Saturday, October 1, 2016

Liars in our news media



The story is on B6, the Canada &World section of irving press. It comes from The Associated Press, one of the biggest news agencies in the world, and one that appears routinely in almost all of the western press.

"Russian airstrikes killed 9,300 in past  year."

First, have you ever seen a story about how many people have been killed by American, British, or even Canadian airstrikes? How many have the Saudis and Americans killed in Yemen? How many has the U.S. killed with drones all over the world and with bombing in Syria? No. Of course we don't see those.

We are also told that tens of thousands were displaced. Gee. Could we get a figure for the tens of millions displaced  by U.S. bombs?

And where did The Associated Press get this information?  It got it from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Well, that's sounds impressive. But -

The Syrian Ovservatory for Human Rights is in Britain. It's run by a haberdasher who just happens to be a Sunni Muslim - the majority sect which also  happens to contain those muslims hostile to the government of Syria and friendly to what our news media call "terrorists". The haberdasher in Britain spends his time on the phone talking to 'rebels' in Syria who give him the numbers. Nobody checks them.

In short, all that information comes, unchecked, from groups like ISIS that we call terrorists - but that the US and Saudi Arabia also supply with money and weapons.

The observatory is, to say the least, heavily biased with a habit of counting rebel deaths as civilians.

It's touched off with a photo of little children peering out of  their ruined home. Of course, American, British and Canadian bombers would never bomb a house with children in it.

In journalistic terms,  this story is garbage. It's pure propaganda. But it gets half a page in the Irving press.   That tells you all you need to know about most of our western press.

Then we get a   shpiel about how brutal the Assad government of Syria is. It may well be. But it is not so brutal as the U.S. which has been  bombing Syrians and financing the "terrorists" who have killed hundreds of thousands. Nor does it mention that the U.S. has no legal right to be involved at all. It is illegal under international law. That makes it a war crime. You know what war crimes are - they're what we hanged Naziis for.

And that tells us all we need to know about the ethics of most  privately-owned journalism.
______________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, I mentioned 'economic freedom' as the new propaganda buzz word of the day. Freedom. It sounds good - and sometimes it is good.

The story begins in 1941 when Roosevelt announced that World War 2 was to defend the Four Freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. The idea caught the popular imagination, and was used by the allied nations as an incentive to win - to make this a better world. We should remember that on November 11. That's what so many Canadians were told they were fighting for over seventy years ago.

Our record over those seventy years has not been impressive. Even Canada and the U.S., the most stable countries in that period have not, delivered on freedom from want in their own countries. And the U.S., at war for most of  those seventy years, can scarcely have been said to bring freedom from fear to South America, Africa, the middle east or Asia.

And freedom from speech? Most New Brunswickers don't want it. They think it wiser to blend in and not be noticed. But the word freedom certainly sounds good, doesn't it?

So why not 'economic freedom'?

Well, for that matter, why not urinary freedom?  (freedom to urinate on the sidewalk.) Shoplifting freedom? Freedom of assault?

Well, no. Some freedoms are not good. That why we have laws.

But now, economic freedom has popped up. It appeared recently in a propaganda column in the irving press. The idea is that business should have the freedom to pay no taxes, the freedom to have fewer regulations....  Yes. Then big business, particularly, would invest and create jobs, and we'd all be rich - just like all those lucky people in Africa, the middle East, South America, Haiti - who are rolling in money as a result of economic freedom

Expect to hear a lot more about this. Business, especially big business, already has the freedom to avoid taxes but the push is on for even more freedom. Yes. Let them be free to build pipeliness all the way to the moon. Get rid of minimum wage. Let business pay the poor the starvation wage that is all they are worth. Get those environmentalists off the backs of honest billionaires.

Expect to hear more, much more, about economic freedom. Expect it in columns from The Fraser Institute and the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies. And if someone talks to you about it, smile, and exercise your urninary freedom.
______________________________________________________________________________
Read this, and tell me how good the people of the western world are. Think of the U.S. which created most of the horror this story reflects - and think of how it  now refuses to lift a finger for those millions whose lives it has destroyed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/01/child-refugees-despair-calais-camp-close
_________________________________________________________________________________
Here's an old story but it might, just possibly, stir some thinking about the use of chemical sprays on New Brunswick's forests.  (Yes. I know spraying creates jobs. So do drunk drivers and bank robbers by creating a need for more police.)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/16/insecticide-unacceptable-danger-bees
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here's one that should  have made the irving press - but which didn't and never will.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/canada-pacific-northwest-lng-natural-gas-pipeline-british-columbia
______________________________________________________________________________
Contrary to what many people think, there is nothing odd about conspiracy theories, nothing quacky about them. We live in a world of conspiracies - governmental, commercial, journalistic..... Anyone who dismisses all conspiracy theories is simply an arrogant fool.

And that takes us to the great conspiracy theory of our time. the World Trade Centre. I know the planes that hit the centre were loaded with fuel - but....
Not far away from those buildings was the Empire State building. Shortly after World War Two, it was hit by a large aircraft (an American bomber). And that bomber, too, was freshly loaded with fuel. But the damage to the building was almost superficial, and there was none of the long-lasting, intense heat of the trade cenre attacks.

It's never a mistake to ask questions. It's often a mistake not to.

https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/01/why-did-john-gross-claim-he-had-no-evidence-of-high-temps-in-the-wtc-rubble/
_________________________________________________________________________________
Did you know the U.S. has 70 military bases in South America?  That must be very conforting for American and Canadian owners of resource mining companies.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuelas-Foreign-Minister-Says-70-US-Bases-in-Region-Must-Go-20160929-0018.html
____________________________________________________________________________
While claiming to be fighting ISIS and al nusra, the U.S. has been supplying and training them for years. But you won't find that in the irving press - or most other news media in the western world. The Russians have responded by taking part in the war - but to attack ISIS and al nusra.

Now - get this -----The US is supporting ISIS and al nusra. These are the same people it calls 'terrorist' Jihadists, and that it will not allow to enter the U.S. It wants the 'terrorists' which it now calls 'moderate rebels' to hold the city of Aleppo. But Russian bombing is blocking that.

So the U.S. is now planning to send anti-aircraft missiles to the terrorists (oops - moderate rebels - in Aleppo so they can shoot down Russian aircraft.
See any potential for trouble there?  - like - say - a nuclear war between Russia and the US and everybody else?

This war has been steadily moving to a confrontation between the U.S. and Russia. It's a confrontation the world cannot survive. But we're now within inches of it.

So tell me what is that makes the destruction of all humanity worth while.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/29/how-the-us-armed-up-syrian-jihadists/
___________________________________________________________________________
Though Trudeau and others are talking about enforcing the already sagging Paris climate agreements, scientists say that those agreements are too little and too late. But I think all the scientists are wrong. If I want to know something about climate change, I don't talk to scientists. I talk to people who really know things - like oil billionaires. I mean, the chambers of commerce like and trust them. So that just goes to show you.

And they are devout Christians. I know some who even sponsor a chapel. Yes, they do. With free coffee. Onward, Christian billionaires.

http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/10/01/forget-paris-scientists-say-radical-change-only-way-to-stay-below-2-degrees/
____________________________________________________________________________

4 comments:

  1. I think what scientists believe is misrepresented - just like 'coverage' worldwide of stories from the viewpoint of the aggressor - arms merchants. To me AP stands for Allied Propaganda, just as much as if it was coming from the fount of such things, the BBC. Denis Rancourt is taken as discredited for not believing 2 kinds of stories without considering if his views are informed opinions. Activist Teacher is interesting nonetheless ( here on Blogger ) and I keep tabs on his writing, finding my own ideas have morphed into very similar paths when I check back. I am a bit disorganized when it comes to my notes - there are so many - although my most notable are listed on my sidebar and retired to a relist at Livejournal from time to time. But it is almost 7 years since I first noticed the climate caper made no obvious sense - especially since scientists value opinion as something to be challenged...not revered. Some articles to start the ball rolling http://oldephartte.blogspot.com/p/oz-to-loose-ministry-of-truth-on-posted.html http://oldephartte.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_67.html http://oldephartte.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_23.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes. opinion is to be challenged. But at some point, we have to make a decision on it or there's no point in asking questions in the first place. Most scientists have come to the decision point. The major ones agree that it's happening.
    The major group disagreeing are oil billionaires and their puppets. And the suckers who think we're all going to get rich from a pipeline.
    At some point, you have to make a decision.
    Scientists tell us that high sodium foods are bad for us. That is useless information until you make a decision about it.
    If you decide in favour of the oil billionaires, you are deciding for those who know little, and who have a financial interest in producing the stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you decide in favour of the oil billionaires" That is your presumption, putting the cash cow as the sole tool of the oil clique, when energy policy is a strategic military necessity and also of modern infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. This analysis is as much political as scientific, but puts the onus for pushing the taxation of the use of fire straight to bureaucratic ordering of worldwide energy markets and land use regulations...which are taken away from farmers, natives, or the state. http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/18115/

      Delete
    2. Obama's Chief Climate Adviser Gets Made A Fool Of During An Epic Trolling During Hearing https://www.facebook.com/vidmaxvids/videos/1953814214845415/
      Reply · 9 · Yesterday at 9:34am
      John Clabo
      John Clabo Obama's administration (admittedly along with several previous administrations) are all staffed like that. It makes absolutely no sense.
      Like · Reply · 20 hrs
      John Farnham
      John Farnham It makes all kinds of sense. No self respecting scientist is going to say discussion is closed on a new hypothesis and there is a general agreement on a topic at the same time that complaints about 'deniers' are at a crescendo. What is that if not debunking any consensus themselves ! It is almost enough to make one overlook the lack of proof for the zany idea.

      Delete