April 2022 – Heaven's Other Mandate

On the 12th of April, ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) launched the annual report by the IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). The report gives credible data on global terrorism, with its key publication being the ranking of countries according to the impact that terrorism has had on it.

One wonders why the IEP needs ASPI to launch its report, as IEP director Dr David Hammond did little more than simply highlight various elements of the report. Expert contributions were interesting but did not really add much to the report except, perhaps, to give perspectives from other countries; which, of course, does nothing to change the underlying facts of terrorism.

Based on the report and those before it (back to 2014), I asked a question at the launch which was completely relevant and addressed the successes and failures of counter-terrorism, as objectively shown in the data. This is the question.

In 2014, we find 4 countries in a comparable position on the GTI – US, UK, China, and Indonesia, at around rank 30. This indicates significant challenges in managing terrorism in those countries. Australia was ranked 95, an enviable position to be in.

If we consider the UK, we find that from 2014 to 2022, the rank stays stubbornly on 30 + or – 2. The US position drifts gradually down to rank 20, indicating that terrorism in this country increased. Only in the last 3 years has this improved, mostly in line with global trends.

Meanwhile, Australia plunged 36 places from 2014 to 2015, still much more favorable than both the US and UK but has, as with the UK and US, stayed stubbornly at around 60. Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop in line with global trends.

The miraculous story is China. From a low 25 (below US, UK, and Indonesia), China has steadily risen, year on year, through the rankings to now be 67th place, passing Australia.

This represents a change of 42 positions over 8 years.

China’s record can only be described, objectively, as incredibly successful. Its program of clear intent, selective detention, surveillance, poverty alleviation, economic development and strong determination has produced results that are, surely, the envy of the world.

In view of the relentless campaign by western media, academics, and ASPI to discredit this achievement, can you reflect on why you think ASPI has taken such a negative line and whether, in the final assessment, their campaign against China has been grounded in poor research and lack of objectivity?

There was a mistake in the question that was a result of accidentally writing what I intended for an earlier paragraph. I should have written “Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop, against global trends.” In any case, this was a minor point, included to show that other large Asian countries still face a challenge.

In graphic form, this looks like:

The question goes directly to the issue that is obvious. Despite incredible expenditure and political posturing, the UK and US have been singularly unsuccessful in combatting terrorism while China, in contrast, has been spectacularly successful. Time to celebrate that one country has found a way of keeping its citizens safe.

My question was the first to be put but Katja Theodorakis, Head of Counterterrorism Program made the decision to censor it on behalf of ASPI and its sponsors – US arms manufacturers and two foreign governments – UK and US. One wonders how the ASPI program can be labelled as ‘counterterrorism’ when those involved in the program demonstrate contempt for real discussion on major successes.

In line with the dishonesty and complete lack of integrity that ASPI displays as its normal mode of operation, this launch proved to be a complete farce. As global conflicts and climate change make ever increasing demands on populations, providing ample breeding grounds for terrorism, ignoring successes and failing to properly analyse the basis of their success will be at our own peril.

April 5, 2022, Malachy Browne and Dmitriy Khavin, New York Times

Video Captures Russian Forces Firing on Ukrainian Cyclist in Bucha – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This is the opening line of the New York Times piece on the events of Bucha, a fine example of how ‘atrocity’ propaganda works. I would like to take you through the way that this piece constructs misinformation, mentally preparing you to accept the ‘atrocity’ narrative.

One might mistake this piece for an objective analysis. The passive “committed” gives a sense that we might attribute the atrocity to either the Ukrainian or Russian forces. We anticipate balanced journalism.

But the next paragraph makes it clear who is to ‘blame’.

An important aspect of deceit is to say something true, early. Nobody can argue with this account. It is true. We can see it, there on the screen. The reader is lured into believing that ‘these authors can be trusted’.

So, we are now where the authors would like us to be – believing whatever it is they say.

Watching the video affirms the authors’ narrative. But the video is not simply a visual record. We are assisted to interpret the event by ‘helpful’ boxes around the protagonists and with ‘even more helpful’ labels.

For maximum effect, what should we be shown first? The victim, of course.

A lonely figure riding towards danger. Shades of Tiananmen Square. Now, already, a pre-frontal cortex used to questioning should ask a simple question – which I will get to later.

Next, introduce a sinister element to raise the drama.

Keeping a sharp focus here is important to persuading us of the intent. Too much context might cast doubt on what we are seeing. It is ‘best’ to firm up in the viewers mind who will be the ‘goody’ and who is the ‘baddy’.

Of course, context matters, immensely. Once again, a properly developed pre-frontal cortex is asking questions to understand how this would come about. More about that later. For now, let’s stick with amygdalin fear. Empathise with the weaker party. Suspend critical thought. Magnify the fear. This is a movie.

The hero dismounts.

But a single tank or armoured car is not enough for dramatic effect. We must establish that this is a great force prepared to trample all before them. The tension rises. We already know the outcome. Our tiny David has collided with Goliath.

A wide shot reinforces our sense of a large force. Inadvertently, our editors show us something that adds context. Can you see it? Well, so far, the framing leads us to view this as the ‘tanks rolling in’. Is there more we should know or see? Certainly, but I’ll get to that a little later.

A quick cut to the action, with suitable labels, to keep our mind on the narrative. ‘Person on bicycle’ is almost certainly doomed.

By holding our focus on these two participants, a neat piece of misdirection masks some of the critical elements of events in the next few seconds. I invite you to zoom in and also to freeze frame to find what the ‘magicians’ would like you to miss.

Finally, a sequence of shots suggests that the armoured vehicles ‘finished him off’.

So, returning to the first frames, let’s ask a question. We can highlight something different, like this:

Note that houses in this street appear to have regular shapes, with similar fences. The circled area is chaotic and appears to show destruction.

The rider ignores the destruction that is obvious and which might signal a warzone. Why?

So, why is someone riding a bicycle into a warzone? What causes them to dismount? Caution? Clearly, the ‘innocent victim’ knows that there is danger, seen in the destruction that they could not avoid seeing and demonstrated by their cautious manner. Someone oblivious to the danger would simply continue riding ahead. This person is literally riding into danger. Or simply didn’t care.

And why, if the aim of Russian soldiers was to shoot civilians, did the other armoured, which actually had line of sight, not shoot?

Another armoured car, shown circled in orange, has line of sight on the cyclist, but does not shoot.

Returning to the wider shot. The NYT photo helpfully highlights the extent of the traffic, but zooming in shows that these vehicles are moving AWAY from the action (we see the rear of the vehicles). As would be normal, a rear guard is ensuring the column are not suddenly attacked from behind (the six vehicles on Yablonska Street). Almost certainly, they would be more likely to fire than any other vehicles in the column. Given the position of the drone, we can be certain that the column is moving away and that not far from the drone, Ukrainian forces are advancing or firing.

Column moves towards the top of the picture.

Now look closely. At 22 sec, the video cuts, so we have no continuity on the cyclist or tank and we must assume this is sequential. As we might with any good novel or movie, we are invited to join the dots.

Another cut at 26 sec returns us to the ‘action’. But something interesting happens at 29 sec. Before the cyclist rounds the corner, the armoured car fires. Here’s a video clip of it.

Incontrovertible proof that something was drawing fire before the cyclist reached the corner. The cyclist literally, clearly steps out into the line of fire!

The cyclist rounds the corner at 34 – 35 sec. Almost instantly, at 36 sec, there is another shot. Less than 1 second to identify and shoot – if indeed there is even line of sight, which is doubtful. At 38 sec, another shot – and then an unexplained pan at 39 sec returning the focus at 43 sec, once again, losing the continuity.

What happened in these 4 seconds? We simply don’t know. A cut at 48-49 sec once again throws the continuity in doubt. What might the second vehicle be shooting at now? We are simply meant to assume that it is the cyclist. But how could we possibly know?

Notably, during the passage of these events, we never see the cyclist go down.

Significantly, the NYT omits a shot that would have completed spoiled their ‘atrocity porn’. Look at this section of the video, showing clearly that the cyclist is riding directly towards a line of vehicles.

But note, having created the plot through the video, how confidently the authors can claim:

It’s a plot we are meant to swallow; hook, line and sinker. It’s clear. Russian forces brutally murdered an innocent cyclist in cold blood. From this, we can claim ‘atrocity’.

This is well crafted ‘atrocity’ propaganda, worthy of a war movie.

Now let us consider one more factor. Imagine that there was continuity and that the shot before the cyclist turned the corner did not occur. Imagine that the shot was aimed at the cyclist, perhaps by the second vehicle.

A shoulder carried anti-tank weapon can be aimed and fired inside 3 seconds. The projectile explodes above the vehicle. Everybody inside dies.

I leave you with this thought. If you suddenly saw a figure appear 50 metres away, with an ambiguous shape caused by a bicycle, and you have 3 seconds to respond before being blasted into oblivion, what would you do?