Pelshval

Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Category: Civil rights (Page 1 of 4)

Blindfolding

06.09.2024 /

Most of us tend to think that we are lucid. Those who have been blindfolded are the others.

I am no exception. I believe I see clearly what is happening. I see, for example, disinformation campaigns and internecine narrative warfare that is tearing the so-called West to pieces. But I don’t see what I don’t want to see.

We are told “your vote matters”, we are told that Democracy itself is at stake. Frankly, I believe that Democracy has long since been skinned to the bone in the USA and that the bones are brittle. We are fighting for the carcass of Democracy, grandiloquently cancelling each other left, right and centre.

Meanwhile, there is hardly any mention of the restless elephants in the room, the global room, that is. We are facing impending stampedes, but the press is not pressing the point. It is focusing on the upcoming US elections, when voters will be asked to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. not knowing the true nature of either Scylla or Charybdis. “Words! Words! Words!” (My Fair Lady) is all we ever get from them, oratorical tap-dancing and basically b-s.

This I clearly see, but what I just discovered is that notwithstanding my eloquent anti-cancelling posture, I too am just an ordinary “bloke”, as it were: I cancel!

There is this guy, I read, an eminent psychologist, who claims to have discovered that Google cheats. So I look up the “eminent” psychologist and Wikipedia confirms he is very eminent, indeed. This eminent psychologist has devoted much of his effort these past 8 years or so to research into Google’s methods. A documentary has been made that explains his findings.

I look up the documentary in Wikipedia and find that it “… features headshot interviews with Robert Epstein, Jaron Lanier, Jordan Peterson and Peter Schweizer.”

Two of the persons in that list are known to me: Jordan Peterson and Peter Schweizer. They are both non-people for the liberal left. So much so that I don’t want to watch the documentary. I have to fight a long battle with myself before I finally manage to press “play”.

The psychologist is Robert Epstein, founder and director emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, MA; editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine 1999–2003, no less! His research on Google methods is referred to as “Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)” The film is: The Creepy Line. It is available in full on Youtube.

Let me make it clear at once: I found the views expressed in the film by Jordan Peterson and Peter Schweizer sound and sensible. Let me also make it clear that I am not qualified to assess the research underpinning Dr Epstein’s conclusions. But the conclusions are crystal clear and rather terrifying. He also presented them to Congress in a hearing in July 2019. (I would also recommend a speech he made in 2020, to Hillsdale college.)

What is also rather terrifying, if Dr Epstein’s conclusions are correct, is that they have not made headlines. True, even without Dr Epstein, we have seen that if keeping Trump out of the White House requires sacrificing freedom of the press, that and other civil rights and liberties will be sacrificed without so much as a hiccup, in “defence of Democracy”.

In any case, I would recommend

  • not using the Chrome web browser
  • not using Google as a search engine
  • not using Whatsapp, Messenger, Skype…
  • and last but not least, not using Gmail

rather, use

  • Firefox or Brave or Vivaldi as web browsers.
  • Duckduckgo or Brave as search engines
  • Signal as a messaging app
  • Protonmail or Tuta

And use a VPN!

Is it or isn’t it?

07.06.2024 /

What is “democracy”? I’ve been asking the question ever since I was a kid. Just as I asked what is “good art”?

Is it at all possible to arrive at a universally acceptable definition of “art”? Let alone “good” art? Art historians and critics maintain it is. I suspect that in any case, there is a lot of humbug involved, but not only humbug. There is an ingot of the sublime in there somewhere, in art, that is, but I have long since ceased to even try to grasp it.

Likewise, most of us in so-called democratic countries fervently believe in “democracy” without necessarily knowing just what we are so passionate about or why?

What we do know is that we don’t want to live in certain other countries. The thing is, most people living in most countries – except in those that have been rendered uninhabitable, and even in some of those – want to continue living there. I very much doubt that our rationale for living where we live has anything to do with democracy, even in the USA, which considers itself the mother and the father, of democracy.

Why do I doubt that? Well, for one thing, because I don’t consider the USA a democracy. And whereas life has been, until very recently, easier for most people in Europe than for most people in the USA, democracy in Europe, too, is slithering down a slippery slope.

Democratic features in so-called democratic countries

1) Elections

It is true that every few years we are allowed to vote for a person or a political party to represent our district. It’s called “parliamentary system”, and it worked well enough – although it wasn’t infallible – when we were few, when we knew the contesting parties and could assess the results of their labours. We knew whether A. was a “man of honour”, whether or not B.’s financial enterprises tended to be solid and beneficial to the community.

Nowadays, we cannot possibly know all the individuals who run for office. The contestants, be they individuals or political parties, all formulate their programmes as ambiguously as possible so as to attract people who might have very different, often opposing, needs and wishes. We no longer have even an inkling of the real aspirations* of the contestants. We therefore depend on political analysts. In short, we depend on the media.

*Explanatory digression about aspirations:

A school of economic thought associated with Friedrich Hayek quietly started with a whisper in the 1930s in the almost secretive Mont Pelerin Society. But it rapidly gained in popularity among the “filthy rich”. “Neoliberalism” – as we now refer to it, or “market fundamentalism” – has seeped into our pores and infiltrated all economic activity, not only in “democratic” countries, but also, and not least, in dictatorships.

The economist Maynard Keynes tried to stop the neoliberal avalanche, but he died shortly after the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), where he was a key player but lost to the USA which has dominated most of the world ever since. Neoliberalism was violently imposed on the global south and has reluctantly been embraced even by European “labour parties” (which explains their dwindling popularity).

For a long time after Keynes’ death, market fundamentalism had few heavy-weight opponents. No corporations were going to protest, obviously. Intellectuals in frayed shirts were unable to move the electoral “masses”. Thus it has been until fairly recently. Even now, though there are several brilliant economists opposed to neoliberalism, they are basically ignored by the top dogs.

What I am trying to say is that a politician may say that he intends to improve care of the elderly. However, he may not tell you whether or not his approach to care of the elderly is “neoliberal”. Believe me, it matters!

End of digression

Voters know nothing of the ulterior motives of the man or woman they vote for. He/she may be sincere, but is more likely to be an inveterate liar. Voters are kept in the dark about the machinations of the political party they vote for. So we, voters, have no choice other than to vote for “the nice guy” or check our favourite sources in the media.

Candidates that cannot entirely conceal that their aspirations are neoliberal (i.e. that they prioritise capital (the haves rather than the have-nots) are assisted by the media (the “respectable” press, TV-channels, news networks, social media, etc. etc.) The mainstream media serves the important function of dressing up capital because it is owned by capital. For example: If capital is in favour of a war, the mainstream media will sugar the war.

So: Regardless of who wins an election, nothing much ever changes, except for the worse – for most of us, that is. Yet, they have the gall to complain about low voter turnouts.

I’m pretty sure people in so-called democratic countries do not know how the people of Palestine have been mistreated for decades and how the entire population of Gaza is being tortured to death. I have to believe that most people in so-called democratic countries are not deeply immoral, not evil, and that, had they known what is going on, they would never ever, ever have allowed it. I have to believe that they allow it only because they are being kept in the dark. I have to believe that, because if this were not so, we would have to welcome the impending demise of the human species.

Anyway, I know that the mainstream media does not inform us, because I, too, read the mainstream media.

The mainstream media tells us that the US economy is doing brilliantly, so US citizens should vote for Biden and EU citizens should continue to bank on the USA. Indeed, the US economy is doing brilliantly, but the gems are not trickling down to the average US citizen. In October 2023, US debt was 33 trillion USD, probably more like 35 trillion now – yes, that’s trillion!

A US default on the national debt:

… would trigger the domestic economic equivalent of a nuclear carpet bombing. —

In the U.S., a staggering 7% of federal spending goes to servicing debt. Those taxpayer dollars are no longer doing anything to strengthen the economy or improve the lives of its citizens. And every time we run an annual budget deficit, that spending on debt service goes up.

Source

I put to you that this is not what the average US citizen voted for.

I put to you that the average citizen of so-called democratic countries is not raring to go off to the upcoming Olympic war games, which are being prepared and sponsored by Biden and his ilk, together with Stoltenberg, Cameron, Macron, Baerbock and St. Ursula, etc. Top dogs in so-called democratic countries will, of course only see the “action” they hanker for on their screens, they hope. Alas, or should I say fortunately, once the really heavy punches are delivered, even they might not be spared.

The Russian deputy foreign minister has allegedly suggested that these people should devote less time to video games and somewhat more time to reality, over which they seem to have a slim grasp.

2) Freedom

Those who can afford it, can do almost anything they want to do, short of murder (or even murder if they can afford to conceal it).

But: Such freedom is also enjoyed by the privileged few in fascist states.

It is true that there are countries where religious mores or prevailing values and attitudes impose limitations on what you can wear and how you can behave in public. Even in democratic countries, there are many such communities. More often than not, the restrictions are supported by a majority, but a minority will feel heavily suppressed.

No matter where you live in the world, there will be minorities. Some minorities will have a tougher time than others, it is true.

3) Freedom of expression and of information

This is the most important and possibly the only, real asset of a democracy. This is the truly invaluable ingot!

Those who express seriously dissident views will not be prosecuted or imprisoned or tortured in a democracy. Those who want to know what the powers-that-be are up to can access that information in the mainstream press of a democracy.

But that most invaluable of rights, one which is absent in many of the countries we “don’t want to live in” is no longer guaranteed in the the so-called democratic countries either. True, small-fry dissidents will only be ridiculed, ignored, maybe even spat upon. They will be jeered at in social media, eventually blocked from all forums and isolated, but they will not be imprisoned.

However, we have now learnt that if a dissident really manages to unmask the powers-that-be and reveal their crimes, as did Julian Assange, he will be prosecuted, tortured and slow-motion-killed.

We have seen that the mainstream – i.e. “respectable” – press is no longer available to heavy-weight dissidents who truly challenge the establishment. There are intelligent and very well-informed people who question the wisdom of US forever-wars, into which European allies are dragged, and many more who question the wisdom of US and EU support for the ongoing genocide. Those who speak out are paying a price. They are labelled “conspiracy theorists” and are blocked from all platforms, including not least the “respectable” press. Many are expelled from universities or lose their jobs. Many will undoubtedly have to get heavily into debt to cover legal defence fees.

Those who seek knowledge about the forever-wars search in vain in the mainstream media, where views preferred by capital, and by extension any ruling party, will dominate.

I put to you that most people in the USA/EU would be furious if they knew that their taxes were contributing to the death by starvation of Gazan children, to the stunting of those who do not die.

I put to you that voters in so-called democratic countries are not free to make “informed decisions”.

I put to you that we are nearly as brainwashed as the citizens of Oceania in 1984 by Orwell.

Admittedly, those who doubt the magnificence of whatever party is the ruling Party are not killed. They are just not heard or seen. They are “vaporised”.

Nineteen eighty-four revisited

10.05.2024 /

It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.

The atmosphere in the novel’s first chapters is oppressive. Every one of the protagonist’s moves, every breath, is recorded by “telescreens”. The protagonist knows he will be disappeared sooner or later, guilty as he is of “thoughtcrime”.

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide.

They will come for him, inevitably, and when he is gone, there will be no trace of him, as though he never existed.

Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: VAPORIZED was the usual word.

The protagonist, Winston, works in the Ministry of Truth. His job is to cancel inconvenient pieces of the past and throw them down a “memory hole”. He knows too much and doesn’t like what he knows.

Most people, of course, are not targeted. The “proles” almost never are. But Party members, entrusted with defence of the system, are closely monitored. Those who are too perspicacious, whose minds are too independent, risk being eliminated.

Up until this point, I thought George Orwell’s 1949 dystopia was about the USSR. There are, after all, ten-year plans and several daily cups of foul-tasting booze.

Then I started noticing a number of subversive details. First, the events of the novel take place, not in Russia, but in London, one of three megacities in Oceania – a realm encompassing what we know as North America, Australia and UK.

Second (and more importantly) the “proles” – 85 percent of the population – are not adulated, but despised. They are uneducated and therefore not very clever. No attempt is made, either, to educate them, on the contrary; they are treated to constant mind-dulling entertainment.

There was a whole chain of separate departments dealing with proletarian literature, music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator. There was even a whole sub-section–Pornosec, it was called in Newspeak–engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography, which was sent out in sealed packets and which no Party member, other than those who worked on it, was permitted to look at.

Further into the book, Winston finds himself thinking on several occasions that “the proles are our only hope”.

If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious

So Winston longs for a revolution. Did George Orwell share his protagonist’s longing?

Third is the obsession with war, the copiously nurtured hate and fear of the enemy. Hate and fear of the enemy feed war which in turn feed hate and fear of the enemy. Perpetual war is the engine that keeps the system afloat. It keeps the population working, the economy going, and the Party in undisputed power, as war and fear of the enemy, bolsters the population’s loyalty to the Party.

War is not ideological. It has no cause, in fact, other than that of perpetuating the Party’s power. The hope is, of course, to rule the entire world, which – we are told – is divided between three powers, none of them Communist.

… museum used for propaganda displays of various kinds – scale models of rocket bombs and Floating Fortresses, waxwork tableaux illustrating enemy atrocities, and the like.

….war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious.

The other two powers are – guess what? – Eurasia (Russia) and Eastasia (China). [How could Orwell have guessed, in 1949?]

What I, the revisiting reader, found most fascinating, however, were the details of propaganda warfare. The propaganda war is waged against Oceania’s own population by means of tools such as:

Newspeak (reframing), doublethink (cancelling of logic) and the constant rewriting of history.

Yesteryear’s inconvenient facts are not disputed, not denied; they simply disappear. They are wiped off the slate of our [Google search] screens.

En the end, Winston has learnt to not only say, but actually believe that 2 + 2 equals 5. Just as we in the West have learnt to truly believe that “we defend” freedom, justice and democracy.

In order to train citizens to practice doublethink, the Party lets them sink their teeth into apparently nonsensical slogans, such as:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH:

As translations into the present, I suggest, for example:

PAX AMERICANA
THE FREE MARKET
WIKILEAKS IN CHAINS

I wasn’t around in Stalin’s day, but I have met people who have been dissidents in various totalitarian states, who have lived in constant terror of being denounced by somebody during a torture session , who have suspected the existence of tapping bugs hidden in the most unlikely places. There have been acquaintances who refused to wear seatbelts, who always made sure to stand against a wall. In short I recognise as 2024-fact much of what is considered fiction in the novel 1984.

What surprises me, however, is that the methods detailed with regard to propaganda warfare are so painstakingly reproduced today in the West. Has Orwell inadvertently taught the powers-that-be the art of “doublethink”. Have they learnt about memory holes from him, too?

What about perpetual war? Did he perhaps learn from them?

On antisemitism in the West

21.07.2023 /

So, the British Labour Party has barred Jeremy Corbyn from running as Labour’s candidate in the next election on the grounds of – of all things – antisemitism. Corbyn’s, that is.

The dethroning of Corbyn has allowed Keir Starmer to take his place and he, Starmer, is certainly neither willing nor able to rally opposition to the ghastly neoliberal policies that are hurtling the UK back into a pre-war state, a pre-first-World-War state, mind you, as described by Charles Dickens in his heart-rattling novels.

Labour’s strait-jacketing of Jeremy Corbyn on the grounds of his alleged antisemitism was the greatest blessing the top decile could possibly wish for in the UK. The trick will surely be – has already been – copied by powers-that-be in other countries, which is why I am writing this piece.

Just exactly what has Corbyn done? Well, apparently, he failed to take sufficient action in response to complaints against persons in his party; antisemitism complaints. According to Corbyn himself, action was taken, but procedures were initially unclear and the process was sluggish, particularly to begin with.

He is quoted as follows:

Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left. Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/29/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-findings-of-report-on-antisemitism-in-labour

The above statement is to some extent corroborated by the so-called “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party”, which was the document that eventually lead to Corbyn’s fall:

While there have been some recent improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf

Now, I haven’t read the entire 130 page document, just leafed through it, as it were, searching for clues as to just how that alleged antisemitism had been expressed. I found no particulars, no details, not even in the chapter starting on page 24 “Acts of unlawful harassment which the Labour Party is responsible for”.

However under the heading on page 8 “Our findings – Unlawful Acts”, we find a summary

  • using antisemitic tropes and
  • suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears.
ibid

The “using antisemitic tropes” rings a bell with me, though. Yes, that sounds bad. Remember the Merchant of Venice? Very bad, in fact. But what are antisemitic tropes today? And what is antisemitism today? I find the very concept disturbing. After all, the notion of “race” has long since been discredited or, to quote Encyclopedia Britannica, “has no biological validity”:

Racism, then, is an anachronism. Criticism of religion, on the other hand, is still dangerous ground, true, but not illegal – to my knowledge – in countries of the so-called “collective West”.

Finally, you have ethnic differences – and the term ethnic can mean almost anything you want it to. “Antisemitism” seems to have landed in this last and most shadowy terrain; convenient, you must admit, for Zionist hardliners, who – you must also admit – rule the roost in Israel and have done so for a long time.

Now, Jeremy Corbyn is not the only person to have lost his job due to alleged antisemitism. There have been several other instances, not least in academia and journalism. Criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is not something you do if you have children to provide for or a career that matters to you. (Just to give you an example, every time I have expressed, here, support for the Palestinian cause, this site has been subjected to DDoS attacks.)

So the crux of this thorny matter appears to be how antisemitism is defined. That is easily ascertained: 37 Nations and 865 Orgs Worldwide had (by March 2022) adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is vague, to say the least, so it includes 11 examples of what would constitute antisemitism, and according to a few of them, criticism of certain Israeli policies will be construed as antisemitism.

Since this post concerns the UK in particular, I should add that the UK government, adopted the IHRA definition in 2016. The two main political parties and most academic institutions, could not, of course, be seen to “condone” antisemitism, so they all eventually did so too. Even in the UK, however, there was some criticism:

Some have expressed concerns that the IHRA definition restricts freedom of speech by prohibiting legitimate criticism of Israeli government action in the Palestinian territories.

Geoffrey Robertson QC set out many of these concerns in an opinion prepared for the Palestinian Return Centre, arguing that several of the IHRA’s examples were drafted in a way that could be detrimental to freedom of speech. He also criticised the Prime Minister for adopting the definition without Parliamentary debate and without the caveats proposed by the Home Affairs Committee.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-governments-adoption-of-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/

Finally, this year, somebody spoke up at last. A letter was sent to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Under Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos, expressing concerns that, based on the IHRA definition, just about anyone could be labelled antisemite. The signatories included:

  • Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel*
  • Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
  • Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
  • Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Mankind
  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
  • Amnesty International*
  • B’Tselem
  • Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement
  • Human Rights Watch
  • International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  • Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)
  • Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
  • Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

The signatories recommend an alternative definition of antisemitism, that of the Jerusalem declaration. See in particular section “C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic” [my highlight]”

I am not as polite as the signatories of the above-mentioned letter to the Secretary General. I put to you that the UK has compounded its disgraceful record of press freedom infringements (cf. Julian Assange) by letting itself be bulldozed into labelling as antisemitism valid criticism of Israel.

Mind you, real antisemitism does exist. I think it is largely based on ignorance – but I have occasionally been stunned to hear, in seemingly “normal” conversations, some very weird, almost mystical, ideas about Jews. As Philip Roth’s novels remind us time and time again, the persistence of such ideas have complex roots and causes. As long as he lived, he seemed to be continuously grappling with them.

However, to my knowledge – and I may well be wrong, because there is so much we are not told – there have fortunately been no outright massacres of Jews for a long time. However there are still, to this day, almost routinely, massacres of Muslims. Does “antisemitism” cover the politically motivated killing of so-called Arabs?

Do people in the UK or USA get kicked out of academia or political positions for holding strong anti-Islamic views, for peddling anti-Islamic “tropes”?

In 2019, 51 people were massacred and 40 were injured in two mosques in New Zealand. Could that be referred to as antisemitism?

In June this year, an overcrowded boat carrying migrants from Libya went down off the coast of Greece. There were 104 survivors, but more than 500 remain missing. That was not, admittedly, a massacre. But there is pretty solid evidence that the authorities ignored repeated calls for help from the ship for several hours before it actually sank. Does that not effectively amount to — well, yes, — a massacre?

In the Israeli-occupied territories, at least 177 Palestinians have been killed by the murderous IDF just this year, and Israel’s finance minister declares that a Palestinian town of more than 5000 should be “wiped out”. These killings are not, strictly speaking, massacres, but they are extra-judicial, and they seem to be part of a pretty concerted effort to exterminate Palestinians on the “West Bank”.

Nevertheless, the US House of Representatives just passed a resolution according to which “the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state, … and the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel.” Just so. USA’s men and women of power defend and uphold their God-given right to continue living in Never-never-land.

Afterthought (24 hours later):

Speaking of massacres, did you know about the Paris Massacre? I did not until I recently read Annie Ernaux’s novel Les années. She refers to 17 October 1961, assuming the reader would understand the reference, and muses: How much did we suspect, back then? Were we not just enjoying the unusually balmy weather?

I looked up the reference, and this is what I found:

The Paris massacre of 1961 (also called the 17 October 1961) was the mass killing of Algerians who were living in Paris by the French National Police. It occurred on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the National Police attacked a demonstration by 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians. After 37 years of denial and censorship of the press, in 1998 the government finally acknowledged 40 deaths, while some historians estimate that between 200 and 300 Algerians died. Death was due to heavy-handed beating by the police, as well as mass drownings, as police officers threw demonstrators into the river Seine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Maybe the truth about that massacre would never have come to light if Maurice Papon had not been accused in 1981 and found guilty in 1998 of responsibility for the deportation of 1,690 Bordeaux Jews to Drancy internment camp from 1942–44. All of which just goes to show that suppression of information in the press is no novelty.

And yes, over the past 24 hours, this site has been honoured with a DDoS attack.




Deafening silence

31.12.2022 /

The USA has just given its citizens a great big Christmas gift – that of another 44 billion USD for the defence of Ukraine (bringing the total so far to approx 100 billion USD). US citizens must be thrilled. Russia will be spanked by Patriot missiles – aye, Russia will be spanked, period, and that must be a great comfort to families who could not afford a Christmas tree this year either.

Europe is also spending a great deal – actually, I don’t know how much my country is spending on the destruction of Ukraine, because no news outlet is taking the trouble to inform us. What I do know is that Europe no longer receives gas from Russia, and that Europeans are therefore freezing. I am freezing, too, as I write. So we are also being spanked.

Yet, the silence is deafening, and I am reminded of a film title “The silence of the lambs”. We are the lambs, and nobody even dares mutter imprecations against NATO. Yet, does anybody really believe that NATO is defending human rights, Democracy and freedom of information?

Speaking of freedom of information, I visit a number of mainstream news outlets every day. RTVE.es NRK.no, El Pais, New York Times, le Monde, RUV.is, Klassekampen, Guardian… They all seem to be synchronised! Would you believe it? They all say the same thing. Let me tell you – and I’ve been a news junkie for years – it’s scary! It’s terrifying!

For years, too, Glenn Greenwald has been going on about dwindling freedom of speech in the USA, and as things turned out, he has had every reason to harp on the topic. What is less known to us in Europe – we have no Glenn Greenald here – is that we are almost certainly subject to the same regime. The synchronisation of mainstream European news outlets suggests that news to us is carefully filtered and censored. In my country, for instance, we have a whole and growing series of services (that the general public rarely hears about) designed to protect our national security. No doubt they do – protect our national security – but what else do they do, I wonder.

I don’t know, I only suspect. What I can see, however, is that mainstream media here have not discussed the so-called “Twitter Files”. They have merely portrayed Elon Musk’s dismissal of employees as the bizarre acts of a deranged man.

I do not often say “look to the USA”, but in the country with the world’s highest prison population, some brave investigative journalists are still holding the fort. Glenn Greenwald recently referred to TikTok as an example of government censorship:

Rather than ban TikTok from the U.S., the U.S. Security State is now doing exactly that which China does to U.S. tech companies: namely, requiring that, as a condition to maintaining access to the American market, TikTok must now censor content that undermines what these agencies view as American national security interests.

…

These moves by the U.S. Security State to commandeer censorship decisions on TikTok, accompanied by the hovering threat to ban TikTok entirely from the U.S., appear to be having the desired effect already. …

What TikTok did in response to US demands was to remove a Glenn Greenwald video clip, an

… indisputably true and rather benign review of how media outlets, including The Guardian, had previously depicted Zelensky as surrounded by corruption and hidden wealth. To be sure, the excerpt was critical of Zelensky, but there is absolutely nothing even factually contestable, let alone untrue, given that the whole point of the clip is to show how the media had spoken of Ukraine and Zelensky prior to the invasion as opposed to the fundamentally different tone that now drives their coverage.

Since not all of you have access to the quoted article, I shall quote a source that you will have access to: the Consortium News “compendium of evidence”, regarding events in Ukraine in 2014.

Consortium News is being “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a U.S. government-linked organization that is trying to enforce a narrative on Ukraine while seeking to discredit dissenting views. The organization …. calls “false” essential facts about Ukraine that have been suppressed in mainstream media: 1) that there was a U.S.-backed coup in 2014 and 2) that neo-Nazism is a significant force in Ukraine. Reporting crucial information left out of corporate media is Consortium News‘ essential mission.

But NewsGuard considers these facts to be “myths” and is demanding Consortium News “correct” these “errors.”

To make a long story very short, there are two lessons to be learnt from the two quoted articles.

1) the USA is determined to suppress information about its role in the war in Ukraine. One of the methods used is explained by CN. Another method is explained by Glenn Greenwald’s article quoted above.

2) The USA no longer even bothers to conceal the fact that the press is being monitored and heavily censored.

So heavily censored is the press and social media that even the obvious – the fact that the USA is waging a proxy war on Russia – is never mentioned otherwise than as an example of Russian propaganda.

You might agree with a well-informed friend of mine who maintains that in the battle between “good” and “evil” forces, even censorship is legit. I put to you, though, as I put to him, that Manichean Never-never-land stories are extremely dangerous, because they cloud our judgement, undermine our ability to assess our governments and basically paralyse the Democratic process. He responded: “But surely, wouldn’t you rather live in the US than in Russia or China.” I told him that I would prefer to live where I live, but given the choice between the USA and Russia, I would prefer Russia; I would never be rich enough to afford a decent health insurance in the USA.

So on this last day of this last horrible year, from freezing Europe on its way into a serious recession, I wish you luck in navigating through a miasma of NATO, corporate, and government falsehoods during the coming year.

In Russia’s wake

20.06.2022 /

The UK Government is capitalising on the conflict between Russia and the US-led alliance, to try to push a National Security Bill through Parliament. If enacted, the legislation in question will make it a criminal offence for anybody to report “restricted” information if that person – say a journalist or his/her organisation – has received funding from abroad. Investigative journalists and whistle blowers will risk ending up in jail for life.

In my country, the press is pusillanimous these days, now that our former folksy prime minister is the warmongering Secretary General of NATO. So on Monday, the UK Government’s decision to sign Julian Assange’s extradition order was only mentioned on pages 14 and 18 respectively in two of the country’s leading dailies [Dagsavisen and Aftenposten]. Admittedly the heading in both papers was “A dark day for press freedom”. When questioned about the extradition order, the Norwegian Foreign Minister was quoted as blithely “confident that the British authorities adhered fully to their international human rights obligations in this matter.” [Aftenposten, 18/02.22, p. 14]

Not in any Norwegian paper do I find a word about the United Kingdom’s proposed National Security Bill. Russia is ahead of us, of course, as far as persecution of journalists is concerned, but we’re learning, and we’re learning fast:

Allow me to Introduce Section I of the bill:

  1. Obtaining or disclosing protected information
    1. A person commits an offence if—
      • (a) the person—
        • (i) obtains, copies, records or retains protected information, or
        • (ii) discloses or provides access to protected information,
      • (b) the person’s conduct is for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and
      • (c) the foreign power condition is met in relation to the person’s conduct (see section 24).
    2. In this section “protected information” means any information, document or other article where, for the purpose of protecting the safety or interests of the United Kingdom—
      • (a) access to the information, document or other article is restricted in any way, or
      • (b) it is reasonable to expect that access to the information, document or other article would be restricted in any way.
    3. Subsection (1) applies whether the person’s conduct takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
    4. A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a fine (or both).
    5. For the purposes of this section—
      • (a) a person retains protected information if the person retains it in their possession or under their control;
      • (b) disclosure includes parting with possession.

Notice the expression in subsection 2: ” safety or interests of the United Kingdom”. The “interests” of UK could be defined as anything, at the discretion of the powers that be. Obviously.

Notice too, the “foreign power condition”. Just like Russia. Putin must be beaming with pride.

A bill is considered drab reading and rarely makes much headlines. Legalese is a near incomprehensible jargon, and there tends to be introductory assuaging references to “public interest … safety… security” and “protection of the general public”. By the time you get to the crux of the matter, you’ve fallen asleep. But this is a matter of freedom of the press! Have mainstream news outlets ceased to care (unless, of course, the press in question is Russian)? Have they simply given up already?

Please note that many, or maybe even most, humanitarian NGOs apply for and receive aid from numerous countries other than their own. Most worthwhile news publications, including the Guardian, depend on donors from all over the world. Many investigative journalists – those that still dare to operate as such – devote their efforts to exposing corruption. (One of the key characteristics of corruption is that it involves national or local government officials.) The bill in question would threaten them all.

I’m not British. But the British courts have so blatantly disregarded due process on a number of counts in the Assange case, and the frivolous British head of state is so quite obviously not to be trusted and, moreover, not accountable , either to the public or to the prosecuting authority, that I find myself doubting that the British Parliament is any better. If the UK enacts the National Security bill, I fear the rest of Europe will sooner or later follow suit. After all, in all of Europe, a lot of very powerful people have plenty to hide.

A number of prominent foreign affairs experts, historians and diplomats have suggested that Biden and most of his immediate predecessors have orchestrated the Ukraine war. Their articles and warnings are not being printed in the mainstream press, which is why some of them are turning to non-mainstream outlets, such as https://consortiumnews.com, while others just shut up. You’re welcome to believe that what they are saying is “Putin propaganda”, but I put to you that we are all, on both sides of the divide, bombarded with propaganda. Meanwhile, the fate of Assange does not invite out-spoken critique of the Western narrative.

If https://consortiumnews.com were based in Russia, its editor in chief would no doubt be prosecuted. What I fear is that in the not too distant future, his freedom might be threatened, also in the West. At any rate, the fate of Assange demonstrates that “freedom of the press” is already very limited.

The oasis Chile

21.12.2021 /

The Social Democrat Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile in 1970, and again in 1973. His re-election in 1973, in spite of the United States’ destabilization activities (which effectively paralysed Chile) was the last straw for the U.S. and the Chilean upper class. The role played by the United States in the bloody 9/11 coup and the dismantling of Chilean Social Democracy is well documented not least by declassified documents from the US National Security Archive.

The blood-curdling bestiality of the subsequent dictatorship has also been painstakingly researched, not least by some of the victims’ next of kin (e.g. the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet). Incidentally, allow me to recommend the six episodes of the Netflix documentary, “Colonia Dignidad” established shortly after WWII and later used as one of the dictatorship’s myriad torture and detention centres.

The next opportunity for Chilean voters to make their wishes known came on 5 October 1988. To prove to his Western friends, not least Margaret Thatcher, how much his people loved him, and thus to justify continued dictatorship, Pinochet had allowed the “YES or NO plebiscite”. It didn’t occur to him that people would vote NO (i.e. NO more Pinochet!)

Again I recommend a film, “NO”, by Pablo Larrain. The fictional protagonists playfully use the enemy’s Neoliberal marketing tricks to win voters.

Equally important, I think, is another lesson learnt: David can beat Goliath. Pinochet held absolute power over all media, which trumpeted, day in and day out, Chile’s impressive GNP, its wealth and strength. All known leftist activists were either dead, abroad or in jail. Pinochet was handsome, elegantly courteous to the ladies, a “real man” for the men and devout (i.e. “a good man”). He was indeed beloved by many. His detractors were portrayed as dangerous communists, determined to strip you of all your property.

Still, Pinochet’s opponents won!

His “Chicago boys” had been hand-picked by Milton Friedman to reform the economy of the country, which became a testing ground for market fundamentalism, commonly referred to as “Neoliberalism”. After Pinochet stepped down, market fundamentalism was still enshrined in “his” Constitution, which was promulgated in 1980. For decades now, the world has considered Chile an economic miracle.

Was it?

The day 18 October 2019 saw the start of the “Estallido” (explosion). Just a few days earlier, President Piñera had boasted that Chile is the “oasis of Latin America”, failing to mention who owned the “oasis”. “Not us, to be sure,” said most people. “To be eligible for retirement benefits, we have to pay private pension funds that only repay a fraction of what we paid. We have to pay for private health insurance and for the education of our children. We are hopelessly indebted; we work from dawn till midnight; we hardly even know our children!”

When “our children” were castigated for refusing to pay the Metro fare to get to school because of a small price hike, parents stood by them. What started as a juvenile prank (the kids simply jumped over turnstiles) ended up as a major riot with tanks and a president who declared the country at war.

“War?” spat the infuriated hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets. “You are going to war against your own people?” Indeed, President Piñera was castigated by his own allies when Chile made international headlines due to the authorities’ brutality against peaceful demonstrators.

The uprising lasted for weeks and only ended after President Piñera had promised a new plebiscite. On October 25 the people of Chile were allowed to answer two questions: 1) Should the existing constitution be replaced? 2) In the event, should a new constitution be drafted by a democratically elected constitutional committee?

The voters responded with a resounding “YES” to both questions.

Alas, the subsequent backlash included the usual lies about what would become of Chile in the hands of idealistic fools manipulated by Russia, Cuba and China. I shall refrain from giving you the full text with which, I’m sure, you are already familiar. You know as well as I do that the Neoliberal set adroitly tailor the “information” they provide to fit their customers’ educational level, religion and culture. Above all, they make sure to filter “information” and spice it with titbits of fiction. “Truth” is not in the Neoliberal dictionary.

Many Chileans will literally have wept when a Fascist won the first round of this year’s presidential election. Referring to politicians you dislike as “fascists” is not comme il faut, but Jose Antonio Kast really is just that, a Fascist. A soft-spoken, handsome religious conservative like his hero Pinochet, he has the political outlook of an iron fist. Just as in Brazil, voters had tired of moderate conservatives and the only right wing person who could rally support was one who promised the moon. Electoral participation in the first round was, however, no more than 47%.

Voter turnout in the second round, on 19 December 2021, was 56%, even though most buses mysteriously stopped running that day, and people had to stand in line for hours in the scorching heat. Moreover, many Chileans living abroad were also prevented from voting when they discovered that Pinochet’s constitution requires them to register with their embassies almost half a year in advance of elections.

Chile is a deeply polarised country. That’s what dictatorships do to countries: They cleave them, and the wounds last for generations. Take Spain, for instance. Franco died in 1975, but the country has not healed, it is merely hushed. Silence is not always golden.

But in Chile, a young and fresh generation has taken charge, a generation that appears determined to dismantle Neoliberalism. To quote President-elect Gabriel Boric: “if Chile was the birthplace of Neoliberalism, Chile will also be its grave.”

Let us hope.

Whiteness

08.08.2021 /

The winged snow-white horse Pegasus was the offshoot of a Gorgon, Medusa (the lady whose hair consisted of vipers). Since he now resides among the stars in the sky (the great square of Pegasus), we may have forgotten what his mother was. But we have recently been told that he now also resides in an unknown number of mobile phones.

Mainstream media have made a big fuss about the Pegasus spyware issue. Indeed, the issue merits a rumpus, but just what have the Guardian, the Washington Post, Le Monde and BBC been saying about it? If you open the links, you will see that the articles are near identical.

This is the take of all the articles linked above: Israel has been naughty because it has been selling cutting-edge spyware to countries that regard political opponents, journalists and human rights activists as terrorists.

The journalists have discovered that everywhere Netanyahu went, Pegasus went too, as in the nursery rhyme:

Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was white as snow,
And every where that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go

Put differently, Netanyahu was on an ingratiation spree, offering Pegasus to his hosts. Since time immemorial people have brought gifts when they went a-visiting. I am sure that offering a beautiful white horse was not uncommon in the Middle East.

Somebody joined the dots and found that Kashogi was killed shortly after Netanyahu’s visit to Saudi Arabia and that Pegasus had been lodged in the phones of several of his closest contacts. This effectively indicates that Israel might have been accessory to Kashogi’s death. But then again, Israel maintains that the country is perpetually at war, and that collateral damage is therefore unavoidable. For my part, I have never had the impression that loss of non-Jewish lives worries Israeli authorities, so this is not “news”.

Now you will not often catch me defending Israel, and strictly speaking I shall not do so now either, except by pointing out one small detail: selling weapons and drones (and other devices that disseminate death and despair) to any country that is willing to pay is not normally the stuff headlines are made of. It is what most countries do on a regular basis. I mean, honestly, our so-called democratic countries doing business with murderous dictators is what keeps those dictators afloat. Not that I defend such practices, but the press is distorting the Pegasus spyware issue. Israel is merely doing what most other countries do.

The problem about Pegasus is not that Israel has been naughty, but that Pegasus exists at all. When your mother is so hideous to behold that you are struck dead from just a glimpse of her, no wonder you turn into an instrument of evil. Pegasus is an example of scientific advances that are detrimental to the future of mankind. I quote Edward Snowden as quoted by the Guardian:

“for traditional police operations to plant bugs or wiretap a suspect’s phone, law enforcement would need to “break into somebody’s house, or go to their car, or go to their office, and we’d like to think they’ll probably get a warrant”. But commercial spyware made it cost-efficient for targeted surveillance against vastly more people. “If they can do the same thing from a distance, with little cost and no risk, they begin to do it all the time, against everyone who’s even marginally of interest,” he said. “If you don’t do anything to stop the sale of this technology, it’s not just going to be 50,000 targets. It’s going to be 50 million targets, and it’s going to happen much more quickly than any of us expect.”

These are, I repeat, Snowden’s words, not the Guardian’s. Snowden is, you will remember, already a fugitive because he spoke out about the massive unconstitutional surveillance being conducted by NSA against his country’s citizens. The Guardian’s reporters are perhaps not willing to risk everything, as did Snowden, by broadcasting what the existence of Pegasus actually means for the future of news reporting.

Nor do the above linked articles even hint at how so-called democratic countries to whom Israel has sold Pegasus – including the countries home to the Guardian, Washington Post, Le Monde and BBC – how those countries use the spyware. Do the said countries’ legislators even know it is being used? Are the courts duly informed each time a subject is subjected to the most invasive surveillance known to history?

I put to you that the journalists writing the near identical stories in the above linked articles will have been near paralysed. Petrified. I put to you that they are asking themselves whether Pegasus has already been stabled in their phones.

… and the information war continues

08.05.2021 /

The lesson should have been learnt a long time ago, back in 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed that the United States helps itself to just about any information it wants, about anybody. I won’t go into details about his assertions, as they are very beautifully explained and substantiated in his book Permanent Record.

US surveillance programmes also cover European and goodness knows what other countries, including mine, the purpose allegedly being national security, just as the invasion of Iraq was for national security reasons. In practical terms that means that if somebody reveals anything that embarrasses the powers that be, that person must be hunted to the ground and destroyed, to wit, the shameful case vs Julian Assange (see Deutsche Welle), and that vs Snowden himself who has had to apply for citizenship in Russia, of all places, so as not to suffer Assange’s deplorable fate. I’m sure Putin must be laughing.

Now the US is definitely not the only country that destroys those who would cast aspersions on its greatness and best-ness and Democratic-ness. On the Press Freedom Index, the US now ranks as no. 44, which isn’t so bad, really, only marginally behind South Korea, though considerably worse than the UK which ranks at no. 33.

Nonetheless, I guess no whistle-blower in his sane mind would turn to US American bona fide media outlets — not that I’m suggesting that Snowden was insane. As a matter of fact, he didn’t turn to the US American press but to Glenn Greenwald; speaking of whom, I urge you to read his latest article on substack.

At any rate, today, the New York Times has a very dry article, way below the main headings on its website, the sub-heading of which is directly misleading: “Federal prosecutors sought phone records for three Washington Post journalists as part of an investigation into the publication of classified information in 2017.” The main heading which, I repeat, was way below the rest of the news, is actually more accurate: “Justice Dept. Seized Washington Post’s Phone Records“. The key word here is seized. I don’t know about you, but I almost overlooked the heading. Justice departments are always seizing something or other, it’s their job. (The highlights are mine.)

The point is: The authorities not only sought but obtained all they wanted in order to uncover certain journalists’ whistle-blowing source. This was, admittedly, onTrump’s watch, but is the US Justice Dept. the President’s lapdog? The NYT fleetingly mentions, en passant, “a case where prosecutors secretly seized years’ worth of a New York Times reporter’s phone and email records. That case signaled a continuation of the aggressive prosecutions of leaks under the Obama administration.” The NY Times refrains from going into details here; after all, the present incumbent of the presidency is on Obama’s side, as it were. The NY Times knows who butters its bread, let’s face it.

Nevertheless, the USA’s position 44 on the Press Feeedom Index is vastly better than that of the United Arab Emirates, at 131. You don’t get much worse than that, do you?

Or what? Well, yes, you do: India at no. 142 – repeat – one hundred and forty two – is the world’s largest so-called Democracy. The country’s president, Narendra Modi, is a pretty nasty piece of work, if you ask me. I leave you to a few sources in chronological order (all regarding India).

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) claims to be a-political. Already in 2018, the organisation noted red lights for the Indian press: Troll armies in PM Modi’s “pay”

In February this year RSF reports: Raids on critic al outlets in India.

In April the New York Times started looking at the matter.: NYT: India’s press not so free and NYT: Covid – Critical posts taken down

Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post, which discusses how the media discusses big topics, has been following India for a while, for instance here: Al Jazeera: Navigating bad Covid stats

Finally, a wonderful Indian author writes about Covid in India: Arundathi Roy: Covid in India

And the lesson? The one I referred in my first paragraph? It is very simple: Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.

Pandemically speaking

22.04.2021 /

Now that spring has reached the northern hemisphere, now that we northerners can raise our faces to the sun, pull our hands out of our coat pockets or, even, take off our coats, we tell ourselves once again that the task of living is indeed worth the effort. After all, birds are a-courting, yellow flowers humbly brighten road-sides, and nothing but nothing can dim the optimism of swelling and bursting buds on tree tops.

Sitting in a nearly empty subway carriage today, I longed for the pre-pandemic afternoon throng, the tired faces, the weary postures of people of all social classes on their way home from work. (Where I live, even the fairly rich use public transportation, if only because there is hardly any parking in the city. The extremely rich are probably driven to work by chauffeurs. ) Today, we were few and far apart, most of us dressed neither for work nor play, our expressions literally veiled by masks.

I wondered: Who are they? Have they been laid off?

What about you: Have you by any chance lost your job or been evicted from your house? Or are you working from home? Maybe you are what is called “a critical employee”, so that you have to brave Covid on a day-to-day basis. Whether you belong to the first, the second or the third category, I should stress that I do not belong to any of them. What I’m trying to say is that regardless of how life is hitting you, I am unable to imagine what it is like.

True, I am not without imagination, so I have a fair theoretical idea of what it means to inhabit categories 1 and 3, both of which involve professional activity coupled with social paralysis. Category 2, however, …

I was once poor, many years ago and for many years. Really poor. But then I got lucky, and the pandemic has left me high and dry. The strange thing is, however, that I am now unable to remember what it was like to be “really poor”. At least I know and will never forget that anybody, absolutely anybody, could be born into poverty, struck down by poverty, or slide into poverty through an amalgam of unfortunate circumstances. And I shall never ever forget that being poor is very expensive. To put it differently: Getting out of poverty requires money.

In Utopia for Realists (2016), Rutger Bregman cogently stressed that part of the problem “poverty” is the sadly prevailing fallacy that poverty is due to laziness or other kinds of good-for-nothingness. If you are, say, a Central American illegal alien working till your hands, lungs or feet bleed, you will be socially branded as lazy or at least delinquent, alcoholic or otherwise undesirable. Let me tell you, in case Rutger Bregman has not yet hit your bookshelf, that poverty is due to anything but laziness.

If the pandemic has struck you where it hurts, you will know what I mean. Maybe you have contacts that can lend you a hand. Maybe, on the other hand, you find yourself on your own. If that is the case, all I can say is, to quote Bob Dylan, “the times are a-changin”. True, wealth inequality has augmented during the past 15 months, BUT so has awareness of wealth inequality.

I did not take much note of the news of the conviction of George Floyd’s murderer – after all, we’ve all seen the video. What moved me to tears, however, were the images on the evening news of people sobbing in the streets. Sobbing for joy! I had not fully taken in, until then, that blacks actually feared Chauvin would be acquitted. Gosh! I mean, really: Wow. Can I even imagine what it must feel like to be a 24/7 walking and talking bullet target for so-called law enforcement? No I cannot.

Imagination is a strange thing: Under certain conditions, most of us are able to imagine unlikely situations and events. Some of us honestly fear that the air plane they are in might fall down, or that a sinister creature could be lurking in a corner or under the bed. Some fondly fantasise about the sweet scent of wood burning in a fire place. Oddly, however, few of us are able to imagine spending a cold night in a refugee camp, or even on the pavement, home to the homeless, in any one of our big cities.

The pandemic has left each and every one of us more or less imprisoned, alone or with household members, hence also far more emotionally vulnerable, perhaps also more sensitive. We are vulnerable not only to what surfaces from our own interiors, but also to what the few voices we hear tell us. From an anthropological viewpoint the past 15 months have been a tremendously exciting global experiment. Have our baseline attitudes changed?

« Older posts

© 2024 Pelshval

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑