Luke Harding MI6 Propaganda Agent
Harding "Targeting" Snowden: Plagiarist, CIA/NSA/MI6 and Media Manipulation - By JAR2 4
February, 14:56
Constant targets of Western media operations
conducted by the special services are of course whistleblowers, Hacktivists,
truth seekers, 9/11 truthers, anyone who is active in attempting to expose
US and western government illegality and, due to his leaks and celebrity
status, Edward Snowden, and everybody connected to him.
One of the most shameless attempts as of late at discrediting and making
money off lies and half truths was made by what many thought was an stand up
publication called the Guardian. Through the use of a serial plagiarizer
they published and are promoting a book about Edward Snowden although the
author has never had contact with Mr. Snowden. Egregious? Disgusting?
Business as usual? You decide. I am
writing a book about you. The inside story on your life and your dealings
and who stands behind you. I will make a million dollars off the book and I
will claim to know all your deepest and darkest secrets. Even though we have
never met I will not contact you or interview you or even attempt to speak
with those close to you. Yet I am an expert on your life, and will tell the
world all about you. Along with my book I will give interviews on the radio
and on television and tell the world all about you and there is nothing you
can do because you can’t. You are trapped in your own little world and your
life is part of the public record so you can not touch me and you can not
sue me or even protest. We have never met but that is not important, I will
make up whatever I need, and I will not pay you a penny as I exploit you and
your life. Sound scary? Weird? Ridiculous? Unbelievable? You bet! But that
is exactly what the Guardian's plagiarizer-Russophobe-hater-of-truth, copy
and paste "award winning journalist" Luke Harding has done to Edward
Snowden.
What is Luke Harding?
Award winning insipid venomous perennial Russia hater and one of the few
western journalists to ever be expelled from the Russian Federation, Luke
Harding, who I have taken to task before for his insidious,
factually-challenged, horrendously disgusting and completely biased articles
about Russia, yet who claims to be a "Russia expert", has recently published
another book called "The Snowden Files" about something he also knows
nothing about, this time the inside story on Edward Snowden. His
"work" if we can call it that, and any intelligent individual out there can
easily access it and analyze it themselves has one constantly underlining
theme: demonize Russia and its president, and one underlining method; take
anything you can find and spin it to match that meme. In
this regard it is thus almost obvious that the individual is performing a
function and that someone behind the scenes is pulling the strings. With the
case of the "The Snowden Files" this attempt at either spinning,
misconstruing facts or claiming to have inside knowledge is so blatantly
obvious that any thinking person can see the strings being pulled. In this
regard the "book" is a so poorly constructed that is exposes more about the
people behind it than the person it attempts to have intimate knowledge
about. As
for the "author", and his material says this more than anything, he is a
mere instrument for continued for the dissemination of Russo phobia,
anti-Russia/Putin propaganda and obviously has little regard for
journalistic ethics, sourcing and all of the other issues that real
journalists are concerned about.
So what is the hack
writer and why would he publish books claiming to have inside information on
people he has never met (The Snowden Files), publish outlandish right wing
talking points and claims demonizing Russia and President Putin (The Mafia
State) and take part in hits jobs (The
Fifth Estate)
on organizations such as WikiLeaks which he knows nothing about? There are
two possibilities: either he is just a profiteer looking to make a buck or
he is employed in carrying out carefully orchestrated disinformation
operations for the security services. If the latter is true then it shows
that UK security's standards have definitely fallen.
The Guardian:
Independent Media?
Glen Greenwald was one
of Edward Snowden’s choices as a journalist he felt he could trust and one
with a good reputation who called the above writer's latest book "The
Inside Story of Edward Snowden by Someone Who Never Met or Spoke With Edward
Snowden",
but did Snowden know that the Guardian would then abandon him when the
stuff-hit-the-fan in Hong Kong or that they would try to blatantly just try
to make a profit off his story? Well, sadly, at the end of the day for the
corporate mass media outlets it is all about the money and only about the
money. The
Guardian, while many believed it to be a beacon of truth and to have fair
and more liberal views is after all is said and done simply a commercial
publication, and its writers do not really have a chance to practice "real
journalism" without the constraints corporate sponsors, selling papers,
pleasing the security services or the paper’s customers. The
Guardian was a respectable publication once and at least maintained a
modicum of being a champion of the truth, or so at least I thought,
especially when I defended its Editor in Chief Alan Rusbridger when he was
grilled by a UK Parliamentary Committee regarding the Snowden material. So
why he would have someone like Luke Harding in his employ is beyond me. Why
would he publish a book claiming to be have inside information on Snowden
from a writer who already participated in the hit job flop called The Fifth
Estate about WikiLeaks? Another expert inside view from someone with a
personal beef and irrelevant information and connections. Maybe the Guardian
is being duped? Or could it just be that it is all about the money?
Maybe Rusbridger and Guardian are being blackmailed by the security
services? After all Rusbridger and the Guardian are looking at terrorism
related charges with regard to the Snowden material. That of course is all
conjecture but within the realm of possibility. Of
course there are displeased members of the West's power elite and
surveillance establishment who want to do anything to discredit and taint
the Guardian's reputation (but it has done that itself) for having the
audacity to have anything to do with Snowden. And then there are the
continuing attempts to discredit Snowden and to damage his relationship with
Russia.
Reaction from the
Principals
WikiLeaks (who I am
awaiting a comment from as I wrote Mr. Hrafnsson at 4 am or so his time and
no doubt he was sleeping) is calling for a boycott of the book. The
WikiLeaks organization first
stated:
"Guardian
hacks who abandoned Snowden in Hong Kong are now attempting to make millions
off his back. It should be noted that only Mr. Snowden and WikiLeaks have
the inside story, Guardian abandoned him in Hong Kong. The Guardian's
recycling of an anti-WikiLeaks anti-Russian plagiarist into profiteering off
the Snowden situation is the last straw. Snowden has never spoken to Luke
Harding. Harding, a proven plagiarist, is trying to cash in on book/film
rights, as he did with WikiLeaks. Russia has its share of problems but
Harding is so hostile that he may destabilize Snowden's asylum renewal."
WikiLeaks was a little less conspiratorial than I in their initial
assessment pointing mainly to the financial motivations but there are other
matters on the agenda and those involve CIA, MI6 and their masters in
Washington, who we are aware will stop at nothing to get Mr. Snowden.
However, I dare say WikiLeaks overestimates Harding’s effectiveness. Russia
and the Russian Security Services are usually ahead of the curve when it
comes to these kinds of "information operations" and there is almost no
chance whatsoever that a well known and expelled Russia-hater (no matter how
venomous anything he could muster might be) could do or say to change or
damage the opinion of official Moscow with regard to Mr. Snowden. Moscow is
well aware at how CIA/MI6 and all their underlings operate and how they
attempt to demonize and marginalize those who they views as enemies, this is
a moot point.
These attempts only serve to support Mr. Snowden's claims even more and
other than getting more people in the West to possibly hate Mr. Snowden the
continued information operations against Mr. Snowden will no doubt backfire.
But just like the US annulling Mr. Snowden's passport while he was overseas
forcing him to seek asylum (an orchestrated plot?) we have seen time and
time again that the US Government is really behind the curve on how to get
their man.
Later WikiLeaks did point to more nefarious
motivations behind the Guardian/Harding operation stating: "This
is the "2nd attempt in as many weeks by the Guardian to undermine Snowden's
character. Neither Snowden, nor WikiLeaks has ever spoken to Luke Harding.
The book is unattributed re-writes of press reports."
Which if one looks at snippets available on the Guardian's website is
clearly the case. So has the Guardian been duped by a hack writer who
operates with his own agenda or is the Guardian part of the plan?
WikiLeaks says:
"The Guardian, who abandoned Snowden in Hong
Kong, is giving Snowden's defense zero percent of the proceeds from their
cash-in book. Boycott it."
Elegant solution and perhaps if the hack writer is guilty of bringing about
another "flop" his possibilities for spreading his vitriol will be limited
by market forces.
MI6 Hunting Snowden
In a recent
article on the Voice
of Russia
it was detailed how MI6 is desperate to rendition Mr. Snowden, Wayne
Madsen, who I interviewed
recently stated: "…
the British
government seems to be the most interested in renditioning Snowden than its
other partners of the FIVE EYES, which, besides, the US, includes Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. The British are willing to catch Snowden mostly
out of urge to get back at him for "the alleged damage his revelations
caused British electronic surveillance operations around the world’ rather
than a ‘desire to ingratiate Britain’s Government Communications
Headquarters (GHCQ) and Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) with their
American counterparts’, the NSA and CIA, respectively."
Lies Lies Lies -
Jesselyn Radack
Jesselyn Radack
a legal advisor for Mr. Snowden recently told me that the US was
manipulating the media and telling outright lies about Mr. Snowden in
particular to claims that he took over 1.7 million files: "I
would say the 1.7 million number materialized out of nowhere. In fact, I
don't know how the government, the US government, came up with that
considering they have admitted they don't know how much information he took
– number one. And also if you look at this whole scandal, over and over and
over again the US has lied and lied and lied even before Congress on camera,
under oath. And Mr. Snowden has not. Mr. Snowden has told the truth, the US
government has lied over and over and over again and every week we have a
new rumor, we have to try to quash that the US puts out."
Information War: Truth
vs. Orchestrated Media Operations
Personally, as a
writer, I can say it is a pleasure working and writing for the Voice of
Russia. Mainly because management basically gives me two rules: tell the
truth and don’t be too hard, because as my readers know I can be brutal at
times. The reason I am letting you in on that little secret is because it
bears a striking contrast to what is going on at many western publications.
If you are a regular reader of mine, you know that I often take
publications, media outlets and journalists to task when they try to twist
the truth about Russia, promote Russo phobia, tell outright lies, obfuscate,
or write particularly odious pieces about this country or other important
issues that are of major concern, as was the case with
the Economist
recently and their
"anonymous" Russia/Putin smear in their latest issue. So
is the western media merely an instrument of the security services, the
banks and other monied and powerful special interests and do the special
services plant people in media outlets to control and manipulate the flow of
information? You bet they do and it has gotten so bad that the world is
currently divided into two types of people, those who seek the truth and
those who blindly believe the mass media which is fed lies by the
intelligence services according to former MI6 officer David Shayler.
David Shayler
I recently spoke to
David Shayler
regarding the issue of media manipulation by the special servicesand he
stated the following: "You've
got to look at all this stuff and it is all a distraction, and all the stuff
that goes on the main-stream, all these people who come on from these
so-called defense experts and so on, they are just in the pay of the
intelligence services, they are just out there to put out propaganda, and it
is in the interests of these private security services to put these messages
out there, and in principle because that is how they make their money."
"It is like there is this division going on
on the planet at the moment – the nonsense that goes on on the mainstream
and the truth, which you can get at by using the Internet."
Will the US ever forget Snowden and leave
him alone? Not likely. According to Mr. Shayler: "…
these people they never forget. And as I say they will only be happy when
people are either dead or they’ve given up the fight basically. That’s what
they want. So, if you constantly keep protesting in a meaningful way, in an
effective way, not in just going through the motions. You know, you keep
getting under their skin and that works you know."
Michael John Smith on
Harding Op
I recently asked Michael John Smith, the
last person prosecuted for spying for the USSR in the world about how the
special services manipulate the media and plant operatives in media outlets,
something that happened in his case and he provided a written response on
the issue answering thus: "I can’t
comment on whether Luke Harding may be working for the intelligence services
or not. We have some very strict libel laws in the UK and he might consider
my opinion libellous. What I can say is that there are journalists who have
been known to be MI5 or MI6 agents working in the UK media, and their
involvement with the intelligence services is usually fairly obvious by the
sort of material that they include in their articles. Heavily biased
opinions supporting a particular agenda will often stand out as being
influenced by MI5 or MI6, and we have previously discussed the role of
somebody like Oleg Gordievsky as playing such a role in the media, where an
anti-Russian bias is evident."
"But I would like to draw your attention to
David Rose, who is a good example of how the intelligence services use an
apparently normal journalist to spread their propaganda into the media.
According to Rose he was recruited by MI6 in May 1992, and he later admitted
his involvement as their agent in
an article he wrote
for the New Statesman magazine in
September 2007."
"In 1999 David Rose had an important role in
publicising information about the then recently disclosed Mitrokhin Archive,
and it is significant to know that at that time he was already an MI6 agent.
The intelligence services want the general public to absorb certain details
as “the truth”, but they do not want the readers to discover that the
articles their hack journalists write are merely propaganda to brainwash the
public."
"I first became aware of David Rose when he
had been tasked to approach Melita Norwood in 1999 - she was the woman who
had been exposed as a spy for the Soviet Union. Rose went to interview
Norwood and extracted a confession from her, when she admitted to him that
she had been a Soviet agent. Rose refers to this meeting in
one of his articles". "One
of the anomalies of Stella Rimington's book: "Open Secret: the Autobiography
of the Former Director General of MI5" is that she never mentions anything
about Vasili Mitrokhin, which is odd as it was such a big issue during
Rimington’s period in office. It is even more incredible to me that
Rimmington never referred to my case in her book either, especially as this
was the biggest espionage event that led up to her becoming Director General
of MI5.”
"To
try to resolve some of my questions I wrote to David Rose in 2001, asking
for his assistance to expose errors in the Mitrokhin Archive about my case.
However, Rose went out of his way to mislead by warning me not to pursue my
request for access to the original Mitrokhin material. This is the reply
David Rose sent me in November 2001: "I
can tell you I got to know Mitrokhin well and I understand from
conversations both with him and with other, confidential sources, that there
was indeed material in his files which related to your case. However, I
ought to warn you that were you to acquire access to it through some form of
the legal disclosure process, it might not be at all helpful to you. I
cannot assist you as to any of its details, nor can I give “chapter and
verse” as to the conversations I’ve had about you and Mitrokhin. But I am
certain that this material exists, and that those behind your prosecution
must be aware of its nature."
"With
the knowledge that Rose was acting on behalf of MI6 for about a decade or
more, it is now very clear who gave him the order to reply to me in this
way, and the intention must have been to avoid the risk that important
errors in the Mitrokhin Archive would be exposed by my lawyers in Court."
"There was no reference anywhere in my trial
(1993) or appeal (1995) to the existence of evidence obtained from
Mitrokhin. However, only days after my arrest in August 1992, during
interrogation by British Special Branch Police, the head of the
investigating team told me that they were in possession of information from
Russian “archival leaks”. This must have been a reference to Mitrokhin, but
I was given no opportunity to challenge the source behind the Police
questions."
Real dissenting views
not heard on BBC On a
BBC radio chat called Start Week, titled: "Spying and Surveillance: The
Snowden Files" Former Director of GCHQ David Omand spoke to Mr. Harding,
which just to shows that Mr. Harding no matter how vile he is is only
fulfilling the agenda for the state because you do not get on the BBC if you
have a real dissenting view. David Shayler has said it, Smith has said and
even a former UK Ambassador named Craig Murray who questioned rendition
flights internally can not get on the BBC. We won’t even talk about the
media blackout on poor trapped Julian Assange. AMB
Craig Murray
Regarding his multiple bans from appearing
on the BBC: "They
usually do it quite subtly. I am very frequently called by BBC producers of
individual programs. They called me up saying "Oh we would like you on the
news at 10 o'clock or whatever," and then about 10 minutes later I get a
phone call saying "Oh no, we have had to cancel you."
"And this has happened to me 60 or 70 times
in a row, not once or twice, this has happened again and again and again."
"The program producer calls you up and books
you, and then 10 minutes later they have to phone back and unbook you
because at some point in the system a banning order has come into effect."
Undermining leaders,
demonizing Russia Part
of western intelligence operations focus on media manipulation and one
constant target since Soviet times has been Russia. Another widely used
methods for toppling regimes and undermining leaders we have seen in the
western media portrayal of President Putin and now the president of Ukraine.
With the Olympics coming up we have seen an increase in anti-Russian
propaganda and while the focus is still on Russia and Mr. Snowden,
publishing a demonizing book serves two purposes and Mr. Harding can get
rich in the process. I agree with WikiLeaks. Boycott it.
Thankfully for us here in Russia, and that includes Mr. Snowden, Russia's
intrepid security service, the FSB, is busy guaranteeing security and not
playing media manipulation games, and you can take that to the bank.
Russia is Closed for You Harding - By JAR2
4 December 2012, 18:37
The UK’s Guardian is in our sights as this week’s most anti-Russian biased
media outlet in the world. Once again we see Russia demonized and tired cold
war stereotypes and fears brought out to this time attack people who are
doing their most to improve relations between the United Kingdom and the
Russian Federation. A Russian
Embassy response , a writer
who has been barred from entering Russia in the past and a newspaper with
questionable motives are all part of this week’s media-bias counter bias
report.
Hello
dear reader, it has been a while since we looked at Western anti-Russian
media bias, by no means is this because it has become less, it has in fact,
become more widespread and even bolder. Unfortunately I have been busy
covering other subjects and fulfilling other duties but this screams for
attention and as the saying goes the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
This week
I would like to take a look at a smear campaign
being carried out by the UK’s Guardian against Russia , the elected
president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the Russian Embassy in
London and a UK political group called Conservative Friends of Russia.
When the
subject first came to my attention my first question was why? There is
always a reason for everything and my article is no exception. I am
interested in getting the truth out and countering lies, I think everything
I have ever written would back that up, and I am not afraid to call a spade
a spade when the case in question calls for it. In this case the “why”
appears to be gratuitous pandering to the anti-Russian sentiments of many of
the Guardian's readers and Russophobes worldwide in an attempt to increase
the publication’s readership.
The
author of the article in question, one Luke Harding, has made a career of
demonizing Russia. To the right of his columns deriding Russia, the Guardian
shamelessly hawks his latest work, “Mafia State: How one reporter became an
enemy of the brutal new Russia”, a book they published themselves and which
claims to prove its title with US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.
As if the Russophobic US State Department is somehow a reliable un-biased
source capable of honestly assessing their self-declared geo-political
enemy.
If all of
that was not bad enough it gets worse. Mr.
Harding was not allowed to enter Russia , and had his visa revoked on
arrival and was immediately sent back to London due to a lack of credentials
as a journalist and according to the Russian Internal Ministry for: “… a
series of violations of the rules concerning foreign correspondents which
were approved by the Government of the Russian Federation in 1994 and are
well known to all journalists"
Mr.
Harding obviously suffers from a delusional architecture full of spies and
persecution by the “KGB” and that everything Russian is somehow evil and
controlled by omnipotent evil dark forces. This is evident even in the
portrayal of his denial of entry into Russia. He paints a picture of being
deported unfairly as if he became an “enemy of the state”, while
conveniently omitting the fact that he was in violation of many Russian laws
and rules including being in an area where anti-terrorist operations were
taking place without permission.
The fact
that his delusions of persecution are real might be backed up by the fact
that even the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation publicly stated in
an interview with the BBC that Mr. Harding is welcome back in Russia when he
gets his documents in order and that his accreditation was waiting for him
to come and pick it up.
Harding
maintaining his “legend” of persecution by Russia is something that he needs
to do to keep his readers believing what he writes and helps the Guardian
sell papers, which is what it is all about for the Guardian.
For an
organization such as the Guardian and a writer such as Mr. Harding, who
needs Cold War thinking and Russophobia to continue in order to remain
relevant, it is then obvious why they have chosen to attack the way they
have.
It is sad
that such people would attack a group such as the Conservative Friends of
Russia, who were interested in advancing and promoting positive ties between
the two countries. Yet for someone who wants to paint Russia as being evil
and anyone who wants to advance anything positive with regard to Russia as
being manipulated by the evil non-existent “KGB”, the choice of attack was
obvious.
Let’s
look at the article
in question , obviously written for the gullible and easily influenced:
namely tose who would not see through the attempt to paint a picture not
keeping with reality, or in keeping with a reality they themselves have
created, are you with me? It begins with a provocative headline: “How
Kremlin got diplomats to woo Tories”, obviously the Guardian does not
support the Tories, and shows a picture of two young serious looking men,
one of them Sergey Nalobin the First Secretary of the Russian Embassy’s
Political Section, who the Guardian takes issue with because they claim
“Nalobin's father was a high-ranking officer in the FSB, Vladimir Putin's
spy service.”
Okay
stop. First off since when does what one’s father did affect what ones does
now. The Guardian obviously wants to portray the fact that his father was in
the Federal Security Service (FSB) as something evil and that as a result
the son is just some sort of puppet. Calling the FSB “Vladimir Putin's spy
service” is also ridiculous, as if President Putin created it and owns it.
Maybe Mr. Harding would tell us what his father did and we could ponder his
credibility as a “journalist”.
Mr.
Harding continues his attack on Sergey Nalobin by writing a paragraph on his
father and attempts to portray something sinister in the fact that he
achieved a high position in the FSB. Harding keeps repeating Alexander
Litvinenko so much that he gives the impression he really believes that that
is all that the FSB is about. Lest Harding not be aware, the FSB is a part
of the government of the biggest country in the world and it is charged with
guaranteeing the security of the Russian Federation, due to this its roles
are extremely diversified and widespread. Their jurisdiction does not
include Britain or territories outside the Russian Federation except for the
exception of hot pursuits of terrorists and they can not operate outside of
Russia. Also for Mr. Harding the Border Service, which revoked your visa and
“deported” you are under the FSB, but this does not mean you are being
persecuted by the FSB.
Mr.
Harding continues in the same vein saying Sergey Nalobin’s brother was FSB
and throwing President Putin into the mix because he was the head of the
FSB. Apparently and it is really sad, Harding and many of his audience and
editors believe the FSB is some evil organization due to their xenophobia.
The FSB,
MI-6, the CIA, Mossad and other intelligence agencies all work to promote
their country’s interests and guarantee the security of their citizens and
respective motherlands, this is normal and as it should be. Why then is it
that any connection with the FSB is seen as something evil by the West.
Why isn’t
the same standard used regarding, for example, US president’s ties to the
CIA? Those are enough to fill volumes, or British politician’s ties to
MI-5/6, those would also be worth noting if we wanted to engage in similar
attack journalism. Should we all assume now that every British functionary
at the embassy here in Moscow is working for MI-6, or at the US Embassy for
the CIA?
I
personally find offensive Harding’s portrayals of Russia, Russian diplomats,
the Russian President, the Russian people and the FSB and would ban him from
ever entering Russia if I could. This is not the first time his bias has
entered the cross-hairs. The FSB is an honorable organization whose members
follow the law and the constitution to the letter and take their oaths
seriously, it members rarely seek recognition for their deeds and their
successes are rarely ever heard about, it is offensive that a hack like
Harding can be allowed to disgrace and vilify anything he wants because it
sells some papers.
The
Russian Embassy in London published a response to the article in question,
the following is an excerpt, challenging the Guardian to publish their
response:
“We are
well aware of the existing bias, instincts and prejudices of some who would
like any progress in our relationship to wait for the moment when we see eye
to eye on issues of democratic development. Such an approach smacks of
self-righteousness. Do we need to say that no country is now in good shape
in terms of economy, fiscal situation, state of democracy, quality of
political elites and, finally, the media? Russia is also far from perfect,
and whatever problems we have we are willing to discuss those with our
partners, including the British. That is, in fact, done at all levels. After
all, Russia, naturally, is in a momentous transition, sort of goods in
process, not finished goods in a state of end of history rot. We don’t claim
moral high ground, but ask for a reasoned debate.”
“Since
the state of the British media is a topical issue, it would be only fair to
say that Britain’s international partners have a huge interest in their
health, Russia being no exception. We did have those problems with the
British mainstream press in the past.”, the
Embassy of the Russian Federation in UK’s website says
.
“We hope,
the media, the Fourth Estate will exercise its freedom responsibly for the
good of Great Britain and its international relationships which are a major
source of economic growth and prosperity in our interdependent world.
Hopefully, the blame for parts of British media’s blatant disregard for
common decency won’t be put at our Embassy’s door.”
|