By Gene Ogorodov
Several days ago Secretary of State John Kerry lashed out against the quality reporting found at RT. I do not work for RT. (The turkeys wouldn't give me a job; I'm too much of Marxist-Leninist for their tastes.) However, let me set the record strait.
In researching current events one cannot depend solely upon one news outlet. One needs to read reports from the area in interest. For example, if one wants to know what the people of Crimea think you need read Crimean news. If there is a clear impetus for partisan bias it is necessary to read both sides and try to piece together an objective opinion. I'm a news junkie, and I have done due diligence on the Crisis in the Ukraine, and RT is the only major news source that I have found to represent the opinions of the Ukrainian and Crimean people and accurately represent the facts on the ground.
The BBC and NPR, although they have a sterling reputation which they usually live up to, have presented an overt pro-American bias, and in doing so they have grossly distorted the facts. I think that this lack of journalistic integrity should bring into question any report directly related to the American or British Governments from these news sources. They are no longer reliable.
The tentacles of American power have finally breached the last bastions of Anglo-Saxon journalism that remained unsullied by the Invasion of Iraq. The war mongering in 2003 of the New York Times, the Guardian, NBC, ABC, and Fox and every other major news outlet in the US and UK for a completely illegal war demands that their readers and viewers take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. If we are to look at the facts about Anglo-American journalism one is forced to come to the unhappy conclusion that all the pillars are unreliable at best, and at worst they are the mouth pieces of a criminal regime.
The Snowden leaks may have bought the Guardian some credibility. However, I am saying that they are corrupt--not stupid. How much did it really hurt the US to let the global public know what every intelligence officer in the world already knew?
John Kerry is an prime example of a pseudo-liberal. In his youth he was willing to assume the mantle of the far left in order to better oppose an unpopular president and an unpopular war. Like a jackal, he was willing to build his political future by gorging himself off of the rotting corpse of Richard Nixon's career.
Then, once doors to the halls of power were thrown open before him, he was willing to play the turn-coat to all his fine ideals. Neither the people nor duty to his country nor even common decency could turn him aside from his unabashed support of the ruling class. Avarice and hedonism are his virtues, just as they are the virtues of all American oligarchs--Après moi, le déluge.
The obscene record of chaos, destruction, and vile underhanded machinations left by Kerry's State Department in Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine should be shocking to anyone with a conscience. The blood of his innocent victims stinks to high heaven. Only the diplomacy of Ribbentrop even compares with the villainy of Kerry's diplomacy.
Now, he and the other Neo-Liberal monsters in the Obama administration seem toconspire to drag Europe into another world war--that is exactly what a war between NATO and the Russian Federation will be. But if this war develops into total war this will be far worse than either the First or Second World Wars. This time untold tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are poised across the globe to wipe out all belligerent parties.
Kerry may think that he can humble Russia and then in turn humiliate China, ushering in a new era of unchallenged American global hegemony. He may be right. Personally I don't think he is, but I don't believe a country can be re-assert its greatness when its people are starving. However, no matter what the probable outcome is, the risk is the same, viz. that the human race may be exterminated through the unbridled cupidity of several dozen men.
