A decade ago today, NATO’s assault on Libya began & the most developed country in Africa as per the UN’s Human Development Index was crushed. It was whitewashed as a humanitarian intervention & supported by everyone from Anthony Bourdain to Ken Roth & a host of ‘Left’ luminaries.
One such luminary was the supposed Marxist and anti-imperialist Gilbert Achcar who declared confidently in 2011: “[I]f there is no clarity about what a post-Gaddafi Libya might look like . . . it can’t be worse than Gaddafi’s regime”.
The Guardian was, of course, at the forefront of the propaganda campaign to portray the intervention as benevolent and a success. Shamefully it announced this even after reports had emerged of the mass detainment and lynching of Black Africans in Libya:
Here’s the 2010 UN Human Development Index, not a perfect measure, but it’s telling that Libya was not only the highest ranked country in Africa, but in fact one of the highest ranked non-Western countries full stop - it was higher than Saudi Arabia. hdr.undp.org/sites/default/…
Libya also played a part in the awakening I mentioned in this tweet, but sadly not straight away, I remember being quite confused & only later realising the extent to which I had accepted propaganda about Libya/Gaddafi uncritically even though I was opposed to NATO’s involvement.
The propaganda campaign on Syria taught me that Western media isn’t simply biased, but knowingly & systematically creates an alternative reality in support of the US narrative to an extent that I had hugely underestimated. Many of the same tactics are being used now with Ukraine.
One of it’s most powerful techniques is making anyone who questions that narrative or doubts the veracity of the claims used to support it appear heartless, which naturally makes people stay silent about doubts they might have & allows the narrative to become even more dominant.
Many further techniques have been created/developed since it was written, especially those related to the internet and social media, but this by Parenti remains a very useful and important guide for understanding the function of the media:
A statistic that’s just blown my mind: according to Forbes Magazine’s figures, the wealth of the US’ richest *three* oligarchs (Musk, Bezos and Gates) alone is $594bn, a total that is greater than the wealth of the richest *one hundred* Russian oligarchs combined at $558bn.
Among many things, realising the extent of that disparity has made me realise the extent to which the propaganda about Russian oligarchs and their wealth has been successful on me, I never would’ve guessed the difference in wealth would be that enormous.
But as Lenin said in 1919: “Nowhere is the power of capital, the power of a handful of billionaires over the whole of society, so crude & as openly corrupt as in America. Once capital exists, it dominates the whole of society”
The UK sanctioning Abramovich after green-lighting the Saudi Govt takeover of Newcastle is not really a question of ‘double standards’, as that label implies a moral standard is being applied inconsistently, whereas in fact a political one is being applied *consistently*.
The UK was never bothered by Abramovich’s massive funding of Zionist settlers stealing Palestinian land for the same reason it is not concerned with Saudi’s ongoing war on Yemen (of which it is a major partner) - those activities align with the interests of the UK and its allies.
Calling these things “double standards” is an understandable reaction but I think what viewing things through that prism can actually often do is obscure the consistencies behind these decisions & the reasons for them & imply an inconsistent morality when morality plays no part.
The west virtually destroyed Syria over a decade-long proxy war (then direct military occupation) and continues to immiserate it through sanctions and other means of economic warfare and sabotage. The idea it “stood back and watched” is not only a lie, but deeply offensive.
Of course it is the guardian publishing this propaganda in order to call for further western aggression. Behind its progressive facade it’s probably the most reliably pro imperialist and pro war paper there is, it’s record is there for all to see.
This is who the Guardian is choosing to publish at this juncture:
On this day in 1966, Kwame Nkrumah was deposed as President of Ghana in a CIA coup. His editor & confidante June Milne believed the publication of his book ‘Neo-Colonialism’ the previous year was the “final straw” in the CIA’s decision to depose him.
The CIA wrote a review of Nkrumah's book at the end of 1965 that concluded by reporting copies of it had been sent to the African Division of the Deputy Directorate for Plans (DDP) - the CIA's covert action arm - for study & “whatever action these components consider advisable”.
Leader-focussed framing is a central component of Western propaganda campaigns. It’s used to sell the simple idea there is a “bad guy” who “we” must stand up to, & like clockwork, anyone who dares to critique that narrative is immediately labelled an apologist for that leader.
It’s an unfortunately effective means of controlling the narrative and limiting dissent, notably because it comes not only from the right, but habitually and vocally from prominent leftists like Owen Jones.