"Looting and Rioting"

First, people need to understand something about the “riots” in Ferguson: I get the feeling that a lot of White people are somehow thinking “Wow, those Black people just stood up in their living rooms and basically set fires to their own residences”

Not the way it works…

You know what neighborhood businesses typically get burned? The ones that aren’t Black owned. You’ve seen them — the pawn shops, the quick-marts, the pay-day loan stores, the liquor stores, the third tier rent-to-own stores…you know, the kind of stores you rarely see on every other corner in middle class White neighborhoods. In short, all the businesses endemic of profiteering and structural poverty…the same businesses that like to follow innocent Black people around in stores for no reason. The businesses that won’t hire many of the Black people living in the neighborhoods they’re profiting off of. The businesses that charge twice as much for the same goods & services that are half as expensive in White neighborhoods

THOSE are the businesses that typically get burned in impoverished neighborhoods. Now, while I’m not necessarily advocating riots, I will repeat the words of Martin Luther King Jr, I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard

Second, Other than corporate media outlets repeating what the police are telling them, I haven’t seen much hard evidence of honest to God unprovoked “rioting”…but what I have seen is lots of white police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters. I’ve seen militarized police aim guns, tanks and sound cannons at unarmed civilians in their own neighborhoods. I’ve seen police not interviewing, but arresting key witnesses. I’ve seen people getting gassed in their homes—THEIR HOMES—for committing the crime of what, being Black at home?

The media goes on and on about “looting and rioting” without focusing too much on the police’s strong-arm tactics, they’re complicit in furthering the ratings meme of “unreasonably angry Black people” 

False media narratives: do the words match the facts?

anonymous said:

Anita faked her threats. Also writers that have spoken against this "gaming feminism" have ACTUALLY received threats (the ones making the threats, their twitter pages are actually real people). You should honestly be ashamed for pushing your false narrative and dishonesty.

Go fuck yourself.

True Blood: Reading Between the Lines of a Twisted Tale, Part 4

Bill forced Jessica to murder her parents and little sister. [and many others besides]

image

During the opening scene of Scratches, Bill is throwing a massive road rage fit while Jessica is literally hysterical. Sobbing, screaming, cursing Bill. “I’M A MONSTER AND I’M GONNA BE ALONE FOREVER BECAUSE OF YOU

Really now Jessica, don’t you think this is a bit of an over-reaction to Bill glamouring your parents to forget your little visit within an inch of their sanity? This is her face btw when Bill hands Sookie that load:

image

Yes yes, I remember Chip from Bible Study who stumbled into Merlotte’s one night and exclaimed to Jessica that her parents were going to be ‘so happy’ she’s alive, but you have to remember the ‘Glamour Squads’. What’s a triple murder when the bombing of a whole city block can be so thoroughly covered up it’s never mentioned in the news? Come to think of it, the Tolerance Rally massacre didn’t get any coverage either. Boy, those guys are GOOD.

What else are they hiding?

Original

True Blood: Reading Between the Lines of a Twisted Tale, Part 3

Bill is some kind of weird hybrid horror creature like Ted, the Imp Shaloop from the comic books.

image

I can’t find a cap of it but this same piggish effect is evident in 3.07 when Bill begins attacking Sookie in the back of the truck.

image

Which means we’re free to assume Bill could have been, probably was, the Bull MAN who attacked Sookie, which allowed Bill to ‘overcook’ Sookie and turn her ‘halfway to vampire’- aka Renfield.

image

image

Anyone notice how feminists claim to be all about empowered women

But they actively seem threatened by successful women whose successes they can’t claim credit for?

Imagine what would happen if Beyonce came out as an anti-feminist tomorrow?  Boycotts, people telling her she’s literal trash, that she’s light skinned/rich and thus too privileged to have an opinion and mass burnings of her CDs on tumblr.

Look at how Anita Sarkeesian constantly erases the many women involved in the gaming industry: have you heard her even mention Rieko Kodama? Soraya Saga? Terri Brosius? Yuki Kaijura? Mutsumi Inomata? Anna Anthropy?  Again, the only women she mentions in the game industry are women such as herself: loud, outspoken feminists who spend more time dictating then creating (or in Anita’s case, no creating at all.)  That’s because the women I mentioned before are inconveniences to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. They challenge the false narrative their livelihoods depend on: that gamers and everyone involved in the industry are white, cis, heterosexual, rape obsessed neanderthals obsessed with dominating women.  So instead of celebrating these women and the games they were involved in, Anita and friends pretend they don’t exist.

The same occurs with female protagonists.   Female protagonists are more visibile then anyone involved in the backgrounds of games (same with films): the playable avatars are the Face of the Band.    They are the Debbie Harries to the gaming industry’s Blondie.  And so more effort is put into vilifying them, as oppose to simply ignoring them.  Anita has come up with a myriad of contradictory set of “rules” for game designers to abide by, if you want your female characters to be “not sexist”.   Your female character has to be a protagonist, but must be wrapped in tissue paper like a precious china doll: if she’s capable of being harmed or killed like most gaming avatars can be, then that celebrates violence against women.   (I notice Anita rarely ever critiques JRPGs which usually have mixed groups of male and females fighting the forces of evil.   JRPGS in general invalidate many of her claims.)   Anything less then a Mary Sue is unacceptable.  But damsels in distress are misogynist and sexist too.    Having a female character be stereotypically feminine like Ms Pac Man is sexist and misogynist and pushes gender norms.  But have a female character like Femshep is sexist and misogynist too because she’s simply a man with breasts.  A female character has to be feminine but not too feminine,  She has to be able to throw a punch, but she can’t take one: if you have a female character in harm or distress ANYWHERE in your narrative then that is misogynistic and violence against women, but if you treat women like china dolls and have them all be damsels in distress that is sexist and misogynistic too.   Scantily clad female characters are a bone of contention, but make their clothing too conservative and ANita will accuse you of slut shaming.  Ironically, this set of criteria doesn’t sound too differenct from the set of claims feminists insist society demands of women: “Be bubbly but not too talkative, dress alluringly but not sluttily….”

The point I am trying to make is that feminists on here are threatened by any female successes that they cannot claim credit for.   Nothing terrifies them more then a strong woman who is not a feminist: look at their reactions to womenagainstfeminism.  

george bush: wmds ‘nstuff…i guess

media pundits: good enuf for us!

george bush: mission accomplished…maybe

media pundits: hell yeah! ‘murica!

george bush: good job brownie

media pundits: yeah thx brownie!

barack obama: um, you can keep your crappy junk insurance if you want?

media pundits: OMGGG!1!! LIAR!! obama told teh biggest lie in the history of 4eva!! totally lost ALL credibility  :(

corporate media has long since lost the ability to objectively report the news without engaging in excessive hype and hyperbole. pretty sure I don’t remember the press calling GWB an outright liar—then or now—even when it was painfully obvious & far more costly

image

worse still, the legacy media outlets (CBS for example) appear more afraid of being labeled “liberals” or “biased” for simply reporting the truth than they are of getting the facts wrong. it almost seems like ever since the press got the drop on Nixon, they have gone out of their way to be extra gentle with Republican presidents, but balls to the wall with Democratic presidents…all to “prove” there’s no bias. SMDH 

and talk about lazy journalism…the corp media headlines essentially validate or legitimize (by even mentioning them) one crazy Republican talking point after another…no big surprise there tho

no disrespect intended for those who lost their lives in the Libya attacks, but if there were any serious integrity in the legacy media outlets, this would be the background on every news report about Benghazi investigations 

image

Simplicity.

My mornings begin similarly each day. Make coffee and oatmeal. Walk my dog Bella. Read.

I don’t read much. I might read a little Scripture. I might read a few paragraphs from a book I’m working through. I don’t read novels. I read in the morning to set my thoughts and heart on God.

This morning, I read like I always do. I love James Bryan Smith. After reading his trilogy of sorts: The Good and…

View On WordPress

Submission: (from a charming guy on Youtube) “Men built civilization. Without us, you women would just be living in mud huts”.

Manslation: Men “built civilization” via slave labor and the commission of various acts of atrocity, but I’m going to leave that part out because I prefer to believe in my own “fan fiction” version of history. My fragile sense of self relies on the ludicrously false narrative that women have contributed nothing to the human race.

True Blood: Reading Between the Lines of a Twisted Tale, Part 6

Contrary to popular opinion The Authority episodes from season 5 were a goldmine of information.

image

From our short visit to AHQ we came to understand that vampires were in league with the good old US of A gov’t well before vampires came out of the coffin.

image

You can be sure any ‘testing’ of vampire ‘psychology, physiology, biology’ was underway or possibly concluded well before the so-called ‘Vamp’ camp., which was actually a human/fairy blood farm and ‘reeducation’ camp.

image

We can also deduce that in the fictional world of TB, with real history to back us up, that our government uses vampires much like the Nazis used werewolves: Terror campaigns, manipulation of populace, glamour squads, Super Soldiers; V can be used to produce drugged, hypnotized, human Renfield ‘subjects’ for assassinations, spying, prostitution, drug couriers, you name it. Sookie was one of them before Eric turned her. Terry and his marine buddies were as well. [more on Terry later]

image

READ IT HERE

V is the ultimate Psychic Drug, the ‘Holy Grail’ drug MK Ultra spychiatrists are always after. With it, they can make anybody do anything.

Read Phillip Coppens on The Stargate Conundrum.The US Government’s secret pursuit of the psychic drug

National Corrections - Respect The Cleve!

National Corrections – Respect The Cleve!

I have been reading lots of national writers take on the Lebron returns to Cleveland story, and I have been reading the same mistakes and incorrect assumptions in many of them. Allow me to correct most of them at once:

  1. The industrial base of Cleveland at one point drove it to be the 6th largest city in America. It’s industrial barons built lavish arts and cultural institutions and amazing…

View On WordPress

Sunday Sermon Preview: Created: To Create A Life - Week 4

This Sunday is week 4 in the “Created” series and Fathers Day. We have discussed that life in itself is our most creative act. 

Sermon: “The Art of Hearing: Discovering the Voice That Tells Your Story”

Scripture Focus: Job 2:11-3:26; Job 42

"Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. I had heard of YOU by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees YOU …" Job 42:3,5 ESV

Scripture Readings: OT - Ps. 5  NT - Gal. 2:15-21

So often we think life is not defined by us, but simply by the experiences that surround us. It’s a stretch at times to believe that life is something we create when so many things that surround us are uncontrollable. We don’t control when our kids get sick, they just get sick. We don’t control when our tire goes flat, it just goes flat at the worst time. We don’t control how people perceive us, treat us, or talk about us, but most the time our assumptions of their perceptions are not good. Life can be viewed through so many tainted assumptions. If you let those assumptions define you, you will build false expressions of who you are.

God’s perspective of you is not an assumption.

God’s perspective of you is reality. He thinks higher of you than your greatest fan in life. 

When you let your experiences, failures, and misfortunes define you, you are relinquishing your identity to a lesser and more limited version of you. When you let your experiences, failures, and misfortunes guide you to a narrative that is saturated with God’s love for you, it is there you will find who you really are. Your most creative self. The person our community and world needs.

Job was defined not by his experiences, but by his unrelenting resolve to translate those experiences into a God-like expression. Job’s life was hard, yet beautiful because of his response to tragedy and pain. Suffering defined Job as a worshipper of God.

"Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. I had heard of YOU by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees YOU …" Job 42:3,5 ESV

God’s perspective of us is greater than our carnal minds can even understand. 

If you ask a person how their spiritual life is going, get ready to hear something like this:

"Well, I’m not [fill in the blank: patient, loving , generous] enough; and I wish I were doing more [fill in the blank: praying, serving, and giving]; and last night I slipped up and [fill in the blank: got tipsy, cussed, lusted, lied and kicked the cat]; and that was a mistake, and I haven’t [fill in the blank: confessed, repented, or forgave myself] yet."

We tend to equate loss of spiritual vitality with the “bad” things we keep doing or the bad things that happen to us. We keep doing all the things we don’t want to do and the things we want to do, we simply can’t find the willpower to do. This was the Apostle Paul’s dilemma in Romans 7.

We are too often defining ourselves by the “bad” things we do, or the bad things that happen to us, and not defining ourselves by the “good” things we are made of. If your focus is to eliminate all the failures and misfortunes in your life, too often you will find yourself avoiding life and doing nothing. Consider this statement: “I didn’t mess up much today, so I’m improving. Honestly, I hardly did a thing all day.” How is that progress?  Artistic? No, just depressing. 

Could avoiding being bad be our worst enemy of doing good?

Could viewing your misfortunes as God’s punishment be robbing you of God’s love and God’s mission for you in life?

Life is defined by how you express yourself in any circumstance? How you express yourself becomes the definition of good and bad art.

We will be looking at the life of Job this Sunday. Chapter 1 starts with a narrative we like to call the “American Dream”. A life of wealth, health, and prosperity. Chapter 2 and 3 is where the narrative of that dream slips and begins to take many different turns. Chapter 42 is the revelation of Job’s life, his most artistic expression of life. How was it defined? By the goodness of God in the reality of tough times.

See you Sunday! I love who we are becoming!

Pastor Donnie

New media meme detected: John Boehner...the "moderate"

Shh! Shh…just forget about those 46 times he lead symbolic (yet costly) votes attempting to repeal Obamacare…and ignore how he opposed the Violence Against Women Act…and forget how he fought to protect “normal” marriage against marriage equality…forget all about how he is STILL fighting Obamacare so that the uninsured stay that way…and forget how Boehner is currently blocking a vote on The DREAM Act & immigration reform…and ignore how he’s still fighting access to safe any abortions and women’s reproductive rights…ignore how he isn’t doing ANYTHING to restore the Voting Rights Act…and let’s completely ignore how he’s still against even basic background checks to buy a gun

Hey, you just forget about all that stuff. Ignore it all…because it messes up the media’s new false narrative. Because John Boehner is a “moderate” now. He’s nothing like those “crazy” Tea Party politicians. The media said so. And they have an upcoming midterm election to sell -er, I mean cover

True Blood: Reading Between the Lines of a Twisted Tale, Part 1

image

The ease with which we can be manipulated and misdirected is the point of True Blood. Tara was reading about it in the pilot episode. …True Blood isn’t just telling the audience that it’s easy to manipulate people, it’s demonstrating that fact. The Ancient Pythoness, 2010

Every suppression of truth requires a false narrative to hide it

image

image

The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense do not play tricks with time, but instead with plot. Apparently conventional, linear narratives, their [narrative] distortion lies in last-minute plot twists that completely change our understanding of what we have been watching…Twisted Tales
Cognitivism and Narrative Distortion

~~

Godric’s Original Death Scene a Clever Ruse to Divert His Would-be Murderer

image

Full of Bill’s Blood, Sookie was just his little flesh and blood periscope.

Godric did not die on the roof in Dallas. The Manner of his ‘death’ was more akin to Fairies shown ‘teleporting’. Godric truly died—sacrificed for his ‘valuable’ blood- at Authority HQ.

Godric’s blood is the reason Bill and Lorena tried to kill Godric at the nest, [watch Luke arrive at the nest. Almost to suggest they drove up in the same vehicle, you can see Lorena’s cherry-red dress walking up the path in front of him] which in turn is why Godric, who looked very ill,[infected at FoTS with Hep D?]  had to ‘go away’.

Eric and Nora react to an illusion? Eric was much too savvy about being ‘high as a kite’ on the blood [as he well knew it was Faery, not ‘Lilith’] to fall this hard for a drug induced hallucination.

image

Further,  Eric’s first scene [with his progeny] in the wake of Godric’s season 2 ‘death scene’ was dominated by joking/sarcasm.

image

vs. his first scene [with his progeny?] following the season 5 death scene. dominated by anger and grief. [see this post for an explanation of why Nora needed forgiveness]

image

More to come

spending money on textbooks makes me feel so goddamn empty inside i cannot get this homework assignment done at all

can I just write like. a completely different paper instead

“Parallels Between Mutant Rights and the Civil Rights Movement; manufacturing a narrative of false equivalence based on misconceptions of Malcolm X’s political views”

“Deconstructing Hypermasculinity; why Superman’s current characterization is reminiscent of his Golden Age origins and why this is a regression. Also: some cool ideas as to how to drag him away from male power fantasies”

“Lois Lane and Wonder Woman; iconic female characters & their histories as symbols of acceptable female behavior, upholding hegemonies to becoming full-fledged characters; or, tragically underutilized lesbian power couple”

"Why I Will Never Graduate College"

"Why I Am Not Cut Out For Academia"

"Everything is a Horrid Mistake"

Who could have predicted that the perfect mainstream media narrative, that 2013 was the “worst year” of President Barack Obama‘s presidency, would arrive under the media’s Christmas tree in such a perfectly gift-wrapped box? The confluence of events that led to that assessment were so perfectly constructed, you’d have thought they planned it all themselves. As it turns out, it looks a lot like they did.

This irresistible narrative seemed to spring up organically at President Obama’s end-of-year press conference, the result of a sober assessment by completely objective journalists. “When you look back at this year, very little of what you outlined has been achieved, and your ratings from the public are near historic lows for you,” Associated Press reporter Julie Pace said, and asked “Has his been the worst year of your presidency?”

The same media that gets to decide if this was the worst year of Obama’s presidency, however, also had a hand in shaping that year, and before this year even began, they telegraphed their intention to put their collective thumb on the scale to make that worst year happen. The votes from the 2012 election were barely counted before CNN, among others, began speculating about a scandal-plagued second term for the President. That talk dominated the holiday news dead zone, fueled by the now-forgotten David Petraeus scandal. By itself, this would just be another Beltway media time-killer, but it didn’t stop there.

As 2013 rolled around, evidence began to emerge that the mainstream media was looking for ways to fulfill that prophecy. In January, ABC News’ Nightline joked that “Already days into his new term, Barack Obama has his first scandal: Beyoncé,” a reference to the pop superstar’s lip-synced performance at the Super Bowl. That joke wasn’t just revealing of the media’s scandal-hunting mindset, it was foreshadowing. Within months, the media would try to concoct a White House scandal around Beyoncé’s trip to Cuba with husband Jay-Z.

Later in January, the mainstream media chased the right-wing blogosphere’s tail for over a week trying to decide if President Obama was a big fat liar when he said he enjoys skeet-shooting. The Washington Post ran a series of “fact-checks” so deranged, even Orly Taitz had to look away. In February, mainstream media golden calf Bob Woodward ignited weeks of outrage with his accusation thatsomeone at the White House “threatened” him, and even though the story turned out to be complete bullshit, the media held fast to the narrative it created.

Concurrent to all of this scandal spaghetti-throwing, the mainstream press was also busy preemptively dooming President Obama’s attempts to push for gun regulation, which in turn helped to provide cover for Republicans, who ignored overwhelming public support to block it.
—  Mainstream Media Conjured President Obama’s ‘Worst Year Ever

In fact, no. The “economic miracle” Milton Friedman ascribed to Pinochet is one of the great false narratives of modern economic history. The miracle he oversaw was really just a series of boom-bust cycles: two periods of rapid growth bookended by two deep recessions: the first precipitated by a “shock treatment” of monetary contraction, privatization and deregulation authored by his University of Chicago-trained cabinet ministers in 1975; the second, a catastrophic debt crisis in 1982. In the immediate aftermath of the free market reforms in the mid 70s, Chile had the second lowest growth rate in Latin America: Bankruptcies were rampant, national output fell 15%, unemployment surpassed 20%, and salaries fell 35% below 1970 levels1. Not to mention the corruption, from the fire sale of state properties to politically connected investors, to Pinochet’s personal embezzlement of millions later found in secret bank accounts in Washington, Miami and elsewhere.

Average per capita GDP growth over the entire course of the dictatorship was less than 2%, significantly lower than the four Christian Democrat and Socialist governments that succeeded him. The poverty rate, hovering at 40% by the time Pinochet left office, was cut in half within a decade with an upsurge in social welfare spending, and stands at 14% today. The numbers are clear: the true Chilean economic miracle occurred after Pinochet, under democratic, leftist governments.

Whatever policies Pinochet’s civilian successors inherited from him weren’t from the free market shock period but from the post-debt crisis cleanup, a departure from orthodoxy that began with kicking out the Chicago Boys, expanding public payrolls, reinstating the minimum wage, and nationalizing the banks. Some they were stuck with, like Chile’s privatized social security system, once the shining example to the world championed by the World Bank, until it wasn’t. By 2008, the government found it in in drastic need of an overhaul, citing low rates of coverage, high administrative fees eating up to 33 cents of every dollar spent, and low average benefits necessitating government subsidies for retirees who would otherwise live out their last days in poverty.

Source: Consortium News

Exclusive: Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry

If you wonder how the world could stumble into World War III – much as it did into World War I a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire U.S. political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats vs. black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.

The original lie behind Official Washington’s latest “group think” was that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the crisis in Ukraine as part of some diabolical scheme to reclaim the territory of the defunct Soviet Union, including Estonia and other Baltic states. Though not a shred of U.S. intelligence supported this scenario, all the “smart people” of Washington just “knew” it to be true.
Yet, the once-acknowledged – though soon forgotten – reality was that the crisis was provoked last year by the European Union proposing an association agreement with Ukraine while U.S. neocons and other hawkish politicos and pundits envisioned using the Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia.

The plan was even announced by U.S. neocons such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman who took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post nearly a year ago to call Ukraine “the biggest prize” and an important interim step toward eventually toppling Putin in Russia.

Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress, wrote: “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. … Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

In other words, from the start, Putin was the target of the Ukraine initiative, not the instigator. But even if you choose to ignore Gershman’s clear intent, you would have to concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory to support the conventional wisdom about Putin’s grand plan.

To believe that Putin was indeed the mastermind of the crisis, you would have to think that he somehow arranged to have the EU offer the association agreement last year, then got the International Monetary Fund to attach such draconian “reforms” that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych backed away from the deal.

Then, Putin had to organize mass demonstrations at Kiev’s Maidan square against Yanukovych while readying neo-Nazi militias to act as the muscle to finally overthrow the elected president and replace him with a regime dominated by far-right Ukrainian nationalists and U.S.-favored technocrats. Next, Putin had to get the new government to take provocative actions against ethnic Russians in the east, including threatening to outlaw Russian as an official language.

And throw into this storyline that Putin – all the while – was acting like he was trying to help Yanukovych defuse the crisis and even acquiesced to Yanukovych agreeing on Feb. 21 to accept an agreement brokered by three European countries calling for early Ukrainian elections that could vote him out of office. Instead, Putin was supposedly ordering neo-Nazi militias to oust Yanukovych in a Feb. 22 putsch, all the better to create the current crisis.

While such a fanciful scenario would make the most extreme conspiracy theorist blush, this narrative was embraced by prominent U.S. politicians, including ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and “journalists” from the New York Times to CNN. They all agreed that Putin was a madman on a mission of unchecked aggression against his neighbors with the goal of reconstituting the Russian Empire. Clinton even compared him to Adolf Hitler.

This founding false narrative was then embroidered by a consistent pattern of distorted U.S. reporting as the crisis unfolded. Indeed, for the past eight months, we have seen arguably the most one-sided coverage of a major international crisis in memory, although there were other crazed MSM stampedes, such as Iraq’s non-existent WMD in 2002-03, Iran’s supposed nuclear bomb project for most of the past decade, Libya’s “humanitarian crisis” of 2011, and Syria’s sarin gas attack in 2013.

But the hysteria over Ukraine – with U.S. officials and editorialists now trying to rally a NATO military response to Russia’s alleged “invasion” of Ukraine – raises the prospect of a nuclear confrontation that could end all life on the planet.

The ‘Big Lie’ of the ‘Big Lie’

This madness reached new heights with a Sept. 1 editorial in the neoconservative Washington Post, which led many of the earlier misguided stampedes and was famously wrong in asserting that Iraq’s concealment of WMD was a “flat fact.” In its new editorial, the Post reprised many of the key elements of the false Ukraine narrative in the Orwellian context of accusing Russia of deceiving its own people.

The “through-the-looking-glass” quality of the Post’s editorial was to tell the “Big Lie” while accusing Putin of telling the “Big Lie.” The editorial began with the original myth about the aggression waged by Putin whose “bitter resentment at the Soviet empire’s collapse metastasized into seething Russian nationalism. …

“In prosecuting his widening war in Ukraine, he has also resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie, using state-controlled media to twist the truth so grotesquely that most Russians are in the dark — or profoundly misinformed — about events in their neighbor to the west. …

“In support of those Russian-sponsored militias in eastern Ukraine, now backed by growing ranks of Russian troops and weapons, Moscow has created a fantasy that plays on Russian victimization. By this rendering, the forces backing Ukraine’s government in Kiev are fascists and neo-Nazis, a portrayal that Mr. Putin personally advanced on Friday, when he likened the Ukrainian army’s attempts to regain its own territory to the Nazi siege of Leningrad in World War II, an appeal meant to inflame Russians’ already overheated nationalist emotions.”

The Post continued: “Against the extensive propaganda instruments available to Mr. Putin’s authoritarian regime, the West can promote a fair and factual version of events, but there’s little it can do to make ordinary Russians believe it. Even in a country with relatively unfettered access to the Internet, the monopolistic power of state-controlled media is a potent weapon in the hands of a tyrant.

“Mr. Putin’s Big Lie shows why it is important to support a free press where it still exists and outlets like Radio Free Europe that bring the truth to people who need it.”

Yet the truth is that the U.S. mainstream news media’s distortion of the Ukraine crisis is something that a real totalitarian could only dream about. Virtually absent from major U.S. news outlets – across the political spectrum – has been any significant effort to tell the other side of the story or to point out the many times when the West’s “fair and factual version of events” has been false or deceptive, starting with the issue of who started this crisis.

Blinded to Neo-Nazis

In another example, the Post and other mainstream U.S. outlets have ridiculed the idea that neo-Nazis played any significant role in the putsch that ousted Yanukovych on Feb. 22 or in the Kiev regime’s brutal offensive against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

However, occasionally, the inconvenient truth has slipped through. For instance, shortly after the February coup, the BBC described how the neo-Nazis spearheaded the violent seizure of government buildings to drive Yanukovych from power and were then rewarded with four ministries in the regime that was cobbled together in the coup’s aftermath.

When ethnic Russians in the south and east resisted the edicts from the new powers in Kiev, some neo-Nazi militias were incorporated into the National Guard and dispatched to the front lines as storm troopers eager to fight and kill people whom some considered “Untermenschen” or sub-human.

Even the New York Times, which has been among the most egregious violators of journalistic ethics in covering the Ukraine crisis, took note of Kiev’s neo-Nazi militias carrying Nazi banners while leading attacks on eastern cities – albeit with this embarrassing reality consigned to the last three paragraphs of a long Times story on a different topic. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Discovers Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis at War.”]

Later, the conservative London Telegraph wrote a much more detailed story about how the Kiev regime had consciously recruited these dedicated storm troopers, who carried the Wolfsangel symbol favored by Hitler’s SS, to lead street fighting in eastern cities that were first softened up by army artillery. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ignoring Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers.”]

You might think that unleashing Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II would be a big story – given how much coverage is given to far less significant eruptions of neo-Nazi sentiment in Europe – but this ugly reality in Ukraine disappeared quickly into the U.S. media’s memory hole. It didn’t fit the preferred good guy/bad guy narrative, with the Kiev regime the good guys and Putin the bad guy.

Now, the Washington Post has gone a step further dismissing Putin’s reference to the nasty violence inflicted by Kiev’s neo-Nazi battalions as part of Putin’s “Big Lie.” The Post is telling its readers that any reference to these neo-Nazis is just a “fantasy.”

Even more disturbing, the mainstream U.S. news media and Washington’s entire political class continue to ignore the Kiev government’s killing of thousands of ethnic Russians, including children and other non-combatants. The “responsibility to protect” crowd has suddenly lost its voice. Or, all the deaths are somehow blamed on Putin for supposedly having provoked the Ukraine crisis in the first place.

A Mysterious ‘Invasion’

And now there’s the curious case of Russia’s alleged “invasion” of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.

While I’m told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory – and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight – the claims of an overt “invasion” with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.

One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to “virtually nothing.” Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the “invasion,” the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.

“You need to know,” the group wrote, “that accusations of a major Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the ‘intelligence’ seems to be of the same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.”
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post’s editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Share This Article…

Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video