Thursday 29th of October 2020

the US deep state is behind the steering wheel at google, facebook, youtube and most western media...

yootoobe

It has been worrying to read about Off-Guardian’s recent difficulties with it’s Facebook news feed, where posts have been blocked and denied propagation. Another very similar situation has been brought to my attention that reinforces the view that the US deep state is behind the steering wheel at Google, Facebook, YouTube and likely every other western social media platform as well.

Tsargrad TV is a Russian channel owned by Konstantin Malofeev, one of Putin’s biggest supporters amongst Russia’s wealthiest entrepreneurs. A renowned Fox News producer Jack Hanick shared Fox’s production prowess with Tsargrad and the channel quickly became something of an Internet phenomenon, as has AJ+, Al Jazeera’s YouTube channel.

Like AJ+ it was following a YouTube-centric (rather than a conventional TV) model. Besides becoming known for the best production values amongst Russian broadcasters, it unashamedly supports Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and the Donetsk People’s Republic. 

The Google subsidiary blocked Tsargrad’s YouTube account on July 28th over “a violation of the law on sanctions and trade rules”. The channel’s owner, Konstantin Malofeev, was under EU sanctions for his alleged involvement in the civil war in Donbass (on the pro-Russian side that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of Donbass). 

Naturally, Western support for the other side, the Ukrainian far-right, is considered “kosher”. For some reason it enjoys a “license to kill” and those, like German-based Sergey Loznitsa, who produce Goebbelsian hate films about the people of Donbass, may fear no such sanctions from their hypocritical hosts. 

Konstantin Malofeev has been under EU sanctions since 2014, so why was Tsargrad’s YouTube account suddenly struck off six years later? The move reveals more about US internal politics than about the US-Russia feud. Tsargrad must have hit a nerve within the US “deep state” mafia when they interviewed Alexander Korobko (above), the co-author of Vladimir Putin’s most thorough biography (authored with Chris Hutchins).

A native of Donetsk and the author of “New York to Donetsk and back”, approached Donald Trump by letter with an offer to engage in a no-nonsense conversation about his native Donbass. Alexander had produced a documentary about Joe Biden’s involvement and direct role in the war with Donbass and wanted to share with Trump what he had learnt during his investigation. 

Alexander Korobko and his Russian Hour production company had uncovered a major scandal, which could potentially bring Biden to a Senate Committee hearing similar to Watergate and bring his presidential dreams down in a New York minute. 

Tsargrad was planning to keep covering the story and Korobko’s new feature film “Alpha R”, about the events in Donbass. Alexander sent the letter to Trump flagging up his findings and it was officially received by the White House. It was probably this letter that was the last straw for the US deep state as it must have then ordered Google to strike out Tsargrad’s YT channel “out of the blue”…

Alexander Korobko described his plans to show his “Alpha R” film in the US during the US presidential election in November during a TV interview.

At the same time Tsargrad was about to launch an English-language micro-channel dedicated to that endeavour and to Donbass in general.

With over a million subscribers in Russia and with the prospect of becoming an influential foreign player in the US media realm, following the example of Qatar’s AJ+, Tsargrad became too much to handle for YouTube, that “beacon of freedom” that is filled with disturbing channels and videos under the pretext of giving a voice to the voiceless, as long as those voices are weak, strange and not threatening to the Western “Ministry of Truth”. Tsargrad’s YT channel just didn’t fit that bill. 

Alexander Korobko, as the guest of the TV show to which the closure is “owed”, commented:

“Well, I totally agree with the President’s spokesperson (Dmitry Peskov) who said, “There is a solution – that is not to depend on Western platforms” […] Any Western platform is a private platform, which can throw you out along with your account at any moment […] We shall develop our own alternative to YouTube […] like China’s Youku, but geared to the entire world. 

Korobko says that the idea of YouTube first appeared in a Russian sci-fi novel Battle in the Ether by Alexander Belyaev published back in 1928(!), in which he described “the central film archive operating automatically”: 

Belyaev predicted (and described) the Internet with YouTube as part of it, albeit the writer didn’t use our modern tech lingo, obviously. I am sure the YT founders, along with Google’s Moscow born Sergey Brin, were inspired by such Russian visionaries as Alexander Belyaev and studied their predictions. A pity they don’t fully share their values such as our universal empathy.

[…] The Tube has become too narrow and hollow, we need a video platform which is truly open yet not ochlocratic […] for instance, those who make comments should be identifiable as YouTube comments’ “anonymity” brings out the worst in people, poisons and dumbs down any conversation and promotes frivolity not freedom.

YouTube has become the “Kunstkamera” of the world; a freak show, where the downright sick, ugly, bizarre and horrible is thrown into a mix with the curious and amusing, a place where knowledge is far outweighed by half-knowledge and fakery.

We all agree that there’s a ton of good stuff there too, but it’s not produced by YT, the latter uses and abuses creators and robs them of income and the ability to make a living unless they buy into a ridiculous “numbers” game and a clickbait “culture”. It doesn’t offer content creators a real pay-per-view model or other sophisticated tools such as “pay to continue watching” etc. The world needs a YouView platform where “you” will be treated like a person, not a number.”

YouTube seems to have had enough of Russia. Well, it should be afraid that Russia, a huge audience, has had enough with YouTube.

 

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/08/11/youtube-shuts-down-a-russian-fox/

and hollywood is now playing both sides...


In the Pentagon and China’s propaganda wars, greedy Hollywood is a happy helper for both – the people and art are the victims

by Michael McCaffrey

Hollywood won’t choose between the totalitarian Sauron of China and the authoritarian Darth Vader of the US military, but instead will support both evils, and the people of the world and the art of cinema will suffer greatly.

A propaganda war is being waged by China and the US military for control of Hollywood, and therefore the minds of the public, for their own nefarious purposes. 

Not surprisingly, like whores at a battlefield brothel, the morally ambiguous harlots of Hollywood are trying to profit from servicing both combatants. PEN America, a group championing free expression, recently released an exhaustive report detailing how China has taken control of Hollywood.

The report states: “The Chinese government, under Xi Jinping especially, has heavily emphasized its desire to ensure that Hollywood filmmakers - to use their preferred phrase - ‘tell China’s story well.’” 

China strictly controls films released in its own market, which is soon to become the largest box office in the world, and Hollywood wants in on that lucrative action. So, it appeases its Chinese overlords by obeying censorial demands, like whitewashing a Tibetan character from Marvel’s ‘Dr. Strange’, and strenuously self-censoring, like when it canceled a planned sequel to ‘World War Z’. 

This Orwellian sentiment of controlled storytelling to fit a government-approved narrative is not limited to the communists of China, however. The US military has long had a very fruitful arrangement with Hollywood in which it exchanges free military equipment, expertise, personnel and locations in exchange for ultimate control over scripts. Capt. Russell Coons, Director of Navy Office of Information West, sounded like Xi when he described Pentagon expectations while cooperating with a movie. “We’re not going to support a program that … presents us in a compromising way.” 

PEN America is aware of the Pentagon’s propaganda program and notes that “...the United States government has benefitted from, encouraged, and at times even directed Hollywood filmmaking as an exercise in soft power.” However, it then disingenuously dismisses it, claiming “this governmental influence does not bring to bear a heavy-handed system of institutionalized censorship, as Beijing’s does.” 

That is an absurd contention as the Pentagon picks movies based on a studio’s willingness to conform to its rigidly pro-military narrative standard, which is, in function, if not form, just like China picking which Hollywood movies it allows to run in its country based on their adherence to a pro-China criteria.

Regardless, the reality is that if Hollywood can financially benefit by acquiescing to the Pentagon and/or China’s demands, it certainly will. In response to China’s Hollywood propaganda, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed the egregiously titled Stopping Censorship, Restoring Integrity and Protecting Talkies Act, or SCRIPT Act. 

Cruz’s bill aims to kneecap Hollywood studios by withholding access to US government support - the Pentagon propaganda program - if they alter their movies to appease Chinese censors. Of course, SCRIPT will never go anywhere as the Motion Picture Association of America will aggressively lobby to get the whole thing scuttled to keep both Chinese and Pentagon money flowing into La La Land.

On the bright side, the SCRIPT Act has at least frightened the propagandists in the Pentagon and Hollywood enough that they are now openly touting their shadowy alliance. 

For example, the Military Times recently ran a jaw-dropping op-ed by Jim Lechner which shamelessly espoused Hollywood’s Pentagon propaganda. Lechner admits that “limits on the cooperation with skilled storytellers at the American movie companies would significantly degrade the ability of the US government to tell its own story”.He also boasts that “over the decades, Hollywood has provided one of the most powerfully positive images of our military. No Pentagon-based press relations operation could come close to what Hollywood has achieved through its films.”

Over the last three decades, the Pentagon-Hollywood alliance has drastically altered American’s perception of the military and successfully neutered filmmakers as artists and truth-tellers. In the 70s and 80s, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick and Oliver Stone made great anti-war films like ‘Apocalypse Now’, ‘Full Metal Jacket’, ‘Platoon’ and ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ that explored the dark side of American militarism and empire.

That type of artistic and intellectually challenging anti-war movie went on the endangered species list in 1986, when the Pentagon collaborated on the making of the blockbuster ‘Top Gun’, and has since become extinct, which is why we haven’t had any great movies detailing the heinous fiascos in Iraq andAfghanistan. 

Ironically, ‘Top Gun’ isn’t only a symbol of the Pentagon’s propaganda prowess, but of China’s as well. In the poster for the sequel due out this year, Tom Cruise’s Maverick is still wearing his signature leather jacket, but in order to appease Chinese censors, gone from its back are the prominent Japanese and Taiwanese flags from the original. 

As a cinephile and a truth-seeker, I want to see films made by true artists that chronicle the dramatically potent moral and ethical atrocities of both America and China. The plethora of post 9/11 American evils (surveillance, torture, Iraq, Afghanistan) and the brutal Chinese atrocities against the Uighurs, Tibetans and members of the Falun Gong are fertile cinematic ground.

But sadly, thanks to Hollywood’s insidious, incessant and insatiable greed, none of those important stories will ever be told on the big screen. The reality is that the propaganda war is already over and the authoritarian and totalitarian corporatists, globalists and militarists of Hollywood, Washington and Beijing have handily won... and we the people, and the art of cinema, have lost.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/497687-hollywood-propaganda-us-china/

 

... and please note that of the several military bases in the Spratly Islands, only three are Chinese. The others are Philippino, Taiwanese, Malaysian and Vietnamese...

 

 

a context of superior missile rivalry...

 

Russian commentary on an article about missile defence

 

We have taken note of an article posted on the US Department of Defence website saying that missile defence is allegedly becoming an element of rivalry between the great powers. Citing an unnamed Pentagon official, the article claims that Russia and China are developing several increasingly sophisticated missile defence systems in the context of rivalry with the United States. As follows from the text, the US military sees this as a threat.


We take this post as part of a targeted disinformation campaign seeking to discredit Russia. Clearly, there are unscrupulous attempts to ascribe to us some aggressive and dangerous plans, this time in missile defence. Unmistakably, this is about the United States trying to justify its own large-scale and expensive programmes for creating and modernising weapons and plans to build up its military presence around the world. In order to substantiate these efforts by the United States to ensure overwhelming military superiority to the detriment of the security interests of other states, Pentagon propagandists are using the traditional “rivalry between powers” approach.


By itself, this fake news usually does not contain an in-depth analysis or even a balanced reflection of the situation. The attempts to create the appearance of a “responsible” US approach to anti-missiles made in the article do not hold water and are doomed from the start. We can begin by saying that Washington threw out the 1972 ABM Treaty, thus destroying one of the pillars of the global strategic stability system. Of course, the article doesn’t mention this. The fact that the United States has carried out numerous destabilising anti-missile projects is not mentioned, either.


Notably, the US military is deploying strategic missile defence infrastructure not only within the national boundaries of the United States, but around the world, which makes it a global system in nature. Washington is also thinking about developing the space segment of its missile defence system, in fact, planning to deploy attack weapons in outer space. In addition, in the context of missile defence at the doctrine level, the Pentagon has left open the possibility of delivering preventive “disarming” strikes against other countries in order to destroy missiles before they are launched. Moreover, the United States claims these are defensive actions.


It is important to understand that the fast-expanding architecture of the US missile defence system is changing the strategic balance of forces in the sphere of offensive weapons, creates major additional global instability risks and contributes to forming dangerous conditions for stepping up a nuclear and space arms race.


Russia has repeatedly expressed concern over unilateral and unrestricted US moves to deploy a global missile defence system. After the United States scrapped the ABM Treaty, Russia has more than once come up with initiatives designed to remove any “annoyances” and to establish cooperation in the anti-missile sphere. Washington and its allies have refused to move in this direction and are reluctant to take Russia’s interests into account. So, the desire to shift onto us the responsibility for the situation created by the United States is at least unseemly.


Once again, we urge Washington to take a responsible position and to take a critical look at its missile defence plans, which, if implemented, will not be beneficial for the security of either the United States or its allies. It would also be helpful to abandon these tactics of shifting responsibility to others, which is undignified behaviour for a great power, in order to divert the attention of Americans and the entire international community from their own actions of seeking to ratchet up tensions and break the international stability system.


More than ever before, the world doesn’t need rivalry, which the current US administration is betting on, but cooperation, especially in security. We are ready to discuss missile defence issues with the United States as part of a bilateral strategic dialogue.

 

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210627.html

 

Read from top.

your government wants to hurt your search...

Open letter to Australians


We need to let you know about new Government regulation that will hurt how Australians use Google Search and YouTube.

A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia.


The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new regulation


You’ve always relied on Google Search and YouTube to show you what’s most relevant and helpful to you. We could no longer guarantee that under this law. The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business. News media businesses alone would be given information that would help them artificially inflate their ranking over everyone else, even when someone else provides a better result. We’ve always treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about ranking. The proposed changes are not fair and they mean that Google Search results and YouTube will be worse for you.


Your Search data may be at risk


You trust us with your data and our job is to keep it safe. Under this law, Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses.


Hurting the free services you use


We deeply believe in the importance of news to society. We partner closely with Australian news media businesses — we already pay them millions of dollars and send them billions of free clicks every year. We’ve offered to pay more to license content. But rather than encouraging these types of partnerships, the law is set up to give big media companies special treatment and to encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put our free services at risk.


This law wouldn’t just impact the way Google and YouTube work with news media businesses — it would impact all of our Australian users, so we wanted to let you know. We’re going to do everything we possibly can to get this proposal changed so we can protect how Search and YouTube work for you in Australia and continue to build constructive partnerships with news media businesses — not choose one over the other.


You’ll hear more from us in the coming days — stay tuned.


Thank you,

Mel Silva, Managing Director, on behalf of Google Australia 

 

 

Read more:

https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/?

 

Google has gone down the drain... Many search are geared to promote the advertisers and often leave you in the lurch, despite the 3,000,475.6 search-results in 0.32 seconds... of which only 4.2 items are relevant...

 

Read from top.

saving journalism with a schtick...

Google should stop using its vast platform to threaten Australians and start paying media companies for their journalism, an open letter about the digital giant’s response to a proposed mandatory news code states.

The federal treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, instructed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to develop a mandatory code between media companies and Google and Facebook to save journalism but the platforms are opposing the move.

The Australia Institute’s Centre for Responsible Technology, an independent thinktank that placed the letter, said Google’s recent open letter and yellow warning signs on the search engine’s website were bullying.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/aug/20/google-accused-of-bullying-australians-with-news-code-letter-and-yellow-warning-signs

 

 

Read from top.

the gangsters of the potomac...

 

By Jochen Scholz

 

From the beginning of the construction works the USA made it clear that they would leave no stone unturned to prevent the second pipeline from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany. While in the beginning attempts to exert influence through diplomatic channels or via the media were aimed at members who are in bondage to the US of the EU Commission, the European Parliament and those EU member states whose governments have been spreading the chimera of a Russian threat for years, the US Congress and administration have now tightened the thumbscrews considerably. However, this will only work if those affected do not set crystal-clear limits against the encroachment on their sovereignty.


    What is this about? The USA is determined to impose sanctions on companies and individuals involved in the construction and subsequent operation of the pipeline on the basis of Section 232 of the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3364/text?q). These sanctions are without question contrary to international law because a national law of a state is applied extraterritorially. We have seen this behaviour on the part of the USA over and over again in recent years, as in the case of Iran. Without going into detail at this point: the sanctions imposed could only be effective because of the role of the US dollar in the global financial system. Generally speaking, such action is called extortion.


    The German government has publicly forbidden any interference in the business activities of Germany. However, this is not enough to dissuade the USA from its intention to prevent the Nord Stream 2 project. After all, a criminal who demands money from a citizen with a drawn revolver will not be turned away by friendly coaxing. What is at stake here is nothing less than the international legal order created by the Charter of the United Nations after 1945. It is increasingly being replaced by the law of the fist, a development that has already gained momentum since the end of the Soviet Union.


    So, what is my advice to the federal government? Under no circumstances should it try to give back as you were given, i.e. to resort to sanctions. For then it fuelled the erosion of international law, which it is currently lamenting. The Charter of the United Nations points the way. Germany is a non-permanent member of the Security Council until the end of the year and held the chair until the end of July. It should take the initiative to apply Article 96 of the Charter:


“Article 96
(1) The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
(2) Other organs of the United Nations and specialised agencies, which may at any time be so authorised by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”

This would put the issue on the world stage and increase its visibility, whereas at present it is largely debated only in the American and European1 public. This also applies to the probable case that the US would veto the Security Council.

    The decisive reason for the obstruction of the USA by its power elite, acting independently of the respective presidency, is geopolitical in nature. Cooperation between Germany and Russia in the energy sector is undoubtedly a building block on the long road to a Eurasian economic area, which would also inevitably entail a new security architecture. This would have meant that the Anglo-American struggle for decades for the “world island”, whose domination, according to Halford Mackinder, is the prerequisite for world dominance.2 Other reasons, such as the sale of the American fracking gas in liquid form to the EU, play a subordinate role and serve President Trump at best as an election campaign issue. In contrast, the pipeline project is important for Russia both in geopolitical terms and, given its economic structure, in economic terms.

    In this respect, it would be welcome if Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, would consider applying Article 96 of the Charter.  •

1 This includes the Russian Federation.
https://www.lettre.de/beitrag/mccoy-alfred-w_herzland-und-weltinsel

Jochen Scholz was a Lieutenant Colonel in the German Armed Forces. As such, he served for several years with NATO in Brussels and afterwards – during the NATO war against Yugoslavia – in the German Ministry of Defence. There he learned that the official speeches of the responsible politicians about blatant human rights violations by Serbia did not correspond with what he could learn from the reports of the experts on the spot. Because of these lies of the politicians he left the SPD in 1999

Read more:https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2020/no-17-17-august-2020/nord-stream-2-and-the-us-sanctions.html
Read from top.