offguardian--2020-07-04--The Sacking of Gough Whitlam and the Royal Intention Behind the Five Eyes

An important reckoning with a great historical injustice is underway in Australia which presents the world with a rare opportunity to look into the darker corners of the corridors of power too often ignored by even the most ardent truth seekers among us .
This reckoning has taken the form of a four-year , hard fought legal battle which a lone crowd funded Australian historian named Jenny Hocking waged in the highest courts of her nation to win the right on May 30 , 2020 to make 211 secret letters held within Australia ’ s National Archives public for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1978 .
These palace letters were written between the Queen of England ( via her personal secretary ) and her Governor General in Australia Sir John Kerr during the latter ’ s tenure as official Head of State during the interim of 1974-1978 and until last week ’ s court ruling , were intended to be kept hidden until December 8 , 2037 .
What makes these letters such a point of national controversy is that they contain information which will undoubtedly shed light upon the active role of the Queen herself in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a modern coup d ’ état of November 11 , 1975 .
During this sad period , Kerr made history by not only sacking the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam , but also revealed the scope and nature of the British Monarchy ’ s very real powers in our modern age .
These are bizarre god-like prerogative powers which those forces controlling today ’ s globally extended empire would much rather keep concealed from public view .
Gough Whitlam : An Intolerable Threat to the Empire It is admittedly difficult for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime minister could suffer a coup in our modern times… are not coups usually something reserved for Asiatic , Latin American , or African revolutionary leaders ?
When one looks upon a list of coups during the Cold War period , that has certainly tended to be the general rule… but like every rule , exceptions are always to be found .
By reviewing the nature of Whitlam ’ s political struggle , his policy reforms and greater vision for Australia , it becomes clear what sort of enemy he made and why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Global Empire ousted him .
Before his December 2 , 1972 victory , Gough Whitlam gave a brilliant speech which set him aside from the typical slavish pro-imperial stooges who tended to litter Australia ’ s political elite when he said in November 1972 : The decision we will make for our country on 2 December is a choice between the past and the future , between the habits and fears of the past , and the demands and opportunities of the future .
There are moments in history when the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided by a single decision .
For Australia , this is such a time .
It ’ s time for a new team , a new program , a new drive for equality of opportunities : it ’ s time to create new opportunities for Australians , time for a new vision of what we can achieve in this generation for our nation and the region in which we live .
It ’ s time for a new government- a Labor Government .
Whitlam launched into his role as Prime Minister as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Australian society , awakening a deep-seated yearning for true independence and taking on some of the largest power structures of the Anglo-American empire .
Just to appreciate the scale of these reforms , let us review a few of them here .
• Days after his election , Whitlam began negotiations to establish full diplomatic relations with Mainland China , breaking off relations with Taiwan .
• Conscription which had forced thousands of young Australians to Vietnam was ended , Australia ended its participation in the war , imprisoned draft dodgers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• A committee was created with the full backing of the federal government to enforce equal pay for men and women while free universities as well as free health insurance were begun .
• Whitlam began sanctioning Apartheid South Africa while banning all sports teams which practiced racial discrimination .
• Large scale urban renewal programs were launched extending modern sewage systems to all urban centers , while new roads , rail , electrification and flood prevention programs were built .
Highways linked of Australia ’ s capitals for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerate continental development strategies ( whether Africa or Australia , the British Empire never permitted common rail gauges in order to prevent internal development while keeping its “ possessions ” reliant on maritime trade ) .
• On aboriginal rights , Whitlam tackled the injustices of colonialism by granting natives the right to own their traditional lands and granted independence to Papua New Guinea .
• Culturally , he kindled a sense of independence from British Imperial traditions by replacing God Save the Queen with a new national anthem and patronized a National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Five Eyes and Multinational Cartels Within the first weeks of 1973 , Whitlam ’ s team soon discovered the insidious nature of the international Five Eyes intelligence organization and upon discovering the scope of MI6/CIA operations in Australia , ordered a crackdown on the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization ( ASIO ) on March 13 , 1973 under the authority of Attorney General Lionel Murphy .
In his June 1st report on Consortium News , investigative reporter John Pilger stated : “ Gough Whitlam knew the risk he was taking .
The day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his staff should no longer be “ vetted or harassed ” by the Australian security organisation , ASIO , which was then , as now , tied to Anglo-American intelligence.
” In a 2014 report , Pilger made the point that Whitlam had received a secret telex message from William Shackly ( head of the CIA ’ s East Asia division ) calling him a “ security threat ” on November 10 , 1975 , and before he could make these facts known to the parliament the next day , Whitlam was promptly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office where he was promptly fired under royal decree .
Whitlam ’ s most unforgivable of sins was the policy to “ buy back the farm ” to take back control of Australia ’ s resources- 62 % of which were own by multinational cartels such as London ’ s Rio Tinto .
Whitlam sought loans to buy Australia ’ s resources not from western banking sources in London or Wall Street but rather Middle Eastern nations who were awash in cash during the oil price increases of 1973-75 .
According to Minerals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans were designed for 20 years and tied to large scale national development mega projects which would have extinguished the $ 4.5 billion of debt incurred .
This process would have worked in a similar manner to the debt repayment process of FDR ’ s New Deal projects of the 1930s , JFK ’ s Apollo program of the 1960s or China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative of our modern age .
Why the disclosure still may not happen In spite of the fact that the High Court ruled that the palace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prerogative to follow the court ’ s orders is still left to the discretion of the head of the National Archives David Fricker- a strange character who has shown a decade of resistance to professor Hocking and even the High Court , telling ABC News : “ We are not like a library or a museum..
I am required to diligently go through those things and just make sure that our release of these records is responsible , it ’ s ethical and it complies with the law.
” Perhaps Fricker ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ASIO may have something to do with this resistance .
While Fricker and other opponents of the letters ’ release make the claim that they are merely personal correspondences of a private nature , Sir Edward Young ( Personal secretary to the Queen ) has demonstrated this to be a fraud as he cried out that their declassification “ could damage not only international relations but also the trusting relationship between Her Majesty and her representatives overseas ” .
How could benign “ personal correspondences ” do that ?
In a June 1st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is surely an unusual position for the National Archives , which describes itself as a ‘ pro-disclosure organisation ’ , to contest this action at significant expense – initially of almost one million dollars – at a time of severe budget and staff cuts ” .
She also made the point that “ before lodging them in the Archives , the letters had been kept by Smith in the Government House ‘ strong room under absolute security ’ again in an official capacity , which scarcely suggested the letters were ‘ personal ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fear ?
The British Empire has worked very hard over the years to portray the image that the Crown is a benign symbol of conservative values without any real power and that the British Empire is a mere relic of the past .
If anything critical is permitted to seep through the cracks of a squeeky clean veneer of austere traditional values , then Britain ’ s propagandists in the mainstream media and academia are sure to spin information in such a manner as to convey the idea that Britain is merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ villain : America .
The true story of Whitlam ’ s sacking , and the Crown ’ s active hand as an invisible yet real force shaping world imperial policy ( including the Five Eyes ) is an uncomfortable fact which imperial strategists would prefer forever remain in the shadows .
In the next segment of this story , we will delve more deeply into the real nature of the British Empire as a very active , very powerful , albeit ( usually ) very invisible force shaping current world affairs .

Matthew Ehret
An important reckoning with a great historical injustice is underway in Australia which presents the world with a rare opportunity to look into the darker corners of the corridors of power too often ignored by even the most ardent truth seekers among us.
This reckoning has taken the form of a four-year, hard fought legal battle which a lone crowd funded Australian historian named Jenny Hocking waged in the highest courts of her nation to win the right on May 30, 2020 to make 211 secret letters held within Australia’s National Archives public for the first time since they were deposited in 1978.
These palace letters were written between the Queen of England (via her personal secretary) and her Governor General in Australia Sir John Kerr during the latter’s tenure as official Head of State during the interim of 1974-1978 and until last week’s court ruling, were intended to be kept hidden until December 8, 2037.
What makes these letters such a point of national controversy is that they contain information which will undoubtedly shed light upon the active role of the Queen herself in carrying out an act which essentially amounted to a modern coup d’état of November 11, 1975. During this sad period, Kerr made history by not only sacking the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, but also revealed the scope and nature of the British Monarchy’s very real powers in our modern age.
These are bizarre god-like prerogative powers which those forces controlling today’s globally extended empire would much rather keep concealed from public view.
Gough Whitlam: An Intolerable Threat to the Empire
It is admittedly difficult for some westerners to contemplate how a white Commonwealth prime minister could suffer a coup in our modern times… are not coups usually something reserved for Asiatic, Latin American, or African revolutionary leaders?
When one looks upon a list of coups during the Cold War period, that has certainly tended to be the general rule… but like every rule, exceptions are always to be found.
By reviewing the nature of Whitlam’s political struggle, his policy reforms and greater vision for Australia, it becomes clear what sort of enemy he made and why the highest powers of the Five Eyes and Global Empire ousted him.
Before his December 2, 1972 victory, Gough Whitlam gave a brilliant speech which set him aside from the typical slavish pro-imperial stooges who tended to litter Australia’s political elite when he said in November 1972:
The decision we will make for our country on 2 December is a choice between the past and the future, between the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future. There are moments in history when the whole fate and future of nations can be decided by a single decision. For Australia, this is such a time. It’s time for a new team, a new program, a new drive for equality of opportunities: it’s time to create new opportunities for Australians, time for a new vision of what we can achieve in this generation for our nation and the region in which we live. It’s time for a new government- a Labor Government.
Whitlam launched into his role as Prime Minister as a progressive juggernaut who revolutionized literally every aspect of Australian society, awakening a deep-seated yearning for true independence and taking on some of the largest power structures of the Anglo-American empire. Just to appreciate the scale of these reforms, let us review a few of them here.
Days after his election, Whitlam began negotiations to establish full diplomatic relations with Mainland China, breaking off relations with Taiwan. Conscription which had forced thousands of young Australians to Vietnam was ended, Australia ended its participation in the war, imprisoned draft dodgers were released and the death penalty was abolished. A committee was created with the full backing of the federal government to enforce equal pay for men and women while free universities as well as free health insurance were begun. Whitlam began sanctioning Apartheid South Africa while banning all sports teams which practiced racial discrimination. Large scale urban renewal programs were launched extending modern sewage systems to all urban centers, while new roads, rail, electrification and flood prevention programs were built. Highways linked of Australia’s capitals for the first time and standard gauge rail was established to accelerate continental development strategies (whether Africa or Australia, the British Empire never permitted common rail gauges in order to prevent internal development while keeping its “possessions” reliant on maritime trade). On aboriginal rights, Whitlam tackled the injustices of colonialism by granting natives the right to own their traditional lands and granted independence to Papua New Guinea. Culturally, he kindled a sense of independence from British Imperial traditions by replacing God Save the Queen with a new national anthem and patronized a National Art Gallery.
Standing up to the Five Eyes and Multinational Cartels
Within the first weeks of 1973, Whitlam’s team soon discovered the insidious nature of the international Five Eyes intelligence organization and upon discovering the scope of MI6/CIA operations in Australia, ordered a crackdown on the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization (ASIO) on March 13, 1973 under the authority of Attorney General Lionel Murphy. In his June 1st report on Consortium News, investigative reporter John Pilger stated: “Gough Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should no longer be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian security organisation, ASIO, which was then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence.”
In a 2014 report, Pilger made the point that Whitlam had received a secret telex message from William Shackly (head of the CIA’s East Asia division) calling him a “security threat” on November 10, 1975, and before he could make these facts known to the parliament the next day, Whitlam was promptly called into the Governor General’s office where he was promptly fired under royal decree.
Whitlam’s most unforgivable of sins was the policy to “buy back the farm” to take back control of Australia’s resources- 62% of which were own by multinational cartels such as London’s Rio Tinto. Whitlam sought loans to buy Australia’s resources not from western banking sources in London or Wall Street but rather Middle Eastern nations who were awash in cash during the oil price increases of 1973-75. According to Minerals and Energy Minister Rex Connor, the loans were designed for 20 years and tied to large scale national development mega projects which would have extinguished the $4.5 billion of debt incurred. This process would have worked in a similar manner to the debt repayment process of FDR’s New Deal projects of the 1930s, JFK’s Apollo program of the 1960s or China’s Belt and Road Initiative of our modern age.
Why the disclosure still may not happen
In spite of the fact that the High Court ruled that the palace letters could now be accessed, the prerogative to follow the court’s orders is still left to the discretion of the head of the National Archives David Fricker- a strange character who has shown a decade of resistance to professor Hocking and even the High Court, telling ABC News: “We are not like a library or a museum.. I am required to diligently go through those things and just make sure that our release of these records is responsible, it’s ethical and it complies with the law.” Perhaps Fricker’s former job as Deputy Director of the ASIO may have something to do with this resistance.
While Fricker and other opponents of the letters’ release make the claim that they are merely personal correspondences of a private nature, Sir Edward Young (Personal secretary to the Queen) has demonstrated this to be a fraud as he cried out that their declassification “could damage not only international relations but also the trusting relationship between Her Majesty and her representatives overseas”. How could benign “personal correspondences” do that?
In a June 1st blog, Professor Hocking stated “It is surely an unusual position for the National Archives, which describes itself as a ‘pro-disclosure organisation’, to contest this action at significant expense – initially of almost one million dollars – at a time of severe budget and staff cuts”. She also made the point that “before lodging them in the Archives, the letters had been kept by Smith in the Government House ‘strong room under absolute security’ again in an official capacity, which scarcely suggested the letters were ‘personal’.”
What does the Empire have to fear?
The British Empire has worked very hard over the years to portray the image that the Crown is a benign symbol of conservative values without any real power and that the British Empire is a mere relic of the past. If anything critical is permitted to seep through the cracks of a squeeky clean veneer of austere traditional values, then Britain’s propagandists in the mainstream media and academia are sure to spin information in such a manner as to convey the idea that Britain is merely a second ringer to the real global villain: America.
The true story of Whitlam’s sacking, and the Crown’s active hand as an invisible yet real force shaping world imperial policy (including the Five Eyes) is an uncomfortable fact which imperial strategists would prefer forever remain in the shadows.
In the next segment of this story, we will delve more deeply into the real nature of the British Empire as a very active, very powerful, albeit (usually) very invisible force shaping current world affairs.
Originally published by Strategic Culture


offguardian--2020-07-03--Is the Deep State Attempting a Hybrid War in Mexico?

An important article by journalist Ben Norton appeared on the online outlet The Grayzone describing the content of a leaked document that consists “ of an executive summary of ‘ Project BOA , ’ outlining what it calls a ‘ plan of action ’ – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.
” AMLO is Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador , and BOA stands for Bloque Opositor Amplio ( Broad Opposition Bloc ) .
The document was presented by AMLO himself at a press conference in early June and the source of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged members of this “ alliance ” have denied the existence of such a document .
However , its content is quite credible within the geopolitical context of the region .
Popularly known as AMLO by the initials of his name , he became president of Mexico in December 2018 after Mexican voters gave him a strong mandate on July 1 , 2018 , to change the course of Mexico ’ s domestic policies .
López Obrador and his left of center National Regeneration Movement party ( Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional – MORENA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative elections .
López Obrador won 53.2 % of the presidential vote , more than 30 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival , and won in 31 of 32 Mexican states .
The MORENA party won solid majorities in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies which convened on September 1 , 2018 .
AMLO followed as president to conservative Enrique Peñas Nieto who had overseen an economic downturn and a huge organised crime rate increase mostly related to drug trafficking that the AMLO administration inherited .
In fact , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , corruption , and related poverty , but more emphatically , he promised to fight against neoliberalism .
He called his plan the Fourth Transformation following Mexico ’ s independence of 1810 , the reform of 1861 , and the Mexican revolution of 1910 .
One of the pillars of his government has been respecting the will of the people through popular referendums on major decisions .
This he has done regularly .
However , conservative critics like the Cato Institute have issued negative reports on AMLO criticising his approach as “ populism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , and his mandate as leading to a “ perfect dictatorship.
” Nevertheless , Lopez Obrador still commands an approval rate of 65 % in the eyes of Mexicans .
Why would such a popular president trigger such a strong rejection by some groups ?
Maybe looking at the alleged groups involved might give a hint .
Is A Deep State Plot At Play To Overthrow AMLO ?
The leaked report gives a detailed list of the composition of the “ opposition alliance ” .
Aside from most right-wing parties and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposition bloc “ also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico , along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies , judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary ( TEPJF ) , and officials from the National Electoral Institute ( INE ) .
” If we accept that as a fact , then to call the BOA an “ Opposition Alliance ” as if it were the formation of a political coalition set to democratically challenge the elected president , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this alliance is not reassuring either .
If we , in fact , recognise this as an organised entity that operates surreptitiously outside the formal state to exert influence and political changes , and that , tellingly , lists “ specific media outlets , along with individual journalists and social media influencers ” , then the BOA is closer to what we know as a Deep State .
Even more so when it claims to include lobbyists in Washington ( White House and Capitol Hill ) and financial investors on Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any reference to military participation .
Is This Proof That Someone Is Planning Of A Hybrid War On Mexico ?
The leaked document is clearly presented as a “ plan of action ” to oust Lopez Obrador .
This would be done in two stages : first through a seemingly democratic process by winning the 2021 legislative elections , and second through a parliamentary coup that would “ impeach President López Obrador by 2022 ” , two years before the end of his term .
The BOA does not suggest the legal basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that may not be a concern at this early stage because the “ action plan ” describes a strategy that may easily create one .
The strategy would make heavy use of “ major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team ” to insistently blame AMLO for “ unemployment , poverty , insecurity , and corruption ” in Mexico .
The BOA document even states unambiguously in its plan that it would use “ groups of social media networks , influencers , and analysts to insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the democratic institutions , and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T ” ( using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process ) .
They go on saying , “ Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.
” In other words , the BOA action plan intends to organise a full-scale Information war in order to demonise President Lopez Obrador regardless of the reality and the truth .
Let ’ s remember that an infowar is the initial stage of a Hybrid War .
Is The US Behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this early stage , it is not totally obvious .
The BOA action plan would involve an appeal to Washington for support .
It would do so by reminding the Trump Administration about the danger to the U.S. of the high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States .
This intends to play in the hands of one of the issues that Trump has referred to constantly in relation to Mexico and led him to build a wall at the border to contain immigrants .
So far , some relevant points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ he would sell gasoline to Venezuela for ‘ humanitarian ’ reasons if asked to , despite U.S. sanctions on the South American country and its state-run oil firm , PDVSA ” • Mexico and Venezuela successfully had an oil-for-food exchange against US sanctions on Venezuela ; • A swift US reaction slapping sanctions on a Mexican company and another company involved in the exchange .
This was followed by a report from Reuters that , in an apparent unexplained compliance move , Mexico froze bank accounts of entities and individuals sanctioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events may suggest a repetition of Washington ’ s trend of chasing any government that attempts to break its economic and financial siege on Venezuela , even if this involves more extraterritorial coercive measures to destabilise the economy , an infowar to demonise a leader , or a full-scale Hybrid War .
It is in the context of this ongoing scenario that AMLO will travel to Washington for a meeting with Trump in July that has been highly criticised in Mexico .
At the time of writing , the news that the Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with AMLO tested positive for the coronavirus may have an impact on the meeting in Washington .
If indeed the meeting takes place , it will be interesting to see how it will play out vis-à-vis the BOA action plan .

Nino Pagliccia
An important article by journalist Ben Norton appeared on the online outlet The Grayzone describing the content of a leaked document that consists “of an executive summary of ‘Project BOA,’ outlining what it calls a ‘plan of action’ – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.” AMLO is Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and BOA stands for Bloque Opositor Amplio (Broad Opposition Bloc).
The document was presented by AMLO himself at a press conference in early June and the source of the leak remains unknown. Some of the alleged members of this “alliance” have denied the existence of such a document. However, its content is quite credible within the geopolitical context of the region.
Who Is Andrés Manuel López Obrador?
Popularly known as AMLO by the initials of his name, he became president of Mexico in December 2018 after Mexican voters gave him a strong mandate on July 1, 2018, to change the course of Mexico’s domestic policies. López Obrador and his left of center National Regeneration Movement party (Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional – MORENA) dominated Mexico’s presidential and legislative elections.
López Obrador won 53.2% of the presidential vote, more than 30 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, and won in 31 of 32 Mexican states. The MORENA party won solid majorities in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies which convened on September 1, 2018.
AMLO followed as president to conservative Enrique Peñas Nieto who had overseen an economic downturn and a huge organised crime rate increase mostly related to drug trafficking that the AMLO administration inherited. In fact, he was elected on his platform to combat crime, corruption, and related poverty, but more emphatically, he promised to fight against neoliberalism.
He called his plan the Fourth Transformation following Mexico’s independence of 1810, the reform of 1861, and the Mexican revolution of 1910. One of the pillars of his government has been respecting the will of the people through popular referendums on major decisions. This he has done regularly.
However, conservative critics like the Cato Institute have issued negative reports on AMLO criticising his approach as “populism”, his proposals as “toxic”, and his mandate as leading to a “perfect dictatorship.”
Nevertheless, Lopez Obrador still commands an approval rate of 65% in the eyes of Mexicans. Why would such a popular president trigger such a strong rejection by some groups? Maybe looking at the alleged groups involved might give a hint.
Is A Deep State Plot At Play To Overthrow AMLO?
The leaked report gives a detailed list of the composition of the “opposition alliance”. Aside from most right-wing parties and former presidents Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox, the opposition bloc “also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).”
If we accept that as a fact, then to call the BOA an “Opposition Alliance” as if it were the formation of a political coalition set to democratically challenge the elected president, is really a misleading term. The secrecy of this alliance is not reassuring either.
If we, in fact, recognise this as an organised entity that operates surreptitiously outside the formal state to exert influence and political changes, and that, tellingly, lists “specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers”, then the BOA is closer to what we know as a Deep State.
Even more so when it claims to include lobbyists in Washington (White House and Capitol Hill) and financial investors on Wall Street. Only missing from the list is any reference to military participation.
Is This Proof That Someone Is Planning Of A Hybrid War On Mexico?
The leaked document is clearly presented as a “plan of action” to oust Lopez Obrador. This would be done in two stages: first through a seemingly democratic process by winning the 2021 legislative elections, and second through a parliamentary coup that would “impeach President López Obrador by 2022”, two years before the end of his term.
The BOA does not suggest the legal basis for an impeachment of AMLO. But that may not be a concern at this early stage because the “action plan” describes a strategy that may easily create one. The strategy would make heavy use of “major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team” to insistently blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.
The BOA document even states unambiguously in its plan that it would use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process). They go on saying, “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”
In other words, the BOA action plan intends to organise a full-scale Information war in order to demonise President Lopez Obrador regardless of the reality and the truth. Let’s remember that an infowar is the initial stage of a Hybrid War.
Is The US Behind A Possible Hybrid War On Mexico?
At this early stage, it is not totally obvious. The BOA action plan would involve an appeal to Washington for support. It would do so by reminding the Trump Administration about the danger to the U.S. of the high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States. This intends to play in the hands of one of the issues that Trump has referred to constantly in relation to Mexico and led him to build a wall at the border to contain immigrants.
So far, some relevant points are:
AMLO’s statement that “he would sell gasoline to Venezuela for ‘humanitarian’ reasons if asked to, despite U.S. sanctions on the South American country and its state-run oil firm, PDVSA” Mexico and Venezuela successfully had an oil-for-food exchange against US sanctions on Venezuela; A swift US reaction slapping sanctions on a Mexican company and another company involved in the exchange.
This was followed by a report from Reuters that, in an apparent unexplained compliance move, Mexico froze bank accounts of entities and individuals sanctioned by the U.S.
The sequence of events may suggest a repetition of Washington’s trend of chasing any government that attempts to break its economic and financial siege on Venezuela, even if this involves more extraterritorial coercive measures to destabilise the economy, an infowar to demonise a leader, or a full-scale Hybrid War.
It is in the context of this ongoing scenario that AMLO will travel to Washington for a meeting with Trump in July that has been highly criticised in Mexico.
At the time of writing, the news that the Mexican Finance Minister who has been in close contact with AMLO tested positive for the coronavirus may have an impact on the meeting in Washington. If indeed the meeting takes place, it will be interesting to see how it will play out vis-à-vis the BOA action plan.
Originally published by One World Press


offguardian--2020-07-05--Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence

US District Court Judge Loretta Preska , who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush , and whom his son had considered promoting to the Supreme Court , ruled in a case on July 1st , ordering the attorneys for one of Jeffrey Epstein ’ s alleged victims , Virginia ( Roberts ) Guiffre , to “ destroy ” a list of men who had taken advantage of Epstein ’ s “ girls.
” This action pertains to a case not only against Epstein , who is dead , but against his friend and colleague Ghislaine Maxwell , who happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bedford New Hampshire the very next day , on July 2nd .
Her order to the attorneys stated that Giuffre : Preska ’ s order does not say that the names of the men on that list are to be kept confidential and not available to the press , but instead that Giuffre ’ s attorneys are to “ destroy ” it .
As Colin Kalmbacher reported , at Law and Crime on July 1st , under the headline “ Judge Orders Virginia Giuffre ’ s Lawyers to ‘ Destroy ’ Their Jeffrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Them ” : At issue here are two separate legal controversies : ( 1 ) a protective order issued in 2015 by Judge Robert W. Sweet in a since-settled defamation case between Giuffre and Epstein ’ s alleged groomer and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell ; and ( 2 ) a more recent series of extant defamation , back-and-forth claims between Giuffre and Dershowitz .
The Giuffre v. Maxwell protective order is the major legal lock-and-key which has long-protected the Epstein files .
A process is currently underway for both sides to sift through those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available for public consumption .
Although other copies of that list might exist ( which are not likewise being ordered by Preska to be destroyed , but could possibly be brought forth as evidence in other trials ) , Judge Preska ’ s order prohibits Dershowitz ’ s use of Giuffre ’ s copy of that physical list , as being evidence in this trial , which isn ’ t between Giuffre and Maxwell , but instead between Giuffre and Dershowitz — who claims to be not on that list and to need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove his personal defamation case against Giuffre , who says that he is on the list .
The alleged reason that the ruling provides to “ destroy ” the list is that Critically , the agreed-upon unsealing procedure can only work as intended if non-parties are willing to participate .
Handing over to Mr. Dershowitz all of the materials from Maxwell , which would necessarily include all of the sealed filings that are the subject of the unsealing protocol , would threaten that balance .
Non-parties [ to the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case ] may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Dershowitz can obtain , without any regard whatsoever for their interests , the sealed materials for the mere reason that disclosure would make mounting his defense and litigating his counterclaims against Ms. Giuffre more convenient [ in other words : to assist Dershowitz ’ s case against Giuffre ] .The Court will not risk collateral damage to the Maxwell unsealing process by modifying the protective order.
” The “ balance ” that ’ s referred-to there is allegedly the right of both the accuser Giuffre and the accused Maxwell to have their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this list in order to prove that his name isn ’ t on the list .
The Court ’ s “ Protective Order ” had been issued in 2016 in the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case , so as to : Preska ’ s ruling includes a footnote in which she says : Bubbling underneath the debate about modification of the Maxwell Protective Order is a more practical concern : the temptation that the Maxwell materials might inspire for a litigant in Mr. Dershowitz ’ s position .
As a general matter , Mr. Dershowitz ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in very public — and frequently toxic — fashion .
See , e.g.
, Alan Dershowitz Twitter Posts from June 22 , 2020 , available at https : //twitter.com/AlanDersh ( suggesting that Ms. Giuffre should be “ prosecuted and sent to prison ” for perjury ) .
More importantly , and perhaps reflecting Mr. Derhsowitz ’ s desire to defend himself in the public eye , Counsel for Mr. Dershowitz noted at oral argument that “ Professor Dershowitz obviously wants all information [ contained in the Maxwell materials ] to be out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes it exonerates him.
” ( Transcript at 21:21-24 . )
Perhaps any men who had raped any of those girls will be long in their graves and well-established in the history-books before their having been on Ghislaine Maxwell ’ s lists will become publicly known .
If that turns out to be the outcome , then the girls and the public will be “ screwed ” yet again , and Judge Preska ’ s order exhibits no concern about that .
A judge is supposed to represent the public ’ s interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps private interests take precedence in America ’ s courts .
The public ’ s interests are not even mentioned in the judge ’ s ruling .
Though the word “ public ” is stated there six times , it never concerns the public ’ s interests , but only private ones , such as “ given the public character of this litigation and what is at stake for the litigants ” .
What about the public ?
They ’ re mentioned only as being voyeurs .
Is this American ‘ democracy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

Eric Zuesse
US District Court Judge Loretta Preska, who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush, and whom his son had considered promoting to the Supreme Court, ruled in a case on July 1st, ordering the attorneys for one of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre, to “destroy” a list of men who had taken advantage of Epstein’s “girls.”
This action pertains to a case not only against Epstein, who is dead, but against his friend and colleague Ghislaine Maxwell, who happened to become arrested by the FBI in Bedford New Hampshire the very next day, on July 2nd.
Judge Preska said that Giuffre’s attorneys:
Cooper & Kirk shall destroy (a) all materials from Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, currently in its possession, save for the transcript of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition in that case and (b) all work product derived from the Maxwell materials. Cooper & Kirk shall submit to the Court an affidavit detailing the steps that it took to destroy the materials.”
Her order to the attorneys stated that Giuffre:
alleged that Ms. Maxwell was a ringleader in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking scheme, a trusted lieutenant of Epstein’s who facilitated his purported trafficking of underage girls to prominent individuals. Ms. Giuffre’s defamation action against Mr. Dershowitz alleges that Mr. Dershowitz was one of the prominent individuals who took advantage of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell’s trafficking scheme and that Ms. Giuffre was forced to have intercourse with Mr. Dershowitz when she was underage. Ms. Giuffre alleges that Mr. Dershowitz’s false denial of such contact defamed her.”
Preska’s order does not say that the names of the men on that list are to be kept confidential and not available to the press, but instead that Giuffre’s attorneys are to “destroy” it.
As Colin Kalmbacher reported, at Law and Crime on July 1st, under the headline “Judge Orders Virginia Giuffre’s Lawyers to ‘Destroy’ Their Jeffrey Epstein Files, Bars Dershowitz from Accessing Them”:
At issue here are two separate legal controversies: (1) a protective order issued in 2015 by Judge Robert W. Sweet in a since-settled defamation case between Giuffre and Epstein’s alleged groomer and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell; and (2) a more recent series of extant defamation, back-and-forth claims between Giuffre and Dershowitz. The Giuffre v. Maxwell protective order is the major legal lock-and-key which has long-protected the Epstein files. A process is currently underway for both sides to sift through those documents and eventually make many of them available for public consumption.
Although other copies of that list might exist (which are not likewise being ordered by Preska to be destroyed, but could possibly be brought forth as evidence in other trials), Judge Preska’s order prohibits Dershowitz’s use of Giuffre’s copy of that physical list, as being evidence in this trial, which isn’t between Giuffre and Maxwell, but instead between Giuffre and Dershowitz — who claims to be not on that list and to need that list in order for him to prove his personal defamation case against Giuffre, who says that he is on the list.
The Court’s ruling said:
the Maxwell Protective Order prohibits information designated as CONFIDENTIAL from being “disclosed or used for any purpose except for the preparation and trial of [the Maxwell] case.”
The alleged reason that the ruling provides to “destroy” the list is that
Critically, the agreed-upon unsealing procedure can only work as intended if non-parties are willing to participate. Handing over to Mr. Dershowitz all of the materials from Maxwell, which would necessarily include all of the sealed filings that are the subject of the unsealing protocol, would threaten that balance. Non-parties [to the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case] may question the legitimacy of that process if Mr. Dershowitz can obtain, without any regard whatsoever for their interests, the sealed materials for the mere reason that disclosure would make mounting his defense and litigating his counterclaims against Ms. Giuffre more convenient [in other words: to assist Dershowitz’s case against Giuffre].The Court will not risk collateral damage to the Maxwell unsealing process by modifying the protective order.”
The “balance” that’s referred-to there is allegedly the right of both the accuser Giuffre and the accused Maxwell to have their privacy protected. Dershowitz says he wants this list in order to prove that his name isn’t on the list. The Court’s “Protective Order” had been issued in 2016 in the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case, so as to:
protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information that will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in [Maxwell].” (Id.) The order accordingly permits the parties to designate as CONFIDENTIAL certain materials produced in discovery that “are confidential” and that implicate “common law and statutory privacy interests” of Ms. Giuffre and Maxwell Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”).
Preska’s ruling includes a footnote in which she says:
Bubbling underneath the debate about modification of the Maxwell Protective Order is a more practical concern: the temptation that the Maxwell materials might inspire for a litigant in Mr. Dershowitz’s position. As a general matter, Mr. Dershowitz’s battle with Ms. Giuffre has proceeded in very public — and frequently toxic — fashion. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz Twitter Posts from June 22, 2020, available at https://twitter.com/AlanDersh (suggesting that Ms. Giuffre should be “prosecuted and sent to prison” for perjury). More importantly, and perhaps reflecting Mr. Derhsowitz’s desire to defend himself in the public eye, Counsel for Mr. Dershowitz noted at oral argument that “Professor Dershowitz obviously wants all information [contained in the Maxwell materials] to be out there, to be public … because he believes it exonerates him.” (Transcript at 21:21-24.)
That lengthy footnote concludes:
Thus, given the public character of this litigation [between Dershowitz and Giuffre] and what is at stake for the litigants, production of the Maxwell materials to Mr. Dershowitz would raise additional risk of leakage from the materials at issue in the Maxwell[-v.-Giuffre] unsealing process into filings in the Dershowitz action. This would further undermine the unsealing process in Maxwell.”
Perhaps any men who had raped any of those girls will be long in their graves and well-established in the history-books before their having been on Ghislaine Maxwell’s lists will become publicly known. If that turns out to be the outcome, then the girls and the public will be “screwed” yet again, and Judge Preska’s order exhibits no concern about that.
A judge is supposed to represent the public’s interests, even in private disputes. But perhaps private interests take precedence in America’s courts. The public’s interests are not even mentioned in the judge’s ruling. Though the word “public” is stated there six times, it never concerns the public’s interests, but only private ones, such as “given the public character of this litigation and what is at stake for the litigants”.
What about the public? They’re mentioned only as being voyeurs. Is this American ‘democracy’?


The Groupthink Pandemic

Groupthink is all around us .
Decision-making in government , in the media and at work .
It ’ s slowly killing the world .
In the background of the most important events , the Covid-19 response and increasing tension and conflict in the world , it might be worth looking through some of this in a bit more detail .
I ’ ve experienced groupthink working for large organisations , most notably in my last job .
We were tasked with investigating and solving complex problems .
Some technical expertise helped but was not crucial to the role .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoints was key .
Yet the organisation decided that this was no longer required and changed the whole operating model to a one-size fits all type of call-centre .
This new high-risk approach was recommended to us by the outside consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers ( PWC ) who were clueless about our business .
Those of us who were experienced in the role argued that the model wouldn ’ t work .
But the organisation ploughed on regardless .
It was obvious from day one that the financials didn ’ t stack up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed .
The executive largely ignored our concerns to start but then paid limited lip-service when the wheels started to come off .
Anyway , in the end they offered us redundancy while employing fresh university graduates to replace us .
As far as I know the place is still in denial and heading down the pan .
Groupthink is described as follows : People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet , preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is common where group members have similar backgrounds and particularly where that group is placed under stress , resulting in irrational decision outcomes .
These are the main behaviors to watch out for : • Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking .
• Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions .
• Rationalising prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs .
• Stereotyping leads members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group ’ s ideas .
• Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings .
• “ Mindguards ” act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group .
• Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way .
• Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions , and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workplace , particularly relevant to groups going through major change or/and a crisis .
Firstly , they tend to swing from the status quo to the complete opposite .
In our organisation , we definitely needed some changes and tweaks but we lurched towards a model which was completely unsuitable and unsustainable operationally and financially .
The other thing I noticed was our employers became control freaks .
They started to talk down to us and our customers like children .
They introduced office slogans such as ‘ let ’ s crack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this together ’ and deflected from the problems of the disastrous reorganisation towards ‘ celebrating diversity ’ in the workplace .
Critical thinking , creativity and expression were sucked out of the place .
The obvious analogy for all these behaviors is the response to Covid-19 when government ministers were collectively panicked into making extreme decisions on lockdown , using just one preferred source of ‘ expertise ’ .
At the same time , they sidelined dissenters and independent experts who could have offered a calm , rational perspective and a targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this thinking and behavior , I ’ m reminded of these observations from Dr Malcolm Kendrick and Lord Sumption about the response to Covid-19 .
Dr Kendrick here : And Lord Sumption writing in the Mail on Sunday : A large organisation which has a high opinion of its news service .
But of course , the reality is the opposite .
There are so many groupthink case-studies but the BBC is as good as any , particularly in terms of making a bollocks of things .
The executives at the BBC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware that they run a politicised agenda of bias and misinformation on a grand scale .
Outsiders who ’ ve researched their coverage will recognise this too .
But this won ’ t be obvious to the vast majority of BBC employees , the victims of groupthink .
This came across in some of Andrew Marr ’ s incredulous reactions to Noam Chomsky ’ s observations about the media during their interview : I believe the foreign affairs reporting of the BBC is where this problem stands out most .
Real expertise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting I ’ ve seen in recent years .
First , while not unusual in this profession , most journalists employed by the BBC will have a degree .
Typically , when you look at today ’ s ‘ top ’ BBC journalists , many have attended the elite universities which tends to create a culture of like-minded people of similar backgrounds .
This has been identified as one cause of creating groupthink .
Also , the younger journalists will be impressionable within the BBC hierarchy to the views and ways of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sometimes said that there aren ’ t specific rules within the BBC and other media stating what a journalist can and can ’ t report and write and they generally don ’ t knowingly mislead .
But they will learn almost instinctively to self-censor and operate within a set of unwritten , unspoken rules and a strait-jacket narrative .
The other problem in foreign affairs reporting is that BBC journalists and most others rarely visit the warzones .
On Syria , they typically report from Lebanon or Turkey only occasionally venturing into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kurd held area .
So unlike previous conflicts , such as Bosnia where I remember at least a tiny degree of balance , journalists seldom see what is actually going on .
Under the pressure of deadlines they rely on dubious sources such as Al Qaeda terrorists and Bellingcat and pre-determined assumptions which conveniently slot in with the anti-Assad narrative of the BBC and establishment .
Recently , some grave doubts emerged about the OPCW report on the Douma incident , a huge story which has wider implications .
The investigations of Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving BBC journalists was swept under the carpet .
Both matters have been ignored because the BBC have no way or will to refute evidence which goes against their bias .
On the other hand , the BBC are more than happy to provide extensive coverage to more allegations against Russia and Trump from anonymous sources , providing no background or balance within the overall of climate of related allegations which have collapsed or are unproven .
And in recent days the BBC has provided coverage on Hong Kong which looks like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s well known BBC journalists are silent on malpractice .
We saw this with the Jimmy Savile scandal and decades of sexual abuse .
This attitude is similar to what I experienced with my employer who were very vocal and proud of their anti-bullying and mental health policies .
Yet when the staff were surveyed anonymously , bullying rates were through the roof .
The other obvious signs of groupthink within the BBC , particularly during the Covid-19 crisis , is dumbing-down and its slogan-filled website written as though their readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a preoccupation with race and diversity , American affairs and general tittle-tattle , to the detriment of more pressing matters such as the longer-term and wider impact of the world ’ s current problems .
Covid-19 and our response to it is probably the most important event of our lifetime but there ’ s barely a peep about whether the response is necessary and proportionate .
Instead , this totally rational viewpoint is only ever mentioned in the context of BBC articles about Covid-19 ‘ conspiracy theories ’ .
Many of the examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with groupthink behaviors and experiences I encountered in a large organisation .
But I think the biggest groupthink problem is with senior BBC journalists .
Ultimately their lazy arrogance has trickled down to the newer journalists and so over time , wrong behavior has been normalised throughout .
A few months ago Huw Edwards made some comments about accusations of bias directed towards the BBC , defending the corporation and journalists .
These are some of the specific comments he made which to me showed a complete lack of understanding of the concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also recall Edwards arguing on Twitter on the subject and he said that it was ridiculous to say that journalists within the BBC were willfully misleading the public .
His Twitter opponent replied that this was not what he had said and was simply stating that the BBC had fallen victim to groupthink .
Edwards just couldn ’ t get his head past this , while continuing to attack and misrepresent BBC critics .
This defensive attitude and stereotyping of critics is classic groupthink behavior in which he , Nick Robinson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admire John Simpson and in the 1980s he visited Iran post-revolution .
He wrote a book of the visit which I enjoyed .
But in recent years , he has shown that he doesn ’ t understand modern geo-politics and like the BBC can only assess it in terms of the ethno-centric British view on the world and our influence .
In this President Putin press conference he asked the most ridiculous question imaginable which confirms he ’ s lost the plot .
His question was about Russian behavior in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Cold War .
Putin wiped the floor with him pointing out the hundreds of NATO bases and numerous wars which put Simpson ’ s aspersions into their rightful place .
Jeremy Bowen is another who has lost his way .
I saw a recent report from him from the position of a Christian militia unit fighting terrorists in Syria .
Again , BBC arrogance was on full display .
His report made generalised comparisons between him meeting Serbs in Bosnia in the 1990s and these Syrian fighters , clearly indicating that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in Syrian views on western complicity and the White Helmets .
In the usual group-speak he described the Syrian Government ‘ the regime ’ and Al Qaeda as ‘ rebels ’ .
His report simply rubber-stamped the BBC coverage of the whole conflict .
This arrogance is typical of journalists who rely on their past achievements , creating an air of gravitas to impress their audience .
The reality is his reporting is based on no substance and outdated and lazy assumptions .
Ex-BBC nowadays , John Sweeney ’ s arrogance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spends his time on Twitter attacking lockdown sceptics , like Peter Hitchens accusing him of ‘ killing ’ his Mail on Sunday column readers with his views on Covid-19 lockdown .
Sweeney is off his trolley but the reality is he probably always was as this clip during his BBC days shows .
This behaviour , extreme as it is , certainly suggests groupthink played a big part somewhere in his career .
BBC Dateline is a current affairs TV panel discussion which I occasionally watched .
The panel which changed regularly were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists which included Russia or Arab affairs experts .
Sitting around that table they gave the impression of people who knew what they were talking about .
However , when you listened carefully to what they were saying , there was very little substance .
Their arguments , all based on a simple premise that Russia/Syria are bad , the West is good , tempered with a little occasional criticism of western policy to give the illusion of balance .
Occasionally you would have a more pro-Russia expert on but with the prevailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his or her views would be ridiculed .
It got to the point any dissenting panel member started to self-censor to sound more credible , perhaps to remain on the panel .
This is the dilemma for any progressively minded BBC guest nowadays .
Peter Hitchens who complains the BBC never invite him on , appeared on Good Morning Britain ( GMB ) recently .
As is normal with many GMB debates , the discussion on Covid-19 descended to retorts and abuse and was simply not the forum for Hitchens to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the big picture .
But I don ’ t think he would have fared any better on the BBC .
The BBC create an illusion of civilised , intelligent discussion but the reality is there is no substance , depth or balance .
The crucial discussion points about Covid-19 or conflict in the world don ’ t get a hearing .
The premise and the rules are already set in stone before the guests arrive .
There are many reasons why the world is in its current madness and on the brink of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media and the general public is probably a key factor as this represents the thinking culture alongside and below the psychopaths and war criminals who pull the strings .
It ’ s almost impossible to break this cycle by chipping away at it .
But it ’ s possible a large event connected to Covid-19 or a major war will be the catalyst which might shock us out of our distorted view of reality .
In the meantime , independent commentators and ex-MSM like Peter Hitchens , Anna Brees and Tareq Haddad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line and self-interests aside .
We can only encourage others employed by the BBC and other media to be brave and do the same .
Certainly , the consequences will be far more disastrous doing nothing and not speaking up .
In the sudden , new founded willingness to demonstrate on the streets perhaps those participating might be better reflecting on who and what the real enemy is .
Groupthink , escalating world conflict , All Lives Matter , including Syrians , Libyans , Palestinians and Blacks , ( including those outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the post-Covid-19 march to an uncertain ‘ new normal ’ , are the issues which matter right now .

Kevin Smith
Groupthink is all around us. Decision-making in government, in the media and at work. It’s slowly killing the world.
In the background of the most important events, the Covid-19 response and increasing tension and conflict in the world, it might be worth looking through some of this in a bit more detail.
I’ve experienced groupthink working for large organisations, most notably in my last job. We were tasked with investigating and solving complex problems. Some technical expertise helped but was not crucial to the role.
Critical thinking and balancing evidence and differing viewpoints was key.
Yet the organisation decided that this was no longer required and changed the whole operating model to a one-size fits all type of call-centre. This new high-risk approach was recommended to us by the outside consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) who were clueless about our business.
Those of us who were experienced in the role argued that the model wouldn’t work. But the organisation ploughed on regardless. It was obvious from day one that the financials didn’t stack up which they tried to deny and later concealed.
The executive largely ignored our concerns to start but then paid limited lip-service when the wheels started to come off. Anyway, in the end they offered us redundancy while employing fresh university graduates to replace us. As far as I know the place is still in denial and heading down the pan.
Groupthink is described as follows:
Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by social psychologist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group.
People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd’.
Groupthink is common where group members have similar backgrounds and particularly where that group is placed under stress, resulting in irrational decision outcomes.
These are the main behaviors to watch out for:
Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking. Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions. Rationalising prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs. Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonise out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group’s ideas. Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings. “Mindguards” act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group. Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way. Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.
There are two further observations I made in the workplace, particularly relevant to groups going through major change or/and a crisis.
Firstly, they tend to swing from the status quo to the complete opposite. In our organisation, we definitely needed some changes and tweaks but we lurched towards a model which was completely unsuitable and unsustainable operationally and financially.
The other thing I noticed was our employers became control freaks. They started to talk down to us and our customers like children. They introduced office slogans such as ‘let’s crack on’ or ‘we’re all in this together’ and deflected from the problems of the disastrous reorganisation towards ‘celebrating diversity’ in the workplace. Critical thinking, creativity and expression were sucked out of the place.
The obvious analogy for all these behaviors is the response to Covid-19 when government ministers were collectively panicked into making extreme decisions on lockdown, using just one preferred source of ‘expertise’.
At the same time, they sidelined dissenters and independent experts who could have offered a calm, rational perspective and a targeted response to Covid-19.
In summing up this thinking and behavior, I’m reminded of these observations from Dr Malcolm Kendrick and Lord Sumption about the response to Covid-19. Dr Kendrick here:
We locked down the population that had virtually zero risk of getting any serious problems from the disease, and then spread it wildly among the highly vulnerable age group. If you had written a plan for making a complete bollocks of things you would have come up with this one”.
And Lord Sumption writing in the Mail on Sunday:
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans. These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses.
The BBC – a case-study
A large organisation which has a high opinion of its news service. But of course, the reality is the opposite. There are so many groupthink case-studies but the BBC is as good as any, particularly in terms of making a bollocks of things.
The executives at the BBC and some senior correspondents will no doubt be aware that they run a politicised agenda of bias and misinformation on a grand scale. Outsiders who’ve researched their coverage will recognise this too. But this won’t be obvious to the vast majority of BBC employees, the victims of groupthink.
This came across in some of Andrew Marr’s incredulous reactions to Noam Chomsky’s observations about the media during their interview:
Andrew Marr: How can you know I’m self-censoring? Noam Chomsky: I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.
I believe the foreign affairs reporting of the BBC is where this problem stands out most. Real expertise and impartiality has been completely absent from any reporting I’ve seen in recent years.
First, while not unusual in this profession, most journalists employed by the BBC will have a degree. Typically, when you look at today’s ‘top’ BBC journalists, many have attended the elite universities which tends to create a culture of like-minded people of similar backgrounds. This has been identified as one cause of creating groupthink.
Also, the younger journalists will be impressionable within the BBC hierarchy to the views and ways of the senior house-hold name journalists.
It’s sometimes said that there aren’t specific rules within the BBC and other media stating what a journalist can and can’t report and write and they generally don’t knowingly mislead. But they will learn almost instinctively to self-censor and operate within a set of unwritten, unspoken rules and a strait-jacket narrative.
The other problem in foreign affairs reporting is that BBC journalists and most others rarely visit the warzones. On Syria, they typically report from Lebanon or Turkey only occasionally venturing into a government or relatively safe terrorist or Kurd held area. So unlike previous conflicts, such as Bosnia where I remember at least a tiny degree of balance, journalists seldom see what is actually going on.
Under the pressure of deadlines they rely on dubious sources such as Al Qaeda terrorists and Bellingcat and pre-determined assumptions which conveniently slot in with the anti-Assad narrative of the BBC and establishment.
Recently, some grave doubts emerged about the OPCW report on the Douma incident, a huge story which has wider implications.
The investigations of Robert Stuart into a likely previously staged incident involving BBC journalists was swept under the carpet. Both matters have been ignored because the BBC have no way or will to refute evidence which goes against their bias.
On the other hand, the BBC are more than happy to provide extensive coverage to more allegations against Russia and Trump from anonymous sources, providing no background or balance within the overall of climate of related allegations which have collapsed or are unproven.
And in recent days the BBC has provided coverage on Hong Kong which looks like it’s come from a script.
It’s well known BBC journalists are silent on malpractice. We saw this with the Jimmy Savile scandal and decades of sexual abuse. This attitude is similar to what I experienced with my employer who were very vocal and proud of their anti-bullying and mental health policies. Yet when the staff were surveyed anonymously, bullying rates were through the roof.
The other obvious signs of groupthink within the BBC, particularly during the Covid-19 crisis, is dumbing-down and its slogan-filled website written as though their readers are idiots.
Another strong theme is a preoccupation with race and diversity, American affairs and general tittle-tattle, to the detriment of more pressing matters such as the longer-term and wider impact of the world’s current problems.
Covid-19 and our response to it is probably the most important event of our lifetime but there’s barely a peep about whether the response is necessary and proportionate. Instead, this totally rational viewpoint is only ever mentioned in the context of BBC articles about Covid-19 ‘conspiracy theories’.
Many of the examples I’ve described neatly fit in with groupthink behaviors and experiences I encountered in a large organisation.
But I think the biggest groupthink problem is with senior BBC journalists. Ultimately their lazy arrogance has trickled down to the newer journalists and so over time, wrong behavior has been normalised throughout.
The BBC ‘Grandees’
A few months ago Huw Edwards made some comments about accusations of bias directed towards the BBC, defending the corporation and journalists. These are some of the specific comments he made which to me showed a complete lack of understanding of the concerns people have.
The BBC is not, to put it politely, run like some newspapers, with an all-powerful proprietor and/or editor making his or her mark on the tone and direction of the coverage […] BBC News is a rather unsettling mix of awkward, contrary and assertive people who (in my very long experience) delight in either ignoring the suggestions of managers or simply telling them where to get off. That’s how it works.”
Around this time, I also recall Edwards arguing on Twitter on the subject and he said that it was ridiculous to say that journalists within the BBC were willfully misleading the public. His Twitter opponent replied that this was not what he had said and was simply stating that the BBC had fallen victim to groupthink. Edwards just couldn’t get his head past this, while continuing to attack and misrepresent BBC critics.
This defensive attitude and stereotyping of critics is classic groupthink behavior in which he, Nick Robinson and others have taken part.
I used to admire John Simpson and in the 1980s he visited Iran post-revolution. He wrote a book of the visit which I enjoyed. But in recent years, he has shown that he doesn’t understand modern geo-politics and like the BBC can only assess it in terms of the ethno-centric British view on the world and our influence.
In this President Putin press conference he asked the most ridiculous question imaginable which confirms he’s lost the plot. His question was about Russian behavior in the world and whether Putin wanted to create a new Cold War.
Putin wiped the floor with him pointing out the hundreds of NATO bases and numerous wars which put Simpson’s aspersions into their rightful place.
Jeremy Bowen is another who has lost his way. I saw a recent report from him from the position of a Christian militia unit fighting terrorists in Syria.
Again, BBC arrogance was on full display. His report made generalised comparisons between him meeting Serbs in Bosnia in the 1990s and these Syrian fighters, clearly indicating that he doesn’t listen and is not interested in Syrian views on western complicity and the White Helmets.
In the usual group-speak he described the Syrian Government ‘the regime’ and Al Qaeda as ‘rebels’. His report simply rubber-stamped the BBC coverage of the whole conflict.
This arrogance is typical of journalists who rely on their past achievements, creating an air of gravitas to impress their audience. The reality is his reporting is based on no substance and outdated and lazy assumptions.
The madness of John Sweeney
Ex-BBC nowadays, John Sweeney’s arrogance is off the scale. These days he spends his time on Twitter attacking lockdown sceptics, like Peter Hitchens accusing him of ‘killing’ his Mail on Sunday column readers with his views on Covid-19 lockdown.
Sweeney is off his trolley but the reality is he probably always was as this clip during his BBC days shows.
This behaviour, extreme as it is, certainly suggests groupthink played a big part somewhere in his career.
An illusion of sanity
BBC Dateline is a current affairs TV panel discussion which I occasionally watched. The panel which changed regularly were seemingly well qualified with foreign writers and journalists which included Russia or Arab affairs experts.
Sitting around that table they gave the impression of people who knew what they were talking about.
However, when you listened carefully to what they were saying, there was very little substance. Their arguments, all based on a simple premise that Russia/Syria are bad, the West is good, tempered with a little occasional criticism of western policy to give the illusion of balance.
Occasionally you would have a more pro-Russia expert on but with the prevailing consensus of the rest of the panel, his or her views would be ridiculed. It got to the point any dissenting panel member started to self-censor to sound more credible, perhaps to remain on the panel. This is the dilemma for any progressively minded BBC guest nowadays.
Peter Hitchens who complains the BBC never invite him on, appeared on Good Morning Britain (GMB) recently. As is normal with many GMB debates, the discussion on Covid-19 descended to retorts and abuse and was simply not the forum for Hitchens to get across his well thought out points on the big picture.
But I don’t think he would have fared any better on the BBC. The BBC create an illusion of civilised, intelligent discussion but the reality is there is no substance, depth or balance. The crucial discussion points about Covid-19 or conflict in the world don’t get a hearing. The premise and the rules are already set in stone before the guests arrive.
Final thoughts
There are many reasons why the world is in its current madness and on the brink of serious conflict.
Groupthink in government, the media and the general public is probably a key factor as this represents the thinking culture alongside and below the psychopaths and war criminals who pull the strings.
It’s almost impossible to break this cycle by chipping away at it. But it’s possible a large event connected to Covid-19 or a major war will be the catalyst which might shock us out of our distorted view of reality.
In the meantime, independent commentators and ex-MSM like Peter Hitchens, Anna Brees and Tareq Haddad, are putting their careers on the line and self-interests aside. We can only encourage others employed by the BBC and other media to be brave and do the same.
Certainly, the consequences will be far more disastrous doing nothing and not speaking up.
In the sudden, new founded willingness to demonstrate on the streets perhaps those participating might be better reflecting on who and what the real enemy is.
Party politics, Brexit and Black Lives Matter really don’t matter.
Groupthink, escalating world conflict, All Lives Matter, including Syrians, Libyans, Palestinians and Blacks,(including those outside of US,UK and Europe) together with the post-Covid-19 march to an uncertain ‘new normal’, are the issues which matter right now.