ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Why the elites blame post-truth politics (“Fake News”) for their failures

[Apparently, the Russian term for “Fake News” (“post-truth politics”) refers to the point in history where reliable news sources stopped reporting factual news and began to disseminate misinformation.  Fake News was born and began a thirty+ year run as the “Mainstream News”, even though their news was often misinformation, or just outright false info (disinformation).  The Alternate News offered on the Internet has exposed Western misinformation for what it is and that has panicked the Elitist overlords.  As a result, they have given us the traditional comeback of liars, they have accused us of being the purveyors of “Fake News”, that is, anything which challenges the official lies. 

They have pointed the finger of accusation back at us…the question is, how far are they going to take this counter-psyop? 

Which way will Trump fall in this dispute over “truth”? 

Will one side of the right-left Internet divide be targeted for the big “TREASON” tag?]

Why the elites blame post-truth politics for their failures

Russia- beyond the headlines

 

 

 

Establishment leaders in Europe and America need a reality check and to address voters’ genuine concerns in a globalized world.

Drawing by Alexei IorschDrawing by Alexei Iorsch

The year 2016 has seen truly epic failures of mainstream politics and media, most significantly at the British EU referendum and the American election. In both cases seasoned analysts could not see beyond their Westminster or Capitol bubbles and foresee the outcomes. Enraged as they were, they chose to blame outside forces, often pointing the finger at Moscow, which supposedly has more influence on Western voters than home politicians.

More generally, they blamed their failures on “post-truth politics”, ie, assuming that new-wave politicians (and their line-up crosses the Cold War divide in the Euro-Atlantic) run fake news stories and take advantage of a total breakdown of trust in elites and their institutions. Indeed, progressively, we have been seeing the last of established politicians, and institutions falling into disarray and irrelevance.

Such a viewpoint treats the voters with disdain, and this attitude tends to be taken by the same people who vow to “save democracy”. Would it not be fair to say the voters are disgruntled and reject the mainstream because they want change and the elites cannot deliver it, not because they are “seduced” or fooled? After all, how one can fool a person so easily?

The journalist Tim Dickinson fittingly called “fake news” lazy language. It’s about throwing actual misinformation in one heap with inconvenient truths. So, today the job of the ancient regime establishment in the West has boiled down to name-calling rather than dealing with real issues. Mainstream media and politicians engage in fakes and emotional excess no less than those they accuse.

I learned a subtle difference between the two sorts of “fake news” from a data scientist at the traditional “digital BBQ” at the embassy. A number of websites rooting for Donald Trump in novel ways actually existed, but they were set up, sometimes very far from America, to capitalize on the volume of Internet traffic. In other words, supply followed the demand, not the other way around – this was the thirst for change, for a gasp of fresh air.

Needless to say, these facts ruin the narrative of “Russian propaganda threatening Western democracy”. None of the academic experts and journalists I spoke to believed those accusations. It’s just inventing a bogeyman to deflect attention from real flaws of policies, presented to the electorate as alternative-free. Policies and politics have become average, lowest common denominator: they don’t rock the boat but neither do they solve problems. A real debate of real issues was suppressed through political correctness and the newspeak, meant to deny reality. All genres became boring with no appeal to imagination.

Instead of drawing sensible conclusions, the elites engage in scaremongering. For example, The Economist writes that contrary to the initial post-Cold War expectations, Western politics is moving in Russia’s direction. There is no analysis of why this convergence is supposedly on Russia’s terms.

Of course, conformism, of which Alexis de Tocqueville warned, could ensure stability for a while, but nothing is forever. That is why I welcome Niall Ferguson’s words of repentance in The Sunday Times, where he explains why he had allowed petty considerations to have the upper hand over his intelligence, scholarship and instincts.

The Syrian crisis proves that wars cannot be won in the virtual reality of media space. Truth on the ground still matters. Therefore I believe there is nothing new in what is being described as “post-truth”. As Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying, “you cannot fool all the people all the time”. And another great American said the only thing we had to fear was “fear itself”.

It is not deception or fear that wins the argument, it is the ability to boldly recognize and address the problems. We in Russia, did that 30 years ago. The Western elites seem to be still living in denial.

alexander-yakovenko

 

Alexander Yakovenko is Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He was previously Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

 

Disgruntled Dems Source of “Russian Leaks”–Snopes.com Fact Check

Bethania Palma

Craig Murray, described as a “close associate” of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, claims the leaks of DNC e-mails came from the inside.

unproven

Origin:On 15 December 2016, the British tabloid Daily Mail quoted Craig Murray, a former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan and “close associate” of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as saying that the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails were not obtained by WikiLeaks due to the efforts of Russian hackers but were instead leaked by a disgruntled DNC operative who had legal access to them:

Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Murray’s assertions flew in the face of news reports that U.S. intelligence agencies believed the Russian government had been involved in the hacking of e-mails from DNC members as well as Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The intelligence community has been telling reporters that Russian operatives hacked e-mails and released them via Wikileaks:

CIA and FBI officials do not think Russia had a “single purpose” by intervening during the presidential campaign. In addition to helping Trump, intelligence officials have told lawmakers that Moscow’s other goal included undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral system.

No one has yet identified exactly who obtained the DNC e-mails published by WikiLeaks during run up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In his end-of-year press conference held on 16 December 2016, President Barack Obama reiterated intelligence claims that the Russians hacked the DNC’s information systems and went on to say:

I’d make a larger point, which is, not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This is a pretty hierarchical operation. Last I checked, there’s not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States. We have said and I will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government and I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high-level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.

So far, no suspects have been named and no specific evidence has been produced regarding who obtained the e-mails that were systematically leaked throughout the course of the 2016 election cycle. (Assange has denied that it was Russians.) The Daily Mail noted that Murray’s claims cannot be verified and suggested that due to his ties to WikiLeaks he may not be considered a reliable source:

[Murray’s] links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by WikiLeaks since reports surfaced that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

A 13 December 2016 report on the hacks by the New York Times described early, fumbled attempts by the FBI and DNC to address the issue, coupled with a less-than-sufficiently aggressive response by the Obama administration. Early on, the FBI had tried to warn the DNC that their computers were being hacked by a group called “the Dukes,” a group known to be linked to the Russian government:

While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.

The Times‘ report relied on dozens of interviews to chronicle the timeline of the attacks, citing an internal memo by a DNC staffer dating from 2015 informing associates that the FBI was looking into cyberattacks by “the Dukes.”

Originally published: 19 December 2016

sources:

Goodman, Alana.   “Ex-British Ambassador Who Is Now a WikiLeaks Operative Claims Russia Did NOT Provide Clinton Emails.”
The Daily Mail.   14 December 2016.

Entous, Adam and Ellen Nakashima.   “FBI in Agreement with CIA That Russia Aimed to Help Trump Win White House.”
The Washington Post.   16 December 2016.

The Washington Post.   “Transcript: Obama’s End-of-Year News Conference on Syria, Russian Hacking and More.”
16 December 2016.

Lipton, Eric, et al.   “The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.”
The New York Times.   13 December 2016.