© UnknownUAI-752 wreckage
There's No Shame In Being Wrong
Let me dispel all ambiguities right off the bat -- I was wrong in comparing UIA-752 to MH-17 in yesterday's analysis, and I take full responsibility for my inaccurate portrayal of what ultimately turned out to be the tragic reality, namely that Iran just admitted that it accidentally shot down the Ukrainian passenger jet due to human error. I hold my audience in high regard and always challenge them to hold others to account whenever they're wrong about something significant, so true to my mission of restoring credibility to the Alt-Media Community, I'm explaining my flawed thought process that went into yesterday's piece on the topic.
My purpose in doing so is partially one of self-interest since I also want to better understand why my analysis wasn't up to par in order to correct the misperceptions that initially influenced it and therefore ensure that the likelihood of repeating such an error is reduced. I carry out some degree of self-reflection almost daily when processing new information about international events, but this time I felt it necessary to do so publicly because of just how emotionally significant this issue is. I also want to challenge all of my Alt-Media peers -- both fellow analysts and casual commentators alike -- to take responsibility for their words over the past few days if they too were ultimately proven wrong by the latest twist in this tragedy.
UIA-752 ≠ MH-17
I just got done watching an excellent documentary on MH-17 last week that I reviewed in my article titled "Latest MH17 Documentary By SBU Whistleblower Shares Some Shocking Truths", which admittedly influenced my thought process. There were a lot of specious similarities between those two events, especially in the sense of Western nations immediately pinning the blame on their rival before any evidence emerged. In addition, Bellingcat, the UK-based "investigative journalism website" partially funded by the Open Society Foundation and the National Endowment For Democracy just days before the first tragedy, immediately got involved spreading similar claims that Iran was just as responsible as Russia was. That outlet is thought to be closely linked to Western intelligence agencies so it seemed to me that they might have been playing the same disinformation role with UIA-752 as they did with MH-17. Another point of relevance is that the US is a master of infowar campaigns, whether it's MH-17, the Skripals, the claims that the Syrian Arab Army supposedly used chemical weapons on several occasions, and especially the "White Helmets", so I was immediately suspicious of its officials' latest allegations that Iran was probably responsible for the tragedy in Tehran. Alas, as the cliched saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day", which appears to have been the case this time.
Face It, Iran Lied & Tried To Cover It Up
As "politically inconvenient/uncomfortable" as it may be for many in the Alt-Media Community to acknowledge, Iran initially lied to the world about its culpability in what happened and subsequently attempted to cover it up, which I'll address in a forthcoming piece. These are now the facts as they objectively exist. Iran's publicly funded international information outlet Press TV reported on the statement that government spokesman Ali Rabiei made on Thursday boldly declaring that
"No one will assume responsibility for such a big lie once it is known that the claim is fraudulent (AK: meaning the claims that Iran accidentally shot down the passenger jet). It is unfortunate that the psychological operation of the US government, and those supporting it knowingly and unknowingly, are adding insult to the injury of the bereaved families and victimizing them for certain goals by propagating such fallacies."Truth be told, hindsight now reveals that statement itself to have been the "big lie...(a) psychological operation...adding insult to the injury of the bereaved families". Moreover, video footage shows that Iran bulldozed the crash site and let random people walk around it, strongly suggesting that it was trying to cover up what it did before it got caught. Surprisingly, the US and its partners were therefore telling the truth the entire time, contrary to their ignoble reputations, whereas Iran was lying through its teeth.
Analysts vs. "Propagandists"
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my comments on the issue yesterday were written with the intent of explaining the US and others' infowar interests in following what I sincerely believed at the time for the previously mentioned reasons to have been the MH-17 pattern. It wasn't meant to claim that no such shoot-down happened, even though I was extremely skeptical, since I did in fact make mention two times of the possibility that a "rogue" member of the Iranian military might have shot down the plane at what I speculatively think could have been at the behest of a foreign intelligence agency.
Others, however, seem to have had the intent (which of course can't be known for sure unless they're publicly held to account to explain themselves) to "conspire" with Iran and willingly participate in the literal cover-up of this tragedy out of "solidarity" with the Islamic Republic's foreign policy. I've noticed that trend quite a lot in the Alt-Media Community over the years, and it seemed self-evident to me from many others' analyses and comments on the topic that they were definitely doing just that. I can somewhat sympathize with them since I used to be "over-zealous" about some issues in the past as well, though those who don't publicly acknowledge that they were wrong and explain what they were thinking at the time shouldn't be surprised if others dismiss them as mere "propagandists".
Me In My Own Words
The reason for this is that there's a fine line between analysis and "propaganda" wherein both put forth certain claims but the former intends to most accurately reflect reality as it objectively exists whereas the latter pushes a talking point irrespective of the aforesaid objective reality. I accept that anyone can label me however they'd like and they certainly have the freedom to do so, but I self-describe as an analyst and endeavor to prove it in my work, taking care to correct any intellectual fallacies as soon as I'm made aware of them and incorporate my modified outlook into all of my relevant work going forward.
I wrote about my (admittedly sometimes edgy) professional intentions in another one of my very rare first-person articles that was published at Fort Russ a little over a year and a half ago titled "Korybko: The Method Behind The Madness", and I proved this in practice through my piece for Global Research last September titled "Russia's Middle East Strategy: 'Balancing' vs. 'Betrayal'?" where I brought together all of my work throughout nearly the past three years to explain the reality of Russian foreign policy in that region. I'm such a proud anti-Zionist that I never even write "Israel" without quotation marks (which I explain here, and if my partners' editorial policies allow it), but even I was forced by the plethora of evidence to acknowledge that Russia and "Israel" are practically allies.
Analysis vs. "Propaganda" In The Context Of UIA-752
A "propagandist", meanwhile, wouldn't even acknowledge the extremely close regional coordination between Russia and "Israel" other than probably attributing it to the regularly debunked "theory" that President Putin is playing "5D chess" because he's really a "secret anti-Zionist" who "hates Israel". Those of you who only casually engage with the Alt-Media Community are probably laughing out loud at just how ridiculous that sounds, but believe it or not, that's actually the prevailing attitude of most people in that pretty sizeable and comparatively influential corner of the internet. Back to the topic at hand, however, a "propagandist" wouldn't publicly issue a mea culpa, whether they're a fellow analyst or just a casual commentator. Instead, they'll either double down on their initial claims, ignore the issue going forward, or inexplicably flip their narrative to support the official Iranian one out of "solidarity" without informing their followers why they got everything so wrong in the first place. To be clear, I'm just remarking on Alt-Media trends that in this specific case happen to concern Iran in particular but are part of a bigger pattern that I've seen applied towards many other countries as well, and it's one that I sincerely hope is done away with as soon as possible because it discredits the Alt-Media Community at the same time as raising the credibility of its Mainstream Media counterpart.
The "Political Justice Warrior" Crusade
It's one of the greatest ironies that most of the Alt-Media Community is comprised of people who grew disillusioned with the Mainstream Media's outright lies, shady perception management tactics, and intense information warfare yet sometimes get so "passionate" defending "their side" (which is almost always in principle whatever the opposite of the Mainstream Media's is) that they end up doing the exact same thing in order to push through a "politically convenient" narrative. I've even seen a few of those folks over the years justifying it on the basis that it's the "right thing to do", it "supports the right side", it "brings justice to victims of American imperialism over the decades", etc., whenever they're publicly called out on it, but that actually doesn't make it "right". It's up to each and every person who is exposed to such practices to make that value judgement themselves regardless of which "side" whatever manipulative claim is in support of since nobody should have that tacitly self-proclaimed narrative monopoly over any else. It's intellectually condescending, to say the least, and it also discredits whichever "side" it claims to support. The Alt-Media Community, unfortunately, has fallen victim to this "political justice warrior" crusade and quite a few of its members therefore behave as willing "propagandists" of other countries in order to advance some "larger cause".
Don't Fall For The "Social Media Yinon Plan"
They have the right to do so, but I also have the right to condemn it. I'm deliberately not naming names because I don't have anyone in mind in particular, nor do I want to advance what I described as the "Social Media Yinon Plan" in my earlier cited Fort Russ article. Rather, I simply want to challenge everyone to do better, to aspire to become analysts instead of "propagandists| (the former receives much more criticism because they rarely "please everyone" by virtue of their work whereas the latter is usually awash in never-ending ego-boosting praise from "their side"), and to restore integrity to the Alt-Media Community. I got it wrong yesterday, but I'm publicly holding myself to account before others follow my own words over the years and do so for me because I want to be transparent with everyone and explain the flawed thought process that led to me publishing an ultimately accurate conclusion. Nevertheless, there's still the plausible possibility that whoever was responsible might have been on the payroll of a foreign intelligence agency even if Iran decides for domestic political reasons against revealing this if such a conclusion is eventually made since it's still hard for me to understand how someone could "accidentally" shoot down a passenger jet taking off from their own capital's airport. In any case, that isn't an excuse for getting most of yesterday's analysis wrong.
A Challenge To All Of Alt-Media
Going forward, I want all of my readers to know that I always do my best to give you all what I sincerely believe at the time to be the most accurate reflection of objective reality, but that sometimes I get it wrong, like everyone does. Setting myself apart from my peers however, I'm not ashamed to publicly take responsibility whenever my work about something as significant as this tragedy turns out to be wrong. I wrote this mea culpa because 176 innocent people died and I was wrong about the reason, but whenever it concerns matters comparatively less (emotionally) important than a plane crash such as foreign policy or whatever else, I'll usually incorporate the insight that I learned through my daily self-reflection into forthcoming pieces whenever it's relevant and have at times even directly cited previously incorrect analyses in those articles to explain what went wrong and why. This time is exceptional because of what happened and that's why I felt it necessary to explain at length what went wrong with my thought process, but also just as importantly to challenge all of the Alt-Media Community to follow in my footsteps and do the same if they're really not "propagandists". We all need to be held accountable for what we write, and this holds true for me just as much as it does for everyone else, otherwise we lose our credibility and harm the very same "larger causes" that we claim to support.
The need to assert opinions is part of a narrative investment - is it not?
But yes to acknowledging we can be so conditioned by lies and psyops, as to expect them and read everything as potentially part of a deceit. That may be scepticism in areas where deceit is normal - but if we become cynical, we lose critical judgement and are actually gullible to anything that fits our sense of our world.
There are some completely crazy things going on - and if some actors in this drama could set up such things and get away with it - would they?
However the basic story of admittance is plausible.