Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Category: Media (Page 1 of 5)

Thoughts about thought

I sent a text message the other day, to a highly educated and intelligent old friend. I have not seen him for a couple of years, but we have exchanged amicable messages from time to time. This was the message I sent this time:

Glenn Diesen’s speech at the UN Security council. It was about geopolitics in general and the Ukraine war in particular.

That was all I wrote. My short text was followed by a link to the said speech at the UN Security Council. I recommend the speech!!

This was the response I received:

This is just about as bad as it gets from a well-known peddler of Russian war propaganda and lies (not that I follow what peddlers of Russian propaganda say). It is a strong defence of the right of superpowers to invade and annex countries (e.g., the US and Greenland or Panama). Ironically, it is also a defence of the right of the superpower Europe, in order to defend its legitimate security interests, to supply Ukraine with weapons and keep the war going indefinitely. But Professor Diesen probably doesn’t understand that.

I will not deny that I knew, when I sent the link, that my friend, as almost all other Norwegians, believes that Putin is the devil incarnate. Norwegians have been told so by our media. (Unlike the USA, we have practically no news outlets other than state and corporate media.) So when I sent him the link, I had only a very faint hope of effecting a slight dent in his attitude.

At any rate I do not intend to reply to his message as it does not serve as an invitation to a mutually rewarding discussion.

A discussion worthy of participation would include, on my part, questions such as:

  • Did we (the West) engage in this war in order to protect Ukraine?
  • Is our bellicose attitude 1) benefiting Ukraine 2) benefiting us (Europe)?

I recognise that my friend should have every right to challenge me with his own questions, such as:

  • Was the invasion of Ukraine in contravention of International Law?

I would have to reply: “Yes”, but I would ask a similar question in return:

  • Did the Ukrainian government prior to the invasion (and with NATO assistance) act in contravention of international law?

At any rate I urge you to hear Glenn Diesen’s response to the criticism he undoubtedly has received following his speech to the Security Council.

***

What makes debate about the Ukraine war particularly tricky is the way the media filters information. In Norway, for instance, the filters play a part in framing the invasion as “unprovoked”.

In Norway we still trust the politicians we vote for, (strongly dislike the politicians we don’t vote for) and basically, according to Norway Statistics, trust the system (score 6.4 out of 10) and our press (score 6.2 out of 10). So people read the mainstream news and see no reason to question the framing of international issues in accordance with the views of Santa Ursula and Kaja Kallas.

Such levels of trust are remarkable compared to the state of affairs in the USA where, according to Pew Research Center figures, “just 17% of Americans now say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always (2%) or “ most of the time (15%).” Confidence in US mainsream media fares hardly any better: “seven in 10 U.S. adults now say they have “not very much” confidence (36%) or “none at all” (34%).

Edward Bernays (1891-1995) had the brilliant idea of renaming “propaganda” “PR”, (public relations). We all know that propaganda is what the bad guys, notably the Russians, do. We don’t do propaganda. We just do “information” or PR. The result, in either case, is indoctrination. Interestingly, it would seem that we in Norway are more indoctrinated than US citizens. I’m afraid I do not know the score for Russia.,

The first sentence in the English Wikipedia article about indoctrination is currently: “Indoctrination is the process of inculcating (teaching by repeated instruction) a person or people into an ideology, often avoiding critical analysis.” That is exactly what has happened here in Norway.

Norwegians have been told again and again and again, by our government, and also by opposition politicians, by the newscasters on TV and radio stations, and by newspaper articles, that Russia’s “full-scale invasion was unprovoked“. No wonder Norwegians are angry. To me they huffily recite their catechism: “It was a full! scale! unprovoked! invasion”.

Russophobia is a new phenomenon here! To my knowledge, there have never been skirmishes on our shared border with Russia! Particularly in communities in northern Norway where Russian prisoners of war were used as slave labour by the Germans and where they died as flies of cold, illness and hunger, people used to feel, until recently, immense sadness about all who suffered here, and gratitude to the Russian forces that drove the Germans out of Finnmark and then simply left. What the post-modern Norwegian press has done is really unpardonable: It has made a whole population suffer from Russophobia and has turned academic giants such as my friend into Cyclops. It has been able to do so because Norwegians trust the system and trust the media.

So this is the flip side of the coin in a socially coherent welfare state: I suspect there is a degree of positive correlation between levels of “trust”, public satisfaction and welfare on the one hand and the level of indoctrination on the other.

How can you argue with Russophobia? How can you argue against any phobia? If a person suffers from agoraphobia, there is no way of convincing him with simple words that he need not fear leaving the house. Arguing against Russophobia seems equally hopeless. There is no such concept – here in Norway, at least – as “European war propaganda”.

These days, the first thing I do when I open my eyes is to check my phone: Has the USA attacked Iran, yet? And every morning, so far, I have heaved a sigh of relief. Does that mean that I have been taken in by Iranian propaganda? Of course not. But I must admit that if the USA does attack, I hope Iran will give the aggressor (and Israel, on whose behalf the USA would be attacking) a beating. I look forward to hearing Santa Ursula’s and Kaja Kallas’ views.

Venezuela

I actually spent a month in Venezuela many, many years ago, during the Chavez period. I fell in love with the country.

My friends make fun of me, maintaining that Chavez bewitched me with his songs. (He was a wonderful singer.)

What is certain is that when I stayed there, I was only a tourist. I did not have the academic or technical tools to assess social progress in the country since Chavez’ election. (Yes, he was fairly and squarely elected.) So I won’t write about “my Venezuela”. Instead I recommend a 2007 documentary film by John Pilger: The War on Democracy

When Maduro followed Chavez – and I haven’t heard Maduro sing – I was in doubt. What now? The mainstream press was describing Venezuela as a grizzly dictatorship where political opponents are routinely tortured. Venezuela has defenders, but they are not given press. The horror stories about Venezuela were such that a woman who praises Netanyahu and actually begged the USA to invade her own country was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s how bad the mainstream press is!

My point is this: Thanks to the mainstream press, we know little about Venezuela. Correction: We know nothing.

Now Maduro and his wife have been kidnapped. They are being kept in a prison somewhere in NY state, under charges that are universally understood to be absurd. I heard today that they are incommunicado. Strictly speaking, we cannot even be sure they are alive. The dismal state of US justice and of US embarrassment is now such that I would not even be surprised if they get sent to Guantanamo.

Long before I started writing this piece, I knew I was so angry that I should “keep my mouth shut”.

I shall now shut it and leave the floor to somebody who is blissfully objective and sensible and wise, and who has actually spent a couple of weeks in Caracas. In fact, he is still there. Hear what he says:

Craig Murrey. (If the video doesn’t open, try the link: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9z6rra)

When journalists were Journalists

Once upon a time, there were few vocations prouder than that of “investigative Journalist”. Now people tell me that journalists don’t do their job properly because they are ignorant and lazy.

I fear that is not the problem. The problem is that journalists, like most people I know, including myself, need to make a living to pay the rent. They need electricity, internet, insurance… They cannot – they simply cannot afford to be fired. As anybody familiar with 19th century literature knows: prostitution is an act of desperation, not of love.

Carleton Beals (1893 –1979) was a US journalist about whom I know absolutely nothing. Nothing, I repeat, except that Wikipedia maintains he wrote “more than 45 books” and that Time Magazine called him, “the best informed and the most awkward living writer on Latin America”.

Today, there are few “awkward writers” in mainstream (i.e. State or corporate) media. True investigative journalists have had to find new homes in alternative outlets, such as Consortium News, founded by Robert Parry (1949-2018).

In 1988, Robert Parry informed the US public (in issue no. 72 of the influential magazine Foreign Policy) about the Iran-Contras scandal. By doing so, I believe he contributed to the end of the decade-long war in “America’s back yard”. Reagan was dismayed: Robert Parry and his ilk had to be stopped from meddling in matters of “national interest”, i.e. the economic interests of an infinitesimal portion of the US population. How the press was progressively gagged is a long story, but it is best told by a journalist. Who better than Robert Parry himself: The victory of perception management.

When Europeans are shocked by the current US president’s recent actions against Venezuela, ongoing actions against Greenland and Gaza and future actions against Iran, they seem to have forgotten that he is not the first nor the second King Kong. They ask: “Why on earth did Americans vote for such a clown? Why do they believe all those crazy conspiracy theories?”

Well, for one thing, not all crazy conspiracy theories are false. We now know, for instance, that there is more to the Epstein story than meets the eye, though we still don’t know just what. Moreover:

  • The USA is a country where the authorities still refuse to admit what many historians suspect: that the murder of President JFK was an inside job related to his “Commencement Address” to the American University three months earlier. Confer the moving statement of the 79-year-old Oliver Stone to congress on 1 April 2025.
  • The USA is a country that still denies that the furin cleavage site of the virus that caused Covid 19 was very unlikely to have developed naturally and that the virus was most probably leaked from a lab conducting gain of function experiments partly financed by the US government (NIH).
  • The USA’s healthcare record is so abominable that it lead to the tragic oxycontin drama which in turn has culminated in a grim epidemic of drug overdoses.
  • The USA is therefore a country whose population thinks that “you really cannot trust a word they say” – “they” being the Presidents and their mouthpieces, including the once formidable NY Times and Washington Post; including also, by the way, all state and corporate media in vassal countries in Europe.

So, with respect to Latin America, the USA has had not only one but lots of fingers in the pie almost since the very beginning. The year 1812 saw the “Patriot War”, i.e. the unsuccessful attempt to steal Florida. As a result of subsequent attempts, the USA took possession of bit by bit of what was to become the state of Florida. I suspect that US schoolchildren are taught that the inhabitants of Florida had everything to gain by becoming US citizens. That is undoubtedly Marco Rubio’s point of view, but he is not – you will admit – the average US citizen, at least not as far as wealth and health is concerned.

Nor was Ronald Reagan the first president who tried to annihilate independent Nicaragua. In 1909, US warships were sent to the area. The military intervention forced a progressive president to resign. It was a story we have seen played out umpteen times since: The Yankees didn’t like his policies, quoting Wikipedia:

… improved public education, railroads, and established steam ship lines. He also enacted constitutional rights that provided for equal rights, property guarantees, habeas corpus, compulsory vote, compulsory education, the protection of arts and industry, minority representation, and the separation of state powers.

The 1909 intervention was followed by full-scale occupation in 1912. However, the occupation was not entirely successful. A man named Augusto Cesar Sandino made life difficult for the occupants. He was assassinated by General Somoza in 1934. His example was later followed by the Sandinistas who ousted the dictator Somoza in 1979. Of course the Yankees were not pleased and provided massive assistance to the Contras.

In 1990, presumably to celebrate the Sandinistas’ defeat over the Contras and to commemorate the hero who inspired them, the film El Sandino directed by the exciting Chilean director Miguel Littin, conveyed to those of us who cared, some of the spectacular difficulties facing Latin American countries trying to shake off the grubby fingers of King Kong. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Carleton Beale was the only US journalist to interview El Sandino. Was the brave fictional US Journalist in the film modelled on him? Did Beale’s work inspire the late Robert Parry?

At any rate it was Robert Parry who informed the public about a 90-page manual written in 1983 for the Contras. Quoting Wikipedia, the Contras were taught to:

[lead] demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the Government to create even bigger conflicts.

[and to engage in] selective use of armed force for PSYOP effect. … Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operations area]

Do these two paragraphs remind you of more recent events, by any chance?

Like Iran and Venezuela, Nicaragua has been demonised by the Western press and plagued by economic sanctions. According to the Human Development Index it nevertheless ranks above Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador (that are not subject to sanctions).

Far be it from my intention to defend our present King Kong, but I put to you that a boss who honestly states his ghastly aims is preferable to one who cloaks them in “freedom and democracy”.

As a result of the present King Kong’s frankness, what PM Carney has just referred to as “the fiction” (of the rules-based order) has hopefully lost its “free and Democratic” veneer. Likewise, our leaders, of whom PM Carney revealed that “we” have known it was fiction “for decades“, have been exposed. Is there a glimmer of hope here?

***

I add, by way of conclusion, a link to the trailer of a Netflix documentary about another great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. He most recently made a splash when he claimed that the USA, with the assistance of Norway, carried out the sabotage of the Nord-Stream Pipeline.

Quoth CNN

CNN lied! Just about all the corporate press outlets lied about Iraq, about Libya, about Syria… They are still lying through their teeth about the ongoing genocide in Palestine (all of Palestine, not just Gaza!).

They are lying for dear life to defend EU financial investments (Ponzi scheme?) in Ukraine… etc.

“Lies, lies, lies is all they’ve got!” I am quoting Max Blumenthal.

In Oliver Stone’s take on Big Finance’s ugly war on countries like Venezuela, he makes it eminently clear that the “press”, the corporate media on which we all depend, has VERY MUCH to answer for.

Never before?

Advertisers, news outlets and Trump all subscribe to superlatives:

The biggest, the best, the greatest, the worst, the smallest, the most …, the least…, etc. We also often hear expressions such as “never before” and “for the first time”. Grammatically speaking, these are not superlatives. Semantically, however, they are.

I would have liked to ask the linguist Noam Chomsky, whether this fascination for superlatives is universal, hard-coded into the genetic make-up of our species, or whether it is merely a cultural by-product of Western hubris.

There are some polite non-western expressions floating around to describe Western hubris (I repeat for the record that we represent only 12-14 % of humanity), among them: “US exceptionalism”, “US sense of entitlement”. Note that Europe and other US allies don’t count; we are just appendages to the US.

I am less polite. If you behave as a brigand, a brigand is what you are. The US is so riddled with debts that it has to attack countries to steal their mineral wealth!!! Having starved Venezuela with deadly sanctions for years and engaged in extra-judicial killings of its citizens in international waters, the US is now going to pilfer its riches. The US is preparing to engage in outright robbery in broad daylight. And its European minions are not going to interfere.

The dissenting media are not howling. They are merely shaking their heads. Why? Are they afraid? Or are they grieving? The corporate media are not even shaking their heads.

Maybe they are speechless for lack of superlatives. After all, this is not the first, nor the worst nor even the most…. not even since WWII. This is just business as usual.

I must admit that not until fairly recently have I realised how underhanded US and European foreign and domestic policy have been since WWII. Why did it take me so long?

After all, I read Manufacturing Consent years ago. I perused it as an intellectual, dispassionately, and with respectful interest. For me, the tide only turned when I read Nineteen Eighty-Four, shuddering as I did so: So much of the novel was terrifyingly recognizable!

Novels address your gut. They aim to immerse you into the matter, forcing you to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” in a way that a cool analysis is unable to. The same applies to the film format.

Today, I returned to Manufacturing Consent, this time as it is spelled out in a gripping 1992 documentary by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick. The documentary explains what Chomsky refers to as “the terrifying aspect of our society and other societies, [which] is the equanimity and the detachment with which sane, reasonable, sensible people can observe such events.”

Just so. As to why “such events” occur, you will need to watch another equally tide-turning documentary: The Corporation.

That’s why.

How a narrative was manufactured

A book review of a book review

The book GRAND DECEPTION: The Browder Hoax, by Alex Krainer, has been “banned” – twice banned, no less – on Amazon and it is also “banned” by Barnes and Nobles. It was admittedly published a long time ago, in 2017, but is no less relevant, and still banned, today.

You may find it here.

Bill Browder was and probably still is what we used to call a “speculator” – as I see it: a good-for-nothing, big-time gambler. The “financial set” is a class of people against which I am deeply prejudiced, to say the least, notwithstanding the fact that it includes Alex Krainer himself.

So why care about the “Browder Hoax”. Hoaxes are speculators’ bread and butter, no? What made me read Krainer’s introductory pages was the fact that the financial shark Browder apparently operated in Russia and took part in the big grab of Russian spoils during the decade after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia was brought to its knees, and I was eager to learn about that. So I read on, always prepared to quit after the next paragraph.

Having done with the caveats, I turn to Krainer’s book, which starts with a painstaking analysis of Bill Browder’s self-congratulatory autobiography published in 2015, Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.

It is so extremely well written, we are told, that it is most likely the product of a ghost writer, It reads like a thriller, but as the title promises, it is a “true” story, and its alleged author, Bill Browder, is a hero, no less. Krainer read it in one gulp, only to find afterwards that it didn’t quite ring true, so he read it again, more carefully.

While my interest in Bill Browder is non-existent and although it doesn’t take much to convince me that a financial shark is a liar and a thief, I reluctantly read all the first 42 chapters demonstrating just that, because Krainer masters the delightful subtleties of polite irony.

So the “hoax”, it appears, is multi-faceted and consists not least of the book itself: Browder’s story is simply not “true”.

What further raised my interest was that Krainer, who was born in communist Croatia and therefore has every reason to distrust Russia, nevertheless questions the virulence of Browder’s denigration of Russia and Gothic epithets referring to Putin. There seems to be a deliberate PR pattern running through Browder’s narrative. The term Russophobia is often explained by geopolitical commentators, as a result of conflicts in the distant past, but I’m not buying: I was brought up to hate Germans, but 80 years after the end of WWII, there is no trace of anti-German sentiment in my country. Krainer demonstrates, with a wealth of examples from the book, how certain stereotypes are repeated again and again with suspicious lack of nuance.

Part 3 of Krainer’s book is a heart-rending account of how Russia was taken apart and turned into a failed state. Browder, of course, blames the Russians for this. But Krainer who is – quite usefully, as it turns out – an expert within the field I so deeply distrust, knows exactly what happened. I don’t understand everything he writes, but he is evidently no man’s fool, cf. a sentence in Amazon’s piece about him:

[I]n 2000. Alex had originated the firm’s research and development program in market analysis and application of neural networks and artificial intelligence in trading of financial and commodities markets.

That was “application of neural networks and artificial intelligence” in 2000! Twenty five years ago! That’s right: no man’s fool.

Krainer more than insinuates that the destruction of Russia by a band of robbers (Russian and Western) was actively supported by US policy. Of course anybody suggesting that the US deliberately engages in despicable acts is labelled a conspiracy theorist, but that doesn’t mean that the “theory” in question is untrue.

Why else would Amazon ban the book, by the way?

What do I care about Bill Browder? Not one hoot, I repeat. But his book, as analysed by Alex Krainer is a remarkable example of how to present Russia in hypnotically monotonous terms, crippling critical thought. Having read it, we must hate and loathe the country and the ogre at its helm to our dying day. Again, we get the sense that Browder’s crusade against Russia – and he is still at it – is very much aided and abetted by USA.

I don’t think we will need many Bill Browder books before we are all convinced that Russia is the end of everything, a modern Niflheimr and its leader an ice-cold, ruthless killer.

Unlike Browder, Krainer explains in Part 4 how that very ogre went on to pick Russia up out of the dust and put Humpty Dumpty together again. Indeed, already in 2017, Russia was doing very well. I won’t quote Krainer’s figures here, because I believe his book merits being read.

As for Browder’s heroic “one-man fight for justice”, that was also a hoax, it turns out – again aided and abetted by USA – concerning Sergei Magnitsky and the 2012 Magnitsky Act. Now Krainer was not the only person who didn’t think the narrative passed the smell test. A Russian film director, Sergei Nekrasov, had made several documentaries that were critical of Russia. His film The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes, had been paid for in advance, presumably on the assumption that Nekrasov would only be too happy to confirm Browder’s story. However, Nekrasov conscientiously examined relevant documentation, and realised during the process of making the film, that the story was a scam. The film was ready in 2016. At this point, remember, when a civil war was raging in Ukraine, it was particularly important to stress that Russia and Putin were evil.

The première at the European Parliament was stopped at the last moment, and screenings were cancelled all over Europe, including in Norway, where the film was made. In other words: The film was censored! As Nekrasov explains in his conversation with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris, the very fact of being censored in the West, was deeply shocking, deeply troubling. What he basically is saying, I think, is that the West is not what he thought it was. “Sometimes I feel that I’m back in the USSR,” says Sergei Nekrasov.

I haven’t seen the film, but you might find it here.

Theorising conspiracy theories about conspiracy theorists

When I looked up the title to this post, in case anybody else had used it, I found a title that looked a little too similar for comfort: “Criminology, Conspiracy Theories and Theorizing Conspiracy“, an academic paper, published 30 January 2025. I took a long and increasingly appreciative look. I quote from the abstract:

The first part of the article suggests that a moral panic over conspiracy theories has given rise to a conspiracy theory research agenda that has pathologized and criminalized conspiracy theories. The second part of the article argues that although conspiracies are important sociological and political phenomena, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ functions to stigmatize certain narratives.

And from the beginning of the introduction:

In recent years, conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have been lambasted and ridiculed by politicians and journalists, and psychologized, pathologized and criminalized by academics. This article challenges criminologists to adopt a more critical orientation to conspiracy theories and theorizing conspiracy. Rather than dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand, criminologists should consider hypotheses about elite wrongdoing on the basis of their merits and the evidence available to us.


Just so.

The other day, I sent a text message to an old fried. Roughly summarised:

News about Trump’s reversal on disclosure of the Epstein files and the resulting hullabaloo in USA is somewhat entertaining and a welcome distraction from news from Gaza. I never paid any attention to the sordid Epstein case, but I must admit his frequent meetings with Ehud Barak and his sex-services to members of the economic elite must have given a number of persons reason to want him dead.

The old “friend”, sent me in return four irate emojis, including two of scull and crossbones. No text. Knowing his abhorrence of “conspiracy theories”, I assumed he did so to indicate that he disapproved of mine, though I had not advanced any “theory”. I was merely indicating my lack of respect for and distrust of the country that has a military stranglehold over my country.

To my mind, the failure of the US courts to prosecute Epstein’s child sexual abuse clients – surely there must have been a number of very powerful clients, in view of his fabulous wealth – is intriguing. And how on earth were Israeli lunatics – the ones who invented the Gaza Method – able to persuade reasonably normal US politicians to very actively facilitate it, the Gaza Method, that is? Surely those US politicians must have known that children all over the world will hereinafter be taught to loathe and fear not only Israel but also USA: Having developed an effective method to exterminate entire populations, the hateful perpetrators are sure to use it again. Are they not aware of the scorn and revulsion with which references to the US political and financial establishment are met. Surely, they know that the very concept “American Democracy” has been as sullied as if the stars and stripes had been used as toilet paper. So how could they? Were they coerced, or were they merely greedy (i.e. bribed)?

***

Every day, Norwegians wake up to the morning news with the death toll from the last 24 hours in Gaza: “30 shot dead queueing for food”, “86 shot dead queueing for food”, “15 dead of starvation” Every single damned day!!! The number dying of starvation rises day by day.

However, the morning news does not report that Ukrainian males are being hunted as animals to serve as cannon fodder in the proxy war against Russia. The Norwegian media have not reported the realities of the Ukraine war. In Norway, as opposed to in USA, there is no market for independent media.

So where is the conspiracy? Whose conspiracy? Is there a conspiracy?

Of course there is! There have always been conspiracies, here, there and everywhere. During WWI (cf. Arthur Ponsonby’s little book Falsehood in War-Time ) and WWII (when a whole nation was bamboozled by the “Untermensch” narrative). During the Middle Ages, kings and prelates were incessantly engaging in all sorts of plots. Business and politics are all about conspiracies. Take the Mont Pelerin Society, for starters. Or take the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) or TheGrand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Brzezinsky, President Carter’s national security adviser. The book is one big conspiracy, as you will see if you download it from CIA’s website.

More correctly, then, who gets to decide what is a conspiracy theory as opposed to a real or a possible conspiracy?

Answer: The corporate media. To be de-platformed or cancelled as a conspiracy theorist you simply need to present information or suggest an interpretation that fails to conform with the information and analyses presented by the corporate media. It’s basically a loop. Increasingly, the corporate media all echo one another, because they all repeat, almost verbatim, statements from their respective governments’ spokespersons.

Yes, I admit I am suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy, here, but I have no evidence (in Norway) that active censorship is involved. All I know is what everybody knows: articles from a number of formerly respected political analysts are no longer printed by the corporate press. And I know for an absolute fact, that we – not least my old friend – are being subjected to Information omission.

In short, most people in my country, who rely mostly on Norwegian news outlets, have no idea of what has been going on in Ukraine, whereas we have been fairly honestly informed about developments in Gaza. We are in fact so dazed, now, and frightened, by what is going on in Gaza, that we hardly notice that Ukraine is losing its war, its territory, and its male population. But we know – we feel it in our bones – that something is very, very amiss. Everywhere.

My old friend has defined me as a conspiracy theorist. I define him as disrespectful. On Greyzone, Aron Mate disagrees with Max Blumenthal about the Epstein files. He does not think they are important. They disagree cordially, each arguing his case. I put to you that they set a good example.

Since I have been so disrespectfully reproved for holding opinions that differ from those of my old friend, I shall take the joyful liberty of cancelling him. I have wiped him off my contact list.

The moral of this post is: Don’t send scull and cross-bones-emojis to your old friends if you cannot even be bothered explaining why you are doing so.

Pulling it off

We find ourselves wondering how come those of us who weep for the Palestinians, content ourselves with weeping. Why are there no armies of angry citizens with pitchforks in front of every US or Israeli embassy in Europe? Why do we allow unelected EU commissars to refer to Israel as a “beacon of Democracy”. What’s the matter with us?

Propaganda is not a new science. I have previously written about Arthur Ponsonby’s remarkable little 1928 book Falsehood in War-Time, about how nations were fooled into starting WWI and about how their populations were bamboozled into believing they were sacrificing their lives for a noble cause.

Since then, propaganda has made even greater strides, whereas our ability to resist propaganda has not. We swallow the bait, time and time again.

In school we were taught to look up information, to question its reliability, to consult sources, to seek other sources, to consider dissenting opinions without prejudice and assess the sources for them. That, we were told, is how science has brought us to where we are. Since then, however, those who have questioned official narratives – be they about Covid, the Ukraine war, Russia-gate, the murder of JFK or the weather forecast are labelled “conspiracy theorists”. Such an approach to controversy bodes ill for so-called Democracy and, for that matter, also for “science”.

We have long understood that history is written by the victor, and nowadays there are numerous researchers who challenge the victors’ stories, after the fact, as it were. Thus we know a great deal about the infamous cruelty of colonialism, for instance. That was a long time ago, and the perpetrators are dead. But what about the cruelties being perpetrated by neo-colonialism as we speak? Who dares expose them?

If you tell me, “time will be the judge”, I will riposte: Too much damage will have been done, by the time “time is ready to pass its verdict”, if we choose, today, a very dangerous course.

We are choosing a very dangerous course, Many dangerous courses, in fact. The old world order is cracking, but governments in the West are desperately trying to hold it together rather than pave the ground for a more just system.

There are numerous ways of airbrushing history. You can f.ex. apply the playground narrative: “He started it!” The other guy, the one with the bloody nose, will indignantly protest, “But that was after he––” before teacher grabs him by the ear and drags him off to be whipped. This constitutes what Yanis Varoufakis calls “truncation of history“. Our governments define one particular event as the catalyst of a conflict and all preceding events are simply deleted from the public memory. We won’t even be allowed to hear what the other guy, the one with the bloody nose, has to say for himself. This method has been used again and again by, not least, the USA to lend legitimacy to the new wars it needs to engage in, every couple of years or so.

Thus the Gaza war started on October 7, not a day earlier, when Hamas, the aggressor, allegedly mass-raped women and beheaded babies. Yes, here we apply not only “history truncation”; we also resort to demonization, as we did about Sadam, i.e. outright lies. When you are going to wipe out a population, you need to resort to fiction. By the time your lies are exposed, your own population is so emotionally involved that nothing can shift its outlook.

Thus the Ukraine war started in February 2022 with the so-called “unprovoked invasion” of 120 000 Russian troops in Ukraine. Yet an example of “history truncation” + demonization – as Russia’s president is regularly referred to as a modern-day Hitler. I have written extensively of this elsewhere on this site.

Now if, as is often the case, a US war ends badly for the USA, we have to resort to “framing“. By “we”, I mean not only the USA but all the US vassals in Europe. We make a big show of how good we are and how unspeakably horrible the opponents are. In Afghanistan, for instance, we provided schools and health care and, above all, we liberated women from the madmen who had used them as cows. To this day, we often see an unforgettable meme: desperate Aghans hanging from the underbelly of departing NATO planes. Yes, NATO suffered defeat in Afghanistan, but NATO was loved and missed by some thousand Afghans who had worked with the NATO forces and had reason to fear reprisals.

Now I put to you, that through framing, past Afghan history has gone missing in the most extraordinary way from the official narrative. Admittedly, I know very little about Afghanistan. But there is no doubt that Afghanistan has been egregiously fiddled with by all and sundry powers. Few seem to have noticed that (according to Wikipedia) the period 1933 to 1973 was not bad at all:

Zahir Shah [1933-1973,] like his father Nadir Shah, had a policy of maintaining national independence while pursuing gradual modernization, creating nationalist feeling, and improving relations with the United Kingdom. Afghanistan was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War. However, it was a beneficiary of the latter rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by building Afghanistan’s main highways, airports, and other vital infrastructure. On a per capita basis, Afghanistan received more Soviet development aid than any other country.

Needless to say, that king was deposed in a coup. We can’t have heads of state who actually benefit their country. Neighbouring countries might be tempted to follow their example.

Currently, Afghanistan is subject to a US-imposed starvation campaign, euphemistically referred to as “sanctions”. (Israel did not invent starvation campaigns!)

“Perception management” is big business in the US, not only for dealing with dissenters against wars. Environmentalists, for example are a menace to “US interests”, i.e. the interests of the proverbial 1%. Trump’s and Biden’s people deal with them differently, but none of them intend to avert environmental disaster.

In US vassal states, US “soft power” has blinkered us. All the films we have seen, with all those good and honest heroes and heroins have blotted out reality.

Then there is the matter of why poor countries are poor and getting poorer in spite of all the aid we are giving them? We have been led to blame corrupted officials, bad governance, inefficient institutions, difficult climates, lazy workers, etc. And of course too much fornication, which we politely refer to as “too many children”.

This is, again, an example of “truncated history” + framing. Mind you, I am not referring to the ghastly age of colonialism, which most governments are quite willing to “fess about”. I am referring to the decades since the 50s and 60s. See, for instance, the paper by Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel in Review of African Polical Economy. The details of how and why Africa has had to pay the west far more than the amount it has received in loans, aid and investment combined would take far too much space in a humble blog. Besides, it’s about economic exploitation, a field most of us find too technical. What seems clear, though, is that African countries have had to accept the terms of the more powerful countries. The injustice has been papered over with “aid”.

Which, of course, is why “perception management” is so effective. Few will be bothered to read papers published in the Review of African Economy. At least here in Norway. Most ordinary citizens in “the West” are left with the idea that in spite of a US invasion here, a US-orchestrated coup there – and yes, aggressive meddling just about everywhere, for instance in Haiti – we, the West give enormous sums of aid every year. We care about you poor sods, even if you are incompetent; we honestly try to keep you afloat. [For the record, Haiti was hell on earth under the French, then under USA until Aristide. The Haitians loved Aristide, but the US Americans did not, needless to say, so Haiti is still hell on earth.)

In his 2023 book, The Divide, Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets, Jason Hickel explains it all to us. I have not read the entire book because I stopped for a break after reading about how he was taken on a long drive on a dirt road to a place on the West Bank with an enormous sign: USAID. Apparently a well had been paid for by US tax payers to alleviate “Recurring water shortages” in the area. The well was, the sign read, a “gift from the American people”.

What made me feel quite ill as I read this was that since the 1967 war, Israel illegally controls:

water-rich territories like the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. These areas now provide a significant portion of Israel’s water supply. However, this control has come at the expense of neighboring states and Palestinians, who face severe restrictions on water access. For example, Palestinian per capita water consumption averages just 20 cubic meters annually, compared to Israel’s 60 cubic meters.

The Israeli government strictly regulates Palestinian water use, prohibiting the drilling of new wells and imposing fines for exceeding quotas, while Israeli settlements face no such restrictions. The result is a terrible inequality in access to water, …(source)


Perception management has been a priority in the USA ever since Reagan decided to energetically get the American people to “kick the Vietnam syndrom”.

Jason Hickel’s 2023 book, The Divide, is addressed to people like you and me, not to academics. However, if you are willing to read academic papers you can find him here.

The value of money

I heard in this remarkable conversation that in the USA, the “Israel Lobby” controls about 400 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives. That’s deeply disturbing, to say the least.

Here and now I won’t bother disputing the ludicrous positions of the “Israel Lobby”.

Nor am I now going to vindicate defenders of the so-called First Amendment that is so sacred to the USA (with good reason). In my country, you see, suppressing dissent is much easier than in the USA. In my country, people implicitly “trust” the mainstream press, because the mainstream press is, after all, our press. Our press tells us, day in and day out, what we need to know. It tells us that Russia will invade Europe, that China will invade Taiwan (without reminding us that Taiwan is actually part of China) and that we must be very grateful for US military presence here (Norway). The press adds that we must all be prepared for nuclear war. We must keep a stock of toilet paper, bottled water and batteries. Our press looks after us, you see.

Do you think I am proud of my country’s press? Has my country’s press informed me that one of the 9 US military bases on the Philippines has a Typhon missile system installed? With a range of about 2,000 kilometres, it can hit most major cities on the Chinese mainland. Not a word, as far as I can see.

But at least my country has made it resoundingly clear that we are horrified and repelled by the moral decrepitude of genocidal Zionism, which appears to control the Congress of the country that insists on controlling the world.

In the above-linked conversation, the two men seem to agree that Congress has quite simply been bought, bribed if you will. Now I really have trouble getting my head around such a supposition.

On the other hand, is it not so that anybody who freely and voluntarily defends starving a population to death, mutilating and torturing hundreds of thousands of people and forcing them to live under unbelievably ghastly conditions is in some way or other a defective human being, the sort of creature who should be monitored around the clock with an electronic bracelet?

Surely Congress isn’t made up of lunatics and psychopaths?

So I must take a closer look at the other supposition: A million USD is a lot of money. Even half a million would revolutionise my life. Besides, just as a member of Congress I would presumably be very well paid. I don’t really approve of torturing innocent people, but I would like to improve the plight of homeless people in my district and I could raise their case if I were in Congress, and – well – half a million USD would be nice.

Is that how it goes?

Is that also how the innumerable US wars go? We want to bring freedom to peoples of the world from Communism, theocracy, autocracy, etc. We are appalled by how women are oppressed in Afghanistan and Iran. We believe in LGBT rights, in justice, etc. etc. We raise our banners and continue the crusade, marching on, leaving a trail of death and despair everywhere we go.

All for money, right? Oil, minerals, black earth, etc. Gee!

Money, then, is very expensive.

Now, if so many members of the US Congress have been bribed – bought – where does that leave Democracy? In Democratic countries, members of national assemblies are elected just like members of Congress. Are Norwegian MPs more incorruptible than US Americans?

Dissent

In Octobre 2023, Consortium News sued “NewsGuard Technologies, Inc.” and the United States government (the Pentagon’s Cyber Command) for defamation.

NewsGuard is “acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints” as to Ukraine, Russia, and Syria, imposing a form of “censorship and repression of views” that differ or dissent from policies of the United States and its allies.

So we have three parties – 1) the United States military industrial complex, aka the Pentagon, 2) Newsguard that defines itself as “A global leader in information reliability” and 3) Consortium News (CN), which is a news site, obviously.

Quoting from the CN “About” page:

When we founded Consortium News in 1995 – as the first investigative news magazine based on the Internet – there was already a crisis building in the U.S. news media. The mainstream media was falling into a pattern of groupthink on issue after issue, often ignoring important factual information ….

We also looked at the underlying problems of modern democracy, particularly the insidious manipulation of citizens by government propaganda and the accomplice role played by mainstream media. Rather than encouraging diversity in analyses especially on topics of war and peace, today’s mainstream media takes a perverse pride in excluding responsible, alternative views.

Since I quote Consortium News, I should also quote Newsguard

… combines human expertise and technology to provide data, analysis and journalism that helps enterprises and consumers identify reliable information. NewsGuard’s detailed Source Reliability Ratings, produced by a team of expert analysts using apolitical journalistic criteria and a transparent process, enable enterprises and consumers to identify reliable sources of information at scale, with coverage of more than 35,000 online sources accounting for 95%+ of engagement. Our continuously updated Misinformation Fingerprints help clients identify and mitigate unreliable information, with data and analysis covering 30,000+ instances of false narratives spreading online with detailed and precise data seeds built for automated tracking. Altogether, NewsGuard has collected more than 6.9 million information reliability data points for its clients and customers since its 2018 launch [emphasis added].

The “misinformation” Newsguard refers to primarily applies to the Ukraine war and the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Other misinformation doesn’t appear to interest this intrepid champion of the truth.

I should add that Newsguard is smart enough to also include a couple of pro-Ukrainian and pro-Israeli “myths”. But there is no doubt about what master Newsguard is serving: a) Russophobe warmongers b) the “Israel lobby”.

So what was the issue between Newsguard/the Pentagon and CN? CN explains:

NewsGuard uses its software to tag targeted news sites, including all 20,000+ Consortium News articles and videos published since 1995, with warnings to “proceed with caution,” telling NewsGuard subscribers that Consortium News produces “disinformation,” “false content” and is an “anti-U.S.” media organization.

Elsewhere CN writes:

CN supports no side in the Ukraine war but seeks to examine the causes of the conflict within its recent historical context, all of which are being whitewashed from mainstream Western media.

Consortium News can be wrong at times, but never as wrong as mainstream media was on WMD in Iraq or Russiagate. CN got both those consequential stories right while they were happening, and contends it is correct in its analysis of the Ukraine crisis. In any case, it is entitled to its analysis [emphasis added].

In March 2025, we finally learnt:”Judge throws out libel suit against media misinformation rating firm NewsGuard

Why? Because the judge found that:

Indeed, far from alleging that NewsGuard knew its statements to be false, Consortium News effectively concedes the truth of the ‘anti-U.S. perspective’ label, and acknowledges that ‘reasonable people’ could differ as to the truth or falsity of its reporting, undercutting any suggestion that NewsGuard knew its criticisms to be false and published those criticisms despite knowing them to be false.”

Read that paragraph again, I beg you. What it tells you is that:
a) Newsguard might have been unaware that its defamatory accusations were false,
b) that Consortium News has admitted that its views could be perceived as “anti-US”,
c) that a lot of people would be distressed by what Consortium News reported.

The Court evidently holds that defamation is OK if the perpetrators don’t know they are lying. The Court evidently holds that even if the US is pursuing egregious policies, there is good reason to suppress criticism of the US. And lastly, the Court holds that views other than those held by “reasonable people” may be suppressed.

I do not often laugh when I read the news. But I guffawed! If this is what they call Democracy, give me autocracy any day.

I suspect that the reason Consortium News has been targeted by the Pentagon is that its reporting is, alas, well-founded. See for instance the article On Neo-Nazi Influence in Ukraine which includes links to BBC video footage from 2014 and 2015.

While you’re at it, you might also listen to the rather remarkable CBS interview with Sergei Lavrov.

« Older posts

© 2026 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑