Jeff Thomas writing in International Man
* * *
* FOLKS... I'M POSTING THIS ONE WITHOUT RESEARCHING IT. (IT'S LATE!) BUT I'LL LOOK INTO IT.
* IN THE MEANTIME... ANY NIGHT OWLS WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO... KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT!
* I'M GUESSING THERE'S MORE TRUTH THAN FALSEHOOD HERE OR ELSE I WOULDN'T BE POSTING IT; THAT SAID... AGAIN... I'LL CHECK INTO IT TOMORROW.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.
Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours.
A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the U.S.
This has not been reported on in Western media.
This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the U.S. has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. (The decision was explained as being necessary “to combat and prevent Russian aggression.”)
It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It’s a component of the U.S.’ decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the U.S. would reign as the world’s sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the U.S. as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is:
“[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.”
Of particular importance here is the term, “legitimate interests.”
With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is U.S. hegemony over the world.
Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, “Stop, before it’s too late,” yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony.
If the major powers do not call “time out,” world war could easily be on the horizon.
Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West.
No British, French, German, or U.S. television network has made a single comment.
As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.
Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.
Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it’s possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it’s a major undertaking to do so.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information.
In most of the world, there’s an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the U.S., EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal. Whatever does not fit the U.S./EU position on events never reaches the public.
A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders’ actions on the world stage. However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that’s favorable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.
Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called “the Free World” – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.
The overall message that’s received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the U.S., EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy.
Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they’ve reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.
The view from outside this cabal is a very different one.
The remainder of the world view the attacks by U.S.-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.
This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it’s entirely likely that they would oppose it. And, of course, that’s exactly the point of the blackout.
A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.
Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things:
First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.
Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.
In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to “serve the country.”
Trouble is, this by no means “serves the country.” It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country.