The American Mainstream Media, in recent times, has made it abundantly clear that Corporate Media is little more than the propaganda wing of the USA’s political establishment. It has led to the coinage of the term ‘Military-Industrial-Media complex’ to describe the intimate relationship that the corporate media in the USA shares with the War Machine in the United States.
The Corporate Media, for its part, has performed in an exemplary fashion to justify the coinage of the term. One of the most obvious examples of it is the alleged chemical attack in Syria by the Assad regime. The War Machine in the US bayed for blood and the entire mainstream media called for Donald Trump to launch a new wave of military operations against Assad. Trump, however, was remarkably restrained in his response and did just enough to get the warmongers off his chest. Now latest revelations by WikiLeaks reveal that the entire thing may have been staged and Assad may have been wrongly blamed for the chemical attack.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsMd3harFO0]
The New Yorker Report: A Work of Fiction
It is under these circumstances that we need to look at the report by Dexter Filkins for The New Yorker titled ‘Blood and Soil in Narendra Modi’s India’. The report is littered with every manner of conspiracy theory under the Sun and indulges in complete distortion of historical facts. For instance, the ‘journalist’ says that Pakistan was created because Muslims of pre-partition India were too scared to live in a Hindu majority country. This is a shameless genocide denial of the highest order.
The ‘report’ also gives air to fantastical theories such as ‘The legend of Ram Janmabhoomi grew after independence’. Given the nature of such lies, it can be safely said that it’s completely a work of fiction, not journalism. We have published a comprehensive report detailing all the lies that Filkins has spread in the report but even then, we cannot say for certain that we managed to capture all of them. It can be read here.
The Hatred for Donald Trump and ‘Howdy Modi’
Readers would remember that the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to the US earlier this year heaped praises on Trump, which had raised quite a few eyebrows at the time. Trump, as we are well aware, is loathed by the political establishment of both parties in the US and the mainstream media, with the exception of Fox News, has been plainly hostile to him.
Moreover, the profuse praise for Trump was interpreted by many as an endorsement of the President, which undoubtedly irked many important elements in the US War Machine and their cronies in the Democrat Party. It is pertinent to mention here that Donald Trump has consistently shied away from giving in to the clamouring for war around him. For instance, when Iran allegedly shot down an American Drone, Donald Trump as President called off a military attack at the last moment because he believed that the estimated 150 Iranian casualties were a disproportionately large price to pay for shooting down an unmanned drone.
At that precise moment, when the entire military-industrial-media complex (MIMC) was baying for Iranian blood, POTUS Trump demonstrated more integrity and humanity than his predecessors, Bush and Obama, had shown at any moment during their presidency. Thus, it is understandable that the bloodthirsty MIMC is extremely unhappy with Trump and is currently engaged in a coup attempt to remove him from office. It’s also important to remember that Trump’s aversion towards initiating another war is precisely the same reason why US Congresswoman and Democrat Presidential Aspirant for 2020, Tulsi Gabbard, is hated so much by the establishment.
Notorious Allegations against Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard is a military veteran who has made ‘End the Regime Change Wars’ the flagship policy of her presidential campaign. She has a history with the Democrat National Convention as well. In 2016, she had resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders as the nominee of her party, for which she incurred the wrath of the party establishment and continues to face. Due to her anti-war stance and her opposition to Hillary Clinton, she has been labelled a ‘Russian Asset’ despite the fact that she is a serving Major in the US Military and a War Veteran.
The Congresswoman from Hawaii, due to her Hindu faith, has also been falsely accused of being hand in gloves with ‘Hindutva fascists’ merely because she wants the US and India to share a warm relationship and is known to share her a cordial relationship with the Indian Prime Minister. However, since she is a Hindu and is dedicatedly an anti-war veteran, her political opponents in the Democrat primaries have slandered her for merely being warm towards Narendra Modi and India. They forget that even Barack Obama displayed great friendship with Narendra Modi during his Presidency and numerous political luminaries in recent times have warmed up the current Indian administration.
Read: Watch: Tulsi Gabbard shuts down ‘Gujarat riots’ lies against PM Modi with one epic reply
The report by Dexter Filkins for The New Yorker, in which he relies greatly on a thoroughly discredited ‘journalist’ Rana Ayyub, comes across as another disgraceful attempt by political players in the American Corporate Media Establishment to use foreign leaders to settle personal scores with political opponents in their own country. Of late, it has almost become a fashion in the United States to slander and demonize leaders of foreign nations so that politicians could score brownie points over their opponents in domestic politics.
Narendra Modi: The Third Leader who was slandered
Narendra Modi is the third leader who is being subject to slanderous accusations by the American Corporate Media so that their friends in the political establishment could benefit from it politically. The first was, of course, Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Russian Collusion Delusion was nothing more than an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and in the process, violate the Democratic Will of the American electorate. After spending years investigating the so-called collusion and exhausting huge resources in the charade, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller failed to produce a single shred of evidence to suggest any collusion between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign.
That hasn’t stopped the media, however, from continuing to spread the utterly delusional conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is, somehow, a Russian Puppet. The media-political establishment did not stop there and proceeded to label Tulsi Gabbard, a serving member of the US Military and a Congresswoman, an asset of the Russian government. All of this, without a single shred of evidence of course. No less than Hillary Clinton herself accused Tulsi of being a Russian Asset, to which the Hawaiian responded in kind by labelling her the ‘Queen of Warmongers’.
The second foreign leader to be used to settle domestic political scores was Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Tulsi Gabbard was labelled an ‘Assad-apologist’ for the crime of meeting the Syrian President. The principled stance of the Congresswoman has been that she will be always willing to engage even the worst of her country’s enemies diplomatically because the alternative to that is War.
She risked immense political capital by meeting Assad, just as she risked a great deal by endorsing Bernie Sanders in 2016 and meeting Donald Trump after he was elected President in an era of hyper-partisanship. Donald Trump has also been accused of being soft towards Assad because he has always prioritized withdrawing forces from Syria. One could debate the manner in which he ordered the withdrawal of US forces from the country but one cannot argue that it was something the American electorate voted for.
The third in line is our own Prime Minister, Narendra Damodardas Modi. Slandering Modi gives the political opponents of Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard another stick to beat them with. It is with this purpose that the American political establishment appears to have renewed its attack on Narendra Modi. Despite the utter lack of factual rigour, Dexter Filkins’ report has been plugged by the usual suspects in the MIMC. Former staffers in the Obama administration, New York Times journalists, BBC correspondents, CNN reporters, WashingtonPost journalists and every other typical establishment media-political figure.
Rana Ayyub smuggled in the reporter, violated Indian Laws
It is rather interesting that Rana Ayyub, who is thoroughly discredited across all sections of the Indian Media, is suddenly finding traction in the United States. One could, of course, attribute it all to coincidence, however, in an age of chaos in the world of Geopolitics, such developments cannot be dismissed as such. Furthermore, Rana Ayyub illegally smuggled in the foreign journalist in Kashmir in violation of Indian laws. The Indian government can afford to ignore such transgressions but it would do so at its own peril.
What are the motivations of the protagonists?
Although we can only speculate about the actual motivations of Filkins, there are some clues to be found regarding Rana Ayyub’s motivations in the report. “Indians have a weakness for being recognized in America,” she told Filkins. “The idea that they would be famous in the United States—it was irresistible to them.” It appears Rana Ayyub was subconsciously projecting her own desires on to others when she made that comment. And it’s the hallmark of the Left that whatever wrongdoing they are guilty of, they accuse others of it.
As for the motivations for Filkins’ work, we can only rely on the conduct of the American Corporate Media in recent times to make satisfactory speculations. The media-political establishment in the US has fanned crazy conspiracy theories about foreign leaders in recent times to settle scores with domestic political opponents. And the discerning would have noticed, it is always designed to attack those who threaten the status quo. Not even a military veteran such as Tulsi Gabbard is spared from vicious accusations of being a foreign asset. Donald Trump has constantly battled such accusations from the first day of his Presidency.
The Churn in American Politics
The two politicians in question, Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, belong to the opposite ends of the political spectrum. But even so, both of them are representatives of populist sentiments that has gripped the American electorate. It is not a surprise then, that Tulsi Gabbard enjoys huge popularity among significant sections of the electorate predisposed towards Donald Trump. Some of them might even switch over to her in 2020 should she become the Presidential nominee of the Democrat party, however, that appears impossible as of now.
Similarly, Donald Trump enjoys significant support among ‘Bernie Bros’ and it is widely believed that a significant chunk of voters, who would have otherwise voted for Bernie Sanders, chose to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Bernie Sanders is, perhaps, the third most hated candidate in the fray for 2020 even though he can boast of great support within the party. Among the three of them, as of now, only Bernie has not been accused of being a foreign asset. However, the way things are currently unfolding, it won’t be long before someone accuses him of working for foreign interests.
The Great Divide in American Media
The divide can also be observed in the media space. For instance, Tucker Carlson and Jimmy Dore, who disagree on a great many things, still agree on the fundamental issue that the status quo is destroying the country. For instance, although Jimmy is a hardcore progressive, on matters such as Syria and foreign wars, he regularly cites shows clips of Tucker Carlson Tonight at Fox News to his audience and says that American citizens can learn more about the authentic reality of the Middle East by watching the Conservative populist’s show than spending their time on MSNBC, CNN or other such establishment media platforms.
Jimmy Dore, despite being a progressive, does not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians or there’s any good reason to impeach him. Similarly, Tucker Carlson recognizes that the status quo is clearly not working for the average American and certainly appears to reserve a special hatred for the political establishment of both parties which is destroying the lives of Americans according to him as well. Under such circumstances, it can be safely said that The New Yorker report by Filkins is an establishment initiative to slander Narendra Modi so that his warm relationship with Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard could then be used to undermine the two biggest political threats to the Military-Industrial-Media Complex.
Rana Ayyub: The Chosen One?
In the report, Filkins also laments the fact that there are no ‘aggressive voices’ in the media apart from The Caravan and The Wire that question the government. Quite clearly, he is either trapped in an alternate universe of his own making or is lying on purpose to peddle his agenda.
It also appears to be a subtle hint at people abroad that there’s a need to invest in more such ‘aggressive voices’ in the Indian digital space. The manner in which Filkins has propped up Rana Ayyub, the ‘aggressive voice’ of his choice is clearly the Queen of Islamist herself. Therefore, it won’t be too much of a surprise if we see Rana Ayyub running a media venture of her own in the near future. And it won’t be a surprise either if her media venture is heavily funded by money from abroad.
The Establishment Strikes Back?
The Modus-Operandi behind the report on Narendra Modi bears all the hallmarks of the propaganda that was so evident during the Russian Collusion Delusion and the narrative around the Middle East. Filkins level a serious of utterly discredited accusations so confidently that he would even make the most politically aware individual double-check the facts. The report was nearly 10,000 words long, probably even longer, and it was horribly wrong on all the major issues. The purpose of it was, clearly, to organize all the bizarre conspiracy theories against Narendra Modi under one single banner.
There is another distinct possibility that cannot be overlooked. A significant section of the US political establishment is subservient to Chinese interests. It is this faction, of which Michael Bloomberg perhaps is the most popular face after Joe Biden, which stood by silently while China managed to make significant inroads within US interests. Bloomberg, recently, joined the Democratic Presidential Race. Earlier in September, he had declared that Xi Jinping is not a dictator and the Communist Party of China actually ‘listens to its people’.
Under the Trump Administration, ties between India and the US have grown manifold as Donald Trump ramped up his trade war against China. It’s only natural for ties between India and the United States to strengthen at such a time as the US needs India on its side if it wishes to fend off the strategic threat posed by the Chinese. Under such circumstances, it does appear that an organized effort is currently underway to portray India as the ‘Great Other’ so that US-India ties never reach their full potential. Who benefits from it? China, for one, and the faction of the media-political establishment that is in China’s pockets.
Who benefits the most when India is slandered?
The most obvious beneficiaries of the biased report by The New Yorker is obviously the establishment of the Democrat party. It helps them take down two threats simultaneously: Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard. It also helps in generating enthusiasm among the Muslim voter-base of the party. Thus, there are great electoral benefits to be gained by slandering India and demonizing Narendra Modi in US soil.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that foreign leaders are being used to settle scores with domestic political opponents and gain electoral benefits in the process. It’s a tried and tested trick in the US. For instance, the grand Democrat plan to defeat Donald Trump in 2020 involves Vladimir Putin to a great degree. Not a day goes by without the US media spreading Xenophobic hatred against Russians and portraying Vladimir Putin as the greatest global threat after Adolf Hitler.
Amusingly enough, China does not receive even an ounce of the scrutiny that Russia or India receives. For instance, Michael Bloomberg did not have to experience much criticism at all for his defence of the atrocious Chinese regime and Xi Jinping. It’s understandable as Big Business in the United States has great financial interests in China and they do not want to risk offending the Communist Party there.
The Indian Equivalent of the Steele Dossier
Dexter Filkins, through his mammoth report on The New Yorker, only attempted to document all the conspiracy theories against Narendra Modi and the BJP at one single place so that the magnitude of it hits his readers with the force of a rampaging truck. From Loya to whitewashing the genocidal nature of Pakistan’s creation, every loony story finds a place in it. Filkins has not even made any serious effort to hide his agenda. He knows that his readers already have a negative perception of India, so they will hardly bother to verify the lies that he spoonfed them.
The New Yorker Report is the most obvious example of a political hit-job if there were any, and its targets are not just Narendra Modi and India but also US politicians who threaten the status quo the most. The report, in fact, reminds one of the now-infamous Steele Dossier that was concocted by political hacks to take down Donald Trump. After an insane degree of political drama, the Steele Dossier was exposed as the work of propaganda that it was. Of course, not even Narendra Modi’s worst enemies could ever be convinced of the kind of allegations that were contained in the Steele Dossier, therefore, what was needed was the traditional approach.
Like the Steele Dossier, the report by The New Yorker too demonstrated an organized effort by all of Narendra Modi’s political opponents in the media. From Rana Ayyub who smuggled Filkins into Kashmir, violating Indian laws in the process, to the likes of Harsh Mander, Ashish Nandy, Pratik Sinha, S. Varadarajan, a lot of the traditional opponents of the BJP in the media contribute prominently to The New Yorker’s work of fiction.
The New Yorker’s report comes across as an organized attempt to undermine the Indian government. Under the current climate of chaos in the arena of Geopolitics, such works of propaganda should be viewed with great suspicion.
