Erdogan and Obama (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Since the properly created global “picture of injustice” is in the hands of the global mass media fully controlled by the United States, it is the U.S. who decide what is justice and what is injustice. In full accordance with Goebbels’ ideas
As we have already discussed, the novelty of the current age is that the United States has received the dual conceptual instrument for influencing the masses and elites of the countries which it wants to exploit to its own advantage. The first part of the concept is the major influence the United States has on shaping the agenda and interpreting the events in world media and online. The second part is the all-encompassing American surveillance system which grants the United States unauthorized access to private and state confidential information in almost every country of the world.
I want to emphasize here that when I say “USA” or “America” I don’t mean the United States as a society or people. I am talking about the elite American groups with their own goals and interests (who also interpret the goals and interests of the USA in a particular way) and have assumed control over the instruments of global media and total surveillance for the sake of achieving these goals. These groups have received the opportunity to involve other countries, organizations, human communities (including American communities) to a previously unimaginable degree in order to achieve their own goals by the means of these and many other instruments. The goals of these groups are usually alien and hostile to these countries, organizations and societies.
In the previous article I have promised to discuss how this is done. I will do this now.
How the “public opinion” is being manufactured
Usually the United States start by appealing to the norms of international law. That is, by accusing the country (force, group) it wants to suppress of violating these norms. For example, it can accuse of violating the principles of the UN Charter, OSCE Helsinki Final Act, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.
At the same time, the United States, of course, “forget” to say that it’s not these countries (for example, when Russia accepted Crimea) that were first to violate the UN Charter or the OSCE Act, but the U.S. itself: by intervening in other countries without UN Security Council approval (in Iraq, Yugoslavia) or by spitting upon the principle of inviolability of the borders of sovereign states (Kosovo). And Kosovo, unlike Crimea, was separated from Serbia without any kind of referendum, by the sole wish of the criminal Kosovo authorities (and the U.S. knew that they are criminals), self-proclaimed with the direct military and political support of NATO.
I want to emphasize one more time that every time the U.S. appeals to the international law, it refers to the norms of this law very selectively, in the spirit of the postmodern “interpretation”.
For example, when the United States and NATO teared Yugoslavia apart, they were shouting to the global masses about the violations of the “right of nation to self-determination” and “human rights” in Bosnia or Kosovo. But they didn’t say a word about the norm of “inviolability of borders of sovereign states”. In the case of Crimea and Donbass, on the contrary, they shout about the “inviolability of borders”, but “for some reason” don’t say a words about “human rights”. “Human rights” is a norm which the Kiev junta started to crudely violate from the days when it was only fighting to seize power during the “Maidan”. Having come to power through a mutiny, Kiev junta openly declared that it will strip the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine of its basic right — to fully use their mother tongue.
However, in recent years the American political strategists feel that their appeals to “restoring the respect of human rights”, “defending democratic values” and “complying with international law” work less and less effectively. Too often the political competitors of governments in the West, including in United States, speak about the examples when the American policy of “democracy export” and “defending human rights” leads to state and social-economical disasters.
At the same time, words like “democracy”, “human rights” and “international law” make the shallow hearts of the “global masses” care less and less about this. These words do not come from the daily life of these “global masses”. These words come rather from some “distant” area of legal and diplomatic language and don’t excite or disturb.
Then another trick is being used — up to this day it has proved to be almost failure-proof. It is proclaimed that “the enemy of mankind” does outrageous injustice somewhere. Where, be it in Albania or in Ukraine, doesn’t really matter, since the modern “global masses” and a no small part of the modern “global elites”, don’t know geography too well. What is important is to appeal to that part of the humane which the “global masses” still have and which resonates. It is best to appeal to the suffering of children and animals (remember the movie “Wag the Dog”?). This is what is still able to cause compassion and outrage in the masses.
When the injustice has been demonstrated, proved and caused the desired emotional response of the masses, it is necessary to explain that the “enemy of mankind” is mighty and impudent, which is why this enemy doesn’t allow to defeat the injustice by legal means. But that’s not the reason to stand such injustice, right?! This means that justice must be restored by any means and at any cost!
But since the properly created global “picture of injustice” is in the hands of the global mass media fully controlled by the United States, it is the United States who decide what is justice and what is injustice. In full accordance with Goebbels’ ideas (“The more horrible the lie is, the easier it will be to believe in it… If you repeat a lie a thousand times, it becomes the truth”). This is how America declares which side of the conflict is “the side of good” and which is “the side of the enemy of mankind”, declares who is right and who is wrong. And urges the “global masses” to do everything within their powers to punish those guilty of the horrible crimes.
What can and must these human masses, supposedly democratic, in reality — globalized — do? After all, they are being told that they, possessing such a special quality, are the only civil actor capable of accepting the challenge of the “enemy of mankind”!
It is obvious what these masses can (and must) do! They must demand their governments to get involved in the struggle against injustice, to come up with ways (legal and any other) to defeat the “enemy of mankind” and bring justice.
And they couldn’t care less about all those “international norms” and “UN Security Council resolutions”! If only this government dares not to comply with the just and moral demands of their outraged democratic masses!
This is how the American “democratic” technology of involving allies into the realization of American goals, interests and projects.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and involvement into “right” voting in UN.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and involvement in the “special support” of the struggle for “human rights” by the means of “humanitarian” interventions.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and American sanctions and embargo, and the demands for the allies to join the sanctions.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and involvement of allies into arming and training mercenaries in order to “bring justice”.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and involvement of allies into American military gambles.
- The myth of injustice, outrage of the masses — and organization and, later, support, of yet another “colored” revolution.
I won’t give examples. There is too much of these, and they have been discussed in greatest possible detail.
But sometimes this is not enough. Sometimes the myth of the injustice is not too convincing and for some reason doesn’t cause the response of the democratic (meaning, globalized) masses. Then armed provocations instilling terror in the “public opinion” get carried out as more radical measures.
For this purpose back in the 1950’s the United States started establishing the so-called “Gladio” (“Sword”) networks (mainly composed of Nazi militants of European countries) as a part of NATO special forces. “Gladio” was supposed to start “partisan warfare” in Europe in case of a Soviet aggression against the European countries.
But the Soviet aggression never happened. And “Gladio” was involved in executing other “vital tasks”. For example, it were “Gladio” militants, as it is now proved in quite great detail, who “shifted” the Italian politics to the “right” by executing provocative terrorist acts, up to murdering the Prime-Minister, calling themselves Italian “Red Brigades”. In other words, they discredited the Italian “left-wing”, communists, first and foremost, who were clearly winning the Italian elections, in the eyes of the public.
After the end of the “Cold War” and during the dissolution of USSR “Gladio” networks were officially (supposedly) dissolved. But… people, connections and structures, of course, didn’t go anywhere. Not using such a useful “instrument” would be a sin.
This, apparently, is where the groups of “unknown snipers” come from, those who professionally and precisely shoot at both sides of a conflict. Those who regularly appear as main actors of various large political incidents, such as those in Vilnius in January 1991, in Moscow in October 1993, in Srebrenica in July 1995 and in Kiev in February 2014.
Shooting large numbers of people in front of many witnesses and TV cameras causes greatest shock, which is bound to cause the required outrage even among the most shallow-hearted representatives of the “masses”. It is important here to build the right interpretation of events, to loudly and convincingly appoint the “enemy of mankind”. And then the outrage and its wide spread almost guarantee involving the required party of the conflict into realizing the goals of those people who sent the snipers in the first place.
But sometimes this also is not enough to reach the required “degree” of fury and outrage. Then terrorists with “special skills” can be sought (through “Gladio” or other U.S.-controlled networks). They, in turn, will blow up an airliner with a large number of passengers (as it was done in the skies over the Scottish Lockerbie in 1988) or shoot the plane down by an “unknown missile” from the sky or from the ground (as it was in the skies over Donbass in 2014).
With America’s informational domination, the rest is paperwork. Informational means will describe the horrible circumstances and the consequences of the tragedy, and will clearly appoint the “right” “enemy of mankind” (Libyan, Russian or whichever is necessary).
Next it is necessary to unify, organize and “capitalize” upon this fury and outrage against those who are being attributed with the blame for the crimes. This is being done with the use of similar techniques which were used by Doctor Goebbels’ specialists to turn a nation into a “herd of pigs”.
In order to do this the masses, warmed up by their outrage, must be especially well isolated from any alternative and even a little bit intellectual points of view (again, according to the teaching of Goebbels). Then the required interpretations must be persistently developed and the required myths must be built. In other words, it is necessary to keep constantly suggesting to these masses that they are a great nation which is right in everything. At the same time it is necessary to just as persistently explain to these masses how horrible the “enemy of mankind” is, that this enemy is humiliating the great nation, treats it like dirt, doesn’t allow it to have an independent happy life. And that everyone who doubts this is a hopeless and dangerous enemy of this nation.
As life shows, often the nation patronized by such manipulators quite quickly dehumanizes, loses the ability to think critically and be critical towards itself, starts living in myths. More than that, it often accepts not the myth as its norm, but a pre-human solidarity of an animal pack.
How THIS happens in Ukraine
Post-soviet Ukraine was the place where these “manufacturing public consent” technologies (as Walter Lippman put it) were used for the first time since the fall of fascist and Nazism regimes. These technologies were being used more and more each year, with the people being alienated from intellectualism and any alternative interpretations.
In 2014 this “trap of interpretations” was finally sprung. It took a great deal of effort and violence in Ukraine, which, until recently, had strong ties with Russian sources of information. Kiev junta resorted to outright ban of Russian media outlets. Ukrainian TV channels and newspapers workers who proved to have either not enough “conscience” or were sick with “unscrupulous” and “treacherous” impartiality were physically repressed.
Recently Yuri Lazebnik, Charge d’affaires of Ukraine in Kazakhstan, made it clear how exactly Kiev authorities “restore control over the informational space”. Lazenik said, that “primary Russian informational channels are already removed from the Ukrainian informational space, with print media being undergoing filtration right now. Measures to restrict Russian books of certain content are being prepared. A Russian TV series and movies which glorify Russian special forces and army are being banned…”
The process continues. “Ukrainian national television and radio council adopted a resolution to ban Russian “365 dney” channel and Belorussian ‘Belarus 24‘“, news website rus.newsru.ua reported on October 15. Then, on October 16, UNIAN news agency announced that “Ukrainian state committee for television and radio revoked licenses of17 (!) separatist news outlets.”
What this “regaining control over informational space” resulted in is clear. In a mere half a year the processes of “awakening the beast“ in a significant part of Ukrainian population, awakening the “solidarity of a pack” have moved far. This is what we now see in Ukrainian media, Ukrainian segment of the Internet and on the streets of many Ukrainian cities.
Surely, this process cannot be absolute in Ukraine, as the country is still quite reasonable and educated. However, as one of the “Right Sector” leaders put it, “other opinions are not frowned upon in Ukraine… Citizens have a right to voice these opinions — at home, to their toilets”.
This trend is easily traceable in Ukrainian media and Internet. Especially popular among “conscientious citizens“ of Ukraine are talk-shows, songs and even animated movies revolving around “moskals”, “Colorado beetles” (derogatory names given to Russians by Ukrainian propaganda – Editor) and “supporters of Putin”, “traitors of the nation“ — both agents of FSB (who, supposedly, are everywhere) and people from the “dark Ukrainian past”. Don’t be afraid of getting lost in the Ukrainian language of these media products as the vast majority of “conscientious Ukrainian” authors show such a poor command of Ukrainian language that they have to speak in Surzhyk, a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian languages, heavily creamed with profanity in Russian.
I will not quote the new obscene anthem of “conscientious Ukrainians”, sung with abandon in Ukraine by some, now former members of the government such as the former Foreign Minister of Ukraine A. Deshchitsa and even by kindergarteners. I will also leave out certain blogs, songs and animated movies popular in Ukrainian segment of the Internet: if all obscenities were to be redacted from these, it would be impossible to understand their meaning.Even such supposedly respectable Ukrainian news agencies are in line with this trend of fomenting hatred towards “Moskals” and “traitors”. Take for example two reports by rus.newsru.ua, published on October 15, 2014 alone:
“Ukrainian Emergency Services sappers find explosives installed in toys in areas of Donbass previously controlled by terrorists…”
“National Guard servicemen who rallied near the Ukrainian president administration building on Monday, October 13, were provoked to do this by Russian FSB.“
Bear in mind, that these news are then redistributed, reinterpreted and enriched with “analitical details” by global US-controlled mass media.
We covered already the specifics of how it is done by “returning wave” of Ukrainian post-soviet Nazi emigration from the US, Canada, Germany and other countries. We would digress should we chose to go into much detail on this topic.
The very widespread “public opinion” manufactured in such a fashion is more than influential, especially in Ukraine, where it is supported by trained and armed street Nazi “stormtroopers” (again molded in the spirit of Mussolini and Hitler). You are highly unlikely to stay “unconvinced” when raging street masses have such compelling “arguments”, with tens of thousands units of modern arms spread across the country during the Maidan and Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” (the way Kiev Junta refers to the war in Donbass – Editor).
This makes all Ukrainian elites, including any people officially in power, more and more dependent on increasingly violent (more than just election-related) pressure of the “special democratic public opinion”.
This kind of upward pressure secures the required involvement of any country into pursuing US interests and goals.
How does the downward pressure work?
How elites of allies and adversaries are forced to comply
Elites of allies and adversaries are compelled to follow the US lead through blackmailing, with the only difference of the modern age being the extent (almost overwhelming) to which the U.S. is able to receive compromising data.
As I have showed in the previous article, there is no need for direct blackmailing or special methods of “recruitment” of politicians. In many cases, a mere prospect of exposure is less costly and just as effective, since the unveiling of the facts of US electronic surveillance of its allies may be just as costly to the US itself.
Which is why the circumstances of blackmailing of “relevant elites” for the purpose of involving them into pursuing American goals are so rarely exposed. For this reason we cannot claim anything with certainty in each of these cases. All we can do is carefully consider hypotheses stressing that they are nothing more than just hypotheses.
For instance, we may suppose that the drastic turn of French politics during Sarkozy’s presidency which resulted in “superintesive” participation of French intelligence agencies and military in the Libyan military gamble against Muammar Gaddafi could have been caused by the fact that Gaddafi secretly financed Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential campaign. With this fact in mind, we can suppose that Sarkozy being especially interested in having Gaddafi murdered without charge or trial as soon as possible has to do with the fact that the only people who knew about this unpleasant “skeleton in the closet” of the French President besides Gaddafi were the American intelligence agencies.
We may also hypothesize that it is no coincidence that Francois Hollande, Sarkozy’s successor as President, inherited the eagerness to take part in Near Eastern affairs (including in Syria), which is uncharacteristic of France. After all, he won the presidential elections thanks in large part to American intelligence agencies which got rid of Hollande’s main competitor in the elections, the former head of International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
It bears reminding that shortly before the elections DSK was involved in a major scandal when he was accused of sexually assaulting a hotel maid. He immediately dropped out of the presidential race and resigned his presidential post at the IMF. Later it turned out that the maid was found guilty of provoking and fabricating the assault. All charges against Strauss-Kahn were dismissed. However, Strauss-Kahn’s “political ship” had sailed. Hollande was elected president, Kristine Lagarde – the head of IMF.
We don’t know what arguments came up (and who brought them up) to compel German Chancellor Angela Merkel to change her stance on Ukraine and Russia in summer of 2014. All we know is that she had substantive economic negotiations with Vladimir Putin from mid-2013. She was quite outraged in late 2013 – early 2014 by the facts of U.S. tapping her phones and listening to her confidential and official phone calls, which were revealed by Snowden.
We also know that Mrs. Merkel “suddenly” proved to be a radical critic of Russian actions in the Ukrainian conflict in the recent months, as well as one of the “pillars” of Kiev junta and a determined proponent of harsh anti-Russia sanctions. This transformation of the Chancellor happened when the vast majority of German business elite and a great deal of German politicians become more and more increasingly vocal: they say that the anti-Russian sanctions heavily (and irreversibly) damage the country, leading to a new (this time almost imminent) “slide” of the country into a deep recession.
We don’t know who and to what extent put pressure on German, French and Polish Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Laurent Fabius and Radoslaw Sikorsky. We only know that they signed, as witnesses, the political agreement between Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine’s president at the time, and the leaders of Kiev “Maidan” opposition on February 21, 2014. And swallowed the “political insult” of the coup d’etat which took place in Kiev right after the agreement was signed. In other words, they admitted that their official (given on behalf of their respective states) political guarantees were not worth the paper they were written on.
We also witness the abrupt and unexpected change in the stance of senior elite circles of Bulgaria, who turned from fervent supporting of the Russian “South Stream” gas pipeline to a complete ban on any construction “as prescribed by the EU norms”.
Just as drastic is Slovakia’s turn from stating that there may not be any breach of the agreement with Gazprom — that reverse-flow deliveries of gas to Ukraine will not happen — to an accelerated construction of reverse-flow gas pipeline and supplying specifically Russian reverse-flow gas to Ukraine.
(To be continued)
Source (for copy): http://eu.eot.su/?p=3803
This is the translation of the second article (first published in “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 100 on October 22, 2014) by Yury Byaly of a series on the conceptual weaponry by which the United States indirectly reshape the world and coerce governments of other countries to make decisions harmful to these countries, but beneficial to the U.S. Part 1.