Luke Harding MI6 Propaganda Agent
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.
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 http://www.jar2.com/Topics/Russia.html
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.”