Censorship, fake news, perception management

[blindpig]

Surveillance

The United surveillance States of America
Originally published: Countercurrents on June 24, 2025 by Rebecca Gordon (more by Countercurrents) | (Posted Jun 26, 2025)

Sometime in the late 1980s, I was talking with a friend on my landline (the only kind of telephone we had then). We were discussing logistics for an upcoming demonstration against the Reagan administration’s support for the Contras fighting the elected government of Nicaragua. We agreed that, when our call was done, I’d call another friend, “Mary,” to update her on the plans. I hung up.

But before I could make the call, my phone rang.

“Hi, this is Mary,” my friend said.

“Mary! I was just about to call you.”

“But you did call me,” she said.

“No, I didn’t. My phone just rang, and you were on the other end.”

It was pretty creepy, but that was how surveillance worked in the days of wired telephone systems. Whoever was listening in, most likely someone from the local San Francisco Police Department, had inadvertently caused both lines to ring, while preparing to catch my coming conversation with Mary. Assuming they’d followed the law, arranging such surveillance would have involved a number of legal and technical steps, including securing a wiretapping warrant. They’d have had to create a physical connection between their phones and ours, most likely by plugging into the phone company’s central office.

Government surveillance has come a long way since then, both technically and in terms of what’s legally possible in Donald Trump’s United States and under the John Roberts Supreme Court.

All the President’s Tech
Government agencies have many ways of keeping tabs on us today. The advent of cellular technology has made it so much easier to track where any of us have been, simply by triangulating the locations of the cell towers our phones have pinged along the way.

If you watch police procedurals on television (which I admit to doing more than is probably good for me), you’ll see a panoply of surveillance methods on display, in addition to cellular location data. It used to be only on British shows that the police could routinely rely on video recordings as aids in crime-solving. For some decades, the Brits were ahead of us in creating a surveillance society. Nowadays, though, even the detectives on U.S. shows like Law and Order SVU (heading for its 27th season) can usually locate a private video camera with a sightline to the crime and get its owner to turn over the digital data.

Facial recognition is another technology you’ll see on police dramas these days. It’s usually illustrated by a five-second interval during which dozens of faces appear briefly on a computer monitor. The sequence ends with a final triumphant flourish–a single face remaining on screen, behind a single flashing word:

MATCH.

I have no idea whether the TV version is what real facial recognition software actually looks like. What I do know is that it’s already being used by federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI, under the auspices of a company called Clearview, which is presently led by Hal Lambert, a big Trump fundraiser. As Mother Jones magazine reports, Clearview has “compiled a massive biometric database” containing “billions of images the company scraped off the Internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms or their users.” The system is now used by law enforcement agencies around the country, despite its well-documented inability to accurately recognize the faces of people with dark skin.


Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States

The old-fashioned art of tailing suspects on foot is rapidly giving way to surveillance by drone, while a multitude of cameras at intersections capture vehicle license plates. Fingerprinting has been around for well over a century, although it doesn’t actually work on everyone. Old people tend to lose the ridges that identify our unique prints, which explains why I can’t reliably use mine to open my phone or wake my computer. Maybe now’s my moment to embark on a life of crime? Probably not, though, as my face is still pretty recognizable, and that’s what the Transportation Safety Administration uses to make sure I’m really the person in the photo on my Real ID.

The second Trump administration is deploying all of these surveillance methods and more, as it seeks to extend its authoritarian power. And one key aspect of that project is the consolidation of the personal information of millions of people in a single place.

One Database to Rule Them All
It’s been thoroughly demonstrated that, despite its name, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has been anything but efficient in reducing “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal spending. DOGE, however, has made significantly more progress in achieving a less well publicized but equally important objective: assembling into a single federal database the personal details of hundreds of millions of individuals who have contact with the government. Such a database would combine information from multiple agencies, including the IRS and the Social Security Administration. The process formally began in March 2025 when, as the New York Times reported, President Trump signed an executive order “calling for the federal government to share data across agencies.” Such a move, as Times reporters Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik note, raises “questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.”

In keeping with the fiction that DOGE’s work is primarily focused on cost-cutting, Trump labeled his order “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos.” That fiction provided the pretext for DOGE’s demands that agency after agency grant its minions free access to the most private data they had on citizens and non-citizens alike. As the Washington Post reported in early May:

The U.S. DOGE Service is racing to build a single centralized database with vast troves of personal information about millions of U.S. citizens and residents, a campaign that often violates or disregards core privacy and security protections meant to keep such information safe, government workers say.

Worse yet, it will probably be impossible to follow DOGE’s trail of technological mayhem. As the Post reporters explain:

The current administration and DOGE are bypassing many normal data-sharing processes, according to staffers across 10 federal agencies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. For instance, many agencies are no longer creating records of who accessed or changed information while granting some individuals broader authority over computer systems. DOGE staffers can add new accounts and disable automated tracking logs at several Cabinet departments, employees said. Officials who objected were fired, placed on leave or sidelined.

My own union, the American Federation of Teachers, joined a suit to prevent DOGE from seizing access to Social Security data and won in a series of lower courts. However, on May 31st, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court (with the three liberal judges dissenting) temporarily lifted the block imposed by the lower courts until the case comes back to the justices for a decision on its merits. In the meantime, DOGE can have what it wants from the Social Security Administration. And even if the Supreme Court were ultimately to rule against DOGE, the damage will be done. As the president of El Salvador said in response to an entirely different court ruling,

Oopsie. Too late.

Musk’s Pal Peter Thiel–and Palantir
Anyone who’s ever worked with a database, even one with only a few thousand records, knows how hard it is to keep it organized and clean. There’s the problem of duplicate records (multiple versions of the same person or other items). And that’s nothing compared to the problem of combining information from multiple sources. Even the names of the places where data goes (“fields”) will differ from one base to another. The very structures of the databases and how records are linked together (“relationships”) will differ, too. All of this makes combining and maintaining databases a messy and confusing business. Now imagine trying to combine dozens of idiosyncratically constructed ones with information stretching back decades into one single, clean, useful repository of information. It’s a daunting project.

And in the case of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Database, that’s where Peter Thiel’s company Palantir comes in. As the New York Times reported recently, at the urging of Elon Musk and DOGE, Trump turned to Palantir to carry out the vision expressed in his March executive order mentioned above. In fact, according to the Times, “at least three DOGE members formerly worked at Palantir, while two others had worked at companies funded by Peter Thiel, an investor and a founder of Palantir.”

Palantir, named for the “seeing stones” described in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, is already at work, providing its data platform Foundry to several parts of the government. According to the Times:

The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)

Representatives of Palantir are also speaking to at least two other agencies–the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service–about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees with knowledge of the discussions.

Who is Peter Thiel, Palantir’s co-founder? In addition to being a friend of Musk’s, Thiel was an early Trump supporter among the tech elites of Silicon Valley, donating $1.25 million to his 2016 campaign. He is also credited with shaping the political career of Vice President J.D. Vance, from his campaign to become a senator to his selection as Trump’s running mate. Thiel is part of a rarified brotherhood of tech and crypto-currency billionaires who share a commitment to a particular project of world domination by a technological elite. (And if that sounds like the raw material for a crazy conspiracy theory, bear with me again here.) Thiel was also an early funder of Clearview, the facial recognition software mentioned earlier.

In hiring Palantir and turning our data over to the company, Trump makes himself a useful tool, along with Vance, in the service of Thiel’s vision–just as he has been to the machinations of Project 2025’s principal author Russell Vought, who has different, but no less creepy dreams of domination.

The Dark Enlightenment
Thiel and his elite tech bros, including Musk, Internet pioneer and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, and Clearview founder Hoan Ton-That share a particular philosophy. Other believers include figures like fervent Trump supporter Steve Bannon and Vice President Vance. This explicitly anti-democratic worldview goes by various names, including the “neo-reactionary movement” and the “Dark Enlightenment.”

Its founder is a software developer and political blogger named Curtis Yarvin, who has advocated replacing a “failed” democratic system with an absolute monarchy. Describing the Dark Enlightenment in the Nation magazine in October 2022, Chris Lehman observed that, in his run for Senate, J.D. Vance had adopted “a key plank of [Yarvin’s] plan for post-democratic overhaul–the strongman plan to ‘retire all government employees, which goes by the jaunty mnemonic ‘RAGE.’” (Any similarity to Musk’s DOGE is probably not coincidental.)

So, what is the Dark Enlightenment? It’s the negative image of an important intellectual movement of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Enlightenment, whose principles formed, among other things, the basis for American democracy. These included such ideas as the fundamental equality of all human beings, the view that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and the existence of those “certain unalienable rights” mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The Dark Enlightenment explicitly opposes all of those and more. Lehman put it this way: “As Yarvin envisions it, RAGE is the great purge of the old operating system that clears the path for a more enlightened race of technocrats to seize power and launch the social order on its rational course toward information-driven self-realization.” That purge would necessarily produce “collateral casualties,” which would include “the nexus of pusillanimous yet all-powerful institutions Yarvin has dubbed ‘the Cathedral’–the universities, the elite media, and anything else that’s fallen prey to liberal perfidy.” Of course, we’ve already seen at least a partial realization of just such goals in Trump’s focused attacks on universities, journalists, and that collection of values described as diversity, equity, and inclusion.

On that last point, it should be noted that Yarvin and his followers also tended to be adherents of an “intellectual” current called “human biological diversity” championed by Steven Sailer, another Yarvin acolyte. That phrase has been appropriated by contemporary proponents of what used to be called eugenics, or scientific racism. It’s Charles Murray’s 1994 pseudo-scientific Bell Curve dressed up in high-flown pseudo-philosophy.

However, there’s more to the Dark Enlightenment than authoritarianism and racism. One stream, populated especially by Thiel and other tech bros, has an eschatology of sorts. This theology of the Earth’s end-times holds that elite humans will eventually (perhaps even surprisingly soon) achieve eternal life through physical communion with machines, greatly augmenting their capacities through artificial intelligence. That’s important to them because they’ve given up on the Earth. This planet is already too small and used up to sustain human life for long, they feel. Hence, our human destiny is instead to rule the stars. This is the theology underlying Elon Musk’s hunger for Mars. Anything that stands in the way of such a destiny must and shall be swept away on the tide of a tech bros future. (For an excellent explication of the full worldview shared by such would-be masters of the rest of us–and the rest of the universe as well–take a look at Adam Becker’s new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity.)

Surveillance Everywhere?
Back in my own corner of the world, the San Francisco Police Department has come a long way since those ancient days of clumsy phone-tapping. Recently, a cryptocurrency billionaire, Chris Larsen, gave the SFPD $9.4 million to upgrade its surveillance tech. They’ll use the money to outfit a new Real Time Investigation Center (RTIC) with all the latest toys. “We’re going to be covering the entire city with drones,” claimed RTIC representative Captain Thomas MacGuire. Imagine my joyful anticipation!

How should defenders of democracy respond to the coming reality of near-constant, real-time government surveillance? We can try to shrink and hide, of course, but that only does their job for them, by driving us into a useless underground. Instead, we should probably live as if everything we do, even in supposedly “secure” places (real and virtual), is visible to the Trump regime. Our response must be to oppose Trump’s onrushing version of American fascism as boldly and openly as we can. Yes, some of us will be harassed, imprisoned, or worse, but ultimately, the only answer to mass surveillance by those who want to be our overlords is open, mass defiance.

https://mronline.org/2025/06/26/the-uni ... f-america/

[blindpig]

Oligarch Dominance Through Religion: The Prosperity Gospel & Evangelical Christianity in Brazil
Roger Boyd
Jul 02, 2025

Religion is much underrated as a tool of foreign domination within international relations scholarship. During the colonial era, Christianity (in both its Catholic and Protestant forms) was foisted upon colonized populations through the destruction of previous churches, outright violence and coercion, and brainwashing within institutions of learning. Through this, the colonizers strove to destroy as much of the indigenous cultures as they could as this would greatly facilitate their domination of the colonized; especially with a Christ and a God visually constructed as white Europeans.

The areas of the world where this religious colonization was successfully resisted contain many of the nations that currently form the resistance to the Western neocolonization: China, India, Iran. Christianity in Russia had been imposed by its own rulers and took on its own forms in the Russian Orthodox Church which is independent of Western colonizing influences.

In recent decades there has been a new spurt of Western religious colonization stemming from the United States, in the form of an Evangelical Christianity that teaches a love of Western Capitalism through a Prosperity Gospel together with a veneration of the state of Israel. Its has become extremely influential in Brazil and stands in stark contrast to the Liberation Theology that promised a church that would be active in supporting the people against the oligarchs in this world; one that the Catholic Church hierarchy stamped out within its midst.

As Delana Coraza notes, the once fringe Evangelical/Pentecostal movement has grown into a decisive force within Brazil.

According to Brazil’s official census bureau (IBGE), 9 percent of the population attended Pentecostal churches in 1990. By 2000, the figure had risen to 15.4 percent, while in 2010 it was 22.2 percent … the Datafolha polling institute stated in early 2020 that Evangelicals now make up 31 percent of the population … the typical Evangelical is female, Black, and has a low income, meaning that Evangelicals are today more clearly profiled in terms of gender, race, and class.

IBGE demographer and retired professor José Eustáquio Diniz suggested in a study that Evangelicals will comprise half of the Brazilian population by 2030 … 17 new Evangelical churches opened up every day in Brazil in 2019.



What are the reasons for such a rapid rise, centred on the poorest and most vulnerable members of Brazilian society? One of the major reasons is the neoliberal destruction of other social support systems for working people, such as unions and formal workplaces. The evangelical churches enter into this emptied social space and offer a new communal organization for devastated individuals and communities.

One is the advance of neoliberalism in the 1990s, with devastating consequences for the poorest of the working class. Lacking jobs and the psychosocial support needed to deal with the poverty and violence that devastated peripheral areas as a result of the restructuring of the world of work, many people found objective and subjective responses to their pain and anguish in these small churches … Among these brothers and sisters in faith, there are numerous accounts of lives rebuilt within the church according to a daily discipline of belief. Their trajectories and environment are endowed with new meaning, both from a territorial and personal perspective. A new aesthetic of the periphery can be observed: psalms and other Biblical verses appear on the walls of homes and local shops. The small church often becomes the centre of a neighbourhood, that is to say an open arena, a place to be heard, where you can feel safe, welcome, and achieve a sense of belonging in areas otherwise marked by loss and deprivation.

These churches become the basis of a new social reality in the capitalist sacrifice zones of Brazil. The other alternative, the Liberation Theology that promised a Social Gospel, was snuffed out by the Catholic Church and its allies; including the Latin American and US security services.

In the 1970s, Brazil was also distinguished by the spread of Liberation Theology in the peripheries. Liberation Theology is a religious movement that sprang up in Latin America among several popular organizations, made up of people of faith, in response to encroaching industrialization. In Brazil, industrialization led to the rural peasant masses being proletarianized, deepening the continent’s structural economic inequalities. Liberation Theology inaugurated the theological break with tradition that as we saw was later taken up by Pentecostals, in which it becomes possible to find happiness in this life. Liberation theologians intended, of course, that such happiness should be built collectively on the foundation of social justice.

At the same time, successive US governments, in league not only with the Protestant Right but also with conservative Catholicism as personified by pope John Paul II, were active in Latin America in sometimes bloody actions against Liberation Theology. Conservative churches throughout Latin America, many of them fundamentalist, received funding from US groups keen to see them consolidated in the region.



One of the Catholic reactionaries was the future disgraced pope Ratzinger, who showed the same wanton disregard for those sexually exploited by Catholic priests as those financially and economically exploited by the capitalist ruling class; as Elle Hardy notes.

a young German theologian named Joseph Ratzinger – the future Pope Benedict XVI – had been politically liberal, but he began developing an increasingly conservative outlook that divorced faith from secular politics. In promising to forefront the poor, and go beyond charity to seek broad and lasting solutions to their poverty, liberationists believed that they were bringing the Church back to the teachings of Jesus. Ratzinger, and many of his European colleagues, saw things very differently. (Hardy)

Ratzinger lead the charge against Liberation Theology within the Catholic Church, while looking the other way from, and even facilitating the continued, Catholic priest sexual violations of boys and girls.

Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, might have been known as ‘God’s Rottweiler’, but when it came to teachings that questioned established hierarchies and beliefs, he was Pope John Paul II’s sottocapo. Together, the two fervent anti-communists executed a well-planned hit on a movement that orthodox clergy saw as Marxism in holy cloth.

Ratzinger warned that deviating from Papal authority risked ‘provoking, besides spiritual disaster, new miseries and new types of slavery.’ He believed that liberation theology subverted the meaning of truth and violence. A doctrine ‘incompatible with the Christian version of humanity’, it had, he said, an ‘ideological core borrowed from Marxism.’ To his mind, Marxists believe only in class and class struggle, and see society as inherently violent. That leaves no room for Christian ethics, such as good and evil. Unshackled from morality, Marxists are then compelled to participate in the struggle and to reverse the nature of domination by establishing their own.



Without a socialist alternative, the populations of the sacrifice zones turn to the right; in this case the Pentecostal churches. The differences between the traditionally dominant Catholic Church and the Pentecostal greatly favour the latter in such sacrifice zones.

The liturgy of born-again Christianity is one of bodies that express themselves spontaneously through words and music, and it unfolds beyond the institutional sphere of the church. Pentecostal Evangelicals cannily absorbed the popular religiosity of religious festivals and their cathartic moments so necessary for abused, stigmatized, and oppressed bodies. Pentecostal services are available on an almost daily basis, alongside meetings for Bible study and for specific age groups. (Corazo)

Pentecostalism gained traction among poor migrants from the countryside who moved to the outskirts of large cities looking for work, like the Macedos. That was followed by a reverse migration of sorts, as new converts took the religion back home to the impoverished rural communities where Base Communities had flourished. Early research on Pentecostal converts suggested that they were the poorest of the poor. (Hardy)

The Pentecostal churches promise liberation from want in this lifetime, but rather than a liberation based in a social gospel and communitarianism it offers an individualistic and very pro-capitalist view of personal liberation through the Prosperity Gospel. Within such a worldview those that have gained wealth have been blessed by the Lord, very much reversing the logic of Christ’s teachings.

The churches developed in the daily grind of working-class peripheral neighbourhoods, and their followers encountered in them the promise of prosperity in this life. Unlike other Christian traditions, in which salvation only takes place in the Kingdom of God, Evangelical churches came to offer the possibility of rewards on earth. This new perspective is an important factor for understanding the phenomenon, a theological tenet that provided meaning for impoverished workers with little expectation of leading a dignified life.

This theological break from tradition, termed “prosperity theology” (a term used more by academics than churchgoers themselves), can be understood as a choice to be in the world and to garner individual earthly achievements, with concrete practical consequences for the believer. The greater the faith, sacrifices, and discipline, the more blessings will be received, measured in terms of health, work, and wordly goods. Prosperity then ceases to be a mere possibility and becomes a consequence of the believer’s commitment to a divine task, the latter very clearly set forth by the Pentecostal leadership. The consequences, meanwhile, have moved beyond day-to-day existence of impoverished workers and into the arena of institutional politics. (Corazo)

Pentecostalism had really got going in the post-WW2 United States in response to the policies of the New Deal and the loosening of conservative social mores.

Pentecostalism really got going in North America after the Second World War, coinciding with the US elevation to global superpower. This brought forward a flood of optimism; yet, for many leaders of both faith and industry, it was a time for vigilance. Business leaders were scarred by the economic safety net implemented by Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. Christian leaders were terrified of the godless ‘reds’ sweeping Europe. In fearing the slippery slope towards communism, these interests found common cause. While they were busy merging the languages of business and Bible, the Pentecostals, often looked down on by their evangelical counterparts, were stoking new revivalist fires across the country. Out of the spirit of this patriotic postwar nation arose a new vision of Christianity.

Prosperity theology, often known as the gospel of health and wealth, emerged with the help of syndicated radio and cassette-tape technology. Kate Bowler, the author of Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel (2013), says: ‘Inverting the well-worn American mantra that things must be seen to be believed, their gospel rewards those who believe in order to see.’ (Hardy)

The Pentecostal churches have become heavily involved in Brazilian politics, with many representatives in the legislature and with the prior president, Bolsonaro, as one of their allies.





As with the US evangelical churches, they push a socially conservative and highly neoliberal agenda; with the latter against the interests of the membership but being pushed by the church leadership.

Thanks to American influence, anti-state discourses — heavily linked to the Christian Right in the US, where any extension of state influence is seen as a communist agenda — helped shape Evangelical positions in the Brazilian congress. While communism or what they call communism — again due to US influence — is “demonized” by institutional Evangelicals, Israel is considered the Promised Land chosen by God and the foreign ally of choice, which explains the prominence of Israeli flags in the March for Jesus.

It is worth underscoring that the anti-state agenda derives from the Evangelical leadership. Rank-and-file Evangelicals follow in ideological lockstep, repeating the information they are continually bombarded with, such as the idea that “the state is corrupt”, which is reinforced by widespread public opinion. The doctrine of the minimal state is not easily absorbed by working-class born-again Christians. Black and impoverished, the Evangelical base depends on the state, even if it is wary of the public service machinery. (Corazo)

Macedo, the leading Pentecostal religious entrepreneur became extremely rich and owns one of the leading Brazilian television networks.



As Macedo’s following grew, he used funds from his flock to buy a television network, Record, in 1989. Today, he is a self-made billionaire who has received everything he owns from believers – including his only son, Moysés, given to Macedo in the street as a baby by its birth mother. To this day, prosperity gospel’s trickle-up economics continue. Smaller churches practise what they preach and become satellites for established megachurches by ‘sowing’ a percentage of their church income in order to receive the blessings of those who are materially more successful, therefore spiritually more devout. (Hardy)

The Pentecostal churches are also driving an increasing level of religious intolerance, a “holy war” to force out other faiths.



They are a growing social institution through which the Brazilian vassal oligarchy and the US oligarchy can block any socialist agenda, delivering an increasing number of the population into a false consciousness that directs them to act against their own interests and for the interests of the oligarchs. Domination through the manipulation of the hegemonic societal discourse, heavily instigated and facilitated by outside forces. With half of Brazilian society possibly so captured by 2030.

https://rogerboyd.substack.com/p/oligar ... h-religion

[blindpig]

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

“Antisemitism” means criticism of Israel. That’s just what it means now. It used to mean something else, but years of bad faith actors using that word in the most dishonest ways imaginable to defend the most horrific things you’ve ever seen has changed the definition.

Caitlin Johnstone
July 12, 2025

❖

It really is nuts how a young person can fly to Israel and go play genocide games in Gaza for a while and then just fly back to their own country and expect to be treated like a normal member of society like it’s some kind of genocide summer camp.

❖

The narrative about an “antisemitism crisis” in our society has two main components:

1. Redefining “antisemitism” to mean “criticism of Israel”, and

2. Pretending not to see a connection between rising incidents of “antisemitism” as it’s been redefined and Israel perpetrating an active genocide.

❖


❖

“Antisemitism” means criticism of Israel. That’s just what it means now. It used to mean something else, but years of bad faith actors using that word in the most dishonest ways imaginable to defend the most horrific things you’ve ever seen has changed the definition.

It is no longer possible to separate that word from this sustained campaign of mass deception. You can only have governments, institutions and individuals use a word differently for so long with such a high degree of uniformity before the definition changes.

Word definitions change over time depending on how people use them. Nice used to mean stupid. Explode used to mean applaud. The word meat used to refer to any kind of food, not just animal flesh. The meanings changed because enough people started using them to refer to something else, in exactly the same way we’ve seen occur with the word antisemitism.

That’s locked in. It has already happened. Everyone knows that antisemitism refers to criticism of Israel and its actions and antisemite refers to someone who does so. Everyone understands this regardless of whether they support Israel or oppose it. That is the definition now.

If you want a word for someone who thinks Hitler was correct or uses triple brackets and posts big nose memes online, you’re going to have to make up a new word, because antisemite is taken. You can’t even really use “Jew hater” either, because that meaning is being polluted in the exact same way antisemite has been. You have to make up an entirely new word, and use it consistently.

Israel’s spinmeisters will deny this publicly, even though they know it’s true. They’ll say it’s possible to criticize Israel without being an antisemite, but if you ask them to name someone who regularly and forcefully criticizes Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza whom they don’t consider antisemitic, they won’t be able to. Every single person who criticizes Israel with appropriate consistency and force is branded an antisemite (or perhaps “self-hating” if they happen to be Jewish), without a single, solitary exception.

These aren’t my rules, they’re the rules of the Israel apologists. I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that those rules have been set.

❖

A new report from WIRED has found that the supposedly “raw” video footage of Jeffrey Epstein’s prison cell which Trump’s Department of Justice released to prove Epstein committed suicide was in fact digitally manipulated.

“Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro,” the report reads. “The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as ‘raw’ footage.”

This just keeps getting better and better.

Epstein is officially a leftist conspiracy theory now. Rightists dropped it when they supported the president who’s covering it up, so now it’s ours. From now on if you want to talk about Epstein you are joining the side of the commies. Welcome to the revolution, comrade.

❖

The Australian government is imposing age verification laws for internet use which may require digital IDs from people of all ages who want to use major online platforms, at the same time this same government is pushing to stomp out and censor all criticism of Israel.

Doesn’t take a genius to see where this is going.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/07 ... ve-matrix/

[blindpig]

From Media Darling to Persona Non Grata: Greta Thunberg’s Journey
July 13, 2025

Alan MacLeod looks at how the Swedish climate activist widened her focus to the capitalist system and Israeli genocide in Gaza and lost the attention of the corporate press.


Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, wearing a keffiyeh, on Nov. 16, 2024, protests in front of the U.N. office in Yerevan over a forthcoming U.N annual climate conference being set in Baku, Azerbaijan, “an authoritarian petrol state.” (VoA – Voice of America/Wikimedia Commons/ Public Domain)

By Alan MacLeod
MintPress News

Once the favored child of the establishment, Greta Thunberg has been dropped by the global elite.

A MintPress News study finds that coverage of Thunberg in The New York Times and Washington Post has dwindled from hundreds of articles per year to barely a handful, precisely as she widens her focus from the environment to the capitalist system that is causing climate breakdown, and the Israeli attack on Gaza, which the Swedish activist has labeled a “genocide.”

Not Your Puppet

Greta Thunberg was once a media darling. Organizing a climate strike at her local school when she was just 15, she shot to fame and was quickly embraced by the establishment. In 2019, she was invited to the European Union Parliament and received a standing ovation from the politicians and diplomats in attendance.

She also spoke in front of the British government. Yet even as she told them that they were a pack of “liars” responsible for “one of the greatest failures of humankind,” the young Swede was applauded in a patronizing manner.

Then Environmental Secretary Michael Gove admitted being moved by her words, stating,

“When I listened to you, I felt great admiration, but also responsibility and guilt. I am of your parents’ generation, and I recognize that we haven’t done nearly enough to address climate change and the broader environmental crisis that we helped to create.”

Her message of the urgent need to address the impending climate crisis was one that was palatable to authorities, who attempted to co-opt her with access and accolades.

In 2019, despite being only 16 years old, she won the Swedish Woman of the Year award and was named by Forbes magazine as one of the world’s 100 most powerful women. Time magazine even awarded her its prestigious Person of the Year, for, in their words, “sounding the alarm about humanity’s predatory relationship with the only home we have,” “bringing to a fragmented world a voice that transcends backgrounds and borders,” and for “showing us all what it might look like when a new generation leads.”

While conservatives were hostile to her from the start, more liberal institutions showered her with attention and praise. The New York Times, for example, described her as “a modern-day Cassandra for the age of climate change,” and noted that her work had “inspired huge children’s demonstrations” across the planet.

Yet Thunberg refused to be turned into a mascot for the elites, and the co-optation failed. As a result, coverage of her in elite media outlets has plummeted to almost nothing, even as she continues to fight for global causes and risks her life trying to break the illegal blockade of Gaza.

This phenomenon can be seen by studying the coverage of Thunberg in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Shooting to public attention in 2018, Thunberg and her activities were, at first, given copious coverage in both newspapers, amounting to hundreds of articles per year in each outlet. Yet this has dwindled to virtually nothing by 2025, with only three Times and two Post articles even mentioning Thunberg, and only one in each covering her in any detail beyond a passing reference.

The data was compiled by searching for the term “Greta Thunberg” in The New York Times archive and Dow Jones Factiva news database, a tool that records the content from more than 32,000 U.S. and international media outlets.


(MintPress)

Dr. Jill Stein, a three-time presidential candidate for the United States Green Party, was not surprised by the findings. “It comes with the territory when you go from inside the box to outside the box, and it is a real sign of integrity when the media stops covering you,” she told MintPress. “Greta has been canceled, like many of the best activists I know of.”

The precipitous drop in corporate media interest closely correlates with Thunberg’s increasingly radical stances. In 2022, she identified capitalism as a prime cause of climate collapse and explained the need for a comprehensive global revolution, stating that:

“What we refer to as ‘normal’ is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet. It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression, and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.”

At the same public event, she dismissed the United Nations Climate Change Conferences as a waste of time, and merely an opportunity for “people in power… to [use] greenwashing, lying and cheating.”

She has also gone out of her way to support workers’ struggles against their bosses. Last year, she visited the GKN auto parts factory in Florence, Italy, a site that striking workers have occupied. “Climate justice = workers’ rights,” she explained, noting that,

“[E]very necessity to choose between the struggle for labour and the struggle for climate justice is abolished. The territory defends the factory, the factory defends the territory. The fight to get to the end of the month is the same fight against the end of the world.”

She has spoken out against the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, in support of striking Indian farmers, and against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Undoubtedly, however, it is her solidarity with the Palestinian people and their cause that has earned her the most flak.

In 2021, she shared a social media post accusing Israel of carrying out war crimes, adding that it was “Devastating to follow the developments in Jerusalem and Gaza,” adding the hashtag #SaveSheikhJarrah to her post. In the wake of the Oct. 7 attack and the Israeli bombardment that followed it, she called for an immediate ceasefire and for freedom and justice for Palestine. And last year, she was arrested while protesting Israel’s inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest.

For these actions, she has been vocally condemned by many of the same outlets that, only a few years previously, had celebrated and promoted her.


Members of European Parliament giving Thunberg a standing ovation for urging them to show climate leadership, 2020. (European Parliament /Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 2.0)

Just days after her calls for a ceasefire, Forbes magazine ran a story headlined “Greta Thunberg’s stand with Gaza is a problem for the climate change movement,” which claimed that sharing “controversial opinions that only serve to alienate entire demographics” does not “advance an environmental cause,” and “only weakens her ability to advocate and harms the overall climate change movement.”

Another Forbes article described her career arc as a “tragedy” and claimed that she was driven by an all-encompassing “hatred of Israel” and a determination to “destroy the Jewish state.” Meanwhile, influential German publication Der Spiegel, which had awarded her its “Person of the Year” in 2019, branded her an “antisemite.”

For Stein, Thunberg’s media excommunication cannot simply be explained by the notion that the exploits of a 22-year-old organizer are less newsworthy than those of a precocious teenager. Rather, it was her public stances against capitalism, imperialism, and Israel’s actions in Gaza that angered them.

“Each of those [stances] were a step-down in the eyes of mainstream media and the oligarchy they defend,” she said. “You could see the pushback against her starting when she began to speak about climate, social and economic justice. But when she began to take a stand on Gaza, that was the last straw, and you didn’t see her getting mainstream media coverage after that,” she added.

Thunberg sees the fight for a greener world as inseparable from the struggle for political and economic freedom. “For me, there is no way of distinguishing the two,” she said, adding:

“We cannot have climate justice without social justice. The reason why I am a climate activist is not because I want to protect trees. I’m a climate activist because I care about human and planetary well-being, and those are extremely interlinked.”

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer and former Green Party of Canada leadership candidate who has sailed on multiple “freedom flotillas” attempting to break the Gaza blockade, said that the shunning of Thunberg also represents “an indictment of the environmental movement.” As Lascaris told MintPress:

“Before Greta took an incredibly courageous stand for the victims of Israel’s genocidal regime, she was the darling of the movement, but many of those same ‘environmentalists’ who lionized her have fallen silent as she risks her life to draw attention to the suffering of Palestinians. Environmental justice and human rights are inextricably linked. If you will not stand with Greta now, then you have no right to call yourself an ‘environmental activist.’”

Dangerous Waters


Madleen ahead of departure from Sicily on June 1. (Tan Safi /Freedom Flotilla )

In addition to her political trajectory, Thunberg recently took a physical journey, sailing on an aid ship to Gaza in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade. She was one of 12 public figures to board the Madleen at the Sicilian port of Catania. Others include “Game of Thrones” actor Liam Cunningham and French politician Rima Hassan.

The ship was carrying urgently-needed supplies, including flour, rice, and other staples, as well as baby formula, feminine hygiene products, medical supplies, crutches, prosthetic limbs, and water desalination kits.

The Madleen is a small vessel, and the aid was but a drop in the ocean of what authorities say is needed. Organizers, however, emphasized the symbolic importance of breaking the blockade from the outside.

“We are doing this because no matter what odds we are against, we have to keep trying, because the moment we stop trying is when we lose our humanity,” Thunberg explained. The volunteers and crew were sailing unarmed and had been trained in non-violence.

Corporate media largely ignored the Madleen’s voyage. The New York Times, for example, had not covered it at all [until June 8, after Israel made big news by intercepting the ship].

[By June 6, several days after the ship had begun its journey] The Washington Post had dedicated a single article to it. Other outlets, bitterly denounced the operation. “Greta Thunberg’s narcissism has escalated to terrifying levels,” ran the headline [on June 2] in Britain’s daily, The Telegraph, which labeled it a “self-serving stunt masquerading as a daring act of charity.”

Some commentators displayed even more hostility to the mission. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, for instance, stated that the hopes “Greta and her friends can swim,” openly suggesting the aid ship should be attacked.

In May, the Israeli military attacked another boat attempting to deliver lifesaving aid to Palestine, firing missiles at the vessel just outside Maltese waters. The incident was largely ignored in the Western press.

Stein was impressed by Thunberg’s bravery, telling MintPress:

“It is heroic, it is inspirational, and it is galvanizing to have this example of her and the others on the Freedom Flotilla. Their incredibly courageous, compassionate humanitarian example is the polar opposite of this horrific genocide. They are risking their lives and they know it… But they refuse to accept a genocide, or to be powerless in the face of it.”

The lack of press attention likely does not surprise Thunberg, who identified Western corporate media as active participants in the slaughter.

“Our governments, our institutions, our companies are supporting this genocide… It is our tax money. It is our media who are continuing to dehumanize Palestinians,” she said. “On behalf of the international community, the so-called Western world, I am so sorry that we have betrayed you by not supporting you enough,” she added.

The manner in which the ruling class has collectively dumped Thunberg is far from an isolated incident. Elite liberal forces have historically attempted to defang and dilute radical challenges to the status quo, such as Black Lives Matter, the LGBT liberation movement, and the Occupy Wall Street protests, offering their leaders access and privileges.

If this strategy fails, figures and movements are shunned, rebuked, or attacked. While Martin Luther King focused his attention on racist Southern sheriffs, he was treated with respect. But after his anti-war “Beyond Vietnam” speech, where he trained his guns on the “triple evils of racism, extreme materialism and militarism,” he became public enemy number one, and was ignored, denounced, and, ultimately, assassinated.

Thunberg shows no sign of backing down. “We are standing up for justice, sustainability, liberation for everyone. There can be no climate justice without social justice,” she said. That is precisely the kind of talk that got her ejected from elite polite society in the first place.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/07/13/__trashed-40/

I think the young woman just grew up and connected the dots, as they say. She has also been speaking out about capitalism, which is 'the crux of the biscuit'. It took me longer...

[blindpig]

Writing About the Oil Business and Ignoring the Fate of the Earth
Olivia Riggio

ABC: Texas flooding updates: Death toll reaches 134, search continues for missing

ABC (7/15/25) reports on the death toll of Texas’ fossil fuel–fueled floods.In Texas, at least 134 people are dead, including 36 children, and a hundred are missing after a devastating flash flood swept through the central part of the state on July 4. A late June/early July heatwave in Europe claimed 2,300 lives across the continent. These events, of the kind made more extreme and frequent by climate change (ABC, 7/7/25; New York Times, 7/9/25), occur as EU leaders roll back climate policy and the Trump administration guts climate protections, staying true to the slogan of “Drill, baby, drill!”

Despite this dire backsliding on climate policy, with consequences that are clear as day, it’s business as usual in the realm of business news. Recent pieces in the widely read business publications Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and the business section of Reuters misleadingly suggested the fossil fuel industry’s profits and losses happen in a vacuum.

A clear consensus
Global leaders ignoring the climate crisis clearly aren’t making its tragic effects go away. The scientific consensus has been unmistakable for years: Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change. In order to avoid surpassing the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit, beyond which the most devastating impacts from global heating will be felt, we need to phase out fossil fuels—and fast (Union of Concerned Scientists, 1/21/21).

Many journalists have expressed this urgency while covering extreme weather and other impacts, making the connection to human-caused climate change and fossil fuel emissions (FAIR.org, 5/17/24). While these in-depth stories serve as clear explainers in outlets’ science and environment sections, the connection is still being ignored when business is discussed.

If not for the grotesque profits of fossil fuel companies—which knew about their industry’s environmental impact since the 1970s—resistance to a clean energy transition would not exist.

Industry coverage

Reuters (7/8/25) reported that “the US will produce less oil in 2025 than previously expected as declining oil prices have prompted producers to slow activity this year”—with no acknowledgment of the climate impact of this slowdown.

In early July, Exxon and Shell announced lower second-quarter profits from weaker oil and gas trading. Coverage in Bloomberg (7/7/25), the Wall Street Journal (7/7/25) and Reuters (7/7/25) discussed these announcements as indicative of how the rest of the fossil fuel industry will fare in Q2. Stories attributed these dips to Trump’s tariffs, Middle East tensions, excess supply and uncertain demand. Oil prices creeping up over the past two weeks were due to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, projected lower US oil production and Trump tariffs, Reuters (7/8/25) reported.

Meanwhile, reports on renewable energy stocks dipping after the passing of Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” also failed to mention the consequences of this backslide (Reuters, 7/7/25; Bloomberg, 7/8/25): If we keep our carbon emissions at current rates, we are poised to hit the 1.5°C threshold before 2030, leading to more deadly extreme weather events worldwide (Health Policy Watch, 5/6/24).

Discussing Chevron’s efforts to cut costs, Bloomberg (7/9/25) mentioned low oil prices and an “uncertain outlook for fossil fuels.” A passing mention of an “uncertain outlook” was the closest any of these pieces gets to hinting at the relevant need to phase out fossil fuels and invest in renewables, regardless of geopolitical events and market trends.

Increased demand

The Wall Street Journal (7/10/25) euphemized Trump’s wholesale attack on renewable energy as “a rising tide of pushback and scrutiny over climate-transition plans.”

The Wall Street Journal (7/10/25) reported “Oil Age Is Far From Over, OPEC Says,” citing increased energy needs globally as a reason fossil fuels will continue to be extracted. Oil correspondent Giulia Petroni wrote:

Meanwhile, OPEC also said energy policies across major economies are shifting as countries grapple with a growing array of challenges. While ambitious policy goals remain in place, a rising tide of pushback and scrutiny over climate-transition plans is emerging, particularly in the US and other advanced economies, according to the cartel.

Petroni did not cite any scientists or climate activists to push back against OPEC’s claims, let alone any of the litany of studies, data and reports that warn that if we want life on earth as we know it to continue, we simply cannot keep drilling for more oil. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (9/25/24) explained:

Peer-reviewed science shows there is no room for new coal, oil and gas development under the 1.5°C global warming limit agreed in Paris. In 1.5°C-aligned scenarios, coal production declines by 95% by 2050, and oil and gas production by at least 65%.

Another Journal piece (7/9/25) discussed a decrease in diesel supply, which could increase transport and heating costs next winter. “Lack of refining capacity growth is also a problem in the US, where the green energy movement has turned some refiners away from making diesel, said Flynn of the Price Futures Group,” Anthony Harrup reported—as if it’s a “problem” that green activists have succeeded in steering producers away from a climate-wrecking fuel. (No experts on renewable alternatives were cited.)

The argument that renewable energy sources can’t power the world is also not supported. According to the UN, renewables have the potential to meet 65% of the world’s energy demands by 2030 and 90% by 2050. And contrary to fossil fuel propaganda parroted by corporate media, renewable energy sources are already the cheapest power option in the majority of the world.

The AI boom

Bloomberg‘s report (7/4/25) worried that ending tax credits for renewable energy would fail to “quench the thirst of data centers that power artificial intelligence”—not that it would accelerate the climate catastrophe.

Reports about AI’s profligate energy usage from Reuters and Bloomberg also largely left out discussions about its climate impact. Reuters (7/9/25) did a story on the crisis facing the largest power grid in the country due to AI demand, as chatbots “consume power faster than new plants can be built.” The piece reported Trump ordering two oil and natural gas power plants in Pennsylvania to continue operating through the summer, despite their scheduled retirement in May, without mentioning the effect on climate.

Bloomberg (7/4/25) reported on Trump’s tax package curbing renewables even as AI’s need for power increases. The piece discussed the economic implications of the policy, but left out the dire environmental consequences.

Another Bloomberg piece (7/7/25) about AI’s utility needs did briefly make the climate connection. Reporter Josh Saul alluded at the end of the article to the arguments of “critics,” who warn these data centers can “hurt climate efforts by extending the lives of carbon-emitting coal and gas plants.” But he did not quote or cite specific groups, scientists or activists.

Ironic omissions

“Europe’s fleet of coal and gas plants could come to the rescue,” Bloomberg (7/7/25) reported. “The likely comeback for the region’s legacy fossil-fuel plants shows just how important they are.”

More puzzling reporting discussed European countries needing to fill energy gaps with fossil fuels during June and July’s deadly heatwaves.

“Fossil Fuels Set to Fill Europe’s Power Gap as Wind Plunges” (Bloomberg, 7/7/25) quoted an energy strategist from Rabobank: “The longer the wind lull continues amid the scorching heat, the longer fossil fuels will have to fill the evening demand gap in power markets.”

“Europe is steadily refilling storage sites that ended last winter severely depleted after a colder-than-usual heating season triggered hefty withdrawals,” another Bloomberg piece (7/7/25) stated. “Still, the region remains vulnerable to sudden shifts in supply or demand—especially as hot weather drives up energy use for cooling.”

“Risks remain as most of July is expected to be hotter than usual across Europe, possibly boosting gas consumption to meet demand for cooling,” said another (Bloomberg, 7/10/25).

This “hotter than usual” weather in Europe has claimed thousands of lives, with research suggesting 1,500 of the 2,300 estimated heat deaths could be connected to climate change, which, as we know, is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (New York Times, 7/9/25). But this clear connection and ironic chicken-and-egg scenario is not explained in any of these articles.

The Wall Street Journal (7/5/25) refers to the rolling back of “Biden’s climate law”—but never explains what energy and climate have to do with each other.

The Wall Street Journal (7/5/25) covered Trump’s rollback of President Joe Biden’s climate law, which offered subsidies for wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other green projects, in a piece headlined “The Moment the Clean-Energy Boom Ran Into ‘Drill, Baby, Drill.’”

The piece quoted Tracy Stone-Manning, president of the Wilderness Society and director of the Bureau of Land Management under Biden; Reagan Farr, chief executive of solar developer Silicon Ranch; and Cierra Pearl, a young Maine resident who recently lost her job building solar arrays. These sources decried Trump’s sabotage of the green energy transition, but none of them were cited discussing broader climate impacts.

“The clashing visions have left many developers and workers around the country in a lurch,” Journal oil reporter David Uberti wrote. Uberti made sure to quote a statement by Tom Pyle, president of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance: “If repealing these subsidies will ‘kill’ their industry, then maybe it shouldn’t exist in the first place.” (The $20 billion the fossil fuel industry receives annually in direct US government subsidies was not discussed.)

The impacts Trump’s anti–green energy policies will have on fossil fuel workers are certainly relevant, and it makes sense that business news articles would center broadly defined economic implications. But it is a glaring omission to discuss EVs, renewable energy and the possibility of oil drilling on public lands without any mention of environmental impacts and our all-but-guaranteed surpassing of the Paris Agreement threshold if we continue along this path.

Siloing the connection

Bloomberg (7/10/15) puts a story about how climate change is killing Europeans in its special “Green” section.

These outlets have no shortage of resources to report on climate change—and the culpability of the fossil fuel industry for its ramifications. Some are already doing it in other sections of the paper.

“We need to start acting against climate change and this means, first, trying to reduce the heat in cities,” a Bloomberg piece (7/10/15) about Europe’s heatwave said, quoting environmental epidemiologist Pierre Masselot. “But at the end of the day, all these measures won’t probably be as efficient as just reducing climate change altogether, and so reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” This article appeared in the site’s “Green” section.

In another piece (7/7/25) regarding AI’s energy demands in the “Green” section, the outlet also makes the connection to climate change. Bloomberg quoted a statement from environmental law organization Earthjustice:

Coal, gas and oil fired power plants spew millions of pounds of health-harming and climate-warming pollution into the air each year, and cost consumers millions of dollars more than cleaner energy sources.

While thorough climate reporting and mentions of the fossil fuel industry’s responsibility for global heating are difficult to find in the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, its “Sustainable Business” section (6/30/25) recently covered how companies are reporting fewer details about how climate change and extreme weather are impacting their business.

In its “Sustainability” section, Reuters (7/1/25) discussed the EU heatwave’s links to climate change and fossil fuel emissions. “Scientists say greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are a cause of climate change, with deforestation and industrial practices being other contributing factors,” Clotaire Achi, Emma Pinedo and Alvise Armellini wrote. “Last year was the planet’s hottest on record.”

The ‘silent majority’
Recent studies have revealed that between 80–89% of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and want their governments to do more to address it. But this vast majority of global citizens is ignored by reporting that treats the relentless extraction of fossil fuels as a source of profit rather than an existential threat. The climate journalism resource group Covering Climate Now, of which FAIR is a partner, refers to these people as the “silent majority.” Public support is widespread, but public discourse is lagging behind.

Major publications should not relegate the causes of climate change to their science and environmental sections. They need to be front and center in pieces that focus on the industry responsible for driving it, profiting from it and lying to the public about it for decades.

https://fair.org/home/writing-about-the ... the-earth/

[blindpig]

Kit Klarenberg: Case closed after ‘Russian disinfo’ claims led to persecution of NZ journalist
July 24, 2025
By Kit Klarenberg, The Grayzone, 7/13/25

Journalist Mick Hall was accused of slipping “Russian disinformation” into copy at New Zealand’s state broadcaster, sparking an international furor about Kremlin infiltration. Following an intel agency investigation, his name was cleared.
Now, Hall tells The Grayzone how a simple copy editing dispute brought him into Five Eyes’ crosshairs.

Until two years ago, Mick Hall was a fairly obscure journalist publishing wire copy for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), far-removed from media capitals like Washington and London where international opinions are shaped. But in June 2023, Hall suddenly became the target of Five Eyes intelligence agencies when he was accused by Western sources – including his own employer – of inserting “Russian disinformation” into wire stories.

What started with a dispute of Hall’s copy edits turned into an investigation by New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS), which briefed top government officials about its probe. For months afterward, major Western media outlets fretted that Kremlin agents had infiltrated New Zealand’s national broadcaster.

But Hall insisted he had been unfairly accused and defamed by a pro-war element driven into the throes of paranoia by the Ukraine proxy war. In November 2024, he lodged a formal complaint against the NZSIS, demanding to know whether Wellington’s primary intelligence service “acted lawfully and properly” and followed “correct procedure” in its investigation, and if any information gathered about him “was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners.”

On April 9, New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS) published the results of the investigation triggered by Hall’s complaint. The Inspector General report noted its investigation lasted between June 10 and August 11 2023, and was closed due to “no concerns of foreign interference” being identified.

The Inspector General acknowledged the intelligence services’ probe was initiated purely due to public “allegations [emphasis added] of foreign interference,” rather than substantive evidence of any kind, and expressed sympathy that Hall found it “disconcerting to discover” he had “come to the attention of an intelligence agency…particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed.” However, it concluded NZSIS’ actions were “necessary and proportionate”, and the agency acted “lawful [sic] and properly.”

Hall’s name had been cleared, but he had been denied any recompense for being smeared as a Kremlin agent, and having his career in national media effectively destroyed.

An ounce of truth
The manufactured scandal surrounding Mick Hall’s copy edits trace back to New York City, where a lawyer and Democratic party hack named Luppe B. Luppen erupted in outrage at something he happened across on RNZ’s website.

In a Twitter/X post, Luppen complained that RNZ had republished a Reuters article authored by the news agency’s Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge, with “utterly false, Russian propaganda” inserted. Namely, that the February 2014 Maidan “revolution” was in fact a “violent” US-sponsored “colour revolution,” provoking a civil war in eastern and southern Ukraine, during which local “ethnic Russians” were “suppressed.”

Mick Hall was responsible for inserting this wording.

He told The Grayzone, “it always seemed odd to me a New York-based lawyer would come across a republished Reuters story on a small national broadcaster’s website in the South Pacific – I’ve not read too much into it, but it felt strange at the time, and still does.” Nonetheless, Hall believed his changes were legitimate given the story’s content, and stands by his decision to this day.

Since joining RNZ in September 2018 as a “digital journalist” and subeditor, he was responsible for selecting and processing news stories from international news agencies and wire services for republication on the broadcaster’s website. Hall frequently found that copy by the BBC, Reuters, and other prominent Western news services contained extraordinary bias and distortions. He felt compelled to balance the coverage by adding context, or amending and deleting passages which seemed overtly ideological.

When the Ukraine proxy war erupted in February 2022, Hall sensed that Western news agencies were not even attempting to conceal their biases any longer.

Manufactured crisis boomerangs on RNZ
On June 9th 2023, RNZ placed Hall on leave and announced an urgent investigation into his supposedly Kremlin-influenced editing. By this point, the foundations of an international scandal had been laid. For months afterwards, “disinformation experts”, think tank hawks, mainstream ‘journalists’ and politicians whipped up a paranoid, conspiratorial frenzy over Hall’s edits. The BBC, Independent, New York Times and Reuters cranked up the controversy with blanket coverage. The Guardian’s obsessively anti-Russian Luke Harding took a particularly keen interest.

Olga Lautman, a Ukrainian nationalist from arms industry-funded think tank CEPA, strongly suggested that Hall was taking orders from the Russian state to insert “disinformation” into RNZ’s output. This libelous conjecture was not helped by RNZ chief Paul Thompson offering a servile public apology, in which he begged for forgiveness for “pro-Kremlin garbage…[ending] up in our stories.” An internal audit identified “inappropriate” edits made by Hall in 49 stories, out of 1,319 he worked on for RNZ in total – exactly 3.71%.

At his lawyer’s suggestion, Hall produced a detailed document listing every story he edited that had been flagged by RNZ for supposedly “inappropriate” tampering. He included personal explanations for why changes were made and passages inserted, along with expert supporting commentary from figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs and political scientist John Mearsheimer. However, Hall gave up after just 39 stories. “The reasons RNZ flagged the remaining 10 – such as referring to Julian Assange a journalist – were so ridiculous, it seemed a waste of time,” he explained.

RNZ subsequently appointed an independent panel to assess the fiasco. In a bitter irony, the report they published on July 28 2023 was a rebuke to Hall’s accusers. It declared that “not all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were found by the panel to be inappropriate.” Moreover, the panel accepted Hall “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately,” and “was not motivated by any desire to introduce misinformation, disinformation or propaganda.”

While the report accused Hall of several cases of “inappropriate editing,” breaching both RNZ’s editorial policy and its contractual agreement with Reuters, the panel did not conclude this was deliberate, but a well-intentioned effort to add “balance and accuracy into the stories.” Moreover, the edits flagged by the panel as “inappropriate” were usually factual, and contained valuable historical context. For example, Hall amended a May 2022 story about the attempted evacuation of Mariupol to note that Azov Battalion “was widely regarded before the Russian invasion by Western media as a Neo-Nazi military unit.”

That Azov’s extremist background, history and ideology has been obfuscated and whitewashed since the proxy war began is a basic statement of fact. The panel even acknowledged the group’s neo-Nazi links had “been noted, reported on and debated” previously, but bizarrely found Hall’s “uncritical and unexplained inclusion” of this inconvenient truth “had the effect of unbalancing the story.” This was despite the panel admitting, “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree” on editorial standards, which are in any event “matters for judgment”.

Conversely, the review was extremely scathing of how Hall’s “errors were framed” by RNZ’s leadership. Their conduct was found to have “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage which the panel believes was not helpful in maintaining public trust.” It furthermore concluded “the wider structure, culture, systems and processes that facilitated what occurred” were the state broadcaster’s responsibility. Grave “gaps” in supervision and training of RNZ’s “busy, poorly resourced digital news team” were identified. For example, “limitations on changing content” from newswires weren’t clearly communicated to staff.

An “intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy”
For Hall, many questions about the affair linger today – not least how the Inspector General reached his conclusions. The report states, “much of the information my inquiry has considered is highly classified, which limits the information I can provide you to explain my findings.” It is difficult to conceive what “highly classified” information NZSIS “considered” given the public nature of the allegations against Hall. What’s more, both the independent review panel and NZSIS cleared him of any wrongdoing within two months of the first accusations.

Similarly curious was the vague language which filled the three-page report. For example, it claimed that NZSIS had taken “relatively limited steps” in investigating Hall. Yet it failed to clarify which steps were taken. Confusing matters even further, the Inspector General admitted “NZSIS shared information about the conclusion of its enquiries with interested parties… to allay concerns of foreign interference.” The identity of those “interested parties,” and why it was NZSIS’ responsibility to ameliorate their baseless anxieties, was also unclear.

“We’ll likely never know the answer to any of these mysteries. I lodged my complaint when I learned NZSIS briefed both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office on my case. I also have grounds to believe at least one of Wellington’s Western intelligence partners was given information on me,” Hall tells The Grayzone.

“This was a simple matter of minor procedural errors on my part, and disagreement over editorial standards with RNZ’s management, which could’ve been quietly and professionally resolved internally. Instead, I was thrust into the glare of the international media and the Five Eyes global spying network. The intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy at a tiny news outlet could indicate there was some kind of deeper, darker coordination at play. Again though, we’ll probably never know.”

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/07/kit ... ournalist/

[blindpig]

FBI surveilled 2018 ‘Russia & Wikileaks’ panel featuring The Grayzone, files show
Wyatt Reed·July 24, 2025

Russiagate hysteria led the FBI to spy on a panel featuring The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil. As Blumenthal warned during the discussion, the bogus Trump-Russia collusion narrative was exploited to target a wide range of anti-establishment figures.

“Russiagate, one of the principal reasons that I oppose it – and why I called it out from the beginning – is that while it seems to be directed at Trump, it’s going to go beyond Trump and it will be used to suppress the left as classic McCarthyism always did.”

When The Grayzone’s founder, Max Blumenthal, made that statement on June 2, 2018, he had no way of knowing, but he was making it to the FBI.

A newly-uncovered file published by journalist Chip Gibbons shows a pair of FBI special agents was on hand to monitor the panel discussion Blumenthal was participating in that day at the 2018 Left Forum at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. The main target of their investigation appeared to be Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host also appearing on the panel, who was accused of being Roger Stone’s “backchannel” to Wikileaks – a charge Credico strenuously denied when subpoenaed by both the House Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller.

According to Gibbons, “the revelation that FBI agents surveilled the panel of journalists and activists stem from documents the FBI turned over… under the Freedom of Information Act.” As the journalist noted, the file in question is an “FD-302,” a type of report which FBI agents use to document interviews with their subjects. The file, which can be viewed in its entirety here, specifies that the “investigation” was carried out “in person.”



The report lists one of the special agents at the panel as Andrew Thomas Mitchell. A 2024 Department of Justice press release shows Mitchell was granted an Attorney General’s Award following his work as the FBI Unit Chief on an investigation into a West Virginia husband and wife who were convicted of attempting to sell information about nuclear submarine designs to a foreign country. The FBI’s investigation into Stone, which likely led to their monitoring of Credico, was also handled by its Counterintelligence Division.

The FBI appeared to be taking advantage of its investigative mandate to surveil Credico’s friends and colleagues as well. Others who unknowingly participated in the FBI-monitored panel include journalist Anya Parampil, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and KPFK Flashpoints host Dennis Bernstein.

Most of the two-page report is redacted, including the name of Mitchell’s partner. But Credico, who says he was approached by the pair several hours later, described the other agent as a woman. According to Credico, the agents followed him to a comedy set he performed later that evening, which was advertised in promotional materials for the forum that were included in the FBI file.

Afterwards, “a young man and woman, who were dressed like Disney tourists, came up to me as I was walking alone and told me how much they loved the show,” before revealing themselves to be FBI agents, he stated. Per Credico, he immediately phoned his attorney, who arranged to speak with the Bureau at a later date.

On July 22, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ordered the declassification of documents which largely discredited the allegation that Moscow hacked the DNC and waged a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to interfere in the 2016 US Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Among the files was a previously unseen 2016 report by the US Intelligence Community admitting that the FBI and National Security Agency had “low confidence” in the assessment that Russia was behind the leaks, as well as a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report revealing that “only specific information” suggesting Putin ordered the hack was derived from a single source with “second hand access.”

https://thegrayzone.com/2025/07/24/fbi- ... iles-show/

[blindpig]

America’s Opinion Pages Overwhelmingly Supported Trump’s Attack on Iran
Bryce Greene and Emma Llano



In the four days of coverage after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran (6/21–24/25), the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post responded with 36 opinion pieces and editorials. Almost half of these, 17, explicitly supported the illegal bombing, while only 7 (19%) took an overall critical view of the strikes—none of them in the Journal or the Post.

Of the critical pieces, only three (one in the Times and two in USA Today) opposed the idea on legal or moral grounds, challenging the idea that the United States has a right to attack a country that had not attacked it.

This opposition rate of less than a fifth is in stark contrast to US public opinion on the matter, which showed that 56% of Americans opposed Trump’s bombing. Why wasn’t this reflected in the range of opinions presented by America’s top press outlets? These numbers highlight just how poorly represented the views of the public are in elite media.



‘Trump’s courageous and correct decision’

Bret Stephens (New York Times, 6/22/25) argued that bombing Iran without any evidence the country intended to build a nuclear weapon was “the essence of statesmanship.”

FAIR looked at all opinion pieces in the four papers that addressed Trump’s strikes on Iran, from June 21 through June 24. Forty-seven percent (17) explicitly praised Trump’s unauthorized act of war.

Many of these cheered the aggressive assertion of US power. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens (6/22/25) lauded “Trump’s Courageous and Correct Decision,” which “deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president and the rest of his policies.” At the Washington Post, David Ignatius (6/22/25) offered similar praise under the headline, “Trump’s Iran Strike Was Clear and Bold,” and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board (6/22/25) declared, “Trump Meets the Moment on Iran.”

USA Today (6/22/25) published columnist Nicole Russell’s “Trump Warned Iran. Then He Acted Boldly to Protect America.” The headline was later changed to an even more laudatory: “Trump Was Right to Bomb Iran. Even Democrats Will Be Safer Because of It.” In a Wall Street Journal guest column (6/24/25), Karen Elliott House celebrated the “restor[ation] of US deterrence and credibility.”

Some directly attempted to defend the strikes’ legality. In a Post guest column (6/23/25), Geoffrey Corn, Claire Finkelstein and Orde Kittrie claimed to explain “Why Trump Didn’t Have to Ask Congress Before Striking Iran.” The piece relied extensively on the playground rhetorical tool of if they did it, why can’t I?, confidently listing earlier US presidents’ attacks that defied constitutional law, as if past violations justify the current one.

They asserted that “the operation also derives support from international law as an exercise of collective self-defense in defense of Israel,” ignoring the fact that international law does not allow you to “defend” yourself against a country that hasn’t attacked you—let alone the illogical formulation of the US engaging in “self-defense” on behalf of another country.

For the Wall Street Journal‘s art department (6/24/25), war is peace.

USA Today columnist Dace Potas (6/22/25), who called the attacks “strategically the right move and a just action,” also defended the constitutionality of Trump’s strikes, attacking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call to impeach Trump over the strikes:

If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I’m not sure what else, short of an actual invasion of the homeland, would allow for him to act.

That’s the thing about self-defense, though—it’s supposed to involve an attack.

Journal columnist Gerard Baker (6/23/25), who called the attack “judicious and pragmatic,” likewise pointed to Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that “no one seriously doubts the Iran nuclear threat”—despite both US intelligence and the International Agency for Atomic Energy concluding otherwise.

Yet another angle came from Times columnist Thomas Friedman (6/22/25), who argued that the “Attacks on Iran Are Part of a Much Bigger Global Struggle”—between the forces of “inclusion,” who believe in “more decent, if not democratic, governance,” and the forces of “resistance,” who “thrive on resisting those trends because conflict enables them to keep their people down.” Friedman called Trump’s strikes “necessary” for the right side to “triumph” in this good-vs-evil struggle.

Questions without criticism

The New York Times (6/22/25) figures you can’t go wrong by asserting total ignorance.

Of the remaining opinion pieces, ten accepted the strikes as a fait accompli and offered analysis that mostly speculated about the future and offered no anti-bombing pushback.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary (6/23/25) asking “Can Iran Strike Back Effectively?” A New York Times op-ed (6/22/25) by security consultant Colin P. Clarke speculated about “How Iran Might Strike Back.”

The Times also published columnist W.J. Hennigan’s piece (6/22/25) that warned that “We Have No Idea Where This War Will Go.” Hennigan speculated: “It’s almost certain we haven’t seen the end of US military action in this war,” but he did not indicate whether this might be a good or bad thing.

Others were slightly more wary, such as a Times op-ed (6/23/25) headlined “What Bombs Can’t Do In Iran.” The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour asked, “Will this extraordinary act of war strengthen Tehran’s authoritarians or hasten their demise?” Sadjadpour tells readers that “while military strikes may expose an authoritarian regime’s weaknesses, they rarely create the conditions necessary for lasting democratic change”—yet he offers support for both possible outcomes.

Similarly, the Washington Post (6/22/25) published a triple-bylined opinion piece debating the question: “Will the US/Iran Conflict Spin Out of Control?” Participant Jason Rezaian did not criticize the bombing itself, only the lack of strategy around it, judging that Trump’s idea of “decimating Iran’s defenses and then letting them stay in power to terrorize their citizens, dissidents and opponents around the world would be a massive failure” and concluding, “my concern is that there is no plan to speak of.”

Attacking Trump, supporting war

Criticizing Donald Trump’s decision-making process, USA Today‘s Rex Huppke (6/22/25) assures readers that “of course” he hopes the bombing of Iran is “successful.”

Of the seven articles that criticized Trump’s actions, more were critical of Trump and his personality or disregard of procedure than were opposed to the illegal and aggressive actions of an empire. Three of these came from USA Today’s Rex Huppke. His first column (6/21/25) argued that “Trump may have just hurled America into war because he was mad nobody liked his recent military parade.”

His second piece (6/22/25) accused Trump of starting the war based on “vibes,” and rightly attacked the credibility of the administration, citing the numerous contradictory or false statements from US and Israeli officials. However, that column made it clear that Huppke hoped for a successful strike on Iran, even as he acknowledged it could end in “disaster”:

If Trump’s bombing of Iran proves successful—and I, of course, hope it does—it’ll be dumb luck. But if it leads to disaster, it’ll be exactly what anyone paying attention to these reckless hucksters predicted.

At the New York Times, former Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote a guest column (6/24/25) under the headline: “Trump’s Iran Strike Was a Mistake. I Hope It Succeeds.” Blinken’s primary issue with Trump’s attack was that Blinken deemed it ineffective; his secondary concern was that his own State Department achievements were being overlooked: “Mr. Trump’s actions were possible only because of the work of the Obama and Biden administrations.”

‘International authoritarianism’

It’s telling that a piece (New York Times, 6/23/25) arguing that Trump’s airstrikes were illegal has to go on to explain why that’s bad.

Of the 36 editorials and opinion pieces published by the top papers on the Iran bombing, only three (8%) explicitly opposed the bombing on legal or moral grounds. The New York Times and USA Today ran opinions grounded in legal arguments. USA Today also published human rights attorney Yasmin Z. Vafa on the human toll of this war on the citizens of Iran.

In her Times op-ed (6/23/25), Yale Law School professor Oona A. Hathaway points out that the attacks were not only unconstitutional, but in violation of international law, as Trump did not seek approval from either Congress or the UN Security Council. Hathaway was the sole opinion writer to describe Trump’s illegal actions with the same diction usually reserved for America’s enemies:

The seeming rise of authoritarianism at home is precipitating a kind of international authoritarianism, in which the American president can unleash the most powerful military the world has ever known on a whim.

USA Today‘s Chris Brennan (6/24/25) also emphasized Trump’s lack of congressional approval under the headline: “There’s a Legal Way to Go to War. Trump Flouting the Constitution Isn’t It.”

The same day in USA Today (6/24/25), Vafa—an Iranian refugee herself—brought a human angle to this conflict that is unfortunately hard to come by in the top papers’ pages. She wrote: “This kind of violence doesn’t happen in theory. It happens in living rooms. In kitchens. In schoolyards and in hospitals.”

Vafa not only raised the US’s history of destabilization in the Middle East, she also contextualized these kinds of attacks’ role in creating the refugee crises that right-wingers then use to create moral panics. “We are here because you were there,” she wrote.

The people speak

The New York Times letters page (6/22/25) once again demonstrated that the paper is well to the right of its readership.

The New York Times (6/22/25) did publish a series of letters to the editor from their readers on “The Consequences of US Strikes in Iran.” Unlike the professional columnists, many of these readers were explicitly against the bombing. One letter began: “Once again our government has launched a war against a nation that has not attacked the United States.”

Another writer wrote:

Whether President Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities has postponed one danger or not, it has surely destroyed the effort to limit nuclear proliferation. The damage is incalculable.

Another wrote: “By crossing the line and attacking Iran, the United States should not be under the misconception that it has made a step toward peace.”

In fact, the only pro-bombing letter the Times published in the package was not written by an average citizen, but by Aviva Klompas, identified by the Times as “a former speechwriter for Israel.”

The Big Lie this time
Every big US aggression is sold by a Big Lie, told over and over again by policy makers and repeated ad nauseam in the press. US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Ukraine have all been sold to the public based on Big Lies.

This time for US newspaper columnists, the Big Lie is twofold: firstly, that Iran was rejecting negotiations in favor of building a bomb; secondly, that Iran wants to build a bomb to destroy Israel. These lies rely not only on ignorance, but also on a media apparatus that repeats them until they’re accepted as an uncontested premise for all discussion.

As FAIR (10/17/17, 6/23/25) has described in the past, these claims have no basis in fact. Iran, which has long been in favor of a nuclear weapons–free Middle East, has attempted to negotiate a stable deal with the West for over a decade. Hindering this are Israel’s insistence on its undeclared nuclear arsenal, as well as both Trump and Biden’s rejection of the deal negotiated under Obama. Even if that weren’t the case, there’s no indication whatsoever that Iran, should it produce a nuclear bomb, would commit national suicide by attacking Israel with it.

These misrepresentations are made all the more egregious by the fact that there is a Mideastern country that has rejected the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which occupies neighboring lands under military dictatorship, regularly attacks and violates treaties with its neighbors, has proven repeatedly to be a bad-faith negotiator, is currently committing an internationally recognized genocide, and does all this in the name of rights given to them by God. That country is Israel. If the columnists at leading US newspapers had any consistency, they would be calling for Trump to launch a surprise attack on Israel’s nuclear facilities and stockpiles.

But they don’t do this, because they either don’t know or don’t care about the relevant history. They’re all willing to uncritically manufacture consent for the US empire.

https://fair.org/home/americas-opinion- ... k-on-iran/

I doubt that the NYT's readership is well to the left of the paper, those letters are from a minority that had the gumption to complain. And ya gotta wonder why they take that rag in the first place.

[blindpig]

In the cemetery of bourgeois freedoms
July 31, 17:12



In the cemetery of bourgeois freedoms

From the news: a new law on mass censorship has been adopted in Britain, which is officially called the "Online Safety Act". Under the slogan "let's protect children from...". From what? From almost everything. Everything marked as 18+ (pornography, materials with elements of violence and other categories of "sensitive" materials) will be available only after passing identification via a passport, driver's license, bank data or biometric facial verification. Violation of these requirements by platforms threatens draconian fines - up to 18 million pounds sterling or up to 10% of the company's annual global turnover.

As a result, the largest resources, such as Pornhub, XVideos, xHamster, chose to block access for British users completely, regardless of age. And on Twitter, for example, age verification is available only with a premium subscription, no matter how old you are. This means that the lion's share of posts are censored. All messengers and private correspondence are subject to mandatory control. The law obliges online services to monitor illegal content even in private chats, including messengers with end-to-end encryption protection. WhatsApp and Signal have already stated that if the government tries to force them to crack encryption, the companies will prefer to leave the British market completely, and Telegram has introduced mandatory age verification.

A fine has been introduced for teenagers searching for content prohibited for them [18+]. This law was developed and discussed for more than six years, was finally adopted by the British Parliament and signed by the King on October 26, 2023, but its main provisions have entered into force only now. France, Sweden and Germany are planning to adopt similar laws.

Here the author of these lines involuntarily recalls what I myself wrote in 2013, when similar processes began in Russia. And then I wrote the following:

“It is not harmful to recall that “perestroika” itself a quarter of a century ago began under the main and then seemingly indisputable slogan of “glasnost”, the abolition of censorship. All the achievements of the past decades – social, scientific, technical, industrial, etc. – were crossed out and swept into the trash bin of history with one careless movement: but there was no glasnost then! there was no freedom of speech! And, therefore, all this is worth absolutely nothing. At that time, few people understood that “glasnost” and all civil liberties (of speech, press, assembly, etc.) were needed by the degenerating late Soviet “elite” for approximately the same purpose as a burglar needs a master key. Only in order to appropriate the people’s property and throw overboard the red Soviet ideology, which strictly forbade such appropriation. Without “freedoms,” it would have been quite difficult to arrange such a fraudulent operation. And after this operation was successfully carried out, it was time to throw overboard the freedoms themselves.”

The funniest thing is that in Russia back then, in 2013, everything was also done under the flag of... protecting children. Apparently, this is universal for all bourgeois countries. As the unforgettable Ostap Bender used to say:

- Comrades! We need immediate help. We must tear children from the tenacious clutches of the street, and we will tear them from there. Let's help the children. Let's remember that children are the flowers of life. I invite you to make your contributions right now and help children, only children, and no one else. Do you understand me?

Yes, we understand everything...
Back then, in 2013, I wrote about it like this:

"It all started, as is known, with the "good" law on protecting children from information harmful to them. The Internet is full of seas and oceans of information that can be considered "harmful to children", but for some reason, information about suicides, in particular, was singled out from these oceans. And - bam! – suddenly adults were strictly forbidden to discuss information about s*icides with each other online. They said it could harm children. But what about Martin Eden, Anna Karenina, Katerina from The Storm, what about other characters from literary classics who committed s*icide? Are they all now banned too? And isn't it possible, theoretically, that discussing any murders (not just suicides) starting with Cain and Abel, and any violence, could harm children? Maybe then we should ban discussing online all topics that aren't entirely suitable for a six-year-old?..

The clause added to the law – not at all by accident, of course – was especially good, allowing an ENTIRE website to be blocked for information on one of its pages. Let's say, some social network or Wikipedia has millions of pages, but ALL of them can be blocked if something forbidden appears on at least one of them. It is especially funny that some representatives of the "swamp" and "left" opposition sitting in the Duma voted for this law. A Russian proverb says: "The first glass is a stake, the second - a falcon, the rest - small birds." Well, these gentlemen drank the first censored glass on a first-name basis with the authorities - what will they complain about later?

If we distract ourselves from the momentary law and take a look at the entire trend of introducing the most severe censorship on the Internet, then we can draw a general conclusion: the world bourgeoisie is throwing overboard all those freedoms that allowed it to use their bait to cause the collapse of the USSR and socialism in Europe.

However, this is not news: this trend was noted by none other than ... Stalin in his last public speech in 1952 at the CPSU Congress. Let me remind you that he said then:

“Previously, the bourgeoisie allowed itself to be liberal, defended bourgeois-democratic freedoms and thus created popularity among the people. Now there is no trace left of liberalism. There is no longer any so-called “freedom of the individual” - the rights of the individual are now recognized only for those who have capital, and all other citizens are considered raw human material, suitable only for exploitation. The principle of equality of people and nations has been trampled, it has been replaced by the principle of full rights for the exploiting minority and lack of rights for the exploited majority of citizens. The banner of bourgeois-democratic freedoms has been thrown overboard. I think that you, representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to pick up this banner and carry it forward if you want to gather the majority of the people around you. There is no one else to pick it up.”

Incidentally, he went on to express an idea that is even more relevant in our time:

“Previously, the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation, it defended the rights and independence of the nation, placing them “above all else.” Now there is no trace left of the "national principle". Now the bourgeoisie sells the rights and independence of the nation for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. There is no doubt that you, representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to pick up this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your country, if you want to become the guiding force of the nation. There is no one else to pick it up."

Well, here we are already somewhat deviating from the original topic. It can also be added that this process has slowed down somewhat, since it turned out to be convenient to fight world communism precisely under the banner and bait of "freedoms". That is, the very existence of the USSR and communism as a movement slowed down the process described above. But then this brake was broken. And now we are seeing what we are seeing: "The banner of bourgeois-democratic freedoms has been thrown overboard." Well, that's all...

(c) Alexander Maysuryan

https://maysuryan.livejournal.com/3102844.html - zinc

The USSR is no more. There is no longer any need to imitate "capitalism with a human face". Concessions to the masses in the West were primarily due to the existence of the USSR and the Soviet bloc. But now the shop is closing in conditions when the world has returned to the "good old" competition of imperialist countries and blocs in the conditions of the collapse of the globalism project, which was supposed to lead to the "end of history" and confirm the "historical victory of neoliberal capitalism".

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9986711.html

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Mockingbirds Singing Far and Wide
By Gregg Wager - August 1, 2025 1


[Source: wikipedia.org]

Listen to the Mockingbird. Let early birds catch worms, but Mockingbirds sing catchy ear worms.

Tone-deaf historians and criminologists continue to neglect music and thereby ignore an important soundtrack to events. Even if our frustration has now reached a boiling point as we long for information that makes sense, dubbing in a voice that sings in tune may help our narrative along

Let this be the first article of a series in which patient music analysis helps create more plausible conclusions and legal outcomes. This goes for a deconstruction of Mockingbird’s deep background as well as for finding more honest tunes, such as by Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who have been upstaged.

Like caged passerines on a perch, we sang and sang during the Operation Mockingbird era. Most of the time the only thing we knew enough to do was to follow the bouncing ball as if chirping along with a karaoke machine.

Whether overtly or obliquely implementing American Cold War policy, Mockingbird also efficiently manipulated our elections and helped cover up illegal domestic spying (among other things). Even if only rumor and still denied by many who should know, reliable sources confirm that CIA control of the media today is stronger than ever.[1]

Requiescat in Omissions
The death of Washington Post Managing Editor Ben Bradlee (1921-2014) inspired lengthy obituaries.[2] Funny how seemingly thorough (if not deliberately bloated) these timelines appear, with paragraph upon paragraph of things accomplished from Harding to Obama administrations.


Benjamin Bradlee [Source: Wikipedia.org]

Typically not mentioned in Bradlee’s obituary printed in the Post is any work related to the CIA. A British obituary mentions Bradlee’s CIA friends during his stay in Paris in the early 1950s, and especially singles out Phil Graham (1915-1963) of the Post for getting Bradlee his early work in France and connections within the intelligence community.[3]

Perhaps because Bradlee himself always denied working for the CIA, reverent obituary writers respected the dead Watergate hero’s wishes. Still, a modest footnote or two might help clarify a noticeable gap in his completed life story.

Besides, most readers only scan lengthy obituaries without reading carefully. Wearying the reader with overtly voluble text helps keep deliberate omissions unnoticeable.

Bradlee, who fancied himself fluent in French, at least worked in Paris to control America’s reputation in Europe. We know a publication attributed to Bradlee and translated into French specifically intended to assuage morbid perceptions Europeans might have had of us after the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.[4]

Lots of reasons could compel a young journalist to write this way about the Rosenbergs. If Bradlee’s piece about the Rosenbergs was not a CIA job, why omit it from his obituary?

Pulped Fiction
If you don’t like what is in your newspaper, you can always line your passerine cage with it. Other than that, enlightened people should be careful about destroying printed material, because it may prevent others in a free society from reading it.

Tell that to author Deborah Davis who wrote a biography of Phil Graham’s wife, publisher Katharine Graham (1917-2001).[5] Its fate is now well known.

After submitting its manuscript (backed with detailed research and confidential sources) to an elite publishing company in New York City, the project was enthusiastically accepted. It was even nominated for an American Book Award.

Six weeks after hitting the stands, the same publication was withdrawn by the publisher, and all copies were sent to a wood chipper. A confrontation by none other than Ben Bradlee with Davis’s publisher set this biblio-pulverizing process in motion.


Davis’s 1979 bio of Kate Graham. [Source: InternetArchive.org]

When 20,000 copies of her book became pulp to please a huffing-and-puffing Bradlee,[6] Davis sued her less-than-intrepid publisher for breach of contract for not making best efforts to market her book (which is of course an understatement). She won, and when the legal sawdust settled, her book was republished eight years later.

In the revamped version of her book, Davis reproduces a bizarre Government interoffice memorandum written on a Saturday in the final full month of the Truman administration.[7] Written by one of the Rosenberg prosecutors, it was merely reminding a higher-up in writing (i.e., they had already conferred with each other) about an unusual telephone call.


Robert Helyer Thayer [Source: FindaGrave.com]

The caller was 32-year-old Bradlee claiming he had been sent to New York City by Robert Helyer Thayer (1901-1984)[8] who was “head of the C.I.A. in Paris.” Bradlee also mentioned a CIA representative who was supposed to meet him at the airport but never did.

According to the memo, Bradlee was even dropping the name of Allen Dulles (1893-1969) for leverage, which was perspicacious since Eisenhower’s announcement that Deputy Director Dulles would take over as CIA Director would not happen for another month. Also keep in mind that, in those days, flying into New York City from Paris on a propeller-driven plane for only a weekend of examining legal documents was not what normal writers did.

If confronted with the memo, Bradlee always could have claimed he was nothing more than a green journalist bluffing his way into a tightly monitored situation. He chose instead to deny CIA connections altogether all the way up to the end of his life (and beyond if you count omissions in his obituaries).

Apparently between Bradlee’s generic job title at the American Embassy in Paris (he was officially a “press attaché”) and his affiliation with a State Department organization subtly influencing various media in Europe (he was on a staff list for the United States Information and Educational Exchange or USIE[9]), Bradlee may have believed he worked under enough haze to deny CIA influence. Decades later, any friendliness between Bradlee and the CIA could have created a perception of possible conflict of interest when his two upstart reporters made media celebrities out of CIA-connected Watergate burglars.

Davis claims that, when her book was initially released, Bradlee desperately began a campaign up and down the East Coast lunching with as many editors as he could to assure them he had never written propaganda for the CIA.[10] Ben Bradlee also described any CIA involvement in his long life as nothing more than Davis’s “CIA fantasies.”

In fact, lots of young writers worked for the CIA in various capacities when traveling abroad. If Bradlee’s denials are indeed untruthful, just how close did he come into contact with the CIA?

Carl Bernstein Gathers No Moss
Another Watergate hero, Carl Bernstein, gave the generation of the late 1970s a piece of investigative journalism about CIA influence on American news. Although he did not acknowledge Operation Mockingbird by name or even the controversies surrounding Bradlee’s (i.e., his former boss’s[11]) Rosenberg article or Davis’s biography of Kate Graham, Bernstein published his feature in hip Rolling Stone magazine, perhaps symbolizing America’s youth hot on the trail of the same corrupt government that had just sent them to Vietnam and back.


Carl Bernstein [Source: Spartacus-Educational.com]

By the late 1970s, Watergate buzz had subsided a bit. Investigations from the Church Committee and House Select Committee on Assassinations had helped put the country in a mood to clean up CIA messes, even if it was as if using a small dust pan to clean up elephant droppings.

As a symbol of new transparency in this era, researchers (including Davis) still eagerly read and cite Bernstein’s article.[12] Perhaps we should believe from this enthusiasm that he has substantially exposed CIA trickery.

Nevertheless, Bernstein’s work concentrates on how the CIA regularly used American journalists abroad, mostly to keep track of their impressions of unstable political forces and adversaries in otherwise friendly foreign governments. Apparently, the CIA approached any Americans (not just journalists) in foreign countries to find out more about certain situations.[13]

Especially during the Cold War, American foreign ops depended on an interpretation of the Curtiss-Wright case,[14] which that, once an American official leaves American soil, laws and the powers of Congress do not apply. Free-for-all American spying outside the United States has never been a secret, so Bernstein’s survey was not exactly cutting-edge information or exposing anything new.

When it comes to exchanging substantial favors, conveying secret messages, spreading misinformation and juicy rumors, or even performing a task a hardcore spy might do (perhaps, smuggling something or somebody in or out of a hostile country), American journalists almost always assiduously helped the CIA with a sense of patriotic duty. Sometimes, this even involved signing a secrecy pact.[15]

Meanwhile, between Bradlee’s denials of propaganda in France and Bernstein’s seemingly thorough deep history of pesky spies picking the brains of Americans in foreign lands, the lead is efficiently buried: What did the CIA do domestically, especially as part of Operation Mockingbird, that Bradlee, Graham, or even Bernstein might have willingly participated in?

Like with voluble Bradlee obituaries, astute readers ruining their eyes reading and rereading for references to Operation Mockingbird could end up with not much else than blurry vision and droopy eyelids.

At one point, Bernstein acknowledges that Katharine Graham dramatically called William Colby (1920-1996), Director of the CIA, to see how many of his spies might have infiltrated her ranks. According to Bernstein, Colby denied any staff writers at the Post had connections, but gave no comment about stringers.[16]

Further mention of CIA propaganda reaching American soil includes the 1973 coup in Chile and how some propaganda intended for Chileans may have been inadvertently imported and reprinted.[17] There is also mention of the statement of Frank Wisner (1909-1965) about a “Mighty Wurlitzer,” but not in its original sense of manipulating both America’s Left and Right.[18]


Frank Wisner [Source: Wikipedia.org]

What if the lead were not only buried but cremated and its ashes scattered in the ocean? Davis’s reverence to Bernstein respects his restraint from attacking his former employer, but perhaps a blunt, kiss-and-tell article was indeed called for.


Katharine Graham [Source: Wikipedia.org]

In fact, Bernstein only briefly acknowledges that especially Phil Graham worked avidly with Wisner and could therefore be relied on by the CIA when it required a Mockingbird medium. Davis goes on to imply that Phil Graham and Wisner actually conceived of Mockingbird together, as a non-violent way to fight Communism.[19]

Again and again, Kate Graham gets away with being portrayed the victim (if not even a martyr) of her sexist society, in which it is assumed to this day her husband never shared details of Operation Mockingbird. Although barely possible, it is not likely or believable, all things now considered.

La ville de l’amour
After his embassy stint, Bradlee remained in Paris as a foreign correspondent for Newsweek. Reliable rumor had it that, as a Paris barfly, he could have blended in as a sixth member of the finger-snapping, cool Rat Pack.[20]

By August 1954, two blue-blooded American sisters ran into Bradlee during their own whirlwind tour of Europe. The reunion of East Coast Establishment gave City of Love a run for its money.

Together, this Yankee trio searched for and found second wind in life after finishing up the diaper phase of raising their children. Paris metamorphosed them into elite and modern trendsetters.

Eventually Bradlee became especially sweet for the younger sister, Antoinette “Tony” Pinchot Pittman (1924-2011). The mutual attraction led them to divorcing their spouses so they could marry each other.

As Newsweek was one of the more relentless chirrups of Operation Mockingbird, presumably Bradlee was more than witting about spy culture he was about to marry into. It turns out Tony had a good friend, Cicely Harriet d’Autremont Angleton (1922-2011), who was married to the soon-to-be Chief of Counterintelligence of the CIA, James Jesus Angleton (1917-1987). Tony’s older sister Mary Pinchot Meyer (1920-1964) had been married to the man put in charge of Operation Mockingbird, Cord Meyer (1920-2001).[21] Angleton became godfather to the Meyers’ children.[22]

Unlike the way Bernstein might have you believe it, the Post acquiring Newsweek in 1961 was less a squeaky clean newspaper acquiring a perhaps tainted spy asset, than an already CIA-jaded organization swallowing up a tasty morsel. Phil and Kate Graham also famously had been mingling with CIA bigwigs once or twice a month on Sunday afternoons for a meal and cocktail hour.[23] After Phil’s death, Kate continued regularly wooing scores of Washingtonians and invited them to weekly soirees at her house.


Author Deborah Davis [Source: Spartacus-Educational.com]

As Bradlee also became well situated in Washington, D.C. and extremely neighborly with the Angletons, he was promoted to Managing Editor at the Post. Actually, an old Post columnist, Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) recommended Bradlee for the plum position.[24] Davis makes illuminating analysis out of Lippmann’s elitist philosophy, all but implying that the Post has always been led by philosophical elitism, even before CIA and Mockingbird. Elites should always be in the know, but what newspaper readers should know falls far short of that, says Lippmann.[25]

Bradlee had also been working closely with President John Kennedy, essentially as his mouthpiece. The relationship was not always friendly, and Kennedy usually punished Bradlee by giving him a three-month silent treatment following anything in print Bradlee wrote that displeased him.[26]

On October 13, 1964, Bradlee assisted the Washington, D.C., police in identifying the body of his murdered sister-in-law. Mary had been having an affair with President Kennedy and was murdered in public almost a year after he was.


Mary Pinchot Meyer [Source: Wikipedia.org]

Bradlee recalls in his memoir that he received a telephone call from his friend Wistar Janney with information that suggested Mary was dead.[27] It seems Cord Meyer also received a similar telephone call from Wistar Janney.[28]

Janney’s son Peter wonders why, in both recollections (Bradlee’s and Cord Meyer’s), they never mention that his father Wistar was a CIA agent. Peter goes on to speculate that his father was probably involved in a CIA scheme to kill Mary, who was getting too close in her JFK assassination research and whose diary might fall into the wrong hands.

In discussing how his father knew Mary was dead before Bradlee had identified the body to police, Peter Janney also points out how Bradlee testified under oath that he had no knowledge of Mary’s death until the police asked him to identify her. In summation, the same Bradlee who denied he ever worked for the CIA not only forgot his friend Wistar was a CIA agent, but he also forgot any conversation with Wistar ever took place—even under penalty of perjury—until his final memoir was written.

The Old Soft White Shoe
Whether portrayed by steady and stone-faced Jason Robards or gruff and grinning Tom Hanks, Ben Bradlee has provided us compelling cinematic glimpses over the years. Of these two esteemed actors, it was the latter who also spent good money to acquire filming and broadcasting rights to the book by Vincent Bugliosi (1934-2015), Reclaiming History,[29] a lengthy tome supporting the lone gunman theory in the JFK assassination.

At the end of Steven Spielberg’s The Post (2017), Meryl Streep (as social butterfly Graham) confronts Bruce Greenwood (as moping, despondent Secretary of Defense Bob McNamara), making us want to believe that a few bad apples in Government had fooled the smartest newspaper in America. By publishing the notorious Pentagon Papers, Graham/Bradlee finally revealed the actual untruths that supported the Vietnam War, so says the film, just in time to redeem their own souls from the false patriotic tune they had been singing throughout the 1960s.

In comparison, actor Tracy Letts speaks only a few lines in the same film as Fritz Beebe (1914-1973) who, since overseeing the Graham newspaper’s acquisition of Newsweek in 1961, had become Chairman of the Board of the new conglomerate (seeped in Operation Mockingbird—see above). Beebe’s deeper background reveals him practicing law for Cravath, Swaine & Moore,[30] starting out as an estate planner for Katharine Graham’s parents (the Meyers, who are no relation to Bradlee’s sister-in-law’s family).


Gerald Posner [Source: Wikipedia.org]

Before prosecutor par excellence Bugliosi took on skeptics of the Warren Commission with his Reclaiming History, Gerald Posner’s book about Lee Harvey Oswald, Case Closed,[33] also postulated such a theory in little more than a lopsided legal brief. When impeaching any witnesses muddying waters of his lone-gunman theory, Posner the shark comes forward and, with unmerciful and law-school-trained cruelty, gobbles them up.

After all, Posner was also recruited by Cravath, Swaine & Moore after finishing top of his class in his West Coast law school. Without any immunities granted by any courts anywhere such as what might be available during a trial, Posner still freely and unabashedly takes defamatory aim at his foes only to prevail in what he feels is his argument.

For example, Silvia Odio, a witness whose testimony plausibly and reasonably challenges the Warren Commission’s version of Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, is reviled by Posner for being “pampered” (even though a refugee) as well as in the throes of a nervous breakdown.[34] Posner’s own “non-sinister” explanations about why “544 Camp St.” might have been stamped on the back of handbills Oswald was distributing in New Orleans find him struggling and floundering the most, since there are no available people he can dismiss as crazies (perhaps an address near Oswald’s job that once hung a “for rent” sign that he once inquired about? How about Oswald had read about Bannister’s operation there and was “getting even” with him?).[35]

When do we get to the point where we can comfortably call Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Sullivan & Cromwell what they are: deft, elite lawyers arguing things and deliberately fudging facts when it comes to procuring a victory and big payday for their clients? Capitalism in practice is notoriously hard fought, and it is assumed serious players will toss a few spitballs with the other pitches or throw a few rabbit punches in an otherwise fair fight, if they can get away with it.

Kennedy Assassination
If it took expensive white-shoe lawyers assisting the inanities of Mockingbird at the Washington Post to pick our brains (and pockets) over the decades, it may take more than a Vaudeville hook to get them off stage once and for all. One Golden Oldie that comes to mind returns to a simple truth in lieu of so much bird warbling

Three months before The Beatles first appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, a low-budget vocal duo named Lawson and MacNeil began singing something they heard on the streets of Dallas, Texas. Instead of back and forth between city slicker and hillbilly as depicted in Deliverance (1972), late Secret Service Agent Winston “Win” Lawson[36] and Robert MacNeil of PBS’s once popular MacNeil/Lehrer Report[37] started trading off an identical lick, now in virtual harmony on the Internet.

Not available in the Mockingbird karaoke machine, their matching riffs consist of three “bangs” (so if you need lyrics written out for you, that’s “bang, bang, bang”). Count these out on your fingers, if you have to, but know that, if you want to join in, get the rhythm precisely right or you’ll mess it up.

In fact, write the rhythm out. With a few beats of rests between the first and second bangs, the final two bangs are on two consecutive beats (almost like Nancy Sinatra sings “bang, bang”).

Win’s confident tempo clips along at quarter note equals 84. Various versions of Robert’s go from the same 84 all the way down to a much slower 52, while he improvises dialogue during the first and second beat (words to the effect of “…and we all said, ‘what was that?; was it a backfire?; was it a firecracker?; what was that?’…and there was time for us to say that, and then there was…”).

Granted, Lawson/MacNeil cannot give us definitive versions of the shots in Dealey Plaza and, alas, amateur musicians often rush tempos or rhythms. Nonetheless, this cheaply concocted street music depicts a signal shot not intended to hit anything, followed by a flurry of shots.


Roy Kellerman [Source: JFKWitnessesOmeka.net]

Lawson was driving the car in front of the presidential limousine while MacNeil rode in the press bus a few cars behind it. In fact, the fellow sitting in the front passenger seat of the presidential limousine, Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman told the Warren Commission he likewise heard the first shot, followed by a pause and then a “flurry” of shots.[38]

The Warren Commission assessed the shortest timespan between shots at 2.3 seconds.[39] Lone-gunman theorist Posner agrees with the later HSCA assessment that the quickest a rifle expert could be expected to recycle the bolt and aim on a Mannlicher-Carcano is 1.66 seconds.[40] Bugliosi actually challenges this 1.66-second limit, mentioning an expert at the HSCA testing in Lorton Correctional Facility firing range in Virginia who actually claimed he could at least recycle the bolt (without aiming) in 1.2 seconds.[41]

As the immutable laws of horology would have it, 1.66 seconds translates as lower than the lowest setting on the standard metronome.[42] The final two bangs of Lawson’s riff occur at a metronomic rate of 84 (0.71 or 60/84 seconds), twice as fast as the Posner/HSCA “limit.”[43]

A signal shot would have instructed a group of snipers to fire when the moving target arrived at a certain landmark in the street. If so, there might have even been shots ringing out simultaneously.[44]

None of these shots could have plausibly accounted for the wounds in Kennedy’s back or neck. If you believe Lawson and MacNeil got it right, you might have to revert back to older, more dramatic theories about silent flechette shots propelled by CO2 pressure, or even the legendary weapons developed for MKNAOMI, perhaps delivering saxitoxin (from Alaskan butter clams[45]) designed to paralyze the president into Thorburn’s position so that snipers could more easily get him.

Many would rather sing karaoke. Passerines often learn to sing this way, but learning to fly takes solitary patience and practice.

Notes at link.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2025/0 ... -and-wide/