British Conservative Telegraph discusses anti-Labour military coup


This video from Britain says about itself:

26 September 2015

As one military general waves an anonymous fist at a potential Corbyn government in 2020, much to the indifference of the mainstream media, secret service and government, Aaron Bastani asks isn’t it time to propose far more substantial cuts to defence and build a people’s GCHQ to investigate these sinister threats.

By Robert Stevens in Britain:

Military coup against a Corbyn Labour government discussed by Daily Telegraph

15 May 2018

On May 8, the Daily Telegraph asked, “Could an Army coup remove Jeremy Corbyn—just as it almost toppled Harold Wilson?”

Written by Paul Carter for the de facto house organ of the Conservative Party,

The paper is often called the Daily Torygraph

the article makes clear that discussions on such a course of action in the event of a Labour victory under Corbyn are ongoing.

The article begins by noting, “Only one week after Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader, a serving general of the Army warned of a direct and public challenge if a future Prime Minister Corbyn jeopardised the country’s security: ‘The army wouldn’t stand for it … people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.’”

Carter refers to an article published by the [Rupert Murdoch owned] Sunday Times in September 2015, after Corbyn had routed his Blairite leadership opponent with the backing of hundreds of thousands of Labour members and supporters. The newspaper cited an anonymous “senior serving general” that in the event of Corbyn becoming prime minister, there would be “the very real prospect” of “a mutiny.” Elements within the military would be prepared to use “whatever means possible, fair or foul”, the officer declared. He warned, “You would see a major break in convention with senior generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over vital important policy decisions such as Trident, pulling out of NATO and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”

The Sunday Times said that the general “served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s.”

At the time, a Ministry of Defence source said that it was unacceptable for a serving officer to make political comments about a potential “future government”, but rejected mounting any investigation, claiming there were too many generals to investigate. As the World Socialist Web Site noted, there are only around 100 generals currently serving in the British Army, and not all of them served in Northern Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s.

Moreover, the week prior to the interview the then Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Houghton, spoke before the military think tank Chatham House of the “worrying constraints” of parliamentary consent that led MPs to reject military intervention following the Iraq debacle. Houghton was a company commander in, and commanding officer of, the 1st Battalion in the Mechanised and Air Mobile Roles and, in Northern Ireland, commanded the 39th Infantry Brigade in Belfast during the period leading up to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

The following November, asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr about Corbyn’s statement that he would never authorise the use of nuclear weapons, Houghton replied, “Well, it would worry me if that thought was translated into power.”

Carter raises none of this, but notes, “The idea of a military coup against an elected Prime Minister Corbyn may seem fanciful. Yet, fifty years ago this week, this almost happened to [Labour’s] Harold Wilson, a prime minister regarded by many as Left-wing and anti-establishment, who had also been accused of consorting with communist spies.”

He reports that on May 8, 1968, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, a member of the Royal Family and the great-grandson of Queen Victoria, held a meeting at his London home attended by “Cecil King, Chairman of the International Publishing Corporation, which owned the Daily Mirror; its editor, Hugh Cudlipp; and at Mountbatten’s invitation, his longstanding friend, Sir Solly Zuckerman, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser…

“Astonishingly, the-68-year-old Mountbatten was invited by King to head up a government of national emergency, whereby certain members of the armed forces, businessmen and other City figures would take over and replace the unpopular and mistrusted Wilson and his cabinet. So, could history repeat itself under a Jeremy Corbyn premiership?”

Carter then proceeds to rewrite history to diminish the significance of what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His message is that a coup against Wilson was not carried out then and that there is even less chance of a coup against Corbyn today.

He writes, “The so-called military coup of 1968 faded and failed and was blamed on a ‘pretty loony crew’ motivated by ‘loose talk from gin-sodden generals.” However, King’s apocalyptic vision of Britain’s economic breakdown did not occur—democracy was allowed to run its course.”

Democratic rule was not allowed to merely “run its course” at all. There were ongoing discussions of a coup for years after the events cited by Carter.

The years from 1968 to 1975 were characterised by an acute crisis for British and world capitalism that posed the threat of socialist revolution. The Mountbatten meeting took place just six days after the beginning of the May–June 1968 events in France, which culminated in a general strike of over 10 million workers—the largest and most extended in history, with red flags flown over factories and President General Charles De Gaulle leaving the country.

The ultimate concern of the coup plotters was not Wilson, or the Labour Party, but the challenge posed by an increasingly combative working class.

From 1970 to 1974, the period when Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath was in power, senior UK intelligence and military figures repeatedly discussed a military coup.

Heath’s period in office saw the greatest eruption of industrial action since the 1926 General Strike, and his calling of no less than five states of national emergency. During the seven-week-long miners’ strike in 1972, plans for a scab transport force were laid involving 600 drivers to be organised from a Royal Airforce Base. Afterwards, the COBRA national emergency cabinet committee was established. This came to a head in 1974 in a second miners’ strike, during which Heath placed responsibility for emergency powers under the control of the Civil Contingencies Unit. The police and the Ministry of Defence were secretly placed on an alert procedure and military manoeuvres were carried out at Heathrow airport and other strategic locations.

Heath called a general election for February 28, 1974, under the slogan, “Who runs Britain, the government or the unions?” Despite government threats and a vicious media witch-hunt, the miners stayed out on strike for the duration of the election campaign. As a result, Heath failed to secure a majority but refused to leave Number 10 for four days, during which time the then-chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Carver, admitted that discussions about military intervention had taken place among “fairly senior officers.”

In the end, the ruling elite decided to entrust a Labour government with stabilising the situation. But even then, continual plots were hatched against Wilson and he was smeared as a Soviet agent—just as Corbyn has been denounced as a stooge of the Czechoslovakian Stalinist regime during the 1980s.

Within two years of Wilson taking office in 1974, his opponents in ruling circles and the military had engineered his removal under conditions in which military operations were still taking place in Whitehall that were visible from Downing Street itself. His replacement, James Callaghan, was a trusted figure in ruling circles, who had served as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. These events were the subject of a BBC documentary, “The Plot against Harold Wilson”, in 2006, which included interviews with Wilson and his private secretary from the 1950s, Marcia Williams, now Baroness Falkender.

Segments of taped discussions with BBC journalists Barry Penrose and Roger Courtiour, given to them by Wilson and Williams shortly after he resigned, were aired. Williams recalled of the airport operation, “I still believe that operation they mounted at the airport … was a rehearsal, nothing more. There was all the terrific mobilisation, the alert was on, there was—all through Whitehall—along the airport road, up and down, landing and getting out.”

In the 1970s, the only political tendency that sought to warn the working class of the dangers posed to the working class were the Socialist Labour League and its successor organisation, the Workers Revolutionary Party—then the British section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Dismissed as political paranoia by the pseudo-left groups, the ruling elite took these exposures seriously. In a House of Lords debate on “subversive and extremist elements”, held in February 1975, with the moves against the Wilson government in full swing, Lord Chalfont noted, “At the last Election, one of the candidates was a prominent member of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. Miss Vanessa Redgrave, who claimed that the Government were preparing concentration camps in Britain and that the Army was being prepared to repress the workers in Great Britain as it had done in Northern Ireland.”

In the same debate, the Earl of Kimberley stated that the “Workers’ Revolutionary Party or the Socialist Labour League, must not be dismissed as just another fringe movement. It is by far the most dangerous of the Trotskyist organisations in this country. It is larger, better organised, and, from the point of view of industrial agitation, more intelligently led than its rivals.”

If anything, the danger of a military coup is greater today than it was in the 1970s. …

In March, for example, the Times gave substantial coverage to demands by military leaders for a “strategic surge” in defence spending, with the Times editorialising against the “pernicious idea that defence spending is a mere footnote to the chunky health and welfare budgets.”

In 2016, in its congress resolution, “Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: The strategic lessons,” the Socialist Equality Party explained:

“These threats mark a milestone in the degeneration of British democracy. As someone involved in politics throughout the 1970s, at a time of rising industrial militancy that culminated in the bringing down of the Conservative government of Edward Heath in 1974, Corbyn is well aware of their implications. This was the period in which the civil service, the police and the Ministry of Defence were secretly placed on alert and military manoeuvres were carried out at Heathrow airport and other strategic locations. Moreover, he is of a generation for whom the 1973 CIA-backed coup against the Chilean government of Salvador Allende was a formative experience. But rather than alerting the working class and insisting on Houghton’s removal, Corbyn sent a polite letter to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stating, ‘It is essential in a democracy that the military remains politically neutral at all times.’”

Corbyn lists Allende as one of his heroes.

Another warning arises from the Telegraph article. One of Carter’s more significant observations regarding a possible coup is when he asks, “Even assuming a plausible unelected leader was found … would they really want to challenge Corbyn’s 1.4 million Facebook followers with a depleted army of less than 80,000 soldiers?…

“In 1968, talk amongst some army officers was that Wilson would be held at the Tower of London, with the Shetland Islands designated an internment camp for up to 5,000 Left-wing and trade union detainees. A lack of social media and mobile phones makes such a round-up easy.”

This comment is telling. Masses of often young people, who are offered no future except social misery and war, have turned to social media to discuss ways of fighting back. Under the guise of combating “fake news” and Russian meddling, the ruling class is intent on censoring, restricting and even shutting down social media services.

Carter’s statements confirm that through such measures, the ruling elite are actively preparing for the brutal suppression of social opposition. The call by the WSWS for the formation of an International Coalition of Socialist, Anti-War and Progressive Websites in defence of free speech and democratic rights seeks to mobilise the working class in a political struggle against this.

The author also recommends:

The UK military, Jeremy Corbyn and the threat of dictatorship
[11 November 2015]

Britain: Documentary reveals plan for coup against Wilson Labour government—Part 1
[19 April 2006]

Britain: Documentary reveals plan for coup against Wilson Labour government—Part 2
[20 April 2006]

Advertisements

Murdoch media smear British Labour as ‘Russian tools’


This 2014 video is called The Murdoch Empire: Phone Hacking Exposed – The Listening Post (Full).

By Steve James and Laura Tiernan in Britain:

Sunday Times Insight team: Propagandists for Internet censorship and war

7 May 2018

The Insight team at the Sunday Times were pioneers in investigative journalism. In 1963, the group’s first efforts exposed slum landlord Peter Rachman and gave a new word, Rachmanism, to the English language.

Yes; but back in 1963, the (Sunday) Times was not yet part of the empire of phone-hacker-in-chief, burglar-in brief, police-corrupter-in chief, racist-in-chief, homo-and-transphobe-in-chief and warmonger-in-chief Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch got his hands on the Times later, with ‘a little’ help from Consevative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

How the mighty are fallen. Last week’s Insight report into alleged “Russian meddling” in the British general election of 2017 marked a low point in the collapse of bourgeois journalism into state propaganda.

“Exposed: Russian Twitter bots tried to swing the general election for Jeremy Corbyn” was the newspaper’s frontpage headline. Inside, the results of an investigation, “How Russian bots invaded Twitter to fight in Jeremy Corbyn’s army,” ran across pages eight and nine.

For more than 18 months the New York Times, the Democratic Party and powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus have alleged Russian “fake news” interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. The aim of this anti-Russia campaign has been twofold: (1) to install, via the methods of palace intrigue and coup, a regime prepared to militarily confront Russia and (2) to justify sweeping Internet censorship and other dictatorial measures on the grounds that the population is being indoctrinated by the Kremlin.

The Sunday Times feature published April 29 confirms that a similar campaign has begun in Britain. This version is directed against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the millions of people who have registered their opposition—on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs and memes—to the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May’s agenda of war and austerity.

The Insight Research Team—George Arbuthnott, Jonathan Calvert, Krystina Shveda, Louis Goddard, Mary O’Connor, Katie Weston, Malik Ouzia, Rebecca Gualandi and Rosie Bradbury—raked over Corbyn’s higher than expected vote.

“The causes of the result are still being debated. Was it the galvanisation of the youth vote, did May run a lacklustre campaign or were the polls wrong from the beginning?” they asked.

Not one of these possibilities was investigated. Instead the team aimed their sights on … “Russians in the ranks”.

“One question has been largely overlooked, until now. Did Moscow attempt to influence the British general election by using social media …?”

Insight reported their “ground breaking investigation” with Swansea University academic Oleksandr Talavera had uncovered 6,500 Russian Twitter accounts supporting Corbyn.

Most of the 6,500 accounts, Insight claimed, were bots—automated accounts that retweet posts from other accounts, posting links or comments from external sources. These were “mass-produced to bombard the public with orchestrated political messages,” claimed Rupert Murdoch’s investigative team, who are certainly experts on the topic.

In fact, such bots are routinely used by media outlets, celebrities, businesses and individuals to boost their social media reach and influence—but the Times, it seems, has only just discovered these dastardly bots and their evil ways.

Its real aim is to criminalise any attempt by the public at large to promote views that challenge the financial oligarchy and its state machine.

During the snap poll May launched on April 18, Corbyn’s support rose from 25 percent to 40 percent, reducing the Conservative government to minority status and shocking the political establishment. According to the Insight team, this could not be explained with reference to objectively rooted socioeconomic processes. Instead, it was attributed to Russian bots whose shady influence is somehow linked to Corbyn’s own repeated failure “to strongly condemn Vladimir Putin.”

The Times investigation cited “key points” during the general election when Russian Twitter accounts “swung into action” with apparently devastating effect.

These key points included May’s disastrous campaign launch on May 18, the Manchester bombing on May 22, her repeated refusal to hold a leaders’ debate with Corbyn, and the mass rallies Corbyn addressed that were a feature of the campaign. To add insult to injury, “At the times when the bots spread positivity for Labour, they would also spread almost equal amounts of negativity for the Conservatives.”

To cite just one example of Insight’s shoddy methodology and conclusions: “In early June, ‘Lillian Morgan’ retweeted a message from the pro-Kremlin broadcaster Russia Today inviting people to watch Corbyn’s speech in Reading. The event drew comment in the newspapers because a surprisingly large crowd attended during a workday lunchtime.”

All this proves is that the “newspapers” are a million times removed from the mass of the population. The Times journalists are shocked by “a surprisingly large crowd” and can only conclude that the population has been “manipulated” by a Kremlin-backed Twitter conspiracy. Such is the police mentality that now dominates the editorial offices of the British press.

Lillian turns out to have been bot @sMzNFVr7wWkTW04 created in Russia. No evidence has been supplied as to Lillian’s true identity, so no conclusions can be drawn. The British media does not have a great track record when it comes to outing Russian trolls and bots. Only last month, the owner of an alleged Russian bot account—an English retiree who opposes the bombing of Syria— spoke out publicly to expose the media’s anti-Russia witch-hunt. Ian56 successfully faced down a hostile line of questioning from Sky News “journalists”.

The entire Times investigation is based on just 20,000 tweets. As Wired magazine pointed out, in the month before the general election, 1.067 million accounts tweeted around 10 million times, using terms such as theresamay, #Conservatives, nicolasturgeon, paulnuttall, ukip, #Labour (to name a few).

Talevera’s academic research therefore “investigated” 20,000 out of 10 million tweets, a grand total of 0.2 percent.

The British media campaign over Russian interference is rank hypocrisy. A relative handful of Russian-backed Twitter accounts is child’s play compared to the routine and violent political interference of the imperialist powers in countries all over the world. The British ruling class has carried out criminal wars of occupation and illegal regime change across the Middle East and North Africa that have claimed the lives of over a million people since 2003 alone, turning millions more into stateless refugees.

The desperate and crude methods of the Sunday Times must serve as a warning. Owned by the billionaire Rupert Murdoch, the Sunday Times speaks for powerful sections of the British ruling class. If Corbyn owes his popularity to Kremlin interference, the implications are clear: preparations must be made for his removal.

These moves are not primarily aimed against Corbyn … They are aimed against the working class.

Three years ago, the Sunday Times quoted an unnamed serving general threatening mutiny by “fair means or foul” against a Corbyn government. The intervening years have seen an immense deepening of the crisis of British imperialism which has responded, like all the major powers, by stepped-up preparations for war and a build-up of the state.

The Sunday Times article begins and ends with calls for sweeping Internet censorship. It cites Matt Hancock, digital and culture secretary in May’s government, insisting, “It is absolutely unacceptable for any nation to attempt to interfere in the democratic elections of another country. The social media companies need to act to safeguard our democratic discourse and reveal what they know.”

Comedian Michelle Wolf exposes Trump, corporate media


This 28 April 2018 video from the USA is called Michelle Wolf’s Uncensored White House Correspondents’ Dinner Speech (Full) | NBC News.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

Comedian Michelle Wolf exposes a cynical and hypocritical media

1 May 2018

On Saturday, comedian Michelle Wolf did the unpardonable: she told the truth. As the entertainer for the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner—typically the occasion for backslapping and self-congratulation by an incestuous and corrupt press—she delivered a ferocious, entirely well-deserved and hilarious lampoon of the Trump administration, the Democrats and the press.

In response, Wolf was denounced not only by Trump and his flunkies, but by the leading lights of the print and broadcast media, as well as by White House Correspondents Association President Margaret Talev.

Much of the feigned outrage over Wolf’s remarks centered on her takedown of the Trump administration’s thuggish female media flacks, Kellyanne Conway (“Man, she has the perfect last name for what she does: Conway… All she does is lie”) and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (“She burns facts, and then she uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye”).

After Wolf’s remarks, leading members of the White House press corps rushed to offer their support and condolences to a woman who shamelessly lies to and bullies them every day.

“Apology is owed to @PressSec and others grossly insulted ny (sic) Michelle Wolf at White House Correspondents Assoc dinner”, NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell tweeted.

Mitchell, married to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, is a notorious warmonger, who this year called “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula” a “trap” and famously referred to rural Virginia as “redneck country.”

Another defense of Sanders’ honor was launched by Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, the New York Times’ duo, whose names almost never appear on the front page of the paper without being accompanied by the statements of unnamed “intelligence sources” warning about Russian subversion.

Haberman tapped out on Twitter, “That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive.”

CBS News’s “This Morning” program included a segment on the speech consisting of a panel of four people denouncing Wolf. One of the panelists, Norah O’Donnell, declared, “They need to look clearly at the spirit of what the White House Correspondents Association is, and I think part of it includes civility.”

And Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of imperialist strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, declared on Twitter, “Watching from home, I hurt for Sarah, her husband and her children.” She added, “All women have a duty to unite when these attacks happen and the WHCA owes Sarah an apology.”

This is all nonsense. Wolf said nothing about Sanders’ appearance, and only called her, correctly, a liar.

What really set these well-heeled “journalists” off was that Wolf called out them out for what they are: a bunch of ignorant, reactionary scandalmongers, ignoring every genuine social and political issue to prattle endlessly about their hobbyhorses.

As Wolf put it, “We have all these 24-hour news networks, and we could be covering everything. But, instead, we’re covering like three topics. Every hour, it’s Trump, Russia, Hillary and a panel of four people who remind you why you don’t go home for Thanksgiving.”

Speaking to the print and broadcast press, she poignantly observed:

‘You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn’t sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric, but he has helped you. He’s helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.’

Trump is the creature of a hysterical, reactionary, right-wing and ignorant media climate. His foibles and scandals give these phony journalists the opportunity to spew their bile, while obscuring the fact that they agree with him on almost everything that matters: lowering taxes on the rich, slashing social services, attacking democratic rights, and waging war abroad.

White House Correspondents Association president Margaret Talev also denounced Wolf, declaring her remarks were “not in the spirit of” the “mission” of the event”, which was “meant to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners, not to divide people.”

Talev’s statement expresses far more than its author intended. While the aim of war propaganda is to “offer a unifying message”, that is certainly not the function of serious journalists, whose aim should be—at least in theory—to question and criticize those in positions of authority, sometimes revealing the social divisions that exist in reality, and thus “widening” them in the public mind.

The reactions to Wolf’s poignant critique expose those demanding her apology as propagandists, not journalists.

And to the extent that the WHCA dinner expresses “unity” between the press and the White House, this is a testament to the corruption of the media, which sees itself as political insiders, protecting the secrets of the state.

Wolf’s speech tore up the cardboard cutout concepts—“sexual misconduct”, “Russian meddling”, and the like—employed by the press to shape the political discourse. These fell by the wayside, and reality emerged:

‘Now, I’ve worked in a lot of male-dominated fields. Before comedy, I worked at a tech company and, before that, I worked on Wall Street. And, honestly, I’ve never really been sexually harassed. That being said, I did work at Bear Stearns in 2008. So, although I haven’t been sexually harassed, I’ve definitely been fucked. Yeah, that whole company went down on me without my consent. And no men got in trouble for that one either.’

Wolf dealt with the real facts of American life: Wall Street looted the country and no one was punished, immigrant children are being rounded up and deported</a>, teachers don’t have supplies for their students, and, as she concluded, “Flint still doesn’t have clean water.”

For all the media’s stifling, incestuous and vulgar flattery, its endless promotion of right-wing nonsense, Wolf’s monologue was a reminder that not only does there exist a world outside of the Washington bubble, there exists a public opinion—one that increasingly sees the media courtiers for the liars and sycophants they are.

Ukraine jails Dutch journalist to please Azerbaijan dictatorship


Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

Dutch journalist already jailed for more than half a year in Ukraine

In Ukraine, the Dutch-Azeri journalist Fikret Huseynli has been in prison for more than half a year. He was arrested on 14 October last year at the request of Azerbaijan, which wants his extradition for … illegal crossing of the border. Huseynli fled from Azerbaijan and says that that country wants to arrest him because of his critical reporting.

Earlier this month, a court in Kiev ruled that he can not be extradited and that he must be able to go where he wants. But even before the verdict, his Dutch passport had been taken away, confirms the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague. A spokesman said that there is regular contact with him and that the Netherlands “on a high political level” emphasizes that he has refugee status and that the Netherlands disapproves of extradition. At the same time, the ministry says it can not “enter into legal proceedings of other countries”.

Masked men

Huseynli fled from Azerbaijan in 2008 and received political asylum in the Netherlands. In Azerbaijan, Huseynli worked for the newspaper Azadlyg. Two years before he fled, he had been attacked by masked men. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that the journalist was granted refugee status and now has Dutch nationality.

Huseynli runs the Azerbaijani online news organization Turan in Amsterdam, which is critical of the government of Azerbaijan. He was in Ukraine in October to investigate whether a local department of Turan could be opened. Because Azerbaijan had put him on a list of police organization Interpol, he was arrested in Ukraine. Huseynli says that Azerbaijan is out to shut him up.

At the end of October, two weeks after his arrest, a court in Kiev ruled that Huseynli could be released on bail, but he had to stay in the country for two months. After that time a decision was supposed to be taken on extradition. Since then, this term has been extended twice, Huseynli said last month in conversation with the international journalist organization Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Recently, on April 2, the court ruled that he can not be extradited, but the public prosecutor refuses to give him his passport back and wants a new session to impose new restrictions on him, the Kyiv Post, an English-language newspaper in Kiev, says.

Attacked in apartment

Huseynli is also being intimidated in Ukraine. The CPJ writes on its site that on March 5 he was attacked by strangers in the apartment he is renting in Kiev. According to the Dutchman, his assailants spoke Ukrainian and Azeri. He was beaten up and worked against the ground. The CPJ calls on Ukraine to investigate the incident and give Huseynli his passport back so that he can leave the country.

The international journalist organization Reporters sans Frontières (RSF, Reporters without Borders) has also called for the release of Huseynli. The organization also speaks of a political matter and emphasizes that Azerbaijan in terms of freedom of press 162 is on a list of 180 countries. The country violates press freedom in a crude way, according to RSF.

The Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is establishing a database of the public activities, “sentiments” and personal information of hundreds of thousands of news publications, journalists, bloggers and “media influencers” around the world. The project was revealed in an April 3 notice on the governmental Federal Business Opportunities website requesting proposals from private contractors to administer the project: here.

Update: Huseynli has been freed.

South Asia the most dangerous part of the world for journalists, press freedom campaigners warn: here.

Nazi Salutes and Fascist Chic Put Ukraine’s Jews on Edge: here.

BBC Photoshop job on Labour leader for anti-Russia hysteria


This image from Britain today shows a BBC Photoshop job on British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to make him look ‘Russian’ to help the Conservative government‘s anti-Russia hysteria.

After Colin Powell’s Photoshop job about ‘Iraqi weapons of mass destruction‘ at the United Nations to help start the Iraq war (Powell later apologized for these lies) …

Also reminiscent of the 1920s British Conservative forged ‘Zinoviev letter’ to discredit the Labour party.

The media has not considered how Russophobia is benefitting big business. In dangerous times, the public is reliant upon the media to seek impartial, clear-headed and rational expertise. But so far all we’ve seen is speculation and the refusal to consider third-party interests, writes KENNY COYLE.

Whether Newsnight photoshopped Corbyn’s hat or not is not the point. The point is why the ‘impartial’ BBC played along with the corporate media’s anti-Corbyn bias at all, writes BEN COWLES.

From the Zinoviev Letter of 1924 to the alleged poisoning of a double agent in the UK, both US and British intelligence have a long record of employing lies to justify war and reaction: here.