from a British organization three days prior to the attack.

The doctor, Shajul Islam, is being used as a source by US and UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping and torturing two British journalists in Syria and being struck off the medical register. The organization responsible for sending him equipment is under fire for using donations meant for refugees.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In another suspicious event, the White Helmets operating in the same quarry near the attack received sarin-protective respirator suits one month before the attack, even though the Syrian government no longer possesses sarin.

The al-Qaeda-linked rebels have claimed the chemical was sarin gas used by the Syrian government; however, the OPCW has confirmed Syria no longer has chemical weapons and completely dismantled their stockpiles in 2013.

In contrast, the rebels have not gotten rid of the chemical weapons at their disposal.

According to award-winning journalist Seymour Hersch, intelligence reports show the rebels smuggled in chemical weapons from Libya through Turkey with the approval of Hillary Clinton.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In 2013, so-called moderate rebels had filmed themselves killing rabbits with gas and threatening to kill religious minorities. ISIS is also known to be in possession of chemical weapons having conducted attacks on Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor.

However weaponized, sarin would have killed or at least injured unprotected first responders.  Sarin can be absorbed through skin and requires a full body suit; however, the White Helmets appeared to wear only masks and no gloves while they handled exposed victims. Others in the vicinity appear not to be wearing a mask at all and are yet unaffected.

Weaponized sarin is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) capable of killing thousands. If sarin was indeed used, it must have been a weak, non-weaponized form.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and neo-con politicians have been quick to regurgitate the al-Qaeda-linked rebels version of the events before any investigation takes place.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to lay blame on the Syrian government, as did Amnesty International. France called for a security council meeting over the incident.

Federica Mogherini, the Italian Representative of the European Union (EU), blamed Assad while UK’s Envoy to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, blamed both Russia and Syria.

In response to the allegations, the Syrian Military and the Russian Ministry of Defense denied any involvement in the attack.

NATO governments are unhappy with the Trump administration’s recent statements that they no longer see regime change in Syria as a priority. In response to this, British Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement that Britain was still fully committed to regime change in Syria. The UK and France may have seen a staged chemical attack as an opportunity to push Trump into war with Syria.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The chemical attack came at the same time as another media attack was occurring against the Syrian government, which claimed that Syrian hospitals were in fact secret torture “slaughterhouses.”

The last chemical attack false flag attack occurred in 2013, where the Syrian Army was accused of using the WMD on the same day the Syrian government had invited weapon inspectors into Damascus, which resulted in Syria giving up its chemical weapons.

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

In the near future neocons may accuse Syria of failing to give up all chemical weapons, in spite of assurances by the OPCW. This is what happened to Iraq in 2003, which was invaded despite surrendering their chemical weapons in the 1990s.

No one questions how the Syrian government could possible use a weapon it doesn’t have, nor what motive it could possibly possess.

For the moment however, the narrative being pushed by neo-cons is “Trump should do what Obama failed to do, bomb Syria for al-Qaeda” and it seems that narrative is winning.

 

 
via

The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump
Apr 022017
 
The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

THE PATTERN:

1) Trump makes a claim.

2) The Mainstream Media declare him crazy.

3) Things happen that prove Trump was right

4) The Mainstream Media yells RUSSIA!

 

 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Muslim Woman Afraid Of Trump

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Muslim Woman Afraid Of Trump
Mar 282017
 

A Muslim woman whines: I don’t feel safe in the United States wearing a headscarf with Trump as President.

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Muslim woman whines: I don't feel safe in the United States wearing a headscarf with Trump as President.

Problem solved… Go back to your own country where they’ll stone you to death for not wearing it!

 

 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia
Mar 212017
 
New York Times front page: “Comey Confirms Inquiry on Russia and Trump Allies” but “Dismisses a Wiretapping Claim”

 
In the world of “Fake News” wording is everything.

NYTimes front page

 

NSA Director Admiral Rogers says there is no intelligence that votes were changed by Russian involvement in the 2016 elections.

 

The Words Of The New York Times Will Come Back To Haunt Them!

New York Times Wire Tapping
Source…