The Guardian, Establishment Appropriation and Ghosts of World War I

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/europe-crisis-balkans-eu-membership-russia-china-turkey

Alongside publications like the New York Times and Washington Post, The Guardian has moved into a position of being one of the chief publications at the forefront of Western Imperialism. Championing the Anti-Russian campaign and zealously advocating for intervention in Syria, the paper pushes on many fronts for NATO militarism and so-called humanitarian wars.

The Balkans are no exception. Coming to the defense of Brussels and the EU project, the Guardian regularly pumps out pieces calling for the strengthening of the EU. The Balkans as well as Hungary afford opportunities to blend pro-EU advocacy with the Anti-Russia campaign.

At virtually every opportunity The Guardian gives voice to intelligence agency officials and Establishment strategists who make the case for Western militarism. Journalists like Luke Harding have become the new darlings of the paper, churning out pieces critical of Putin, Assange and even Snowden.

Harding's The Snowden Files has generated some confusion. Apparently even Oliver Stone utilised it for his movie on Snowden, a movie I have not bothered to see. As I read the book I was almost overwhelmed by the author's hostility to Snowden. Stone seemed to miss the fact that Greenwald was critical of Harding and Julian Assange remains highly critical of Harding's book, Harding himself and certainly The Guardian.

This is where things get a little puzzling? Why would The Guardian engage in such criticism of Snowden? The Guardian was one of the papers that bravely published the Snowden leaks and blew the whistle on the host of secret and illegal programmes run by the NSA and other US intelligence agencies. Why would this paper that seemingly took an Anti-Establishment position switch gears and become such an advocate for the status quo?

I was reminded of the Washington Post during Watergate. On the one hand the paper broke ranks and seemingly went rogue, courageously reporting the story even while under tremendous pressure from the White House. Once the dam broke, then the pressure was off and it was a feeding frenzy as the various news outlets contended for the story.

But what happened? Eventually the Washington Post became like the New York Times, not liberal papers challenging the system (as some still foolishly think) but defenders of the Establishment, outlets for the official story and what has often been rightly termed... the CIA line.

Carl Bernstein has had a somewhat rocky relationship with the Establishment but has more or less stayed within its good graces. Woodward turned out to be more or less a sellout and eventually turned to the role of court historian and defender of the status quo. He does an amazing job reporting events (and certainly motives) in a mitigated and even protective fashion. Safe and reliable, he seemingly does all he can to downplay connections, conclusions and to muddy context. The end result is that of a protectionist gloss – dark deeds are protected and lies are justified.

What happens to reporters like Woodward and outlets like the Washington Post and The Guardian? How are they transformed? Are they bought? Threatened? Or does something happen once one is granted access? Are they dazzled? One thinks of courtiers and the deep desire to be on the inside. These figures all but 'break in' but once in, they become part of the court and don't want to be forced out of the inner circles.

It's an interesting question and frankly one that cannot be fully answered. Some might suggest that in order to save burning bridges these institutions labour diligently to stay in the good graces of the powerful. Access is everything and if you've alienated the insiders you lose the ability to get the interviews and probe within the workings of government.

That's the innocent answer and perhaps the naive one. I am reminded of past instances of intelligence agency infiltration of the news media. In the 1970s the US public learned that the CIA had infiltrated many institutions including a host of media outlets and that many editors and journalists were paid agents of Langley. In recent times not a few journalists and investigators have written about how the humanitarian and NGO complex has been infiltrated and appropriated by Deep State agents who have wrested away control of these organisations and turned them into tools and mouthpieces for US imperialism.

Are there such programmes within the UK? Many were startled in November 2016 when The Guardian ran an interview with the head of MI5 that was reckoned by many to be little more than a propaganda piece. An interesting footnote, one of the journalists involved in the 'interview' was Ewan MacAskill, one of the Guardian figures who along with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras broke the Snowden story in 2013.

While I know of no 'Operation Mockingbird' programme in the UK, one might safely infer there is either a formal or informal effort to bring about the same results.

In the case of the linked Guardian piece on the Balkans, it is clearly an editorial and one pushing for political and even military action. The conclusion is implicit in the premise. By action I don't necessarily mean violent coup d'état but certainly aggressive policing, indictments, a crackdown on free speech and militarisation through bases, missile defense or whatever else will give NATO an excuse to threaten intervention.

Despite my disagreements with Ivan Krastev the author of the editorial I will grant a certain (if immoral and presumptive) logic to the position.

NATO's intervention in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s was about creating a coherent Europe. By the turn of the century they had almost completed the project but the Balkans remained ragged and unresolved and now in the wake of the financial crisis, immigration and growing frustration with the political bureaucracy, the EU's standing has largely collapsed. Russia and Turkey have made their moves to secure historic interests and the region once more risks fragmentation.

Only a century ago the Balkans were caught in a struggle between the 'Great Powers', each vying for control. The crisis of 1914 Sarajevo proved the spark that led to a much wider conflagration. Many realised the Balkans were a trap and yet despite the warnings the echoes and markers of history are not so easily dispensed with. Once again, Central European powers are in a contest with Russia and Turkey over that beautiful but tragic corner of Europe, the cultural fault-line of the Latin, Byzantine and Ottoman worlds.

Of course today there are additional complications such as US dominance of NATO, Salafism and the dynamics introduced by modern technology.

I do not weep for the bureaucrats in Brussels nor at the prospect of the EU not achieving its goals. Whether the people of the Balkans are better off or not under the EU is an open question.

I do tremble at the thought of war and what it would mean for the people of the Balkans, Europe in general and especially the small but vibrant Bible-based churches in that part of the world.

It seems hard to imagine that NATO will just let these nations slip away and abandon the 'gains' of the 1990's. And yet (like the Cold War era) the world stage is evolving into a series of fronts and flash points in which a move one place will likely lead to a response somewhere else. Truly it is amazing (and yet to the student of history no great surprise) that the ghosts of WWI and its aftermath continue to haunt the world stage. From Eastern Europe and the Balkans to the Middle East, history is rearing its head.

Outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times and the now Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post have a decided interest and investment in Atlanticism, the Western System and the array of institutions that buttress these concepts. Not all their reporting is of no value but once again, the reader must understand the mindset and agenda of these outlets.

Do I believe the journalists and editors are part of some grand Deep State conspiracy? For the most part, no, I don't think so. There are some figures within these organisations that have connections to the larger Anglo-American Deep State. Some are outright corrupt and guilty of mis- and dis-information. Are all their stories of this category? Of course not.

I suppose in one respect that's where it gets tricky and some discernment is required. There are a lot of stories they cover that despite perhaps some bias are still well-researched, written and remain reasonably objective. And yet when it comes to certain issues, those that touch on the foundations of the system as a whole and most often in the realm of foreign policy, then they are less than trustworthy.

Past wrongs in the domestic sphere and (in a limited sense) in the foreign sphere are covered and yet the reflection and interpretations are usually shallow, obfuscatory and often misleading. Once again, a great many sins can be admitted to but questioning the system itself is out of bounds.

One means by which this is accomplished is through the progressive lens. We've learned so much it could be argued, there were mistakes but that was in the past. Before some readers, particularly those of a conservative Protestant stripe chortle at such reasoning, I would encourage them to review their own histories and how they are framed. All too often in order to draw organic connections with the history of Christendom, similar progressive arguments and historiographical methods are employed. But that is a topic for another time.

See also:

http://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/02/npr-and-establishment-line-fetid.html

http://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/12/humanitarian-politics-and-myanmar.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/02/establishment-civil-war-deep-state_17.html