Category: Censorship

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    We’re risking a very fast, very radioactive third world war defending the “democracy” of a regime who just banned eleven opposition parties.

     

    Liberals explaining why it’s fine to eliminate opposition parties when they become inconvenient is just liberals telling you who they really are.

    One reason you always hear about the genocidal depravity of Adolf Hitler but not King Leopold II is because Hitler did imperialism to white people. Keep that in mind as you watch the disparity between coverage of Ukraine and coverage of other recent military invasions.

    This is the message desktop Twitter users are receiving at the top right of their screen as of this writing:

    Image

    We talk a lot about Silicon Valley’s role in facilitating US government censorship, but we should probably talk a lot more about its role in facilitating US government propaganda as well. We have two different words for censorship and propaganda, but in reality they’re just different aspects of the same one thing: narrative control. Propaganda is the positive aspect of imperial narrative control (adding communications), censorship the negative (removing communications).

    Whoever controls the world’s dominant narratives controls the world itself. Narrative management constructs like Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the oligarchic “news” media play an even greater role in upholding the US-centralized empire than the US military.

    The US and all its imperial member states are strangling Russia’s economy in response to a war they provoked because Putin threatens US unipolar planetary domination and there are still right wingers whispering “I bet there’s a hidden conspiracy to create a one world government.”

    Yes there’s an agenda to unite the world under a single power structure, but it’s the one leftist anti-imperialists have long warned about. And it’s not hidden at all; it’s evidenced in public information like the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and just by simple naked-eye observations of the movements of military equipment and resources.

    Our world’s problems are systemic. Pretending our problems are due to specific individuals like Klaus Schwab is tempting for people who are ideologically invested in existing systems like capitalism and US supremacy, because then you just need to get rid of those few bad apples. Really though we’re looking at the way our power-serving systems inevitably allow power to consolidate and reinforce itself and gradually work toward bending all humanity to its will. This will continue happening until we change those systems, if we don’t nuke ourselves into oblivion first.

    This is all being driven by one particular power structure’s self-appointed role as global ruler. The US-centralized empire’s foreign policy behavior is essentially a nonstop war on disobedience, continuously working to absorb nations into its blob and destroy those who refuse.

    If you mentally mute the “why” narratives about what’s happening and just look objectively at what’s happening, what you’ll see is a single dominant power structure controlling the majority of the world’s resources, wealth and information and punishing any nations who disobey it. What this tells you is that there’s a power structure doing whatever it has to do to shore up more and more control over the world, and then we’re fed narratives about why that needed to happen (Saddam needs to go because blah blah, NATO needs to expand because blah blah, etc).

    Really underneath the narrative spin it’s just a giant tyrant doing tyrannical things. Heinlein said “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” This applies to empires and their narrative control mechanisms just as much as to individuals.

    People talk about “blaming the US for everything” like it’s some kind of outlandish and paranoid position to say that a unipolarist planetary hegemon probably plays some role in major conflicts of immense geostrategic consequence. They seriously have a hard time believing that the most powerful empire in the history of civilization could be involved in manipulating all major conflicts which directly affect its agenda of global domination.

    They’re like, “Come on. The US empire can’t have a villainous role in EVERY major international conflict.” If that were true there wouldn’t be a US empire. You don’t become a unipolar planetary hegemon by being nice, you do it by forcefully tilting all global happenings toward your benefit.

    You can’t take all of the control and none of the responsibility. It’s like a domineering narcissist who tyrannizes his family having a pity party when someone gets upset at him. “Oh right, it’s ALWAYS Dad’s fault. I’m ALWAYS the bad guy.” I mean, yeah, kinda. Duh.

    If you’re so upset about “westsplaining” then maybe tell the western empire to stop “westspreading”.

    Liberals don’t even really believe it’s legitimate to ban opposition parties during a war. That thought never once occurred to them before today. They just assume it must be the right thing to do because their holy Ukrainian sex god did it.

    Liberals have spent five years defending the right of the powerful to keep secrets and tell lies. Now there’s a war and they get mad if you say the powerful are keeping secrets and telling lies. What’d you all think censorship, glorifying the CIA, persecuting Assange etc was about?

    Liberals were brought up to think of themselves as skeptical, sophisticated progressives who believe in peace, democracy and the freedom of the press, and somehow they wound up arguing against all three of them without any critical thought. What an extraordinary thing to behold.

    If a friend told me that they were going to keep secrets from me and sometimes lie but for my own good, they wouldn’t be my friend for long. I certainly wouldn’t absorb everything they said with nary a hint of skepticism. And yet this is the state of the western liberal today.

    Being a “contrarian” in the face of bat shit insanity is a good thing, actually.

    _____________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • In yet another assault on dissenting political views in Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a ban on the activities of major opposition political parties in the country after alleging that they have links with Russia. He also announced the merger of all TV channels in the country in the name of implementing a “unified information policy”, thus creating a government monopoly over the medium.

    Citing the need to maintain the unity of the country, Zelensky claimed in a statement that “the National Security and Defense Council decided, given the full-scale war unleashed by Russia and the political ties that a number of political structures have with this state, to suspend any activity of a number of political parties for the period of martial law.”

    The post Opposition Political Parties Banned In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The recent occupation of Canada’s capital by the “Freedom Convoy” has highlighted a growing trend of vitriol, harassment and violence facing reporters both off-screen and online. Now, as newsrooms across the country grapple with the need for increased security and safety for journalists, two high school students are working to protect the rights of student journalists.
    The Student Press Freedom Act was created by Vancouver-based high school student journalists, Spencer Izen and Jessica Kim, after experiencing backlash on their coverage from an unexpected source: their school’s administration.

    The post Student Journalists’ Fight Against Censorship Leads To First Protection Bill Of Its Kind appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Patrick Lancaster is an American video-journalist and U.S. Navy veteran fluent in Russian who has reported from the Donbass since 2014. His latest video posted on March 10 shows how people living on the edge of Donetsk, one kilometer from the Ukrainian position in Peski, have been subjected to constant shelling by the Ukrainian military over the last eight years and have had to survive living underground in bomb shelters.

    The post Censored Reports From Donbass Make Clear Ukraine And Not Russia Started The War—Eight Years Ago appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Higher fuel and food prices are a sacrifice I’m prepared to make in exchange for a greatly increased likelihood of nuclear armageddon.

    Let’s be clear: you’re not paying more for necessities to punish Putin and save Ukraine, you’re paying more for necessities to fund an economic war of unprecedented scale geared toward collapsing Russia to help secure US unipolar domination of this planet.

    It’s not “Putin’s price hike”. This was all orchestrated by the empire, from root to flower. The goal is to use economic warfare and a costly counterinsurgency against western-backed Ukrainians to either collapse and balkanize the Russian Federation or foment enough discontent to secure regime change in Moscow. This is because Putin refuses to kiss the imperial ring.

    The western empire could not possibly care less about Ukrainians beyond the extent to which they can be used to roll out this agenda. There hasn’t been nearly enough public rage about the fact that the US government knew this war was coming, knew exactly how to prevent it with very low-cost concessions to Moscow, and chose not to. They made that choice in order to advance this agenda.

    That’s what you’re paying for as the your cost of living skyrockets. Not freedom and democracy. Not saving Ukrainian lives. Just the very mundane and unsexy unipolarist objectives of a few sociopathic empire managers. Empire managers who, of course, will have no trouble paying for things like fuel and groceries while ordinary people struggle.

    And if you think these cold war escalations against Russia are hurting your bank account, wait til the imperial crosshairs move to China.

    One under-appreciated aspect of online censorship is how the fear of losing a valuable platform understandably causes people to self-censor, thereby widening the radius of the censorship campaign’s effectiveness a lot further than the actual censorship.

    It’s exactly the same as the “cooling effect” that the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists has on leaks and investigative journalism. People shying away from speech they could be punished for does a lot more to restrict speech than the punishments themselves.

    If for example a chemical attack occurs in Ukraine and is blamed on Russia, there will be great fear of questioning the official narrative about it on YouTube for fear of losing one’s platform because YouTube has banned skepticism of official stories about violence in that nation. People will self-censor to avoid being punished for their speech.

    This is the exact same principle as a king having an artist who spoke ill of him tortured in the public square in order to deter future acts of dissent. Just re-packaged to be more palatable for the modern world.

    When someone brings up bad things the US does in response to outrage over bad things Russia does, it’s not to defend Russia. It’s to get the US to stop doing bad things.

    Bleating “whataboutism” at sincere attempts to get the US empire to stop doing evil things is just defending those evil things. You’re basically just saying “Shut up! Now’s not the time to talk about the bad things the US power alliance does, we’re on something else right now!” Okay, so when? Never? Nothing has ever been done about the crimes of the empire. No meaningful changes whatsoever were made after Iraq.

    Russia invading Ukraine doesn’t magically erase the fact that the western empire has spent the 21st century slaughtering people by the millions in wars of aggression and working to destroy any nation which disobeys it. Putin would have to work very, very hard to catch up to those numbers. That still needs to be talked about, and it still needs to end.

    People talk about this like it’s something in the past, something the US and its allies did back in history but now it’s Russia doing it. No, this is happening currently in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela etc, and will continue to happen unless drastic changes are made.

    The murderousness, tyranny and omnicidal recklessness of the US-centralized empire is a problem of unequalled urgency regardless of what Russia happens to be doing. You can’t just bleat “whataboutism” and make that go away. It’s a problem that urgently needs to be dealt with.

    It’s an objectively good thing if more attention is brought to that urgent problem by someone saying “Oh you’re upset about this war? Wait til you hear about what your own government has been doing.” Any attempt to interfere in their pointing this out is facilitating mass murder. Either help draw attention to this problem or stop interrupting people who are drawing attention to it with power-serving gibberish about “whataboutism”.

    Western leaders appear to have gone to the NYPD Academy of De-Escalation.

    During the Cuban Missile Crisis everyone had a healthy fear of nuclear annihilation, and people wanted de-escalation above all else. Today hardly anyone even cares about the insane nuclear brinkmanship games being played, and all mainstream factions are calling only for escalation.

    Schrödinger’s Putin: Simultaneously a crazy deranged lunatic and also much too level-headed and rational to respond to western escalations with nuclear weapons.

     

    Love how shitlibs finally decide to become “anti-war” the second their “anti-war” activism has a chance to help manufacture consent for World War 3.

    Four years of demented propaganda about an imaginary Trump-Russia conspiracy, Kremlin Facebook memes and GRU bounties in Afghanistan turned liberals into a bunch of gnashing, frothing zombies starved for Russian flesh. Ukraine just gave them something to sink their teeth into.

    I don’t understand the common sentiment on the left that we need to spend a lot of energy criticizing Putin for this war in the same way we criticize our own rulers for their warmongering. Like even forgetting about all the things western powers did to give rise to the war in Ukraine, what specifically is the argument here? That the English-speaking world doesn’t have enough criticism of the Russian invasion, and has too much criticism of NATO aggression? That if more antiwar lefties scream about Putin he’ll go “Ah shit I pissed off a few fringe westerners, let’s cancel the war you guys”? It just doesn’t seem like those who make such claims have thought very hard about the position they’re trying to advance.

    Our voices can do far more good criticizing the actions of our own governments, which receive barely any criticism, than those of someone else’s government which gets tons. It also can’t be denied that there’s a major propaganda push to manufacture consent for dangerous agendas which pre-date the invasion by many years. Is my voice better used opposing those dangerous agendas, or in helping to facilitate them by saying the same things everyone else is already saying?

    Putin is bad! Putin is bad and his war is very bad!

    There. I did the thing. Can anyone tell me what I just accomplished, apart from greasing the wheels for new cold war escalations? Did I plow any new ground? Expand awareness in any new direction? What specific good did I do?

    None that I can see.

    The fact that the Russian people are doing a better job of holding their government to account with massive antiwar protests than people in western nations have says terrible things about us and our obsequiousness to our warmongering masters. If you can’t criticize your government, you are more obedient than Russians living under Putin.

    Criticizing Putin is the easiest thing in the world for a westerner to do right now. Low cost, maximum clicks, but has zero impact on the conflict and will save zero people. Criticizing the west for its role is hard; it gets you outrage mobbed, deplatformed and shunned. But it could work.

    None of these outrage merchants would ever dream of going against their own government, because if they tried they would find themselves smashed against the invisible walls of our inverted totalitarian cage. On some level they know this. That’s why they project.

     

    ______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Seedy, compromised and creepy, the surveillance machine of Facebook, now operating under the broader fold of its parent company Meta Platforms, is currently giving out the very signals that it was condemned for doing before: encourage discussions on hating a group and certain figures, while spreading the bad word to everyone else to do so.

    The Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin, and Russians in general emerge as the latest contenders, the comic strip villains who those in the broadly designated “West” can now take issue with. According to a Meta spokesperson, the Russian attack on Ukraine had made the company make temporary “allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders.’” Cryptically, the same spokesman goes on to say that, “We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians.” Meta gives us no guidelines on what would constitute a “credible call”.

    Twitter has also permitted posts openly advocating homicide and assassination. US Senator Lindsey Graham was caught up in the bloodlust of permissiveness, using the platform to ask whether Russia had its own Brutus. “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” The only way to conclude the conflict was “for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”

    The cartoon villainy approach of the Meta group also has precedent. In July 2021, the policy on incitement and hate speech was eased with specific reference to Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei. The firm decided to permit posts featuring “death to Khamenei”, or videos of individuals chanting the phrase for a two-week window. Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai wrote pointedly at the time that this permission was “a bizarre choice that highlight’s Facebook’s power and often confusing content moderation rules.”

    The Russia-Ukraine policy is only startling for being an open admission to a practice that Facebook has embraced for years. With the company’s astronomical growth, accusations about how it utilises hate speech and deceptive content have reached a crescendo without deep effect. Mock efforts have been taken to deal with them, never deviating from the firm’s market purpose.

    An example of this zig-zag morality meet reputational damage was given in 2018. In August that year, the company employed 60 Burmese-language specialists to review posted and distributed content, with a promise to employ another 40 more by the end of the year. Product manager Sara Su called the violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar “horrific and we have been too slow to prevent misinformation on Facebook.”

    A more accurate appraisal of the company’s conduct was revealed by an internal trove of documents showing how harms were closely monitored but algorithmically exacerbated. The documents, disclosed to the US Securities and Exchange Commission by whistleblower Frances Haugen, revealed a number of things, including the gulf between CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s public statements on improvements and the company’s own findings.

    In testimony given to Congress in 2020, Zuckerberg claimed that 94 percent of hate speech was removed before a human agent reported it. The picture emerging from the internal documents showed that the company did quite the opposite: less than 5 percent of hate speech on the platform was actually removed.

    Haugen summed up the approach in her opening statement to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security in October last year. Conceding that social networks faced “complex and nuanced” problems in dealing with misinformation, counterespionage and democracy, she was blunt about the “choices being made inside Facebook”. They were “disastrous – for our children, for our public safety, for our privacy and for our democracy – and that is why we must demand Facebook makes changes.”

    The platform has also been the target of legal suits for encouraging hate speech. In December, Rohingya refugees, having little time for the firm’s promises to turn a new leaf, instigated legal action in both the United States and the United Kingdom for $150 billion. The San Francisco lawsuit, filed by Edelson and Fields Law on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, alleges that Facebook’s introduction in the country in 2011 encouraged “the dissemination of hateful messages, disinformation and incitement to violence” which led to genocide of the Rohingya.

    The Ukraine War has revealed a familiar pattern. On February 26, 2022 Facebook initially announced that it had “established a special operations center staffed by experts from across the company, including native Russian and Ukraine speakers, who are monitoring the platform around the clock, allowing us to respond to issues in real time.” The company promised that it was “taking extensive steps to fight misinformation and implementing more transparency and restrictions around state-controlled media outlets.”

    Then came the easing of policies on hate speech regarding Russian figures, with the predictable and, given the context, understandable reaction. The Russian embassy in Washington called the policy “aggressive and criminal […] leading to incitement and hatred and hostility”. It gave Moscow a good basis to claim that this was yet another feature of an “information war without rules”.

    Disinformation experts adopt a bit of hair splitting in approving Meta’s approach. “The policy calls for violence against Russian soldiers,” insists the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab’s Emerson Brooking. “A call for violence here, by the way, is also a call for resistance because Ukrainians resist a violent invasion.”

    This policy of intervening on the side of the Ukrainian cause to Russia’s detriment is encouraged by Meta’s President of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg. In his March 11 statement, Clegg makes the case for selective violence even more pronounced. “I want to be crystal clear: our policies are focused on protecting people’s rights to speech as an expression of self-defense in reaction to a military invasion of their country.” Had standard content policies been followed, content “from ordinary Ukrainians expressing their resistance and fury at the invading military forces would have been removed.”

    This immoderate stance does not have universal agreement. Media sociologist Jeremy Littau has made the pertinent observation that, “Facebook has rules, until it doesn’t.” It claims to be merely a platform above taking sides, “until it does.” To not permit hate speech except in designated cases against certain people of a certain country was “one hell of a can of worms.”

    Meta’s latest move is disturbingly refreshing in calling out a policy that remains haphazard, selectively applied, but always driven by the firm’s own amoral calculus. The Ukraine conflict now gives the group a cover for practices that enfeeble and corrupt democracy while picking sides in war. The company is clearly not above encouraging posts advocating homicide and murder after testing the wind’s direction. With Russia being rapidly cancelled culturally, politically and economically throughout the fold of Western countries, Zuckerberg is bound to think he is onto a winner. At the very least, he has found a distracting alibi.

    The post Business as Usual: Facebook, Russia, and Hate Speech first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    The Washington Post has a new article out titled “Intelligence points to heightened risk of Russian chemical attack in Ukraine, officials say,” and I challenge you to find me any Russian state media with two opening paragraphs that are more brazenly propagandistic and bereft of journalistic ethics than these:

    “The United States and its allies have intelligence that Russia may be preparing to use chemical weapons against Ukraine, U.S. and European officials said Friday, as Moscow sought to invigorate its faltering military offensive through increasingly brutal assaults across multiple Ukrainian cities.

     

    “Security officials and diplomats said the intelligence, which they declined to detail, pointed to possible preparations by Russia for deploying chemical munitions, and warned the Kremlin may seek to carry out a ‘false-flag’ attack that attempts to pin the blame on Ukrainians, or perhaps Western governments. The officials, like others quoted in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.”

    So Russia is preparing to stage a chemical attack, and also the Russian chemical attack might look like Ukrainians or western governments committing a chemical attack, and also the evidence for this is secret, and also the details are secret, and also the government officials advancing this claim are secret, and also Russia’s military offensive is faltering. Gotcha.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    Intelligence points to heightened risk of Russian chemical attack in Ukraine, officials say https://t.co/eGPSCFvcRV

    — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 12, 2022

    The third paragraph is even better:

    “The accusations surfaced as Russia repeated claims that the United States and Ukraine were operating secret biological weapons labs in Eastern Europe — an allegation that the Biden administration dismissed as ‘total nonsense’ and ‘outright lies.’”

    This paragraph is awesome in two different ways. First, it’s awesome because The Washington Post goes out of its way to inform readers that Russia’s claims have been dismissed as “total nonsense” and “outright lies” after having literally just reported completely unevidenced claims by anonymous government officials with no criticism or scrutiny of any kind. Secondly, it’s awesome because at no point during the rest of the article is any mention made of Victoria Nuland’s incendiary admission before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Ukraine has “biological research facilities” that the US is “quite concerned” might end up “falling into the hands of Russian forces”.

    Over and over again throughout the article The Washington Post takes great care to inform readers that Russian claims about biological weapons are not to be trusted, with allegations from Moscow described as “unproven accusations” made with “no verifiable evidence“, “absurd and laughable“, “outrageous claims”, “utter nonsense”, “sinking to new depths” and “baseless“.

    This, again, after uncritically reporting completely unsubstantiated allegations by government officials and sheltering them from any accountability by granting them the cover of anonymity. Unproven claims by the Russian government are laughable absurdities presented without evidence; unproven claims by the US government are just The News.

    The Washington Post also refers to past Russian dismissals of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria as false flags used to frame Damascus, while of course making no mention of the mountains of evidence that this has indeed occurred. It also says the UN human rights office “has received ‘credible reports’ of Russia using cluster bombs” which “could constitute war crimes”, making no mention of the USA’s abundant use and sale of these same munitions.

    Democracy Dies in Darkness.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    1/ Our Community Guidelines prohibit content denying, minimizing or trivializing well-documented violent events. We are now removing content about Russia’s invasion in Ukraine that violates this policy. https://t.co/TrTnOXtOTU

    — YouTubeInsider (@YouTubeInsider) March 11, 2022

    The fact that this Russian false flag narrative is being shoved forward with so much propagandistic fervor, not just by The Washington Post but also by government officials and CIA media pundits, makes it all the more concerning that we’re seeing things like YouTube banning the denial of “well-documented violent events” involving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We could soon see a chemical weapons incident occur in Ukraine, after which Silicon Valley platforms ban all accounts who express skepticism of the official western narrative about what happened.

    The US-centralized empire is censoring and propagandizing as though it is in a hot war with Russia currently. Officially the US and its allies are not at war, but the imperial narrative management machine is behaving as though we are. This makes sense because when two nuclear-armed powers are fighting for dominance and know a direct military confrontation can kill them both, other types of warfare are used instead, including propaganda campaigns and psychological warfare.

    There is a widespread general understanding in the west that Russia stands everything to gain by lying about what happens on the ground in Ukraine and cannot be taken at its word about occurrences during this war. There is much less widespread understanding of the fact that both Ukraine and the United States stand everything to gain by lying about this war as well and cannot be trusted either.

    The Washington Post’s own reporting says that behind the scenes western governments see Russian victory in this war as a foregone conclusion. Ukraine’s only chance at stopping Russia in the near term would be if it could persuade NATO powers to take a more direct role in combat, like setting up a no-fly zone as President Zelensky has persistently pleaded with them to do. One way to get around NATO’s rational resistance to directly attacking the military forces of a nuclear superpower would be to appeal to emotion via atrocity propaganda. By circulating a narrative that Russia has done something heinous which cries out to the heavens for vengeance, regardless of the risks entailed.

    The United States would also benefit from circulating atrocity propaganda about Russia, in that it would further consolidate international support behind the agenda to economically strangle the nation to death in facilitation of the empire’s struggle for unipolar planetary hegemony. Even before the invasion the US was already pushing the narrative that Russia has a list of dissidents, journalists and “vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons” who it plans on rounding up and torturing.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    The CIA Post is going full Babies on Bayonets already. Putin is going to round up and torture all the gays! https://t.co/OJspZdz37P pic.twitter.com/qPyhpHD1gp

    — Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) February 21, 2022

    To be clear, it is not conjecture that the US and its proxies make use of atrocity propaganda. The infamous Nayirah testimony for example helped manufacture consent for the Gulf War when a 15 year-old girl who turned out to be a coached plant falsely told the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she’d witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators in Kuwait and leaving them on the floor to die.

    Atrocity propaganda has been in use for as long as war and media have coexisted, and it would be incredibly naive to believe it won’t continue to be. Especially by power structures with a known history of doing so.

    For this reason it is necessary to take everything claimed about what happens in Ukraine with a planet-sized grain of salt, whether it’s by Russia, Ukraine, or the US and its allies. Be very skeptical of anything you hear about chemical attacks or any other narrative that can be used to get military firepower moving in a way that it otherwise would not. All parties involved in this conflict have every reason in the world to lie about such things.

    _________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • The war in Ukraine is not new. Ukrainians have been living through “the long war” of a threatened – and brutally real – Russian invasion for decades. We hear from 60-year-old Irina Dovgan, who refused to leave her home, with its blooming garden and many pets, when separatist fighters took over her region in 2014. She became an international symbol of the invasion after Russian-backed forces arrested, abused and publicly humiliated her. Now, Dovgan is living through a second invasion.  

    Reporting from Ukraine, Coda Story’s Glenn Kates explains what it’s been like to live in Kyiv as Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to invade. While many Ukrainians speak Russian and have deep ties to the country, Kates talks to Kyiv residents about how Putin’s threats of invasion and violence have shifted their sense of identity. As the invasion approaches, each person has to weigh the nearly impossible question of what they will do to survive.  

    To understand what it’s like to be a journalist in Ukraine and Russia right now, host Ike Sriskandarajah speaks with propaganda expert Peter Pomerantsev. Born in Ukraine and now a fellow at Johns Hopkins University and contributing editor at Coda Story, Pomerantsev describes how challenging Putin’s official version of events can land journalists in prison. Under a new law, even calling the invasion an “invasion” could lead to a 15-year prison sentence. 

    Finally, Reveal’s Elizabeth Shogren takes listeners back to a time when Russia was charting a different course. In 1989, Shogren was a Moscow-based reporter covering the Soviet Union’s first freely elected legislature. She talks with Russian reporter Sergey Parkhomenko about how, since Putin’s election in 2000, the Russian president has consolidated power by systematically squashing dissent inside the country. This month, Parkhomenko’s radio show and the whole independent Echo of Moscow network was taken off the air. The Kremlin’s harsh new censorship law, punishable by 15 years in prison, makes it illegal to call the war in Ukraine a “war.” 

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    In the western world’s mad rush to ramp up censorship and dangerous cold war escalations against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, the Australian government has done what it always does and raised the bar of authoritarianism a click above everyone else in the room.

    “The Australian Government is sanctioning 10 people of strategic interest to Russia for their role in encouraging hostility towards Ukraine and promoting pro-Kremlin propaganda to legitimise Russia’s invasion,” reads a new statement from Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne. “This includes driving and disseminating false narratives about the ‘de-Nazification’ of Ukraine, making erroneous allegations of genocide against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, and promoting the recognition of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic as independent.”

    A report by the Australian Associated Press and the Daily Mail says that the men targeted with these new sanctions are “journalists, authors or Putin’s press officers.” This move follows earlier waves of sanctions directed at Russian government, military and financial institutions, as well as economic sanctions on the Luhansk and Donetsk regions in Ukraine.

    Obviously a government in a purportedly “free” country sanctioning anyone for sharing any ideas anywhere on earth is outrageous, no matter how stupid or fictional they might be. Anyone on earth should be free to say that Ukraine is ruled by reptilian space wizards orchestrating a global conspiracy to steal the earth’s ivermectin if they want to without being sanctioned by the Australian government.

    But the fact that the ideas cited by the Foreign Minister — de-Nazification, genocide of ethnic Russians, and independence for the DPR and LPR — are fairly common opinions that can be argued using facts and evidence makes this move a lot more disturbing.

    I personally don’t find it truthful to claim that the invasion of Ukraine has anything to do with “de-Nazification” myself; that just sounds like the sort of thing you say to make a bloody invasion look noble, and Ukraine’s neo-Nazi issues would surely have been a non-issue for Putin if Kyiv was aligned with Moscow rather than Washington. But even MSNBC is reporting that “Ukraine has a genuine Nazi problem” that cannot simply be ignored, and a recent report by The Grayzone details how intimately neo-Nazi militias are intertwined with the nation’s power structure. So this isn’t some preposterous conspiracy theory; it arises from known facts that people do need to talk about.

    The claim of genocide in the Donbas may not be a consensus reality that has been firmly established via official channels, but neither is the claim of genocide in China’s Xinjiang province, yet we saw that assertion waved around as absolute fact by the entire western political/media class in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics. It’s just a simple fact that 14,000 people have died in the fighting against Donbas separatists since a US-backed coup toppled Ukraine’s government in 2014, and that most of those deaths have been on the side of the ethnic Russian separatists. Whether or not this technically constitutes genocide has not been established, but it’s a debate that is both valid and worthwhile.

    The most egregious citation on Payne’s list is “promoting the recognition of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic as independent.” The idea that rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine should be recognized as independent republics is pure political opinion; the Australian government has no more legitimacy in labeling it “propaganda” than they would on people’s opinions about the morality of abortion. Yet it’s being cited as a justification for targeted sanctions.

    This comes after Australian television providers SBS and Foxtel dropped RT in the frenetic push to expand censorship throughout the western world, a move Payne explicitly praised in the aforementioned statement with an acknowledgement that the Australian government is working with online platforms to censor unauthorized content.

    “The Australian Government continues to work with digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Google to take action to suspend the dissemination of content generated by Russian state media within Australia. SBS and Foxtel have already announced the suspension of Russia Today and NTV broadcasting,” the statement says.

    This is getting so, so ugly so very, very fast. Just the other day a young Australian-Russian man was ejected from the audience of the popular television show Q+A simply for expressing his support for Putin’s war, something we’ve never seen happen in any of the controversies about the insane American military invasions that this country has gotten itself involved in over the years.

    Whether you agree with these opinions or not, you’d have to be blind not to see the dangers of speech getting stomped out which doesn’t align with the authorized opinions of the government and the globe-spanning empire of which it is a member state. It is not valid to simply label dissenting ideas “propaganda to legitimise Russia’s invasion” and then shut them down; in a free society we’re meant to debate ideas and explain our positions to convince others that they are correct.

    An ostensibly free and democratic nation labeling basic political opinions and ideas about points of geopolitical contention “pro-Kremlin propaganda” and implementing punitive sanctions in response has implications that are uncomfortable to think about. As an Australian who frequently disagrees with Canberra about unaligned foreign governments including Moscow, I am frankly feeling a bit nervous that I might myself be designated a person “of strategic interest to Russia” and penalized in some way for “disseminating false narratives”.

    Securing more and more control over the ideas and information that people share with each other is an objective of unparalleled importance of the oligarchic empire loosely centralized around the United States. It is an intrinsically valuable goal; anywhere control of speech can be expanded is strategically useful for that expansion in and of itself, independent of the excuses made to justify it. Hopefully we all collectively find a way to unplug each other from the imperial narrative matrix before they can secure total control.

    ______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • The closure of RT America follows effective censorship of the channel. The ultimate decision to close was made following a cut off of service by DirecTV and Roku. Big Tech firms were also increasingly targeting RT. Reuters reported: “Tech companies in recent days have moved to restrict Russian state-controlled media including RT and Sputnik in response to requests from governments and calls to prevent the spread of Russia propaganda.”

    The post On The Predictable Demise Of RT America: A Chance For Grassroots Global Media? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • UN Human Rights Council should take urgent action to address the dire human rights situation in Russia say NGOs in a Joint Letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/27/anti-war-human-rights-defenders-in-russia/

    To Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council:

    Excellency,

    As the 49th session of the UN Human Rights Council gets underway, and Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine, we, the undersigned civil society organisations, would like to draw your attention to the dire human rights situation within the Russian Federation, and urge all states to bring this neglected country situation onto the agenda of the Human Rights Council.

    A year after last year’s joint statement on the situation in Russia, authorities there have further intensified the already unprecedented crackdown on human rights. A fully-fledged witch hunt against independent groups, human rights defenders, media outlets and journalists, and political opposition, is decimating civil society and forcing many into exile.

    The gravity of this human rights crisis has been demonstrated in the last few days by the forcible dispersal of anti-war rallies and pickets across Russia with over 6,800 arrested (as of 2 March  2022), attempts to impose censorship on the reporting of the conflict in Ukraine and to silence those media and individuals who speak out against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including through blocking media websites, threats of criminal prosecution under “fake news” and “high treason” charges and other means.

    In a shocking development, the authorities moved to shut down “Memorial,” one of the country’s most authoritative human rights organizations. At the end of December, courts ruled to “liquidate” the group’s key legal entities, International Memorial Society and Human Rights Center Memorial, over alleged persistent noncompliance with the repressive legislation on “foreign agents.” On 28 February, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, despite an article 39 ruling from the European Court of Human Rights ordering the Russian authorities to halt liquidation proceedings.

    The December rulings came at the end of a particularly terrible year for human rights in the country, during which authorities threw top opposition figure Alexei Navalny in prison, banned three organizations affiliated with him as “extremist,” launched criminal proceedings against several of his close associates, doubled down on Internet censorship, and designated more than 100 journalists and activists as “media-foreign agents”.

    Recent months also saw a dramatic escalation of repression in Chechnya, where Russian law and international human rights obligations have been emptied of meaning. With the Kremlin’s tolerance or acquiescence, the local governor, Ramzan Kadyrov has been eviscerating all forms of dissent in Chechnya, often using collective punishment. In December 2021, Kadyrov opened a brutal offensive against his critics in the Chechen diaspora, by having the police arbitrarily detain dozens of their Chechnya-based relatives. It continued in January with the abduction and arbitrary detention on fabricated charges of Zarema Musaeva, mother of human rights lawyer Abubakar Yangulbaev, and death threats issued against the Yangulbaev family and some prominent human rights defenders and journalists. 

    This is a country situation urgently requiring the Council’s attention. We urge the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution expressing serious concern about the human rights violations and abuses occurring in Russia, requesting the High Commissioner to monitor and report on the situation, and appointing a dedicated Special Rapporteur to address the human rights situation in Russia.

    Yours sincerely,

    Signed:

    1. Human Rights Watch
    2. Amnesty International
    3. Human Rights House Foundation
    4. International Federation for Human Rights
    5. International Service for Human Rights
    6. Human Rights Centre Memorial (Russia)
    7. Civic Assistance Committee (Russia)

    There was also a statement was delivered by Yulian Kondur and the International Charitable Organization Roma Women Fund ‘Chiricli’ in the name of Minority Rights Group (MRG) and other organizations at the Human Rights Council’s Urgent Debate, held on Friday 4 March 2022, on the situation of human rights in Ukraine stemming from the Russian Aggression. They called on authorities and aid actors to ensure that Roma, minorities and marginalised peoples are granted equal access to protection and safety when seeking refuge, including those without identity documentation.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/04/joint-letter-united-nations-human-rights-council-human-rights-situation-russia

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    We’re risking a very fast, very radioactive World War 3 to defend the “democracy” of a nation whose government bans opposition parties, imprisons political opponents, shuts down opposition media, and takes all its orders from Washington due to a US-backed coup in 2014.

    “Defending Ukrainian democracy” makes as much sense as “Defending Mongolian seaports”.

    The powers responsible for destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen are the same powers we’re trusting to carefully navigate extremely delicate nuclear brinkmanship escalations without ending the world.

    “Relax, nobody’s gonna start a nuclear war” is a belief that is premised upon the assumption that the empire which laid waste those nations, while destroying our environment and making everyone crazy and miserable, is competent enough to walk that precarious and unpredictable tightrope.

    I keep getting comments like “You’re saying we just can’t strike Russia AT ALL, just because they have nukes??”

    Yes. Fucking duh. What are you an idiot? What the fuck is wrong with people? Did everyone forget what nuclear weapons are? Did schools stop teaching this or something?

    You can’t fix a problem you don’t understand. And right now with Ukraine the entire western political/media class is pouring a tremendous amount of energy into keeping people from understanding the problem.

    If they were telling us the truth about Russia they wouldn’t be censoring Russian media.

    Kinda odd how defending freedom and democracy requires such copious amounts of censorship.

    Don’t worry, I’m sure all those socialist and antiwar Americans that were platformed by RT America can just get jobs criticizing the murderousness and corruption of their government in the free press of the western mainstream media.

    I wonder if we should be concerned that the entire western world is propagandizing and censoring like it’s on war footing?

    Socialists and anti-imperialists should never accept platforms on Russian media to get heard. They should wait until a respectable western mainstream outlet agrees to platform them, and keep waiting, and waiting, and just keep on waiting until we all die in a nuclear holocaust.

    People tend to overestimate the power of the US war machine and underestimate the power of the US propaganda machine.

    Remember when US officials kept saying “We’re not trying to start a war, we’re trying to prevent one” while refusing to make reasonable low-cost concessions that would have prevented a war, then, when war started, launched operations which serve the long-term goals of US hegemony?

    Russia gets control of Kyiv with this war, while the US gets international consensus for unprecedented economic warfare and support for NATO, plus giving Moscow another Afghanistan. NATO powers could have prevented this war but chose to egg it on instead. Looks like a classic sacrifice a pawn to get the queen move.

    Choose one:

    A) It’s a coincidence that we were bombarded by hysterical anti-Russia narratives for five years before this started.

    B) Bogus Russia scandals were cooked up by US intelligence to start manufacturing consent for a confrontation with Russia to preserve US unipolar hegemony.

    It would bring a lot of clarity for a lot of people if we replaced the term “no-fly zone” with “Directly Attack the Russian Military Zone”.

    “Whataboutism” is a common misspelling of “Damning evidence that western powers are lying about their motives and values.”

    Yes, Smart Internet Person, I love Vladimir Putin. Can’t possibly be that I’m criticizing the known wrongdoings of the mightiest power structure in the world, it’s that I fell in love with some random government official on the other side of the planet and want to suck his cock.

    It’s not like the US or its allies have ever done anything wrong, so they couldn’t possibly have done anything to give rise to our current situation, therefore it must be that I’m just kookoo for Putin Puffs. We’re very good thinkers, you and I. Let’s go watch cartoons.

    Of course I am aware that Vladimir Putin is no girl scout. That’s why I’ve been warning for years that the west’s refusal to pursue detente could lead us to nuclear war. There’d be nothing to worry about if the guy was a cuddly wuddly snugglepoo.

    Having a shit fit about someone criticizing the most powerful empire of all time for actions which led to a fucking war is a great way to let everyone know you have an infantile worldview and a piss weak argument. If you say you hate this war but get upset when people talk about the known ways the US-centralized empire helped cause it, then your interest is not in peace, nor in freedom, nor in truth, but in loyalty to that empire.

    Learn more and think harder about the role NATO powers have played in starting this war.

    Learn more and think harder about what sanctions are and what they do to people.

    Learn more and think harder about what nuclear war is and what might cause it.

    Whenever I talk about the frightening escalation in censorship and propaganda we’re seeing in the west I get people telling me that Russia is censoring and propagandizing even worse. Like “We’re a bit better than Russia!” is a sane response to this assault on truth and freedom.

    If you feel the need to restrict and manipulate people’s speech, even if what they’re saying is true, then your actions aren’t based on truth. They’re based on something else, like geostrategic conquest.

    Everything the empire says it opposes Russia for is a lie. Everything the empire criticizes Russia for are things the empire itself does. Everything we’re told is on the line in this showdown — freedom, democracy, truth, justice — are things the empire has been actively stomping out.

    ______________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • As the Russian military continues its invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin is also fighting a different kind of battle at home in its attempts to quash independent news coverage and dissenting narratives about the attack it launched on February 24.

    Across Russia, journalists have been detained and their outlets investigated, blocked, and restricted from using social media. On Friday, March 4, Russia’s State Duma approved a criminal code amendment making “false” reporting on the war punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Some journalists have closed their outlets and fled

    Irina Borogan, co-founder with Andrei Soldatov of Agentura.ru, a news website covering Russian state surveillance, calls the situation in Russia “unprecedented.” Based in London, Borogan fled Russia last year out of concerns that she would be charged with treason over her journalism, which focuses on Russia’s state security services and online surveillance technology. 

    CPJ spoke with Borogan about the recent spate of draconian measures in Russia, access to information, and how she sees internet censorship evolving in the country. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

    London-based Irina Borogan fled Russia last year out of concerns that her journalism on security and surveillance put her at risk for treason charges. (Photo: Konstantin Zavrazhin)

    The Russian government has long had independent media in its crosshairs, but the recent “false” news restrictions and the decisions of Dozhd TV and radio station Ekho Moskvy to close amid pressure make the situation seem particularly acute. Why is this happening now?

    Irina Borogan: The independent media broadcasted and published information about the war in Ukraine. Under the current law in Russia, they have to say that it’s a “special operation” and the goal of the special operation in Ukraine is to “denazify” Ukraine. I understand for Western news [consumers], it sounds absurd or crazy, but it’s how it is for the authorities. 

    The independent media was just reporting information about what is going on. That’s what infuriated the Kremlin. If you try to look at the picture of what’s going on in Ukraine through the Kremlin’s media, you will be surprised to learn the airstrikes are precise, without civilian victims. That’s just crazy. Open RIA NovostiTASS, or other state-controlled media and you’ll see an absolutely different picture [than in Western media].

    I’m afraid of the repression against people who express positions that are critical of the Kremlin publicly. I don’t want to be pessimistic because some people who live in the country are already in a state of fear and I don’t want to be alarmist. But it’s clear that there will be more repression.  

    By trying to control the Ukraine narrative, it seems like the Kremlin is creating some sort of parallel universe. How effective will their attempts at censorship actually be? 

    Propaganda will always stick with the people who want to hear it and don’t care to verify what they are hearing on official [state-owned] channels. There are a lot of these people, unfortunately. Others will continue to search for other kinds of information. 

    The Kremlin has tried to block or slow down global social media networks and is trying to entirely block independent media within Russia. If you put people under enough pressure, it is possible to force them to delete accounts and stop broadcasting—that’s when circumvention tools [such as Virtual Private Networks, or VPNs] become useless. 

    Even when the coup d’état was attempted in 1991 by the KGB, Ekho Moskvy continued to broadcast. Right now they can’t. 

    In Dozhd TV’s last broadcast, they played “Swan Lake,” a reference to the 1991 attempted coup when Russian state television played the ballet on loop. What do you make of that? 

    It was a bit of humor—and also a hint that things are very, very bad. 

    What do you predict in terms of internet connectivity and access in the coming months?

    Even more than now, people will have to use VPNs or TOR [software enabling anonymous communication] to access information on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. 

    Russia is not China. China started to build up its firewall at the beginning of the internet. Russia did not until 2012, before that the internet was absolutely free. There were few blockings and there were no rules on the internet. And thank God, Putin only started filtering the internet [blocking certain websites] 10 years ago. 

    The first internet filtering system was quite bad. But two years ago, in 2019, the authorities introduced the new internet filtering system in the country called “sovereign internet.” It is technically very sophisticated and quite effective. They were able to slow down Twitter a year ago and we see that now they are successfully blocking Facebook and other platforms and other media. 

    With sovereign internet blocking, Roskomnadzor, the state internet regulator, can basically flip a switch and block websites across the country. You push a button and block Facebook all over the country. 

    You’ve reported on quite a few conflicts, both from the front lines in Yugoslavia and Lebanon, and have also conducted investigations about the Second Chechen War. What role does information verification play in conflicts? 

    Information verification is important for both sides; both sides are involved in propaganda. But what we see right now is an incredibly stupid propaganda law. The Kremlin pushed forward this law [which punishes “false” news about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison] knowing full well that it is meant to prohibit any real narratives about the invasion from seeping out. But the Kremlin also thought that Russia would take control over Kyiv in the first few days after the invasion. Now that [the invasion] is turning into a long and contentious war, the propaganda can only do so much and state authorities are trying to make it even more difficult for news about the invasion to spread domestically. 


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Katherine Jacobsen/CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    A substitute teacher at an Arlington, Virginia middle school has been suspended for teaching an insufficiently one-sided perspective on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently one of the students recorded the lesson and showed it to their parents who complained to the school.

    This happens as RT America shuts its doors following an astonishingly aggressive censorship campaign against Russia-backed media outlets throughout the western world.

    The virulent post-9/11-like hysteria about Russia that has been promoted by one-sided mass media reporting on the war, and by the five years of fact-free conspiracy mongering which preceded it, has created an environment where you’ll get shouted down on social media for voicing any opinion about this conflict apart from saying Putin invaded because he is evil and hates freedom. Voices calling for diplomacy, de-escalation and detente are being systematically drowned out.

    Meanwhile you’ve got massively influential pundits like Sean Hannity calling for a direct NATO airstrike on a Russian military convoy in Ukraine, without the slightest risk of losing his immense platform for advocating a move that would probably lead to a very fast, very radioactive third world war.

    “You know, if we can see on satellite imagery where the convoy is, I don’t know, maybe some smart country, maybe NATO might take some of their fighter jets, or maybe they can use some drone strikes and take out the whole damn convoy,” Hannity said on Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show on Wednesday. “And then nobody takes credit for it, so then Putin won’t know who to hit back.”

    Hannity hastily adds that he’s “not talking about nuclear war,” but then adds a “but” which completely contradicts him.

    “But at what point is this gonna end?” Hannity asks. “Cuz nobody did anything after Georgia was taken in ’08, nobody cared about Crimea being annexed in 2014.”

    On the other side of illusory US partisan divide you’ve got MSNBC pundits like Richard Engel and Clint Watts also calling for direct hot war with Russia.

    “Perhaps the biggest risk-calculation/moral dilemma of the war so far,” tweeted Engel on Monday. “A massive Russian convoy is about 30 miles from Kyiv. The US/NATO could likely destroy it. But that would be direct involvement against Russia and risk, everything. Does the West watch in silence as it rolls?”

    “Strangest thing – entire world watching a massive Russian armor formation plow towards Kyiv, we cheer on Ukraine, but we’re holding ourselves back,” tweeted Watts less than two hours later. “NATO Air Force could end this in 48 hrs. Understand handwringing about what Putin would do, but we can see what’s coming.”

    “Putin knows stop the West throw ‘nuclear’ into discussion and we’ll come to a stop, but the world should not be held hostage to a killer of societies, the west has nuclear weapons too, and Putin’s track record is clear, every war he wins is followed by another war,” Watts added.

    You’ve also got increasingly bold calls for no-fly zones and close air support from the western political/media class, which would also mean hot war with Russia.

    Now, theoretically, the actual decision-makers of the imperial war machine know better than to initiate a hot war with Russia because it would likely lead to an unthinkable chain of events in which everyone loses. But what these insane Strangelovian calls for nuclear armageddon do, even if they never come to fruition, is push the acceptable spectrum of debate far toward the most hawkish extremes possible.

    When you’ve got the hawks screaming that Putin is Hitler and calling for airstrikes on the Russian military while the doves are using extremely mitigated both-sides language and taking great pains to forcefully condemn Putin to avoid being shouted down and censored, what you wind up with is a spectrum of debate that has been pulled so far toward insanity that the “moderate” position becomes support for unprecedented acts of economic warfare and funding a brutal insurgency in Ukraine.

    As a result, advocating for western powers to initiate de-escalation, diplomacy and detente becomes an extremist position, comparable to or worse than advocating for hot war with a nuclear superpower. In reality it’s the obvious moderate, sane position on the table, but taking that position unequivocally would be disastrous for the career of any mainstream politician or pundit in today’s environment, because the spectrum of debate has been pulled so far toward hawkish brinkmanship.

    Noam Chomsky outlined this problem clearly when he said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    And that’s exactly what we are seeing here. Look at this soup-brained take by comedian Tim Dillon, for example:

    Ideally this kind of insane extremist talk would get you chased out of every town and forced to live alone in a cave eating bats, but because the Overton window of acceptable debate has been dragged so far away from its center, people think it’s a moderate, heterodox position. Dovish, even.

    This spectrum of debate has been further shoved away from moderation with the help of pseudo-left narrative managers like  George Monbiot and The Intercept, who have both published obnoxious finger-wagging articles scolding leftists who’ve been insufficiently servile to the US/NATO line on Ukraine. As though there’s somehow not enough promotion of the State Department narrative on this subject by every single one of the most powerful governments and media institutions in the entire western world, rather than far, far too much.

    The worst people in the world have their foot on the accelerator driving us toward escalations that should terrify anyone with gray matter between their ears, while those who want to tap the breaks get their foot immediately slapped away. This is not leading good places. And we know from experience how profoundly unwise the power structure overseeing all this can be.

    Treasure each moment, my lovelies.

    _____________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Multiple American podcasters who speak critically of the political status quo in their country are reporting that their channels have been shut down as the censorship campaign against Russia-backed media continues to escalate. These include Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp, The Politics of Survival with Tara Reade, and By Any Means Necessary on Radio Sputnik.

    “My podcast ‘Moment of Clarity’ has been removed from Spotify,” Camp tweeted Wednesday. “Let it be known – you can do anti-women, anti-trans or racist content on Spotify but you can’t be anti-war. That’s not allowed.”

    “Without explanation or notice, Spotify has removed By Any Means Necessary from their platform, but we’re not going anywhere!” said the program’s Twitter account. “There’s a clear effort in motion to suppress anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist voices, join us in the fight by spreading the word!”

    “You can still find my podcast on other platforms even though Spotify inexplicably removed it,” tweeted Reade.

    This comes as Spotify closes its office in Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

    It is true that these podcasters have been platformed by Russian state-sponsored media. It is also true that their grievances against their government are authentic, legitimate, and frequently excellent, as you can easily ascertain by listening to them for yourself. It’s easy to tell that these are nothing other than Americans who know about the malfeasance of their government and its allies and want to talk about it, and accepted a platform from the only place that would let them speak.

    There’s this bizarre, stupid notion people have accepted that socialist and antiwar voices should never allow Russian media to platform them, and should instead wait until they are given a large platform by western mainstream media, and keep waiting, and waiting, and just keep on waiting until we all die in a nuclear holocaust. Like it’s your job to help the oligarchic empire marginalize and silence you, even when you know you’re right and you’re speaking the truth. Like you’re obligated to collaborate with their narrative management.

    If you have something important to say and you know it’s a true and helpful message, then it doesn’t matter if it’s the Russian government who’s giving you your platform or anyone else, because the message itself is intrinsically valuable. Lee Camp did a great bit on this back in 2017 when people were beginning to shriek about the fact that his show Redacted Tonight is on RT America, mocking the idea that an American in America sharing his own ideas about America could somehow be a horrifying psychological weapon of the Russians.

    Unfortunately the link I have for it is on YouTube, which means that since it’s on RT’s channel you won’t be able to watch it if you’re in Europe and don’t have a VPN because the Google-owned video sharing platform is censoring it there. Here it is for everyone else:

    “It’s so backwards that I’m at the only network in all of US media that allows me to be anti-war. And for doing that, I’m called a war apologist,” Camp told me. “It’s being used to eliminate the tiny bit of remaining left wing voices.”

    “It is another sign of the Western government failing when they have to silence voices with suppression and censorship,” Reade said of her de-platforming from Spotify.

    Russia doesn’t write the scripts for what these dissident voices say on their platforms, it just gives them a platform to say it. The kind of platform that has been bolted shut to them in western media, where only voices which support the capitalist imperialist status quo are permitted to have a seat. As Noam Chomsky famously told the BBC’s Andrew Marr, “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t been sitting where you’re sitting.”

    Does Russia benefit in some way by amplifying western critics of oligarchy and empire? Sure, to an extent. It benefits from a greater awareness in the west of the horrific nature of western imperialism, of the lies we’re fed daily to hold the oligarchic empire together and feed its war machine, of the dangers of NATO expansionism and nuclear brinkmanship. But you know what? So does the rest of the world. The amplification of western voices who draw attention to those things is therefore an objectively good thing.

    But they’re being banned, while bloodthirsty psychopaths like Sean Hannity get to maintain immensely influential platforms while calling for a direct NATO military attack on Russian forces in Ukraine. That’s perfectly fine. It’s not like he did something unforgivable, like criticize the Pentagon.

    If they were telling the truth about Russia they wouldn’t be censoring Russia-backed media. One is reminded of the words of George RR Martin, “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

    It’s funny that such a big deal is being made about “Russian propaganda” hijacking people’s minds and manipulating them, because the institutions doing so are so close to admitting to one of the most underappreciated and overlooked aspects of western society: that we’re all being aggressively propagandized constantly by the mainstream news media, by Hollywood, and by Silicon Valley, and that it greatly influences the way we think, act, and vote. And the amount of wealth and energy going into brainwashing us in this way is many orders of magnitude greater than Russia’s, done with billions of dollars worth of immensely sophisticated perception management instead of just letting someone who hates war have a podcast.

    Really these escalations in censorship have never been about countering Russian propaganda, or fighting Covid misinformation, or any of the other excuses they’ve been churning out. It’s because the democratization of information poses a direct threat to ruling power structures, and their very existence depends on their ability to gain control.

    The “liberal democracies” of the western empire found a loophole in their own freedom of expression laws (the same laws they claim make them superior to overtly authoritarian regimes) in that they can outsource their censorship to government-tied monopolistic megacorporations. This allows the oligarchic empire to control the dominant narratives about what’s going on, thereby controlling how people think, act, and vote.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The powerful understand this. The people, for the most part, do not.  Humanity’s immensely exploded ability to share ideas and information could have been a tool of the people to advance positive change, but because of censorship, it’s just becoming a tool for the powerful to propagandize us faster and leaving us no ability to counter their propaganda.

    The story of humanity’s future (if humanity does indeed have a future beyond this tense standoff between nuclear superpowers) is a struggle between the impulse to see and to know and to make things conscious, against the impulse to keep things dark and unconscious and secret and distorted. The former desires free communication, free thought, and truth come what may, while the latter desires censorship, government secrecy, unconsciousness and control. One of those impulses will win out, and will ultimately result in either our extinction or the dawn of a healthy Earth.

    __________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Kremlin-backed media outlets have been banned throughout the European Union, both on television and on apps and online platforms. RT has lost its Sky TV slot in the UK, where the outlet is also blocked on YouTube. Australian TV providers SBS and Foxtel have dropped RT, and the federal government is putting pressure on social media platforms to block Russian media in Australia.

    In the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Latvia, speaking in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will get you years in prison.

    Twitter, historically the last of the major online platforms to jump on any new internet censorship escalation, is now actively minimizing the number of people who see Russian media content, saying that it is “reducing the content’s visibility” and “taking steps to significantly reduce the circulation of this content on Twitter”. This censorship-by-algorithm tactic is exactly what I speculated might emerge after former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey resigned back in November, due to previous comments supportive of that practice by his successor Parag Agrawal.

    Twitter is also placing warnings labels on all Russia-backed media and delivering a pop-up message informing you that you are committing wrongthink if you try to share or even ‘like’ a post linking to such outlets on the platform. It has also placed the label “Russia state-affiliated media” on every tweet made by the personal accounts of employees of those platforms, baselessly giving the impression that the dissident opinions tweeted by those accounts are paid Kremlin content and not simply their own legitimate perspectives. Some are complaining that this new label has led to online harassment amid the post-9/11-like anti-Russia hysteria that’s currently turning western brains into clam chowder.

    This is all on top of all the other drastic escalations in censorship which came roaring in at the beginning of the Ukraine war, and I personally find it a bit scary how fast it’s all happening, how fine people are with it, and how much worse it seems likely to get.

    Others agree.

    “The purge of RT and other Russian media outlets in the US and Europe is 100% censorship,” tweets journalist Michael Tracey. “Go ahead and argue it’s justified, but at least don’t be a coward and admit you are advocating censorship.”

    “The western world believes that it has a monopoly on what constitutes ‘political truth’ and that their ideological worldview is the only correct, valid and authoritative one,” writer and analyst Tom Fowdy observed. “They preach freedom of speech and the press to other countries, but exempt themselves from it.”

    And I can’t help but find it odd that the fight for freedom and democracy should require such copious amounts of censorship. You’d think a free society would have no objection to people trying to learn the other side of the debate about a war which NATO powers very plainly had a hand in starting, rather than being forced to consume only western mass media narratives which tell us this is happening exclusively because Vladimir Putin is evil and Hitlery and hates freedom.

    You’d think a society devoted to truth and freedom, the kind of society western powers purport to be trying to defend in Ukraine, would not require a Ministry of Truth to protect us from “disinformation” about a government long targeted by the US-centralized empire, or from trying to seek out alternative perspectives beyond the homogeneous blanket of authorized mainstream narratives.

    You’d think the truth would be more robust than that. You’d think freedom would extend farther than that. You’d think democracy would be more tolerant of dissent than that.

    Almost like this has nothing to do with freedom, or truth, or democracy.

    Almost like it never has.

    Kind of makes you wonder if perhaps rallying behind the idea that it’s fine to censor people to preserve the establishment narrative about things, like Covid-19 and vaccines for example, was every bit the slippery slope that everyone warned it would be. If perhaps we have foolishly consented to a reality where the most powerful people in the world get to control the information people consume in order to shut down dissent against a murderous and oppressive globe-spanning oligarchic empire.

    And it kind of makes you wonder, as we watch the same empire that just destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen being entrusted to carefully navigate extremely delicate nuclear brinkmanship escalations without ending the world, if we might perhaps be better off with a lot more dissent, rather than a lot less.

    _________________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • In a major development crucial for peace in the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, both the parties started negotiations in Gomel in Belarus, near the Ukrainian and Russian, borders on Monday, February 28. The delegates of the two countries reached Gomel early after initial hiccups regarding the venue of the talks.

    A Russian delegation consisting of “representatives of foreign ministry, the defense ministry and other agencies, including the presidential administration” arrived to Belarus according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Preskov, Russian news agency TASS reported.

    Ukraine claimed it is seeking immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian troops in the talks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a phone conversation with UK prime minister Boris Johnson claimed that the next 24 hours are crucial for the war.

    The post Russia-Ukraine Talks Begin In Belarus Amid Growing International Pressure appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    “I’m concerned about Russian disinformation spreading online, so today I wrote to the CEOs of major tech companies to ask them to restrict the spread of Russian propaganda,” US Senator Mark Warner tweeted on Friday.

    Since then YouTube has announced that it has suppressed videos by Russian state media channels so that they’ll be seen by fewer people in accordance with its openly acknowledged policy of algorithmically censoring unauthorized content, as well as de-monetizing all such videos on the platform. Google and Facebook/Instagram parent company Meta both banned Russian state media from running ads and monetizing on their platforms in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Twitter announced a pause on ads in both Russia and Ukraine.

    “Glad to see action from tech companies to reign in Russian propaganda and disinformation after my letter to their CEOs yesterday,” Warner tweeted on Saturday. “These are important first steps, but I’ll keep pushing for more.”

    For years US lawmakers have been using threats of profit-destroying consequences to pressure Silicon Valley companies into limiting online speech in a way that aligns with the interests of Washington, effectively creating a system of government censorship by proxy. It would appear that we’re seeing a new expansion of this phenomenon today.

    And the imperial media are pushing for more. Articles and news segments warning of the sinister threat posed by Russian propaganda to misinform and divide western populations using the internet are being churned out at a rate that’s only likely to increase as this latest narrative management campaign gets into full gear. The Associated Press has a new article out for example titled “War via TikTok: Russia’s new tool for propaganda machine“.

    “Armies of trolls and bots stir up anti-Ukrainian sentiment. State-controlled media outlets look to divide Western audiences. Clever TikTok videos serve up Russian nationalism with a side of humor,” AP warns.

    “Analysts at several different research organizations contacted by The Associated Press said they are seeing a sharp increase in online activity by groups affiliated with the Russian state,” AP writes. “That’s in keeping with Russia’s strategy of using social media and state-run outlets to galvanize domestic support while seeking to destabilize the Western alliance.”

    The “different research organizations” AP ends up citing include “Cyabra, an Israeli tech company that works to detect disinformation,” as well as the state-funded NATO narrative management firm The Atlantic Council.

    As tends to happen whenever a consensus begins to form that a certain category of speech must be purged from the internet, imperial spinmeisters are already working to expand the definition of “Russian propaganda” which must be purged from the internet to include independent anti-imperialist commentators like myself.

    Imperial narrative manager Robert Potter has a thread on Twitter currently calling for me and other anti-imperialist content creators to be labeled “State-Affiliated Media” on Twitter and ideally de-platformed across all western social media, in my case solely because RT is one of the many outlets who occasionally choose to republish some of my blog posts for free.

    I am not as Potter claims “an OP Ed columnist for Russia Today.” I don’t work for RT, I don’t write for RT, I don’t submit articles to RT, and I’ve never been paid by RT or the Russian government. RT is just one of the outlets who sometimes avail themselves of my longstanding invitation for anyone who wants to to republish my work free of charge. That RT editors would find my daily rants against western imperialism agreeable is not scandalous or conspiratorial but normal and self-evident.

    Yet for agents of imperial narrative control like Potter (who ironically works directly for the US State Department but thinks my posts should be labeled “State-Affiliated Media” by Twitter), even this is enough to justify complete silencing. I will not be in the slightest bit surprised to see a great deal more of these efforts as the new cold war continues to escalate.

    The Center for Countering Digital Hate, an empire-loyal NGO ostensibly focused primarily on fighting racism and prejudice, has published a report accusing Facebook of failing to label Russian propaganda as such 91 percent of the times it occurs. The CCDH decried Mark Zuckerberg’s “failure to stop Facebook being weaponized by the Russian state”.

    This sudden narrative management thrust has also seen RT taken off the air in nations like Australia, Germany and Poland, with pressures mounting in France and the UK to follow suit.

    This despite the fact that all western powers would have to do to eliminate RT completely is simply start allowing leftist and anti-imperialist voices to be heard on mainstream media platforms. It would immediately suck up RT’s entire foreign audience as people who’d previously needed to look outside the mainstream for sane perspectives gravitate toward media made with much better funding and a higher level of talent.

    But of course we all know that’s never going to happen. The imperial media aren’t going to subvert RT by platforming voices who dispute the empire’s narratives no matter how badly they hate it, because the exact reason they hate RT is because it disputes the empire’s narratives. They’re not worried about Russian propaganda operations, they’re worried about someone else running interference on their own propaganda operations.

    RT’s audience makes up about 0.04% of TV viewing in the UK. This isn’t about RT, it’s about the the agenda to continually expand and normalize the censorship of unauthorized speech. That’s what it was about when they were pretending it was about the need to fight Covid misinformation before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to fight domestic US extremism before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to defend election security before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to fight Russian propaganda the first time before that one cycled back around again.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Humans are storytelling creatures, so whoever can control the stories the humans are telling themselves about what’s going on in the world has a great deal of control over the humans. Our mental chatter tends to dominate such a large percentage of our existence that if it can be controlled the controller can exert a tremendous amount of influence over the way we think, act, and vote.

    The powerful understand this, while the general public mostly does not. That’s all we’ve been seeing in these attempts to regulate ideas and information as human communication becomes more and more rapid and networked. An entire oligarchic empire is built on the ability to prevent us from realizing at mass scale that that empire does not serve us and inflicts great evil upon our world. The question of whether our species can awaken to its highest potential or not boils down to whether our dominators will succeed in locking down our minds, or if we will find some way to break free.

    _____________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • UK-based Hong Kong Watch says outage could be part of wider Beijing crackdown

    The website of a UK-based advocacy group appears to have become inaccessible through some networks in Hong Kong, raising fears of mainland-style internet censorship in the Chinese territory.

    The group, Hong Kong Watch, which monitors human rights, said it worried the censorship could be a part of a wider crackdown on freedom of speech under Hong Kong’s national security law, which allows the police to ask service providers to “delete” information or “provide assistance” on national security cases.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  •  

    Fox News: Free speech advocates, journalists defend Joe Rogan from calls for censorship

    These “free speech advocates” (Fox News, 2/2/22) were conspicuously silent when people actually lost their jobs for criticizing cops.

    For right-wing and libertarian media, Joe Rogan, host of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, has become a symbol of resistance to censorship (New York Post, 2/2/22; Fox News, 2/2/22; Reason, 2/2/22; The Hill, 2/1/22).

    Musician Neil Young had given the streaming service Spotify, which paid a reported $100 million for exclusive rights to Rogan’s show, an ultimatum: either cut Rogan and his constant misinformation about Covid-19, or lose Young’s music. Spotify—a corporate media service that has been accused of exploiting musicians financially (Guardian, 7/29/13)―chose Rogan.

    Contrary to his media defenders, Rogan has not been threatened with censorship. His free speech rights were never in any kind of jeopardy. Young has not crossed into some kind of pro-deep state censorship mode; rather, he left Spotify because he disagreed with its policies, taking his business elsewhere because he has the right to do that.

    Young’s departure has cost Spotify $2 billion in market value (Variety, 1/29/22), as other notable musicians, like Joni Mitchell, followed suit (Fortune, 2/3/22). Grammy Award–winning singer/songwriter India Arie made matters worse for Rogan “by sharing resurfaced footage to social media showing Rogan using the N-word” (Hollywood Reporter, 2/4/22).

    Both Rogan and Spotify have responded to the outrage, as “Rogan apologized…for his use of a racial slur in past episodes,” and the streaming service removed dozens of his show’s episodes (New York Times, 2/5/22). Such pressure against right-wing, corporate media shock jocks has yielded results in the past: CBS fired Don Imus due to a public backlash against racist and sexist comments he made about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (CBS, 4/12/07; Extra!, 5–6/07). Sometimes it doesn’t, as two dozen advertisers left Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show after he made anti-immigrant comments (Hollywood Reporter, 12/17/18), and he still enjoys top ratings (AdWeek, 1/3/22).

    Artists and media consumers free to engage in media activism like leaving a streaming service (a form of voting with one’s dollars and property, supposedly a democratic feature of the free market) or protesting a media company over its content. But these articles imply that the mere discussion of Rogan’s ability to spread misinformation about Covid is an affront to his constitutional right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Fox News (2/3/22) paraphrased former Mumford & Sons banjo player Winston Marshall saying  that “the state of music censorship in the Soviet Union in 1984” was comparable “to the conditions that Spotify is facing today as calls for it to pull Rogan’s work mount.”

    Speech limits for everyday workers

    NY Post: LI woman with same name as Jacqueline Guzman, actress fired for NYPD funeral rant, makes tearful plea

    The New York Post (2/1/22) expressed no sympathy for a woman fired for criticizing police–she was “widely condemned for her shameful online rant”–but does feel bad for someone with the same name who was mistakenly subjected to abuse.

    Meanwhile, regular, everyday workers live with limits to their “work mount” and their free speech rights because they are at-will employees. And unlike Rogan, who still has the support of Spotify’s boss (New York Post, 2/7/22), these workers are treated as disposable.

    A few recent examples: A Catholic high school teacher was fired for a private tweet that apparently questioned her school’s efforts to commemorate two murdered NYPD officers (Daily News, 2/4/22).

    Related to the public funeral of one of these slain NYPD cops, a New York City “actress was fired this weekend after backlash over her viral TikTok complaint that the city didn’t need to be shut down for ‘one f—— cop’” (Fox News, 1/30/22). And someone who shares her name with that actor says she has “been harassed and threatened by people confusing her with the woman who made the vile rant” (New York Post, 2/1/22).

    In Tennessee, Starbucks fired unionizing employees who had “allowed members of the media into the store as part of the public launch of their unionization effort” (CNN, 2/8/22). For unionists, these terminations aren’t just an immoral violation of labor rights, but an affront to the First Amendment freedom of assembly and, in this case, these workers’ right to publicize their organizing against an enormous and well-known company in the free press.

    These are examples of the real predations on free speech in this country, and yet instances like these don’t seem to elicit the same hand-wringing about censorship from right-wing media.

    Controversy as sellable brand

    Atlantic: Why Is Joe Rogan So Popular?

    Devin Gordon (Atlantic, 8/19/19): “If you look past the jokes themselves and focus on the targets he’s choosing, the same patterns emerge. Hillary, the #MeToo movement, why it sucks that he can’t call things ‘gay,’ vegan bullies, sexism.”

    Rogan has been immune to this kind of pressure, largely because his controversial statements are exactly what makes his media brand sellable; the Atlantic (8/19/19) said in 2019 that his show has “been the No. 2 most-downloaded podcast on iTunes for two years running,” and “his YouTube channel…has 6 million subscribers.” LGBTQ groups like GLAAD (Twitter, 7/22/20) have criticized the host for promoting anti-trans viewpoints, but Rogan is protected from his critics because by all metrics, he’s a benefit for the corporate services like YouTube: The Hill (2/1/22) argues that with 11 million listeners, “Rogan’s popularity is precisely due to the fact that he is uncensored in what he says.”

    That is a very different story for the 99 Percent, who can become victims of a very real cancel culture, because things like being critical of the police at the wrong time can be seen as beyond the bounds of free discourse. Corporate media haven’t focused on them as victims; in fact, the tabloids and Murdoch-owned media have painted them as extremists who got what was coming to them.

    And libertarians haven’t made them a cause, either. That’s because these pieces that treat Rogan as a free speech warrior aren’t honest. Their defense of Rogan, who said he would vote for Donald Trump in the last election (Guardian, 4/20/20), is not about the sacredness of free speech; while he is facing a lot of public criticism, he is not being regulated or stifled as a result. In fact, these articles celebrate the degree to which protests by musicians haven’t actually silenced him, an admission that his speech was never really under threat.

    These pieces, instead, are a political defense of Covid-19 misinformation and bro jock racism. Robust public health measures to control the pandemic are seen by the right as left-wing government overreach, and therefore someone who criticizes them, however inaccurately, is on their team.

    The Rogan affair is a spectacle by right-wing media to paint an advocate for a right-wing political cause as a victim. Meanwhile, right-wing tabloid vitriol has celebrated the punishment of speech by regular working people.

    The post Defenses of Rogan Aren’t About Free Speech; They’re Right-Wing Solidarity appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.

    — Frank Zappa, Interview with Jim Ladd, “Zappa On Air,” April 1977.

    We are no longer free.

    We are living in a world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy, but it’s an illusion.

    We think we have the freedom to elect our leaders, but we’re only allowed to participate in the reassurance ritual of voting. There can be no true electoral choice or real representation when we’re limited in our options to one of two candidates culled from two parties that both march in lockstep with the Deep State and answer to an oligarchic elite.

    We think we have freedom of speech, but we’re only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners allow.

    We think we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs, but those rights are quickly overruled if and when they conflict with the government’s priorities, whether it’s COVID-19 mandates or societal values about gender equality, sex and marriage.

    We think we have the freedom to go where we want and move about freely, but at every turn, we’re hemmed in by laws, fines and penalties that regulate and restrict our autonomy, and surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. Punitive programs strip citizens of their passports and right to travel over unpaid taxes.

    We think we have property interests in our homes and our bodies, but there can be no such freedom when the government can seize your property, raid your home, and dictate what you do with your bodies.

    We think we have the freedom to defend ourselves against outside threats, but there is no right to self-defense against militarized police who are authorized to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, and granted immunity from accountability with the general blessing of the courts. Certainly, there can be no right to gun ownership in the face of red flag gun laws which allow the police to remove guns from people merely suspected of being threats.

    We think we have the right to an assumption of innocence until we are proven guilty, but that burden of proof has been turned on its head by a surveillance state that renders us all suspects and over-criminalization which renders us all lawbreakers. Police-run facial recognition software that mistakenly labels law-abiding citizens as criminals. A social credit system (similar to China’s) that rewards behavior deemed “acceptable” and punishes behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

    We think we have the right to due process, but that assurance of justice has been stripped of its power by a judicial system hardwired to act as judge, jury and jailer, leaving us with little recourse for appeal. A perfect example of this rush to judgment can be found in the proliferation of profit-driven speed and red light cameras that do little for safety while padding the pockets of government agencies.

    We have been saddled with a government that pays lip service to the nation’s freedom principles while working overtime to shred the Constitution.

    By gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.

    Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants.

    We are now only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth—in terms of profit and resale value—to our “owners.”

    Under the new terms of this revised, one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and “we the people” have none.

    Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp.

    The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

    We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all: the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, over-criminalization and government corruption.

    In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

    We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.

    We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor.

    We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”

    We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red-light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in hefty fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.

    We’re being subjected to the oldest con game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

    This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

    With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people” are being reminded that we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis.

    Indeed, there are chilling parallels between the authoritarian prison that is life in the American police state and The Prisoner, a dystopian television series that first broadcast in Great Britain more than 50 years ago.

    The series centers around a British secret agent (played by Patrick McGoohan) who finds himself imprisoned, monitored by militarized drones, and interrogated in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly idyllic retirement community known only as The Village. While luxurious and resort-like, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, their movements are tracked by surveillance drones, and they are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.

    Much like the American Police State, The Prisoner’s Village gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.

    Described as “an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia,” The Prisoner is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and so-called democracy.

    Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of mankind to meekly accept his lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of his own making.

    The Prisoner is an operations manual for how you condition a populace to life as prisoners in a police state: by brainwashing them into believing they are free so that they will march in lockstep with the state and be incapable of recognizing the prison walls that surround them.

    We can no longer maintain the illusion of freedom.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” have become “we the prisoners.”

     

    The post Dystopia Disguised as Democracy: All the Ways in Which Freedom Is an Illusion first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Suspension of the news manager of Papua New Guinea’s major television channel, EMTV, has sparked a flurry of protest from senior news personalities and independent who condemn the apparent political pressure on the broadcaster.

    Long standing and experienced news manager Sincha Dimara has reportedly been suspended over news judgement in a move that a former EMTV senior news executive  said “reeks of external influence” on the company’s top management.

    “A CEO is a buffer between staff and any external pressure. You need a heart of steel and buckets of bravery to fend off political pressure,” said independent television journalist and blogger Scott Waide.

    Waide was himself subjected to unfair suspension over airing a controversial story about then Peter O’Neill government’s purchase of luxury Maseratis for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference hosted in Port Moresby in 2018. He was later reinstated after an international outcry.

    The Maserati saga continues to be a controversy in PNG.

    “There is another way to correct coverage that does not ‘fit the aspirations’ of a news organisation — it’s called leadership,” said Waide in response to the Dimara suspension.

    “If the CEO is too timid and cannot protect our Papua New Guinean staff, then please resign and go home! This is not the place for you.”

    In responses shared on social media, former publisher of the PNG Post-Courier and a regional media consultant Bob Howarth, asked: “What does the Media Council have to say about political meddling in PNG’s struggling ‘free press’ …?”

    Another former news executive, Joseph Ealedona, who headed the state broadcaster NBC and was himself involved in controversies, said NBC had built its reputation and integrity for years and “has the people’s protection”.

    “It did happen to me but the people’s protest and insistence and the will of senior statesmen and political leaders to right the wrong saw me return for EMTV,” he said.

    “in my view, it is just someone trying to protect oneself and fearful of losing privileges and has no guts to say no … and listening to just one or two people.

    “I would believe that the PM [James Marape] is not happy with this this, it is at the detriment of the government if allowed to continue, especially when the NGE is around the corner [national general election is in June].

    “The freedom of the media is very important to a free democracy but we in the [media] fraternity must carry [on] with utmost respect and do nothing but expose the truth as a responsible profession.”

    Ealedona said journalists “must continue to fight against and with the might of the pen”.

    He also asked what was the stance of the Suva-based Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) in response.

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Russians are coming! So says the Australian mainstream media.

    To be honest, I don’t know what the Murdoch press is saying as my equilibrium depends on my not reading it. The other major media chain, Nine Entertainment, is in full neo-Cold War mode.

    Nine Entertainment, as its name implies, has been best known for televising sport. In 2018 it took over Fairfax Media. A family media dynasty was established when John Fairfax bought the Sydney Herald in 1841. When Nine bought Fairfax it acquired the sole ‘serious’ papers of Australia’s largest cities, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and the Melbourne Age, the national Australian Financial Review and the national capital’s Canberra Times. This was some haul with respect to the potential to influence public and policy-making opinion.

    Fairfax’ finest hour was when it published the hard-hitting weekly National Times, from 1971 to 1986, that period mostly under the benign chairmanship of patrician James Fairfax. Chaos then ensued, then corporatisation. The loss of classified advertising revenue and the slow take-up of digital media by the then CEO with no media nous led to long term cost-cutting and significant retrenchment of seasoned journalists. The distinct character of the Age was abolished. A proud but reduced staff saw the cynical selloff in 2018 by the then CEO and complicit Board.

    The Fairfax/Nine masthead is ‘Independent. Always.’. A loyal old-timer claims that this latter-day label was devised as a marketing ploy. These days it’s a joke, yet with no embarrassment shown by editorial and management.

    Fairfax/Nine still has good and committed journalists. But its World coverage? A shocker. Straight down the line Atlanticist bilge. Fairfax/Nine retains correspondents in Washington DC and London and they faithfully toe ‘the correct line’.

    The DC correspondent, Matthew Knott, lived through the Trump Presidency, implicitly decried it, but didn’t look behind it or see the continuities. Once Trump goes, we’ll be back to truth and beauty. Knott readily bought into the Russiagate myth. Knott reminisces in December 2021 upon returning to Australia. Nice guy but … Remarkably, comments on the latter article indicate that some readers valued his reportage.

    These correspondents seem universally jejune, read nothing out of the square, seemingly no history whatsoever. In the tough days of the (first) Cold War, establishment-linked journalists (aka the Australian Denis Warner) knew what role they played, whereas their successors are babes in the woods.

    The recent London-based journalists (Nick Miller, Bevan Shields, Latika Bourke) have been perennially abject. Thus we have them toeing the line on Putin’s ‘bullying’ (5.9.14), Russian interference in the West’s appropriate dismantling of Syria (16.4.18), Russiagate (17.7.18), the Browder/Magnitsky steam train (23.3.18, 1.12.18), the downing of MH17 (20.10.14, 3.6.15, 24.5.18, 8.3.20, 10.3.20, 11.3.20, 1.9.20, 10.9.21), the Skripal novichok ‘poisonings’ (8.3.18, 16.4.18, 10.10.18, 3.9.20, 5.2.21), the Navalny circus (3.9.20, 28.1.21, 5.2.21), and Russia’s ‘imminent invasion’ of Ukraine (29.1.22).

    Their reporting of British politics itself has been lamentable (Corbyn was a bogey). They misrepresent key details on the Julian Assange affair (20.11.19, 23.9.20), have ignored the long background, not least Sweden’s political complicity and Britain’s profound judicial complicity, and have generally remained indifferent to his torture and to the monumental significance of the Assange trial to journalistic integrity.

    However, Fairfax/Nine’s DC and London correspondents are padding for the main game. The main dish for its readers is the reprinting of articles from American and English mainstream media – the New York Times, the Washington Post, The UK Telegraph, Reuters, Bloomberg, AP, etc., etc. Unadulterated propaganda. Independent Always indeed.

    I speculate on the mentality of the relevant editors behind this slavish reproduction of slop. Are they under instruction from senior editorial and management? Do they actually believe this stuff they reproduce? Do they think that these sources are models of probity? Were they born yesterday? Is it easier and cheaper than doing one’s own research?

    A peak of the steady drip was on 27 January 2022 when no less than four articles appeared on the problem that Russia and its evil leader Putin poses for ‘freedom-loving’ peoples.

    Thus we get Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, UK Telegraph, on German appeasement of Russia. Andrew Kramer (no SMH link), New York Times, on just what dastardly means Russia will deploy in its imminent invasion. Jeff Mason and Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, on the further brutal sanctions envisioned by the ringmaster Biden if Russia pulls any naughty business. And Jeremy Warner, UK Telegraph, on how Putin’s destabilisation of Ukraine could lead to global chaos in the markets!

    I made an online comment to the latter article noting that if ‘the markets’ were so responsive to fake news then why pay any attention to them? The comment didn’t appear, exposing how sensitive they are to reflections on their own stupidity. Can’t they take a joke?

    The highlight of Fairfax/Nine’s sterling contribution to the infowar was an Editorial of 20 January. Some highlights:

    • when Russian-backed separatists shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet over its territory
    • Russian media is inventing stories about atrocities against Ukraine’s large Russian-speaking minority
    • [Putin’s] reluctance to co-operate with an investigation into the crash
    • his illegal annexation of Crimea
    • This is the same man who sends his agents to the West to kill political dissidents with poison nerve gas and radioactive tea.

    All these gems and more in 600 words! It may be only a coincidence that the aforementioned Bevan Shields, the ‘exceptionally talented journalist and editor’, has only recently been appointed Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

    On the home front, Fairfax/Nine’s Eryk Bagshaw and Anthony Galloway work non-stop in condemning China per se, with its presumed evil ambitions through authoritarian means to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere, on its way to global dominance.

    Master of Ceremonies on matters international at Fairfax/Nine is longtime hack Peter Hartcher. The much-experienced Hartcher has never been the same after a stint as North American correspondent. Hartcher recently enthused about the satrap Australian government’s preposterous ‘deal’ to build and utilise nuclear-powered submarines (AUKUS) – that will give China its comeuppance, he claims.

    More recently, Hartcher was pumping up the British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss’s hysterical proposition that China and Russia might wage war simultaneously. This aroused Australia’s sometime Prime Minister and master wordsmith Paul Keating, after a previous spat with Hartcher, to label Truss’ claim as ‘nothing short of demented’, that Britain ‘suffers delusions of grandeur and relevance deprivation’ and that Hartcher was ‘the press gallery’s most celebrated beat-up merchant’. Quite.

    I have written multiple letters to the SMH letters editors complaining about the preponderance of fake news in its World coverage. None have been published. No letters from anyone have been published on such coverage, and I can’t believe that I’m the only one offended and nonplussed by being treated as an idiot. Attempts to comment critically online on such coverage is also met with comprehensive censorship. They must know what they’re doing.

    The ABC, the national broadcaster, is similarly afflicted. Its daily coverage of ‘the imminent Russian invasion’ provides no background whatsoever. Nothing about the decades-long NATO encirclement, nor the US-led February 2014 coup in Ukraine, nor the slaughter of Russophone Ukrainians in the Donbas (especially the burning of the Odessa trade union building in May 2014), Russia’s accommodation of the large numbers of Ukrainians fleeing war, Kiev’s marginalisation of the official status of the Russian language, etc.

    As with Fairfax/Nine, there is no mention of the senior German General saying ‘cool your jets’, of the Croatian President saying ‘count us out’, and of Ukraine’s President Zelensky himself demanding essentially ‘for the sake of Ukraine’s economy and society, shut up!’

    Indicative is that ABC heavies haven’t confronted that their erstwhile heroine Hillary Clinton might not be heroic and that there might be something more deeply problematic about the US polity than the seeming aberration of Donald Trump.

    As with the print media, critical feedback is ignored.

    The ABC has suffered long term budget cuts and pressure to ‘conform’ from a succession of reactionary governments (not least under pressure from the Murdoch media and the Institute of Public Affairs, a corporate-funded pressure group) which seems to have been internalised. It’s a mindset of cultural cringe to English language Anglo-America in the face of a curious, ultimately unknowable and potentially malevolent Other.

    Israel has always been a litmus test with the Australian media. A peep of criticism of that illustrious apartheid state and the feedback systems are bombarded with outrage by the cheer squad. Occasionally, an editorial in Fairfax/Nine lets through a damning article – as in the recent kerfuffle over the Director of the iconic summer Sydney Festival inviting sponsorship from the Israeli government for an Israeli participant.

    However, the local Zionist lobby always gets its right of reply, in the process highlighting that its members are the only contributors who have the privilege of writing complete bullshit. Here are representative print contributions, in response to the Palestine revolt against their ongoing oppression (May 2021), and in response to the boycott of the Sydney Festival (December 2021).

    I have never understood how commercial media can put propaganda before profit. Perhaps there’s a captive audience in Australia for Fairfax/Nine print media because the only alternative (save for Western Australia) is the odious Mr Murdoch.

    A rare voice of sanity in Australia on international issues is the online site Pearls & Irritations, created by a longtime senior federal public servant. It provides a venue for people to write intelligently on China, in particular, and for ex-ambassadors and senior public servants and others who can’t find a voice in the Australian mainstream print media duopoly or the public broadcaster.

    The American-Anglo crazies don’t care about the integrity or sovereignty of Ukraine (think Serbia and Kosovo) or the welfare of Ukrainians. They don’t care whether Europe freezes. They only care for the ultimate dismantling of an independent Russia, a renewed Yeltsinisation of that country and of countries within its current sphere of influence.

    Our respectable media is happy to oblige by providing a compromised ‘journalism’ masquerading as intelligence. Why do we continue to tolerate this shit?

    The post Cringeworthy Media Down Under first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • One notices in “Parental Rights in Education,” a portion of the bill reads “A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age appropriate…” While the idea of age appropriateness does not sound objectionable on its face, who determines that? And, according to the bill, elementary school kids would not be told that some students have two moms or two dads? Because in reality, some of them do.

    The post The Dangerous Trend Of The “Parents Rights” Movement appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • By Phoebe Gwangilo in Port Moresby

    Censoring of Facebook in Papua New Guinea can be addressed by three mandated government agencies, says Chief Censor Jim Abani.

    He was responding to the Post-Courier on how his office was dealing with indecent content posted on Facebook in view of a controversy over a video of an alleged child molester.

    “FB censoring is to be addressed by three agencies with relevant responsibilities that are mandated to carry out policies and regulations,” Abani said.

    He added: “In the event that pictures and sexual references and connotations are published then the censor will say its objectionable publication.”

    Abani said the Cyber Crime Code Act defined penalties for cyber harassment and cyber bullying.

    “NICTA (National Information and Communications Technology Authority) may look into electronic devices used to commit crime or offence while Censorship Office will vet or screen the content of materials and determine whether it’s explicit, or not explicit and allowed for public consumption.”

    He said police under the Summary Offences Act are equally responsible to censor illicit material posted online.

    “Indecent publication published is in the amended Summary Offences Act.”

    No comment on specific case
    Abani could not comment on the specific video of the alleged 16-year-old child molester, saying that his officers were still working on gathering information.

    However, he added that the approved 2021-2025 National Censorship Policy called for partnership and a collaborative approach from each responsible agency.

    Abani said a new trend in the digital space had meant the Censorship Office to build its capacity to monitor and control apart from developing the recently launched policy it had been currently doing by reviewing the Censorship Act 1989.

    The office was also working on signing an agreement with an internet gateway service provider.

    Phoebe Gwangilo is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • School districts and Republican-controlled state legislatures are rapidly intensifying efforts to ban certain books about race, colonialism, sex and gender identity from public classrooms and libraries. The wave of book bans — with more than 70 educational gag order bills being introduced in legislatures over the past month alone — have been largely led by right-wing groups funded by Charles Koch. We’re joined by author George M. Johnson to talk about their award-winning memoir-manifesto All Boys Aren’t Blue, which deals with homophobia, transphobia and racism and has been targeted for removal in at least 15 states. “Black storytelling has often been banned,” says Johnson. “My book is a tool so that Black queer kids and LGBTQ teens can see themselves and read about themselves and learn about themselves.” Johnson also says the bans have only given youth more access points to their book and argues the recent bills imposed by conservatives are “all about the fear of losing the control of the minds that they have had in this country since its early foundings.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: School districts and Republican-controlled state legislatures have rapidly intensified efforts to ban certain books about race, colonialism and gender identity from public classrooms and libraries, while placing sharp limits on what can be taught in schools. According to PEN America, more than 70 bills to impose educational gag orders have been introduced or prefiled just in the past month. Meanwhile, the American Library Association says it’s received an unprecedented 330 reports of efforts to ban books.

    Many of the efforts are being led by a number of right-wing groups, including Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education and No Left Turn in Education. All three groups have ties to a right-wing network funded by Charles Koch and others.

    In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering a bill to make it illegal for public school teachers to depict the founders of the United States in a negative light or to teach that the United States was founded on racism. In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill targeting books about sexual and gender identity from public school libraries. In Tennessee, the school board in McMinn County recently voted to ban Maus, the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel by the Holocaust — about the Holocaust by Art Spiegelman, who will be joining us later in the show.

    But we begin with the author of an award-winning book that’s been targeted for removal by at least 14 states. It’s titled All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson, who writes about growing up Black and queer in New Jersey. The book deals with homophobia, transphobia and racism. In November, a school board member in Flagler County asked the County Sheriff’s Office to criminally prosecute whoever allowed the book in school libraries. The complaint led to the book being removed from the school system. George Johnson will join us in a moment, but first we’re going to turn to a video appearance they made at the school board meeting in Flagler County.

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Hello, everyone. My name is George M. Johnson, and I am the author of the book All Boys Aren’t Blue. I come to you today to speak out on behalf of my book, as well as to just talk about some of the issues and concerns that people are having with it.

    I first want to talk about a story, really quickly, of the first time I learned the word “lesbian.” I was 8 years old, sitting on the couch with my mom, watching an episode of Murphy Brown, and on the show they said the word “lesbian.” I looked to my mother, and I asked her, “Mommy, what’s a lesbian?” She looked at me, and she said, “Well, Matt, some men love women, and women love men, but there are some women who also love women, and the term for that is ‘lesbian.’” I looked at my mom, and I simply said, “OK.” And we went back to watching Murphy Brown. In that moment, I was the student, and my mother was my book All Boys Aren’t Blue.

    There is no reason for us to pretend that the world is not going to expose our youth and our teens to these very heavy subjects and heavy topics that are included in my book. The problem is, we think that my book is what is introducing them to that, when, realistically, they are already experiencing these things, and my book is what’s teaching them how to get through these things.

    My book is geared toward readers ages 14 through 18, as it states on Amazon and every other major website, as well as grades 10 through 12. The book does have two sections where I do describe sex, which is the time I was sexually abused as a 12-year-old and my first time losing my virginity. The parts that are being left out is, I lost my virginity at age 20, so I was an adult, and that both of those chapters are really teaching about consent, about agency, giving students the language to understand their bodies, to understand the power they have and to truly understand that because they don’t have sex education, they are having to go to other sources, which can make that — put them at risk and make them more vulnerable and susceptible to not only STIs, like HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, but also to potential harm.

    I find it interesting, though, because I remember learning about prostitution at the age of 6, and the book I learned it from was in Sunday school, and it was the Bible. So, unless we are ready to ban every single other context that talks about sex and sexuality, my book belongs in these teenagers’ hands. I finally want to end by saying it is not my book that is going to harm any teenager; it is them not having my book as a resource while they experience real life and real-world things.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s George M. Johnson testifying virtually before the school board in Flagler County, Florida, after a board member asked the County Sheriff’s Office to criminally prosecute whoever allowed Johnson’s book, All Boys Aren’t Blue, which has been banned in schools and libraries in at least 14 states. George M. Johnson is also the author of We Are Not Broken.

    Welcome Democracy Now! Can you start off by just responding to this spate of bannings, whether it has shocked you? You know, powerful testimony you gave virtually before the school board. Have any schools reinstated your book? And talk about what you’re trying to convey in your book.

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. So, one, thank you for having me on your show today.

    I wish I could say that the book bans were shocking, but if you just look at the history of the United States, book bans are nothing new. They’re just not as talked about as we have talked about them in other places, in other countries around the world. But Black storytelling has often been banned, whether you’re talking about Phillis Wheatley’s first book of poetry back in the 1700s or any of the slave narratives in the 1800s. So, this actually has historical precedence and legacy in this country. So I can’t even be shocked. I think I’m more shocked at the fact that they think that banning books is a realistic thing or a necessary thing during this time.

    You know, what my book discusses is my life. It simply just tells my life story from birth until the age of 21. And I just discuss the trials and tribulations of what it felt like to grow up and not be sure of who I was identity-wise. But the other beautiful thing about my book is I talk about my family. I talk about my amazing grandmother, who is no longer here, who I affectionately call “Nanny.” And I talk about growing up having wonderful cousins and my mom and my dad in my life and all of the things and wisdoms that they imparted on me.

    And I do also, you know, talk about sex and sexuality and consent and agency as a teaching tool for the youth, who are clearly growing up in a world where heavy topics are being presented to them not just in books but in real life, on television. So, again, I find it interesting, because it’s like if anyone wanted to learn about sex, sexuality and gender, a book is probably the last place they would need to look. They could simply cut on the television.

    But yeah, that’s what my book is about. And at the end of the day, my book is a tool so that Black queer kids and LGBTQ teens can see themselves and read about themselves and learn about themselves within the book’s pages, something that they historically have not been able to do.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, George Johnson, I wanted to ask you — Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds has compared books like yours to movies, saying that if explicit scenes in films mean children are barred from watching them, then explicit scenes in books should also be made unavailable to children. What’s your response to that comparison?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. My response is, people are using the word “children” very nefariously. Let’s be clear: My book is for 14-year-olds to 18-year-olds. Some of the movies she is speaking about our geared, you know, rated to 17-year-olds or rated where 16-year-olds and 15-year-olds can go see those very same movies. So, the term “children” is being used in a lot of places, because what they are trying to do media-wise is make it seem like my book is available to an 8-year-old or my book is available to a 10-year-old, when, in reality, this book is available to the very same demographic that she is describing.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what’s been your — what’s it been like to have your memoir, which is so deeply honest and vulnerable, be at the center of such a campaign by organized conservative groups around the country?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. I’ll be honest: Some days it is a little overwhelming to watch your story be twisted. Right? I think — and it’s interesting — right? — because they don’t want you to twist the story of their founders, who we all know we have — you know, who were slaveowners. The founders of this country, you know, participated in sexual abuse and rape and, you know, many other heavy topics, right? So, in one end, they’re saying, “Well, don’t twist the story of our founders,” while also twisting the stories of our books and saying that our books are saying something that they really aren’t. So, it’s just a really interesting space to kind of watch the cognitive dissonance that is happening when they are discussing my story, in particular.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the effect, George Johnson, of your book being banned and kids not having access to it, particularly Black and queer kids, but not only?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. I mean, the effect of that is then you have teens who will go through the same things that I went through. I talk about what it felt like to go through sexual assault and sexual abuse. I talk about what it feels like when you don’t have any representation of yourself in the world and how isolating that can feel. We know that LGBTQ youth experience suicidal ideations at a much higher rate, die by suicide at a much higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts. Books like these prevent those things from happening. So it’s extremely important that they have resources like mine and many of the other books that they are trying to ban, because it honestly can save their lives.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us why you titled your book All Boys Aren’t Blue?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. You know, it’s interesting, right? When we think about colors, and we think about, “Oh, boys are blue, and girls are pink,” what are we really saying when we put that designation that a boy is blue, right? It sends you down a pathway where you have to be more masculine, and you have to present as heterosexual, and you have to play sports, and, you know, you’re not allowed to have dolls, or you’re not allowed to have an Easy-Bake Oven as a boy. You have to have a football or a basketball. You have to be tough. You know, big boys don’t cry. It really pushes you down a pathway, when we put that label of boy on a child or that label of girl on a child, to go either this direction of acceptability or this direction of acceptability. And what my title is simply saying is that, “Hey, all of us boys aren’t blue. Some of us are pink, and some of us are yellow, and some of us are green. And we deserve and need the space to explore who we truly are, outside of the context of the heteronormative society that many of us are placed into.”

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And as a writer, what are some of the books that have shaped your own thinking and your own work?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. I mean, as a writer, you know, Notes of a Native Son by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, Sula. You know, I believe it’s called Tongues Untamed, which is a book from the ’90s, as well. All of these books have helped sharpen my lens. All of these books have allowed me to feel seen. All of these books have helped, you know, sharpen my tool. When I think about Toni Morrison, she’s the reason that I write. I have her tattooed on my arm. It says — her quote — “If there’s a book that you want to read, and it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.” So, the works of those authors are — and watching how their work in the world shifted culture and gave us space and made us feel at home and made us feel seen and accepted and told our true story, it literally just empowers me to continue to do that for so many others who have never had their stories told.

    AMY GOODMAN: George, your book is so powerful. And among the things you talk about is being sexually assaulted when you were 13, is having your teeth kicked out when you were 5 years old. What would it have meant if you read a book like you wrote, All Boys Aren’t Blue, when you were a kid?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Man, it would have meant the world to me to just read anything that said, you know, being different didn’t mean that you weren’t normal, that the feelings I was feeling were being felt by somebody else before me, as well. It would have allowed me to know that I wasn’t the only one who had ever went through the experiences that I was going through as a teenager.

    But it also would have given me a voice, I believe. I think it would have given me the language and the tools to be able to go to my parents and have the conversation about how I was feeling, because I think that’s also one of the bigger parts, is when you don’t have the language and you don’t know that someone else is going through the same things that you’re going through, you don’t know even how to talk about it with anyone. If I would have had a book like mine, I feel like I would have had a roadmap, something I could hold onto, where I could use it to be empowered to speak my truth to my family, to my friends, in a way that I wasn’t allowed to do when I was a teenager.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’m wondering — this movement that has been gaining strength in the past year or two, this banned books movement across the country, it almost seems to me, given the enormous accessibility of the written word today, not just in books, but, obviously, most young people get most of their information right through phones, through their smartphones — what your sense is of what is, in essence, an astroturf movement, pretending to be grassroots but actually being organized by multibillionaire conservative folks like the Koch brothers. Could you talk your response to this movement and your being now one of the key figures in the center of this storm?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah, the movement is interesting, for all of the reasons that you named. And, you know, it’s also interesting because you have a bunch of people who oftentimes [inaudible] very clear that they must not have read the first story of Genesis and the forbidden fruit. When you make something forbidden, it only makes it more tempting. And so, in putting our books like at the center of attention and trying to make them forbidden, it’s, honestly, only making more people interested in the story, which is only creating more access points. So it’s like they’re having this fight to shut down one access point, even though the fight is making our books so known that it’s only creating 10 more different places for the students to get the book.

    And so, I think, realistically, this is not really a fight about book bans. I think what it is is a notion to try and hold on to white purity and, like, the innocence of their children. And I think when you look at what’s going on with the Voting Rights Act, when you look at what’s going on with Roe v. Wade, when you look at what’s going on with book banning, they all have similar ties to the fact that the demographic and the population is shifting, and the population is becoming less and less white. And so, realistically, what they are trying to do is put a stop on any place where you can fully see that demographic shift happening, which just happens to be publishing. There are more Black and Brown students, so there are more Black and Brown books in school systems. So, anywhere where we’re seeing the demographic of books change or the demographics of voting change or the demographics of rates of birth changing between Black and Brown and white women, you’re seeing where they’re putting these attacks. So I think that’s really what this is. I don’t really think it has as much to do with books as it has to do with ensuring that they condition the next generation around who their founders were and how great this country is, in the same way they conditioned mine and my parents’ and my grandparents’.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask you about these bills that are going through state legislatures, you know, not only the book bannings of books like yours, George. You’ve got the Florida bill, that was approved by a state House committee, that would prohibit students and teachers from speaking about sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. And then you’ve got New Hampshire. I mean, we’re speaking at the beginning of Black History Month. New Hampshire lawmakers considering a bill — how did New Hampshire Public Radio put it? “The proposed bill, HB 1255, is titled ‘An Act Relative to Teachers’ Loyalty,’ and seeks to ban public school teachers from promoting any theory that depicts U.S. history or its founding in a negative light, including the idea that the country was founded on racism.” If you could wrap up your comments by talking about these kind of bills?

    GEORGE M. JOHNSON: Yeah. You know, the fear of losing control will make you do some very interesting and strange things. These bills are all about the fear of losing the control of the minds that they have had in this country since its early foundings. Again, I was someone — and I write about this in All Boys Aren’t Blue — I was someone who was literally conditioned as a Black child to think that Abraham Lincoln was my savior because he ended slavery. And so, I think about that, how as a child — because of how we’re taught, we are conditioned to look up to whiteness as a supreme thing, as the savior. And so, when we now are 20, 25-plus years from when I was being taught, and we have books and we have teachers and librarians who are saying, “Well, actually, that’s not the truth of this country, and actually this is really what happened,” the conditioning of the mind is changing.

    And so, really, this is really a fear-based attempt to stop how they have conditioned the minds of youth, because, realistically, Gen Z is the most diverse population. So, the fear of those who are currently in power is that if Gen Z has the actual truth in their hands, when those particular white kids from Gen Z and those Black and Brown kids from Gen Z become the next leaders and become the future leaders, they will operate with a lens where they think about equity and equality and realize that there are people who exist around them who don’t have as much as they have, in a way that I got conditioned as a child to think that I was — that whiteness was my savior, in many ways, instead of realizing that it was my oppressor.

    AMY GOODMAN: George M. Johnson, we want to thank you so much for joining us and for your courageous work, author of the memoir-manifesto All Boys Aren’t Blue, which has been banned in schools and libraries in at least 15 states now. George M. Johnson is also the author of We Are Not Broken.

    Next up, we’ll speak with the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman. A Tennessee school board recently voted to ban his graphic novel Maus about his parents surviving the Holocaust. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Musician Neil Young finds himself in the 2022 limelight. It may well generate more on-air play and music sales for the Canadian. Young wrote a letter on his website (since removed) that garnered much attention. It read:

    Please immediately inform Spotify that I am actively canceling all my music availability on Spotify as soon as possible. I am doing this because Spotify is spreading false information about vaccines — potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.

    Young had a specific target in mind: “I want you to let Spotify know immediately today that I want all of my music off their platform. They can have [podcaster Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.”

    Sounds a lot like a Neil Young’s nemesis, George W Bush: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

    It comes on the heels of a 31 December episode from The Joe Rogan Experience in which one of Rogan’s guests was Dr. Robert Malone, whose self-bio boasts: “I am an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies. I hold numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including for fundamental DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccine technologies.” Malone is, notwithstanding, alleged to have spread COVID-19 misinformation.

    Of course Joe Rogan doesn’t get everything right. He admits “absolutely I get things wrong.” Don’t we all. Rogan’s interviews are often quite interesting, but he really blew it when he interviewed Yeonmi Park and let her off easily for transparent nonsense about North Korea. But Rogan doesn’t pretend to know all the topics deeply; he is learning, as are, hopefully, all of us.

    Does Neil Young get everything right?

    When one accuses someone else of misinformation or disinformation, he might not be claiming to know the truth, but he does claim to know what is untruthful. That may be, but this claim carries an onus. If you want to accuse someone of misinformation/disinformation, then to maintain integrity, you should specify what that mis/disinformation is, and you must demonstrate why it is mis/disinformation. If you cannot point to any instance of mis/disinformation and why it is so, then, with all due respect, just shut the f**k up. In the present Young-Rogan kerfuffle, since mis/disinformation has been alleged, if Young can’t back up his allegations, then first, an apology is in order, and second this should be followed by a retraction of the allegation.

    If one claims to know the truth from untruth, then that person must specify what she claims to be factually inaccurate. It simply does not pass muster to point out that misinformation was communicated by another person. Any lunkhead on the street can shout misinformation. (And it is salient to make clear the distinction here between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is when a person mistakenly communicates information that is factually inaccurate. Simply put, he was wrong. Disinformation is far more insidious because the person knows that what she is communicating is factually inaccurate. In common parlance, she lied.)

    Imagine the misinformation paradigm:

    Neil: That’s misinformation.
    Joe: What exactly is that misinformation?
    Neil: You said [and here we have to guess what was the faulty information because Neil was never challenged to specify what was faulty].
    Joe: [to which Joe could theoretically respond] Why is that information faulty?

    The onus is on the accuser to state clearly what information was wrong and prove it to be wrong.

    Imagine the disinformation paradigm:

    Neil: You lied.
    Joe: What lie did I tell?
    Neil: You lied about Covid.
    Joe: What did I say about Covid that was a lie?
    Neil: You said [and here we have to guess what was the lie because Neil was never challenged to specify what was a lie].
    Joe: [to which Joe could theoretically respond] How is that a lie?

    The onus is on the accuser to state clearly what was a lie and prove it to be a lie, and the accuser has to also prove that the accused knew that he was telling a lie.

    Young is probably well meaning, but that does not mean his motivations weren’t ill advised or even morally questionable. In 2014, Dissident Voice editor Angie Tibbs criticized Young for his:

    blatant show of support for the apartheid state, a nasty slap in the face for the occupied people of Palestine, and most specifically Gaza where the residents are now counting the bodies and burying their dead as a result of Israel’s latest bombardment.

    Who could believe that Neil Young, the long time activist, would ignore the BDS campaign, including a cultural boycott demanding that Israel recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully comply with the precepts of international law?

    Young has also been called out for his misinformation concerning the “Tiananmen Square massacre.” Decades after the violence that transpired outside Tiananmen Square, Young was still dedicating his hit song “Rockin’ in the Free World” “to the Chinese students who were killed during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989,” even though the CIA-orchestrated upheaval targeted the killing of soldiers.

    As for COVID-19 and how best to treat it, for any non-expert (and, granted, maybe Neil Young has carried out much study and has become quite expert about COVID), to claim epistemological certitude should be greeted with more than a modicum of skepticism. Who can state with absolute or near absolute certainty on all the vectors involved with COVID-19? Likeliest, the virus is spread by aerosols. But who is most at risk? Probably the elderly and the infirm. What are the dangers of infection? What is the best way to combat an infection? What is the best way to gain immunity? What are the best ways to avoid an infection? What reasonable, science-backed precautions should one take: mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing, disinfection of surfaces, etc? Should one be vaccinated? What are the side-effects from the vaccines: dangerous? life threatening? short-term? long-term? Does recovery from COVID-19 provide greater protection from re-infection? If vaccination is found to provide safe and reasonable protection (obviously it does not confer immunity), then which vaccine should be prescribed? How much is known about the safety and possible side-effects given that vaccine trials are still ongoing? Can the pharmaceutical manufacturers be trusted? Why have the pharmaceutical companies’ COVID vaccines been indemnified? How should people regard the report that Thailand’s National Health Security Office paid out about 927 million baht (about 28 million USD) to 8,470 people who suffered side effects after being vaccinated against COVID-19? Is the clinical data transparent? VAERS reports reflect what percentage of the adverse events? Is the virus petering out? There is so much to be considered and knowledge is still coming to light.

    Some of the I-know-better-than-others crowd have called for censorship. Is censorship how humans arrive at the truth? Have the people who argue for censorship learned anything from when the church proscribed the teaching of heliocentrism? Wasn’t it a heresy at one time (and even still in some backwaters) to theorize human life as having evolved from simpler lifeforms?

    We are exhorted by government officials and government spokespersons to follow the science. But when do they ever bother to present the scientific evidence? Do they point to the independent peer-review science literature? Can we trust that doctors and scientists always get it right? Didn’t doctors use to be big boosters of cigarette smoking?

    Spotify has reacted to Young’s complaints and removed his music from the platform. Spotify has also promised to be vigilant against misinformation, as we all should be. But is one not promoting misinformation when one falsely accuses another of misinformation?

    Rogan supports Spotify’s plan to put a disclaimer at the start of controversial episodes.

    For his part, Young denied pushing censorship. “I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information.”

    Neil, you say you support free speech, but did you not just threaten Spotify because that platform allowed Joe Rogan to exercise his free speech?

    The podcaster has taken the high road.”My pledge to you [the listener] is that I will do my best to try to balance out these more controversial viewpoints with other people’s perspectives, so we can maybe find a better point of view.”

    Rogan added, “I’m not mad at Neil Young, I’m a huge Neil Young fan.”

    Still, it would have been preferable if Rogan had respectfully put the onus on Young to point out the inaccuracies that the musician had alleged.

    Maybe Young is an expert on COVID-19, and maybe he can discern what is factually accurate and inaccurate. However, there are thousands and thousands of physicians and scientists (and plenty of Canadian truck drivers and their supporters) out there that disagree with Young.

    Top image credit: Loudwire

    The post The Onus on Those Who Accuse Others of Mis/Disinformation first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Person and youth selecting book from library shelf

    In October 2021, Texas Rep. Matt Krause, Republican chair of the House General Investigation Committee, sent a letter to state education authorities asking them if their school libraries stocked any of the 850 “divisive” books on a list he’d compiled. Concerned about threats to intellectual freedom, a small group of librarians reached out to one another to discuss how best to respond.

    “We felt we needed to speak out, support the right to read, and uplift librarians who might be feeling pressured to remove books from their shelves,” Carolyn Foote, a retired Texas librarian and spokesperson for @FReadomfighters told Truthout. They quickly created the #Freadomfighters hashtag and mounted a Twitter storm, urging parents, teachers, students, librarians and concerned Texans to tweet their legislators with pictures of books that help children and teens navigate race, racism, gender, gender identity and sexuality. In one day alone, 13,000 tweets were sent.

    The massive outpouring was “unbelievable,” Foote says, but was also proof that many Texas residents were eager to push back against right-wing efforts to control and suppress literature for children and teens.

    Many Texans saw Krause’s list as a wake-up call and expressed shock that it included such a wide range of books: John Irving’s Cider House Rules, William Styron’s The Confessions of Nat Turner, Alex Gino’s George, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, Louise A. Spilsbury’s Avoiding Bullies? Skills to Outsmart and Stop Them, and Jazz Jennings and Jessica Herthel’s I Am Jazz.

    These books, and approximately 845 others, State Representative Krause wrote in his letter, were concerning to him because they “might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.” While the missive did not explicitly direct districts to remove the books, it asked school superintendents to report how much they’d spent to purchase the offending texts. Implicit, critics charge, was that these expenditures represented a misuse of tax dollars.

    Texas, of course, is not the only place where children’s reading materials are being scrutinized or where right-wing groups are attempting to restrict what children can access. In fact, organizations purporting to be grassroots and parent-ledNo Left Turn in Education, Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education are the most prominent — have demanded that particular books be removed from public and school libraries in almost every state.

    No Left Turn in Education, whose executive director, Elana Fishbein, has worked with several established right-wing legal entities, even petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the materials used in public schools. In a 15-page letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland on January 5, Fishbein wrote that public elementary and secondary schools “have edged into depravity actionable under the law.” The letter asks Garland and the DOJ to “pursue, contain and ultimately eliminate the distribution of pornography in public institutions serving minors.” (No Left Turn did not respond to Truthout’s request for an interview).

    Social media and mainstream media echo chambers then repeated the charge that porn is pervasive in classrooms throughout the country, an assertion that sent fans of the right into a frenzy of letter writing to school boards and school superintendents throughout the country — and appearances at school board meetings to demand the removal of “offensive” texts. Media and podcast appearances followed.

    Project 21, a group of Black conservatives who operate under the aegis of the National Center for Public Policy Research, was just one of the groups that got on board, releasing a statement on its website stating that, “Children are being taught pornography…. Children are being taught victimhood. Bastardized [United States] history…. Parents have discovered that their children are learning divisive Critical Race Theory (CRT) and being exposed to sexualized content.”

    Classics and New Texts Are Being Scrutinized

    The upshot is that school boards and administrators are removing books, sometimes permanently and sometimes for short-term review, and are limiting student access to a wide array of texts, among them many award-winning titles that are intended to provoke curiosity and spark additional inquiry.

    To wit: Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is no longer required reading in Mukilteo, Washington; the school board in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, has removed Susan Kuklin’s Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out from school libraries; and Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe is now under review in Pella, Iowa.

    Other frequently challenged children’s and young adult titles include: Mildred Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry; Leslea Newman’s Heather Has Two Mommies; Anastasia Higginbotham’s Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness; Eve Merriam’s The Inner City Mother Goose; Lois Lowry’s The Giver; Robie Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health; Judy Blume’s Blubber and Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret; Tiffany Rose’s M Is for Melanin: A Celebration of the Black Child; Jacqueline Woodson’s Brown Girl Dreaming; Tiffany Jewell’s This Book is Anti-Racist; Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You and Kendi’s Antiracist Baby; Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give; and Laurie Halse Anderson’s Speak.

    And that’s just the tip of the censorship iceberg.

    Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, notes that right-wing censorship efforts have ramped up since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between September 1 and December 1, 2021, the Library Association recorded 330 challenges to particular books, Caldwell-Stone told Truthout. In 2019, there were just 376 challenges for the entire year, she says.

    Caldwell-Stone sees this escalation as a way for conservatives to try to control, and limit, what students learn. “The attempt is based on the myth that the U.S. is a monocultural society, but libraries and schools serve diverse populations,” she says. “The right wing is pushing back against efforts to be inclusive.”

    These efforts, she continues, are presented as a matter of parental rights, and are part of longstanding conservative efforts to sidestep discussions of sexuality, sexual behavior and gender identity in public school classrooms. Now, she says, the furor over CRT — which has never been part of the K-12 curriculum — has created a backlash that has lawmakers chomping at the bit to prove their right-wing bona fides.

    “In Florida, Oklahoma and Tennessee lawmakers have passed bills to ban instruction of ‘divisive’ concepts or ‘divisive’ content,” Caldwell-Stone says. “Statutes that deem certain materials ‘harmful to minors’ are also now being used to accuse schools and libraries of pandering obscenity. We’re currently tracking 13 such bills in states including Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska and Oklahoma.”

    Senate Bill 17 in Indiana, she continues, will, if passed, allow parents to sue schools — pre-K through college level — for disseminating materials that they consider “harmful to minors.” A companion bill, SB 167, will allow parental input into all curricula, ostensibly to weed out CRT or other “divisive” topics. The bill also mandates parental consent before a minor can receive mental health, psychological or social and emotional support from school personnel.

    The right calls these bills a move toward transparency. But librarian Foote of @FReadomfighters cautions that progressives need to be mindful not to “present as opposed to openness. It’s important,” she says, “to figure out how to speak about this so that we’re not positioned as favoring opaqueness or secrecy. The focus needs to stay on censorship, the desire of some parents to control what all children can read.”

    Students and Parents Form Banned Book Clubs

    That idea that a stranger will decide what she can or can’t read angers 14-year-old eighth-grader Joslyn Diffenbaugh. In fact, Diffenbaugh became so incensed that she formed a Banned Books Reading Club for middle and high school students in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, after reading about censorship efforts in Texas and elsewhere. Her mother, Lisa Diffenbaugh, a member of Kutztown Organized for Educational Excellence, told Truthout that while she and her daughter believe that parents can try to restrict what their children read, “They don’t have the right to restrict what other kids can read.”

    The Banned Books Reading Club began meeting in a Kutztown bookstore in early January. Its first selection was Animal Farm. Group members are eager to read both long-challenged and newly challenged works, Joslyn says, and will alternate between the two categories. “The response has been amazing,” she says. “Teachers are glad we’ll have an opportunity to read these books.” In addition, donations have poured in, allowing the book shop to provide free copies of the readings to group participants. Even more encouraging, copycat banned book reading groups are popping up throughout the country.

    Like Joslyn and Lisa Diffenbaugh, Danielle Hartsfield, an associate professor of education at the University of North Georgia and president of the Children’s Literature and Reading Special Interest Group (CLRSIG), is appalled by right-wing efforts to diminish cultural pluralism, invalidate diverse identities and censor books. Toward that end, CLRSIG, she says, trumpets 25 “Notable Books for a Global Society” annually.

    “We honor all forms of human diversity,” Hartsfield told Truthout. “This is why we included Lisa Fipps’s Starfish, about a child who is bullied because of body size. If you don’t see yourself in literature, it’s as if you don’t matter. This is why children need books that are both windows into other cultures and mirrors that reflect them.”

    But the current climate, she continues, threatens to stifle which books children and young adults can access. “Trump stirred the pot of open hatred. I was hoping people would step back once he was out of office, but the culture of othering those who are in any way different has become normalized.”

    This is where the Rainbow Library created by GLSEN — a national advocacy group focused on LGBTQ issues in K-12 education — comes in. Program Manager Michael Rady notes that while attempts to ban queer-affirming books in public schools are nothing new, ramped up efforts from “right-wing sources seeking to censor queer-affirming and Black and Brown-affirming books” has made GLSEN’s work increasingly important. The Rainbow Library, he explains, provides sets of 10 age-appropriate queer and Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)-affirming books to schools, most of them written by trans, nonbinary, or authors of color.

    The program began in Connecticut in 2019; this year, K-12 schools in 28 states will receive books. Teachers or school administrators need to sign up for the program, Rady says, but once approved, they receive technical assistance to reinforce best practices in supporting LGBTQIA+ kids or kids who have questions about gender, sexual identity or sexuality.

    “We communicate about the student right to read in a series of online workshops,” Rady says, and talk about the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Island Trees v. Pico. In that decision, SCOTUS determined that, “Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperative of the First Amendment.”

    This affirms the efficacy of stocking books that tackle topics that some consider controversial, Rady says. What’s more, “The Rainbow Library highlights the specific importance of having queer and Black and Brown-affirming books in their libraries.”

    Rady makes clear that providing books through GLSEN’s Rainbow Library program can be life-saving for marginalized queer and BIPOC youth, who are looking to understand their feelings and desires. He says that he is pleased with the program’s growth to date and is encouraged by kids like Joslyn Diffenbaugh who are denouncing censorship and committing to reading and distributing banned books.

    The Library Association’s Caldwell-Stone agrees but knows that the battle ahead will not be easy. “Progressives need to pay attention,” she says, “and show up at school board and library board meetings. We need to watch what is happening in state legislatures and speak up. Elected officials need to hear from people who want schools and libraries to provide access to diverse viewpoints and diverse concepts. Lawmakers need to hear that you want students to learn about LGBTQIA issues and read books that address race and racism. They need to hear that you expect them to represent everyone in the community.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New Delhi, January 31, 2022 – Indian authorities should allow the Malayalam-language news channel MediaOne TV to operate freely, and should not suspend broadcasters over their work, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Monday.

    At about 12:30 p.m. on Monday, MediaOne TV ceased broadcasting after it received a suspension notice via email, according to the outlet’s editor, Pramod Raman, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview.

    The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting suspended the broadcaster for unspecified “security reasons” and because it allegedly had not been granted a security clearance by the Home Ministry during its license renewal, according to multiple news reports, a statement by the outlet, and Raman.

    Following the suspension, the Kerala High Court temporarily postponed the government’s order until a hearing on Wednesday, according to those sources. The channel has since resumed live broadcasting.

    “Indian authorities should not use vague security concerns to suspend broadcasters like MediaOne TV,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C.  “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting must drop its bid to ban MediaOne TV and stop efforts to create such a harmful precedent.”

    MediaOne TV is owned by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, many of whose investors are members of the Kerala state chapter of the Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, according to the Indian Express. The channel has critically reported on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the parent organization of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as the government’s response to protests surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act and farming legislation.

    On January 5, the outlet received a notice from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting asking why its security clearance should not be revoked, Raman said. He told CPJ that the notice did not cite any specific actions by the broadcaster that could result in the denial of its clearance.

    Previously, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting banned MediaOne TV for 48 hours over its coverage of riots in Delhi in March 2020, as CPJ documented at the time.

    CPJ emailed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Home Ministry for comment, but did not immediately receive any replies.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.