An evil day for Britain

Julian Assange has been arrested on a US extradition warrant.

Julian Assange has committed no crimes on UK soil (except breach of bail, which is a separate matter). The charges in the US are political matters. In essence Assange published information related to US lies and war crimes (e.g. the infamous massacre committed by laughing Apache pilots) committed in the course of an illegal invasion of Iraq. None of this is contentious. Plain matters of fact.

It is horrible indictment of the absolute gutter the UK political class lives in that they have permitted some thugs to drag Assange from the embassy and bundle him into a van. Such actions are worthy of Nazi Germany.

Advertisements

Anti-semitism and the State of Israel

Let’s look at the article in the Guardian , which we reviewed in our last post, in more detail. The context is that Derek Hatton, a long-time maverick member of the Labour Party and agitator from within it, was readmitted to membership of the Party last week – only to be immediately suspended in connection with an “anti-Semitic tweet”. The web post dates from 6 years ago. (In this new ideology there is no place for time, for forgiveness).

Continue reading “Anti-semitism and the State of Israel”

Transitioning to democracy with the usual lies

The UK has backed the US in supporting Juan Guaidó, head of the parliament in Venezuela, against the elected President Nicolás Maduro. Even if Maduro fixed the election it is a short-circuit to go from there to intervention – as we have now.

The UK’s Foreign Secretary has said: “This regime has done untold damage to the people of Venezuela, 10% of the population have left Venezuela such is the misery they are suffering”. “Regime” is a keyword. Despite doubts over the integrity of the recent elections in Venezuela the current President still has more claims on democracy than, say, the leaders of Saudi Arabia who we are unlikely to find the UK Foreign Secretary calling a “regime” (bad for business). “Regime” legitimises intervention. And we know where that ends up… Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya. No stand-out success stories there. Just lots of corpses.

As for people leaving because of the economic problems caused by the “regime”. It may be true that the government is partly responsible for the economic crisis in Venezuela. However; US sanctions have played a significant part. These sanctions include prohibitions on US citizens financing government debt or investment in the state oil company in Venezuela. The effect of this will have been to make oil production more expensive which means in turn less government revenue. The crisis, the “misery”, which Jeremy Hunt cites as a reason to conduct a regime change operation in Venezuela is in fact something which has (at least partly) been caused by them. (US and UK are synonymous in Foreign Policy terms). An enormous lie. And one which will most likely pass by 100% unquestioned by the media – as it does, for example, in this Guardian article.

 

 

 

 

The Guardian and the demonisation of Russia

Writing about a theory that the recent tragic collapse of a block of flats in Magnitogorsk in Southern Russia was actually a terrorist attack one of the Guardian’s pseudo-journalists has felt compelled to regurgitate the stories about how Putin organised the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia.

I wonder if Marc Bennetts has any idea how revolting this is?

Continue reading “The Guardian and the demonisation of Russia”

A recipe for war

In 2014 the EU and the US supported a ‘revolution’ in Ukraine. They produced a fanciful narrative about Ukrainians yearning to join the EU. The US was a bit off-tune with the “fuck the EU” comment [1] – they wanted to fix Ukraine themselves – but everyone agreed that the violent overthrow of the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych was a blow for freedom and democracy.

Continue reading “A recipe for war”

More Guardian anti-Russia prop.

Sadly I don’t have much time to update this site at the moment. However I cannot let the Guardian continue its shameless and dishonest anti-Russia propaganda pass without registering some kind of protest. Not because I am a Russophile (though it is quite possible I am) but because I care about truth and I think the media should tell the truth.

This is an article by someone called Andrew Roth – one of the many people who appear to be employed by the Guardian solely for the purpose of writing propaganda about Russia.

Russia holds de facto control over the waters of the Kerch strait. It is bound by a 2003 treaty to allow Ukrainian ships access to the Sea of Azov. But since completing construction of the Crimean bridge, which took three years and cost $3.9bn (£3.05bn), Russia has implemented draconian checks on ships bound for Ukrainian ports, sometimes holding them for days.

The treaty referred to makes the Azov sea a common sea shared between Ukraine and Russia. Both countries can access the sea and both can run regimes of checking navigation in the sea. The “draconian checks” carried out by Russia are lawful under this treaty. Ukraine can also carry out such checks.

After Russia’s coastguard engaged three Ukrainian ships, Russia swarmed the strait with military jets and helicopters, and even parked a container ship in front of the bridge under which ships pass, effectively shutting down the strait in a show of force.

The Russian version is that the cargo ship was used to block passage under the Kerch bridge after two separate groups of Ukrainian military craft approached it – one from the Black Sea side and one from the Azov sea side in what must have clearly looked like a provocation of some kind.

Russia may or may not be actively trying to interfere with Ukrainian trade to ports in the sea of Azov as the article claims. – The article is strong on claims from the Ukrainian side and weak on any objective data. In any event Ukraine and Russia are engaged in a sanctions war – which has seen Russian ships impounded in Ukrainian ports. This is necessary context.

Journalism requires evenhandedness. Journalists should get “both sides of the story”. They should also be diligent in separating out claims (especially by one side in an argument/conflict) from facts. In reality of course all facts are contested. But all sources are not equal. For example a UN office may be more reliable than a government spokesperson when it comes to providing information about a war. On Ukraine though the Western media (in this particular case the Guardian) has an established pattern of treating information provided by the regime in Kiev as unquestionable objective truth. The Russian version is – as is the case in this article – often simply omitted altogether, or, if present, is treated with the utmost scepticism – with liberal use of quote marks and so on. This isn’t journalism. It is war propaganda.

It is dismaying to see the 90% of the “free press” re-casting itself as a war propaganda machine totally voluntarily. Of course the fact that the Western press in largely owned by Western finance capital – an interested party in the contest with Russia – is a major part of the reason. However, the Guardian is owned by an independent trust – so it is strange that the Guardian cannot tell the truth. In this case it seems to be some kind of ideological group-think problem. Sad though for anyone who expects the media to tell the truth.

Update 2/12/18

This is another example. This one is interesting because it shows the desperation that these “journalists” have to produce anti-Russian stories at any cost. It is almost as if their careers depended on it. “Journalist” Julian Borger writes:

In his more detailed account, Putin also seems to concede that the Ukrainian boats were fleeing when they were fired on

This is his evidence:

“The border guard told them: If you go through the Kerch strait you should hire our pilot. They said no, and they went straight for the strait. And that’s when the ships collided after that, because our border guard started squeezing them out,” Putin said.

He added: “Prior to that they said they were going to blow up our bridge so what do you expect our border guards to do?” – an apparent reference to Moscow’s earlier claims that Ukrainian radicals planned to blow up a new bridge between Russia and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

Putin said the Russian coast guard “told them to stop and they did not respond”.

“They started running away, so that’s it,” the Russian president said.

But a second’s analysis of this text shows that Putin is saying that the collision (which preceded the firing) happened when the Ukrainian boats “went straight for the strait”. His “running away” doesn’t mean away from the bridge/strait. It means from the Russian vessels.

In this attempt to cheat and misrepresent Putin’s words journalist” Julian Borger betrays his anxiety to produce an anti-Russian story out of nothing. He then goes on to cite Bellingcat – a notorious blogger who produces scientifically flawed pseudo-forensic material which the Western press then uses to indict Russia – describing Bellingcat as an “investigative journalism agency”. (This coordinated use of Bellingcat by the anti-Russia Western press is something of an organised conspiracy). Shoddy journalism and supported by a “investigative journalist” who demonstrably does not understand the standards required of a proper forensic analysis. But – anti-Russia – and that’s the main point.