________
Source: Land Destroyer
January 31, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - I explain why US foreign policy never changes regardless of who is in the White House - how corporate-funded think tanks actually produce US foreign policy and how Washington merely rubber-stamps it.
I also explain steps nations like Thailand can take to protect themselves from constant US interference in their internal political affairs.
January 31, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - I explain why US foreign policy never changes regardless of who is in the White House - how corporate-funded think tanks actually produce US foreign policy and how Washington merely rubber-stamps it.
I also explain steps nations like Thailand can take to protect themselves from constant US interference in their internal political affairs.
Council on Foreign Relations - Revisiting U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China:
https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Blackwill.pdf
Council on Foreign Relations - Corporate Members:
https://www.cfr.org/membership/corporate-members
Brookings Institution - Annual Report, Honor Roll (p. 43):
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-annual-report.pdf
Atlantic Council - Honor Roll of Contributors:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors-2019/
US News - Not Unusual: Members of Congress Often Don't Read Bills:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-05-05/trumpcares-not-unusual-members-of-congress-often-dont-read-bills
US Senator Lindsey Graham - Graham Questions Antony Blinken at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing:
https://youtu.be/w_kHoQME1OM
Reuters vs. Thailand: Why Does the Western Media Always Lie?
January 29, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Why does Reuters and other Western media corporations consistently attack Thailand and repeat easily debunked lies while deliberately leaving out essential context?
I explain how Reuters is simply a media organization owed by special interests interested in manipulating public perception to suit their own business interests around the globe.
References:
The Reuters Institute - How activists and digital publishers are redefining media freedoms in Thailand:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/how-activists-and-digital-publishers-are-redefining-media-freedoms-thailand
The Reuters Institute - About:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about-reuters-institute
US National Endowment for Democracy - Thailand (2019):
https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/
Human Rights Watch - Not Enough Graves (2004):
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm#_Toc76203866
Thomson Reuters - Board of Directors:
Council on Foreign Relations - Corporate Members:
https://www.cfr.org/membership/corporate-members
Brookings Institution - Annual Report, Honor Roll (p. 43):
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-annual-report.pdf
Atlantic Council - Honor Roll of Contributors:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors-2019/
US News - Not Unusual: Members of Congress Often Don't Read Bills:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-05-05/trumpcares-not-unusual-members-of-congress-often-dont-read-bills
US Senator Lindsey Graham - Graham Questions Antony Blinken at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing:
https://youtu.be/w_kHoQME1OM
Reuters vs. Thailand: Why Does the Western Media Always Lie?
January 29, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Why does Reuters and other Western media corporations consistently attack Thailand and repeat easily debunked lies while deliberately leaving out essential context?
I explain how Reuters is simply a media organization owed by special interests interested in manipulating public perception to suit their own business interests around the globe.
References:
The Reuters Institute - How activists and digital publishers are redefining media freedoms in Thailand:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/how-activists-and-digital-publishers-are-redefining-media-freedoms-thailand
The Reuters Institute - About:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about-reuters-institute
US National Endowment for Democracy - Thailand (2019):
https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/
Human Rights Watch - Not Enough Graves (2004):
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm#_Toc76203866
Thomson Reuters - Board of Directors:
https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/board-of-directors.html
Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.
Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.
________
Source: Russian Insider
The Alternative Media Can Defeat the Mainstream Media - Here's the Game Plan
This memo would make Saul Alinsky proud
By Ron Unz | Friday Jan 29 2021
The author is the founder and editor of the Unz Review, a conservative American political website, an entrepreneur, and a one-time candidate for the governor of California.
A couple of years ago, I launched my Unz Review, providing a wide range of different alternative perspectives, the vast majority of them totally excluded from the mainstream media. I've also published a number of articles in my own American Pravda series, focusing on the suspicious lapses and lacunae in our media narratives.
They're an easy target
The underlying political strategy behind these efforts may already be apparent, and I've sometimes suggested it here and there. But I finally decided I might as well explicitly outline the reasoning in a memo as provided below.
The Mainstream Media is the Crucial Opposing Force
Groups advocating policies opposed by the American establishment should recognize that the greatest obstacle they face is usually the mainstream media.
Ordinary political and ideological opponents surely exist, but these are usually inspired, motivated, organized, and assisted by powerful media support, which also shapes the perceived framework of the conflict. In Clauswitzian terms, the media often constitutes the strategic "center of gravity" of the opposing forces.
The Media Should Be Made a Primary Target
If the media is the crucial force empowering the opposition, then it should be regarded as a primary target of any political strategy. So long as the media remains strong, success may be difficult, but if the influence and credibility of the media were substantially degraded, then the ordinary opposing forces would lose much of their effectiveness. In many respects, the media creates reality, so perhaps the most effective route toward changing reality runs through the media.
Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere
The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere else as well.
The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.
A Broad Alliance May Support the Common Goal of Weakening the Media
Once we recognize that weakening the media is a primary strategic goal, an obvious corollary is that other anti-establishment groups facing the same challenges become natural, if perhaps temporary, allies.
Such unexpected tactical alliances may drawn from across a wide range of different political and ideological perspectives—Left, Right, or otherwise—and despite the component groups having longer-term goals that are orthogonal or even conflicting. So long as all such elements in the coalition recognize that the hostile media is their most immediate adversary, they can cooperate on their common effort, while actually gaining additional credibility and attention by the very fact that they sharply disagree on so many other matters.
The media is enormously powerful and exercises control over a vast expanse of intellectual territory. But such ubiquitous influence also ensures that its local adversaries are therefore numerous and widespread, all being bitterly opposed to the hostile media they face on their own particular issues. By analogy, a large and powerful empire is frequently brought down by a broad alliance of many disparate rebellious factions, each having unrelated goals, which together overwhelm the imperial defenses by attacking simultaneously at multiple different locations.
A crucial aspect enabling such a rebel alliance is the typically narrow focus of each particular constituent member. Most groups or individuals opposing establishment positions tend to be ideologically zealous about one particular issue or perhaps a small handful, while being much less interested in others. Given the total suppression of their views at the hands of the mainstream media, any venue in which their unorthodox perspectives are provided reasonably fair and equal treatment rather than ridiculed and denigrated tends to inspire considerable enthusiasm and loyalty on their part. So although they may have quite conventional views on most other matters, causing them to regard contrary views with the same skepticism or unease as might anyone else, they will usually be willing to suppress their criticism at such wider heterodoxy so long as other members of their alliance are willing to return that favor on their own topics of primary interest.
Assault the Media Narrative Where It is Weak Not Where It Is Strong
Applying a different metaphor, the establishment media may be regarded as a great wall that excludes alternative perspectives from the public consciousness and thereby confines opinion to within a narrow range of acceptable views.
Certain portions of that media wall may be solid and vigorously defended by powerful vested interests, rendering assaults difficult. But other portions, perhaps older and more obscure, may have grown decrepit over time, with their defenders having drifted away. Breaching the wall at these weaker locations may be much easier, and once the barrier has been broken at several points, defending it at others becomes much more difficult.
For example, consider the consequences of demonstrating that the established media narrative is completely false on some major individual event. Once this result has been widely recognized, the credibility of the media on all other matters, even totally unrelated ones, would be somewhat attenuated. Ordinary people would naturally conclude that if the media had been so wrong for so long on one important point, it might also be wrong on others as well, and the powerful suspension of disbelief that provides the media its influence would become less powerful. Even those individuals who collectively form the corpus of the media might begin to entertain serious self-doubts regarding their previous certainties.
The crucial point is that such breakthroughs may be easiest to achieve in topics that seem merely of historical significance, and are totally removed from any practical present-day consequences.
Reframe Vulnerable "Conspiracy Theories" as Effective "Media Criticism"
Image icon book6.jpgOver the last few decades, the political establishment and its media allies have created a powerful intellectual defense against major criticism by investing considerable resources in stigmatizing the notion of so-called "conspiracy theories." This harsh pejorative term is applied to any important analysis of events that sharply deviates from the officially-endorsed narrative, and implicitly suggests that the proponent is a disreputable fanatic, suffering from delusions, paranoia, or other forms of mental illness. Such ideological attacks often effectively destroy his credibility, allowing his actual arguments to be ignored. A once-innocuous phrase has become politically "weaponized." However, an effective means of circumventing this intellectual defense mechanism may be to adopt a meta-strategy of reframing such "conspiracy theories" as "media criticism."
Under the usual parameters of public debate, challenges to established orthodoxy are treated as "extraordinary claims" that must be justified by extraordinary evidence. This requirement may be unfair, but it constitutes the reality in many public exchanges, based upon the framework provided by the allegedly impartial media.
Since most of these controversies involve a wide range of complex issues and ambiguous or disputed evidence, it is often extremely difficult to conclusively establish any unorthodox theory, say to a confidence level of 95% or 98%. Therefore, the media verdict is almost invariably "Case Not Proven" and the challengers are judged defeated and discredited, even if they actually appear to have the preponderance of evidence on their side. And if they vocally contest the unfairness of their situation, that exact response is then subsequently cited by the media as further proof of their fanaticism or paranoia.
However, suppose that an entirely different strategy were adopted. Instead of attempting to make a case "beyond any reasonable doubt," proponents merely provide sufficient evidence and analysis to suggest that there is a 30% chance or a 50% chance or a 70% chance that the unorthodox theory is true. The very fact that no claim of near certainty is being advanced provides a powerful defense against any plausible accusations of fanaticism or delusional thinking. But if the issue is of enormous importance and—as is usually the case—the unorthodox theory has been almost totally ignored by the media, despite apparently having at least a reasonable chance of being true, then the media may be effectively attacked and ridiculed for its laziness and incompetence. These charges are very difficult to refute and since no claim is being made that the unorthodox theory has necessarily been proven correct, merely that it might possibly be correct, any counter-accusations of conspiratorial tendencies would fall flat.
Indeed, the only means the media might have of effectively rebutting those charges would be to explore all the complex details of the issue (thereby helping to bring various controversial facts themselves to much wider attention) and then argue that there is only a negligible chance that the theory might be correct, perhaps 10% or less. Thus, the usual presumptive burden is completely reversed. And since most members of the media are unlikely to have ever paid much serious attention to the subject, their ignorant presentation may be quite weak and vulnerable to a knowledgeable deconstruction. Indeed, the most likely scenario is that the media will just continue to totally ignore the entire dispute, thereby reinforcing those plausible accusations of laziness and incompetence.
Individuals distressed by media failings on a controversial topic often accuse the media and its individual representatives of being biased, corrupted, or quietly under the control of powerful forces allied with the establishment position. These charges may sometimes be correct and sometimes not, but they are usually quite difficult to prove, except in the minds of existing true-believers, and they do carry the taint of "paranoia." On the other hand, claiming that media failings are due to venial sins such as laziness and incompetence are just as likely to be correct, and these charges are much less likely to risk a backlash.
Finally, once the media itself has become the primary target of the criticism, it automatically loses its status as a neutral outside arbitrator and no longer has as much credibility in proclaiming the winning side of the debate.
Please go to Russia Insider to read the entire essay.
________
Why would Reuters put this news out on the EU telling Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter to extend fake news watch" with emphasis on Covid-19? Would that be because there exist corporate and Wall Street interests on the Covid injection sales forecast and mass acceptance? Anything alternative news presents questioning the legitimacy of Covid might not be too favorable to corporations that run news through Reuters to control the narrative.
More examples from Reuters from the past:
Reuters' major concern over the past year has been to control the narrative on this global Covid operation and any alternative news sources that seriously question what is going on have been targeted as being "fake" news. Reuters must dominate and control the narrative and social discourse on Covid to protect corporations that have been profiting off this new global religion of Covid.
Reuters has been revealed to have been planting their own fake news and then blaming others sources as being fake:
Social Media Cries 'Fake News' After Reuters Pulls Story About Jared Kushner in Iraq [Updated: Reuters Confirms Kushner in Iraq]
Reuters Stealth-Edits Debunked Story Claiming Trump Sought 'Monopoly' on COVID-19 Vaccine
Reuters Stealth-Edits Debunked Story Claiming Trump Sought 'Monopoly' on COVID-19 Vaccine
Related:
Dear Elon, We Can Build a Media Fact-Check Machine for You - We've Got the Know-How
HONORED TO BE AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDER.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.