1

2020 Race Shows the More Women Run, the More They’re Treated Like Candidates—Not ‘Tokens’

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren speaking with attendees at the 2019 National Forum on Wages and Working People hosted by the Center for the American Progress Action Fund and the SEIU at the Enclave in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Source: Flickr/gageskidmore)

By Elizabeth C. Tippett | Common Dreams

When Victoria Woodhull ran for president in 1872, she was depicted as “Mrs. Satan” in a political cartoon.

When Sen. Margaret Chase Smith sought the Republican nomination in 1964, one columnist labeled her too old—at 66—while others insisted she was attractive “for her age.”

When Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic nomination in 2008 and the presidency in 2016, she was unable to escape gender-based tropes characterizing her as “calculating” and “power-hungry.”

But in observing the 2020 Democratic presidential primary—which has featured as many six women—it seems possible that this time might be different. Not because sexism has left the building, but because the critical mass of women candidates may have changed the dynamic.

A lone woman in a crowd

As a researcher who studies the workplace, I was reminded during the debate of an influential study of female representation in the office.

In the 1970s, business professor Rosabeth Kanter studied the group dynamics in a corporate sales division where women represented a tiny part of the sales force. When women found themselves “alone or nearly alone” in a sea of men, they came to be seen as “tokens”—a constantly scrutinized stand-in for all women, viewed by others in terms of their gender and gender stereotypes.

Every action these saleswomen took had “symbolic consequences,” Kanter wrote. “In short, every act tended to be evaluated beyond its meaning for the organization and taken as a sign of ‘how women do in sales.'”

The women were subject to exaggerated scrutiny of their physical appearance and became “larger-than-life caricatures.” Their presence also affected the men, who behaved in a hyper-masculine way to “reclaim group solidarity” and emphasize the women’s outsider status.

This was, essentially, the predicament that Clinton faced as the lone female contender in her unsuccessful 2008 primary bid and as the first woman within striking distance of the White House in 2016. She never had the chance to be one of many female candidates whose qualifications, benefits, and flaws could be evaluated in a measured way.

Even before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, she was a lightning rod and a caricature. During the 2008 primaries, a poster depicted her as a witch. Others used various gender-based epithets. A T-shirt said “bros before hoes“—a hyper-masculine expression of in-group solidarity. Fox News compared Clinton with a “nagging” wife, while a host on CNN apparently thought “scolding mother” was the better analogy.

In the 2016 election, Trump gleefully piled on, interrupting her in the final debate to call her a “nasty woman.”

As the wife of a former president, Clinton was portrayed as the ultimate undeserving “token.”

Critical mass theory

Kanter believed that group dynamics would change if women were better represented in the office.

She hypothesized that once women made up 35% or 40% of the group, they would be liberated from their token status and others would start to see them as “individuals differentiated from each other” as well as differentiated from men.

This idea would later be popularized as the theory of the “critical mass.” It inspired, among other things, gender quotas in legislatures. Universities would also use the idea as a legal justification for affirmative action policies on the basis of race.

I was reminded of the critical mass theory in watching the Nov. 20 debate in Atlanta, which was moderated entirely by women. Among the candidates, it featured the same female to male ratio—40%—that Kanter predicted would make a difference.

And it did.

The four women on stage freed each from being the perfect woman, the “you’re likable enough” trap that left Clinton in a bind. It meant Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) isn’t a nasty woman—she is a populist, as some have described her, like Bernie Sanders.

It meant Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) can attack colleague Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-Hawaii) record without it being portrayed as a “catfight.”

Freed to be funny

But what I noticed most from the female candidates were the sly jokes and subtle digs. Humor is difficult when you’re alone in a crowd. Garnering a laugh can be as much about solidarity as wit.

During the Atlanta debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) was in particularly fine form. She bragged about having “raised $17,000 from ex-boyfriends” in her first Senate race. She also doubled down on a past comment that a female version of Mayor Pete Buttigieg would never have made it this far with his meager political experience. “Women are held to a higher standard,” she said, “otherwise, we could play a game called Name Your Favorite Woman President.”

Harris even used humor to good effect when former Vice President Joe Biden claimed he had the endorsement of the “only African American woman …elected to the United States Senate”—apparently referring to Carol Moseley Braun.

“The other one is here,” Harris quipped. The audience guffawed.

Power in numbers

Kanter observed that women’s isolation in these settings not only affected how they were perceived by others. It also affected their own behavior.

Aware of their symbolic status, women felt extra pressure to perform and “prove their competence” while simultaneously trying not to make the men “look bad” and “blend noticeably into the predominantly male culture.”

I wondered how Hillary Clinton would have looked up there alongside the others in Atlanta. It’s possible she would have come across as wooden or boring. Even so, the stakes would have been lower—an inference that this particular person is boring, not that women can’t cut it.

Elizabeth C. Tippett

Elizabeth C. Tippett writes about ethics, employment law, and the intersection of law and technology. She is a co-author of the Fifth Edition of the West Academic textbook, Employment Discrimination & Employment Law: The Field as Practiced, along with Samuel Estreicher and Michael Harper.  Her research on disparate impact litigation was cited by the United States Court of Appeals and the Iowa Supreme Court.

Professor Tippett is the faculty co-director for the master’s program in conflict and dispute resolution at the University of Oregon.  Before joining the faculty, she was an employment law attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Professor Tippett earned her law degree at Harvard Law School in 2006.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Read more great articles at Common Dreams




Leaks, Fake News, Hidden Agendas — Analyzing Mainstream News Anti-Logic

By Jon Rappoport | Activist Post

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? Big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, of course, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob, the reporter, bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing his source of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.

Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine, by covering up the vaccine’s connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

You can find examples of government actors spying on Trump—in these instances, the press decides to focus on the WHAT, the content gained from spying; and downplays the WHO, the people who green-lighted the surveillance.

There is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. The WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

The NSA, with its gargantuan reach into the lives of the population (including government officials), has enough content to keep the press busy for the next 50 years reporting leaks; but the NSA decides when, and for what reasons, to hold back what it knows. Or to leak bits and pieces through cut-outs.

A seasoned reporter, who obtains a leak from a trusted source, doesn’t ask pressing questions about exactly who the source is fronting for.

The leaks-game is played over and over, and the rules of the game are shifted, depending on unrevealed agendas. Who do we want to expose this time? Who do we want to come out looking like a winner? Who are our friends at the CIA supporting?

Editors are there to keep reporters in line and correct oversights. Not in so many words, an editor would let a reporter know: “You picked the wrong source this time, Bob. Your guy is telling a story we don’t want to promote. Find a different source with a better take, in line with our agenda to attack (fill in a name).”

That’s what the editor means. But he might simply say: “Bob, that source of yours…I don’t trust him anymore. I’ve been hearing odd things about him. Don’t use him for this piece.” The reporter gets the message.

This technique of casual ad hominem criticism and rumor even extends to the realm of science. In 1987, a prestigious molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, “leaked” what many virologists privately knew: the evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS was full of gaping holes. Duesberg published a paper in the journal, Cancer Research, exposing the con.

Overnight, a whisper-campaign against Duesberg spread through the research community. “We always knew Duesberg was an odd duck. He likes publicity. He hates authority. He runs his mouth off. He doesn’t care about evidence. He’ll take a contrary position just to stand out.”

The game of leaks, sources, and fake news takes many shapes.

Welcome to mainstream news.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, andPOWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Image credit: TFTP

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




Assange Exposes The Truth About Corporate Media: “You Are Reading Weaponized Text”

By Claire Bernish | Activist Post

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called “very, very, very inaccurate” corporate presstitutes “opportunistic snipers” in an interview over the weekend, accusing newspapers of printing “weaponized text.”

And the outspoken publisher isn’t at all dissatisfied with the current propaganda of “fake news” — because, as Assange explained to Australian comedian Chas Licciardello, according to CNET,

WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.

While the corporate press continues misrepresenting information, quoting unnamed and thus unverifiable sources, and even printing flagrant fabrications, WikiLeaks indeed maintains an unparalleled streak of publishing authentic and undoctored data — despite excoriation from the establishment — thus eliminating all bias or unintended insertion of opinion.

“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange elaborated. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.”

But the outspoken publisher’s opinion on so-called fake news emphasizes the disastrous failings of a mainstream media hell bent on propping up its own establishment agenda — regardless of which political affiliation a given outlet claims.

“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story,” noted Assange, “it’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story.”

Further, he said, discussing WikiLeaks’ searchable database, “You’re not reading pre-weaponised knowledge. When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you.”

Assange’s description of weaponized text characterizes the corporate press’ penchant for propaganda — a political establishment-friendly slant that has once-illustrious media institutions like the Washington Post and New York Times frivolously abandoning journalistic integrity whenever it’s deemed necessary.

In fact, after the Post published a slew of articles without any basis in fact, The Free Thought Project noted in January,

This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.

That assessment has proven true, as what appears to be recklessness in corporate journalism generally gains editorial approval if the article appeals to emotion and will manipulate readers into a specific thought pattern — like both anti-Russia and anti-Iran reports so frequently topping mainstream headlines.

Of course, no coincidence exists in the corporate press’ continued stark criticism of WikiLeaks as a politically-motivated organization — an allegation oft-repeated during the last presidential election cycle.

Such accusations only act to divert attention to the corrupt ugliness displayed by politicians and insiders who never imagined their words behind curtains would be unveiled to public scrutiny.

Outlets loyal to the Democratic establishment thus accused WikiLeaks and its founder of publishing damning documents from the DNC, John Podesta, and candidate Hillary Clinton as part of a political vendetta — particularly due to the lack of documents the outlet received on rival Donald Trump.

We had lots of critics in the Democratic Party, liars in the Democratic Party … saying that what we published was not accurate — trying to imitate it, sometimes saying it directly. And of course, we could mathematically prove that they were liars. And it’s not every day that you can mathematically prove that your critics are full of it.

Assange has emphatically repeated that WikiLeaks cannot publish what it doesn’t have in its possession — and no whistleblower or leaker has yet come forward with a cache of information on Trump or the RNC.

Beyond content, WikiLeaks came under fire for the timing of document dumps during election season — a matter of such concern to the former Obama administration, U.S. officials attempted to dam the flood of documents by persuading the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which Assange has called home since 2011, to cut his connection to the Internet.

But timing is everything for the clients who hand over information to WikiLeaks, and striking the greatest blow with truth isn’t something Assange avoids. As he told Licciardello on the decision of when to publish the Podesta Files,

We try and maximize the value of the information to readers. So that’s publishing it at the moment when they most want to read it, when they most want to know what it contains. And that’s definitely before an election rather than after election.

“Sources don’t give you stuff unless it’s going to have impact,” he explained.

WikiLeaks, unlike a traditional media outlet, publishes and catalogs data for anyone to search — and doesn’t remove documents after maximum impact has been achieved:

The real value in WikiLeaks is it is a wonderful library that you can trust … But the library has to be marketed. And so the scandal-generation business, which we’re also in — I view that as a kind of marketing effort for what is much more substantial, which is our archive […]

I think that is the real beauty of WikiLeaks … it is that sea of information, that treasure, that intellectual treasure, that rebel library of Alexandria you can go into.

Critics from both sides of the political duopoly claim WikiLeaks’ policy of printing everything in a leak — without editing content — presents a danger to government officials acting surreptitiously in the field. But Assange disputes this, and has said WikiLeaks carefully vets every document to ensure no lives would be jeopardized before it publishes.

“Nothing that we’ve published has ever hurt anyone, physically,” Assange asserted. “Information very, very rarely, is dangerous. And not compared to what government does.”

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




Professor of Cliodynamics Predicts Imminent Collapse of American Society

By Amando Flavio | We Are Anonymous

The world has increasingly become unpredictable. When Donald Trump announced his intention to run for president of the United States on the ticket of the Republican Party, some people saw him as a comedian. The media gave him no chance of winning the primaries of the Republican Party.

In fact, the day Trump announced his candidature at his Towers, a news outlet in New York City sent an internship reporter to cover the event instead of an experienced one. The outlet thought Trump was unable to make any impact, and therefore saw no need to place prominence on his press conference. Even when Trump won the nomination of his party, the media and pollsters gave him no chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

American society

Fast-forward to 2017 and today Trump is the president of the United States. According to Western observers, Trump is now the most powerful person on Earth. This event indeed proves that the world has become uncertain.

Not only with the Trump example – even before the victory of Trump –  the United Kingdom shockingly voted to leave the European Union. Since the election of Trump, the European Union has also witnessed a surge in right-wing politics – something almost unheard of.

A professor at the University of Connecticut, United States, is raising the red flag by aggregating these recent events over this short period of time. Professor Peter Turchin studies ecology and mathematics, and is known for developing the academic discipline, Cliodynamics. Cliodynamics is a transdisciplinary area of research in academia that deals with the intersection of historical macro-sociology, economic history and mathematical modeling of long-term social processes. The objective of the discipline is to understand why things change with time.

American society

Turchin has written about the subject for some time, but three years ago he started work on predicting the future. According to Professor Turchin, the United States society is likely to collapse soon, predicting it to occur in the 2020s. Turchin says a series of instabilities would rock the United States, and claims would come as a result of political turmoil, which would shake the American society to its core. “We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s,” Turchin predicts.

Professor Turchin believes negative trends seem to be accelerating, and that in three years, the path to instability will seem unavoidable for the United States. However, he clarifies that Trump’s presidential election neither accelerates nor decelerates the process, but was simply a predicted aspect of his theory.

According to Turchin, at the center of his new theory is “elite overproduction.” He defines elite overproduction as the rich growing richer while relating less and less to the poor. He explains that elite overproduction would result in ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class.

American society

Professor Turchin uses the 2016 presidential election as a classical example, explaining that the Republican Party has shattered into different factions, consisting of Traditional Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, and Trump Populists. According to him, the same applies to the Democratic Party, with the divide between Democratic Socialists and Establishment Democrats.

Apart from this, another factor possibly playing a role in the instability is the fast-weakening fiscal health of the American nation because of personal incomes falling while living expenses rise. This has resulted in stagnation, or even deterioration of the quality of life among the middle and the lower classes in the country.

Turchin says Trump’s election campaign message of reducing taxes would not save the situation. “Drastically reducing taxes on wealthy Americans will hardly strengthen the fiscal health of the state,” he writes.

American society

Professor Turchin states that his work is purely based on prediction. “This is a science-based forecast, not a ‘prophecy’,” Professor Turchin explains.

He concludes by offering suggestions to avert the impending doom. Turchin proposes an open discussion of problems and potential solutions. He also cites the need for better science, saying that a nonpolitical, nonpartisan institute should be set up to address these issues from a scientific standpoint. These, if implemented, Turchin believes, could mitigate the impending doom.


This article (Professor of Cliodynamics Predicts Imminent Collapse of American Society) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.

Read more great articles at We Are Anonymous.

Save




Assange Appears on FOX News and Destroys the Russia Hack Conspiracy Theory [Watch]

Credit: Fox News

By Claire Bernish | True Activist

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange came forward after a long period of silence for a video interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity — in particular, to decimate claims leaked emails from the Democratic establishment had been hacked and provided by Russian government actors.

“The narrative has begun that, in fact, the U.S. government is accusing Wikileaks of having received materials from Russia and Russia’s cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the election. And obviously they’re talking, not just about the John Podesta emails, the DNC emails, but in other ways. I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you again today — did Russia give you this information, or anybody associated with Russia?”  Hannity asked.

“Our source is not a State party,” Assange told Hannity, once again confirming assertions he and Wikileaks have made on previous occasions. “So, the answer for our interactions is ‘no.’”

Continuing, he explained the political establishment has attempted to distract from the revelations in the leaked documents — which exposed the true words of Clinton and others in her campaign,

“And the American public read that information, true information, and said, ‘We don’t like these people.’ And then voted accordingly.”

Rather than acknowledge the breadth of corruption and behind-the-curtains nastiness on display in the documents, the establishment has attempted to conflate Wikileaks with Russians hacking the election — an accusation Assange explained amounted to bait-and-switch, as,

Related Article: U.S., MSM Claims Of Russian Hacking Lack One Important Ingredient … Evidence

“Even Obama has had to admit that there was no hacking of U.S. voting machines.”

“But … the main focus for most Americans is that, they are being told by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, by the President of the United States, there are the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et cetera, that in fact,” Hannity asked, “that Wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election. Is that true in any way, shape, matter, or form?”

“No, it is absolutely false,” Assange replied, “and, if you read their statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually say that. They kind of mention one fact here, and one fact there, and nothing else.

“In the most up-to-date information, the twenty-ninth of December, where the FBI, DHS, White House, et cetera, made a statement, what is completely absent — from all those statements — is Wikileaks. Totally absent. So, what’s going on?

“I believe two things are going on. Number one, they don’t have the evidence that Wikileaks is involved in that way. Now, why am I confident about that? Because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications. And that’s me.”

Asked whether he could state “unequivocally” the information published by Wikileaks did not come from any person associated in any way with the Russian government, Assange stated,

“We can say, and we have said repeatedly over the last few months, our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a State party.”

Again refusing to comment on the clarifying details concerning the source of documents leaked to the publishing organization, Assange emphasized that — although he could not confirm or deny reports from close friend and former British intelligence agent, Craig Murray the leaker came from within the Democratic establishment — “our sources are not a State party.”

Hannity then directly requested clarification for several accusations bandied about by the United States political establishment, asking if Assange had ever conversed with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which he replied flatly, “No.”

“Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?” the host continued.

“No.”

“Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?” Hannity asked, addressing suspicions Wikileaks had acted on behalf of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.

“No.”

“Any of his surrogates?”

“No.”

“Not one?” Hannity prodded.

“No,” Assange firmly responded.

“There was some report you might have talked to someone who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone?”

“No. That’s false.”

Claiming The Russians hacked anything has been largely a creation of the corporate press and politicians, and, as he explains, Obama is “acting like a lawyer,” and “If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, or worked with Russia.”

Addressing one of the most frequently touted ideas that leaked documents influenced the election in order to sway the election for Donald Trump, Assange noted it would be impossible to tell for sure, but,

“If it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — their true statements is what changed the election.”

Discussing millions of documents hacked by the Chinese, about which the aforementioned parties and the Obama administration have selectively chosen not to focus, Hannity asked whether Assange felt the move was intended to “delegitimize Donald Trump — what’s your interpretation of that?”

Assange explained,

“It is exactly what it is designed to do … If you look at what the allegations are, they don’t mention Wikileaks, for the 29th, they don’t mention our publications. Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious: they’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try — they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate” president.

The Wikileaks head went on to explain the Democratic Party continues to attempt “short term wins” in such criticisms, while ignoring the factual substance of leaked documents — and the American people “want as much true information as possible.”

Wikileaks has been vilified for not releasing documents pertaining to Trump or his campaign — but, as Assange has repeatedly contended, no such documents were provided to the publisher.

“If the information you had was about Donald Trump and his campaign,” Hannity asked, “would you have equally released that?”

“Yes,” Assange responded without hesitation. “Absolutely.”

Murray, Assange’s associate — and former intelligence officials entirely unassociated with Wikileaks — have suggested the documents were leaked by a disgruntled party inside the Democratic establishment. On that topic, after Assange noted the perfect record Wikileaks has maintained in regard to authenticity of documents and refusal to expose the identity of sources, Hannity asked, since the leaker was not Russian,

“Can I ask … take it one step further. Can you say that the source was within the United States?”

After a frustrated pause, Assange replied, “I don’t want to constrain whether it was someone inside the United States, in the DNC, in the service providers that provide for the DNC, or outside, et cetera. I think that we have already pushed it quite a lot … more than we would like, by saying it was not a State party.”

But speaking out with that qualification had been a necessity as “there was a serious attempt to distract from the content of our publications with this Russian narrative.”

On the joint report from DHS and the FBI, Assange noted the tools provided as loose evidence of Russian hacking are commercially available — to anyone — and nothing laid out by the agencies evinced solid proof.

Additionally, Podesta’s careless choice of “password” for his password, and his staff’s erroneous assertion the infamous phishing email he received was legitimate, Assange said,

“This is something a fourteen-year-old kid — a fourteen-year-old kid — could have hacked Podesta that way.”

On the topic of corporate media’s lack of coverage of the content of the leaked documents — and exposed collusion with the Clinton campaign — Assange described the American mainstream press as “ethically corrupt.”

Despite allegations Assange and his organization had been somehow motivated to influence the election in favor of Trump, he noted,

“My motivation, for twenty years — ten years with Wikileaks — is to publish true information that is otherwise unassailable.”

Emphasizing he has no party political agenda, he added,

“We believe that the best type of government comes from a government that is scrutinized by the people, when they have true information about how governments and major corporations, other power actors in society, are behaving.”

Assange has been confined for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of extradition to the United States — effectively making him a political prisoner. But vociferous anti-Russia rhetoric and allegations Russian hackers provided documents to Wikileaks forced Assange to come forward — first in an interview on Hannity’s radio program, and then this face-to-face interview — to call out the claims as hollow and baseless.

Related Article: The 20 Most Damning Revelations From Wikileaks

Although mainstream media has parroted these allegations against Russia, perhaps hearing Assange’s words in this rare appearance will help quiet the new Red Scare propaganda — and bring logic and common sense back to the table.

Watch the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUlj4U4kCBI

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


This article (Assange Appears on FOX News and Destroys the Russia Hack Conspiracy Theory [Watch]) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Read more great articles at True Activist.




CIA “Secret” Assessment That Russia Hacked the Election Discredited By Top US Spy Agency, FBI and CIA Itself

Credit – the New Observer

By Whitney Webb | True Activist

Last Friday, a Washington Post article entitled “Secret CIA Assessment Says Russia was Trying to Help Trump Win White House” cited a “secret” CIA report which allegedly found evidence that Russia interfered in the US election on behalf of President-Elect Donald Trump. However, numerous other agencies in the US intelligence community, including multiple sources within the CIA, have discredited the “secret assessment” in recent days. This past Friday, a senior FBI counterintelligence official met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and told them that the agency did not agree with the CIA’s assertion, calling them “fuzzy” and “ambiguous”, as no concrete proof of the allegations exists. The Washington Post later admitted this, saying that the difference of opinion between their “secret” CIA sources and the FBI is that the FBI “wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something” while the CIA is “more comfortable drawing inferences,” or, in other words, passing off assumptions as facts.

On Monday, Reuters reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) refused to endorse the CIA “secret” assessment “because of a lack of conclusive evidence” proving Moscow’s intent to elevate Trump’s chances in the November election. A senior US official also told Reuters that the CIA’s assessment was based on the conclusion that “judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked.” However, no evidence has even been released proving that Russian entities hacked Democrat and Republican networks as recent events have indicatedthat the election leaks were likely the work of Democratic Party or Intelligence community insiders.

Furthermore, multiple sources from within the CIA have disputed their own agency’s assessment of the situation. CIA analysts told True Pundit that the report was “an outright lie. There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.” Some of the CIA insiders argued that out-going CIA director John Brennan and his inner circle, “could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence […] without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss” and the neo-liberal establishment.

However, the comments of these dissenting voices in the US intelligence community has done little to stop the Obama White House from treating the claims in the Washington Post article as fact. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest went a step further, arguing that Trump had actively pushed Russia to hack Democrats and Clinton, a grave accusation once again based on assumption – not fact. Earnest argued that because Trump hired a campaign chairman with ties to Russian business and that his national security adviser worked as an adviser to Russia Today (RT), he must have “called on Russia to hack into his opponent. He certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on.” Earnest called these accusations “unanimous obvious facts,” despite no evidence and widespread dissent from the US intelligence community.

This latest revelation regarding the Post’s dubious journalism comes just a week after the paper’s editors admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear alternative media as “fake news” by including numerous well-regarded sites in a libelous “black list.” This latest debacle for the paper, which is owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, would normally be enough to tank its little remaining credibility. However, the anti-Russia/anti-Trump narrative it is pushing directly appeals to many of those who voted for Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton as well as the neo-liberal establishment at large, ensuring that many wishful thinkers will continue to read the Washington Post no matter what drivel they decide to publish next.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


This article (WaPo Does It Again: CIA “Secret” Assessment Discredited By Top US Spy Agency, FBI And CIA Itself) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

Read more great articles at True Activist.




Bernard Kerik: What’s More Dangerous — DNC Hack or Criminality It Exposed?

By Bernard Kerik | Newsmax

Editor’s Note: Every parent knows how a effective a tool redirection can be with a child. When a child is going toward danger, throwing a tantrum, or in a real funk, etc., it can be critical to maintain a child in a state of safety and equilibrium. In politics, redirection is often used to treat adult citizens like children to deflect their attention away from a politician’s bad conduct. In the 2016 Election Season debates, it seemed quite evident that James Comey and Russia became the bogeymen with which Hillary Clinton redirected everyone away from an unprecedented exposure of deep corruption in the Democratic Party. This article asks a great question – should we allow ourselves to obsess over who made the leak or should we be put that same time into bringing those engaged in criminal conduct to justice, even if that means potentially further tearing down the reputation of, for some, a much-loved icon – Hillary Clinton?

First, it was the FBI and Director James Comey that were responsible for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign.

Then, there was Green Party candidate Jill Stein claiming voter fraud and voter hacking, which turned out to be a farce.

Now, according to a few members of Congress, the CIA has assessed through “circumstantial evidence” that Russia was responsible for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s emails and providing those emails to WikiLeaks, which released them to the public.

The claim is that Russia did so in an attempt to influence the election. After 24 hours of this latest rambling, we’re now learning that the FBI doesn’t necessarily agree with the CIA, and worse, that the top overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment.

 The first question that comes to mind is exactly what circumstantial evidence is there that led the CIA to believe not only that Russia hacked into the DNC email system, but that it did so with the clear intent to influence the election? That would mean they would have had some idea as to what would be in those emails.

Did Russia know the emails would expose clear-cut criminality by Secretary Clinton and her family, and her former staff as it relates to using her office to solicit tens of millions of dollars from foreign heads of state, for her family’s foundation?

There was also clear evidence, that Clinton’s campaign staff colluded with CNN journalists prior to her debate with Donald Trump in order to assist her in the debate and the election.

Lastly, did they also know that Clinton’s campaign staff and the DNC colluded to undermine and destroy the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders?

Clinton’s staff and members of the DNC were well aware of the fact that Sanders was soliciting millions of dollars for his presidential campaign, knowing that while doing so, they were all covertly conspiring to do everything in their power to undermine his campaign and guarantee his failure.

In the federal legal circles, I’m pretty sure that’s called honest services fraud, but I haven’t heard anyone mention that.

So someone, perhaps the Russians, Chinese, or some moron sitting in a Starbucks, allegedly hacked into the DNC’s emails, which exposed all of this criminal conduct that our illustrious members of Congress just ignored and made believe never happened, but they’re all about figuring out the identity of the mysterious hacker.

 Who were the senators in the intelligence committee that were briefed and then publicly spewed the contents of that briefing to the general public? What exactly was their purpose — political perhaps?

To interfere with this election, I’m sure, especially given that Nancy Pelosi’s daughter has called for a full intelligence briefing prior to the Dec. 19 Electoral College vote.

Interesting.

As it stands right now, no one knows for sure who hacked into the DNC, or who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. No one knows for sure if it was Russia, or what its true intent was if Russia was the culprit.

However, if during this next briefing, the FBI, CIA, or any other three-letter federal agency authenticates and validates the emails that were leaked by WikiLeaks that exposed all of this criminal conduct, I’m curious if these same members of Congress will do their job and refer the matter to the FBI for criminal investigation.

[Read more here]

 




Here’s What the Mainstream Media Is Ignoring While Blaming Russia for Hillary Losing

By Darius Shahtahmasebi | The Anti-Media

(ANTIMEDIA) According to a “secret CIA assessment,” Russia intervened in the U.S. election to undermine confidence in the electoral system and boost support for Donald Trump. The president-elect has already rejected this notion, though the implications of claims regarding Russian involvement are still unclear.

Once again, this kind of pro-Clinton/anti-Russian-based narrative has already been completely debunked. For example, in his recent article, “Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence,” Glenn Greenwald brilliantly explains why this story does not merit our attention. He astutely notes:

“There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence — still — can be publicly seen, reviewed, or discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed.”

Until such evidence is produced, rather than wasting time speculating on the extent of Russia’s involvement in the U.S. elections, we could instead turn to the real issue at play here.

The CIA, an entity that has interfered in sovereign governments across the geopolitical chessboard for decades, has accused another country of doing exactly what the agency does best without offering any physical evidence for their claims.

Let’s say Russia did intervene in the U.S. elections; it would be the most fitting example of “chickens coming home to roost.”

No entity should ever interfere in any sovereign elections, but clearly, if one is going to accuse others of doing so and cry wolf when they feel aggrieved, perhaps they should take a step back to reconsider what they have done to the rest of the world countless times. As even the Washington Post — an establishment mouthpiece — points out, the United States has a long history of interfering in other countries’ elections.

According to Foreign Policy, the U.S. has gone beyond interfering with elections — it has overthrown seven governments since World War II.

The most strikingly obvious example, which the CIA has admitted to, was when the U.S. and U.K. instigated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, over oil.

As the Guardian has explained:

“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.”

The American puppet the CIA installed, Shah Reza Pahlavi, was an appalling dictator with a poor human rights record whose reign incited the country’s 1979 revolution.

The other countries on Foreign Policy’s list include Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973).

However, as Anti-War has noted, Foreign Policy’s list of countries constitutes a “significant undercount”:

“J. Dana Stuster, who posted this map, does specify that these are covert CIA-supported coups only and mentions it doesn’t include ‘a number of U.S. military interventions against hostile regimes and U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts, including a plan to kill Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar….’”

“But if you go by Stephen Kinzer’s book Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, this map leaves out quite a bit of history. In addition to Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Dominican Republic, South Vietnam, Brazil, and Chile, the U.S. also had a hand overthrowing the governments of Hawaii in 1893, Cuba in 1898, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.”

According to the New York Times, the CIA also supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in Iraq because they viewed his competitor, Abdel Karim Kassem, to be a “grave threat.” We all know how this story ended.

Recent events across the Middle East and Europe have been no different. The U.S. State Department was caught red-handed helping neo-Nazis in Ukraine topple the democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to install an American puppet. The president who took office following Yanukovych’s abdication was Petro Poroshenko, a former mole for the U.S. State Department. The U.S. referred to him previously as “our Ukrainian insider.”

And then there’s Syria.

In an article originally written for Alternet, Salon published a list of 35 countries where the U.S. has supported “fascists, drug lords and terrorists.” American allies France, Greece, Israel, and Turkey, to name a few, all make the list.

An often overlooked part of history is that the terror network al-Qaeda is a CIA construct. As Anti-Media previously reported:

“As such, through a CIA program called Operation Cyclone, United States taxpayers sent about $20 to $30 million per year to the mujahideen in 1980, a figure that had risen to $630 million per year by 1987 under President Reagan. Due to his key role as the main pro-mujahideen force in Congress, Wilson worked closely with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a leader of the rebel group who later worked closely with Osama bin Laden through the Hezb-e Islami militant group, which was formed at the time to fight Soviet forces with the help of the U.S. government’s aid.

“Osama bin Laden, the son of a billionaire construction magnate connected to the Saudi royal family, also funneled money from his own family’s business to support the anti-Soviet cause in Afghanistan.

“As bin Laden went on to create al-Qaeda in 1988 after receiving training from the U.S.-backed Pakistani Armed Forces and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the United States provided the group with money and weapons. As Osama bin Laden went on to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks, becoming one of the biggest targets of the Barack Obama administration, the ‘Butcher of Kabul as Hekmatyar is known, was officially pardoned by the Afghan government — an entity currently supported by the U.S. government.”

Apparently, America reserves the right to topple governments and help establish regimes they support all across the globe. If Russia really is able to interfere with America’s so-called democracy, then perhaps the CIA is experiencing firsthand what they have been doing to countless governments for decades — and perhaps America’s seemingly omnipotent power is waning if it can be undermined by a foreign power.

As it stands, however, the only evidence we have of anyone interfering with any election or government implicates the U.S. — not Russia.

But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.


This article (Here’s What The Media Is Ignoring While Blaming Russia For Hillary Losing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi andtheAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article toedits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at The Anti-Media.




WikiLeaks Cables Link U.S. Government To The Creation Of ISIS

isis-rebels-compressed

By Alexis Henning | True Activist

This week, WikiLeaks released over 500,000 diplomatic cables as an addition to the Carter Cables that were first released in 2014. In these new cables, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange states there is definitive proof that the United States CIA is “essentially responsible for creating ISIS”.

Related Article: ISIS: The ‘Enemy’ the US Created, Armed, and Funded

Assange says the new cables reveal that the events in 1979 began a series of events that were ultimately responsible for the evolution of ISIS.

“If any year could be said to be the “year zero” of our modern era, 1979 is it”, Assange stated in a press release on Monday.

Essentially, the CIA and the Saudi Arabian government put billions of dollars into creating a Mujahideen militant group that would fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan – continuing the US and the Soviet Union’s constant proxy wars. This group ended up becoming known as ISIS.

“In the Middle East, the Iranian revolution, the Saudi Islamic uprising and the Egypt-Israel Camp David Accords led not only to the present regional power dynamic, but decisively changed the relationship between oil, militant Islam, and the world.  

The uprising at Mecca permanently shifted Saudi Arabia towards Wahhabism, leading to the transnational spread of Islamic fundamentalism and the US-Saudi destabilization of Afghanistan,” said Assange.

The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR would see Saudi Arabia and the CIA push billions of dollars to Mujahideen fighters as part of Operation Cyclone, fomenting the rise of Al-Qaeda and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.

The 1979 current of Islamification spread to Pakistan where the US Embassy was burned to the ground and Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was executed.  The Iranian hostage crisis would go on to fatally undermine Jimmy Carter’s presidency and see the election of Ronald Reagan.

“The rise of Al-Qaeda eventually bore the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, enabling the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and over a decade of war, leaving, at its end, the ideological, financial and geographic basis for ISIS,” said Assange.

Saudi Arabia Funding Of Clinton Campaign

In an interview with Dartmouth Films and RT, Assange also mentions Hilary Clinton’s involvement. Assange states that while it has been noted that Saudi Arabian and Qatari funds are “all over the place, including too many media institutions”, and that “even the US government has mentioned or agreed with that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS”, he believes this is a dodge to the real depth and intention to which the Saudi government supports ISIS. He believes these cables show that the same governments that fund Hillary Clinton’s campaign are simultaneously propping up ISIS and other radical groups in the region.

However, as can be seen by leaked e-mails between Hillary Clinton and her Campaign Manager John Podesta, Clinton’s military strategy is to defeat ISIS/ISIL by utilizing local allies. According to the emails, Podesta confirms that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing “clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL”

Related Article: Israel, Zionist Ambition, ISIS and US Affiliated Connections – Part One

In a 9-point plan to Hillary Clinton, Podesta states that

in Iraq it is important that we engage ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive, hard fighting troops, who have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Force operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S. personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a real defeat on ISIL.”

Podesta also states that ISIS needs to be pushed back to a “tangible defeat” so local fighters in the region do not think it is an “American defeat”. Neither John Podesta or Hillary Clinton have confirmed the validity of the leaked emails.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


This article (WikiLeaks Cables Link U.S. Government To The Creation Of ISIL) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

Read more great articles at True Activist.




Leaked Files Show U.S. Armed and Trained Both Sides of War in Yemen

yemen-files-compressed

By Alice Salles | The Anti-Media

(ANTIMEDIA) Promptly after the release of more than 500 documents from the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, WikiLeaks explained why this particular leak matters.

The war in Yemen has produced 3.15 million internally displaced persons,” a statement said. “Although the United States government has provided most of the bombs and is deeply involved in the conduct of the war itself,” the organization argues, western news organizations are failing to do their job by seldom informing the public of America’s involvement.

The documents were produced and exchanged during Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State, as well as during the first two years of John Kerry’s tenure, ending just as the Yemen war broke out.

Because Yemen controls an area of the Middle East “through which 11 percent of the world’s petroleum passes each day,” WikiLeaks reported in the Yemen files opening page, Saudi Arabia’s interest in the country revolves around the Arabian Sea.

With both Iran and the United States having signed a nuclear deal — a development that did not please the Saudis — Iran’s return to the global oil markets could soon become a reality. Many argue that because of Iran’s close ties to neighboring countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia has reason to fear Iran’s presence as a competitor.

With the world’s second largest oil reserve, the Saudi kingdom remains a strong oil provider globally. Nevertheless, its influence in the global oil markets is beginning to wane as countries, like Russia, up their game.

With Iran entering the picture, the presence of Yemen’s Houthi rebels, a Shia-led, allegedly Iranian-backed military militia, was used as a justification for Saudi involvement. With the opportunity to ensure a Saudi-supported government ruled over Yemen by ousting Shia influence from the region, the Saudis could have greater access to the Arabian Sea, where “another 20% of the world’s petroleum passes from the Strait of Hormuz.” Otherwise, WikiLeaks continued, Iran could end up impeding “[Saudi Arabia’s] other oil shipment path along the Red Sea.”

While the partnership between Saudi Arabia and the United States in Yemen has been well-documented, direct U.S. efforts in Yemen are often neglected.

In one of the documents leaked by WikiLeaks, U.S. Colonel Randolph Rosin told Major General Ahmed Ali al-Ashwal, the General Chief of Staff for the Yemeni Armed Forces from April 2006 to December 2014, that he looked “forward to building strong, fruitful, and mutually beneficial relations between our armed forces.” The letter was written in February 2014. But long before that, in 2010, diplomatic cables also

But long before that, in 2010, diplomatic cables also released by WikiLeaks showed president of Yemen between 1990 and 2012 Ali Abdullah Saleh, “secretly [offering] US forces unrestricted access to his territory to conduct unilateral strikes against” al-Qaeda-aligned “terrorist targets,” demonstrating the close relationship between Saleh and the U.S. government.

Later, Selah was also accused of being responsible for helping arm Houthi rebels.

Additionally, a United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) document from November 2012 outlining the course of action of the Yemeni weapons and training plan (1206 and 1207 programs) — a section tucked inan “Emergency Food Aid and Assess Security Assistance” program — shows the agency weighed the pros and cons of releasing weaponry early or after the scheduled date, often raising concerns associated with measures that would require further contact with Congress. The military material listed in this document includes armored Humvees, machine guns, handguns, grenades, and ammunition, among other items.

While the document came after Saleh resigned, loyal Saleh tribesmen and government forces were, at the time, known to be part of the Houthi uprising.

The leaks also offer a glimpse into the losses of military material provided to Yemen by the United States, with reports of stolen or lost items including GPS locators, batteries, and other related equipment. A July 2013 report from the Department of Defense (DOD)’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) outlines U.S. involvement, providing a list of training and arming efforts that began in 2008 and went through 2013, two years before the Yemeni civil war started.

Further, in a 2015 article, Middle East Eye explained the Houthis hadn’t been armed by Iran. Instead, the rebel group “acquired a vast pool of arms from Yemen’s black market.”

With an estimated 40 to 60 million weapons circulating in Yemen, a United Nations Experts’ report estimated, the Houthis “were also getting a continuing stream of modern arms directly from corrupt Yemeni military commanders from 2004 through 2010.”

During the same period, Porter continued, “the Houthis acquired a new bonanza of weapons that had been provided by the United States over the previous eight years,” a program that was later exposed by Joseph Trevithick via a Freedom of Information Act request.

According to the Pentagon documents acquired by Trevinithick, Porter added, the “Defense Department had delivered about $500 million in military hardware to the Yemeni military from 2006 on,” including “Russian-made helicopters, more than 100 Humvees with the latest armor packages, 100s of pickup trucks, rocket-propelled grenades, advanced radios, night vision goggles and millions of rounds of ammunition.”

In other words, whether the Barack Obama administration is aware of it or not, the same weaponry and training provided to the Yemeni government through the years appear to have fallen into the hands of militants whose main enemy is a close U.S. ally — Saudi Arabia.

If the Yemen files released by WikiLeaks prove anything, it is that, once again, American intervention in the Middle East has, at best, been carried out on behalf of its “allies.” At worst, it has been carried out by corrupt U.S. officials with financial ties to the Saudi Kingdom.


This article (Leaked Files Show U.S. Armed And Trained Both Sides of War in Yemen) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Sallesand theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at The Anti-Media.




Journalists Denounce WaPo Fake News Blacklist as Red Scare Redux

Last week, the Washington Post published a feature story citing anonymous PropOrNot and other supposed "experts" who allege that "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery" was behind the rise of "fake news." (Photo: Victoria Pickering/cc/flickr)

Last week, the Washington Post published a feature story citing anonymous PropOrNot and other supposed “experts” who allege that “Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery” was behind the rise of “fake news.” (Photo: Victoria Pickering/cc/flickr)

By Lauren McCauley | Common Dreams

The Washington Post‘s promotion of a new, “McCarthyistic” so-called black list has journalists aghast over what appears to be a red scare redux, as independent news outlets critical of U.S. foreign policy are being smeared as “Russian propaganda.”

“Now that we have entered a New Cold War, I suppose it makes sense that we should expect a New McCarthyism,” writes Robert Parry, investigative journalist and editor of Consortium News, which was one of the websites flagged by the anonymous organization PropOrNot as a “Russian propaganda outlet.”

Last week, the Washington Post published a feature story citing PropOrNot and other supposed “experts” who allege that “Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery” was behind the rise of “fake news,” which they say spread false information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, fueling the rise of Donald Trump.

The fake news was disseminated and amplified by an “online echo chamber,” WaPo‘s Craig Timberg reported, which included players who “were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign…while others were ‘useful idiots’— a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts.”

PropOrNot claims that stories planted or promoted by this campaign were viewed on Facebook more than 213 million times.

But the outlets being singled out by the group, and thus smeared by the Post, run the gamut politically, with the only seeming connection being that they “do not uncritically echo a pro-NATO perspective,” as journalists Ben Norton and Glenn Greenwald point out.

In a searing take-down published at The Intercept on Saturday, Norton and Greenwald accuse PropOrNot of committing “outright defamation” for “slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.”

While some, namely Sputnik News and Russia Today, are funded by the Russian government, those sites are listed alongside a host of others who do not warrant this categorization. They write:

Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.

Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks. Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces. Basically, everyone who isn’t comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty.

Norton and Greenwald also lambast the Washington Post for its “shoddy, slothful” reporting. Among the piece’s shortcomings, they note, is that Timberg failed to include a link to PropOrNot’s website.

“If readers had the opportunity to visit the site,” they write, “it would have become instantly apparent that this group of ostensible experts far more resembles amateur peddlers of primitive, shallow propagandistic clichés than serious, substantive analysis and expertise; that it has a blatant, demonstrable bias in promoting NATO’s narrative about the world; and that it is engaging in extremely dubious McCarthyite tactics about a wide range of critics and dissenters.”

What’s more, The Intercept notes, the problematic exposé “was one of the most widely circulated political news articles on social media” following its publication, which has far-ranging consequences.

Fortune columnist Mathew Ingram similarly lamented the dangers of lumping “anyone who shared a salacious but untrue news story about Hillary Clinton as an agent of an orchestrated Russian intelligence campaign.”

“Has the rise of fake news played into the hands of those who want to spread disinformation? Sure it has,” Ingram wrote. “But connecting hundreds of Twitter accounts into a dark web of Russian-controlled agents, along with any website that sits on some poorly thought-out blacklist, seems like the beginnings of a conspiracy theory, rather than a scientific analysis of the problem.”

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




Anonymous Just Sent Another Important Message to Donald Trump

Joe Martino | Collective Evolution

‘Divide.’ That seems to be the keyword around collective consciousness as we steer our attention away from the 2016 election campaign and on to what will happen next.

Media and elite push to divide the masses by trying to convince us to focus on who is to blame for this election. Gender, age, socioeconomic status, left, right, alt-right, and even nationality. But it’s all a massive distraction.

We exist in an important time in humanity’s history where if we realize the WE that we truly are, we can shift ourselves enough to move out from under the tyranny of a global elite that has existed for decades.

So I urge you, see through the battles the media is trying to create, see each other as fellow souls, humans on this journey and focus on what we can do to create a better future vs fighting.

There is a momentum building amongst the people that is becoming unstoppable. While many are scared, I feel optimistic. I feel that we are on a path that will not end in anything but a positive outcome for us all. There may be some chaotic times, but I feel it’s what we may need to fully wake us up from our slumber.

[Read more here]




Here’s Why “Fake News” Sites are Dangerous

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News

Newscasters-35277574_m-680x380

Here is your daily mantra: “narrow the range of thought, narrow the range of thought.”

Exposing elites who run the world?

Exposing pedophile networks?

Documenting the lies and fabrications of major media?

Laying bare the manipulations of Globalists?

Revealing the crimes of both major political parties in America?

Uncovering the spread of pharmaceutical devastation?

Tracking the ruthless ops of major corporations?

Yes, many so-called “fake news” sites do all this and much more—but something else is also going on.

Many of these sites were launched and are spearheaded by ONE man or woman.

No person outside the mainstream is supposed to be so emboldened by his/her own point of view and passion.

“All points of view belong to a group.”

We’re not supposed to believe these “fake news” INDIVIDUALS created their news operations on their own. We’re not supposed to believe each individual had a vision of what the news is supposed to be and followed that vision forward with great energy.

An individual works for what he believes is true? He keeps his own counsel? He forges ahead, despite all opposition? He may even, when all is said and done, make a profit from his own labors? We’re supposed to oppose these “evils,” and by the grace of governments and their shadow operators, we will emerge from the darkness and find our salvation in a New Order of things.

***And never—if you happen to disagree with what some independent news site is saying—NEVER entertain the idea of starting YOUR OWN news operation and building it from the ground up to reflect YOUR OWN vision. NEVER. That is individual power, which is the horrible fate that would await you.

DOING IT ON YOUR OWN?

Avoid it like the plague.

Haven’t you studied your history? This country was originally built on chipping away at people’s individual creations and tearing them down. Right? How else could America have succeeded? It is only by taking away independence in all its forms that we could have arrived at the cusp of this grand triumph now: One Collectivist World.

If we give all our attention to the six corporations that own big media and deliver their news to us, we will arrive.

Hail, Caesar! Your followers salute you!

Let the bands play. March to the tune.

No individual ever built anything, no individual can build anything, no individual ever will build anything.

Search for the media-teat of the State.

Find it.

And drink from it.

Ah.

How rejuvenating.

[Read more here]




Facebook To Provide “Third-Party” News Verification To Fight “Fake News”

fb-reuterss

By Whitney Webb | True Activist

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s “shocking” defeat, the corporate media that ardently supported her has tried to reclaim legitimacy by blaming “fake news” as the source of its clearly self-inflicted problems. “Fake news,” the epidemic that never was, has become the scapegoat for the media outlets that threw their support so blatantly behind one candidate that they lost the trust of over half of the electorate. In many cases, they even published false or misleading content themselves in order to serve their clearly one-sided political agenda.

Some of these media outlets, particularly the New York Times, have now promised to “rededicate” themselves to honest reporting. However, nearly all of the corporate media refuse to blame themselves for their record low approval ratings. Yet, the corporate media isn’t the only group doing the finger-pointing – politicians have gotten involved as well. President Obama recently spoke out against fake news saying that: “[…] in an age where there is so much active misinformation, and it’s packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect, we won’t know what to fight for.” Obama later added that “we’ll figure it out.”

Related Article: Obama Joins the War Against “Fake News”

In response to all the criticism levied against Facebook and Google as unwitting accomplices in the propagation of such “misinformation,” both recently announced plans to halt ad revenue for content deemed as false. Google, for its part, has decided to be the arbiter of what is true and what is false regarding it popular AdSense program. Facebook, however, recently announced that they will teaming up with still unnamed “respected fact checking organizations” as part of a 7-point plan to weed out misinformation in the newsfeeds of its users. Though specifics have yet to be released, Facebook’s previous collaboration with the government of Israel may hold some clues for what Facebook’s latest project could have in store for its users. In September, Facebook and Israel announced that they would begin working together to “rein in” Facebook content that “incites violence” among those who oppose Israel’s policies. Weeks later, the accounts and pages of Palestinian journalists were suspended and taken down despite a lack of violence rhetoric – a clear move at silencing dissent.

Clearly, so-called fake news is not to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss nor is it to blame for the massive decline in trust for the corporate-owned media. The real targets of this “fake news” hysteria, which interestingly was absent during the actual election season, are the alternative media outlets that covered Clinton’s numerous scandals that were largely ignored by her supporters in the mainstream press. In addition, the alternative media covered the unprecedented collusion between corporate journalists and the Clinton campaign that Wikileak’s October and November releases revealed.

Related Article: Corporate Media Declares War On Alternative Media as “Fake News”

“Respected” journalists from CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Guardian, Politico, the Washington Post, the Hill, Vice, Vox, and several others allowed the Clinton campaign to re-write, pre-approve, or redact passages from their articles. This represented a stunning rejection of journalistic ethics from the very same people who now want you to regard their compromised publications as the paragons of truth. As Edward Snowden said earlier this week, it is indeed dangerous to rely on Facebook for news, especially as its proclivity for censorship begins to spiral out of control. Nearly half of Americans rely on their newsfeeds as their primary source of news, though that may soon change as many of them wake up to Facebook’s and the corporate media’s attempts to silence dissenting opinions.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!


This article (Facebook to Provide “Third-Party” News Verification to Fight “Fake News”) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

Read more great articles at True Activist.




Election 2016 and The Great Societal Paradox

By Ozzie Thinker | Ozzie Thinker

donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate-2016-compressed

We “categorise” morality and determine anyone that thinks differently must be insane, evil or a combination of the two. Whether you voted for Clinton or Trump or were Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders supporters or even backed that (anything but) Libertarian Party, you sided with morality brands.

A lot of them carried more or less identical messages, when boiled down. I, personally, don’t agree with fake righteousness or the puerile cosmetic synthesis behind the comparable factions that coexist to form governments.  Therefore, this time I have done more than remove the mask that disguises two faced society. This time I expose horrors in unsuspecting places. Occasional critics label me “Mr Tough Love” and here I guarantee I will not win any friends so I had better give my book a fair plug before I totally lose all of you. “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” is a delightful read, providing you are a genius and, in context with this article, it is surprising topical. In the unlikely event any of you decide to leave your egos at the gate and go on the discovery tour, donation details can be found here. Thank you to those of you that have had the foresight to take the plunge. Maybe my music channel will go some way to making ammends to those I have “offended”. Audio versions of some of my exo-political articles can be found at Trippy’s Magical Video Emporium.

I have a problem with truth

Most people behave subjectively even when trying to be objective, so how can truth be anything more than a tool as it is currently used; as the means to an end? In that context, when truths aren’t arguablybeneficial they are ignored, so truths aren’t truths at all. Thus, people reflecting on real truths deliberately miss the point, because, otherwise, the point would assuredly come back to bite in all sorts of guises.  If that was to happen, consequences, naturally, would be dire. Arguers would not only look stupid but, God forbid, truth would highlight their only sane way out of it; their only way forward would ensure lateral changes or reversals of opinions was the singular congruous option.

Of course, if heeded properly, that grand watershed would assuredly snowball into a domino effect negotiating changes of stance left, right and centre. Though, maybe most importantly, the metamorphosis could not be complete without different routines and different lives. Perhaps I can present this in a different way. People that vote in elections go through the motions. They vote for ideals that never materialise because of their addiction to personal conventions. Where these conventions originated is a whole ‘nother discussion, of course. From the idealistic standpoint, the mere act of solidarity with self transcends the result. The fact that the ideals never materialised, nor could they underscores the paradox between “belief for beliefs’ sake” and manifest reality.

That is why the whole voting mechanism is built on the fundamentals of exclusion. Do you think the “powers” are stupid? They knew the gig was up long before the people had thought they had figured the significance of slavery. Governments monopolise standards and academia to ensure their chosen corporations are mostly given a free commerce reign and only “A trackers” have influence and money for the “training” required for decent jobs, with scant exception.

Some argue the last real politician was John F Kennedy. Now, for certain, there are only “theory touting” plastic candidates with reprepared scripts that confound the right messages the wrong way or make the wrong messages seem bizarrely palatable. All candidates work from identical policy schedules, so choice is reduced to individual personalities, social backgrounds and particular brands of “body odour”. In conjunction with this, vane, intellect wanton reasoning limits all jargon to “any fool can see it” rhetoric or, put more succinctly, this sort of “candour” is only for fools.

Under those conditions, candidates can’t be voted in unless they tell a precession of untruths or outright lies.  Other than those noteworthy “trainee Messiahs”, would be leaders are voted out. The one that was selected was the best of the “no better” bunch and he or she wasn’t voted for. To put it in contextual terms dealing with the here and now of busy today, when people appear to vote in Clinton, they actually vote out Trump.

There is something else associated with this syndrome; something far more menacing. The great societal paradox is people say one thing and do another. Action always ultimately defies principled beliefs. I can’t rely on anything anyone says because the chances are they aren’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In the spirit of hyperbolic populism, I hear endless spineless protests against the dreadful “banksters”, most regularly of the Federal Reserve variety, by people with umbilical connections to just about all of their value added networks. So the reality, the truth (don’t you just hate it?), is everyone, without exception (i.e. including you), lives and breathes by (parasites off) the system you only have profanities for. Now do you see why I don’t take “truthers” seriously? It’s all bullshit. This is the reality. Brace yourselves.  Because no one really trusts the next man (euphemised as the stranger or goyim), banking infrastructures have attained near divine status thanks to your cowardly collateral support.

Principled beliefs may well dictate the banking system is run by social pariahs and money is worthless, yet action assures your parasitic commitment to roguish financiers is unbreakable. Not one person that dropped $100 in the street would see the irony that nothing was lost. You would all retread paths day and night if you felt there was an inkling of a chance of “redeeming the loss”. It is for that reason alone the bankers are able to behave like pariahs with relative impunity. People will always be parasites and those that level criticisms at banking instruments are absolute hypocrites. If you don’t like that wilful accusation, set up systems of your own and prove me wrong. While you use their banking system you have no right to criticise it beyond highlighting contractual obligations in place not being met.

Everyone that isn’t a banking affiliate is unfairly critical of the system

We know why. It is because it is perceived as a generator of costs “out of thin air and to no overall benefit”. How did I put it before?Any fool can see it”. In order to avoid the point (truth), grand commercial conspiracies involving [fake] Levites or blood sucking Federal Reserve vampires balloon into either misdirected propaganda or blatantly untrue talking points. There certainly is a conspiracy, but no one seems the slightest bit interested in coming to terms with it. No weight is given the importance of the gold standard; not “gold”, but the gold standard. Few, if any, seem to realise it collapsed in 1797 from ongoing “bull markets, stocks collapse” cycles infamously highlighted by the 1720 demise (“South Sea Bubble”) of the South Sea Company, having been created by private enterprise in 1711 to consolidate and reduce the cost of national debt.

To the hypocrites, Federal Reserve issuing worthless (i.e. unbacked) paper currency (Papiermark) in Germany 1914 (whilst vigorously touting the importance of the gold standard as the counterweight for “fair trade” at every opportunity) is unknown and presumed irrelevant. You all whine incessantly about the 3% commission charge on printed currency. Banknotes presumably design themselves, print themselves, store themselves and distribute themselves securely by magic at no cost? Will Mr Trump be issued with a wizard’s wand once in office? Given that precedent, it is my opinion that when alternative financial systems spring up, they will be dealt with in exactly the same way.  Remembering George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” (which implied intellectual working classes were nothing short of tyrants in waiting) the various rigged barter mechanisms (Bitcoin included) that have sprung up post “social awakening” have all been put into motion to advantage those that established them. There is no real altruism anywhere.

Reactionary societies instinctively thrive on blame game. Faceless protests are the modern day terms of revolution. Truth has largely been reduced to off the cuff talking points strategically geared mostly to expand cultivated empires of dissent. At the end of the day, even when privateers are viscerally only in it for fame (or perhaps destiny is a better word), everyone knows where there’s fame there’s fortune. Followers that tag onto a movement, taking the joy ride, find populism is easy and the quickest way to ensure redundancy is to buck the system. Thus, every single “truther club” is, consequentially, its own self-censoring dictatorship. Only truths that fit the bill (cultural propaganda) are welcome.

In other words, those valiant truthers’ scales of justice are always skewed in favour of whichever branded arguments suit the flow. Impact is everything, so even mild attacks against their prosthetic virtues are treated as though each was a barbaric assault against supreme order of the most divine blessing. Defences are cordially zealous and spitefully regimented, as to be expected. Insignificance is exaggerated way out of proportion in order to startle but most gaping issues are avoided like the plague. Laughably, even mainstream propaganda will be aggressively championed by our devoted zealots provided it’s a good flavour. Give them a whiff of “child sex” and they’ll be in like jackals on a rancid carcass.

Jon Rappoport spells the problem out in stereo here. As far as truthers are concerned, responsible anger directed at the dozen or so “innocents” killed by police rage grossly outweighs the “non-importance” that thousands beyond thousands die from resulting unrestricted gun controls and lethally armed populations because that would conflict with your 2nd amendment “rights” (i.e. a gun owner has the right to indiscriminately kill you in cold blood, justifications notwithstanding).

Ineffective local inner city management has nothing to do with it by their reasoning. Jon Rappoport and I disagree. We are also well aware of the long prior German and Russian “government” attacks on unarmed citizens. However, if the United States statistics keep progressing on current track, there won’t be anyone left to kill. Okay, that’s an exaggeration.

Now even I’m doing it!

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “The Great Societal Paradox – Action That Defies Principled Beliefs”