Nous n’avons pas rat\u00e9, – sous la plume de PhG dont c’est une interlocutrice favorite, – l’annonce que Tulsi Gabbard pr\u00e9senterait dans la quinzaine suivante sa candidature \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d\u00e9mocrate pour les pr\u00e9sidentielles US de 2020. Cela se passait (pour PhG) le 12 janvier 2019<\/a>. Finalement, c’est le 4 f\u00e9vrier que Gabbard a officiellement annonc\u00e9 sa candidature<\/strong>, et le titre de PhG plus que jamais d’actualit\u00e9 : « Gabbard-2020 ? \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb devient fou !<\/em><\/strong> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n D’une part, l’essentiel des experts politico-militaire, soit 120% des journalistes de la presseSyst\u00e8me sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9s dans les questions des guerres justes et de l’interventionnisme justifi\u00e9, ricanent des pr\u00e9tentions de Tulsi Gabbard et affirment sa compl\u00e8te inexistence politique, sa qualit\u00e9 de non-\u00eatre politique, l’absence compl\u00e8te d’importance de sa d\u00e9cision<\/strong> ; d’autre part, l’annonce de sa candidature a provoqu\u00e9 un ouragan extraordinaire d’articles, de d\u00e9nonciations furieuses, d’accusations, de mises en cause, de suggestions de trahison, d’\u00eatre \u00ab\u00a0une agent d’Assad\u00a0\u00bb en plus d’une \u00ab\u00a0agente du Kremlin\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>, etc. Curiosit\u00e9 de notre syst\u00e8me : elle ne vaut rien, elle n’a aucune importance, elle ne m\u00e9rite m\u00eame pas un paragraphe, et aussit\u00f4t tout le monde d\u00e9gaine son stylo pour cracher son venin, jusque dans les publications les plus prestigieuses dans le cirage de pompe du Syst\u00e8me, – Washington Post <\/em>et New York Times <\/em>en t\u00eate, les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences certes… Bref, la schizophr\u00e9nie habituelle<\/strong>, assortie des narrative <\/em>de service, tout cela pour nous rassurer : Tulsi Gabbard fait bienheureusement des d\u00e9g\u00e2ts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Parmi les gens qui vont la soutenir essentiellement dans la communication antiSyst\u00e8me, outre Jimmy Dore<\/a> et Tom Luongo<\/a> notamment, nous signalons essentiellement la dynamique et talentueuse Caitline Johnstone, dont nous reprenons ci-dessous le dernier article sur Gabbard, en date du 7 f\u00e9vrier 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Nous avons longuement parl\u00e9 de Johnstone, \u00e0 deux reprises le m\u00eame jour, le 23 d\u00e9cembre 2018<\/a> en Ouverture Libre<\/em>et le 23 d\u00e9cembre 2018<\/a> de PhG dans son Journal dde.crisis<\/em> : « …une po\u00e9tesse gu\u00e9rillero et une journaliste-voyou comme elle se d\u00e9finit elle-m\u00eame, Caitline Johnstone<\/a><\/strong>. Je laisse sa d\u00e9finition d’elle-m\u00eame en langue originale, charge \u00e0 chacun de traduire, mais \u00e0 mon avis assez pour comprendre l’esprit de la chose et le caract\u00e8re de la plume, et peut-\u00eatre plus encore en gardant la langue originale : \u00ab\u00a0Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> »)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Dans sont article, Johnstone donne un compte-rendu d\u00e9taill\u00e9, extr\u00eamement bien r\u00e9f\u00e9renc\u00e9, des trois premiers jours de campagne de Tulsi Gabbard<\/strong>, salu\u00e9s par des tombereaux d’insultes, d’ordures, d’allusions diffamatoires, de mises en cause personnelles, etc. Johnstone nous montre combien la candidature Gabbard, cette femme de si peu de choses et de si pi\u00e8tre importance, a touch\u00e9 \u00e0 vif l’\u00e9norme nerf de la folie destructrice et belliciste de D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>. Il semble que c’est dans cette sorte d’occurrence que l’on peut mesurer la vulgarit\u00e9 inf\u00e2me, l’imposture et la folie absolument puante du Syst\u00e8me où la postmodernit\u00e9 nous a emprisonn\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n En attendant, nous donnons les trois premiers paragraphes du long article de Johnstone en fran\u00e7ais : nous avons ainsi un aper\u00e7u du domaine qu’elle entend explorer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Lorsque Tulsi Gabbard a annonc\u00e9 son intention de se pr\u00e9senter \u00e0 l’\u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle de 2020, j’avais annonc\u00e9 que cela perturberait les narrative de propagande de guerre et imposerait une conversation fort n\u00e9cessaire sur l’interventionnisme am\u00e9ricain, mais je ne m’\u00e9tais pas rendu compte que cela se produirait si rapidement, de mani\u00e8re aussi g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, et si explosive. Gabbard a officiellement commenc\u00e9 sa campagne pour la pr\u00e9sidence il y a \u00e0 peine trois jours et elle est d\u00e9j\u00e0 devenue la ligne de front sur laquelle se d\u00e9roule le d\u00e9bat sur le bellicisme am\u00e9ricain. M\u00eame si vous vous opposez \u00e0 la candidature de Gabbard \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence, cela devrait aller de soi pour vous maintenant.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Cette dynamique est devenue plus apparente que jamais aujourd’hui lors de l’apparition de Gabbard dans Morning Joe de MSNBC, anim\u00e9e par les \u00e9poux Joe Scarborough et Mika Brzezinski. Il convient de noter ici que nous parlons de propagande de guerre. En 2009, Scarborough avait refus\u00e9 une candidature facile au S\u00e9nat car il avait observ\u00e9 qu’il aurait plus d’influence sur les politiques publiques en tant qu’animateur de Morning Joe qu’en tant que l’un des 100 s\u00e9nateurs du Congr\u00e8s des États-Unis, ce qui vous dit tout ce que vous devez savoir sur la raison pour laquelle je me concentre davantage sur la propagande des m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains que sur la politique am\u00e9ricaine. Il convient \u00e9galement de noter que Brzezinski est la fille de Zbigniew Brzezinski, faucon de l’administration Carter, dont les id\u00e9es influentes sur la domination du monde par les États-Unis, armant des factions extr\u00e9mistes pour d\u00e9fendre les int\u00e9r\u00eats des États-Unis <\/em>[voir l’origine du djihadisme<\/a>], continuent leur travail de nuisance dans la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des États-Unis. Mika fait partie d’une dynastie politique, les deux fr\u00e8res \u00e9tant \u00e9galement des experts et initi\u00e9s politiques am\u00e9ricains.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Donc, si vous vous \u00eates d\u00e9j\u00e0 demand\u00e9 comment des r\u00e9seaux comme MSNBC diffusent des messages grand public en s’alignant parfaitement sur les priorit\u00e9s de la machine de guerre am\u00e9ricaine, vous avez l\u00e0 une bonne explication. Combinez cela avec la fa\u00e7on dont ils approvisionnent leur panoplie d’experts avec les initi\u00e9s de la communaut\u00e9 du renseignement am\u00e9ricaine et licencient tous les experts qui refusent de suivre la ligne du complexe militaro-industriel, et il n’est pas difficile de voir comment ils ont d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 un tel r\u00e9seau de communication d’hostilit\u00e9 \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard de toute r\u00e9sistance \u00e0 l’interventionnisme am\u00e9ricain. Cela explique ce que nous allons discuter maintenant<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n En d’autres termes, Tulsi Gabbard est une sorte de joker<\/strong>. Si elle parvient \u00e0 contenir et \u00e0 supporter l’agression constante dont elle va \u00eatre accabl\u00e9e, elle pourrait devenir d\u00e9vastatrice en affirmant une personnalit\u00e9 absolument hoirs des normes et standards d\u00e9termin\u00e9s par le Syst\u00e8me, – pour ou contre d’ailleurs… Elle est \u00e0 la fois (socialement) \u00e0 la gauche du parti d\u00e9mocrate puisqu’elle \u00e9tait partisane de Bernie Sanders au printemps 2016, et \u00e0 la fois oppos\u00e9e aux politiques bellicistes d’interventionnisme. Ses autres traits de caract\u00e8re et de personnalit\u00e9 sont connus et tout aussi d\u00e9concertants par rapport aux standards du Syst\u00e8me : « Elle est femme, jeune (37 ans), d’origine oc\u00e9anienne (samoanne) et de religion hindouiste, donc compl\u00e8tement des minorit\u00e9s et de la diversit\u00e9 qui plaisent tant aux progressistes-soci\u00e9taux. Plus jeune parlementaire de la l\u00e9gislature de l’État d’Hawaii \u00e0 l’\u00e2ge de 21 ans, elle s’est ensuite engag\u00e9e dans la Garde Nationale et a effectu\u00e9 deux s\u00e9jours en zone de guerre, en Irak et au Kowe\u00eft. (Elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 promue major <\/em>[commandant] en 2015.) Elle est Repr\u00e9sentante d’Hawaii \u00e0 la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants du Congr\u00e8s des USA depuis 2012, \u00e9lue et r\u00e9\u00e9lue avec autour de 80% des voix<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Cette situation difficile \u00e0 appr\u00e9hender selon toutes les normes se lit m\u00eame au travers de la position d’un site comme WSWS.org <\/em>qui ne sait vraiment pas quoi faire d’elle, puisqu’elle reste une d\u00e9mocrate, et qu’elle est donc class\u00e9e n\u00e9gativement <\/strong>par les trotskistes ; puisqu’elle est radicalement antiguerre, et donc devrait \u00eatre appr\u00e9ci\u00e9e positivement <\/strong>par les m\u00eames trotskistes. Si l’on active le moteur de recherche du site trotskiste, Gabbard est cit\u00e9e 13 fois entre le 25 mai 2015 et le 11 octobre 2018 (sa candidature n’a m\u00eame pas \u00e9t\u00e9 mentionn\u00e9e une seule fois) ; par contraste, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, que WSWS.org <\/em>peut classer tout \u00e0 loisir puisqu’elle n’a pas condamn\u00e9 les politiques bellicistes et pr\u00e9tend \u00eatre \u00e0 l’extr\u00eame-gauche du parti d\u00e9mocrate, est cit\u00e9e 92 fois entre le 23 juin 2018 (jour de sa \u00ab\u00a0naissance\u00a0\u00bb politique) et le 8 f\u00e9vrier 2019.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ci-dessous, voici donc l’article de Caitline Johnstone du 7 f\u00e9vrier 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n When Tulsi Gabbard announced her plans to run in the 2020 presidential election, I predicted<\/strong><\/a> that it would disrupt war propaganda narratives and force a much-needed conversation about US interventionism, but I didn’t realize that it would happen so quickly, so ubiquitously, and so explosively. Gabbard officially began her campaign for president a mere three days ago<\/strong><\/a>, and already she’s become the front line upon which the debate about US warmongering is happening. Even if you oppose Gabbard’s run for the presidency, this should be self-evident to you by now.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This dynamic became more apparent than ever today in Gabbard’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, hosted by spouses Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. It should here be noted since we’re talking about war propaganda that in 2009 Scarborough turned down an easy run for the US Senate because he decided that he could have <\/strong>more influence<\/a> <\/strong>on public policy<\/strong> as the host of Morning Joe<\/em> than he could as one of 100 US senators, which tells you everything you need to know about why I focus more on US mass media propaganda than I do on US politics. It should also be noted that Brzezinski is the daughter of the late Carter administration cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski<\/strong><\/a>, whose influential ideas<\/strong><\/a> about US world domination, arming extremist factions<\/strong><\/a> to advance US interests, and hawkish agendas against Russia continue to infect US foreign policy to this day. Mika is part of a political dynasty, with both<\/strong><\/a> brothers<\/strong><\/a> being US political insiders as well.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n So if you’ve ever wondered how outlets like MSNBC keep everyone on message and fully in alignment with the US war machine’s agendas, there’s a good insight into how. Combine that with the way they stock their punditry lineup<\/strong><\/a> with US intelligence community insiders and fire any pundit<\/strong><\/a> who refuses to toe the military-industrial complex line, and it’s not hard to see how they’ve developed such a tight echo chamber of hostility toward any resistance to US interventionism. Which explains what we’re about to discuss next.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Morning Joe’s pile-on against Gabbard began when the subject of Syria came up<\/strong><\/a>, and panelist Kasie Hunt instantly began losing her shit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Do you think Assad is our enemy?\u00a0\u00bb Hunt interrupted during Gabbard’s response to a question about her meeting with Syria’s president in 2017, her voice and face both strained with emotion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard replied.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0What do you say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there, and what do you say to military members who have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against Assad?\u00a0\u00bb Hunt replied, somehow believing that US soldiers are in Syria fighting against the Syrian government, which would probably come as a shock to the troops who’ve been told that they are there to defeat ISIS.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Journalist Rania Khalek summed up this insanity perfectly, tweeting<\/strong><\/a>, \u00ab\u00a0The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0This is such an embarrassing look at the state of corporate American regime media,\u00a0\u00bb tweeted<\/a> <\/strong>journalist Max Blumenthal. \u00ab\u00a0@kasie doesn’t know the most basic facts about Syria and along with the smug co-hosts, doesn’t care to learn.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And it didn’t get any better from there. After Gabbard took some time to explain to a professional cable news reporter the basic fundamentals of the US military’s official involvement in Syria, Scarborough interjected to ask if Assad isn’t an enemy, would Gabbard at least concede that he is \u00ab\u00a0an adversary<\/em> of the United States.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Whatever the fuck that means. What Assad is is the leader of a sovereign nation which has nothing to do with the United States and isn’t taking anything from or harming the United States in any way.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Scarborough and Gabbard went back and forth about this stupid, nonsensical question before Brzezinski interjected to ask \u00ab\u00a0So what would you say he is to the United States? If you cannot say that he’s an adversary or an enemy, what is Assad to the U.S.? What is the word?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0You can describe it however you want to describe it,\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard responded, explaining that whether a nation is adversarial or not comes down to whether or not they are working against US interests.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Are Assad’s interests aligned with ours?\u00a0\u00bb asked Hunt.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0What are Assad’s interests?\u00a0\u00bb Gabbard countered.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Assad seems interested primarily in the slaughter of his own people,\u00a0\u00bb Hunt replied with a straight face.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Survival,\u00a0\u00bb Scarborough interjected, trying to save his colleague some embarrassment with a less insane response to the question of Assad’s interests.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Other bat shit crazy questions Gabbard was asked during her appearance<\/strong><\/a> include the following:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0You know there are people who will watch this have heard your previous comments who will wonder, what’s going on here? Why you met with Assad, why it looks like you were very cozy with Assad and why you’ve sort of taken his side in this argument. What would you say to that?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Do you think that Assad is a good person?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Your hometown paper said that you should focus on your job and talked about your presidential campaign being in disarray. How would you respond to your hometown paper?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Any idea why David Duke came out and supported you?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0There have been reports that that Russian apparatus that interfered in 2016 is potentially trying to help your campaign. Why do you think that is?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Have you met with any Russians over the past several years?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gabbard shoved back against the various accusations of alignment with Trump, Putin and Assad, asserting correctly<\/strong><\/a> that those lines are only being used to smear anyone who voices an objection to endless war and insane nuclear escalations. She pushed back particularly hard on Kasie Hunt’s reference to the obscene NBC smear piece which cited the discredited narrative control firm New Knowledge to paint Gabbard as a favorite of the Kremlin, claiming that the article has been thoroughly debunked (and it has<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n After the show, still unable to contain herself, Hunt jumped onto Twitter<\/strong><\/a> to share the discredited NBC smear piece, writing, \u00ab\u00a0Here is @NBCNews’ excellent reporting on the Russian machine that now appears to be boosting Tulsi Gabbard.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Hunt then followed up with a link<\/strong><\/a> to an RT article which she captioned with an outright lie: \u00ab\u00a0Here is the ‘debunking’ of the NBC News report from RT, the Russian state media. You tell me which you think is more credible.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I say that Hunt is lying because the RT article<\/strong><\/a> that she shared to falsely claim that the only objection to NBC’s smear piece came from Russia explicitly names an Intercept<\/em> article<\/strong><\/a> by American journalist Glenn Greenwald, upon which the RT article is based and which does indeed thoroughly discredit the NBC smear piece. If Hunt had read the article that she shared, she necessarily would have known that, so she was either lying about the nature of the article she shared or lying about knowing what was in it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n So that was nuts. We can expect to see a whole, whole lot more of this as the plutocratic media works overtime to undermine Gabbard’s message in order to keep her from disrupting establishment war narratives, and I’m pleased as punch to see Gabbard firing back and calling them out for the sleazy war propagandists that they are. Her presidential campaign is shaking the foundations of the establishment narrative control matrix more than anything else that’s going on right now, so it looks like writing about these embarrassing mass media debacles she’s been provoking may be a big part of my job in the coming months.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Military interventionism is by far the most depraved and destructive aspect of the US-centralized power establishment, and it is also the most lucrative and strategically crucial, which is why so much energy is poured into ensuring that the American people don’t use the power of their numbers to force that interventionism to end. Anyone who throws a monkey wrench in the works of this propaganda machine is going to be subjected to a tremendous amount of smears, and I’m glad to see Gabbard fighting back against those smears. From personal experience I know that smear campaigns must be fought against ferociously, because the only alternative is to allow your detractors to control the narrative about you, which as far as your message goes is the same as allowing them to control you. It’s not fun, it’s not clean, but it’s necessary.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The narrative control war keeps getting hotter and hotter, ladies and gentlemen. Buckle up.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Tulsi terrorise \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb Nous n’avons pas rat\u00e9, – sous la plume de PhG dont c’est une interlocutrice favorite, – l’annonce que Tulsi Gabbard pr\u00e9senterait dans la quinzaine suivante sa candidature \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d\u00e9mocrate pour les pr\u00e9sidentielles US de 2020. Cela se passait (pour PhG) le 12 janvier 2019. Finalement, c’est le 4 f\u00e9vrier que… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[11835,5634,5603,13826,2750,9692,3340,2832],"class_list":["post-78458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-11835","tag-antiguerre","tag-belliciste","tag-caitline","tag-gabbard","tag-johnstone","tag-presidentielles","tag-tulsi"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78458\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Tulsi Gabbard Is Driving The MSM Bat Shit Crazy<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Caitline Johnstone<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"