Rating Honest Authors on U.S. Foreign Affairs
First posted October 11, 2016
Last update October 31, 2016
The following political analysts and bloggers claim to advocate Western non-intervention, an end to U.S regime change, an end to American policing of the world, respect for the sovereignty of Russia, independence for Middle Eastern and African secular nations, and self-determination for the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics. How honest are they?
Matthew Jamison and Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) share the Quemado Institute Diogenes Dunce of the Day award for flagrant hypocrisy, egregious fabrication, and underhanded de facto support of World War III. SCF, a seemingly intellectual alternate media platform, pretends to advocate reason in US relations with Russia and to oppose regime change and American policing of the world—precisely the policies of Donald Trump—as is evidenced by every one of their articles over the past two years.
Yet SCF has stooped to post pure rubbish blathered by none other than Matthew Jamison, Senior Parliamentary Researcher at the House of Commons with two degrees from Cambridge University, who flatulates:
What should have been a debate primarily about economic issues such as income inequality, jobs/trade and law & order – with international dimensions squarely focused around the rise and threat of ISIS; the situation in Syria and US-Russian relations redolent of a 1970s or 80s Cold War election – has instead degenerated into something like an episode of Dallas or Dynasty with the sensationalist fluff of 21st century Hollywood «reality» TV. This is due to the presence of one man in the race, Donald Trump, who has hijacked the election to make it more about himself and his celebrity ego and a parade ground of circus antics . . .
This is of course an absolute fabrication, as the editors of SCF certainly know. It is, in fact, the opposite of the truth. Trump has emphasized again and again in his speeches the above-mentioned important issues: jobs, trade, ISIS, Russian relations, and US foreign policy. It is the Western media that has focused on “sensationalist fluff”, while blaming Trump for the very accusations they themselves manufacture.
Strategic Culture Foundation has been busted. The editors are New World Order-funded cowards, and Quemado Institute has officially notified them of today’s award.
“I don’t agree with Trump on everything,” says Roberts, “but he is right on one big thing.
November 8 is our last chance to take our country back.”
October 31, 2016
High score = honest Low score = hypocrite
Blogger & Link . . . Last score . . . . Total Score . . . Posts Counted
Paul Craig Roberts +20 +80 (4 posts)
Alexander Dugin +20 +60 (2 posts)
Joachim Hagopian +20 +60 (3 posts)
Infowars.com/Alex Jones +40 (2 posts)
Slavyangrad.org +20 +40 (2 posts)
Katehon.com +20 +40 (2 posts)
Finian Cunningham +10 +30 (2 posts)
Fort Russ +20 +20 (1 posts)
Russia Insider 0 (0 posts)
New Eastern Outlook/F. William Engdahl 0 (0 posts)
Sputnik News 0 (0 posts)
Antiwar.com/Justin Raimondo 0 (0 posts)
Eric Zuesse ─20 0 (2 posts)
SCF/Dmitry Minin ─10 ─10 (1 posts)
Zero Hedge/Tyler Durden ─10 ─10 (1 posts)
Federico Pieraccini ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
Wayne Madsen ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
Vladimir Suchan ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
The Nation ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
The Saker ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
Moon of Alabama ─20 ─40 (2 posts)
Russia Beyond the Headlines ─20 ─20 (1 posts)
Consortium News/Robert Parry ─20 ─40 (2 posts)
Ron Paul Institute – 20 ─60 (3 posts)
Information Clearing House ─20 ─65 (4 posts)
Global Research/Michel Chossudovsky ─60 (3 posts)
Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) -20 ─80 (6 posts)
How honesty is scored:
Journalists, geopolitical analysts and bloggers who claim to support:
And who claim to oppose:
And yet who also:
Journalists, geopolitical analysts and bloggers who present an honest, fair and consistent assessment of:
The Search for an Honest Blogger
Diogenes of Sinope (Ca. 410 – 323 BC) was a Greek philosopher and founder of the doctrine of Cynicism. After his exile, he moved to Athens and became a critic of social convention. Diogenes believed virtue was manifest through action rather than theory. The philosopher practiced poverty, and used his humble way of life to expose corruption around him. He criticized and embarrassed Plato, and sabotaged the lectures of Socrates. Dogenes is best known for his practice of carrying a lantern while searching for an honest man.
Censorship Equals Hypocrisy
Bernhard, Chief Editor of the Moon of Alabama website, is actively censoring evidence of election rigging happening right now in Texas. The Moon of Alabama website pretends to be an open forum for anti-mainstream opinions. Many of the posts condemn American military aggression. The site’s published articles are sympathetic to Russia and Donbass, and against U.S. policing of the world. These, of course, are the policies of Donald Trump.
Yet Moon of Alabama deletes comments that are crucially important to Trump and the American voter. The website’s Open Thread allows general comments favorable to Donald Trump, but when it really comes down to the wire, they CENSOR. I tried three times to post the following news:
Early voters in Texas say they have encountered evidence of election rigging. According to Infowars.com, at least two people report their electronic vote was switched from Trump to Hillary. These voters had to ask the election monitors to change their vote back. In one case, the monitor agreed this had happened to other voters as well.
This is critical information for the American people. Yet Bernhard at Moon of Alabama refused to post my concise and informative comment. Make no mistake: Moon of Alabama is owned by the powers that be. —Karl Pomeroy, Chief Editor, Quemado Institute
John J. Mearsheimer, Political Science professor at Chicago University, claims that while he agrees with Donald Trump’s noninterventionist foreign policy, he opposes Trump because Trump gives noninterventionist foreign policy a bad name. Why does Trump give it a bad name? Because, farts Mearsheimer, “the foreign policy establishment are axiomatically opposed to anything Trump says and therefore they are opposed to ideas of the importance of restraint towards Russia.”
In other word, Mearsheimer opposes Trump because he agrees with Trump, but since all his friends disagree with Trump, Trump is giving Mearsheimer’s views a bad name. Or—when this Mobius strip logic is untwisted—Mearsheimer opposes Trump because all his friends do. (Photo: The Atlantic/Daniel Shea)
Federico Pieraccini was chosen Diogenes Dunce of the Day by Quemado Institute for his Strategic Culture Foundation commentary Going Beyond Propaganda. Nuclear Conflict: Deception or Real Threat? (October 16, 2016) in which Pieraccini exhibits flagrant hypocrisy. This seemingly well-informed article, topped by a photo of a golden mushroom cloud states, “Hillary Clinton in the last presidential debate repeatedly called for the establishment of a no-fly zone (NFZ) in Syria. The concept … clashes with the revelation contained in her private emails admitting that the implementation of a NFZ would entail the increased deaths of Syrian civilians…. [S]uch a request would involve hitting Russian and Syrian aircraft and vehicles, opening the door to a direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington…. Hillary Clinton’s threats against Moscow were not the only ones. The present policy makers in Washington continue to make aggressive statements demonstrating their total loss of touch with reality. In recent weeks, hysterical reactions were recorded by the Pentagon, the State Department, top military generals, and even representatives of American diplomacy. To emphasize the unhappiness prevalent in some Washington circles, several articles appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times calling for the imposition of a US no-fly zone in Syria, ignoring the consequences highlighted by Dunford.”
So far so good—except for the fact that hypocrite Pieraccini slyly embeds in his article a link to a falacious diatribe by one Nicholas Kitchen, who rails irrationally against the only person who can stop all this insane US aggression: Donald Trump. In Kitchen’s fictional account, entitled American voters’ choice is between Clinton’s liberal internationalism and Trump’s offensive realism. Who wins in November matters to the world, he blurts without evidence: “Any assessment of Trump’s policy ideas must begin with the caveat that this is a candidate who has so far made little or no effort to engage with ideas or policy in any substantive way, a failure – ostensibly and apparently of psychology and temperament – that makes him dangerously unqualified for the position he now seeks.”
Dangerously unqualified? Isn’t Hillary incomprehensibly more dangerous? And how does her corrupt and murderous curriculum vitae make her more qualified than a billionaire business executive with many outstanding successes to his name?
Dugin says, “Trump represents a true and absolute American. According to him, freedom is always the freedom of choice, speech, and action. It doesn’t matter what the elites consider or what the rules of political correctness demand. … Russia is the main enemy of the World Government. But Trump doesn’t accept this. … This is why Donald Trump is condemned. It appears that the world elite of bankers and globalists acting on behalf of liberalism and freedom hate this very freedom. Externally, they see an enemy in the face of Putin, and domestically, in the face of Trump. … Trump has started a new American Revolution. This revolution is once again for freedom. But this time, this is for freedom from the maniacal globalist elite. This is like a genie from a bottle. Once released, he cannot be hidden again. No matter what, Trump himself and his followers will not simply go away after the elections. … For your freedom and ours, dear American brothers.”
Patrick Martin says, “In a particularly revealing Twitter comment, Trump gloated over his open break with the Republican congressional leadership, declaring, ‘It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to.’ By ‘shackles’ Trump is referring to the political norms of the US constitutional system, which he has defied with his threats, should he win the presidency, to prosecute and jail his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as well as his encouragement of violence and his denunciation of the electoral process as ‘rigged.'”
Martin is fabricating. By “shackles” Trump obviously did not mean the US constitutional system. Just ask him. And Trump would have a right, of course, to prosecute Killary Clinton, who has broken numerous national security and finance laws, not to mention international laws against war crimes. Nor has the billionaire Republican nominee ever encouraged violence. And Trump is right the electoral process is rigged, as hacked DNC emails proved. Martin goes on to weave more lies about Trump through the rest of this slipshod article. Tom Feeley, editor of Information Clearing House (which boasts a tagline “For Global Justice”) wins the biggest hypocrite award today.
Meet Mr. Eric Zuesse, who arrogantly quips today “Americans are being offered, by this nation’s aristocracy, a choice between a marginally competent and deeply evil psychopath Hillary Clinton, versus an incompetent but far less evil psychopath Donald Trump.”
Oh really? You call successful billionaire executive Trump—a man of exquisite taste—incompetent? I personally know that Zuesse, who claims to base all of his statements on “scientific” fact, has not a shred of background in science. Nor does he present an iota of evidence that Trump is a psychopath, rather a strong allegation, even if less so than Killary. Zuesse goes further and slams “Trump’s crassly vulgar obsession with sex”. Is that so, Mr. Prude? Perhaps it is you who has a crassly vulgar obsession with sex. Why else would you be so uptight over that silly Bush tape?