Faked Information Laundry Howto

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Aldous Huxley

News headlines of many of the US and European media outlets amaze their audiences with dazzling uniformity.

'Pro-Russian rebels are guilty for downing the ill-fated DH17 flight of Malaysian Airlines.'
'Pro-Russian militants have been accused of downing the plane using Russia-supplied armaments and of interfering with the subsequent investigation at the crash site.'
'Ukraine separatists are using Grad rockets on residential areas of Horlivka.'
'Ukraine's military do not use artillery fire inside city centers.'
'332 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since April.'
'Russians have now been firing artillery barrages across the border.'

These are just a few ones that have become a word of mouth of late. The entire suite of publications ranging from the NYTimes, Washington Post, Financial Times, and nearly every other main pillar of the Fourth Estate have been running with the 'Putin's responsible' meme. But why is there such a huge tide of information warfare against Russia in the Western mass media?

Igor Korotchenko, an editor of National Defense journal, explained it last weekend during Saturday Night show on Ukraine in the Russia state channel Vesti Rossia using just 3 letters: NSC. This is the US National Security Council.

In the Obama administration in Washington the NSC, among other things authorizes launching special information operations by issuing guidelines. The NSC committees through interoffice coordination consolidate a most effective attitude of state bodies that are involved into the elaboration of the US foreign policy in order to, as a part of the NSC activities, create a corresponding picture in the minds of US and largely EU citizens about current events so as to exert influence on some governments. And what is carrying on in the Western media is no accident. It's a planned and so far effectively realized NSC guideline aimed to demonize Russia and create a united front of US and Europe so that the latter would join the US offered sanction move. Probably this is why neither objective data, nor logical arguments work now. The guideline proscribes...

As the Interfax news agency reported on July 28th, 2014, Russian Ministry of Defense representative, Gen. Igor Konashenkov, pinned down the technology employed and explained how it works. The scheme is called 'information carousel'. Fakes are prepared by a group of US advisors having encamped in the Security Service Agency headquarters in Kiev under a guidance of Gen. Randy Alan Kee, a US coordinator. Initially in order to get public resonance to the information, they throw in fakes into the Ukrainian mass media that publish them as preliminary field reports. Right after that these 'field facts' are picked up by official representatives in the State Department, Pentagon and the White House. The Ukrainian mass media then mentions the 'reports' once again, only this time as objective ones, substantiating them with references to the statements from the US. Eventually, identifying the authorship of a faked piece of information within the carousel becomes practically impossible.

With official agencies the swhirl of carousel often goes round in a short-circuit mode when, for instance, a pro-Kiev website annouces a fake statement that a world-known agency mentions as 'according to Kiev sources'. Then the pro-Kiev mass media takes back the official agency's article, and mentions that referring to that same agency in its 'according to ....' clause.

A fresh example, as former consultant to the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Commerce in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts reports on July 27 (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/27/another-state-department-hoax-paul-craig-roberts), is a Sunday morning injection of alleged evidence of Russia firing into Ukraine spread via social media through email by State Department press office. It was a 1.1MB file attached with pictures and a few words saying that the pictures indicate Russian firing into Ukraine territory. Inspite of the fact that the images were in low resolution mode, without georeferencing of objects in the field and had not been presented in a manner that would have been more appropriate to the information as important as this purported to be, at a press-conference at least, the bait was taken. It was the UK Daily Mail who took it, reproducing the images and reported them as official government releases, though the State Department made no official statement in behalf of the email, instead passing inquiries off to the US embassy in Ukraine. Voila.

As a result of this cute information laundry, a piece of information, being originally faked ( 'dirty' ), receives an authenticity status until it is refuted. This allows to win an edge in the information warfare aimed at pushing forward important and often unjustifiable decisions that would have been hard to take otherwise all the while retaining control of the agenda. John Lough, a Russia analyst at Chatham House, a London-based research organization commented to The New York Times correspondent on the recently US announced additional sanctions against Russia move right after the DH17 plane shoot-down: 'The companies are facing the harsh reality that the US and EU have united on sanctions in a way that two weeks ago would have been inconceivable.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/business/energy-environment/energy-companies-rethinking-russia-after-new-sanctions.html?ref=europe&_r=1).

As Peter Duveen, a commentor to Paul Craig Roberts' article, wrote, this edge 'allows Washington to control the explanation before any evidence is available. By the time evidence is gathered, the narrative is established and the evidence ignored' (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/28/update-latest-us-government-hoax-paul-craig-roberts)... Part of the US propaganda mill’s effort is into forming the conversation. Once certain narratives take hold, true or untrue, they edge out other narratives. So the effort is to get control of the narrative, to form the conversation with whatever materials, usually false, are available. Then, of course, the false information will be referenced as true, and the direction of the narrative will be fixed. The narrative being lowered into place, for example, is that Russia was somehow responsible for the downing of Flight 17. With the help of the media, the hope is that the narrative will gain momentum. Eventually, if it catches properly, it will be impossible to question, just as people are considered freaks who question the official narrative of 9-11. That is why the narratives are introduced as quickly as possible. Thus, we saw how quickly it was announced that Flight 17 was brought down by a surface to air missile. That would lead me to believe that it was actually not brought down by a surface to air missile. So also with this incredibly amateurish effort regarding Russian shelling of Ukrainian positions. Russian reaction is never obtained in the articles about it, and it is no longer mentioned that Russian territory has been shelled by the Ukrainian military.'

Anyway, whosoever writes these non-news reports full of fantastic conjectures definitely fall for the hoax, out of lack of experience or deliberately (through self-deception or self-interest), which is clearly the intention of the initiators, be it the US or Ukrainian Government. This fact unfortunately bears a colateral damage. It violates a golden rule of the Free World journalism that says: a news presentation must be balanced. Because in a situation when one side is known for sure to be deceiving upfront, the public eventually gets misinformed becoming dependant and unable to draw unimposed conclusions.

In the information warfare of the US against its opponent 'partner' what matters is a desired image, a picture, a virtual, concocted or constructed reality, directly fabricated facts that comply with a proscribed political guideline. In fact, if reality is in contradiction with it, the worse it is for reality. The un-facts stuffed to the general public, allow the US led policy-makers to make public 'favorable' conclusions and accusations addressed to a foe in order to receive a carte blanche for actions they need.

And blatant lies are at bottom of it all.

But whichever way one looks at the whirl around, it is increasingly becoming clear that just like in the Syria conflict and many others before, the underlying motive may turn out to be a very simple one: resources. In this case it is natural gas. And Europe as a collateral gain.

@laborhmkapa