Russian Duma Deputy Calls For Special Terrorist Prisons In Norway’s Svalbard Or In Russia’s Novaya Zemlya – OpEd

 September 5, 2024 

By Paul Goble

Ivan Sukharyov, an LDPR Duma deputy, is calling for the construction of special prisons for those convicted of terrorism either in Svalbard or Novaya Zemlya because the isolation of these Arctic islands would not only prevent escapes but ensure that the terrorists did not influence other prisoners.

His proposals which echo those of others who have called for Guantanamo-like penal institutions to hold terrorists raise serious questions, however, first and foremost because of the Putin’s regime’s expansive definition of terrorism, one Moscow uses to convict many who are not in fact terrorists (ria.ru/20240903/tyurma-1970113222.html and  thebarentsobserver.com/ru/2024/09/v-rossii-poyavilas-ideya-sozdat-tyurmu-dlya-terroristov-na-svaldbarde).

But a bigger problem has to do with sovereignty. While Russia has complete sovereignty over Novaya Zemlya and could build such a prison there without any problems internationally, Svalbard belongs to Norway, although under the existing treaty regime other states, including Russia, have the right to act there as long as they respect the archipelago’s special status.

That status is of a demilitarized region despite Norway’s membership in NATO, and some analysts last spring suggested Moscow might use this confusion to launch an attack on NATO (jamestown.org/program/moscows-first-move-against-nato-could-take-place-in-norways-svalbard-archipelago/ and windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/05/norwegian-security-expert-alarmed-by.html).

Such concerns prompted Norway to boost its military presence around the Svalbard archipelago (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/07/norway-to-boost-its-and-natos-strategic.html), and so fears about a Russian attack there appear to have faded. But the proposal for a prison for terrorists there could reopen them.

That is because the construction of such a facility would bring many Russians to the islands who might then be used to subvert Norwegian rule and because the prisoners might be identified as terrorists but could be released by Moscow if they agreed to fight for it, just as Russia has done with prisoners inside the Russian Federation who volunteer to fight in Ukraine. 

For these reasons, many in the West are likely to be skeptical about the idea. But at least for the moment, Russian commentators are too. Svobodnaya Pressa presents a sampling of their opinion and most are negative because of the costs involved in building and maintaining such a facility in the far north (svpressa.ru/society/article/428167/).

Nonetheless, what the Duma deputy has proposed bears watching because it has so many characteristics of other Putin moves, moves that many dismiss early one only to be caught out when they become the basis for broader aggression. 

 

Putinism And Russian Ideological Shifts – Analysis

 September 5, 2024  

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

By Olena Snigyr

(FPRI) — Apparently, the collapse of the USSR did not mean the end of the Cold War. It took less than ten years for people trained within the KGB to take over the state management of Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his allies showed their skills and views on state management by conducting the second Chechen war, beginning in 1999. Around the same time, Putin asked former US president Bill Clinton his opinion on the possibility of Russia’s membership in NATO.

Against the background of Russia’s military actions in Chechnya, this idea sounded bizarre, but today Russian propagandists with imperturbable faces tell the story that Russian leadership had quite serious intentions regarding the rapprochement between Russia and NATO. Putin’s rhetoric about the democratization and liberalization of Russia sounded equally bizarre against the background of crimes in Chechnya, murders, and persecution of journalists. The rhetoric of the Russian authorities about rapprochement with the West was most likely a ploy to buy time and obscure the fact that the Cold War never ended in the minds of those who rule Russia. Russian leadership puts confrontation with the West, above all with the United States, at the core of its foreign policy.

Seeking to secure its superpower status and unable to compete with the West militarily and economically, Moscow competes for discourse power, offering international actors a set of opinions and beliefs that are assembled into a system of strategic narratives. Russia seeks to secure a wide range of supporters among the Multi-aligned Community[1] and to undermine the cognitive, value, and political resilience among Western countries and their allies. Russian Information Influence Operations are carried out mainly within the context of Russian strategic narratives and are guided by Russian ideological principles, which are hostile to the idea of liberal democracy.

Ideology is back as an instrument of creating international alliances in global rivalry, and Russia’s role in this process is pivotal. War, propaganda, and pushing the new ideology are tools for Russia to achieve foreign policy goals and create an anti-Western alliance. It can be suggested that today Russia’s renewed ideology combines the ideological heritage of the Russian Empire and the USSR and is adjusted to the needs and goals of the Russian leadership. In his recent book, Putinism—Post-Soviet Russian Regime Ideology (2024), Mikhail Suslov mentions three main components of Russian ideology:

• Anti-liberal, communitarian, or identitarian conservatism, which presumes that Russian identity was created at the moment of Christianization of Kyivan Rus more than a thousand years ago and has never changed since that time;
• Right-wing communitarianism, which means denial of individual freedom to choose identity—to be born Russian means to be Russian forever.
• Organic, geopolitical, identitarian populism, can be found such constructs as the theory of the “deep people,” the concept of “Russian world,” pan-Slavism, etc.

New Arguments, Old Foes

Contemporary Russian ideology complements Russian foreign policy, “explains” its goals and actions, and is revealed to internal and external audiences through strategic narratives. Thus, Russia’s foreign policy goal of preserving the status of a world power is interpreted ideologically through the idea of ​​the existence of Russia as a civilization that has a mission to save humanity, and therefore any Russian actions become legitimate and whitewashed in the eyes of supporters of this idea. The role of the global evil that Russia opposes is assigned today to liberal democratic values ​​and, accordingly, to the West, especially the United States, as the bearer of these values.

This grand narrative’s umbrella covers the stories that the system of international law and international institutions, especially financial ones, has been significantly influenced by the West and is unbalanced. Russian leadership declares that the West replaces international law with so-called rules and thus calls into question the binding nature of international legal norms, especially norms of international humanitarian law. According to Putin “the only rules that must be followed are public international law.” Russia promotes the concept of “democratization of international relations … primarily on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter … based on respect for the sovereign equality of states,” which in the Russian interpretation means promoting the inviolability of authoritarian regimes and impunity for their leaders.

The Concept of Foreign Policy of Russian Federation defines the “elimination of the vestiges of the United States and other unfriendly states’ dominance in world affairs” as a foreign policy goal and thus advocates establishment of the new multipolar world order. According to Russian strategic narratives, this assumes the division of the world into geographical zones of interest of major world powers. The geographical ambitions of the Russian sphere of influence include the entire European continent, which, according to the architects of Russian foreign policy, should be freed from US influence and presence and become part of the Greater Eurasia integration project. This narrative corresponds to the Kremlin’s very specific foreign policy demand voiced by Putin—“to return NATO’s military potential and infrastructure in Europe to the state it was in 1997, when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.”

“Traditionalists of All Countries, Unite!” (A. Dugin)

Russian ambitions to oust the United States from Europe and establish influence find an ideological explanation in Russia’s self-declared mission and duty to save the Europe of traditional values ​​from the harmful influence of liberalism. The modern Russian ideology is based on the concept that liberal values ​​are the main evil for humanity, and therefore Russia has a mission to protect traditional values.

Russian antiliberal rhetoric specifically focuses on two topics:

• The danger of LGBT+ rights.
• The destructive nature of the concept of individual freedom for human communities, due to its opposition to the idea of birth given collective identity and loyalty to the authorities.

Russian (and not only Russian) propaganda insists that it is the idea of ​​individual freedom that leads to chaos, uprisings, revolutions, and the destruction of stable societies.

The list of traditional values which Russia seeks to protect, and which is given in Russian regulatory documents is made quite vague and casts a wide net in order to be appropriate for multiple audiences. The main focus of Russian propaganda is on “family values,” opposing them with individual freedom, gender equality, and the right to self-expression. An example of ​​ instrumentalization of the idea of ​​protecting “family values” ​​as opposed to human rights is the proposal of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, regarding international development and the adoption of a convention on the rights and protection of the family.

 While the idea of protection of Russian society from “malign liberal influence” became the reasoning for internal repressions and persecutions, in Russia’s foreign policy the idea of protection of traditional values became an integral element of all anti-Western rhetoric. Russia tries to popularize this idea globally and make it universal.

De-Libéralisation–Décolonisation–De-Westernisation

The idea of liberal values ​​as evil is present in all Russian narratives explaining the conflict between Russia and the West and is mixed, sometimes in a bizarre fashion, with historical and political myths. There are two examples of such a combination in Russian official rhetoric: In the first case, the Russian duty to liberate Europe from liberal ideas is presented as a continuation of the liberation of Europe from Nazism as the result of WWII. It should be remembered that the myth of Russian Victory in the Great Patriotic War is one of the cornerstones of all Russian propaganda. It organically fits into the narrative of the historical mission of the Russian people to protect the world from global evil and is an important element of Russian modern ideology. Despite the seeming impossibility of combining liberalism and Nazism into one concept, Russian propagandists and ideologues explain the proximity between the two by the fact that the liberal West allegedly limits traditional values ​​of illiberal societies, by demanding the observance and protection of human rights and denying the rights of authoritarian regimes to implement repressive domestic policies.

In the second case, liberalism is described as an instrument of Western neocolonialism towards their former colonial possessions, which are assumed to be only allegedly decolonized and independent, but de facto continue to be exploited by the West. Within the framework of this myth, the economic success of Western countries is explained not by the competitive advantages of liberal democratic systems, but by Western neocolonialism—the fact that the West, with the help of the policy of spreading Western governance models, created such a world order that allows it to continue exploiting its former colonies and other countries. This idea is a big part of intellectual discussions from the times of Jean-Paul Sartre and Kwame Nkrumah to contemporary statements of Walter Mignolo that Russia is just a “de-Westernizing” force and a “disobedient” state that is “not attacking, but defending itself from the harassment of Western designs.” Russia utilizes this argument of decolonial discourse with a great advantage, especially in the countries of the Multi-aligned Community.

 One may assume that Russian leaders don’t believe in their ideas themselves and use ideological arguments in Informational Influence Operations to enforce their policy and achieve their goals. However, the revamping of this ideology to use it in competition with foreign rivalries reveals genuine intentions and can indicate long-term tendencies in Russian politics.

• About the author: Olena Snigyr is a 2024 Templeton Fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. She is also a Jean Monnet Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.
• Source: This article was published by FPRI

[1] The term Multi-aligned Community was proposed by Jonathan Morley-Davies, Jem Thomas, Grahem Baines and is defined as “States existing outside of the Western environment who have exhibited a preference for aligning or partnering with chosen states depending on specific spheres or issues.”

Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

Founded in 1955, FPRI (http://www.fpri.org/) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests and seeks to add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics.

 

The Truth About Churchill – OpEd

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1943. Photo Credit: British Government, Wikipedia Commons

 September 5, 2024 

By MISES

By Jonathan Newman

“It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” – ~Norm MacDonald

A segment of Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Darryl Cooper is making the rounds on social media. Cooper questioned Winston Churchill’s hero status, which is a big no-no, especially among conservatives. The accepted view is that World War II can be reduced to the good guys versus the bad guys and that Churchill is the one who bravely convinced the good guys to go to war against the bad guys.

Cooper suggests that Churchill’s legacy is more complicated. According to Cooper, Churchill “kept this war going, and he had no way to go back and fight this war. All he had were bombers. He was literally, by 1940, sending firebombing fleets to go firebomb the Black Forest, just to burn down sections of the Black Forest—just rank terrorism.” He “carpet-bombed civilian neighborhoods, the purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible.” Churchill’s goal was to prolong and intensify the war so that the United States and the Soviet Union would enter the conflict.

This segment has received predictable levels of apoplectic backlash. In this article, I only want to address Churchill’s hero status. This is a great opportunity to revisit Ralph Raico’s Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal, and especially his chapter, “Rethinking Churchill.”

Raico began by acknowledging the mythology surrounding Churchill. It makes sense for Churchill to be elevated as “Man of the Century,” since the twentieth century is “the century of the State—of the rise and hypertrophic growth of the welfare-warfare state—and Churchill was from first to last a Man of the State.”

Also near the beginning of the chapter, Raico gives some hints of Churchill’s major crimes. Churchill resuscitated a war that had already effectively ended in 1940, and maintained offensive civilian bombing operations even though “there was little real threat of a German invasion.” But before getting into these details, Raico discussed Churchill’s career-long opportunism and obsession with war.

Churchill changed his party affiliation twice, flip-flopped on tariffs, and changed his tune regarding socialism as well: “He attacked socialism before and after World War I, while during the War he promoted war socialism, calling for nationalization of the railroads, and declaring in a speech: ‘Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized if you like the word.’” Churchill was Hayekian when running against the Labour Party in 1945, but a Keynesian when, in 1943, he “accepted the Beveridge plans for the post-war welfare state and Keynesian management of the economy.” He hated communism but was fond of Stalin—Churchill “welcomed him as an ally, embraced him as a friend […] as late as the Potsdam conference, he repeatedly announced, of Stalin: ‘I like that man.’” Churchill even helped cover up Soviet war crimes in Poland.

Raico claimed that the one constant in Churchill’s life was his love of war. Raico, like Cooper, mentioned Churchill’s beloved toy soldiers. (Cooper said that Churchill continued to play with them even as an adult.) Regarding WWI, Churchill said, “I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.” Churchill said he “loved the bangs,” that “the story of the human race is war,” and that peace is “bland.” Raico concludes “All his life he was most excited—on the evidence, only really excited—by war. He loved war as few modern men ever have.”

If “war is the health of the state,” and Churchill loved war, then it makes sense that Churchill wanted a big, activist, central-planning welfare state. Before his appointment as Lord of the Admiralty, Prime Minister Asquith installed Churchill as president of the Board of Trade. Raico shows that in this position, “Churchill was one of the chief pioneers of the welfare state in Britain.” Churchill admired the Bismarkian social insurance programs in Germany, he believed in “collectivist social policy,” and he said that “the nation demands the application of drastic corrective and curative processes.” Nothing was out of bounds for the state—as Raico summarizes: “The state was to acquire canals and railroads, develop certain national industries, provide vastly augmented education, introduce the eight-hour work day, levy progressive taxes, and guarantee a national minimum living standard.” Why isn’t Churchill the hero of the left?

As First Lord of the Admiralty, “Churchill was the only member of the cabinet who backed war [WWI] from the start, with all of his accustomed energy.” Prime Minister Asquith wrote “Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization…. Winston, who has got all his war paint on, is longing for a sea fight in the early hours of the morning to result in the sinking of the [German warship] Goeben. The whole thing fills me with sadness.” Churchill skirted the Cabinet when he ordered the British navy to sail at night in waters with the intention to provoke war with Germany.

Once the war started (which filled Churchill with “glowing zest,” according to Lady Violet Asquith), Churchill oversaw the illegal hunger blockade of Germany. Raico points out that

About 750,000 German civilians succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition. The effect on those who survived was perhaps just as frightful in its own way. A historian of the blockade concluded: “the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism.” It was also complications arising from the British blockade that eventually provided the pretext for Wilson’s decision to go to war in 1917.

Churchill, therefore, was instrumental in starting WWI and paving the way to WWII. While the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania are unclear, Raico concludes that “what is certain is that Churchill’s policies made the sinking very likely. Raico includes evidence brought to light by historian Patrick Beesly, who was “reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill’s express permission and approval.”

Between the wars, Churchill’s rhetoric defied “the modern mythology” surrounding Churchill. The accepted view is that Churchill was squarely focused on Germany as a threat, but in 1937 he admitted,

Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist. . . . In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime.

Perhaps Churchill was trying to save his reputation. He had become known as a Chicken Little, always warning of existential threats around the world. Raico notes that people had stopped listening to Churchill—“he had tried to whip up hysteria too often before.” Raico also quotes “an ardent Churchill sympathizer” who reluctantly admitted that Churchill was no “angel of light”:

The time is long past when it was possible to see the protracted debate over British foreign policy in the 1930s as a struggle between Churchill, an angel of light, fighting against the velleities of uncomprehending and feeble men in high places. It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced.

Raico finally arrives at “the great war crime” that was briefly discussed by Cooper and Carlson: “the terror-bombing of the cities of Germany that in the end cost the lives of around 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 seriously injured.” Later, Churchill lied in his remarks to the House of Commons, claiming “that only military and industrial installations were targeted.” But the directive to the Bomber Command was “focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers.” And “The chief of the Air Staff added: ‘Ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear that the aiming points are to be the built-up areas, not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories.’”

The bombing of Dresden finally elicited public outcry, forcing Churchill to say to his staff, “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.” According to Raico,

The military chiefs saw through Churchill’s cowardly ploy: realizing that they were being set up, they refused to accept the memorandum. After the war, Churchill casually disclaimed any knowledge of the Dresden bombing, saying: “I thought the Americans did it.”

And still the bombing continued.

This brief summary of Raico’s “Rethinking Churchill” only scratches the surface. In this one chapter, Raico demolishes the Churchill myth, including 176 footnotes containing citations to evidence and corroborating accounts from historians, many of whom only reluctantly admit to Churchill’s flaws and crimes. Despite the accepted view of Churchill as hero, Raico concludes, “that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.”

• About the author: Dr. Jonathan Newman is a Fellow at the Mises Institute. He earned his PhD at Auburn University while a Research Fellow at the Mises Institute. He was the recipient of the 2021 Gary G. Schlarbaum Award to a Promising Young Scholar for Excellence in Research and Teaching. Previously, he was Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at Bryan College. He has published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and in volumes edited by Matthew McCaffrey and Per Bylund. 
• Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute

VIEW FROM KOREA

Escalating conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza pose new challenges for U.S. presidential election

Posted September. 05, 2024 

• Font size down
• Font size up

한국어

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter

The recent escalation of conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip has introduced new challenges for the upcoming U.S. presidential election, now just two months away. As the Biden administration enters its lame-duck phase, there are growing concerns that global unrest will intensify, with warring parties leveraging these conflicts to gain an advantage before a potential shift in U.S. leadership. Some worry that an "October Surprise" could occur, with nations like Russia or North Korea staging provocations to influence the election.

This heightened tension could be particularly problematic for Democratic presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris, whose perceived lack of experience in foreign policy and security is considered a vulnerability. Meanwhile, Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump has been quick to criticize Harris on these grounds.

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden reiterated U.S. support for Ukraine following a Russian airstrike on the city of Poltava, which resulted in over 50 deaths. "The United States will continue to stand with [the people of Ukraine]," Biden said, emphasizing that "Russia will not prevail in this war. The people of Ukraine will prevail."

Despite this stance, many analysts believe the U.S. has seen its influence in the conflict wane, as Russia's nuclear threats and intensified offensive in eastern Ukraine, following a Ukrainian attack on Russian soil, have further escalated tensions. Ukraine has repeatedly requested long-range missiles from the U.S. and permission to target Russia's rear positions after the attack on Russian territory.

Compounding the situation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed in a Tuesday NBC interview that Kyiv plans to hold onto Russian territories seized in a recent surprise incursion, aiming to pressure President Vladimir Putin into negotiations. Zelensky also noted that he did not inform the U.S. in advance of this operation, signaling that the current actions were not coordinated with Washington.

Vice President Harris posted on social media on Monday, vowing that "Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes," alongside a photo of her meeting with Biden in the White House Situation Room. She emphasized that "it is long past time for a ceasefire and hostage deal" and warned that failure by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to abandon a hardline stance could lead to an even more brutal phase of the Middle East conflict. However, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman noted on Tuesday, Netanyahu's actions, driven by his interest in immediate political survival, could significantly undermine Harris's chances in the election.


워싱턴=문병기 특파원 weappon@donga.com

On X, Tucker Carlson hosts ‘historian’ who says the Nazis didn’t mean for the Holocaust to happen

Tucker Carlson hosted 'historian' Darryl Cooper, who went on to claim that the Nazis were simply 'in over their heads.'

By ANDREW LAPIN/JTA

SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 

JERUSALEM POST

Tucker Carlson speaking with attendees at the 2018 Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida.(photo credit: GAGE SKIDMORE / CC-SA 2.0)

Right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson used the latest episode of his online talk show to interview a self-proclaimed “historian” who promoted falsehoods about the Holocaust.

The episode of Carlson’s eponymous show on the social network X/Twitter, earned plaudits from the site’s billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who wrote in a since-deleted post that it was “Very interesting. Worth watching.”

In the interview, Darryl Cooper, author of a Substack with around 112,000 subscribers, told Carlson that the Nazis were simply in over their heads.

“In 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners,” he said during the 138-minute conversation. Cooper then suggested that the murder of millions in the camps was an unintended consequence of Hitler’s unpreparedness for war, contradicting documented historical fact that it was the explicit goal of the Nazi regime’s Final Solution and carried out through a vast system of mass murder that included extermination camps, gas chambers, military units dedicated to mass executions and firing squads.

“They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there,” Cooper told Carlson on the episode, which was posted on Monday. It was part of a larger argument Cooper made that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, rather than Hitler, was the “chief villain” of World War II because “he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, becoming something other than an invasion of Poland.”

Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson talks to podcaster Lex Fridman, 

February 26, 2024. (credit: screenshot)

Later, Cooper suggested that Britain’s entry into the war was motivated ”by people, the financiers, by a media complex, that wanted to make sure [Churchill] was the guy who was representing Britain in that conflict for a reason.” He also postulated that Churchill’s embrace of Zionism benefited him financially: “You read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money, getting bailed out by people who shared his interests in terms of Zionism,” he said.

Cooper has a long history of promoting a skewed perspective on Hitler and World War II that has the effect of minimizing Nazi atrocities, including a since-deleted tweet where he said an image of Hitler arriving in Nazi-occupied Paris was “infinitely preferable in every way” to an image from the recent Paris Olympics opening ceremony of drag queens reenacting the Last Supper.

His interview with Carlson — whose X account has more than 13.7 million followers, compared to around 251,000 for Cooper’s own account, Martyr Made — gave his views a massive platform. Carlson did not push back on Cooper’s Holocaust claims and praised him repeatedly, telling him, “I think you are the most important popular historian working in the United States today.”

Later, he endorsed Cooper’s claims. “People can certainly take issue with any factual claims you’re making. I assume they’re all right,” Carlson said. “They’re consistent with what I think I know to be true.”

It was also the latest in the former Fox News host’s record of echoing antisemitic and white nationalist rhetoric. Examples include his platforming of the “Great Replacement” idea, which often places Jews at the center of a conspiracy to replace white voters with brown-skinned immigrants, and aligning with right-wing pundit Candace Owens, who has increasingly spread antisemitic ideas.

On another recent episode of his show Carlson welcomed country music star John Rich, who shared conspiracy theories during the interview about the wealthy Jewish banking family the Rothschilds. Carlson has also hosted Andrew Tate, the misogynist influencer who has been indicted for rape and sex trafficking, and has posted antisemitic rhetoric online.

Carlson continues to exert considerable influence on the right even after being fired from Fox News last year. He had a prime speaking role at the Republican National Convention this summer, and will be hosting several live shows prior to the election, including one with Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance and another with Donald Trump Jr. Other guests include Alex Jones and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — both of whom have spread antisemitic rhetoric.

On Carlson’s show, Cooper also claimed he has received praise from Jews and Israelis over his own published interpretation of the history of Zionism and the founding of Israel, which he said he tackled after reading “six books on the topic.” Carlson is a leading critic on the right of Israel and its post-October 7 military campaign in Gaza, arguing that it has unfairly targeted Palestinian Christians.

But Jewish groups were hardly singing Cooper’s praises after his appearance. In a post on X, the Anti-Defamation League called him a “Nazi apologist” and said Carlson’s praise of him “is an insult to the memory of the 6,000,000 Jews who were murdered by Hitler’s Nazi regime.”

Jonathan Greenblatt

Appearing on Israeli television network i24, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt called Carlson “an extremely problematic individual who’s been peddling antisemitism along with other forms of racism and bigotry for many years, so it’s not surprising that he platformed this Holocaust denier.” The ADL has long had its sights on Carlson, having called for him to be fired from Fox and celebrating when the network dropped him.

“Although the Nazi party, the Third Reich, might not have had plans for everything, the one thing they did have was a plan for the Jews,” Greenblatt continued. “It was called the Final Solution.”The episode was lambasted by many others on the platform, including former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, who called it “pro-Nazi propaganda.” But Musk, whose platform Carlson chose to mount his own show after he was fired from Fox, saw the conversation as a good thing.

Along with the deleted post calling the episode “worth watching,” Musk cited it as a successful example of his stated desire to promote “free speech” on the platform. Responding to a user who called Cooper a “charlatan” and “unbelievably misinformed,” and who promised to debunk him more fully at a later date, Musk wrote, “What’s great about this platform is that you can.”

Musk has come under fire for frequently engaging with neo-Nazis and white supremacists on X since his 2022 purchase of the site, even as he has sought to ally himself with pro-Israel causes and had a prominent seat behind rescued hostages at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to Congress.

Discussing the Cooper interview, Greenblatt had some mild critiques of Musk. The ADL leader has praised Musk in the past despite the mogul’s history of platforming antisemitism and even agreeing with antisemitic sentiments himself.

“It is very hard to intuit what Elon is thinking,” Greenblatt said on i24 Tuesday. “I’m glad that he took down the tweet, but it’s wrong, I believe, to platform not just people like Darryl Cooper saying such disgusting, vile antisemitism, but amplifying people like Tucker Carlson.”

Few Anti-Immigration Users Dominate Most Of UK-Based Anti-Immigration Content On Twitter With Rapid Spread And High Polarization

Users network and polarization. Retweets directed network of anti-migration (in red) and pro-migration (in blue). Each node is a user and edges are retweets between a source (user creating the original tweet) and a target (user retweeting). The size of the node is proportional to the number of degrees (both in and out) each node has. CREDIT: Nasuto, Rowe, 2024, PLOS ONE, CC-BY 4.0

 September 5, 2024 By Eurasia Review

A study of more than 200,000 tweets from 2019 and 2020 finds that anti-immigration content spreads faster than pro-immigration tweets and that a few users disproportionally generated most of the UK-based anti-immigration content. Andrea Nasuto and Francisco Rowe of the Geographic Data Science Lab at the University of Liverpool, UK, present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE.

Online social media platforms are widely considered to contribute significantly to rising tensions in debates about immigration. Increased online polarization, the clout of key influencers, and the speed with which anti-immigration sentiments spread are all thought to markedly affect the propagation of pro- and anti-immigration sentiments on social media.

However, few studies have quantitatively assessed these contributing factors. To address that gap, Nasuto and Rowe analyzed 220,870 immigration-related tweets posted in the UK from December 2019 through April 2020. They applied natural language processing methods and social network science to explore the three factors, including building a ‘ChatGPT-like’ language model to identify different stances towards immigration.

Their analysis confirmed a high degree of polarization between networks of pro- and anti-immigration Twitter users in the UK During the study period, the pro-immigration community was 1.69 times larger in number than the anti-immigration community, but the anti-immigration community was more active and engaged to a greater degree with each other’s content. Anti-immigration tweets spread 1.66 times more rapidly than pro-immigration tweets.

Within the anti-immigration community, the top 1 percent of users generated about 23 percent of anti-immigration tweets, while the top 1 percent of pro-immigration users generated about 12 percent of pro-immigration tweets. Overall, bots appeared to make up less than 1 percent of all key producers and spreaders of pro- or anti-immigration content, suggesting limited influence.

The researchers note the potential for online anti-immigration content to provoke real-world harm, including violence. On the basis of their findings, they suggest that efforts to curb online hate content might benefit from identification and monitoring of highly active anti-immigration users. They also note that future research could address their study’s limitations, such as uncertainty as to how representative the data are of the entire UK population.

The authors add: “A concentrated effort by a few can amplify a message far beyond its origins, redefining the power dynamics of social media.”

“The speed at which anti-immigration content circulates is more than just alarming—it’s dangerous. England’s recent events reveal how fast online narratives can incite real-world violence.”

Disinformation thrives on division in our cities

by Ika Trijsburg, University of Melbourne

 SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

In extraordinary times of rapid information production and sharing, distrust and disruption, disinformation is having an increasing impact on cities. And cities are on the front line of disinformation response strategies.

Disinformation (which is the concerted fabrications that are deliberately misleading) and misinformation (the inaccurate information unintentionally held and/or shared) are nothing new in cities globally.

However, during the past decade, disinformation has exploded in both prevalence and impact.

In cities, disinformation manifests in physical events, including protests and disruptions. It also has individual impacts for political, organizational and community leaders.

Disinformation affects the functioning of city administrations and elected bodies, impacting governance, policymaking and the city's workforce. And it impacts communities, reducing trust, increasing division and polarization and exploiting existing societal fault lines of prejudice.

Local authorities are the closest level of government to the people, and they are tasked with leading communities through ever more complex societal and global challenges that affect residents locally.

The report, "Disinformation in the City Response Playbook," aims to inform local responses to disinformation and, in doing so, enhance the well-being of communities and democracy.

Build trust in institutions, work with trusted people

Cities around the world play increasingly sophisticated functional roles not only because they house most of the world's population but also because of the way disinformation can disrupt the complex social and political fabric of urban life.

Local governments are responsible for much more than just 'roads, rates and rubbish' and operate across an array of policy areas, in partnership with other stakeholders.

Their relative size makes them agile. Their proximity to communities gives them awareness of community issues and grievances and makes them capable of comprehensive locally embedded actions.

They are highly collaborative, and they are legitimate convenors for multi-sector action in their jurisdictions.

Communicating and enacting activities across diverse policy domains like climate change, public health and social cohesion creates opportunities for disinformation to disrupt local government functioning.

While disinformation often spreads online, its outcomes are frequently seen on city streets through graffiti, protest, and, in extreme cases, in various forms of social discord, unrest and even violence.

During the global COVID-19 pandemic, anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine campaigns fueled protests in cities across the globe. In the climate action sphere, disinformation related to proposed 15-Minute-Cities and efforts to reduce emissions led to protests on multiple continents, and death threats to council staff in the U.K.

A climate emergency declaration in the Australian city of Onkaparinga witnessed protests erupt in council chambers and staff evacuated for their safety.

And threatening disinformation campaigns have led local councils to cancel Drag Storytime events in cities across North America and Australia.

Understanding how disinformation spreads, and how to respond effectively, is critical for city governments tasked with leading and implementing public policy decisions.

Competence, consistency and transparency

Disinformation creators use techniques that appeal to human biases or fears, limiting critical reflection of the information presented.

Therefore, disinformation campaigns are more likely to resonate with individuals or groups that are already fearful or distrustful of the individual, group or institution being vilified by the disinformation creators.

Cities are uniquely positioned to respond to this growing challenge.

They are responsible for policy decisions and delivering services that shape the daily experience of their residents and those of surrounding areas.

Trust is paramount in countering disinformation. The best ways to promote trust in government are by displaying competence, consistency and transparency.

Cities are commonly considered the most trusted level of government, and trust is a critical factor in combating disinformation.

The trust that cities enjoy therefore provides them with an enormous opportunity to be key actors in responding to disinformation and improving pertinent local policies and practices.

Disinformation response requires investment of resources and time. It starts with recognition that disinformation is an issue for cities, and that city-level response is both warranted and beneficial.

The process of responding to disinformation must engender trust.

This means that cities should be transparent and inclusive about the goals of their initiatives and the desired outcomes.

Initiatives should be clearly contained and only aim to address disinformation rather than to diminish political expression or advocate for a specific policy position.

Reliable and legitimate evidence

New York City, with its diverse population of 8.36 million, became a hotbed for disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This quickly spread through the city's five boroughs, ranging from narratives about vaccine contamination to narratives related to population control.

False information drove up vaccine hesitancy and distrust of other public health measures (eg masking and quarantining).

It also led to threats of violence against health workers.

The city response began early in the pandemic. In 2021, city officials, together with the public health department, formed a "Misinformation Response Unit." Its goal was to better understand conspiracy theories and misunderstandings around COVID-19 and vaccinations to improve the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations across the city.

The Unit monitored mis- and disinformation reports across multiple platforms, including non-English media, before working with community partners to disseminate tailored messages to diverse groups.

This enabled the city to address the disinformation campaign and take steps towards restoring trust.

While disinformation now spreads at a speed and scale that cities and societies have never faced before, cities are adept at rising to new challenges. That work has already begun with tools like the "Disinformation in the City Response Playbook."

Provided by University of Melbourne Vast majority views disinformation as a threat to democracy and social cohesion, German study finds

Right-wing U.S. media company linked to Russian propaganda effort: Dept. of Justice

Sarah K. Burris
September 4, 2024 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Moscow would only halt its offensive if Kyiv pulls its troops out of the east and south of the country (NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP)

Two RussiaToday employees were indicted this week by the Justice Department which claimed they deployed nearly $10 million to circulate RT-curated content which garnered millions of views through an online content creation company.

Commentators claimed the company the DOJ points to, but which it doesn't name, is a pro-Republican group where hosts openly promote Donald Trump.

"That company — TENET Media, which is not mentioned by name in the indictment — includes a constellation of well-known right-wing influencers, including Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson, among others," The Independent wrote.

National security expert Marcy Wheeler remarked on X that among the identifying details leading many to name TENENT is the fact that both Johnston and Pool have the same number of YouTube subscribers as listed in a paragraph in the indictment.

Alan Feuer, a New York Times legal reporter, pointed out that the description of the "unnamed" company in the indictment matches verbatim the right-wing media company.

Many other news outlets and experts also named the company.

Pool interviewed Trump for his podcast where they spoke about, among other topics, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how it could "lead to World War III."

Trump also pledged that he would give "serious consideration" to pardoning Julian Assange. Both of those are "favorite themes of Russian propaganda efforts," said one X account confirmed by legal analysts as operated by a former CIA lawyer.


The Independent wrote, "RT employees helped publish nearly 2,000 English-language videos on TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube, where they have racked up 16 million views, according to prosecutors."

The media company claimed it was getting the cash from a "private investor," who was actually a "fictitious persona," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in the indictment.

It isn't thought the company's owners or employees knew Russia was funding the efforts.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco commented last month that Russian President Vladimir Putin and “his proxies” are relying on “increasingly sophisticated” efforts to interfere with the 2024 U.S. elections. She said d that the efforts are “targeting specific voter demographics and swing-state voters in an effort to manipulate presidential and congressional election outcome.”

“They’re intent on co-opting unwitting Americans on social media to push narratives advancing Russian interests,” she also said.

See the full report from The Independent.