Facebook en Twitter verwijderen nu volledige accounts.........

Caitlin Johnstone publiceerde afgelopen zaterdag een artikel waarin ze verder ingaat op de zuivering van het internet door Facebook en Twitter. Waar aanvankelijk naar de inhoud van berichten werd gekeken zijn nu de accounts van o.a. Anti-Media, WSWS (World Socialist Web Site) en PoliceThePolice volledig verwijderd van deze 2 platforms........

Ofwel Facebook en Twitter fungeren als censuuragenten voor de overheid...... Terecht stelt Johnstone dat de overheid in de VS (en elders in het westen) nog maar weinig geloofwaardigheid over heeft, het is dan ook zaak dat organisaties als Facebook en Twitter de functie van censuuragent op zich nemen, immers als de overheid dit openlijk had gedaan, waren de rapen gaar geweest.......

Het is echter vrijwel zeker dat de VS overheid platforms als Facebook en Twitter aanstuurt wat betreft de keus voor te censureren accounts, ook gezien een conferentie eerder dit jaar, waar WSWS over berichtte op 5 oktober jl. Het gaat hier om een conferentie van de United States Special Operations Command, een sectie van het ministerie van 'Defensie' (zou het ministerie van Oorlog genoemd moeten worden), die supervisie heeft over de US Special Forces. De conferentie droeg de naam 'Sovereignty in the Information Age' en ondanks de vage titel, ging het er tijdens die conferentie over hoe alternatieve nieuws- en opiniesites te censureren...... Mensen lees ook dat artikel en de haren zullen je ten berge rijzen....*

Internet Censorship Just Took An Unprecedented Leap Forward, And Hardly Anyone Noticed

by Caitlin Johnstone

While most indie media was focused on debating the way people talk about Kanye West and the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an unprecedented escalation in internet censorship took place which threatens everything we all care about. It received frighteningly little attention.

After a massive purge of hundreds of politically oriented pages and personal accounts for "inauthentic behavior", Facebook rightly received a fair amount of criticism for the nebulous and hotly disputed basis for that action. What received relatively little attention was the far more ominous step which was taken next: within hours of being purged from Facebook, multiple anti-establishment alternative media sites had their accounts completely removed from Twitter as well.

As of this writing I am aware of three large alternative media outlets which were expelled from both platforms at almost the same time: Anti-Media, the Free Thought Project, and Police the Police, all of whom had millions of followers on Facebook. Both the Editor-in-Chief of Anti-Media and its Chief Creative Officer were also banned by Twitter, and are being kept from having any new accounts on that site as well.

"I unfortunately always felt the day would come when alternative media would be scrubbed from major social media sites," Anti-Media's Chief Creative Officer S.M. Gibson said in a statement to me. "Because of that I prepared by having backup accounts years ago. The fact that those accounts, as well as 3 accounts from individuals associated with Anti-Media were banned without warning and without any reason offered by either platform makes me believe this purge was certainly orchestrated by someone. Who that is I have no idea, but this attack on information was much more concise and methodical in silencing truth than most realize or is being reported."

Lee Camp [Redacted]

✔@LeeCamp

UPDATE on the massive Purge of 800 dissident voices happening in the U.S.

Banned from Facebook yesterday:
-Antimedia
-FreeThoughtProject
-PoliceThePolice
-Minds social media

Suspended from Twitter:
-Antimedia + editors
-FreeThoughtProject + editors
-PoliceThePolice + editors

12:58 AM - Oct 13, 2018

• 2,403
• 2,358 people are talking about this

It is now clear that there is either (A) some degree of communication/coordination between Twitter and Facebook about their respective censorship practices, or (B) information being given to both Twitter and Facebook by another party regarding targets for censorship. Either way, it means that there is now some some mechanism in place linking the censorship of dissident voices across multiple platforms. We are beginning to see smaller anti-establishment alternative media outlets cut off from their audiences by the same sort of coordinated cross-platform silencing we first witnessed with Alex Jones in August.

This is about as acute a threat to our ability to network and share information with each other as anything you could possibly imagine. If new media outlets are beginning to silence dissident voices together in unison, that means we can see entire alternative media outlets not just partially silenced but thoroughly silenced, their ability to grow their audiences and get information out to heavily populated parts of the internet completely crippled.

This is huge, this is dangerous, and this is being under-reported. When I was removed from Twitter in August for "abusing" John McCain, there was a large and outraged uproaron Twitter, and my account was quickly restored with an apology. The phenomenon of multiple high-profile alternative media outlets suddenly being silenced in unison by the two biggest social media platforms should be generating more outrage than some ornery Australian blogger losing her Twitter account, not less. People should be legitimately freaked out by this, because it affects us all.

Daniel McAdams@DanielLMcAdams

 · Oct 12, 2018

Replying to @caitoz @InmanAlex

The entity that is making censorship decisions for Facebook, as publicly announced, is the Atlantic Council, a partly US government-funded entity. At what point will the extremely tight ties between these companies and the US government end the "they are private" argument?

Daniel McAdams@DanielLMcAdams

Is this a private entity? pic.twitter.com/5oGABYjMqz

3:26 PM - Oct 12, 2018

 

Any time you try to talk about how internet censorship threatens our ability to get the jackboot of oligarchy off our necks you'll always get some guy in your face who's read one Ayn Rand book and thinks he knows everything, saying things like "Facebook is a private company! It can do whatever it wants!" Is it now? Has not Facebook been inviting US government-funded groups to help regulate its operations, vowing on the Senate floor to do more to facilitate the interests of the US government, deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments, and handing the guidance of its censorship behavior over to the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the US government, the EU, NATO and Gulf states? How "private" is that? Facebook is a deeply government-entrenched corporation, and Facebook censorship is just what government censorship looks like in a corporatist system of government.

Speaking of the Atlantic Council, it recently published a very interesting 21-page document about a US military conference detailing, in present tense, how Silicon Valley tech giants are being used to nullify the threat that the new media landscape poses to the US power establishment.

Of this document, World Socialist Website writes the following:

Enter the social media companies. The best mechanism for suppressing oppositional viewpoints and promoting pro-government narratives is the private sector, in particular “technology giants, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter,” which can “determine what people see and do not see.” 

Watts adds, “Fortunately, shifts in the policies of social media platforms such as Facebook have had significant impact on the type and quality of the content that is broadcast.” 

The private sector, therefore, must do the dirty work of the government, because government propaganda is viewed with suspicion by the population. “Business and the private sector may not naturally understand the role they play in combating disinformation, but theirs is one of the most important…. In the West at least, they have been thrust into a central role due to the general public’s increased trust in them as institutions.”

#FreeAssange! (tweets by campaign)@JulianAssange

A securocrat's vision for state censorship (as channeled through the Atlantic Council)https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/05/pers-o05.html …

8:45 AM - Oct 5, 2018

The US military’s vision for state censorship

The Atlantic Council, a key partner in social media companies’ drive to censor the internet, has published a summary of a US special forces conference outlining a plan for systematically gutting the...

wsws.org

• 132
• 97 people are talking about this

The best way to deal with a manipulative sociopath is to point and make a lot of noise every time they do something weird and creepy. The more you let them abuse you in private, the more they can rope you in and get you playing along with their sick agendas. If you notice them doing something weird, the best way to nullify all the tools in their wicked little toolbox is to point and yell "Hey! What are you doing?? Why are you doing that? That's weird!" Get people looking, because such beasts can't advance their manipulations with a lot of critical eyes on them.

Propaganda and censorship operates very much the same way. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the Streisand effect, I encourage you to begin to acquaint yourself with it. Named for an incident in which Barbara Streisand attempted to suppress online photographs of her Malibu residence and thereby inadvertently drew far more attention to them, the Streisand effect describes the way attempts to hide and censor information can be used to draw more attention to it if the coverup attracts the interest of the public eye. Every censor needs to prevent this from happening in order to do their job effectively; if it looks like removing something from public view would draw more attention to it, then they cannot practice censorship in that case.

So let's Streisand this thing up, hey? Let's make a big angry noise about this new cross-platform escalation in internet censorship, and let's make a big angry noise any time anyone makes a move to silence dissident political speech in the new media environment. Manipulators can only function in darkness, so let's never give them any. Anything they try, we need to make a ton of noise about it. That by itself would be throwing an enormous stumbling block in their path while we find new ways to clear a path for more and more networking and information sharing. These bastards have controlled the narrative for too long.

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal,buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

=====================================

* Zie: 'The US military’s vision for state censorship'

Zie ook:
'Facebooks departement voor censuur: een hoognodige uitleg over een maatregel die alleen in een dictatuur thuishoort'

'Twitter weert waarheid: Paul Craig Roberts in de ban, Roberts >> de grote criticus van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voert'

'Facebooks zuivering van de alternatieve (nieuws) media staat nog in de kinderschoenen'

'Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen'

'Facebook censureert de waarheid over Columbus en de verovering van de Amerika's.......'

'Facebook censuur gestuurd door het westers militair-industrieel complex en de NAVO in het bijzonder..........'

'Why the Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone' (Tyler Durden op Zero Hedge)

'First They Came for Alex Jones — We Told You We Were Next — We Were' (Matt Agorist op The Free Thought Project)

'Facebook (en Twitter) onderdrukt meningsvorming door het verwijderen van (echt) onafhankelijke media'

'CNN, de grote brenger van 'fake news!!!''

'Wie het nieuws controleert, controleert de wereld......'

'Facebook en Twitter verwijderen de eerlijke journalistiek en oprechte opinie >> censuur.....'

Facebook verlaat 'tranding news' voor 'brekend nieuws' van 80 reguliere mediaorganen, ofwel nog meer 'fake news.....''

'Facebook komt met nieuwsshows van betrouwbare media als CNN en Fox News.... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Censuur op het internet met vliegende start in de VS, 'het land van het vrije woord....''

'Facebook en NAVO werken samen in censuur op niet welgevallig nieuws......'

'Facebook helpt Saoedi-Arabië: doodstraf door onthoofding van vrouw die het waagde kritiek te uiten.....'

'Aanval op alternatieve media 'succesvol': meer en meer sites worden van het net geweerd.........'

'ThinkProgress eiste censuur van Facebook en werd inderdaad gecensureerd.... ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'VS staatscensuur op Facebook (ook in de EU)'

'Facebook stelt perstituee van New York Times aan als censuur-agent...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Het echte Facebook schandaal: manipulatie van de gebruikers en gratis diensten voor eertijds presidentskandidaat Obama.......'

'Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook doneerde aan de politici die hem in de VS aan de tand voelden >> in het EU parlement maakte hij gebruik van megalomane EU politici.....'

'Facebook wil samen met door Saoedi-Arabië gesubsidieerde denktank censureren.... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Media Too Busy Defending John McCain to Report the News That Actually Affects You' Onder andere aandacht voor PRISM.

'Westerse massa misleiding in aanloop naar WOIII......'

'VS gebruikt sociale media om 'fake comment' te verspreiden en de bevolking te hersenspoelen met leugens, ofwel 'fake news....''

'Eis een nee tegen censuur op het internet!' 

'Facebook e.a. hebben lak aan AVG (GDPR), misbruik persoonsgegevens gaat gewoon door.......'

'Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet.......'

'VS gebruikt sociale media om 'fake comment' te verspreiden en de bevolking te hersenspoelen met leugens, ofwel 'fake news....''

'Facebook: verrijking van oliemaatschappijen en andere grote bedrijven, plus wereldwijde corruptie.......'

'Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

Trump volgt het scenario van deep state: oorlog met Iran 'is onvermijdelijk....'

John C. O'Day publiceerde vorige week vrijdag een artikel op Fair.org dat ik overnam van Anti-Media (en dat je onder mijn schrijven terug kan vinden). Hierin vestigt O'Day de aandacht op de Iran-deal van een paar jaar geleden, deze deal of: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), werd destijds bediscussieerd in de reguliere (massa-) media, waar men stelde dat Iran ofwel deze deal moest slikken, daar anders alleen oorlog met Iran zou overblijven als alternatief.........

De voorspelling dat oorlog het enige alternatief zou zijn, werd door de Trump administratie gevolgd, door de deal alsnog af te blazen en met enorme anti-Iran propaganda te beweren dat Iran zich niet aan de deal houdt, ook al zeggen alle VN wapeninspecties dat Iran inderdaad is gestopt met de verrijking van uranium en is begonnen met het ontmantelen van de daarvoor benodigde centrifuges. 

Bolton, de oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger (die voor het leven gevangen zou moeten zitten in Scheveningen) beweerde dat wanneer Iran de boel zou belazeren, het land te maken zou krijgen met 'de woede van de VS', ofwel met grootscheepse terreur in de vorm van één van de zwaarste oorlogsmisdaden, het beginnen van alweer een illegale oorlog door deze grootste terreurentiteit op aarde............ 

Een belachelijke uitlating van Bolton daar de VS zonder enig bewijs en in tegenspraak met officiële VN rapporten toch al stelt dat Iran vals speelt, m.a.w.: de reden voor de VS om een (illegale) oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen, is door de VS zelf gecreëerd........ (iets waar de VS 'goed in is', neem alle false flag operaties van deze terreurenteit)

O'Day stelt dat de woorden van figuren als Bolton en Trump nog amper op kritiek kunnen rekenen in de VS, wat volgens hem het gevolg is van de berichtgeving in de reguliere media....... O'Day noemt een groot aantal voorbeelden en stelt dan ook dat de Trump administratie die media volgt, echter daar ben ik het niet mee eens. O'Day vergeet het begrip Deep State, de werkelijke machthebbers, die al helemaal niet blij waren met de Iran-deal. Deze Deep State beheerst ook de massamedia en zijn derhalve verantwoordelijk voor wat die media brengen aan (nep-) nieuws, leugens en pure propaganda (waarbij Goebbels z'n gore vingers zou aflikken....) 

Ondanks dat een groot deel van die media in onmin leven met Trump, staan ze volkomen achter de terreur die de VS verspreidt over het Midden-Oosten, Latijns-Amerika en Afrika....... Vergeet daarnaast niet dat het in feite niet uitmaakt wie er regeert in de VS, al helemaal niet wat betreft de buitenlandpolitiek, neem 'vredesduif' Obama die als eerste VS president de volle 2 termijnen in (illegale) oorlogen was verwikkeld met meerdere landen en er zelf (officieel) 2 begon....

Echter lees het artikel van O'Day en oordeel zelf; wat hij schrijft over de media is zonder meer feitenmateriaal (zoals je onder de links kan lezen):

Trump Administration Follows Corporate Media Playbook for War With Iran

October 5, 2018 at 8:03 am

Written by John C. O'Day

(FAIR.org) — Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”

In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”

John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18): “Let my message today be clear: We are watching, and we will come after you.”

That Bolton’s bellicose statements do not send shockwaves of pure horror across a debt-strapped and war-weary United States is thanks in large part to incessant priming for war, facilitated by corporate media across the entire political spectrum, with a particular focus on Iran.

Back in 2015, while current “resistance” stalwarts like the Washington Post (4/2/15)

and Politico (8/11/15) warned us that war with Iran was the most likely alternative to the JCPOA, conservative standard-bearers such as Fox News (7/14/15) and the Washington Times  (8/10/15) foretold that war with Iran was the agreement’s most likely outcome. Three years hence, this dynamic has not changed.

Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte (New York Times, 5/10/18) presents Trump and Bolton’s “deal” for Iran.

To experience the full menu of US media’s single-mindedness about Iran, one need only buy a subscription to the New York Times. After Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the Times’ editorial board (5/8/18) wrote that his move would “lay conditions for a possible wider war in the Middle East.” Susan Rice (New York Times, 5/8/18), President Barack Obama’s national security advisor, agreed: “We could face the choice of going to war or acquiescing to a nuclear-armed Iran,” she warned. Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte (New York Times, 5/10/18) was characteristically more direct, penning an image of Trump alongside Bolton, holding a fictitious new agreement featuring the singular, ultimate word: “WAR.”

On the other hand, calling Trump’s turn against JCPOA a “courageous decision,” Times columnist Bret Stephens (5/8/18) explained that the move was meant to force the Iranian government to make a choice: Either accede to US demands or “pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war.” (Hardly courageous, when we all know there is no chance that Trump or Stephens would enlist should war materialize.)

Trump’s latest antics at the United Nations have spurred a wave of similar reaction across corporate media. Describing his threat to “totally destroy North Korea” at the UN General Assembly last year as “pointed and sharp,” Fox News anchor Eric Shawn (9/23/18) asked Bill Richardson, an Obama ally and President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the UN, whether Trump would take the same approach toward Iran. “That aggressive policy we have with Iran is going to continue,” Richardson reassured the audience, “and I don’t think Iran is helping themselves.” In other words, if the United States starts a war with Iran, it’s totally Iran’s fault.

Politico (9/23/18), meanwhile, reported that Trump “is risking a potential war with Iran unless he engages the Islamist-led country using diplomacy.” In other words, if the United States starts a war with Iran, it’s totally Trump’s fault. Rice (New York Times, 9/26/18) reiterated her view that Trump’s rhetoric “presages the prospect of war in the Persian Gulf.” Whoever would be the responsible party is up for debate, but that war is in our future is apparently all but certain.

Politico’s article cited a statement signed by such esteemed US experts on war-making as Madeleine Albright, who presided over Clinton’s inhuman sanctions against Iraq in the ’90s, and Ryan Crocker, former ambassador for presidents George W. Bush and Obama to some of America’s favorite killing fields: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria.  James Clapper, Obama’s National Intelligence Director, who also signed the letter, played an important role in trumping up WMD evidence against Saddam Hussein before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. When it comes to US aggression, they’re the experts.

Vanity Fair (9/26/18) interviewed John Glaser of the Cato Institute, who called Trump’s strategy “pathetic,” and also warned that it forebodes war. In an effort to “one-up Obama,” Glaser explained, Trump’s plan is “to apply extreme economic pressure and explicit threats of war in order to get Iran to capitulate.” Sound familiar? As Glaser implies, this was exactly Obama’s strategy, only then it wasn’t seen as “pathetic,” but rather reasonable, and the sole means for preventing the war that every US pundit and politician saw around the corner (The Hill, 8/9/15).

When everyone decides that war is the only other possibility, it starts to look like an inevitability. But even when they aren’t overtly stoking war fever against Iran, corporate media prime the militaristic pump in more subtle yet equally disturbing ways.

Benjamin Netanyahu speaks for the Iranian people on CNN (9/29/18).

First among these is the near-complete erasure of Iranian voices from US airwaves (FAIR.org, 7/24/15). Rather than ask Iranians directly, national outlets like CNN (9/29/18) prefer to invite the prime minister of Israel, serial Iran alarmist and regional pariah Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak for them. During a jovial discussion this weekend over whether regime change and/or economic collapse is Iran’s most likely fate, Netanyahu explained to the audience that, either way,

“The ones who will be happiest if that happens are the people of Iran.” No people of Iran were on hand to confirm or deny this assessment.

Bloomberg (9/30/18) similarly wanted to know, “What’s not to like about Trump’s Iran oil sanctions?” Julian Lee gleefully reported that “they are crippling exports from the Islamic Republic, at minimal cost to the US.” One might think the toll sanctions take on innocent Iranians would be something not to like, but Bloomberg merely worried that, notwithstanding the windfall for US refineries, “oil at $100 a barrel would be bad news for drivers everywhere—including those in the US.”

Another prized tactic is to whitewash Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief geopolitical rival, whose genocidal destruction of Yemen is made possible by the United States, about which corporate media remain overwhelmingly silent (FAIR.org, 7/23/18). Iran’s involvement in Yemen, which both Trump and the New York Times (9/12/18) describe as “malign behavior,” is a principal justification for US support of Saudi Arabia, including the US-supplied bombs that recently ended the brief lives of over 40 Yemeni schoolchildren. Lockheed Martin’s stock is up 34 percentfrom Trump’s inauguration day.

Corporate media go beyond a simple coverup of Saudi crimes to evangelize their leadership as the liberal antidote to Iran’s “theocracy.” Who can forget Thomas Friedman’s revolting puff piece for the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman? Extensively quoting Salman (New York Times, 11/23/17), who refers to Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “the new Hitler of the Middle East,” Friedman nevertheless remains pessimistic about whether “MBS and his team” can see their stand against Iran through, as “dysfunction and rivalries within the Sunni Arab world generally have prevented forming a unified front.” Oh well, every team needs cheerleaders, and Friedman isn’t just a fair-weather fan.

While Friedman (New York Times, 5/15/18) believes that Trump has drawn “some needed attention to Iran’s bad behavior,” for him pivotal questions remain unanswered, such as “who is going to take over in Tehran if the current Islamic regime collapses?” One immediate fix he proposed was to censure Iran’s metaphorical “occupation” of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Isn’t this ironic coming from an unapologetic propagandist for Washington’s decades-long, non-metaphorical occupation of the two countries to the east and west of Iran (FAIR.org, 12/9/15)?

In a surprising break from corporate media convention, USA Today (9/26/18) published a column on US/Iran relations written by an actual Iranian. Reflecting on the CIA-orchestrated coup against Iran’s elected government in 1953, Azadeh Shahshahani, who was born four days after the 1979 revolution there, wrote:

“I often wonder what would have happened if that coup had not worked, if [Prime Minister] Mosaddeq had been allowed to govern, if democracy had been allowed to flourish.”

“It is time for the US government to stop intervening in Iran and let the Iranian people determine their own destiny,” she beseeched readers.

Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin confronts the head of Trump’s “Iran Action Group” (Real News, 9/21/18).

Shahshahani’s call is supported by some who have rejected corporate media’s war propaganda and have gone to extreme lengths to have their perspectives heard. Anti-war activist and Code Pink  founder Medea Benjamin was recently forcibly removed after she upstaged Brian Hook, leader of Trump’s Iran Action Group, on live TV, calling his press conference “the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen” (Real News, 9/21/18). Benjamin implored the audience: “Let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. Is that who our allies are?”

“How dare you bring up the issue of Yemen,” admonished Benjamin as she was dragged from the room. “It’s the Saudi bombing that is killing most people in Yemen. So let’s get real. No more war! Peace with Iran!” Code Pink is currently petitioning the New York Times and Washington Post to stop propagandizing war.

Sadly, no matter whom you ask in corporate media, be they spokespeople for “Trump’s America” or “the resistance,” peace remains an elusive choice in the US political imagination. And while the public was focused last week on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s perjurious testimony, the Senate finalized a $674 billion “defense” budget. Every single Democrat in the chamber voted in favor of the bill, explicitly naming Iran as persona non grata in the United States’ world-leading arms supply network, which has seen a 25 percent increase in exports since Obama took office in 2009.

The US government’s imperial ambitions are perhaps its only truly bipartisan project—what the New York Times euphemistically refers to as “globalism.” Nowhere was this on fuller display than at the funeral for Republican Sen. John McCain (FAIR.org, 9/11/18), where politicians of all stripes were tripping over themselves to produce the best accolades for a man who infamously sang“bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of a Beach Boys song.

McCain’s bloodlust was nothing new. Nearly a hundred years ago, after the West’s imperial competition culminated in the most destructive war the world had ever seen, the brilliant American sociologist and anti-colonial author WEB Du Bois wrote, “This is not Europe gone mad; this is not aberration nor insanity; this is Europe.”

Iranian leaders have repeatedly said they do not want war with the US (AP, 9/27/18), but US corporate media, despite frequently characterizing Trump as a “mad king” (FAIR.org, 6/13/18), continue to play an instrumental role in rationalizing a future war with Iran. Should such an intentional catastrophe come to pass, we can hardly say that this would be America gone mad; war is not aberration, it is always presented as the next sane choice. This is America.

By John C. O’Day / Republished with permission / FAIR.org / Report a typo

======================================
Zie ook:
'KLM vliegt na 'risicoanalyse' niet meer in luchtruim van Iran en Irak' 

'Oorlog tegen Iran: VS heeft lak aan democratie >> Irak wordt gedreigd met sancties en 'herstelbetaling''

'VS moord op Qasem Soleimani is een oorlogsverklaring aan adres van Iran.......'

'Iraakse regering pissig over VS beschuldiging dat Iraanse bewind corrupt is'

'VS-anti-Iran conferentie in EU lidstaat Polen, ondanks EU verzet tegen VS sancties.....'

'Bolton 'feliciteert' Iran vanwege het 40 jarige revolutie jubileum met een oorlogsdreiging......'

'Trump gelooft zijn geheime diensten inzake Iran niet meer' 

Trump Warns Europeans Not to Defy US Sanctions Against Iran

'Trump administratie chanteert en bedreigt de EU over 'schending' onterechte VS-sancties tegen Iran'

'Iran houdt zich aan nucleair verdrag, ondanks VS agressie'

'SWIFT betalingssysteem raakt monopolie (gelukkig) kwijt'

'VS, Saoedi-Arabië en Israël willen Iraanse bewind verdrijven met terreur, moord, sabotage en manipulatie van het nieuws...'

'Frankrijk beschermt Iran tegen de 'politieagent' van de wereld, de VS'

'The New Tyranny of the Dollar'

'VS vermoordt Iraniërs met sancties, EU doodstil.......'

'Rudy Giuliani viert het sterven van Iraniërs en stelt desondanks dat het Iraanse bewind door de VS geweldloos zal ondergaan.......'

'Jeremy Bowen (BBC correspondent) vindt Iran een gevaar voor het Midden-Oosten'

'Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen.........'

'Iraanse protesten gezien door de propaganda bril van de VS en de rest van het westen........'

'Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen...)....'

'Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël'

'Warmonger Called Out on Live TV After Pretending to Care About Iranian Protesters'

'With Veiled Regime Change Threats, Trump and NeoCons Blasted for Exploiting Iran Protests'

'US Empire Is Running The Same Script With Iran That It Ran With Libya, Syria'

'VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran........'

'Nikki Haley (VS ambassadeur in de VN) bedreigt sjiitisch Iran met militair ingrijpen......'

'Israelische officier met de koperen fluit waarschuwt voor Iraanse expansie...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Iran: moderne oorlogspropaganda ingezet door VS tegen 'ongehoorzaam land...''

'Reagan middels manipulaties tot president gekozen; waarom de gijzelaars in Iran moesten wachten op hun vrijheid....'

'Saoedi-Arabië beschuldigt Houthi's en Iran van raketbeschieting en noemt dit een oorlogsverklaring............'

en zie:

Warmonger Called Out on Live TV After Pretending to Care About Iranian Protesters

Wat betreft de grootschalige terreur van de VS zie:

'VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........'

'List of wars involving the United States' 

'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'    

'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........'