Ok, so now I’ve come up with a new terminology, that is “Alternative Mainstream Media.” I’m certain someone else has come up with similar terminology, it would only make sense in a world where we have ‘truth jockey’ spin. Maybe ‘truth jockeys’ is the better invention to describe ‘alternative mainstream media.’

There is an American concept of law, that is ‘lie by omission’ defined at uslegal.com:

A lie of omission is an intentional failure to tell the truth in a situation requiring disclosure. An example could be a seller’s failure to note a known defect on a real estate disclosure form

Now, is it not (question) the business of those who claim to be ‘alternative news’ to be publishing those most damning facts concealed by mainstream media from a public that has rapidly become as dumb as a box of rocks due to the incessant stream of lies fed to them? And in the process of feeding the aforementioned constant stream of lies, how much of this can be construed to be partnered to lies of omission?

By comparison, how would ‘honest’ media personalities judge what is ‘newsworthy’ and what is so compellingly dangerous to publish as to make a value judgement of ‘we’re not going to cover this’ for the sake of, example given, public order? When in possession of ‘state secrets’, what is a determination of what should be published and what should not, other than a value judgement? What qualifies any given journalist or publication to make a value judgement? At what point does a value judgement cross the line into the territory of ‘lie by omission?’ Who determines that? And how is that determined? By a closed group of people making a collective value judgement? What purpose, other than serving as an ‘alternative’ classification review board, do journalists serve, when making a value judgement over what materials can be released and which cannot?

Now, on top of all of this, where do politics come into play? Over on the right, Sibel Edmonds despises Graham Fuller (she makes a compelling case) for his design of an Islamic insurgency in western China, I appreciate Graham Fuller’s stance on USA policy failures in Afghanistan, as well I consider Eric Margolis to be a consummate idiot in matters of Asia and despise his overweening narcissism relating to his own ‘chicken hawkish’ tale of how he escaped service in Vietnam even as he promotes the urban legend of how the ARVN saved Saigon during 68 Tet (a compelling propaganda lie.)  Others on the right consider Margolis some legendary truth-teller.

Over on the left, Julian Assange (retched be his name, yes, I deliberately omitted the ‘w’ when spelling retch) dismisses 9/11 with “I’m constantly annoyed by false conspiracy theories” while Daniel Ellsberg (once CIA, always CIA) staunchly defends Assange while in the same moment calling aspects of 9/11 a coverup .. for instance in the case of Sibel Edmonds revealing the fact Bin Laden was a CIA asset up to the time of 9/11. But that’s the only safe route for Ellsberg (once CIA, always CIA) to take, when actually setting out to reinforce another lie, the lie Bin Ladin was responsible for 9/11 .. probably not the direction Sibel Edmonds intended the discourse to take and precisely why Ellsberg ‘had her back’ (irony) when he took up her revelation and ran with it. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald worships Daniel Ellberg (once CIA, always CIA) whilst one of his side-kicks, Laura Poitras, is in love with the Assange (a greater empire stooge there never was) story and if I read the cards correctly, is about to be suckered into working (unbeknownst to Poitras) as an intelligence ‘asset’ with delivering that moron film credibility he never deserved, meanwhile her ‘firstlook.org’ colleague, Jeremy Scahill, somehow was suckered into an ‘it’s all about me’ film called ‘Dirty Wars’ which simply served to bury all of the good work he’d accomplished with penning an excellent book of the same name. What a brilliant idiot.

In the center of this ‘tip of the iceberg’ (skipping over the disinformation specialists tandem of Robert Parry and Ray McGovern) alternative media dysfunction, where some of the world’s most brilliant criminal sociopaths serving intelligence agencies are assigned to undermining the facts (Ellsberg is a past grandmaster), somehow we’re supposed to just sit back and believe what the ‘alternative mainstream media’ journals such as Media Lens and The Intercept tell us. Which brings me (more or less) to the point of this essay.

Media Lens, when writing a quite excellent and accurate story, The Sunday Times and The Death of Journalism, well worth a read, when punishing Rupert Murdoch’s rag The Sunday Times [London] for parroting British Intelligence Services in a blatantly false attack on Snowden, in the same moment opened themselves and all of ‘alternative mainstream media’ to charge of ‘lies by omission.’ And going one step further, Media Lens when defending Greenwald’s reporting, opened Greenwald’s organization First Look and its flagship publication The Intercept to the charge of hypocrisy. All without so much as telling any lie or misrepresenting any fact.

The charge of hypocrisy is as easy as a look at the absolutely true statements of Ryan Gallagher and Glenn Greenwald whom Media Lens quotes in relation to the Sunday Times smear of Snowden (the first quote in the following Media Lens excerpt is The Intercept’s Ryan Gallagher)

Media Lens - 1

‘the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions, made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements is antithetical to good journalism.’

But perhaps the most comprehensive demolition came from Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who met Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, and who was primarily responsible for bringing Snowden’s whistleblowing to public attention. Greenwald writes:

‘the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of western journalism.’

This ‘sickness’ is summed up by:

‘the formula that shapes their brains: anonymous self-serving government assertions = Truth.’

This is raw submission to power with the result that:

‘government officials know they can propagandize the public at any time because subservient journalists will give them anonymity to do so and will uncritically disseminate and accept their claims.’

As Greenwald observes, there is a long history of anonymous government accusations and smears being laundered through the media whenever damaging information is revealed by whistleblowers.

All well, good, accurate and important information .. with one small problem. The assertions are precisely what The Intercept had done as well; when The Intercept published the article “Ukrainian Forces Recover Downed Russian Drone”, an article in its entirety vetted with the language:

Intercept - 1

“according to Ukrainian forces”

“said the battalion’s deputy commander, whose nom de guerre is Artem”

“One of the battalion’s men”

“he said”

“But the source, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record”

“The Ukrainian side, however, said”

[nom de guerre] “Artem said”

“according to [nom de guerre] Artem”

The Intercept reporting in this case has an even larger problem; the appearance of a BIG conflict of interest in the reporter, Askold Krushelnycky, a staunch ‘color revolution’ fan with a highly dubious record of not only writing for the Kiev Post but also the propaganda rag ‘Foreign Policy’ (see his list of contributions HERE) which was the information operation of the State Department aligned Carnegie Endowment until it had been sold to The Washington Post in 2008. And the Washington Post? I cover that (and more) in my previous reporting on the false flag journalist/Intercept reporter Krushelnycky in my article on an alleged ‘Russian Drone’ “The Intercept Takes a Dive

Now, to the article’s author; Askold Krushelnycky. Firstly, in his own words, he was clearly in the camp of the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ (a CIA instigated ‘color revolution‘ or part of the ‘democracy’ investment Victoria Nuland had reported the USA spent $5 billion on) putting him squarely in political opposition to the Russian ethnic majority of the Donbass region of Ukraine. So much for impartiality.

Secondly, Krushelnycky is first generation British of Ukrainian “refugee” descent, opening the question of whether Krushelnycky is of Stephen Bandera aligned stock. Most of the Ukrainian nationals who were allowed into the USA, Canada and Britain after WW II were radical right wing who’d supported Hitler in Ukraine, including an ethnic Ukrainian division of Waffen SS rescued in the thousands. Did The Intercept do a background check on Krushelnycky? I doubt it.

Thirdly, Krushelnycky is reporting from Mariupol, the Kiev held area where Right Sector (Ukrainian Nazis) has its own independent ‘Azov’ battalion. If he were inclined to report factually (particularly in relation to Azov battalion provocations), he’d have immediate problems with these people. Not to mention Kiev has pushed so many outrageous lies, Kiev propaganda compares well to Roger Rabbit; insofar as reality.

Fourthly, and here it gets very sticky for The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept’s bankroller, has funded elements in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, a de facto support contributing to the present civil war. Clearly Omidyar has been supporting the side of those now constituting the regime in Kiev, which also so happens align with the politics of Intercept reporter Krushelnycky. Glenn Greenwald has claimed Omidyar’s support for the parties ruling in Kiev will make no difference in the reporting coming out of The Intercept; but actions here speak louder than words … I had actually been wondering why reporting on Ukraine had been conspicuously absent at The Intercept and now we have a shallow, rank propaganda piece worthy of those very whores of journalism Greenwald & friends have so eloquently bashed elsewhere.

The Intercept hosting Askold Krushelnycky is like The Nation hosting Bob Drefuss or the Washington Post providing a platform to David Ignatius; a professional liar does not add a ‘fair and balanced’ perspective (recalls FOX NEWS) but merely tosses a monkey wrench into the gears of truth

Now, shall we all stand up and uncritically applaud Glenn Greenwald’s perfectly honest comments recited in the Media Lens article? And bury the hypocrisy? You decide, meanwhile, let’s move on to our brilliant ‘alternative mainstream media’ sin of lies by omission, in my perspective, a by far more damning indictment and the real thrust of this article.

Part Two

Conspicuously missing from ‘alternative mainstream media’ is some particularly damning information from a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that had found its way into the public domain. The circumstance of the information’s release appears to have been what amounts to raw political agenda combined with incredible ineptitude.

Judicial Watch, an organization with more in common with the religious right generals at the Pentagon than with actual judicial accountability, went after documents it wished to use to undercut Hillary, focusing on her tenure as Secretary of State. This is straightforward motivation in American politics, it’s a dirty game and Hillary’s tenure as head of the Department of State had been one of the most aggressive, criminal and incompetent in the history of United States foreign policy, the present basket-case that is Libya is evidence prima facie. So, Judicial Watch went after whatever documents a lottery by lawsuit might produce. But whoever was in charge of document selection and redaction, in their desire to please (a lawsuit from the left would never turn up the forthcoming information), overlooked (as did Judicial Watch) the full implications of a few sentences of a 2012 Defense Intelligence Assessment on CIA initiated policy (we’ll come to that) in Syria:

“the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition…

Ok, so that’s no big secret, this has been common knowledge but then you get the larger context:

“…there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria .. and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”

Whoa! Alternatively stated, this would also accurately read ‘we’ll create a supportive circumstance handing Eastern Syria to Al-Qaida to bugger Assad.’ And then the kicker; the DIA assessment accurately predicts the outcome:

“ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq…”

Which is exactly what happened, all on Hillary’s watch and what better dirt to pile on Hillary’s (very desirable) political grave than the fact she had initiated  policy directly responsible for the rise of Islamic State and consequently Iraq coming apart at the seams (again.) But wait, let’s not jump to a sole, simplistic conclusion. When Department of State wants a hatchet-job accomplished, whether a ‘color revolution’ initiated, or an insurgency created, they turn to their Siamese twin, that is the CIA. Department of State decides what needs done, the CIA decides how to go about it. Enters the scene, stage (hard) right, David Petraeus, in a play that could easily have been ghost-written by Robert Gates.

Robert Gates, who’d practically run the CIA under the tenures of Bill Casey and William Webster during the Reagan era, and moved on to the director’s position under Bush I, was responsible for the creation of al-Qaida when setting up a Salafist insurgency to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, working in concert with (long time intelligence career operative) Prince Bandar (‘Bush’) of Saudi Arabia. It does here to draw a parallel to the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment pointing out American intelligence (CIA) working since 2011 to facilitate Salafist militia (al-Qaida) taking control of Eastern Syria. Related to this, it should be noted here Sibel Edmonds testimony to the 9/11 commission remains classified secret on account of she’d informed the commission the CIA had maintained a working  relationship with Osama Bin Ladin up to 11 September 2001. There is evidence in the public record backing Sibel’s account, a 2001 Guardian article, citing Le Figaro reporting on a DGSE (French CIA) leak where it is divulged the CIA had met with Bin Ladin as recently as the Summer of 2001 in Dubai (we’ll come back to this.)

Only yesterday (17 June 2015) Ash Carter, the USA Secretary of Defense, and General Dempsey, the Pentagon’s Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to a somewhat hostile House Armed Services Committee concerning the failure of the USA to produce any legitimate result with building the ‘moderate’ Free Syrian Army. Ash Carter had no sound answer to account for what amounts to no actual result where the programs to now have seen little other than the people the USA recruited to the ‘moderate opposition’ have taken the weapons and training and promptly defected to either Islamic State or Al-Nusra (Al-Qaida.) General Dempsey had, meanwhile, lied through his teeth when he informed the committee this training:

which officials have said is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, had just started and that it was still too soon “to give up on it.”

The (CIA friendly) Reuters piece (cited above) makes no mention of Carter and Dempsey pressed on the failures of a program which has gone on at least since its design in 2011 and implementation in 2012, and begins coming apart in 2014:

Frequently the man who carried out dirty jobs, Bandar bin Sultan surrounded himself with strict regulations in relation to the royal family and its allies, especially the US. It should be remembered that Bandar was absent from major political decisions on more than four occasions since being appointed as general secretary of the National Security Council in 2006. His absence each time was due to a conflict within the royal family or the failure of a mission warranting the suspension of his political activity. His return in July 2012, alongside former CIA Director David Petraeus, was his final bet on the success of his political future.

Bandar had been bold enough to invest all his cards, including al-Qaeda, to win the deal of his life by overthrowing the Syrian regime. However, a royal order issued on February 3 criminalizing all Saudi fighters, civilians and military, was an indirect announcement of the failure of Bandar’s mission and the need to get him entirely out of the picture. The period following the royal decree concerning the fighters was merely in preparation for the royal decree ending his political career

Prince Bandar’s Al-Qaida is directly descended from the Bin Ladin militia Robert Gates (together with Prince Bandar) had worked with, when creating the ‘Afghanis’ (Arab volunteer fighters in Afghanistan), also known generically as Salafist militia. Now, after seeing the same model applied to Syria by Robert Gate’s protege Petraeus, together with the same Bandar, the Saudis realized what had happened with the consequent rise of Islamic State and the subsequent dangers posed to the kingdom. Six months into 2015 and a record 100 executions…

the royal orders were a clear message to Saudi fighters, civilians and military alike, principally in Syria, but also in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places. It meant that a harsh fate awaits them if they decided to come back home. To avoid the grim destiny and severe punishment, they had to remain outside the borders and continue their mission until they perish or get dispersed in other fighting arenas, much like the first contingent of Arab Afghan fighters and those who emerged in Iraq after 2003, in Lebanon after the Nahr al-Bared war at the end of 2007, and those currently in Syria following the agreement between Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan and former CIA chief David Petraeus in the summer of 2012.

…anyone informed as to the facts should realize returning Saudi Salafist Syria and Iraq veterans are being rounded up for elimination, a direct result of David Petraeus applying the Gates-Bandar ‘Aghani’ model in Syria, resulting in the rise of Islamic State, predicted by the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment.

In fact this joint USA-Saudi training, arming and supplying Salafist militia to bolster al-Qaida in Syria has been based out of Jordan and Turkey since the logistics had been pulled together by the CIA in 2012. The Syrian ‘moderate opposition’ had been a front to launder Salafist militia all along, when handing the East of Syria over to al-Qaida. Any authentic ‘moderates’ would have nothing to do with taking Assad’s regime down, after witnessing the aftermath of Iraq. John Brennan kept the Salafist insurgency program going after Petraeus departure, the only question outstanding is, how well informed had POTUS been, Obama has a reputation for handing foreign policy off to subordinates. Only this past fall has there been ‘aboveboard’ funds announced by Obama, provided to try and bring the program under control and give it a legitimate cover. This is what General Dempsey is referring to, when he states the program had just started and that it was still too soon “to give up on it” (speaking of lies by omission.)

Figuring this stuff out isn’t rocket science, so how’s our ‘alternative mainstream media’ been doing to now? Keeping you all informed?


Back to Bin Ladin, Robert Gates and the CIA, there’s a bit of post script in order. Al-Qaida has been a CIA ‘asset’ since its creation had been a joint endeavor of Gates and Prince Bandar in 1980s Afghanistan. Closely aligned throughout the ensuing decades with Saudi intelligence, though not exactly on cordial terms with the CIA, al-Qaida has liaised with CIA on too many occasions to detail in this article in the cause of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ However it does well to note many of the ‘CIA liaised’ ‘Salafist’ actions have been pointed at Russia, China and nations incorporated to their sphere of influence.

In regards to Bin Ladin, when the CIA had met with him in Dubai in Summer 2001 (according to French intelligence) it was determined Bin Ladin was gravely ill, required regular dialysis and the medical prognosis was, Bin Ladin had, at most, two years to live. It is unlikely Bin Ladin survived the stresses of the American invasion of Afghanistan. He was likely dead within a few weeks, the stresses combined with unlikely ability to keep dialysis going (imagine his dialysis machine following him over and through the mountains on a mule) almost certainly cut his two years projected survival span off in the Hindu Kush, a result of the CIA had finally turned on Bin Ladin and framed him for 9/11. Since, a virtual Bin Ladin had been kept alive until it no longer served (created for the public) reality. This is why there is so much controversy surrounding his (non) death in 2011. As the numerous lies fall apart, new lies have to be concocted, more lies to supplant the failed lies until all is a perfect tangle of lies it is hoped (by the CIA) no one will ever sort through (people at the CIA delude themselves every day.) So, where is ‘alternative mainstream media’ at in regards to this? French intelligence had quite accurately pointed to a soon to be dead Bin Ladin in 2001.

This brings us to 9/11. How is it ‘alternative mainstream media’ is silent on the fact over 2,200 certified architects and engineers have stated, in no uncertain terms, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, as explained by the United States, is an “impossibility.”

Here follows my email to the editor of Media Lens, copied to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ryan Gallagher and reads just so:

Re: Defense Intelligence Agency assessment (attached)

Hello Media Lens

Read your story on Murdoch’s putrid rag and Snowden. Good stuff. But your organization (among other ‘alternative mainstream’ new outlets) still ducks the 9/11 whitewash, right?

Meanwhile, how about something on the fact it was western democracies utilizing Al-Qaida as a ‘strategic asset’ led to the rise of Islamic State?

“the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition…

“…there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria .. and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”

“ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq…”

Does courage in journalism come in degrees? Just curious.

Ron West


Meanwhile, I recommend taking your reading to Sibel Edmonds ‘Boiling Frogs Post‘ .. as opposed to the cowardice of Media Lens on 9/11 or The Intercept founded on money from a neo-Nazi supporting fascist billionaire named Pierre Omidyar. It’s not that I would agree with Sibel in every detail, it’s about Sibel turned down a multi-million dollar settlement from the USA to not talk about her experiences and discoveries when working as an FBI translator in the USA’s so-called ‘war on terror’





Litmus Test On WikiLeaks ‘Saudi Cables’ release