Alternative Media Success Panics NeoCons

 

Here’s my latest Press TV piece, followed by Ian Fantom’s intervention in today’s UK parliamentary debate about going to war for/against ISIS. The thread connecting the two articles: The neocons are “fleeing forward” towards wider war in the Middle East as the forces of truth are slowly closing in on them.  – KB

 … Still Launching Wars with Lies

 Alt media success panics neocons

 By Kevin Barrett,    VT Editor,   …for Press TV

As Western mainstream media fall into the hands of lying billionaires, Zionists, and intelligence agencies (three categories with significant overlap) – and as neoconservatives script big media’s ignoble lies – a surging internet-based alternative media has arisen to challenge the elite’s false narratives. Thanks to alt-media, fewer and fewer people are buying the simplistic feel-good myths peddled by the mainstream.

While most old people still cling to the corporate media worldview, the young are skewing ever-harder toward alternative perspectives. In Thursday’s Scottish independence referendum, for example, the London Daily Mirror reported that 71% of 16-17 year olds voted “yes” while those over 65 voted “no” by a 73%-27% margin.

Why does the vast majority of Scottish young people favor independence, while an equally crushing majority of old people opposes it?

Short answer: Old people still believe BBC propaganda, while the young do not.

During the run-up to the referendum, huge crowds of young people gathered to protest the BBC’s biased coverage of the campaign. John Robertson, Professor of Media Studies at the University of the West of Scotland, said: “My research indicates that our public broadcaster, funded as much by Yes as by No voters, has betrayed its charter on impartiality.”

Older Scots grew up inside the bubble of the mainstream media monopoly. Most do not understand how the BBC and other mainstream outlets used subliminal cues as well as blatant bias to push for a “no” vote; nor do they realize how utterly corrupt their government and media have become.

Younger Scots, by contrast, grew up in the internet era and follow alternative media. Many know that the BBC covered up the Jimmy Saville pedophilia scandal in order to protect Tony Blair and other leading politicians. They know that the BBC reported the “collapse” of World Trade Center 7 twenty minutes before it happened. They know the BBC has worked overtime covering up not only 9/11-anthrax, but also follow-up false flag attacks including the 7/7/2005 London bombings. They know the BBC mis-portrays conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. And they realize that the Western “democracies” are rotten with election fraud – which makes the mainstream’s refusal to sponsor the usual exit polls in the Scottish referendum highly suspicious.

Just as young people disproportionately support European independence movements while opposing NATO and the EU, they also break with their elders in supporting the Palestinians rather than the Zionists. According to a July 23rd Gallup poll, Americans in the 18-29 years old range opposed Israel’s attack on Gaza by a two-to-one margin; while Americans over 65, who are less likely to use the alternative media, supported Israel’s assault by a 5 to 3 margin.

The neoconservatives – Straussian Zionists who believe the elite should control the masses with Big Lies – are panicked by the success of alternative media. Demonstrating their anguished desperation, America’s two most influential neoconservative publications, Commentary (the hard-line neocons) and Atlantic Monthly (the moderate neocons) just issued a coordinated salvo against alternative media. Both magazines, reading from the same script, are striving to portray the rising alternative media as enemies of the US and the West – an exquisite irony, since the neocons themselves are dual-loyalists at best, traitors at worst, while most of their alternative media enemies are honest patriots.

In the Atlantic Monthly’s new article “Russia and the Menace of Unreality: How Vladimir Putin is revolutionizing information warfare” Peter Pomerantsev falsely charges alternative media outlet Russia Today (RT) with doing what the neocon-dominated Western mainstream media is actually doing. Specifically, Pomerantsev charges that RT “reinvents reality, creating mass hallucinations that then translate into political action.” He says RT is spitting out “outlandish stories about the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in July” in order to create “a virtual reality that can no longer be mediated or debated by any appeal to ‘truth.’” And he adds: “RT also focuses on conspiracy theories—from 9/11 truthers to the hidden Zionist hand in Syria’s civil war.”

Contrary to Pomerantsev’s thesis, RT has all of these stories right – and is thereby striking a blow against the reality-reinventing, mass-hallucination-creating Western mainstream media. Putin and RT are revolutionizing information warfare not by lying but by seeking the truth.

For the neocons, truth-telling is an abomination. The founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, taught that truth is too dangerous to be shared with the masses. Strauss even applauded the execution of Socrates for the crime of telling the truth in the public square! According to Strauss and his neoconservative disciples, the elite (meaning themselves) must control the masses with feel-good lies – otherwise known as what 9/11 scriptwriter Philip Zelikow proudly calls “public myths.”

Deepening the irony, Pomerantsev cites a top George W. Bush official widely assumed to be Karl Rove: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Rove was vaunting the ersatz “war on terror” reality the neoconservatives created with their 9/11 inside job. Today, the alternative media is shooting that ridiculous hallucination full of holes. Yet Pomerantsev shamelessly quotes Rove in support of his thesis that it is the independent media, rather than Rove and the lapdog mainstream media, that fabricates false realities.

While the Atlantic Monthly was insinuating that the alternative media is a Russian propaganda operation, the other neocon journal Commentary was doing the same thing – except it was trying to blame Iran rather than Russia. On September 12th Commentary ran an article by Michael Rubin headlined “Iran Promotes 9/11 Conspiracy on Anniversary.” Rubin falsely and libelously attributed my Press TV article “Arrest Kissinger for Both 9/11s” to the government of Iran, insinuating that I am somehow taking orders from the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian president when I write op-eds for Press TV!

The neoconservatives, panicked by the alternative media’s success, have evidently launched a coordinated propaganda campaign. They are trying to persuade the Western public that the alternative media is not just foreign, but tied to such “enemy” countries as Russia and Iran.

In fact, the Western alternative media is Western – and patriotic. In the USA, the alternative media seeks to expose 9/11 treason and take back America from the dual-citizen Zionists and New World Order globalists. Such outlets as VT, a hornets’ nest of former military and intelligence professionals appalled by the treasonous 9/11 false flag operation, proudly wave the American flag as they seek to restore such traditional American values as freedom, democracy, and respect for the Constitution.

Likewise European alternative media outlets oppose the Zionists and EU globalists, and support their own nations’ struggles against the forces of global tyranny.

Foreign English-language news outlets like Press TV and Russia Today are simply surfing a wave of patriotism and critical thinking that is rising in Western countries.

So when the neoconservatives tell you that my articles are “enemy propaganda,” please keep in mind that these people are cult followers of the Straussian philosophy of the big lie.

And please take some time to investigate who the neoconservatives are and where they came from. You may wish to consult such documents as Shadia Drury’s book Leo Strauss and the American Right, David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 exposé The New Pearl Harbor, James Petras’s The Power of Israel in the United States, and Stephen Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal.

By simply reading these four books, you will gain lifetime immunity from the lies of the neoconservatives.

A philosophy that exalts lies, and demonizes truth, cannot possibly endure. The emergence of “weaponized truth” in the alternative media represents an ineluctable backlash against the neocon-Straussian big lies epitomized by the false flag operation of September 11th, 2001. As younger critical thinkers replace the aging generation of sheeple, the mendacious mainstream media and the neoconservative liars who dominate it will go the way of the dodo and the dinosaur.

“Lies”, says Cameron, as he launches another war

by Ian Fantom, UK

(2014-09-25) – Britain is again on the verge of war. Every time they say it’s different this time, and it never is. They say the first casualty of war is truth, but it’s not true; the truth is dead before the war even begins. War is the result of lies, and this war is no exception.

A 93-year-old said to me: “I’m getting confused on who’s fighting who”. I replied, “We’re all confused. It’s ludicrous”. Who is ISIS? No-one seems to know. Has a war ever been won by bombing alone? No-one seems to know. “What could be the purpose of posting videos of beheadings?” No-one seems to know. What is the long-term strategy for winning this war? No-one seems to know. It’s as if the political establishment together with mainstream political journalists have gone into premature dementure.

Clearly, the purpose of the public beheadings can only be to enrage public opinion in the West to such an extent that they will allow their governments to send in their armed forces into the areas said to be controlled by ISIS. Who would want to do that? Would Middle-Eastern Islamicists intent on setting up an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq want to provoke and enable the mightiest military force the world has ever known to move in and obliterate them? Of course not.

Many people now think that ISIS is in all probability a creation of the US, or at least of the Neoconservative-Likud-CIA-MI6 alliance that seems to be running the Military Industrial Complex. It is said to be an offshoot of Al Qaeda, which originated as a US database of fighters opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The case for war is being fabricated, and David Cameron is every bit as bad as Tony Blair, when he fabricated the myth of Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to give a pretext to invade Iraq. He is every bit as bad as Tony Blair when he told the House of Commons that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, but that he wasn’t going to tell them what that proof was, but would deposit it in the House of Commons Library; he didn’t. David Cameron is every bit as bad as Adolf Hitler when his men burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists. Mercifully we haven’t yet had a Kristallnacht in the UK, but I fear that’s where we’re heading.

On 24 September David Cameron made a speech to the UN Security Council, which was posted on the Prime Minister’s website under the title: “Only a coherent, coordinated response can tackle what is a truly global and indiscriminate threat”. It’s a rehash of the Policy Exchange stuff, in which he links Islam with terrorism through constant use of the word “extremism”. What, I wonder, is the “poisonous ideology of extremism” he refers to? Is it not extremist to go to war? Then he spews out the Policy Exchange stuff about non-violent extremism: “But as the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist of offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it”. What evidence? After his Munich speech, saying that multiculturalism had failed, I gave a talk to our Keep Talking group in London, tracing his speech to Policy Exchange. I listed all those convicted of terrorist offences. I could see no evidence of these people being influenced by preachers. Look at the wording, “convicted of terrorist offences”. That has to exclude all alleged suicide bombers, the most notorious of which would be the four alleged Muslim terrorists behind 7/7 – the terrorist attacks on the London transport system of 7 July 2005. They were just declared guilty by the coroner before the inquest opened, and because they were guilty they were excluded from the inquest. Were they fanatical Muslim extremists? Well, no. This is pure deception on David Cameron’s part.

But then he accuses the truth movement of telling lies: “And we know what this worldview is–the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy; the concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. That means banning preachers of hate from coming to our countries. It means proscribing organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. It means stopping extremists whether violent or non-violent from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, in our universities and even sometimes in our prisons. In other words, firm, decisive action – to protect and uphold the values of our free and democratic societies”.

Who is making the allegation that 9/11 was a Jewish plot? Certainly evidence has been appearing that extremist Israeli nationalists were involved, but I have been at pains to point out in my newsletters, that it’s not “the Jews”; most British Jews were against the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine, and many have been protesting more recently about the genocide in Gaza. David Cameron is putting out a straw man argument, in order to deflect from the blatent lies in the 9/11 cover-up. He is now maliciously using 9/11 in order to justify yet another post-9/11 war.

He accuses us of telling lies about 7/7. How could 7/7 not have been staged? Note the careful use of language here. The plain fact is that the government’s version of events just does not tie up. They even took a year to acknowledge that the train from Luton to London by which MI5 claimed the terrorists had travelled had in fact been cancelled that day. Are MI5 seriously incompetent, or was that blatent deception? How could the government simply dismiss that as a mistake, with no consequences?

Having gone to the UN Security Council to tell them that some of his own citizens are liars, when all they want is to know the truth about 9/11 and 7/7, he is now recalling Parliament on Friday 27 September, in order to get the go-ahead for war – or at least to pacify Parliament, because he doesn’t formally need Parliament’s approval; in the case of 9/11 there was just an adjournment debate, in which there was no substantive motion. Only the Prime Minister and the Queen can decide to take Britain into war. On the Prime Minister’s website there is no motion, but just a statement that the purpose of the recall is “to debate the UK’s response to the request from the Iraqi government for air strikes to support operations against ISIL in Iraq”.

I should have thought that any political journalist in the UK would be able to understand such elementary points. One has to wonder who their paymasters are.

Kevin Barrett

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard driving weekly radio show funded by listener donations at Patreon.com and FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN); an audio-video show produced by Tony Hall, Allan Reese, and Kevin himself. FFWN is funded through FundRazr.

He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

• Read Dr. Barrett’s Latest Posts Here >>>