Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

FINALLY: Russian doping case FAILS in court. Time to revisit Russia-gate?

What would happen if all the lies of our age were put to trial?

Published

on

3,611 Views

It happened…Pandora’s Box was torn open, and out came Russia-gate, the Syrian Crisis, The Ukraine Crisis, and so much more, including the Russian Olympic doping scandal. By an odd turn of fate, however, it may be the resolution of the doping scandal, which brings hope for the other greater issues. Evidence for the Russian Olympic doping scandal, including the key testimony of Grigory Rodchenkov, was finally tried with fire – and found severely lacking. According to RT:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has published two reasoned awards in the matter of 39 Russian athletes accused of doping, describing Grigory Rodchenkov’s evidence as “hearsay with limited probative value.”

Grigory Rodchenkov was, of course, the erstwhile head of Russia’s anti-doping lab, before resigning under shame, and fleeing to the US, where he made his accusations of “state-sponsored doping” against the Russian Olympic committee.

Pandora’s Box

It is ironic that the Olympics began in Ancient Greece, because the Doping scandal – along with the rest of Russia-gate, and many events going back to Maidan in Ukraine, opened Pandora’s box. It is fitting in more ways than one, to draw this analogy, because Pandora’s box, was in fact, more accurately a jar, which contained the evils of the world, perhaps not unlike the vials that contained the doping samples.

Rodchenkov (left) with his…samples…yeah…I…I want Pandora back

When Pandora’s box was opened, according to myth and song, all the evils were released, but they were not the only thing contained within. There was also hope, which was sealed back inside, but as the Russian saying goes “Hope dies last”. If that is true, let’s hope it can outlast evil.

Never the less, the resolution of the Rodchenkov case may just have reopened Pandora’s box, releasing hope that Russia will have her justice, even if this is a story the corporate media will never tell.

Rodchenkov’s slander came crumbling down, and he even withdrew a major part of his testimony against Russian athletes. Russian officials and people are now hoping this will begin to change rulings made against athletes based on false evidence. Sputnik quoted Putin’s Press Secretary Peskov as saying:

“Now the fact that the man [Rodchenkov] is confused in his testimony is obvious. The fact that he actually confirms that he lied and that his previous words were groundless. Of course, we hope that this situation will force various organizations to very seriously look at the all reasons behind the decisions taken against our athletes again,” Peskov said.

RT further quoted Peskov as saying:

“It’s clear Rodchenkov is mixing up his stories, and his new testimony is evidence that the previous ones were fabrications,” said Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s press secretary.

RT also quoted Igor Lebedev, the deputy chairman of the Russian Duma, speaking in a similar light saying:

“Rodchenkov lied about doping in our country, which was to be proved. I recommend that a commission is assembled that would gather all false publications about Russian athletes in the Western media, and sue them for defamation.”

It’s clear Russians have been roused by the court’s just ruling. RT has a great in-depth article about Rodchenkov, and the doping case here, which goes into further detail than I, because this article is dedicated to something far bigger than Rodchenkov. Still, the RT article spoke on how this story was received in the West with a media blackout:

A polite silence. Aside from specialist websites writing about Olympic sport, no major Western outlet has covered the story.

This is particularly telling in view of the fact that the entire doping scandal was not started by investigators, but German documentary makers from ARD, who managed to create the biggest Olympics upheaval since the fall of the Soviet Union with the help of little more than interviews with two other runaway Russian insiders, the Stepanovs.

Since then, there has been a consistent barrage of accusations, all of them reported without question within the wider context of Moscow’s new image of an international rogue state, from Crimea to the US voting booths to the running track.

It is that media silence, which is worth our discussion. We should be happy that the court revealed the truth, but this story is bigger than just doping.

It’s time to ask a major question.

What if all slander was tried by such fire?

The Rodchenkov case, Dear Reader, represents a precedent, a microcosm, but microcosms are important models. It allows us to pose a powerful rhetorical question, but one with an even greater and more scandalous suggestion.

If the Rodchenkov case was the West’s strongest evidence against Russia in the doping scandal, and it not only failed to stand up in court, but was utterly demolished, what would happen if all accusations against Russia were put under the same judicial scrutiny, and tried beneath such a titanic tribunal.

What would happen if Russia-gate, The Ukraine Crisis, Maidan, and MH17, along with the Skripal case, and all the scandals against Russia were examined, cross-examined, and tried in a court of law by the same Promethean flame?

What would happen if Russia was finally given the due-process afforded to every human being according to the basic international law – would all the false narratives from Russia-gate to Maidan melt like wax before the fire, like dew before the sun?

The accusations against Russia are never based on evidence

Russia is never afforded such justice, but it only further proves the lies of the stories against her. It is interesting that in the Old Slavic language, is it is difficult to make a distinction between the words “Truth”, “Law” and “Right”, hence why the ancient 11th century Russian code of laws, which were more progressive than those in some countries today, which even banned capital punishment was called Russkaya Pravda.

This can be translated either as Russian law, The Russian Right, or Russian truth, as unlike in the west, it is difficult for the Russian soul to imagine a law can be false, and if something is not Right, it can not possibly be the law, and must be based on lies.

But accusations against Russia, such as Russia-gate are not only based on lies, they are based on the belief that people will accept the testimony of western officials without any real, irrefutable evidence.

Think of most major western accusations, and controversial actions, even beyond the scope of Russia, including the invasion of Iraq, the Vietnam War, the events in modern Syria including the chemical attacks.

Whenever the West presents “evidence” – if at all – what actually is this evidence? Actually think about it, aside from what they claim, or you heard on TV, how can you independently varify?

Is the evidence presented to an international body, an unbiased court in which chain of custody is observed, and the highest standards of fair scrutiny are applied to all evidence? No. Never!

In many cases, the evidence is based on “anonymous sources” or the testimony of “intelligence agencies” (part of whose job is literally subterfuge). Sometimes the evidence is simply “We said so. Trust us.” and those journalists, lawyers, or citizens who question more are treated like unpatriotic criminals, traitors, or foreign agents. Evidence samples are never given to a third party, much less the accused party, to test, just like when the UK refused to give Russia a sample of the Skripal nerve agent.

It does not matter the case, whatever the situation, the answer, and narrative is the same, and looks something like this:


“Russia/Assad/Iraq/China/[insert victem] did it.”

Reporter: “Can you present some evidence?”

“Evidence! Of course we have evidence, don’t worry, our experts proved it.”

Reporter: And those experts would be who? How can we reach them?

“Well, they’re mostly annonymous to protect them…you know, from [insert accused party], because they totally did it. But don’t worry, 17 different intelgence agencies proved they did it. And this lab in an allied country.”

Reporter: We are unable to independently verify that, is it possible you can share a sample of the evidence with several of these highly respected international bodies, accepted by all parties as being unbiased? We really need a clear, transparent investigation to prove guilt.

What do you mean? Didn’t you just hear? They did it! We said so!


That is essentially the level of evidence presented in these situations – and once again – that’s even if you consider the testimony of the accusing parties intelligence agencies to be substantial evidence. From Iraq WMDs, to Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis, to this doping scandal, whatever the situation, we hear the same anonymous sources present evidence that amounts to “They did it because we said so.”

For those who don’t remember, Colin Powell is actually holding up a vial they claimed was anthrax. The Mythical Iraq WMDs. From Pandora’s Box to the Doping Scandal, what is it with vials containing the vile evils of the world

What is even worse, is this ridiculous standard of evidence was even understood to be a logical fallacy in the classical world!

Ipse Dixit

The Great Roman Writer Cicero himself coined the Latin term Ipse Dixit, which essentially means “He said it himself”, but has come to mean when someone defends an argument, or event as being fact, purely on the basis of the dogmatic opinion of the “expert testimony”. Ipse Dixit is essentially saying “It’s true because X said so. It’s a fact, and it’s not up for negotiation.”

Ipse Dixit is exactly the core argument the West uses in all these examples against Russia, but US law has on two separate occasions set a clear precedent, upholding the understanding that Ipse Dixit alone is NOT conclusive. In National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. v. Brinegar, 491 F.2d 31, 40 (D.C. Cir. 1974), Circuit Judge Wilkey found that the US Secretary of Transportation’s:

“Statement of the reasons for his conclusion that the requirements are practicable is not so inherently plausible that the court can accept it on the agency’s mere ipse dixit

Moreover, according to this log from Cornell University, the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated in 1997 that:

“Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”

What must be understood here is that no one is saying the testimony of an expert means nothing, only that the testimony of one expert alone is not enough to substantiate such serious accusations. When we are dealing with States, and their Intelligence Agencies, we must recognize that it does not matter if 6 or 66 of them gave testimony, the agents of a state actor are obviously biased towards their own state.

It’s actually not unreasonable to accept this. World leaders, military and state officials, and civil servants take oaths to their nations. Because of this, however, it is also not unreasonable to require additional third-party expert testimony, or call into scrutiny what was heard, if all the “experts” are agents of the same country, or its allies, accusing another country.

The Media Blackout – The Main Stream Media must also be questioned

Of course, a key requirement of ipse dixit to work, is for the general populous to NOT be experts, able to examine the evidence, or at the very least, to not be well informed, as there is so much misinformation and fake news out there.

Just as we can’t assume agents of the accusing country are unbiased, even if 17 intelligence agencies say the same thing, we can likewise not assume that just because 17 news agencies say the same thing, it makes it true.

The reality is people don’t realize how much news organizations from the highest echelons to the smallest websites rely on one another’s reporting. Sometimes even if it isn’t copied, if the same story is broken at once place, it will simply be mirrored by other agencies relying on the same original sources. So you can have 50 stories, but all backed by the same evidence. That is not completely bad, provided the evidence was solid, but it can give the illusion that all 50 stories were based on 50 separate sources.

For example, one news agency can say “Assad is doing x”, and then another says “According to [origonal source] Assad just did x” and then like a massive game of telephone, an uncorroborated story, possibly based on complete lies, becomes accepted as fact.

Even well-intentioned people who are not informed can believe it, simply because of the volume (in every sense of the word) of the reporting. If you hear it one hundred times, it must be correct, right? Inexperienced people can also simply assume that the “reputation” of these “established” news sources and Intelligence agencies is proof alone. They’d be surprised how very amateurish and unprofessional the mainstream media can be. Case in point, major MSM sources actually thought that acclaimed Syrian Journalist #SyrianGirl is a robot.

No, they did not mean they think she is lying, they actually thought her social media accounts were simply bots, and she was not real. In other words, they did not perform any professional fact checking such as the secret art of sending her a private message or an email, or noticing her account had the “verified” checkmark. These are the “experts”, Dear Readers.

This is the danger of Ipse Dixit, misinformed or possibly misleading “expert testimony” can be passed off and circulated to the extent it seems like a fact, especially to untrained eyes.

But you don’t have to be an expert to notice an obvious truth before your eyes, it simply needs to get past the media blackout.

A perfect example is this video, in which the White Helmets, a UK/UK backed group in Syria touted by the West as being heroes, use children in false flag attacks.

The White Helmets, know that the only thing that can save their terrorist allies losing the war in Syria, is a Western-backed intervention, the kind which a chemical attack committed by the Government could trigger. As a result, they despicably train children who can’t even understand what is happening, to help them fake chemical attacks, which they blame on the Government.

UK behind false flag chemical attack in Syria, evidence shows

These false flag attacks provide very weak evidence – the only kind needed or wanted for that matter, in order for the West to justify attacking Syria. There is never any critical examination of evidence, neither of the chemical attack itself, or of this video demonstrating the White Helmets faking chemical attacks. Instead, they simply say “There was a chemical attack. Assad did it. Ipse Dixit, the White Helmets said so, and our intelligence – which we won’t share – proved it.”

There is no response to refutation – no accountability

The West seldom even responds to evidence such as that video. Take note, this is not to say they respond and claim it is fake, but very often, they simply don’t respond at all. Real evidence never makes it past the media blackout, and the narrative continues onward as if no evidence to the contrary was ever presented. When it is presented, it is most often ignored, as if it doesn’t exist.

This insanity can inspire in a reasonable individual the incredible frustration which men like Galileo must have felt, when he was desperately trying to explain the world was NOT flat. It is maddening having to explain to so-called experts, that two plus two does NOT equal 17 intelligence agencies.

The sad thing is, it does not even matter to the West when clear as day evidence is brought forward. There is no accountability. Even when videos like the one above come forward, or when someone actually goes boots on the ground, and speaks to the real people on the scene, it does not change anything. They keep peddling the same narrative, and no one is held responsible even if it is revealed, and becomes accepted as mainstream knowledge that the narrative is false.

Syrian children should be seen, not heard

In the link above, you will find accounts of actual Syrians which don’t matter to the West. Likewise, the fact that Russia is not even one of the top five countries known for doping also is ignored.

That is why this issue is bigger than just the Doping, or even Russia-gate, the Syrian War, and the Ukraine Crisis, because this issue – the lack of accountability and evidence is what allows for all of this.

How many people are actually discussing this issue? The sad truth is, for all this discussion, the west will soon forget about this, about all of this. All evidence will be ignored, and new “evidence” will be invented. Most people won’t even be aware of this. To this sad and cynical reality of our world, RT quoted Nikolay Durmanov, the ex-chief of the Russian anti-doping agency, regarding the Rodchenkov case saying:

“This will change nothing.Yes we can enjoy some moral satisfaction, but in the eyes of the world Russian sport has been painted a rich black color, and there is nothing we can do to wash that reputational stain off this generation. This was an information war waged against us.”

If that upsets you, then spread the word. The reality of life is often different than what should be, but it does not mean that this grim fate is what must be, for the future. That is up to all humanity to purpose a better future, and God to dispose in his own season.

The Tide is Changing

This is the world we live in, we can not change the past, but it is within our power to leave our children a world in which truth and human life matters.

We have seen from the Rodchenkov doping case that it is possible for the truth to prevail. All that is necessary, is for the truth to be presented to stand on its own merits. Too often the issue is not a lack of clear truth, merely that there is never any actual debate. Accusations are made, and actions are taken extra-judicially.

In the Rodchenkov case, we have seen that it’s easy to make unsubstantiated claims in the court of public opinion, but such delusions fall apart quickly under actual investigation. Just imagine what would happen if a serious investigation was opened into Russia-gate, The Ukrainian Crisis, and the events in Syria alone.

In all of those situations, it was those who lied, who opened Pandora’s box, releasing evil upon the world and allowing millions to die. The Box has already been opened. Now, we can only hope that Pandora’s Box will be reopened…but this time…in place of evil…something good will come out.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

The real reason Western media & CIA turned against Saudi MBS

The problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Forces are aligning against Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, lead by elements within the CIA and strong players in the mainstream media. But what is really behind this deterioration in relationship, and what are its implications?

Following the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, western media and various entities, including the CIA, appear to have turned their back on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS). In response to the scandal, the Guardian released a video which its celebutante, Owen Jones, captioned“Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest threats on Earth. Time to stop propping up its repulsive regime.”

The Guardian was not alone in its condemnation. “It’s high time to end Saudi impunity,” wrote Hana Al-Khamri in Al-Jazeera. “It’s time for Saudi Arabia to tell the truth on Jamal Khashoggi,” the Washington Post’s Editorial Board argued. Politico called it “the tragedy of Jamal Khashoggi.”

Even shadowy think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Atlantic Council released articles criticising Saudi Arabia in the wake of Khashoggi’s death.

A number of companies began backing away from Saudi money after the journalist’s death, including the world’s largest media companies such as the New York Times, the Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, Arianna Huffington, CNN, CNBC, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Google Cloud CEO, just to name a few.

The CIA concluded that MBS personally ordered Khashoggi’s death, and was reportedly quite open in its provision of this assessment. Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the UN, also took time out of his schedule to express concern over Saudi Arabia’s confirmation of the killing.

At the time of the scandal, former CIA director John Brennan went on MSNBC to state that the Khashoggi’s death would be the downfall of MBS. Furthermore, the US Senate just voted in favour of ending American involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen (a somewhat symbolic victory, though this is a topic for another article), but nonetheless was a clear stab at MBS personally.

The only person who appeared to continue to uphold America’s unfaltering support for MBS, even after all the publicly made evidence against MBS, was the US president himself. So after years of bombarding Yemen, sponsoring terror groups across the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and beyond, why is it only now that there has been mounting opposition to Saudi Arabia’s leadership? Let’s just bear in mind that western media had spent years investing in a heavy PR campaign to paint MBS as a “reformer.”

Former national security adviser under Barack Obama’s second term, Susan Rice, wrote an article in the New York Times, in which she called MBS a “partner we can’t depend on.” Rice concludes that MBS is “not and can no longer be viewed as a reliable partner of the United States and our allies.” But why is this? Is it because MBS is responsible for some of the most egregious human rights abuses inside his own kingdom as well as in Yemen? Is it because of MBS’ support for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda? No, according to Rice, we “should not rupture our important relationship with the kingdom, but we must make it clear it cannot be business as usual so long as Prince Mohammad continues to wield unlimited power.”

One will observe that the latter segment of Rice’s article almost mirrors former CIA director Brennan’s word on MSNBC word for word who stated that:

“I think ultimately this is going to come out. And it’s very important for us to maintain the relations with Saudi Arabia. And if it’s Mohammed bin Salman who’s the cancer here, well, we need to be able to find ways to eliminate the cancer and to move forward with this relationship that is critical to regional stability and our national interests.”

In reality, this is probably the issue that western media and government advisors have taken up with MBS. Aside from the fact he allegedly held a huge hand in the brutal murder of one of their own establishment journalists (Saudi Arabia reportedly tortured and killed another journalist not long after Khashoggi, but western media was eerily silent on this incident) MBS is not opposed for his reckless disregard for human rights. With insight into Rice’s mindset, we actually learn that if the US were to punish MBS, he would be likely to “behave more irresponsibly to demonstrate his independence and exact retribution against his erstwhile Western partners.”

You see, the problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

Last week, Saudi Arabia and the other major oil producers met in Vienna at the year’s final big OPEC meeting of the year. As Foreign Policy notes, Saudi Arabia remains the largest oil producer inside OPEC but has to contend with the US and Russia who are “pumping oil at record levels.” Together, the three countries are the world’s biggest oil producers, meaning any coordinated decision made between these three nations can be somewhat monumental.

However, it appears that one of these three nations will end up drawing the short end of the stick as the other two begin forming a closer alliance. As Foreign Policy explains:

“But Saudi Arabia has bigger game in mind at Vienna than just stabilizing oil prices. Recognizing that it can’t shape the global oil market by itself anymore but rather needs the cooperation of Russia, Saudi Arabia is hoping to formalize an ad hoc agreement between OPEC and Moscow that began in 2016, a time when dirt-cheap oil also posed a threat to oil-dependent regimes. That informal agreement expires at the end of the year, but the Saudis would like to make Russia’s participation with the cartel more permanent.”

Russian officials have been signalling their intention to formalise this agreement for quite some time now. Given the hysteria in western media about any and all things Russian, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that this is the kind of news that is not sitting too well with the powers-that-be.

Earlier this year, Russia and Saudi Arabia announced that it would “institutionalize” the two-year-old bilateral agreement to coordinate oil production targets in order to maintain an edge on the global market.

While US president Trump has been supportive and incredibly defensive of MBS during this “crisis”, the truth is that the US only has itself to blame. It was not all too long ago that Trump announced that he had told Saudi King Salman that his kingdom would not last two weeks without US support.

Saudi Arabia is learning for themselves quite quickly that, ultimately, it may pay not to have all its eggs in one geopolitical superpower basket.

Saudi Arabia has been increasingly interested in Moscow since King Salman made a historic visit to Moscow in October 2017. While Trump has openly bragged about his record-breaking arms deals with the Saudis, the blunt truth is that the $110 billion arms agreements were reportedly only ever letters of interest or intent, but not actual contracts. As such, the US-Saudi arms deal is still yet to be locked in, all the while Saudi Arabia is negotiating with Russia for its S-400 air defence system. This is, as the Washington Post notes, despite repeated US requests to Saudi Arabia for it disavow its interest in Russia’s arms.

The economic threat that an “independent” Saudi Arabia under MBS’ leadership poses to Washington runs deeper than meets the eye and may indeed have a domino effect. According to CNN, Russia and Saudi Arabia “are engaged in an intense battle over who will be the top supplier to China, a major energy importer with an insatiable appetite for crude.”

The unveiling of China’s petro-yuan poses a major headache for Washington and its control over Saudi Arabia as well.According to Carl Weinberg, chief economist and managing director at High-Frequency Economics, China will “compel”Saudi Arabia to trade oil in Chinese yuan instead of US dollars. One must bear in mind that China has now surpassed the US as the “biggest oil importer on the planet,” these direct attacks on the US dollar will have huge implications for its current world reserve status.

If Saudi Arabia jumps on board China’s petro-yuan, the rest of OPEC will eventually follow, and the US might be left with no choice but to declare all of these countries in need of some vital freedom and democracy.

Therefore, ousting MBS and replacing him with a Crown Prince who doesn’t stray too far from the tree that is US imperialism may put a dent in pending relationships with Saudi Arabia and Washington’s adversaries, Russia and China.

Once we get over the certainty that the US media and the CIA are not against MBS for his long-list of human rights abuses, the question then becomes: why – why now, and in this manner, have they decided to put the spotlight on MBS and expose him exactly for what he is.

Clearly, the driving force behind this media outrage is a bit more complex than first meets the eye.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Indiscreet Charm of the Gilets Jaunes

Nothing scares the Identity Politics Left quite like an actual working class uprising.

Published

on

By

Authored (satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Unz Review:


So it appears the privatization of France isn’t going quite as smoothly as planned. As I assume you are aware, for over a month now, the gilets jaunes (or “yellow vests”), a multiplicitous, leaderless, extremely pissed off, confederation of working class persons, have been conducting a series of lively protests in cities and towns throughout the country to express their displeasure with Emmanuel Macron and his efforts to transform their society into an American-style neo-feudal dystopia. Highways have been blocked, toll booths commandeered, luxury automobiles set on fire, and shopping on the Champs-Élysées disrupted. What began as a suburban tax revolt has morphed into a bona fide working class uprising.

It took a while for “the Golden Boy of Europe” to fully appreciate what was happening. In the tradition of his predecessor, Louis XVI, Macron initially responded to the gilets jaunes by inviting a delegation of Le Monde reporters to laud his renovation of the Elysée Palace, making the occasional condescending comment, and otherwise completely ignoring them. That was back in late November. Last Saturday, he locked down central Paris, mobilized a literal army of riot cops, “preventatively arrested” hundreds of citizens, including suspected “extremist students,” and sent in the armored military vehicles.

The English-language corporate media, after doing their best not to cover these protests (and, instead, to keep the American and British publics focused on imaginary Russians), have been forced to now begin the delicate process of delegitimizing the gilets jaunes without infuriating the the entire population of France and inciting the British and American proletariats to go out and start setting cars on fire. They got off to a bit of an awkward start.

For example, this piece by Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian‘s Paris Bureau Chief, and her Twitter feed from the protests last Saturday. Somehow (probably a cock-up at headquarters), The Guardian honchos allowed Chrisafis to do some actual propaganda-free reporting (and some interviews with actual protesters) before they caught themselves and replaced her with Kim Willsher, who resumed The Guardian‘s usual neoliberal establishment-friendly narrative, which, in this case, entailed dividing the protesters into “real” gilets jaunes and “fake” gilet jaunes, and referring to the latter fictional group as “thuggish, extremist political agitators.”

By Sunday, the corporate media were insinuating that diabolical Russian Facebook bots had brainwashed the French into running amok, because who else could possibly be responsible? Certainly not the French people themselves! The French, as every American knows, are by nature a cowardly, cheese-eating people, who have never overthrown their rightful rulers, or publicly beheaded the aristocracy. No, the French were just sitting there, smoking like chimneys, and otherwise enjoying their debt-enslavement and the privatization of their social democracy, until they unsuspectingly logged onto Facebook and … BLAMMO, the Russian hackers got them!

Bloomberg is reporting that French authorities have opened a probe into Russian interference (in the middle of which report, for no apparent reason, a gigantic photo of Le Pen is featured, presumably just to give it that “Nazi” flavor). According to “analysis seen by The Times,” Russia-linked social media accounts have been “amplifying” the “chaos” and “violence” by tweeting photos of gilets jaunes who the French police have savagely beaten or gratuitiously shot with “less-than-lethal projectiles.” “Are nationalists infiltrating the yellow vests?” the BBC Newsnight producers are wondering. According to Buzzfeed’s Ryan Broderick, “a beast born almost entirely from Facebook” is slouching toward … well, I’m not quite sure, the UK or even, God help us, America! And then there’s Max Boot, who is convinced he is being personally persecuted by Russian agents like Katie Hopkins, James Woods, Glenn Greenwald, and other high-ranking members of a worldwide conspiracy Boot refers to as the “Illiberal International” (but which regular readers of my column will recognize as the “Putin-Nazis“).

And, see, this is the problem the corporate media (and other staunch defenders of global neoliberalism) are facing with these gilets jaunes protests. They can’t get away with simply claiming that what is happening is not a working class uprising, so they have been forced to resort to these blatant absurdities. They know they need to delegitimize the gilets jaunes as soon as possible — the movement is already starting to spread — but the “Putin-Nazi” narrative they’ve been using on Trump, Corbyn, and other “populists” is just not working.

No one believes the Russians are behind this, not even the hacks who are paid to pretend they do. And the “fascism” hysteria is also bombing. Attempts to portray the gilets jaunes as Le Pen-sponsored fascists blew up in their faces. Obviously, the far-Right are part of these protests, as they would be in any broad working class uprising, but there are far too many socialists and anarchists (and just regular pissed-off working class people) involved for the media to paint them all as “Nazis.”

Which is not to say that the corporate media and prominent public intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy will not continue to hammer away at the “fascism” hysteria, and demand that the “good” and “real” gilets jaunes suspend their protests against Macron until they have completely purged their movement of “fascists,” and “extremists,” and other dangerous elements, and have splintered it into a number of smaller, antagonistic ideological factions that can be more easily neutralized by the French authorities … because that’s what establishment intellectuals do.

We can expect to hear this line of reasoning, not just from establishment intellectuals like Lévy, but also from members of the Identity Politics Left, who are determined to prevent the working classes from rising up against global neoliberalism until they have cleansed their ranks of every last vestige of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, and so on. These leftist gatekeepers have been struggling a bit to come up with a response to the gilets jaunes … a response that doesn’t make them sound like hypocrites. See, as leftists, they kind of need to express their support for a bona fide working class uprising. At the same time, they need to delegitimize it, because their primary adversaries are fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and assorted other isms and phobias, not the neoliberal ruling classes.

Nothing scares the Identity Politics Left quite like an actual working class uprising. Witnessing the furious unwashed masses operating out there on their own, with no decent human restraint whatsoever, Identity Politics Leftists feel a sudden overwhelming urge to analyze, categorize, organize, sanitize, and otherwise correct and control them.

They can’t accept the fact that the actual, living, breathing working classes are messy, multiplicitous, inconsistent, and irreducible to any one ideology. Some of them are racists. Some are fascists. Others are communists, socialists, and anarchists. Many have no idea what they are, and don’t particularly care for any of these labels.This is what the actual working classes are … a big, contradictory collection of people who, in spite of all their differences, share one thing in common, that they are being screwed over by the ruling classes. I don’t know about you, but I consider myself one of them.

Where we go from here is anyone’s guess. According to The Guardian, as I am sitting here writing this, the whole of Europe is holding its breath in anticipation of the gilets jaunes’ response to Macron’s most recent attempt to appease them, this time with an extra hundred Euros a month, some minor tax concessions, and a Christmas bonus.

Something tells me it’s not going to work, but even if it does, and the gilets jaunes uprising ends, this messy, Western “populist” insurgency against global neoliberalism has clearly entered a new phase. Count on the global capitalist ruling classes to intensify their ongoing War on Dissent and their demonization of anyone opposing them (or contradicting their official narrative) as an “extremist,” a “fascist,” a “Russian agent,” and so on. I’m certainly looking forward to that, personally.

Oh… yeah, and I almost forgot, if you were wondering what you could get me for Christmas, I did some checking, and there appears to be a wide selection of yellow safety vests online for just a couple Euros.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Washington Is Changing The World Order Against Its Own Interests

Any country sufficiently stupid to ally with the US is allied with a dead man walking.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


The hubris and arrogance of Washington have been at work since the Clinton regime to destroy the power and relevance of the United States.

This website has an international audience. The most asked question from this audience is the world order. There is a realization that Washington’s control might weaken, a development people abroad see as hopeful. They ask me for verification of their hope.

Here is my answer:

The world order has already changed.  China has a larger and more powerful industrial and manufacturing based economy than the US, and China’s potential domestic consumer market is four times larger than that of the US. As economies are consumer based, China’s potential is an economy four times larger than that of the US.

Russia has a far more capable military with weapon systems unmatched by the US. The US is drowning in debt, and the illegal and irresponsible sanctions that Washington tries to impose on others are driving the world’s largest countries away from the use of the US dollar as world reserve currency and away from Western clearance systems such as SWIFT.  The United States already has one foot in the grave.  Any country sufficiently stupid to ally with the US is allied with a dead man walking.

President Eisenhower, a five-star general, warned Americans 57 years ago to no effect that the military/security complex was already a threat to the American people’s ability to control their government. Today the military/security complex is the Government. As Udo Ulfkotte documented in his book, Journalists for Hire: How the CIA buys the News—no you can’t buy a copy unless you can find a used copy in German in a German book store, the CIA has seen to that—journalism independent of official explanations no longer exists in the Western world.

Much of the world does not understand this. Aside from the material interests of Russian and Chinese capitalists, a portion of the youth of both superpowers, and also even in Iran, have succumbed to brainwashing by American propaganda. Gullible beyond belief, they are more loyal to America than they are to their own countries.

The United States itself is extremely unsuccessful, but its propaganda still rules the world. The consequence is that, based on its propagandistic success, Washington thinks it still holds the balance of economic and military power. This is a delusion that is leading Washington to nuclear war.

Considering the hypersonic speed, trajectory changeability and massive power of Russian nuclear weapons, war with Russia will result in nothing whatsoever being left of the US and its vassals, who sold out European peoples for Washington’s money.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending