Brits in panic?

[Paul Rigby]

A most peculiar situation, though one not entirely dissimilar from the Heath years in two respects:

1) A PM who isn't gung-ho for Cold War; rather, would appear to be pro-detente with Russia and China

2) An economic crisis (which in its present form has effectively compelled massive devaluation, long regarded as a Labour Government preserve, thus storing up inflation)

Third, May gives every indication, not least from the number of Corbynite policies she's nicked, of being more Macmillan than Thatcher.

Time for the CIA and its British fifth-columnists to get to work, I suspect.

I've been thinking about this over the last week or so and I suspect that your analysis is broadly correct. What odds on May still being "in charge" in 12 months time?

Given the enormous turbulence to come in the months ahead, I'd be surprised if anyone wanted the job in the short-term. The Mad Turk was held back for a reason, I've always felt, more interesting than Micheal Gove's swiftness off the mark.

But if she wants to survive longer than that, I think she'd be well advised to take a long, hard look at The Charlatans and the CIA's more overt MSM, most obviously the Aussie Cuckold's stable and the Langley Bros' Torygraph. Both have more skeletons in the closet than even an ex-Home Secretary, and would benefit from complex, protracted and intermittently public scrutiny.

[David Guyatt]

I am reminded of a statement made by an American insider that I read recently, in one of the better publications (can't remember which) which stated that:

"The British are realigning".

And I add to that a number of comments made by Voltaire's Thierry Meyssan in which he has has stated the same thing; that Brexit was meant to achieve a realignment (away from the EU and thus the USA) and that the City of London had decided it wanted to become the Yuan clearing centre of the world - hinting, therefore, that the realignment was away from the dollar and thus also the US.

My guess is that Theresa May is aligned with this emerging realignment, assuming it does in fact have validity. Her stance on Brexit is very, very firm and the way she publicly slapped down BoJo on war talk against Russia this week reflects, for me, a far more conciliatory position that the glorious British media haven't - yet - attuned themselves too. And perhaps won't...

PS, see also HERE.

[David Guyatt]

If it came to an actual shooting war with Russia I'm sure RT and other Russian news outlets would be closed down immediately. RT is already the most popular news channel on Youtube with 3 billions views. It boasts that it is the 3rd most popular news channel in the UK, which I can well imagine given the dire crap broadcast by the home made British news channels.

In all my years I have never seen such a horrendous propaganda campaign against Russia - including throughout the coldest parts of the cold war. It is sickening to see our establishment politicians and news media grovel to US hegemonic requirements and wholesale engage in lying, duplicity and hypocrisy on such a grand scale.

Rant over.

Speak of the devil:

published on October 14, 2016
Comments 16

Opinion: West gunning for Russian media ban

Posters for the RT "Second opinion" advertising campaign in New Yprk City.

Finian Cunningham writes in the Strategic Culture Foundation online journal:

It would be monumental, but Western states seem to be moving, ineluctably, towards banning Russian news media channels from satellite platforms and the internet. That outcome albeit with enormous ethical and political implications seems to be a logical conclusion of the increasingly frenzied transatlantic campaign to demonize Russia.
Washington, London and Paris appear to be coordinating an unprecedented media onslaught that is vilifying Russia for almost every conceivable malfeasance, from alleged war crimes in Syria to threatening the security of Europe, to shooting down civilian airliners, to subverting American presidential elections. And that's only a sample.
British foreign secretary Boris Johnson declared this week that Russia is in danger of becoming a «pariah state». Ironically, that fate has less to do with Russia's actual conduct and more to do with the desired objective driving Western policy towards Moscow to isolate and portray Russia as an international reprobate.
If Russia can be sufficiently demonized in the eyes of the Western public by their governments, then the political context is created for drastic measures, which would otherwise be seen as unacceptable infringements of democratic rights. Measures that go way beyond economic sanctions and into the realm of media censorship. How weird is that? The «free world» which deplores «Russian authoritarianism» moving towards media censorship and policing what it deems as «thought-crime».
European parliamentarians this week voted for a resolution calling for greater «institutional capacities to counter Kremlin-inspired propaganda». The vote was passed by the EU's foreign affairs committee and will go before the full parliament next month. If it is voted through then, the next step would be institutional mechanisms to block Russian media access.
The hostility towards Russia, as conveyed by the wording in this week's EU resolution, can only be described as rabid, if not bordering on paranoid. The Russian government was accused of aggressively employing a «disinformation campaign», of «targeting EU politicians and journalists», and of «disrupting democratic values across Europe». In short, Moscow was accused of plotting the downfall of the European bloc.
Of particularly sinister note, the EU foreign affairs committee gave special attention to Russia's «wide range of tools and instruments such as multi-lingual TV stations and pseudo news agencies to divide Europe».
So, not only is the Russian government being recklessly accused of harboring subversive, destructive designs on European states, its professional news media channels are conflated with an alleged Russian agenda of hybrid warfare. The Russian state is demonized as a foreign enemy, and its news media are part of the hybrid warfare arsenal. In other words, legitimate Russian public information services are in effect being delegitimized by the European parliament.
Astoundingly, professional media channels like RT and Sputnik are actually being referred to as «pseudo news agencies» and «tools of Kremlin propaganda».
The oft-cited issue of these Russian channels being «state-owned» and government-funded is irrelevant. So too are Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, BBC, France 24 and Deutsche Welle, to name a few of the Western state-owned broadcasters. Indeed, aggregate Western government funding for news publishing is many multiples that of Russia's budget.
The Western drumbeat to delegitimize Russia's popular news media has escalated in recent months. Last month, for example, the US-led NATO military alliance issued yet another report warning: West Losing Information War Against Russia'.
It is a fair question to ask, what has a supposed military-security organization got to do with espousing on matters of journalism and public information services?
A Voice of America report added: «The West must step up its efforts to combat and counter the information war being waged by its opponents, according to NATO officials. They warn that countries like Russia are exploiting the freedom of the press in Western media to spread disinformation».
Note how it is alleged that Russia is somehow underhandedly «exploiting» Western media freedom. The implication here is that counter-sanctions on Russian media would therefore be justified because of alleged transgressions.
Meanwhile, also last month, the Director of US National Intelligence James Clapper Jr reportedly briefed members of Congress on Russian «information warfare». He singled out RT and Sputnik as media weapons for Russian «information warfare». Their purpose, according to Clapper, was subverting Western societies by tapping into radical groups and sowing public confusion.
This marks a dramatic deterioration in West-Russia relations, whereby Russia's mass news media are tarred as enemy weapons. Such thinking also betrays how degenerate Western political leaders have sunk into Cold War stereotypes; and how willing they are prepared to go to further antagonize Russia.
Ever since the much-vaunted «reset» friendlier policy towards Russia under US President Barack Obama was abandoned during his first administration, circa 2011, Washington's hostility and that of its European allies has crescendoed to current levels of apparent hysteria.
Probably the key factor in why Washington jettisoned its reset policy was that it realized Russian President Vladimir Putin was not going to be a pushover like his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, who cravenly submitted to American hegemony, whether on matters of geopolitical interests, global finance, or overseas resource-wars. Putin was having none of it. Russia would not be an American vassal state, as European Union states all-too evidently are.
It is because of Russia's independence and boldness on speaking out against American caprice towards international law, for example in its conduct of illegal wars and regime change machinations in the Middle East, North Africa and Ukraine, that Washington finds such attitude so intolerable.
When asked recently by German media why the West is so hostile towards him, Putin reportedly responded with one word: «Fear».
By that, the Russian leader did not mean that the West was afraid of Russia attacking militarily. He meant that the fear was due to his power of demonstration. A strong counter-weight to US-led imperialistic conduct is a powerful negation of presumed American unipolar supremacy over the world. It means that the world is not a doormat for American subjugation. Russia's defiance of US hegemony is a harbinger of a multipolar world, one in which America and its European subsidiaries must begin working with other nations as equals and within the mutual confines of international law, not as renegades above the law.
Syria is a classic illustration. Washington and its British and French allies, along with regional client states, presumed that they could pull off another illegal regime-change operation in that Arab country, as they had done previously in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia's military intervention in support of its Syrian ally was a stark demonstration that the Western regime-change playbook was no longer permitted. Furthermore, Russia's intervention also exposed the covert criminal involvement of Washington and its partners in using terrorist proxies for regime change.
The same can be said about Ukraine, where Russia's political support for ethnic Russian separatists has prevented Washington's coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014 turning the entire country into a US puppet-regime.
This is why Washington fears Russia under Putin. It is an obstacle to its full-spectrum global dominance, as envisaged by American imperialist ideologues following the collapse of the Soviet Union. […]

Source

[Paul Rigby]

A most peculiar situation, though one not entirely dissimilar from the Heath years in two respects:

1) A PM who isn't gung-ho for Cold War; rather, would appear to be pro-detente with Russia and China

2) An economic crisis (which in its present form has effectively compelled massive devaluation, long regarded as a Labour Government preserve, thus storing up inflation)

Third, May gives every indication, not least from the number of Corbynite policies she's nicked, of being more Macmillan than Thatcher.

Time for the CIA and its British fifth-columnists to get to work, I suspect.

The Daily Blackshirt, on cue:

Home Office KNEW about race claims against abuse judge: So did Theresa May cover up a 'civil war' to avoid damaging her Tory leadership bid?

• Prime Minister and Home Secretary dragged into sex abuse judge saga
  
• Former head of child abuse inquiry is accused of racism and misconduct
  
• Home Secretary Amber Rudd faces claims she knew of the allegations
  
• Teresa May is in the firing line for a 'cover up' ahead of leadership contest
  

By REBECCA CAMBER and IAN DRURY and JASON GROVES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 23:29, 14 October 2016 | UPDATED: 20:53, 15 October 2016

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rship.html

[Magda Hassan]

If it came to an actual shooting war with Russia I'm sure RT and other Russian news outlets would be closed down immediately. RT is already the most popular news channel on Youtube with 3 billions views. It boasts that it is the 3rd most popular news channel in the UK, which I can well imagine given the dire crap broadcast by the home made British news channels......

....
It would be interesting to see how information would be controlled in the event of a real shooting war between Russia and NATO (which hopefully will never happen). Are there contingency plans to sever Russia from the Internet so the public can't read their point of view? Would they do the same to neutral countries that are sympathetic to Russia?

Speak of the devil:

Opinion: West gunning for Russian media ban


Posters for the RT "Second opinion" advertising campaign in New Yprk City.

Source

RT bank accounts blocked in UK editor-in-chief

Published time: 17 Oct, 2016 11:12Edited time: 17 Oct, 2016 13:25
Get short URL

© Evgeny Biyatov / Sputnik


RT UK's bank accounts have been blocked, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan reported. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova reacted, saying it seems that in leaving the EU, London also left any freedom of speech obligations behind there.
"Our accounts in Britain have been blocked. All of them. Decision not to be discussed'. Hail to freedom of speech!" RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said on her Twitter account.
The National Westminster Bank has informed RT UK that it will no longer have the broadcaster among its clients. The bank provided no explanation for the decision.
"We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities," NatWest said in a letter to RT's London office.
READ MORE: UK freezes bank account of Russian news agency, gives no reason
The bank said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is part, would refuse to service RT.
The letter said the decision was final and that it is "not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it."


The RT press office pointed out that NatWest is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which counts the UK government as a significant shareholder.
"This decision is incomprehensible, and without warning. It is however, not at odds with the countless measures that have been undertaken in the UK and Europe over the last few years to ostracize, shout down, or downright impede the work of RT. RT UK will continue its operations uninterrupted," RT press office stated.


"We have no idea why it happened, because neither yesterday nor the day before yesterday, nor a month ago, nothing special happened to us, nobody threatened us in any way. Hypothetically, this may have something to do with new British and American sanctions against Russia, which may be announced soon. It may not. Our legal department is dealing with the issue now," Margarita Simonyan told RBK business news website.
READ MORE: Spanish bank blocks payment to RT over EU sanctions against non-related media chief
Commenting on the development, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said it indicated that "Britain on its way out of the EU abandoned all its commitments to protect the freedom of speech."
"I sincerely hope that there's no political motive for this, because we know that the British government isn't happy with RT in Britain," publisher Marcus Papadopoulos told RT.
"RT has a lot of viewers in Britain. Many British people now tune in to RT to receive information on major topics around the world, including in Britain. And many British people believe that the alternative accounts that RT puts forward and covers are more truthful than what they're hearing from, for example, Sky News.
"If no bank in Britain would allow RT to be a customer, then that could spell the end of RT broadcasting in Britain, which would be a catastrophic event for freedom of speech in Britain," he added.
"It seems more than a coincidence that this has taken place at a time when the anti-Russian propaganda has been ramped up to unprecedented levels," writer John Wight told RT. "This reflects the extent to which the West is losing the information war. RT plays a key role in challenging the narrative of the West and Western media when it comes to events in Ukraine, Syria and the Middle East."

https://www.rt.com/news/363013-rt-uk-accounts-blocked/

[Michael Barwell]

Closure of Russia Today bank accounts nothing to do with us Treasury
British government denies role in NatWest closing bank accounts of Moscow's main propaganda tool in English-speaking world - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/o...ays-editor

[Magda Hassan]

Closure of Russia Today bank accounts nothing to do with us Treasury
British government denies role in NatWest closing bank accounts of Moscow's main propaganda tool in English-speaking world - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/o...ays-editor

Of course they do.::::::

[Carsten Wiethoff]

So now I hear that Natwest withdrew their threat to cancel all of RT's accounts.
The british Times, formerly a respected newspaper, has this to say about it:

A state-owned British bank caved in to the Kremlin last night after threatening to close the account of a television station accused of being a vehicle for President Putin's propaganda.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) withdrew its punitive action after Moscow claimed it would freeze the BBC's finances in Russia and report Britain to international watchdogs for breaching commitments to freedom of speech.
The climbdown came after an unusually strong reaction from Moscow in defence of RT, the television station formerly known as Russia Today, which is accused of peddling disinformation.
It was a notable victory for Russia

The rest is behind a paywall, and I urge everyone not to pay for that garbage.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/n...-09wkf5r2d

[John Knoble]

It's a really interesting issue when you have a domestic news outlet owned by another country that is in disfavor, without a declaration of formal hostilities.

I've read RT a few times. I wouldn't download any of their apps, and if there was a shooting war I wouldn't have a problem with it being taken down, but I also don't see obvious propaganda or seditious articles.

I do see a problem when there is domestic or transnational hacking of private e-mail accounts, and embarrassing information appears on foreign Wikileaks servers and and is pumped by foreign news sites, whether they are state owned or not. Particularly when political candidates are involved and the subject matter could be germane to a national election. No matter which way it cuts. The saber-rattling surrounding RT and Wikileaks right now makes it seem like another shoe is about to drop that would cause deep embarrassment. If it is real evidence of corruption or abuse, the issues are similar to the Pentagon Papers, but international in nature. You could argue it was justified. If it is personal trash, that's entirely different.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

I do see a problem when there is domestic or transnational hacking of private e-mail accounts, and embarrassing information appears on foreign Wikileaks servers and and is pumped by foreign news sites, whether they are state owned or not. Particularly when political candidates are involved and the subject matter could be germane to a national election.

The current outbreak of hostile propaganda and pressure on RT happens in the UK, and no potential candidates for any UK election are involved. I mean, I can understand why certain parties in the US want to stop wikileaks, but the US is not the UK, and RT is not wikileaks.
I have not even noticed that RT was using the wikileaks revelations more aggressive than other media. Also the hightened state of anti-russian propaganda can be witnessed in Germany and other European states, albeit not as drastic as in the UK.
Do you really think that this strong connection between the propaganda against Russia, wikileaks and the US elections exist?