Graphic by Claudio Cabrera for MintPress News
“Social Media and Social Control: How Silicon Valley Serves the US State Department” by Morgan Artyukhina (Mint Press News)
An excerpt from The above linked-to article follows:
[:[:[:
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is in the spotlight for “dining with far-right figures,” and their influence over the information that appears in your feed is apparent. However, Facebook isn’t the only Silicon Valley firm that’s masquerading as nonpartisan as it curates the “facts” you see in ads, posts, or searches: Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and others are deeply wedded to the U.S. security state and the billionaires it upholds…
The media giants that control our access to information, from search engines like Google to social media like Facebook, have turned themselves into portals to the world and present themselves as impartial in that role. However, behind a facade of separateness, strong connecting links bind the tech giants to the oligarchy and security state on which they rely, giving the interests of the elite determinative influence over which information we access…
This cyberpunk dystopia isn’t a new perversion of a previously free internet, though – in fact, it is the internet’s raison d’être in the first place…
“For years, Mark Zuckerberg has met with elected officials and thought leaders all across the political spectrum,” a Facebook spokesperson said. Yet when The Intercept put that claim to the test, they couldn’t find a single left-wing figure invited to his private California estate for one of these wine and dine symposia on free speech.
:]:]:]
Even if those ‘leftwing’ figures were rightwing but looked leftwing and only uttered a leftwing sentiment here and there, the point made is good. Zuckerberg is narrowing his approval of ideas and statements, with material consequences, to those who are unabashed rightwingers.
“After US killing of Iran’s Soleimani, narrative control on social media is getting worse” by Eva Bartlett (In Gaza and beyond)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
]=-
Twitter has been on a narrative-control rampage, removing or censoring legitimate accounts that are critical of US-led wars, propaganda and lies. Facebook and Instagram have increased their Big Brother policing, too.
Attempts by American-based social media behemoths to silence or censor voices critical of the establishment-approved narrative is nothing new, but this trend seems to have intensified lately.
Just in the past several days, following the criminal US assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Instagram and Facebook have been removing posts supportive of Soleimani, even profile photos honouring the general, allegedly to comply with US sanctions, a truly absurd explanation for the narrative control…
Many anti-war voices have been scrubbed from Twitter and Facebook, including the prominent anti-war voice of Daniel McAdams – Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity– who was banned from Twitter for using the word “retarded” to describe a Fox News host, something I’m sure many people would think an insufficient and mild description of such corporate media entities…
Accounts Calling For Genocide A-Okay on Twitter
While accounts like McAdams’ are taken down allegedly for reasons of political correctness, other accounts can call for genocide and destruction with no repercussions.
Take the rather no-name lobbyist Jack Burkman, who, after the US assassination of Iran’s beloved General Soleimani, tweeted about the “need to burn every major Iranian city to the ground.” His tweet actually included “Load up the [chemical weapon] napalm.”
…
Then there is the President of the United States, who, after having General Soleimani illegally assassinated, went on to threaten to destroy 52 Iranian cultural sites. That tweet remains up on Twitter, in spite of surely violating rules on threatening violence (and not only against a person but a nation). I mean, most normal people consider threatening to destroy places somewhat violent…
And there are accounts representing the terrorists themselves, whose graphic content certainly ought to be deemed violations of Twitter’s rules, yet so many of these accounts remain intact.
Twitter serves as a platform for war propaganda, that’s fairly clear. But there’s a point that some people might not know about Twitter and Syria: Twitter doesn’t recognize the Syrian country code, thus you’d need a non-Syrian phone number to open an account…
In researching for this piece last week, I came across a recent article announcing a new feature Twitter would test, in its valiant efforts to quash trolls: limiting who may reply to tweets before sending a tweet.
This smacks not of cutting out trolls, but of making echo chambers more impenetrable, so war propagandists can back-slap one another without allowing intelligent voices to poke holes in their lies.
-=[
“Trump Impeachment… Slapstick Diversion From Reality” by Finian Cunningham (Strategic Culture Foundation)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Finian Cunningham follows:
)-
“Oh yes, he is!.. Oh no, he isn’t!..” and so it went on for nearly 10 hours of to-and-fro between Democrats and Republicans. Eventually, the finale came when black-clad Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hammered the gavel, announcing President had been impeached – only the third-ever in two-and-half centuries of 45 presidents.
It was a foregone conclusion given the Democrat majority in the House. The next step in the impeachment process goes to the Republican controlled Senate next month where Trump will almost certainly be acquitted…
What was truly sad, however, is how the impeachment fiasco dominated other news, thereby drawing the curtain on several far more significant events.
On the same day as the House brouhaha, over in the Senate Inspector General Michael Horowitz was continuing to give withering testimony from his report into FBI wiretapping of the Trump election campaign back in 2016. The misconduct by the FBI in carrying out surveillance on private American citizens is a shocking abuse of power by the intelligence agency. All the implications suggest that the Obama administration engaged with secret services to sabotage the election campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 with phony allegations about Russia collusion. The constitutional violations by the FBI are colossal.
Knowing the murky past of the FBI and its dirty tricks, we shouldn’t be surprised by Horowitz’s findings. A follow-up report by attorney John Durham promises to be even more damning. But what is so astounding is how the US media, by and large, had their focus on the impeachment debacle instead of this far bigger show of grave importance. Perhaps not really astounding given that major media outlets like CNN, New York Times, MSNBC and Washington Post have invested so much capital in whipping up the Russia claims. Their ignoring the FBI misconduct is vital for self-preservation by avoiding accountability for their “Russia collusion” fantasies.
Another blockbuster story roundly ignored was the unfolding scandal at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
-(
Finian also notes that “Surely on any objective scale, the OPCW scandal is worth far more media attention than the turgid proceedings in the House. But then again invoking objectivity is a naive request when the polarized politics in the US have become so hyper-subjective.” Yes, but let’s remember that the “polarized politics” itself is part of the show slash charade. Read Finian’s entire article in which he hammers that point home. It gives you a good look at the mafia capitalism that powerful special interests are spilling oceans of blood to protect.
“Major Defeat for the US and its Allies at the OAS, a Victory for Evo!” by Arnold August (RESUMEN)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
|+
On December 18, in Washington, DC, the CARICOM (bloc of Caribbean states) resolution presented to the Organization of American States (OAS) reads as follows: “Rejection of violence and call for full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples in the Plurinational State of Bolivia.”
The Bolivian pro-US coup delegation, in order to stop the resolution from being adopted, claimed it could have been “more constructive and instead of supporting the intention of burning the country as Evo Morales wishes, and contribute to pacification.”
Granada began the meeting by pointing out that the Bolivian Project did not constitute amendments to the CARICOM Project, but a new draft Resolution. On the proposal of another small country, Belize, the Bolivian coup resolution was put to a vote.
The result of the vote on the Bolivian coup plotters’ project was as follows:
In favor 8: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, USA, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and Venezuela (represented by the pro-U.S. Guiadó).
.Against: 17 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Uruguay, Bahamas, Saint Kitts, and Nevis.
Abstention 8: Canada, Costa Rica, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Peru and Honduras.
Absent 1: Haiti
So, the Bolivian “government” project was rejected.
Then the ambassador of the United States proposed to vote on the draft Resolution of CARICOM, which resulted in the following, a bad surprise for the US and its OAS puppet Almagro:
In favor 18: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Uruguay and Panama.
Against 4: Bolivia, Colombia, USA, Venezuela (the representative of the self-proclaimed Guaidó).
Abstention 11: Canada, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay
Absent: 1 Haiti
As a result, the Resolution “Rejection of violence and call for full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples in the Plurinational State of Bolivia” was approved. Great news!
Despite millions of Canadian workers CUPE (680,000 workers), CUPW (54,000) OFL (one 1 million), UNIFOR (300,000) & CLC (3 million) in favour of Evo and opposed to the coup, Canada abstained on the CARICOM resolution at the OAS. This raises serious issues about democracy, not in the pre-Evo Bolivia, nor in current Venezuela, but in Canada!
Trudeau had to take this “neutral stand” (as opposed to his very possible preference to vote against the just CARICOM the resolution) probably as a result of the strong movement in Canada against the coup and in favour of Evo.
This opposition to the Trudeau government’s Bolivia policy was completely censured by Canada’s corporate media. However, Trudeau must have seen the writing on the wall and thus took the cowardly stance, increasingly a trade mark of his government and himself as a politician.
+|
“German Parliament Office Reports No Russian Invasion Of Donbass, Rejects Media And Government Propaganda” by John Helmer (Dances With Bears)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
=====:-
A report by a research unit of the German Bundestag, just released in Berlin, has defied the narrative of the European Union, NATO and the US, with the conclusion that since the Ukraine civil war began in early 2014, there has been no reliable evidence of Russian troop invasion or intervention by regular Russian military forces in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
After a review of the press, official public releases and reports, as well as European court rulings, the Bundestag’s experts have described the outcome with the German phrase, ohne belastbares Faktenmaterial – “without reliable fact material.”
The Bundestag report, which runs to 17 pages and was completed on December 9, has been noted in the German-language media. To date, however, it has been ignored by the Anglo-American press, including the alt-media.
-:=====
“Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists” by Rita Rubin (JAMA)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
|\||
It’s almost unheard of for medical journals to get blowback for studies before the data are published. But that’s what happened to the Annals of Internal Medicine last fall as editors were about to post several studies showing that the evidence linking red meat consumption with cardiovascular disease and cancer is too weak to recommend that adults eat less of it…
Annals Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, MD, MPH, saw her inbox flooded with roughly 2000 emails—most bore the same message, apparently generated by a bot—in a half hour. Laine’s inbox had to be shut down, she said. Not only was the volume unprecedented in her decade at the helm of the respected journal, the tone of the emails was particularly caustic.
“We’ve published a lot on firearm injury prevention,” Laine said. “The response from the NRA (National Rifle Association) was less vitriolic than the response from the True Health Initiative.”
The True Health Initiative (THI) is a nonprofit founded and headed by David Katz, MD. The group’s website describes its work as “fighting fake facts and combating false doubts to create a world free of preventable diseases, using the time-honored, evidence-based, fundamentals of lifestyle and medicine.” Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, and Frank Hu, MD, PhD, Harvard nutrition researchers who are among the top names in their field, serve on the THI council of directors.
Katz, Willett, and Hu took the rare step of contacting Laine about retracting the studies prior to their publication, she recalled in an interview with JAMA. Perhaps that’s not surprising. “Some of the researchers have built their careers on nutrition epidemiology,” Laine said. “I can understand it’s upsetting when the limitations of your work are uncovered and discussed in the open.”
Subsequent news coverage criticized the methodology used in the meat papers and raised the specter that some of the authors had financial ties to the beef industry, representing previously undisclosed conflicts of interest.
But what has for the most part been overlooked is that Katz and THI and many of its council members have numerous industry ties themselves. The difference is that their ties are primarily with companies and organizations that stand to profit if people eat less red meat and a more plant-based diet. Unlike the beef industry, these entities are surrounded by an aura of health and wellness, although that isn’t necessarily evidence-based…
Demands to retract the Annals papers before they were published suggest that the journal’s embargo policy had been violated. (Embargoes prohibit reporters and press officers at the authors’ institutions from circulating articles before they’re published. Breaking an embargo is a serious breach.)
An article on the THI website states that the organization had obtained the meat articles 5 days before they were scheduled to be published online. Laine said Katz was on the Annals’ press release list because he writes a weekly column for the New Haven Register, a Connecticut newspaper.
Katz said he circulated only the press release—“that’s in the public domain”—but not the embargoed articles, among THI colleagues, telling them that the guideline “looks like it’s going to be a serious problem for us.”
Actually, embargoes apply to press releases as well as the articles themselves, said Angela Collom, the Annals media relations manager. The Annals and many other journals post releases to a website run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that restricts access to members of the media who agree to embargo policies…
Tufts University professor Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, described it differently. “It sounds like a political campaign,” said Krimsky, who spoke on a panel about corporate influence on public health at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. “I’ve seen Monsanto do the same thing on the other side.”
Krimsky, who studies linkages between science and technology, ethics and values, and public policy, said THI is part of a plant-based diet “movement.” “If Katz wrote a paper, and it was published in one of the journals, I would assume he would have to disclose his relationship with his organization.”
Steven Novella, MD, founder and executive editor of the Science-Based Medicine website and a long-time critic of Katz, was more pointed in his assessment of the THI campaign against the meat articles. “It’s a total hit job,” Novella, a Yale neurologist, told JAMA. “They have a certain number of go-to strategies…in order to dismiss any scientific findings they don’t like.” One such strategy, he said, is to lodge accusations of “tenuous” conflicts of interest…
The cacophony that has erupted over the meat papers is drowning out the valid points they made, Laine said.
“The sad thing is that the important messages have been lost,” she said. “Trustworthy guidelines used to depend on who were the organizations or the people they came from.” Today, though, “the public should know we don’t have great information on diet,” Laine said. “We shouldn’t make people scared they’re going to have a heart attack or colon cancer if they eat red meat.”
||\|
The above is a lengthy article and I can’t pretend to get it all. I’m just not informed, nor do I possess specialized knowledge in the areas looked at. But what I’m interested in, for purposes of this blog post, is the way that those who, rightly or wrongly, don’t agree with others are so willing to simply silence them any way they can. But that is the way of the world. It’s called ‘riches for the strongest’. As for the question whether to eat meat or not; I’m a Christian. God never meant for us to eat meat, but when we rebelled and came to be without his blessing and facing harsh conditions on earth as a result, God made the concession of allowing us to eat meat, but with one important condition: We must not eat blood. I don’t eat meat because, as a Christian who wants God’s approval, I avoid blood. Most purveyors of meat products don’t care about that, even if their meat products are quality. So I play it safe and it hasn’t hurt me. (And I also eat mainly organic food, trying hard to avoid industrial food produced by those focussed on profits first and foremost.) I do eat fish, because it’s easier to buy ‘clean’ fish than ‘clean’ meat. But I would never tell people that eating meat (at this time) is wrong, because it isn’t. Which isn’t to say that there are not issues.
And I wonder, especially after having read the above linked-to article, about how much of my knowledge of the problems associated with cattle and meat products from cattle is good or a product of certain special interests who want me off of meat but not because it’s bad for me. If you aren’t doing ‘some’ unlearning, then you aren’t really learning. That’s because we exist in a world full of liars and manipulators and some of those ones are relatively good people!
“Western “Political Correctness” does not make all people equal” by Andre Vltchek (NEO via Dissident Voice)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
::::::=
In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one’s sexual orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex and who does not want to belong to any ‘traditional’ gender bracket.
Thinking about ‘it’, writing about it, doing it, is considered “progressive”; cutting edge. Entire novels are being commissioned and then subsidized as far away as in the Asia Pacific. Western organizations and NGOs (so-called “non-government organizations” but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.
These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new types of combinations that many people never even heard about or imagined could exist.
Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers “ladies, gentlemen and children” anymore in order “not to offend” those who do not want to be any of the above.
Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly many times that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even “left-wing”.
This is a discussion which is clearly encouraged, even invented by, the Western regime: a safe discussion which is aimed at diverting dialogue from topics such as the fact that even in the West a great number of people are living in fear and misery, and that the majority of neo-colonies of North America and Europe are once again being totally, shamelessly exploited…
Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the U.K. and the U.S., than whether Western imperialism should be stopped, once and forever.
But remember: We will all burn if we burn. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, even those whose sexual orientation I still do not understand. If there is a Third World War, we will all be fried.
Therefore, I suggest that we first try to disarm the Empire, stop savage capitalism, give freedom and the right to choose their destiny to all nations of the world, and then… Only then, shall we make sure that we support all the people of countless sexual orientation, that our humanity has.
=::::::
A Yappy Trade Barrier 