When you talk about the effectiveness of American imperialism, you highlight the fact that
part of the reason it's so effective is because it has been able to be largely invisible, and
it has been invisible, you point out, through, I think, two mechanisms, one, that it trains the
elites in other countries in order to manage affairs on behalf of American imperialism, and also
because it disseminates, through popular media, images of America that in essence -- I'm not
sure you use this word exactly -- indoctrinate or brainwash a population into allowing them to
believe that America is instilled with values that in fact it doesn't have, the ability of imperialistic
forces to supposedly give these values to the countries they dominate.
I mean, that is
a kind of a raison d'être for economic and even military intervention, as we saw in Iraq, in planning
democracy in Baghdad and letting it spread out across the Middle East, or going into Afghanistan
to liberate the women of Afghanistan. That, as somebody who spent 20 years on the outer edges
of empire, is a lie.
"The tragedy is that we have become a screen culture, televisions, computers, phones, tablets, etc.
Our electronic hallucinations have produced a society that has little time or patience for introspection
or deep thinking. It reinforced my decision to maintain a television free life. For some, what Chris
has to say may cut to close to the bone. But those with the courage to do so are usually the ones that
care the most."
The biggest and most invisible elephant in the American psyche is this: our government has long
since abandoned the goal of managing this nation as a nation.
Instead, America as a nation is managed as a means to global empire.
- First they manufacture monstrous lies, and then they tell us that we should
be objective!
Is love objective; is it passion? Are dreams defendable, logically and philosophically?
When a house is attacked by brigands, when a village is overran by gangsters, when smoke, fire
and cries for help are coming from every corner, should we award ourselves with the luxury of time
to calculate, analyze and aim at complete logical, ethical, holistic and objective solutions?
I strongly believe no! We are obliged to fight those who are burning our dwellings, to hit with
full force those who are attempting to rape our women, and to confront fire with fire when innocent
beings are slaughtered.
When the most powerful and the most destructive force on earth employs all its persuasive might,
utilizing everything from the mainstream media to educational facilities, in order to justify its
crimes, when it spreads its poisonous propaganda and lies in order to oppress the world and suppress
hope, do we step back and begin endless and detailed work on precise and objective narratives? Or
do we confront lies and propaganda with our own narrative, supported by our intuition, passion and
dreams for a better world?
***
The Empire lies continuously. It lies in the morning, during the day, in the evening, even at
night, when most of the people are sound asleep. It has been doing it for decades and centuries.
For grand deceits it relies on countless numbers of propagandists who pose as academics, teaches,
journalists and “public intellectuals”. Perfection in the art of disinformation has been reached.
Western advertising (so much admired and used by the German Nazis) has some common roots with propaganda,
although propaganda is much older and “complete”.
It appears that even some leaders of the Empire now believe in most of their fabrications, and
most of the citizens certainly do. Otherwise, how could they sleep at night?
The western propaganda apparatus is enormously efficient and effective. It is also brilliant in
how it ensures that its inventions get channeled, distributed, and accepted in all corners of the
world. The system through which disinformation spreads, is incredibly complex. Servile local media
and academia on all continents work hard to guarantee that only one narrative is allowed to penetrate
the brains of billions.
The results are: intellectual cowardice and ignorance, all over the world, but especially in the
West and in its client states.
***
What are we, who oppose the regime, supposed to do?
First of all, things are not as hopeless as they used to be.
This is not the morbid unipolar world that we experienced in the early 90’s. Now Venezuela, Russia,
China, and Iran support large media outlets that are opposed to the Empire. Powerful television stations
emerged: RT, Press TV, TeleSUR and CCTV. Huge English language Internet-based magazines and sites
in the United States, Canada and Russia are also exposing the lies of the official Western propagandists:
Counterpunch, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Veterans News, Strategic Culture, New
Eastern Outlook quickly come to mind. And there are hundreds of important sites doing the same in
Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese and French languages.
The fight is on: the fight for an intellectually multi-polar world. It is a tough, mortal fight!
It is a crucial battle, simply because the metastases of the Western propaganda cancer have spread
everywhere, contaminated all continents, and even some of the most courageous countries and brains
that are earnestly fighting against the Western imperialism and fascism! No one is immune. To be
frank, all of us are contaminated.
Unless we win this battle, by first clearly identifying and proving “their narrative” as
fraudulent, and later by offering humanist and compassionate perceptions, we cannot even dream about
the revolution, or about any significant changes in arrangement of the world.
***
How do we achieve victory? How do we convince the masses, those billions of people? How do we
open their eyes and make them see that the Western regime is dishonest, toxic, poisonous and destructive?
Most of humanity is hooked on the Empire’s propaganda; that propaganda which is not only spread by
mainstream media outlets, but also by pop music, soap operas, social media, advertisement, consumerism,
‘fashion trends’ and by many other covert means; cultural, religious and media junk that leads to
total emotional and intellectual stupor and is administered like some highly addictive narcotic,
regularly and persistently.
Do we counter the tactics and strategy of the destructive and ruthless Empire with our honesty,
with research, with telling and writing meticulously investigated facts?
The Empire perverts facts. It repeats lies through its loudspeakers and tubes. It shouts them
thousands and thousands of times, until they sink into the sub conscious of people, penetrate the
skin, spread all through their brains.
Good will, naive honesty, “speaking truth to power”, could this change the world and the power
itself? I highly doubt it.
The Empire and its power are illegitimate, and they are criminal. Is there any point of speaking
truth to a gangster? Hardly! Truth should be spoken to people, to masses, not to those who are terrorizing
the world.
By talking to villains, by begging them to stop torturing others, we are legitimizing their crimes,
and we are acknowledging their power. By trying to appease gangsters, people are putting themselves
at their mercy.
I absolutely refuse to be in such position!
***
To win over billions of people, we have to inspire them, to fire them up. We have to outrage them,
embrace them, shame them, make them laugh and make them cry. We have to make sure that they get goose
bumps when they see our films, read our books and essays, listen to our speeches.
We have to detox them, make them feel again, wake up natural instincts in them.
Simple truth as a detox agent will not work. The poison of our adversaries has sunk too deeply.
Most of the people are too lethargic and too immune to simple, quietly stated truths!
We have tried, and others have tried as well. My acquaintance (but definitely not my comrade)
John Perkins, former US apparatchik educated by the State Department, wrote a detailed account of
his horrid deeds in Ecuador, Indonesia and elsewhere – “Confession of An Economic Hitman”. It is
a meticulous, detailed account of how the West destabilizes poor countries, using corruption, money,
alcohol, and sex. The book sold millions of copies, worldwide. And yet, nothing changed! It did not
trigger a popular revolution in the United States. There were no protests, no demands for regime
change in Washington.
In the recent past, I wrote and published two academic, or at least semi-academic books, packed
with great details, quotes and tons of footnotes: one on Indonesia, a country used by the West as
a model horror scenario for the rest of the world, after the 1965-US-sponsored military coup. The
coup killed 2-3 million people, murdered all intellectualism, and lobotomized the 4th
most populous country on earth. The book is called “Indonesia
– Archipelago of Fear”. The second book, unique because it covers an enormous part of the world
– Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia (“Oceania
– Neocolonialism, Nukes and Bones”), showed how the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and France,
literally divided and destroyed the great South Pacific island cultures and the people. Now classes
are being taught using my books, but only a very limited number of people are influenced by the facts
exposed in them. The elites in both Indonesia and Oceania made sure that the books are not widely
read by the people.
I have spent years and years compiling facts, researching, investigating. The revolutionary effectiveness
of my academic work is – I have to admit – nearly zero.
It is easy to see the contrast: when I write an essay, a powerfully crafted, emotional essay,
demanding justice, accusing the Empire of murder and theft, I get millions of readers on all continents,
as well as translations to dozens of languages!
Why do I write this; why do I share this with my readers? Because we should all be realistic.
We have to see, to understand, what people want – what they demand. The people are unhappy and scared.
Most of them don’t know why. They hate the system, they are lonely, frustrated, they know that they
are lied to and exploited. But they cannot define those lies. And academic books, exposing the lies
are too complex for them to read since the masses have no time to read thousands of indigestible
pages or the necessary education to allow them to understand what they are reading.
It is our duty to address those people, the majority, otherwise what kind of revolutionaries are
we? After all, we are supposed to create for our brothers and sisters, not for a few researchers
at the universities, especially when we realize that most of the universities are serving the Empire
by regurgitating official nomenclature and supporting demagogues.
***
The Empire speaks, writes and then repeats some outrageous lies, about its benevolence, and exceptionality
of its rule, or about the “evils” of the Soviet Union, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba.
This is done daily. In fact it is designed so that almost every human being gets his or her dose
of the toxin at least several times a day.
We feel we have to react – we begin spending years of our lives, meticulously proving, step by
step, that the Empire’s propaganda is either one big fat lie, or exaggeration, or both. After we
compile our arguments, we publish the results in some small publishing house, most likely in the
form of a slender book, but almost nobody reads it because of its tiny circulation, and because the
findings are usually too complex, too hard to digest, and simply because the facts do not shock anybody,
anymore. One million more innocent people were murdered somewhere in Africa, in the Middle East,
in Asia; what else is new?
Researching and trying to tell the truth, fully and honestly, we feel that we are doing great,
professional, scientific work. All the while the propagandists of the Empire are dying of laughter
watching us! We are representing little danger to them. They are winning effortlessly!
Why is that? Doesn’t the detailed truth matter?
It does – from the point of higher principles it matters. Ethically it matters. Morally it matters.
Philosophically it matters.
But strategically, when one is engaged in an ideological war, it does not matter that much! The
truth yes, always; the truth matters! But simplified, digestible truth, presented powerfully and
emotionally!
When immorality is ravishing the world, when it is charging mercilessly, when innocent millions
are dying, what matters is to stop the slaughter, first by identifying the murderous force, then
by containing it.
Language has to be strong, emotions raw.
When facing murderous hordes, poetry, emotionally charged songs, and patriotic odes have always
been more effective than deep academic studies. And so were political novels and films, passionate
documentaries, even explicit cartoons and posters.
Some would ask: “Just because they are lying, should we lie as well?” No! We should try to be
as truthful as we can. But our message should be often “abridged”, so the billions, not just those
selected few, could understand it.
It does not mean that the quality of our work should suffer. Simplicity is often more difficult
to achieve than encyclopedic works with thousands of footnotes.
Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” is short, just a pamphlet, straight to the point. And so is the “Communist
Manifesto”, and ‘J’accuse!”
Our revolutionary work does not have to be necessarily brief, but it has to be presented in a
way that could be understood by many. I am constantly experimenting with the form, while never compromising
on substance. My recent book, “Exposing
Lies of the Empire” has more than 800 pages, but I made sure that it is packed with fascinating
stories, with testimonies of people from all corners of the globe, with colorful description of both
victims and tyrants. I don’t want my books to collect dust in university libraries. I want them to
mobilize people.
***
I truly believe that there is not much time for “objectivity” in any battle, including those ideological
ones, especially when these are battles for the survival of humanity!
The lies of the enemy have to be confronted. They are toxic, monstrous lies!
Once the destruction stops, millions of innocent men, women and children will cease being sacrificed,
and we can return to our complex philosophical concepts, to details and to nuances.
But before we win our final battles against imperialism, nihilism, fascism, exceptionalism, selfishness
and greed, we have to fully and effectively utilize our most powerful weapons: our visions of a better
world, our love for humanity, our passion for justice. Our determination and our beliefs have to
be presented in a loud, potent, even “dogmatic” manner, our voice should be creative, artistic, powerful!
The house is on fire, comrades! The entire town is turning to ashes. The entire planet is plundered,
devastated, lobotomized.
We cannot confront bigots with nukes and battleships. But our talents, our muses, and our hearts
are here, with us, ready to join the battle.
Let us outsmart our enemies; let us make sure that the world begins laughing at them! Have you
seen them, those pathetic losers, the buffoons – the CEO’s? Have you listened to those Prime Ministers
and Presidents, those servants of the “market”? Let us convince the masses that their tyrants –the
imperialists, the neo-colonialists and all their dogmatic preachers – are nothing more than pitiful,
greedy, poisonous fools! Let us discredit them! Let us ridicule them.
They are robbing and murdering millions. Let us begin by at least pissing on them!
Let us fight Western propaganda by first exposing those who are really behind it. Let’s get personal.
Let’s turn this revolution into something creative, hilarious, truly fun!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker
and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books
are: “Exposing
Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting
Against Western Imperialism”.Discussion with Noam Chomsky:
On Western Terrorism.
Point
of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel.
Oceania
– a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for
many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the
Middle East. He can be reached through his
website or his
Twitter.
I have been reading Andre Vltchek's essays and commentaries for a longtime. His honesty,integrity,
depth of thought, and articulation id beyond any doubt. Courageous and bold writing like this
one need to reach as many people as possible - more exposure - that is what is needed:
What we need is to bring awareness to masses. We need to promote the truth - the knowledge - let
the Information reach the maximum number of people. It is all about knowing the facts.
The key to bringing in the change - the real change, is to remain informed - well informed. To
make the right decision we need all the relevant information, news, and analysis. Be it the economy
& finance, politics, or wars, information is the key. But, as we all know, searching out for the
needed information is a time consuming task.
Now, more than ever, in this fast changing world, we need "information" - Fast & Quick - at a
single point.
Here is a source that we have stumbled upon - A new comer that is already gaining momentum and
recognition among both the readers and writers alike at a lightening speed:
The News Scouter.
"All the 'Must-Read' News Stories, Information and Editorials from around the world - Everything
from Global Affairs & Finance to Science & Technology - Updated Regularly - Sorted and Categorized
- All in one place."
The only decent journalists working in the media today are working for Telesur, RT and those
mentioned in the article or as independents who get carried by this indispensible website ICH.
The rest are just presstitutes .
Sarah Rainsford of the BBC is a supreme example and John Simpson one time head of the BBC world
service admits to admiring John Pilger and Martha Gelhorn who would most likely despise his lickspittle
sellout journalistic efforts. If you read this article and havent sent a donation to ICH what
are you thinking?
Andy Perry · 1 day ago
If Vltchek wants to build an oppositioin to the self-styled 'West' he should avoid making major
concessions to his opponent right from the start.
What is the term 'West' supposed to mean?
It is relative, abstract and meaningless and it is intended to be so.
The 'West' is a BRAND NAME. Its purpose is to control the way you perceive the BRAND.
If you strip the packaging and the marketing away, the 'West' is the Anglo Saxon Axis- a collection
of Germanic countries (under NATO) led by Anglo Saxon America.
You should consider the fact that Vltchek hasn't been smart enough to figure this simple truth
out before you listen to anything further he has to say on the matter...
What is this author Vltchek trying to do? Mobilize the people of the Police States of AmeriKKKa?
To...overthrow the regime? How, when the populace is acculturated with God, Guns, and Grocery
Stores with fully-stocked shelves? Those facts will beat any kind of moral suasion in this wretched
nation. The Police State propagandists themselves present the answer: the AmeriKKKans must be
defeated in a war to bring peace to the world. AmeriKKKa must be forced into recognition that
the Police States has lost legitimacy by a more powerful state (or states). This is all that can
be done, if you read their literature on the British Empire.
Dick · 10 hours ago
The seven Principles of Propaganda P{art 1 as follows:
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and less critical in our thinking.
I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are three examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American
students being held hostage by Grenadian authorities after a coup that overthrew the government
and return the previous government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division that participated
in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting
by the US military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority. Film of the actual
rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was faked; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega
for international crimes related to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the
media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by the police. His wife was sexually
assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It was intended
to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech in congress by a girl describing
the Iraqi army throwing babies out of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq.
It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's ruling sheiks and the event never
occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally supporting
the war. It is the most blatant use of propaganda, since it used the US congress to present the
story as true. Whom do we trust?
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally.
I remember growing up during the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are
coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had
'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist fears.
Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing
there is a hidden Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple, stupid!' The most notorious use of this
technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight them over
there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these
phrases made any rational sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about
is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history.
Watching mainstream media in the US, you can see all the news is biased to the American view as
an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media and newspapers giving only a
western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping
the citizenry focused on the here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving
an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
This is obvious in politics where politicians continuously criticise their opponents. Of course,
demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations such as Saddam Hussein,
Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin
over the Ukraine and Crimea. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e.
Iran) or a known figure making us again think emotionally, thus irrationally. Certainly some of
these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in the
west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations.
The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions or ongoing conflicts where
the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality to his people.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied
by the US military. In Haiti some years back the US sent troops with no other country doing so.
The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops sent to the area. How are troops going to fight
a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests.
Who among you believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the constant
threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and
no one has presented firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been
interfering in the Middle East since the British in the late 19th century. It is all about oil
and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars over the last
hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for
most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information.
This mainly entails setting the narrative by which all subsequent events can be based upon or
interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative does not need to be true;
in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some
event. It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the
message so the flow of information is consistent with the narrative. In the last few months, I
have seen this played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict. One of the most
interesting examples of this principle was in the lead up to the Iraqi war in 2003. John Howard,
Prime Minister at the time, gave a speech in the Australian parliament justifying the intervention
in Iraq on March 18, 2003. Two days later on March 20 Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada,
gave the same speech word for word to the Canadian parliament. Either Harper is lazy or there
was an attempt to control the message in countries supporting the war. What I would like to know
is who wrote the speech in the first place. I cannot see two Prime Ministers giving an identical
speech to their respective parliaments as a coincidence.
Jim
Who have ever been in a war don't wish to go back to such. US media always shows the bombing
in the distance. If the American people could see up close the carnage, they would kill every
congressman who have voted for any war.
Again that is the reason to have massive poverty so the poor provide the soldiers with
a promise of a free college education as long as you are able to go to school in the evening after
duty, but if you are at a relentless illegal war forget about your free education.
Those in charge make sure that, for the most part, nothing that you see is as it is PRESENTED.
The game is always the same, For GOOD reason. When a very small percentage of the population controls
the system and virtually all the assets, they know the biggest weakness they have, is the people
they control figuring out who is doing exactly WHAT to them. So they stay hidden and they make it
very difficult to figure out who they are and what is actually happening.
Now I know that most people will never accept this truth regardless of being shown example
after example of it. They will always retreat to the idea that every example is just another anomaly.
It is an “exception”. It can’t be that way intentionally, etc. But whether people accept the truth
or not does not change the NATURE of the truth that exists.
In no way do I claim to have “figured this truth out” on my own. That would be absurd.
Everyone stands on the shoulders of the giants who have come before. This has been the way since
the beginning. Some people in ALL times have known the truth. What has changed is that with
the advent of the Internet, the truth is now available to everyone, unlike in the past. All anyone
has to do is truly desire to know the truth and put in a bit of time. Yet STILL the masses
refuse to see.
So clearly, the masses can probably never see. There is no other conclusion to reach.
There is something else operating on their collective minds. And this is a very hard truth for those
who do see and can accept reality and want to wake the masses. But once again, there is
no point denying this truth either.
The law is the heartbeat of these deceptions. It appears to be something it is not.
It is not there to help people and to improve society etc. It is there to control the masses and
facilitate control of the assets by the few under the guise of doing “justice for the people”. Nothing
else.
That’s why no matter how bad the schools are and how much they get worse and worse, those in charge
insist they are trying to improve them even when they are clearly going in the wrong direction. This
is the same for everything from the EPA to the FDA to military blunders, to Fast and furious, to
Obamacare, etc. etc. The entire government, media, education system is designed to create
a picture of a “world” that is a complete fantasy.
The precise form of the systems of control have varied throughout time. However, regardless
of what form is being used to control the masses, the real system is always hidden to the masses.
What in the world is even controversial about something that is this SELF EVIDENT and so comports
with common sense? Nothing, yet still the people refuse to accept this truth and are fooled
into believing that what THEY LIVE IN right now does not fit this model. Where they are, is somehow
magically “exempt” from this reality. It really is quite amazing.
I recently ran across this great 5 minute “short” by Adam Curtis. The same guy
that did “The power of nightmares” and “The century of self” series I suggest in my “fascinating
other stuff” section. Sadly, and not surprisingly, watching those is no longer very simple like it
used to be. Shockingly, they are restricting the public’s ability to see those series that blow a
huge hole in the kabuki theater. If you have never watched those series I strongly suggest you go
do that, wherever you can find them.
This short is great. Just take 5 minutes and watch it. It does a great job of giving the
facts to you from a slightly different angle. And then, it adds a piece, I was previously unaware
of, enjoy. Then I want to talk a bit about it.
Hopefully you just watched it. If not then go watch it. lol. It is truly great, like
all of his stuff. Very accessible to the average viewer. I love his style. Anyway the part
I loved so much about this short beyond how obviously right it is about so many things, is that the
non-linear system comes from THE ART WORLD. How interesting. And yet, it makes perfect sense.
Art and entertainment and the psyche of the masses are so intertwined. The whole idea is fascinating
to me.
Do you see how this non-linear system provides a SIMPLE UNIFYING explanation for an otherwise
difficult or an almost impossible to explain combination of things? And why everything always
seems like a giant Gordian Knot? By looking at it in terms of non-linear theory, it all falls into
place. Non-linear theory as an explanation, is an excellent example of Occam’s razor.
This non-linear system is clearly employed in almost everything, including the law. Support
and create contradictory items and movements and explanations so that the people simply throw up
their hands and turn over control to their “leaders”. Supreme court opinions and regulations
and laws and police behavior that all contradict each other while professing to seek the “same goal”
etc. There is no way to “prove” much of anything wrong or right. Nothing is ever resolved.
Just scandals, and events and “terror” and distractions and rinse and repeat endlessly. It is genius.
No longer JUST left right, up down, right wrong. Everything is a panoply of confusing and nonsensical
items that don’t fit. Which is of course exactly what EVERYONE observes. And hence, the “problems”
can never be resolved or solved. They just need to be managed with more and more controls.
When you’re constantly immersed in a giant non-linear show, as we all are, it is essential to
question everything, but it is difficult to remind yourself of this.
This is why I constantly remind everyone that the best way to control the opposition is
to run it, as Lenin said. Most opposition is FAKE opposition that has been put there for a reason.
And even if it began as legitimate, it will be virtually INSTANTLY infiltrated and thereby co-opted
as soon as it starts to get any real traction. Witness the Tea party movement, or Occupy,
or any other “opposition”. It is clearly not legitimate AT THIS POINT, regardless of how it started.
It is controlled or infiltrated.
So how do you deal with this insane world system? First in order to try and make
sense of anything you must always ask, “what do we actually KNOW” as opposed to what were we told?
Who told us what we were told? And “Who Benefits” if the story is believed?
Then you have to follow the money. Always. And the money in this country and
in fact in the whole world, is in the hands of a very small group. Extraordinarily small.
And that concentration is the result of world wide Central banking which exists as the result of
corrupt governments. Nothing else. Not brilliance, not because they pulled themselves up
by their bootstraps, not out working you, not “working smarter”, not building a better mousetrap.
Those are all laughable lies they tell the people to hide the REAL game.
When you control the
PRICE and supply of money, as the elite in the world do with PRIVATE fiat, fractional reserve central
banking, you can control EVERYTHING else by buying it all up, or by “allowing or supporting”
any and every other business or government or endeavor in order to keep the charade up.
NO matter how useless the business, or corrupt the government. And it can go on and on for years
and years and therefore APPEAR to be real. Just as “opposition” can be made to appear real. That
is ALL there is to it. Nothing more.
Everything else is subservient to this simple fact. Look at CNN, it sucks. Its ratings
suck. Its programming is a joke. Yet does it change? No. Does it go out of business? No.
It keeps overpaying useless losers who don’t draw any audience to be on there. Why? How does this
work in what we are told is a private “free enterprise” “dog eat dog” “work harder” best mousetrap
wins system? Why is CNN on at all the airports? Why is it cited as though it is something it is not,
i.e. a source of NEWS that people watch and trust? Why?
Those questions have no answers that make any sense as long as you look for them INSIDE
the paradigm of the world you are given. But they are simple to answer when you see that something
as ridonkulous as CNN is just one of many useful tools playing its part in the non-linear show.
It is fully supported by the powers that be to push an agenda. Nothing more. Not a legitimate business
reflecting the REAL world of ratings and response to what CONSUMERS want. Do you see this?
Because of the existence of fiat central banking, this type of example can be reproduced
countless times with drug companies, car companies, movies, magazines, “celebrities”, “politicians”,
“consumer advocate groups”, enemies, opposition, and on and on. Yet people refuse to accept the reality.
It is just too great a disconnect for most people. It is too painful to accept that they live in
a world that is not what they are told.
All of the stuff you see in the news and entertainment trying to convince people
about people “building a better mousetrap” and becoming “tycoons” and all the tripe they sell on
book tours about “self made millionaires” and how to books and interviews and made for TV movies
and series about “tough honest” government types and the “American dream” are pushed for one reason
and one reason alone. To fool
the masses into believing the world they live in is something it is NOT.
And here is another IMPORTANT KEY. All of those fairy tales they tell in news and school
and in entertainment, are just slightly more sophisticated versions of the pap they sell to the masses
like “Hope and Change”. Many intelligent people laugh at the hopeless masses who glom on
to silly slogans like “Hope and Change”, repeating it mindlessly as though just saying it will actually
DO something.
But those same people laughing at the masses about “hopiechangie” then turn and just as
naively cling to ideas such as the constitution “protects them”, that, the problems in the government
are because of “liberals”, that “terrorism” is organic and a legitimate threat to our country or
people, that “Russia is the enemy” and that the way to “get ahead” is to “work harder and smarter”.
Forget the facts. In fact, IGNORE the facts, deny the facts, lol.
Does that mean that “nobody gets nominally ahead” or that there are NO people who oppose things?
Of course not. But just because those things do exist, does not mean that they are who we are told.
Or that they are what we are told, etc.
Most of the “success stories” we are constantly fed are just survival bias and pure chance.
Some honest people will succeed in almost any system. But that is a long way from the FACT that the
percent of people WHO SUCCEED who are cheating, dwarfs the honest ones. And that the CHANCE of succeeding
by cheating, dwarfs that of being honest. And that NOBODY who is truly wealthy, hundreds
of millions and billions of dollars wealthy, has done it without “help”, meaning they have CHEATED
you using government and laws. Lol. That is reality, plain and simple.
It has always been the same. This is nothing new. All that is new is that the
masses for the last 200 years now actually think it is different, and we now have
perpetual electronic media, and a world that runs on non-linear opposition.
As long as those with control can convince those THEY CONTROL that the “controlled” are
“in charge” there is nothing to rebel against. You don’t rebel against yourself.
So the “CONTROLLERS” spend endless time and effort selling the masses ideas about “go get yours”
and freedom and “threats” from all sides that only “government intervention and regulation” can ever
hope to “solve”.
As always, once you see you can never UNsee. The non-linear insane faked up “opposition”
and “unexpected results” are all around us all the time. I show you them in the law all
the time. That’s why it is so confusing. It is designed to confuse you so you GIVE
UP control. It is intentional. The same people back all sides all the time. And hence, there
is no clear path to change because all the paths are lead by the same people at the base.
Remember the truck from Texas that “ISIS” had. if you don’t I’m giving you the link. Remember,
“ISIS” is daaaaangerous and a booooogie man. lol
As brilliant as the system is, it doesn’t work once people KNOW it is there and how it
operates. So count yourself lucky my friend and tell others about the truth about the law. We few,
we band of brothers, we need to stick together. The truth can be tough to accept. But no
real progress is even possible unless it is in the direction of the truth. So take heart.
That’s all for now, my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, live in the light.
“Obfuscation” is the bankers’ favorite word. Mike Montagne’s work (PfMPE) helped me sort things
out from a financial perspective. Unfortunately, he still believes a constitutional amendment
is going to save us. LOL! (OK, it isn’t really laughing funny. It ain’t funny at all.)
I have come to understand that real change comes from within. Government is only force.
You are right, vast edumacation required. Here’s a bonus: YouTube user TragedyandHopeMag
You’re right about that usury. The most important thing anyone can do is control their own
mind. That is the whole enchilada. But it is really much too amorphous a concept for most people.
They always want some concrete step by step plan etc. to “see change’. lol. So I try and write
about the law so people can start to catch on and then maybe slip a bit in now and then. Maybe
down the road I can write directly on the topic. But there has to be a base for people to accept
whatever you say. So I am doing my best to build that with my knowledge of how the legal game
is a scam. Of course the financial game is a scam, it relies on the legal scam. But science is
fully infiltrated as well. Everything is infiltrated. And it all relies on the legal scam that
supports “government”. But as I have said. I try not to be too radical otherwise it turns a lot
of otherwise reachable people off. And the key is reaching those who are on the edge and could
be pulled over. Those already over here just need support and info. So it is a tight rope to walk.
Regardless I always appreciate feedback. I’m glad you’re here. — L
The Adam Curtis short video was quite enlightening. It implies that countering the randomness
and non-linear presentation of events might be difficult. However, it is too easy. Just say, “We
don’t trust you. Your facts and presentations mean nothing to us because we find you not trust
worthy.” Don’t get into their arguments with their weaving of truths with fiction. Just keep repeating
that most people don’t trust them anymore, and more people trust them less all the time. Don’t
try to fight their evil mind manipulating efforts with logic. Counter with expressions of complete
distrust. It’s too easy! Good luck!
In order to be Doing The Right Thing, it is necessary for you to believe Russia is an isolated
and reviled international pariah which has invaded its neighbor – Ukraine – with heavy armor, artillery
and hundreds of thousands of uniformed soldiers in the country on state orders, and which shot down
MH-17 so that it could blame it on innocent Ukraine (among other wild justifications). It is a country
which makes nothing and is totally reliant on energy exports; backward, barbaric, uncultured and
unlettered, deceitful and underhanded.
An excellent example to start off with is
Forbes, featuring the clownish oaf Paul Roderick Gregory. Mr. Gregory was one of the first to
latch on to the scoop that Russia had inadvertently published the figures of its dead in the "Eastern
Ukrainian Campaign", in a small, innocuous business newspaper called Delovaya Zhizn (Business
Life). Then, the story goes, the government frantically deleted the information, but not before some
sharp-eyed truthseekers hasd pounced on it and exposed it to the world. Yahoo – staunchly Russophobic
in its news content –
jumped on it as well. Social media dismembered it in hours and
revealed
it as a fake, while the purported representative of Business Life claimed the site had been hacked
from a Kiev-registered IP on August 22nd, and the bogus data inserted long enough to be captured,
then erased. The excitement the story caused in the media was something to see, and the Twitter storm
– led by luminaries like Michael McFaul drawing attention to it for all they were worth – was furious
while it lasted. Once it was exposed as a fake, the story just kind of…went away. Nobody said sorry.
No western news story on Russia or Ukraine is complete without the insertion of the phrase "Russian
aggression" like a trademark, and an assertion that Russia has large numbers of military troops in
Ukraine although it cynically denies it. News sites regularly claim there is "pretty overwhelming
evidence" that Russia and Putin are lying, but none of them ever cite any, and the United States
refuses to release any satellite imagery confirming the purported troop movements or transit of armored
columns. It must be sensitive about Putin's feelings, and is protecting him. Ha, ha.
... ... ...
CNN's "Banned!
10 Things You Won't Find in Russia" is, unsurprisingly, horseshit. The law forbidding "gay propaganda"
does not "mean anyone campaigning for LGBT rights or equating straight and gay relationships can
be prosecuted. " It is quite specific that it may not be pitched to minor children, but the United
States has become so chuffed with itself over how gay-friendly it is that it seems to think nobody
is too young to learn how to do it the gay way. How about three – is three too young, do you think?
Thinking about sending your gender nonconforming three-year-old son to
Crossdresser Camp? I wonder if the other boys in his class – when he's, say 12 – are going to
be as supportive? Gay adults can do as they please in Russia, as they always could, and homosexuality
was legal in Russia ten years before the USA got around to saying it was okay to be gay.
Anonymous blogs are illegal – oh, dear. That should be of great concern to the civil libertarians
who are sharing their phone conversations with the NSA, have been for some time before it was revealed,
and the NSA refuses to stop, while the government refuses to make them. National security, you know.
Think about that next time you're discussing your hemorrhoids with your doctor on the telephone.
Western food is banned; quite a lot of it, anyway. Why is that, CNN, again? Because of sanctions
imposed against Russia. Why? Well, because the Russians shot down MH-17, of course! And before anyone
calls tit-for-tat sanctions "childish", yes, they are. But you're talking to the country that changed
the name of the American street on which the Soviet Embassy was located to "Andrei Sakharov Street",
just for spite. The Wall Street Journal called it "simple
but inspired". They were half-right: it was simple. Stay tuned for the U.S. Embassy to be on
"Edward Snowden Boulevard".
Foul language is banned from films and television. Oh, no. How could anyone sit through a movie
in America if it was not non-stop swearing from start to finish…kind of like conversation is in the
USA. Ridden a city bus lately? Honestly, America has become the proverbial caricature of itself,
so obsessed with slagging off the Russians in an attempt to humiliate them that it portrays being
The Sopranos from sea to shining sea as some kind of virtue.
Drug related websites. The mind reels. Where is I gonna get my hit on, iffen I can't fin' my on-line
dealer? CNN….man, I just don't know. I used to think, when I still watched CNN, probably about 10
years ago, that Wolf Blitzer was the worst thing about it. But now you is on a ho' notha level. Freedom…is
drug-related websites.
... ... ...
The Independent (owned by a Russian oligarch – oops! "Tycoon", I meant, which is how western newspapers
sucked up to Poroshenko the Billionaire after he took over the presidency of Ukraine) reports, completely
gratuitously, that Moscow is "the
world's unfriendliest city"; so designated by a survey conducted among the readers of Travel
& Leisure Magazine! Which had a
total circulation, in 2011, of
just under 971,000. Ha, ha!! Jesus, listen to yourselves, will you? More than twice as many people
read Rolling Stone, Bon Appetit and Golf Digest as read Travel & Leisure.
Take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, Travel & Leisure! Who gives a toss what you think?
We'll see all 971,000 of you in Galway, Ireland (rated the "friendliest" city), and you'd probably
all fit.
Timothy Snyder, eminent historian and defender of the Maidan,
tells whoever
will listen that Kiev is the only bilingual capital in Europe. Mind you, he also says Ukraine
is a country of 50 million people, when he's actually spotting them about 10 million. Ukraine
lost around 3 million
people in 2014 – and you know where they went – and the population currently stands at just under
43 million according to the state statistics service. But what's a couple of million more or less?
We routinely hear how a million or two well-educated and talented people rush for the exits in Russia
every year, but by some miracle
the population is increasing!
The babushkas must be knitting new Russians in the basement at night, like the Keebler elves.
There's no need to dissect Snyder's embarrassing knowledge deficit further – my colleague, Paul
Robinson, does a wonderful job of that – but suffice it to say Kiev is far from the only bilingual
capital in Europe. More importantly, Snyder is playing up the distinctive nature of Ukrainian as
if being able to switch between Russian and Ukrainian is an accomplishment on a par with speaking
French and English. Russian and Ukrainian are both East Slavic languages descended from a common
root – the language of the medieval Kievan Rus – and are mutually intelligible; that is, the two
have sufficient common elements that if you can speak one fluently, you will be able to understand
much of the other.
Get the picture? Western leaders, through the western media, rely on feted "experts" who do not
know if their ass is bored or punched, but who nonetheless blather whatever their paymasters want
to hear – and what they want to hear, pretty consistently, is that Russia is barbaric, weak and surly,
reeling from sanctions which are wringing its economy like a dishrag. They want to hear that its
population is steadily declining, thanks to its increasingly unpopular and unstable president. Timothy
Garton Ash regularly paints a bloodcurdling – if you're a Russian – picture of a tottering giant
about to topple. Edward Lucas, narcissistic British bonehead, rails against Putin's non-existent
determination to bring the Baltics under his dictatorial command. Craaazzzy Annie Applebaum, Mrs
former-Polish-political-wunderkind, snaps at her own entrails in a Russophobic delirium. Julia Ioffe.
Luke Harding. Shaun Walker and Roland Oliphant. Simon Ostrovsky of Vice News. Rainbow-Brite
Hater Jamie Kirchik of The Daily Beast. Too many to name them all, each pumping out soporific
smoke that reassures westerners of their ongoing moral superiority and perspicacious judgment. All
of it totally manufactured nonsense, delivered with a straight face in an atmosphere in
which nobody wishes to challenge their accuracy, because it just feels so good to let go and believe.
I'm not arguing this so the west will come to its senses and try to repair the damage it has done
to international relationships, entirely owing to society's own myopic stupidity and epic eagerness
to be fooled. It's much too late for that; Russia has reached the realization that it cannot be a
partner to the west so long as Russia insists upon making its own decisions and following its own
policies. Consequently, it is decisively turning away from the west and reordering its markets, its
institutions and its partnerships. Some business relationships might recover, but the west will not
be trusted again for a generation at least. Because you can't trust someone who will not listen to
reason.
I'm arguing it because the rest of the world is looking aghast at the west as if it had gotten
drunk at their kids' birthday party and made an ass of itself, and it's embarrassing.
Well Mark, the torrent of b/s spouted by the self-proclaimed and good will only serve one function
in the end – something for Western Screaming Heads (TM) to drown in as none of what they produce
actually makes a damn worth of difference. There is no talent preaching to the converted, but
much of these so called credibly western institutions have also lost credibility with their own
citizens. It's a model case of the decline and fall of empire & power. It's only going to get
funkier.
Meanwhile, as if on cue, the Brits are still playing at calling the shots:
Britain could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition
period if it helped resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday,
in what appeared to be a softening of tone on the Syrian leader….
…Reuters reported on Wednesday that Russian forces have begun participating in combat operations
in Syria to help defend Assad's government, citing three Lebanese sources familiar with the political
and military situation there.
Hammond told parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that a political rather than military solution
was needed and said Britain had made clear to Russia and Iran, Assad's principal international
allies, that it would be prepared to discuss a plan which saw him stay on temporarily.
"If there is a sensible plan for transition that involves Assad remaining in some way involved
in the process for a period of time we will look at that, we will discuss it. We are not saying
he must go on day one," he said, adding that the transition could be a period of months….
…Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which could
see Assad share power.
"That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate
and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has
committed is able to run for office," he said…
####
We'll not hang you now Bashar, we'll hang you a bit later. Deal?
The Brits yet again speaking for the US. Who needs puppets when you can have a poodle? Woof!
That's the kind of stuff that makes me throw things. Jesus Q. Johnnycake, what is it with Britain
and its conviction that the world is comprised of Britain, and her colonies, which she suffers
to live only insofar as they conform to a standard of decorum bred in Whitehall? Poxy gits; "Britain
could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition period if it helped
resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday". Is that
so? What that has been instigated by the UK in the last decade would lead you to believe Britain's
opinion was indispensable?
"…Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which
could see Assad share power.
"That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate
and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has
committed is able to run for office," he said…"
That's because he knows full well Assad would win in a landslide, and the appropabation of
his people cannot be allowed to interfere with Britain railroading him for war crimes without
a trial. War crimes! Jesus Christ! What the fuck does he think has been goinmg on in Ukraine??
There's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of what's going on there and who's responsible for
it, but "the international community" could not care less.
I had to take a deep-breathing break. The important thing is to get some effort brought to
bear on reversing ISIS and driving them back, and eventually, out. Then Russia will have a little
more breathing room for Britain's case to collapse. I'm sure Russia would not preserve Assad only
to see the British cart him off to The Hague.
I was just reading an old post, linked in another reply, and ran across some research I did
on the position of General Secretary of the UN. Did you know that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair
were nominated to run against Ban Ki-Moon? Blair was still PM at the time, and the UN General
Secretary cannot be from any of the veto-wielding powers, so they were both ineligible – but can
you imagine?
It's a particularly British skill putting other people's backs up. Today we call it trolling
for that is surely what his PR team is aiming at. Why? Because they can and they enjoy it.
Of course, two can play at that game, but the Russians should, selectively do this also. It's
not hard.
If only Philip Hammond had an actual talent apart from trolling that was valuable. Something
like this:
He's a threat to the national security state. By hook, or by crook, professionals will
try to make sure that he doesn't become Prime Minister. Assuming that he becomes Labor leader,
these professionals have less than five years.
thanks mark… "Nobody said sorry." that and the constant hypocrisy from the west via the msm,
drives me fucking crazy.. lying and pushing for all the wrong reasons never really impressed me..
at bit part of me doesn't follow the msm for these reasons.. when the herd is going one way, i'm
going to be going the other way.. fb – naw… msm – naw, living in a cave – yeah, lol.. i admire
your work trying to dissect it all.. that is a constant uphill battle that isn't ever going to
stop!
Well said, Mark. I agree the road ahead looks bleak and is not about to get any better any
day soon.
The reason for the eye-rolling of the rest of the world is that few in the West know how to
think. Fewer still know that they have been deliberately taught not to think (through being ridiculed
for asking questions and not being told the difference between Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom)
and to look to shills and idiots known as 'experts' to do their thinking for them.
This is not how we survived two million years. Oops, sorry, that should read 6000 years . .
. . and never mind those dinosaur bones! Regardless, we will not survive a similar time span either
way, or anything like it, into the future
Published on 9 Sep 2015
An unsourced story originating on an Israeli website claimed Russia was about to deploy significant
military assistance to Syria to fight Islamic State. This set the media aflame and had Washington
issuing warnings. The story was not only unsourced, but also untrue. But it did reveal how the
West frames its illegal war against Syria. CrossTalking with Eric Draitser, Danny Makki and Fawaz
Gerges.
I've been arguing since… 2012, I think, that the West, it's media – both entertainment and
news services – are beholden to what I call an "Ouroboros effect". There is one successful, time-tasted
and profitable trademark, let's call it – "Russophobia". It sells. It sells really good. There
is a constant demand for it and no shortage of supply.
But the most beatiful thing of all? "Ouroboros effect" is self sustaining! Clients demand more
of what they like and are used to ("Russophobia"), and the producers are glad to oblige, supply
them (and a few of uninitiated) with it, thus strengthening the clients perceptions on the topic
in question and making them crave more of it.
Clients are fed basically the same stuff for decades with little or no variations
in flavor or consistence – and they gladly swallow all of it and demand more.
And this "immortal, perfectly constructed animal" (Plato's words, not mine) has an
in-built defense systems. Someone is suggesting that biting and sucking your own tail right next
to a place where your feces come out is disgusting and there are more healthy things to eat around
here? Why, it must paid Kremlin's propaganda, paid Kremlin-trolls, brainwashed serfs of the Regime
or bullied by KGB poor and innocent souls. They are not to be trusted, for sure.
Someone said, that a true totalitarism is not the fact that a StateSec can come one day and
take away some "undesirable". It's when the neighbors of these "undesirables" are ratting them
away, or take part in lynching of the "Enemy", while policing each other for the slightest sign
of sedition and calling it "Being Vigilant". Or something like that.
Currently there is no any meaningful dialog between the West and Russia. On
any level. I'm speaking not only about governments here – I'm talking about every single level
of possible communication. Ultimately, I'm talking about people. The West preaches that "when
people from different ethnic and religious and cultural backgrounds come together it enriches
learning and creativity". In fact, it actually means that everyone must adopt "universal"
(read – Western) set of values to be successful and productive, and all other opinions are just
"undesirable".
Right now, I don't see any way to change the Western narrative about Russia. Russophobia is
a time-tested product in high demand. The West demands from Russia "conversion" to its superior
"values" and is not interested in any compromises or even entertaining the mere thought that the
Culturally Superior West might adopt something from Russia as well. And Russia for a change decided
that it's fed up with this sanctimonious shit piled on it for decades and would rather have an
independent policy, thank you very much.
Ouroboros will suck on its own tail. Maybe, when it stops this highly entertaining
activity the whole wide world will experience the escape from the wheel of Sansara and
unite in a humanity-wide Nirvana. Or the pigs will learn to fly.
One of the world's most sophisticated hacking groups, linked to the Russian government,
has been accused of hijacking vulnerable commercial satellite communications, using hidden receiving
stations in Africa and the Middle East to mask attacks on Western military and governmental networks.
The group, which operates Ouroboros - the virulent malware also known as "Snake" or "Turla"
- was outed last year as having mounted aggressive cyber espionage operations against Ukraine
and a host of other European and American government organisations over nearly a decade.
In a report released on Wednesday, digital security and intelligence firm Kaspersky Lab, which
was among the first to analyse the Ouroboros hackers' activities in 2014, said it had identified
a new "exquisite" attack channel being used by the group that was virtually untraceable…
…Western security officials have previously told the Financial Times they believe Ouroboros
to be a Russian operation - a fact supported by the group's targets and clues in the coding of
the malware itself.
Satellite operators are meanwhile powerless to prevent the hackers from routing requests
through their networks - at least for the next few years. The only other way to do so, experts
note, would be for them to encrypt all of their downstream communications - a process that would
require the launch of entirely new satellite arrays.
####
This piece certainly ticks all the boxes of Fear Uncertainly & Doubt.
Two points:
1: Not only would new satellites have to be sent up, but satellite receiving equipment would
have to be upgraded on the ground, though I would assume that these days is could be done through
software;
2: But, bu, but haven't we been told many times that Kaspersky – a Russian software security
firm – is close to the Kremlin. If so, then why 'uncover' this story that would
be so apparently damaging to their own friends? Of course this is one step of logic that no self-respecting
active or passive russophobic journalist, or simply one enjoying it, would deign to ask.
So you see, yet again and apart from Kaspersy in this case, no other named source
is willing to come out and publicly name finger the Russians and of course the Kremlin by association.
Yes kids, its is journalism at its finest!
Yes, the "western analysts" to whom they refer are probably FireEye, a California firm, who
claimed that a super-capable virus program it discovered "was programmed on Russian-language machines
and built during working hours in Moscow."
We've already been over how idiotic that is.
Syria crisis: Nato concerned by Russia 'military build-up'
The US and Nato have expressed concern over reports that Russia is increasing its military
presence in Syria.
Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said if confirmed, Russia's involvement would not help to solve
the conflict.
Separately on Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry "reiterated" his concerns to Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over the phone.
Russia, a key ally of Syria during its four-year civil war, says it has sent military experts
but that is all.
Correspondents say that without Moscow's backing, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may have fallen
by now.
It is clear the USA does not want any help in Syria, unless it is from its trusted allies.
I wonder why? Does Washington honestly think people are so dozy that they can't catch on? A couple
of other things are clear, too; one, either the USA's intelligence is terrible or it did not even
bother to check if the rumors are true, because the Kremlin has said it has no immediate plans
to intervene in Syria. However, two, the USA obviously does not trust the answer, because it has
already taken the step of asking European allies in the region to deny permission for overflight
to Russia. It seems fairly obvious that the USA does not want Russia in Syria even though it is
"losing" to ISIS.
I'm sure the Kremlin is well aware that the USA is covertly helping and encouraging ISIS, and
hopes they will overrun Damascus. And Britain's snooty attitude about Assad possibly continuing
in his position as leader suggests they expect the push that will overwhelm Assad to come soon.
I can't believe Russia is just going to sit back and let it happen, knowing the main purpose is
to enable a Qatari gas pipeline that will cut it out of the European gas market.
The pipeline is a big deal but they also want to remove (no, murder) any non-compliant national
leader – need to keep up the image of invincibility. Notice how the leaders of Iraq, Serbia and
Libya were all murdered directly or indirectly by Western hands.
Western propaganda simply provides cover for the vast majority of the US population who are
fearful of recognizing the Empire's hideous face,
It has come up in this blog from time to time that most Americans are basically decent and
simply lack access to truthful information. I tend to disagree. Anyone with decency and half a
brain would not be deluded by the idiocy that passes for news. In short, the majority of Americans
choose to be ignorant because they are cowards.
You're quite right about the importance of the image of invincibility achieved by the literal
or metaphorical grinding of all opposition into the dirt. In addition to the list you give, it
seems that Yanukovich was also targeted for assassination, only narrowly escaping with his life
and yet his 'crime' was the seemingly pretty minor one of deferring the EU Association Agreement.
The same kind of conquering mentality was discernible in the Greek bailout negotiations when the
Troika went all out to heap humiliation on Tspiras. A glimpse of the psychopaths behind the liberal,
democratic masks.
This is speculation but what makes sense to me is that there is a faction (at least) within
the Russian govt that is pushing for upping the military support to Syria and this fabricated
controversy is an attempt to head off that internally proposed Russian initiative.
All this, to me, points to the US getting desperate to overcome the SAA, and soon, otherwise
'all is lost'
"…rely on feted "experts" who do not know if their ass is bored or punched…"
God you make me laugh.
Thanks for the intro to Rory Galagher. Completely new to me. Working through some you tube
videos and it's far better for my blood-pressure than getting caught up on the day's "mendacity
index."
Yes, the plan to tip over Syria does go back quite a bit, and the USA has always wanted to
take him out because he is a Russian ally. His refusal of the Qatari pipeline deal put the writing
on the wall for him.
I remember some U.S. Economic wonk talking about the way Syria seemed to sit out the GFC of
2008 as if it was somehow sinister that the "cheap seats" would get a – cough – pass.
Wish I could remember who it was. Someone of Summers' stature but not him.
At the time it struck me as utterly perverse: Let me get this straight… You are belittling
this country because its government – maybe by accident: who cares? – has insulated its citizens
from the worst of our epochal melt down? You do realize, given the country's level of development,
that you are talking about whether the population can, you know, eat?
I smell the earthy and pastoral bouquet of bovine excrement. Both
USA Today and
Die Zeit are agreed that ISIS/ISIL numbers only about 20,000-30,000 members. Yet representatives
of the "USA-led Coalition" claim to have killed more than 15,000 of them, in around 5,500 air
strikes – an air strike for every 6 people in the organization.
Oh, sure, USA Today claims that recruiting has offset the losses, but seriously –
a force of no more than 30,000 is prevailing against the Syrian Army and the USA-led Coalition,
despite the fact that it has no air force of its own, and gaining like a brush fire? What kind
of nancies is the USA-led coalition recruiting these days? Can you hear, ghost of Simon de Montfort,
whose tiny force of French knights defeated a force more than 20 times their own number at Muret?
It's no good – the professionalism of the Syrian army is well-established, and they were enjoying
significant success against the rebels until the USA poked its warty nose in and said "I insist
that I help you; no, no, you're not doing it right", and ISIS straight away began to gain ground.
There is no reasonable explanation other than that Washington will countenance no other outcome
than an ISIS victory, and is working energetically toward that goal.
UN: in the Donbass almost 8 thousand people have died Almost 8 thousand people have lost their lives in Eastern Ukraine since mid-April 2014. This
is stated in a report published by the UN Monitoring mission on human rights in the Ukraine, reports
Ukraine National News.
In the report, which covers the period from 16 may to 15 August 2015, it is noted that the
number of civilian casualties has increased by more than half compared with the previous three
months: 105 people were killed and 308 injured compared to 60 killed and 102 wounded between February
16 and may 15.
So, since the conflict began in Eastern Ukraine in mid-April of 2014, at least 7,962 people,
including members of the Ukrainian Armed forces, civilians and members of armed groups, have been
killed and at least 17,811 wounded, the high Commissioner said, citing the latest available data.
And a deathly silence about this in the Western media.
I'm with him. The casualties in Syria are hyped considerably higher than the real figure, because
the activists want to provoke a NATO intervention and a high kill count argues for that, while
the aim in Ukraine is the exact opposite.
That's the Bosnian Gambit. Not long after the civil war in Bosnia started, Cherif Bassiouni
picked 200,000 dead Bosnian civilians out of his ass and the Pork Pie News Networks ran with it
like an olympic gold marathon runner.
He of course hails from the De Paul university, one of the biggest sources serbophobic hate
during the conflict. He's a Humanitarian War warrior of the first odor:
Yes, Cohen and German intelligence say that the 8K figure only correlates to morgue body counts;
the total figure is much higher.
Yukie news and Western Pork Pie News always implies these deaths are caused by the blood thirsty
Evil One. Svidomite bloggers even post pictures of slaughtered by Yukie army artillery barrages
Donbass civilians, stating that this is the work of Russia's bloody hands.
Included in those Svidomite propaganda blogs are horrific images of disembowelled, limbless
Ukrainian Donbass citizens, including women and babies and small children. The Svidomites even
show pictures of those civilians murdered by Yukie air force cluster bombs at Lugansk, including
pictures of that woman in the red dress who had her legs partly blasted off and who was still
conscious and speaking shortly before she died, claiming that their deaths were caused by Putin.
Poland – the eternal enemy of the Ukraine. And it is unfortunate that the representatives
of the Kiev regime are not capable of recognizing this fact that has been written and voiced by
many historical and philosophical minds. So says the leader of the Ukraine Union of Left Forces,,
Vasilii Volga, who is amused by the misunderstanding shown by high representatives of the Kiev
regime as regards the real goals of the relationship between the Ukraine and the heirs of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Yeah, well … the perfidious Moskaly subhuman Orcs are the real enemy of the Ukraine, aren't
they?
I would be willing to bet that a map strikingly similar to the one pictured was swimming in
and out of the consciousness of former NATO Secretary-General-in-waiting Radek Sikorsky when he
blurted out that outrageous falsehood about hearing Putin propose the carving-up of Ukraine
to Poland's leaders. He went for it because he knew English-speakers would immediately assume
it was true, and did not count on Polish pushback from his rivals because, like most stuck-on-themselves
diplomatic golden boys, it did not occur to him that he had any serious rivals among the dullards
that make up his fellows in Poland's political milieu. I am more sure all the time that his bold
declaration was a trial balloon to gauge Europe's reaction to Poland's repatriation of its former
lands. He just decided to float it as a Russian plan in case Europe freaked out. He probably thought
it was foolproof.
"...The fact that he believes that capitalism has or ever had a "moral center" (other than "greed
is good!") is absolutely touching in its naivete." . "...The prototype and kickstarter for capitalist industry was sugar plantation slavery (15th century,
Madeira, Canary Islands)"
The latest from Robert Reich begins with:
What Happened to the Moral
Center of American Capitalism? : An economy depends fundamentally on public morality; some
shared standards about what sorts of activities are impermissible because they so fundamentally
violate trust that they threaten to undermine the social fabric.
It is ironic that at a time the Republican presidential candidates and state legislators are
furiously focusing on private morality – what people do in their bedrooms, contraception, abortion,
gay marriage – we are experiencing a far more significant crisis in public morality.
We've witnessed over the last two decades in the United States a steady decline in the willingness
of people in leading positions in the private sector – on Wall Street and in large corporations
especially – to maintain minimum standards of public morality. They seek the highest profits and
highest compensation for themselves regardless of social consequences.
CEOs of large corporations now earn 300 times the wages of average workers. Wall Street moguls
take home hundreds of millions, or more. Both groups have rigged the economic game to their benefit
while pushing downward the wages of average working people.
By contrast, in the first three decades after
World War II
– partly because America went through that terrible war and, before that, the Great Depression
– there was a sense in the business community and on Wall Street of some degree of accountability
to the nation.
It wasn't talked about as social responsibility, because it was assumed to be a bedrock of
how people with great economic power should behave.
CEOs did not earn more than 40 times what the typical worker earned. Profitable firms did not
lay off large numbers of workers. Consumers, workers, and the community were all considered stakeholders
of almost equal entitlement. The marginal income tax on the highest income earners in the 1950s
was 91%. Even the effective rate, after all deductions and tax credits, was still well above 50%.
Around about the late 1970s and early 1980s, all of this changed dramatically. ...[continue]...
Peter K. said...
Krugman speculated it started when sports fans began discussing star baseball players' salaries.
CEOs went Galt and asked why not us also?
Workers are just inputs like fixed capital nothing
more.
What's good for GE and Goldman Sachs - profits - is good for America.
DeLong asks the more central question. When did business leaders decide that growth, aggregate
demand and full employment wasn't in the interest of their companies?
In the 1950 and 1960s they were in favor of a high-pressured economy. That changed.
Maybe it was the 1970s and "take this job and shove it."
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
They also forget about the Great Depression as it faded from memory.
And the Cold War ended.
Would they risk Western nations like Greece and Spain going to the other side because of sky high
unemployment? No they'd govern them with military dictatorships.
Ben Groves said in reply to Peter K....
US investment/capital markets were semi-nationalized from WWII into the mid-70's. The whole basis
was to fight the Nazis then Soviets. The economic crisis of the mid-70's, detente and excessive
growth beyond cohort changed things. For all the 79-89 hype, the cold war died with that global
economic crisis of the 1970's as the Soviet Union never recovered and China bailed.
Business view was that the pre-WWII order needed to be restored. I think many people mistake
the 50's and 60's as "normal", but they weren't. They were a time of war.
Well, given the US has been at war since Reagan, elected because Carter would not go to war, how
do you explain the punishment of workers to reverse the glorifying of workers from the 30s through
even the 70s??
It was not war that made the period before 1980 better over all, but the understanding
that consumers could only spend as much as they were paid, and the problem for a corporation seeking
to grow was making sure all the other corporations paid their employees well.
By the end of the 80s, the iconic corporations of the 60s in terms of growth and loyalty to
employees were criticized by free lunch MBAs for sticking with the old ways of treating employees
as assets because they were being creamed by competitors who treated employees as liabilities.
Eg, IBM was badly managed because it was not screwing its workers like Dell, HP was doomed because
it was not firing all its US factory workers and contracting with Asia factories.
You see, the MBAs were teaching that US workers are liabilities to replaced with the cheapest
non US workers and the US consumer needs to be mined for ever more dollars of spending. And if
consumers were not spending enough, the problem was they were taxed too much, so the calls for
tax cuts to put money in consumer pockets so consumers could shop 24 by 7.
Before 1980, everything was zero sum. If you want that $1000 car or boat, you had to first
earn $1000, unless the manufacturer float you a loan with a threat of the repo man. That meant
manufacturers needed every consumer to have a job. And every dollar paid to workers came back
to them in consumer spending. And government was the same way - if you wanted better roads, you
first had to agree to taxes to pay for it.
After 1980, the idea economies were zero sum were thrown in the trash can. Want something,
borrow and spend. Republicans would get government out of the way of the loan sharks. The loan
sharks became bank owners and got rid of their enforcers, turning that over to Congress. Think
of all the debt you can not shed but that government collects by force by the IRS and attaching
your Social Security benefit.
Once consumers could borrow and spend, workers are now purely liabilities. Get rid of them.
In the real world, the ivory tower of business and economics is not able to be applied 100%
or even 20%, but that even 20% of the connection between payroll and business sales is lost means
an ever deepening pit of debt.
Federal debt declined from before the end of WWII as a burden on GDP until Reagan and then
it grew as if the US were waging a war larger than the Korean war or Vietnam war or WWI or maybe
the Civil war.
With the exception of the Clinton years which were not free of war, the budget has looked like
a major war was going on.
DrDick said...
The fact that he believes that capitalism has or ever had a "moral center" (other than "greed
is good!") is absolutely touching in its naivete.
Paine said in reply to DrDick...
Sweet bobby
bakho said in reply to DrDick...
Indeed. Greedy "Malefactors of Great Wealth" don't become wealthy by fair play. Nothing obtained
by workers was ever got without a fight. Many bloody union battles over dead bodies won worker's
rights. Once the unions lost power, workers went backward.
As a liberal, I can play the game of name calling, character assassination, etc.
How do you think it is that there are capitalists with loyal workers? Do you think there are
capitalists who understand that economies are zero sum and that you can't have customers wealthier
than employees are wealthy?
I see lots of worker advocates who seem to think that every worker can be paid $1000 and only
pay $500 for everything produced.
A system is not judged by its functioning components but by its malfunction components and the
emergent failures of the system of components
U know that
Social production systems often grow and develop
they re not zero sum !
They produce a social surplus when functioning well
That social surplus gets ex appropriated by an exploiter class in class systems
The primary producers may add 1000 in value and receive only 600 of that value as compensation
Suggesting radicals or at least some radicals want more then one hundred percent of the social
product for the producers themselves is blatant Tom foolery
"How do you think it is that there are capitalists with loyal workers?"
The same way plantation
owners had "loyal slaves". Loyalty lasted until Sherman's boys came and said, "You are free and
if you show us where the silverware is hid, we'll split it with you."
Loyalty only goes as far as the next better offer.
anne said...
Assuming there was at least a superficial acknowledgement of a "moral center of American capitalism,"
that surface acceptance was methodically worn away from the 1970s on. An early sign of the wearing
away and the need to turn away from a moral center of capitalism came with this article in 1970:
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the term "Chicago boys" was originally used to refer
to Latin American economists, trained at the University of Chicago, who took radical free-market
ideology back to their home countries. The influence of these economists was part of a broader
phenomenon: The 1970s and 1980s were an era of ascendancy for laissez-faire economic ideas and
the Chicago school, which promoted those ideas....
-- Paul Krugman
Paine said in reply to anne...
A charming little toad that Milty
Swallow him and die of his poisons
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Street value of milty's elixir: Oligopolistic Corporate free range capitalism
1. The prototype and kickstarter for capitalist industry was sugar plantation slavery (15th
century, Madeira, Canary Islands)
2. Slavery was extolled by Southern slaveowner aristocratic
"ethics and theology" as the pinnacle of bible-based Western Civilization.
3. After defeat of the Confederacy, the neo-Confederate heirs of the old slaveowner plutocrats
rewrote history to deny that the South fought the Civil War to retain slavery.
4. The big lie of "Lost Cause" neo-Confederacy is the secret sauce of the Republican Party
"Southern strategy" emulated by the "centrism" of the Democrats.
5. What happened to the "moral center" of American Capitalism?
6. Just what "moral center" are you referring to, Bob?
"in spite of elaborate attempts at mystification, the real cause of the
war and the real issue at stake are every day forcing themselves into prominence with a distinctness
which cannot be much longer evaded. Whatever we may think of the tendencies of democratic institutions,
or of the influence of territorial magnitude on the American character, no theory framed upon
these or upon any other incidents of the contending parties, however ingeniously constructed,
will suffice to conceal the fact, that it is slavery which is at the bottom of this quarrel, and
that on its determination it depends whether the Power which derives its strength from slavery
shall be set up with enlarged resources and increased prestige, or be now once for all effectually
broken."
Don't forget about 1600's Amsterdam. That was the kickstarter for finance capitalism. William
the Orange exported it to the Brits and the rest is history. The link between the 2 is indeed
"bible based".
"The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders
- they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends
of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground - Christianity
and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake."
Thornwell was a Rothschilds bagman fwiw. The whole basis of the planters was slaves. They couldn't
make it without them. Without the production, Europe would be in shortage. Hurting the Rothschilds
business interests.
That is why quotes never workout. You create a dialect when it is all personal motive. Not
all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production cycles.
anne said in reply to anne...
Not all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production
cycles.
[ I am waiting for the documentation of the many socialists who thought.... ]
Paine said in reply to anne...
Socialist is a very eclectic catch all term Anne
Some socialist by self description probably believed in human sacrifice
Not all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production
cycles.
[ I know precisely what I have been asking for. I am still waiting for the documentation of
the many socialists who thought.... ]
anne said in reply to Ben Groves...
Thornwell was a ----------- bagman for what it's worth. The whole basis of the planters was slaves.
They couldn't make it without them. Without the production, Europe would be in shortage. Hurting
the ----------- business interests.
[ Again, where is the documentation, the "----------- bagman"
documentation, to what I consider simply calumny? ]
James Henley Thornwell (December 9, 1812 – August 1, 1862) was an American Presbyterian
preacher and religious writer from the U.S. state of South Carolina. During the American Civil
War, Thornwell supported the Confederacy and preached a doctrine that claimed slavery to be morally
right and justified by the tenets of Christianity.
"Thornwell, in the words of Professor Eugene Genovese, attempted "to envision a Christian society
that could reconcile-so far as possible in a world haunted by evil-the conflicting claims of a
social order with social justice and both with the freedom and dignity of the individual."
"The ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old Constitution," says the Vice
President of the Southern Confederacy [Alexander Stephens],
"...were that the enslavement of the African race was in violation of the laws of nature; that
it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. Our new government is founded on
exactly opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth
that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is
his natural and moral condition. This our Government is the first in the history of the world
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. It is upon this our social fabric
is firmly planted, and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of the full recognition
of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.... This stone which was rejected
by the first builders 'is become the chief stone of the corner' in our new edifice."
Harry Jaffa: "this remarkable address conveys, more than any other contemporary document, not
only the soul of the Confederacy but also of that Jim Crow South that arose from the ashes of
the Confederacy."
But not just the Jim Crow South, also the enduring white supremacy that permeates
and dominates the American (incarceration nation) political discourse under code word dog whistles
like "law and order" and orchestrated abhorrence of "political correctness".
Where is the "moral center" of a cesspool whose "cornerstone" is hatred? Ask Dante.
True, but accepting Jim Crow allowed the capitalists to expand down south slowly but surely. By
1950 the south was becoming industrialized and Jim Crow was under attack. Their agriculture had
been automated. Jim Crow just delayed history.
The problem I think people have with white neo-confeds is not so much "black slavery", but
that white's were basically being starved and living standards reduced by the same system. The
1% of white's made it big with a global system at the expense of country. The anti-confeds are
basically in a race war against what they see as foreign invasion. While the neo-confeds think
they are protecting white "traditions" that really aren't really traditional to the white population
as a whole. It is a good reason why socialists who patriot nationalism and organic unity can't
unite with them. What they view as "white" is different. It leads toward political divide and
conquer.
Paine said in reply to Mike Sparrow...
Jim crow delayed southern development
Only if you abstract from the northern social formation that hatched and husbanded it.
For 100 years
Much as the slave system was husband by unionist northerns for 80 years
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
One could talk of a moral core to capitalists like thadeus Stevens
But the north ended reconstruction not because of southern white resistance
But because nothing more was need at that time and level of development
Of the north and of the union
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
The Grant years were like a sign in the sun and a sign in the moon
The sympathetic nations of Ameriika would remain in mortal struggle
Race Injustice would rule to the horizon of time and space
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
We would and will live side by side and yet turn away from each other
One side in torment the other in wrath
I think it would be useful to cite the whole paragraph of Harry Jaffa's comment on the cornerstone
speech. Who was Harry Jaffa, anyway? Some politically correct Marxist America hater? Jaffa was
the guy who wrote Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican nomination acceptance speech. You know, "Extremism
in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." That's who.
"This remarkable address conveys, more than any other contemporary document, not only the soul
of the Confederacy but also of that Jim Crow South that arose from the ashes of the Confederacy.
From the end of Reconstruction until after World War Il, the idea of racial inequality gripped
the territory of the former Confederacy-and not only of the former Confederacy-more profoundly
than it had done under slavery. Nor is its influence by any means at an end. Stephens's prophecy
of the Confederacy's future resembles nothing so much as Hitler's prophecies of the Thousand-Year
Reich. Nor are their theories very different. Stephens, unlike Hitler, spoke only of one particular
race as inferior. But the principle ot racial domination, once established, can easily be extended
to fit the convenience of the self-anointed master race or class, whoever it may be."
"The Committee respectfully urges all authorities charged with
the selection of text-books for colleges, schools and all scholastic institutions to measure all
books offered for adoption by this "Measuring Bod" and adopt none which do not accord full justice
to the South. And all library authorities in the Southern States are requested to mark all books
in their collections which do not come up to the same measure, on the title page thereof, "Unjust
to the South."
Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves.
Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholder of the South as cruel and unjust to his slaves.
"Life among the Negroes of Virginia in slavery times was generally happy. The Negroes went about
in a cheerful manner making a living for themselves and for those for whom they worked. They were
not so unhappy as some Northerners thought they were, nor were they so happy as some Southerners
claimed. The Negroes had their problems and their troubles. But they were not worried by the furious
arguments going on between Northerners and Southerners over what should be done with them. In
fact, they paid little attention to these arguments."
THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD
Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
By Edward E. Baptist
For residents of the world's pre-eminent capitalist nation, American historians have produced
remarkably few studies of capitalism in the United States. This situation was exacerbated in the
1970s, when economic history began to migrate from history to economics departments, where it
too often became an exercise in scouring the past for numerical data to plug into computerized
models of the economy. Recently, however, the history of American capitalism has emerged as a
thriving cottage industry. This new work portrays capitalism not as a given (something that "came
in the first ships," as the historian Carl Degler once wrote) but as a system that developed over
time, has been constantly evolving and penetrates all aspects of society.
Slavery plays a crucial role in this literature....
Eric Foner is the DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia.
Sounded the theme... but then failed to develop it. Maybe it was too obvious in those days, soon
after the Civil War and before the "measuring rod" of neo-Confederate censorship rewrote history.
Toxic Debt, Liar Loans, and Securitized Human Beings
The Panic of 1837 and the fate of slavery
By Edward E. Baptist
Early in the last decade, an Ayn Rand disciple named Alan Greenspan, who had been trusted with
the U.S. government's powers for regulating the financial economy, stated his faith in the ability
of that economy to maintain its own stability: "Recent regulatory reform coupled with innovative
technologies has spawned rapidly growing markets for, among other products, asset-backed securities,
collateral loan obligations, and credit derivative default swaps. These increasingly complex financial
instruments have contributed, especially over the recent stressful period, to the development
of a far more flexible, efficient, and hence resilient financial system than existed just a quarter-century
ago."
At the beginning of this decade, in the wake of the failure of Greenspan's faith to prevent
the eclipse of one economic order of things, Robert Solow, another towering figure in the economics
profession, reflected on Greenspan's credo and voiced his suspicion that the financialization
of the U.S. economy over the last quarter-century created not "real," but fictitious wealth: "Flexible
maybe, resilient apparently not, but how about efficient? How much do all those exotic securities,
and the institutions that create them, buy them, and sell them, actually contribute to the 'real'
economy that provides us with goods and services, now and for the future?" ...
chris herbert said...
I don't think Capitalism has much to do with morality. Capitalists employed 8 year olds and a
workweek of 60 hours at subsistence pay was the norm. Even today, look what American capitalists
do to their employees in the Far East! Adam Smith figured that capitalism improved people's lives
unintentionally. Not much of a moral statement, that one. That's why capitalism fails so miserably
if not tightly regulated. Democracy, on the other hand, has pretty well defined moral foundations;
Liberty, rights, equality etc. etc. Social democracies, in my opinion, have a stronger tether
to the moral side of Democracy than we currently have here in the U.S. Our moral tether was shredded
by the political right turn accomplished in the 1980s under Reagan. A similar degradation began
in the U.K. about the same time under Thatcher. Oddly enough, that 30 plus year period between
the end of WWII and 1980, was a period of strong progressive policy making. Pro labor laws, steeply
progressive tax rates, voting rights, sensible retirement funding and Medicare for the elderly
were all products of that time period. Maybe it was all an anomaly. A brief period of egalitarian
ideals that created a middle class and produced a manufacturing hegemon. No longer. We are a military
hegemon now. We are no longer a Democracy either. Most people haven't realized it; most especially
working men and women who freely give up their rights and protections by voting for Republicans.
We have the government we deserve. We are the most entertained and least informed citizens of
any of the rich countries.
Paine said in reply to chris herbert...
Exploitation has a morality
All that exists must be torn apart
Rest is sin
The future is blocked only by the present
Faust
Peter K. said...
Off topic but everyone's favorite subject: monetary policy.
Revealed Preferences: Fed Inflation Target Edition
by David Beckworth
Over the past six years the Fed's preferred measure of the price level, the core PCE, has averaged
1.5 percent growth. That is well below the Fed's explicit target of 2 percent inflation. Why this
consistent shortfall?
Some Fed officials are asking themselves this very question. A recent Wall Street Journal article
reporting from the Jackson Hole Fed meetings led with this opening sentence: "central bankers
aren't sure they understand how inflation works anymore". The article goes on to highlight some
deep soul searching being done by central bankers in the Wyoming mountains. It is good to see
our monetary authorities engaged in deep introspection, but let me give them a suggestion. Dust
off your revealed preference theory textbooks and see what they can tell you about the low inflation
of the past six years.
To that end, and as a public service to you our beleaguered Fed officials, let me provide some
material to consider. First consider your inflation forecasts that go into making the central
tendency consensus forecasts at the FOMC meetings. The figures below show the evolution of these
forecasts for the current year, one-year ahead, and two-years ahead. There is an interesting pattern
that emerges from these figures as you expand the forecast horizon: 2 percent becomes a upper
bound.
....
So rest easy dear Fed official. No need for any existential angst. According to revealed preferences,
you are still driving core inflation--which ignores supply shocks like changes in oil prices--it
is just that you have a roughly 1%-2% core inflation target corridor rather than a 2% target.
So even though you may not realize it, you are doing a bang up job keeping core inflation in your
target corridor."
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
Our Neo-Classsical single equilibrium friend Don Kervack says the economy "naturally" healed itself
despite unprecedented fiscal austerity, a trade deficit and strong dollar.
I don't buy it. Economics isn't broken. Politics is.
The center-left party for the job class should be calling up the Fed and asking "WTF?"
SomeCallMeTim said...
In the mid-1970s, at some universities economics was still called 'political economy', micro began
with consideration of equity vs. efficiency, and the legitimacy of countercyclical social programs
wasn't so widely questioned.
Was there a loss of nerve, at least in the U.S., following the
Vietnam War, the 1973 oil shock, and the following recession that led to a quantum shift in generosity
of spirit / belief in children exceeding their parents material well-being (or as politicians
would later put it, voting one's fears instead of one's hopes)?
Authoritarianism in the American collective psyche and in what might be called traditional
narratives of historical memory is always viewed as existing elsewhere.
Viewed as an alien and demagogic political system, it is primarily understood as a mode of
governance associated with the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s and, of course, in
its most vile extremes, with Hitler's poisonous Nazi rule and Mussolini's fascist state in the
1930s and 1940s. These were and are societies that idealized war, soldiers, nationalism, militarism,
political certainty, fallen warriors, racial cleansing, and a dogmatic allegiance to the homeland.[i]
Education and the media were the propaganda tools of authoritarianism, merging fascist and religious
symbols with the language of God, family, and country, and were integral to promoting servility
and conformity among the populace. This script is well known to the American public and it has
been played out in films, popular culture, museums, the mainstream media, and other cultural apparatuses.
Historical memory that posits the threat of the return of an updated authoritarianism turns the
potential threat of the return of authoritarianism into dead memory. Hence, any totalitarian mode
of governance is now treated as a relic of a sealed past that bears no relationship to the present.
The need to retell the story of totalitarianism becomes a frozen lesson in history rather than
a narrative necessary to understanding the present
Hannah Arendt, the great theorist of totalitarianism, believed that the protean elements of
totalitarianism are still with us and that they would crystalize in different forms.[ii] Far from
being a thing of the past, she believed that totalitarianism "heralds as a possible model for
the future."[iii] Arendt was keenly aware that the culture of traditionalism, an ever present
culture of fear, the corporatization of civil society, the capture of state power by corporations,
the destruction of public goods, the corporate control of the media, the rise of a survival-of-the-fittest
ethos, the dismantling of civil and political rights, the ongoing militarization of society, the
"religionization of politics,"[iv] a rampant sexism, an attack on labor, an obsession with national
security, human rights abuses, the emergence of a police state, a deeply rooted racism, and the
attempts by demagogues to undermine critical education as a foundation for producing critical
citizenry were all at work in American society. For Arendt, these anti-democratic elements in
American society constituted what she called the "sand storm," a metaphor for totalitarianism.[v]
Historical conjunctures produce different forms of authoritarianism, though they all share
a hatred for democracy, dissent, and human rights. It is too easy to believe in a simplistic binary
logic that strictly categorizes a country as either authoritarian or democratic and leaves no
room for entertaining the possibility of a mixture of both systems. American politics today suggests
a more updated if not different form of authoritarianism or what some have called the curse of
totalitarianism. In this context, it is worth remembering what Huey Long said in response to the
question of whether America could ever become fascist: "Yes, but we will call it anti-fascist."
[vi] Long's reply indicates that fascism is not an ideological apparatus frozen in a particular
historical period, but as Arendt suggested a complex and often shifting theoretical and political
register for understanding how democracy can be subverted, if not destroyed, from within.
(more at link above)
Anonymous said...
1) Gut all regulation in the name of free markets.
2) Sprinkle with the fairy dust of zero or negative real interest rates.
3) Let it rip.
I mean the moral fiber of society. this had a big hand in it.
Anonymous said in reply to Anonymous...
If anyone thinks incentives have nothing to do with deteriorating moral fiber, you are delusional.
ezra abrams said...
Is this the same RR who crossed a picket line at huff post, or someplace like that ?
cause ya know, his views are just so critical...
as my dad use to say, a scab never has to worry bout getting by, he can always steal from blind
mens cups
and liberals wonder why blue collars hate hi falutin people
anne said in reply to ezra abrams...
Where is the precise reference to this nastiness?
Since Robert Reich provides his essays to
any publication through a Creative Commons license, I cannot imagine how he could have crossed
any picket line. Any essay by Reich can be used on any Internet site.
Returning now to the nastiness....
ilsm said...
Thuglican Jesus, thuglican God......
Factitious values based on thuglican God ordained "lesser
people" should be property and the 98% exploited for the chosen .01%.......
See Sandwichman at Angry Bear.
cm said...
I suspect the moral center has been declared as a cost center, and not only yesterday.
A lot of august bodies have decided to share their thoughts on the current vis-à-vis between Russia
and what is colloquially known as "the West". Most of such "musings" inevitably touches the subject
of the current situation in Ukraine, due to it's being a "hotspot" in the bilateral relations. Most
often we are graced by some strongly worded opinions from the veritable Legion of the Free and Independent
Western press (™), or it might be even a Deep and Thorough Analysis by this or that think-tank,
NGO or research facility, sharing with the hoi-poloi of the world their convoluted (and, therefore,
unquestionably true) findings on the nature of things they probably didn't even have any previous
personal contact with.
And then we have something… anomalous. And huge. I'm talking here about a report (well, "commentary",
to be precise) of the European Council on Foreign
Relations, a rather self- explanatory name for an organization.
The picture below the title of the article shows Moscow's Kremlin and the snow-covered streets
of Moscow. Because –apparently! – it is always gloomy and snowy in Russia. How you gonna argue with
such a paragon of Western objectivity on Russia's portrayal as the Independence Day movie,
where there is snow in Russia in July?!
You might say that I'm too nitpicky. Honestly, I'll cease and desist the very moment the West
stops this kind of petty manipulation of public perception of my country.
The article from the very beginning says what it's about:
To get a clearer understanding of the situation it might be useful to start from the other
end – not to ask if the sanctions work, but to first look at the nature of Europe's problem with
Russia and ask what it would take to fix it, or even whether it can be fixed by the West at all.
That will allow us to see what role the sanctions can play in remedying the problem – and what
the things that sanctions cannot accomplish are.
In short – this article is about judging Russia by the esteemed people of the EUrocracy, and determining
– is it worthy of their "mercy". The author asks her audience,
"Do we want Russia to leave Donbas? Give back Crimea? Do we expect a regime change in Moscow?
Or do we want Russia to start behaving "as a normal European country," i.e. one that tries to
base its influence on attraction rather than coercion?"
with the straightest face possible. Suddenly, Russia became an object of EU decisions,
as if Russia now is a member of the EU (it isn't) or that the EU is some super strong, unified world
power capable of really compelling Russia to do it's bidding (again – nope).
Unfortunately, what follows is the author's opinion on "the nature of our Russian problem".
The author had a mighty lot of predecessors willing to find a "final solution" for the "Russian problem".
This particular individual, elevated well above her station by the simple fact that she writes for
the ECFR, does the most "professional" thing possible – goes full ad hominem not only against
Russian president Vladimir Putin (KGB reference included), but to the Russian people as well. You
see, for the author of this "commentary", Russians are just "rent-seeking clients" mobilized against
"enemy figures – real or imaginary". The Russian system of education (in the Soviet era, second to
none – now "thankfully" reformed by the West worshiping "democrats") plus "the state-centric way
history and international relations are taught at Russian schools and universities" has contributed
to the fact that the EU is "having problems" with Russia.
As a person educated in Russia by the Russian system of education (including Higher Education)
I can say that this kind of claim is inaccurate. In the Moscow State University (aka "Lomonosov's")
our professors took a lot of effort to drive us to the "multi-vector approach" of the history and
historiography, taught us of many existing schools of thoughts and research. No one indoctrinated
gentle young souls into some Putin-worshiping cult. I can safely claim, from personal experience,
that I was educated from a plethora of historical textbooks – including extremely "handshakable"
ones, both in school (state run) and at the Uni. Still, I am who I am despite (and thanks) to everything
that I've learned earlier. So, basically implying that the Russian state is "brainwashing" youngsters
in the state-run higher education institutions is a big fat lie. One only need to look at MSU's (of
Lomonosov) Journalism department to see teeming masses of "handshakables" and "not-living-by-the-lie-ers"
in the making.
But the article is actually right in one regard – it admits the vast abyss that exists now between
the Western perception of the current situation and the Russian one. The author is even sufficiently
capable to articulate it correctly:
What makes the current standoff so tense and dangerous is not the reach of Russia's territorial
ambitions, as many suggest, but vice versa – the limited nature of them, and its psychological
implications. Moscow sees itself as having given up everything: it has left Central Europe, it
has left the Baltic States, not to mention Cuba, Africa and the Middle East, but now the West
seems intent on 'taking' the last little bit that was left – 'brotherly' Ukraine. Of course Moscow
takes it emotionally and tries to fight back.
But then, as tradition dictates, the author allows her own ideological bias to distort the rest
of the narrative in what might have become an honest attempt to look at the current problem from
both sides' perspective:
The countries in Russia's neighbourhood – in what one can call the Eastern Partnership area
– received their independence semi-accidentally in 1991, when it was promptly hijacked by corrupt
elites. Now, their societies are starting to mature and demand better governance, rule of law
and more say over their countries' futures. This manifests in a bumpy, but inevitable evolutionary
process that the EU did not launch and does not control, but cannot do anything other than support.
Moscow, on the other hand, is fixated on the elites it can control – and therefore bound to resist
it. The clash is systemic, and likely to manifest repeatedly as long as the fundamentals remain
unchanged.
Calling the multitude of processes that in the end resulted in the dissolution of the USSR "a
semi-accident" is an admission of one's ignorance about the history of every single country of the
so-called "Eastern Partnership area". The author also fails to mention that "societies" (the author
obviously likes this term as much as she despises the term "the people") in some of these countries
indeed have found an answer how to reach a "better governance, rule of law and more say over their
countries' futures". One only has to look at Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And let's not forget
that Russia itself was "promptly hijacked by corrupt elites". And what the EU "did not launch… but
cannot do anything other than support" were the forces inimical to these governments, which managed,
indeed, to bring better governance, rule of law (which was non-existent before) and more say over
their countries' futures (that's it – they will have more say about it, not some "advisers"
from Brussels or Washington).
And then the article lists all the reasons why the West won't reach any agreement with Russia.
The EU will continue to do what it pleases, not giving a damn about Russian concerns over "spheres
of influence" because of "the OSCE charter, the principles of the Council of Europe, the founding
documents of the EU and NATO and so forth"- even despite the fact that some members of Russia's
elite are indeed ready to strike a deal with them. This sort of sincerity is kinda refreshing, I
must say. When a person speaking on behalf of the West freely admits that they don't care about Russia's
opinion at all, that any real equal dialog is pointless, this sounds both arrogantly prideful
and refreshingly new.
But the article also discusses some methods to "fix the Russian problem"! Once again, I'm reminded
of some other high-ranking citizens of the "United Europe" of old, who had similar plans. But the
new generation is much, much more merciful to the undeserving "lessers":
Ideally, Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then
at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and
make itself influential. Some experts suggest that to achieve that, we need a regime change in
Russia. This would be true if our Russia-problem was rooted solely in the personality of Putin
and the nature of his regime – but this is probably not the case. Russia's dominance-fixated mindset
has survived multiple regime changes…
What is needed, therefore, is something much more complicated: Russia's sincere and extensive
rethink of the means and ends of its international behaviour. This is closer to an identity change,
than to a regime change. And a lot trickier. While such things have happened in history, the circumstances
that bring them about are generally unpredictable and tend to vary greatly – which means that
this is not something that outsiders can easily bring about, and achieve a desired outcome.
One of the biggest reasons why Russians resisted so fiercely (and why the common people's memory
preserved it through generations) the many-faced West is because of its desire to "re-make" and "re-model"
Russia into forms more suitable to the West. Numerous nomads from the East were up to the usual stuff
– pillage, burning, slave taking. But they've never dictated to the Russians how they should rule
themselves or how they must worship. Only the West did it and by doing it have forever earned the
special degree of distrust – confirmed once again by this "commentary" of the EU institution, not
intended to be read by Russian "savages" at all. While the author generously admits that "perhaps"
Russia doesn't warrant a "regime change" (which, you must understand, is sort of a norm for the Free
and Democratic West – i.e. changing legally elected "regimes" for fun and profit) in Russia, she
still argues for an "ideal" Russia without an independent foreign policy; she is arguing for Russia
surrendering its security and economical concerns in the name of "appealing to Europe". Oh, and she
also dreams of a Russia which abandons any thoughts of allying itself with China because the EU are
the good guys, and China is a "meanie".
The article is a true hodge-podge of some brilliant epiphanies (for a typical westerner) – when,
say, the author argues that the West's blind support or Yeltsin in 1996 in face of the possible "communist
revival" has been unwarranted and even harmful. But then, unfortunately, the author decides to touch
upon the subject of Western sanctions, and here we might glimpse the true attitude of "what it's
all about" concerning them:
This implies a wider strategy that consists of boosting the security of the vulnerable EU
and NATO members, defending the independence and sovereignty of the EaP countries, and keeping
sanctions until the conditions for lifting them – implementations of the Minsk agreements or settlement
of the Crimea issue – are fulfilled…
… It is good that the sanctions are linked to concrete demands – return of Crimea and fulfilment
of the Minsk agreements. This provides a relatively clear conditionality that Europe needs to
stick to. While the Crimea-related sanctions will probably remain in place for the foreseeable
future, as a settlement of the issue is not on the horizon, the Minsk agreements are supposed
to be implemented by the end of the year.
This is very notable, because in just a few paragraphs a person close to the EU analytical stuff
(at least) admits that:
Russia MUST "return" Crimea to Ukraine
b) Russia will be held personally accountable for any failures in implementation of
Minsk agreement.
And despite the fact that the author tries to distract us with all her flowery words about "one
does not need to make sanctions a 'barometer' of Russian behaviour in Ukraine" (because, As Everybody
Knows It (™) – "Russia is waging a war on the territory in the territory of Ukraine, and
about Zero percent of locals actual contribute to it"), while demanding that the EU's policy " must
consist of a refusal to roll back sanctions before Ukraine has gained full control of its eastern
border". In short – the current Kiev government can do nothing regarding their responsibilities according
to the Minsk-2 accord (with the blessing of the EU, it's implied), but Russia must be held responsible
for EVERYTHING. And be sanctioned appropriately, should it falter in its duties. After all, "sanctions
should be a slow squeeze that gradually reduces Russia's freedom of manoeuvre and thereby reminds
it of its misdeeds and Europe's displeasure."
The conclusion of the article, despite the absence of any bellicose terms, reads (at least for
me) as a declaration of War against Russia:
Europe needs to be aware that our problem with Russia is long-term and multi-layered. It
is clear that the sanctions are not a miracle cure to fix it all, but they need to be a small
part of a bigger strategy. They are instrumental in restoring our credibility and possibly fixing
a few near- or medium term goals. Getting that right, however, is important, as credibility is
something Europe badly needs if it wants to influence processes in the future. Hence the necessity
of sanctions – despite all their limits.
Actually, the majority of politically aware Russians won't find anything "revelatory" in this
article. It's been a "Punchinello's Secret" that the EU will always skew more on the side of regime
in Kiev while reviewing the "fulfillment" of the Minsk-2 resolution. The Official EU (as opposed
to its individual members) will always see Russia as an aggressor and the guilty party by default.
While the talks about "possible cancellation of sanctions" remain a sort of tasty carrot for some
people (especially for some too eager to sell Crimea for a batch of the "true" Italian Mozzarella
cheese), the fact remains – the EU will renew its sanctions against Russian at the end of 2015, no
matter what.
The sheer gall of claiming that "…Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if
not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion
to win allies and make itself influential" is astonishing. Since when did the so-called "United
Europe" abandon the use of "coercion to win allies and make itself influential"? What has happened
to the collective memory of the Enlightened Western Public (™) (Totally Entitled to Its
Own Opinion Even Without Knowing A Thing) about the events that preceded the bloody coup d'etat in
Kiev on February 22, 2014?
But, despite all its flaws, I actually like these kinds of "anomalous articles" that sometimes
grace the pages of the Free and Independent Western Press (™). First of all – some admissions
here signify that the so-called analysts in the West are not brain-dead and that they can still understand
and articulate some basic things about Russia's perspective, in the language probably accessible
to the vast majority of their target audience. Second – the article is refreshingly honest about
the West's goals and objectives in the conflict with Russia.
Yes, there is some flowery prose here, but the core imperatives are hard to miss. And, yes, I'm
using the term "the West" in rather broad definition here. Despite their best attempts to conceal
this, it's rather obvious for anyone with a functioning brain that the EU sanctions against Russia
applied (as they claim) due to "the unlawful annexation of Crimea", "support of militants in the
Ukrainian East" or "Russia's as yet unconfirmed (but we are counting on it anyway!) complicity in
the downing of MH17" have nothing to do with any point of the Minsk-2 agreement. In fact, right after
the signing of this treaty, the EU decided to prove to the Whole Civilized World that it didn't bow
down to Russia's demands, and issued yet another batch of sanctions.
But for every Russian who will read this article (and believe me – there will be a fair amount
of them), after they get the essence of it, they will realize that this is not some op-ed by the
typically "handshakable" Western outlet, that this "commentary" had been published by the Powers
That Be of the EU – and that everything written herein bodes nothing good for Russia in the foreseeable
future, no matter what. Russians, being the citizens of Russia, tend to react very negatively to
some Western countries' decision to "deal" with them. And the reaction will follow. As it turned
out, the Westerners of old (who also had some "long- term problems with Russia") were truly… mortified
by such manner of counter-reaction.
I don't make any definitions. Similarities and differences are easily observed
by the naked eye, but if you want something more scientific, you can always rely on genetics.
"Ethnicity" can be considered a modern substitute for "tribe" anyhow, and closely related peoples
did wage wars against each other in the past (and today). There was a motley of Germanic tribes
in the past, many of whom are today just "Germans", "Dutch", "Danes", &c.
The following observations in The Origin regarding the nature of evolutionary competition
provide valuable clues as to why civil wars occur, why the French make jokes about the Belgians,
the Norwegians dislike the Swedes and the British go to war against the Germans. Darwin wrote
that 'the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly
related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure' (1968: 165).
"...For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international
affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words, they think weaker
states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty logic follows that
other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how strong and tough we are.
This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other
states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure, our vast military power would
quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies." . "...Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off
like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation can
just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the real world
of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to win a clear victory,
and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political fortunes. The conflicts
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a lot easier to get into wars than
it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most neoconservatives." . "...They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians,
of course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government
with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire to live
in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at the top. Once
they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political parties, embrace
tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly, and offer grateful
thanks to Uncle Sam."
Over the past few weeks, proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran - from
President Barack Obama on down - have marshaled a powerful attack on some of the deal's most
prominent opponents. Specifically, they've been pointing out an indisputable fact: Many of the individuals
and organizations that are most actively lobbying and speaking out against the deal helped dream
up the idea of invading Iraq or worked hard to convince Congress and the American people to go along
with the idea. The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically
wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today.
I agree with this basic argument, of course, but opponents of the deal do have one line of defense
against the "Wrong
on Iraq, Wrong on Iran" meme. It is possible someone could have been dead wrong about the wisdom
of invading Iraq in 2003, but nonetheless be correct to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran today.
None of us is infallible, and it is at least conceivable that Bill Kristol, Elliott Abrams, James
Woolsey, Fred Hiatt, Max Boot, et al. could have blown it big-time in 2002 - but be absolutely right
this time around.
Conceivable, I suppose, but highly unlikely. Why? Because their views in 2002 aren't independent
from the views they're expressing today. On the contrary, their earlier support for the Iraq War
and their opposition to the Iran deal stem from the basic neoconservative worldview that informs
their entire approach to foreign policy.
To be more specific, the problem isn't that these people just happened to be embarrassingly wrong
about Iraq. After all, plenty of other people were equally misguided back then, including
many people
who
now support the deal today. Nor is the problem the neocons' stubborn and morally dubious refusal
to admit they were wrong and take responsibility for the lives and money they squandered.
No, the real problem is that the neoconservative worldview - one that still informs the thinking
of many of the groups and individuals who are most vocal in opposing the Iran deal - is fundamentally
flawed. Getting Iraq wrong wasn't just an unfortunate miscalculation, it happened because their theories
of world politics were dubious and their understanding of how the world works was goofy.
When your strategic software is riddled with bugs, you should expect a
lot of error messages.
What are the main flaws that consistently lead neoconservatives astray?
For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international
affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words,
they think weaker states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty
logic follows that other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how
strong and tough we are. This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful
message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure,
our vast military power would quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies.
What happened, alas, was that the various states we were threatening didn't jump on our bandwagon.
Instead, they balanced and then took steps to make sure we faced significant and growing resistance.
In particular, Syria and Iran (the next two states on the neocons' target list), cooperated even
further with each other and helped aid the anti-American insurgency in Iraq itself. Neocons were
outraged by this behavior, but it shouldn't have surprised anyone who understood Realism 101.
At the same time, long-standing U.S. allies were upset by our actions and distanced themselves
from us or else they took advantage of our excesses and free-rode at our expense. In short, the
neoconservatives' belief that the United States could browbeat and intimidate others into doing
our bidding was dead wrong.
Today, of course, opposition to the Iran deal reflects a similar belief that forceful resolve
would enable Washington to dictate whatever terms it wants. As I've written before, this idea
is the myth of a "better
deal." Because neocons assume states are attracted to strength and easy to intimidate, they
think rejecting the deal, ratcheting up sanctions, and threatening war will cause Iran's government
to finally cave in and dismantle its entire enrichment program. On the contrary, walking away
from the deal will stiffen Iran's resolve, strengthen its hard-liners, increase its interest in
perhaps actually acquiring a nuclear weapon someday, and cause the other members of the P5+1 to
part company with the United States.
The neoconservative worldview also exaggerates the efficacy of military force and downplays
the value of diplomacy. Military force is an essential component of national power, of course,
but neocons tend to see it as a magical tool that can accomplish all sorts of wonderful things
(such as the creation of workable democracies) for which it is not really designed. In reality,
military force is a crude instrument whose effects are hard to foresee and one which almost always
produces unintended consequences (see under: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.). So it was
in Iraq, and the results of a direct military conflict with Iran would be equally unpredictable.
Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off
like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation
can just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the
real world of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to
win a clear victory, and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political
fortunes. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a
lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most
neoconservatives.
Third, the neoconservatives have a simplistic and ahistorical view of democracy itself.They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians, of
course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government
with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire
to live in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at
the top. Once they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political
parties, embrace tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly,
and offer grateful thanks to Uncle Sam.
It would be nice if that Pollyannaish scenario were accurate, but such views betray near-total
ignorance of the prerequisites for meaningful democracy and the actual history of democratic growth
in the West itself. In fact, the development of liberal democracy was a long, contentious, imperfect,
and often violent process in Western Europe and North America, and anyone familiar with that history
would have known the neocons' formula for democratic change was doomed from the start.
Fourth, as befits a group of armchair ideologues whose primary goal has been winning power
inside the Beltway, neoconservatives are often surprisingly ignorant about the actual conditions
of the countries whose politics and society they want to transform. Hardly any neoconservatives
knew very much about Iraq before the United States invaded - if they had, they might have reconsidered
the whole scheme - and their characterizations of Iran today consist of scary caricatures bearing
little resemblance to Iran's complicated political and social reality. In addition to flawed theories,
in short, the neoconservative worldview also depends on an inaccurate reading of the facts on
the ground.
Last but not least, the neoconservatives' prescriptions for U.S. foreign policy are perennially
distorted by a strong attachment to Israel, which Max Boot (and
others) have described as a "key
tenet" of the entire movement. There's nothing wrong with such attachments per se, of
course, but it has crippled their ability to give sensible policy advice to U.S. politicians.
In particular, neoconservatives tend to believe that what's good for Israel is good for the United
States - and vice versa - which is why they see no conflict between their attachment to Israel
and their loyalty to the United States. But no two states have identical interests all the time,
and when the interests of two countries conflict, people who feel strongly about both are forced
to decide which of these feelings is going to take priority.
Over the past few weeks, some proponents of the deal have pointed out - correctly - that some
opponents don't like the deal because they think it is bad for Israel and because the Netanyahu government
is dead set against it. As one might expect, pointing out these obvious facts has led some
opponents of the deal to accuse proponents (including President Obama) of anti-Semitism. But
as
Lara Friedman,
J.J. Goldberg, and
Peter Beinart have made clear, this charge is absurd, even laughable. Among other things, it
appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty of distinguished figures
in Israel's own national security establishment. If anything, it is Netanyahu's efforts to persuade
American Jews that it is their duty to support him, rather than their own president, that echoes
those hateful anti-Semitic canards about "dual loyalty."
Instead of being a serious criticism, this familiar smear is really just a way to change the subject
and to put proponents of the deal on the defensive for pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, in
this case the charge just doesn't seem to be sticking, and its appearance is just another sign that
opponents don't have rational arguments or solid evidence to justify their opposition.
The bottom line: The fact that the neoconservatives, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and
other groups in the Israel lobby were wrong about the Iraq War does not by itself mean that they
are necessarily wrong about the Iran deal. But when you examine their basic views on world politics
and their consistent approach to U.S. Middle East policy, it becomes clear this is not a coincidence
at all. Support for the Iraq War and opposition to the Iran deal flow from the same flawed premises,
and that's why following their advice today would be as foolish as it was back in 2003.
Choices2014
I take a much narrower view as to what motivates neocons-it definitely is not ideology. They have
infiltrated most of the "think" tanks, they have infiltrated many of the cabinet level departments,
and have infiltrated all levels of political activity. To me, that indicates a hunger for power
and money and it has been very successful. Huge sums of money support these people and their constant
push for war. Finally, it is all orchestrated my Netanyahu and the Likuds. The neocons and their
AIPAC, WaPo, et al take their script from Netanyahu and because of the money and their positioning
in the Foreign Policy establishment, it seems impossible to counteract. Indeed, depressing and
tragic for the United States.
Lost in america
I think it is a mistake to throw all of these positions and policies altogether. Actually, opposition
to the treaty may seem bipolar because of the political marketing by the Administration. But there
are varied rationales: Some people are against the deal deal because they do not trust Iran under
any circumstances. Some are against the deal because we could have negotiated a better deal. Some
want more compensation for past Iranian transgressions. Some believe that the treaty is too open
ended and allows nuclear development too soon. Some Americans do not believe that you should make
a treaty with a nation unless they release your hostages. Some see that Iran has problems and
we should not let them off the hook so easily. The best argument for the treaty is that sanctions
are weakening anyway. To believe that the treaty will make Iran a better citizen is similar to
the belief if you make Iraq a democracy, this will lead to a better world. The Neocons are similar
to the people who support the treaty. They are idealistic and probably making the world worse.
exMod 27
Why does everyone expect the US to carry the weight? What is in our National Interest? Israel
and the Sunni Arab/Turks want a weaker Persia/Shia/Iran so they can dominate the region. A weak
Iran means a weak Syria and a weaker Shia presence in the region. (looking at you Hizbollah).
That is why a good number of Arabs and Jews oppose the deal. They don't want ANY deal that lifts
sanctions on Iran. So, where does that leave the US? 10 years ago, with oil prices sky high, we
would have to back the Sauds. 30 years ago, with the Great Bear still running around, we would
have to backed the Israelis. Today? Oil is flowing and Putin is driving Russia into a ditch. What
is in our National Interest? Commerce. I don't understand today's Republican party. Led by fools.
WilliamSantiago
BDL2010 is correct: "You could say the same thing about liberals." My bet is that Prof Walt would
have supported any deal coming out the Obama Administration. So I challenge him to state exactly
what the minimum deal with Iran would have been that he would find unacceptable.
I note 2 points of logic: (i) The notion of "the myth of a better deal" is a contrary-to-fact
conditional. There is no way to know if Prof. Walt is correct especially has he has provided no
evidence that a better deal could not have been or could not be forthcoming. (ii) It's simply
name calling to label an opposing point of view a "myth," then define what strawman necons believe
as that myth, then knock down the strawman (with little evidence even for this poor task).
Further, I note an interesting aspect of the deal that even the most neophyte negotiator would
have avoided. We gave away for certain the only lever we had (the sanctions) in return for a promise
to be fulfilled in the future. And we found out this week that a major portion of the promise
will be verified by our opponent in the negotiation. "This used car is in fine shape. Buy it now
and I'll come over tomorrow and verify that there isn't sawdust in the transmission."
Prof. Walt is entitled to his opinion. But intellectual honesty requires that he pressure test
his opinion by finding the best, not the worst or vaguest arguments against his conclusion instead
of setting up strawmen and knocking them down. Unfortunately, setting up strawmen is a favorite
tactic of our commander in chief.
bdl2010
More political BS. You could say the same thing about liberals. Case in point, how is Libya going?
How about Syria? Right now there is a major refugee crisis due to instability in both of these
nations. In one we took action and in the other we failed to. So if you want to pen an article
about how neo-cons are always wrong then you need to follow it up with how liberals are not always
right either. I'd hope that at some point in the future we would start to realize that we need
a foreign policy that transcends political parties. When other nations look at our policies they
see that it is America that is enacting it. They do not see Republicans or Democrats to blame.
It's due time for us all to grow the hell up and get our act together.
samamerco
I disagree in one main point. While most politicians consider the results of the war in Iraq to
be negative, neocons see the same results as positive. It removed a major threat to Israel (Saddam)
and caused unending social upheaval in the countries surrounding it that continues today. The
neocons also see a similar result of war with Iran as positive from the Israeli point view. Who
really cares about the interests of the United States?
Xenophon
@samamerco Well stated and right on the mark.
Mark Thomason
This is a wonderfully clear explanation of a very complex subject, a real tour de force.
I'd add two smaller points.
One, it is hard to get out once we start a war, even when we win. WW2 was as overwhelming a
win, unconditional surrender, as one could ever hope to get. Yet after all these years, we are
still in Germany, Italy, and Japan, and we are in them because of WW2 and how we ended it. Once
in, we couldn't get out even by total victory.
Two, while come neocons may believe in spreading democracy, they did not act as if that was
their goal when they had the chance. They imposed government, and supervised the "election" of
puppets. It was more like lip service cover for another goal we know was close to the heart of
the leaders: make the Middle East safe for Israel no matter what it does, even for continued expansion
and a Greater Israel. American power was misused to do that, and it failed as completely as did
the excuse of bringing democracy.
Jinzo
Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so, obviously there are some
that just don't want a deal full stop for selfish reasons. Obama and Kerry have not come even
close at all to a deal of any resemblance to what they initially set out to achieve for the American
people. Despite Obamas rhetoric about "its this deal or war", I doubt anyone can seriously contemplate
Obama of all people starting a war with Iran and the next president will be faced with the fact
that Iran is no feable Iraq, not that Iraq itself have been a walk in the park. The talk that
"if this deal is rejected that our European allies will ease sanctions unilaterally" totally overlooks
the fact they these same allies applied sanctions on Russia which is much more costly to them
then the Iran sanctions are. Lifting the UN restrictions on military equipment and missile technology
has to be changed, this should only happen if Iran proves it has stopped their state sponsorship
of terrorism, also Iran been allowed to provide their own samples to the international inspectors
to verify that they haven't been cheating in the past is just unbelievable, mind boggling, how
could anyone think this is acceptable? Imagine an athlete that was suspended for taking drugs
being allowed to provide his own urine samples to the sports league. Imagine a criminal in the
court of law being the only person to submit evidence of his own guilt or innocence. Imagine if
the police pullied over a intoxicated driver, only to let him go cause he said "he hadn't been
drinking", but you don't have to imagine something so ridiculous cause this kind of circus act
is exactly what's now playing out between Iran and the IAEA. There has to be a better deal then
this poor excuse of a 'deal'.
Mark Thomason
@Jinzo "Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so"
No, they don't.
Negotiators rarely get all of their initial demands. Anyway, "what they set out to achieve"
is here defined as what Netanyahu dreamed of getting, not Obama's real goals.
Toot Sweet
They are wrong so often because they are ideologues. And like all ideologues, they are dogmatic
and care little for facts, criticism, or compromise. For them, the ends justify the means which
explains why they distort and dissemble with great ease, and never apologize.
Anise
So, neo-cons are ignorant bullies who are killing the rest of us. How do we stop them?
Ggee
This piece is just like the neo-cons: sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel.
Even when the President flips out and attacks his detractors as war-mongers in league with the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard; when hordes of pro-deal lobbyists representing every P5+1nation descend
on Capital Hill (as is their right); when virtually every western nation already has sent representatives
in the last few weeks to negotiate commercial deals with Tehran even before the mullahs have demonstrated
good faith; even as morally neutered "realist" academics spout off while drenched with the blood
of hundreds of thousands of Syrian and other innocents but continue to sit in judgment of their
inferiors -- even with all that and so much more, it's always the right time to attack Israel.
The writer is always very busy telling us not only that Israel is a big drag on the U.S., but
now offers psychological analysis that Israel's supporters are clinically incapable of having
well considered opinions that differ from his own, notwithstanding abundant proof of his own impenetrable
bias. Which is to say, what a load of crap.
bpuharic -> Ggee
You didn't read the article. What he said was the right has a power fetish. That's why neocons
get it wrong
ozziem
@Ggee
RE:
In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel.
It seems abundantly obvious that your are among the people who places Israel's interests ahead
of those of the United States. Why don't you just move there?
Chris F
"The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically
wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today." Mr. Walt, this is a logical
fallacy and you should have been done with it when you admitted so. Though you acknowledge the
fallacy, you still go on to defend it. You never got specific on how "these people just happened
to be embarrassingly wrong about Iraq" but I guess you mean the WMD. True, no nukes were found,
but lots and lots of other weapons, including chemical weapons, were found. The New York Times
did a huge report on this.
So, your assertion that we shouldn't listen to opponents of the deal because they were wrong
on Iraq is highly debatable, and if that's what support for the Iran deal rests on, the case is
very weak indeed.
As for the neo-con worldview question, occupation has worked pretty well in Japan, South Korea,
Germany and others in the long run, so one could be forgiven for looking at the long line of overall
successes and thinking it would work in Iraq if we were honest and clear about what we were going
to do with Iraq - that is undertake a multi-generational transformation of Iraqi society through
occupation. It should also be remembered that there was a lot of support for the US enforcing
UN resolutions as part of the Iraq invasion. If the neo-cons were so wrong and we can't listen
to them now, then ditto for the Democrats who supported the war and the countries in the UN who
also supported it.
"This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause
other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us." Also debatable. Qaddafi saw what happened in
Iraq and gave up his weapons program. Even Kim Jong Il was reportedly freaked out as he watched
the invasion. We'll never know how things could have been shaped if the US was consistent in its
mission.
"Among other things, it appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty
of distinguished figures in Israel's own national security establishment." Of course, there will
be some people on both sides. But this is a rare moment when the Israeli left and right, Jew and
Arab, are in overwhelming agreement over how bad the deal is. That is no small feat. As for American
Jews, I was at the well attended anti-deal rally in Los Angeles last month and judging by how
many different groups showed up, your assertion here is also incorrect. Jews, Arabs, Christians,
Democrats, Republicans, Palestinians, Israelis and gay activists all showed up and all were against
the deal. This is LA, the biggest home of liberal Jews outside of NYC.
I also saw Ted Cruz speak at one of the largest Persian Jewish synagogues in LA (maybe the
country) last month. The place was over capacity and the fire marshal showed up. The subject was
the Iran deal and Cruz got multiple standing ovations. Again, we're talking about liberal Jewish
LA. So, you may have read a few articles by Jews who support the deal, but I have seen up close
thousands of American Jews in liberal LA, many of them Iranian, who are disgusted with this deal.
The action was a bit heavy in the metals today, as the Powers-That-Be quietly attempted to restore
confidence and a sense of well-being and recovery after the somewhat disconcerting equity market
plunge of Monday.
There was intraday commentary here
about some interesting Goldman Sachs activity in an otherwise exceptionally
sleepy week at The Bucket Shop.
People often ask me for a possible motive as to why central banks might care about gold and silver.
Willem Middelkoop does a decent job of briefly explaining why in the first pictorial below.
It is all a part of the confidence game, when a series of bad decisions place a strain on one's full
faith and credit.
The goal of the financial class is to keep the music going, and the public out there on the floor
dancing so they don't have time to think.
Which sounds better, to "die for your government", or "give your life for your country"? The
first could be interpreted, after a mountain of bodies pile up, as a mistake. As something
that would seem to require scrutiny, admissions of having been wrong, of blame to be placed.
Dying for a government, or more precisely, dying for a select group of political figures at a certain
moment in time for very specific reasons, doesn't hide behind a fluttering flag quite as well as
"dying for country". Which is why we never hear it. War, in the mind of the Middle America
that still thinks on it, is shrouded in a sepia-toned composite of images and sounds, stories of
soldiers, duty to country, service, songs, movies, and myth that give politicians far more leverage
than they would otherwise have, when executing another war. No, "service to country" is the
emotional and moral narcotic we administer to ourselves, almost automatically, at the inception of
a new war. War is all wrapped up in our American Mythos so tight that it seems astonishing
that we haven't descended utterly into a pure American-style fascism. Maybe a few more 9/11-style
attacks and the transformation would be complete. 9/11 was an unparalleled opportunity for
the explosion of government growth, and as much as "war is the health of the State", so are foreign
attacks on the home State, attacks that can be perfectly molded so as to stoke the maximum amount
of nationalist rage from the citizens. Those attacks were a godsend for a government that had
been starved of an actual threat for far too long. And they took full advantage of the opportunity.
Fourteen years later, the Warfare State is petering out from the evaporating fumes of 9/11, and their
looking for a new fix.
But what of those who lied the country into igniting a regional dumpster fire after 9/11?
Once the war hysteria evaporates, where are What would it really take to hold any one politician
for a military disaster halfway around the world? It is blindingly obvious that there will
never be a reckoning for those who hustled us into the Iraq war. What about Libya? Syria?
How bad does it have to get for there to be something resembling accountability? War atrocities
seem to have become less of a chance for justice and lessons learned than as a new precedent that
the progenitors of the next war can point to when their war goes bad. And creators of war did
learn a few things from Iraq and Afghanistan. They learned that flag-draped coffins do focus
the attention of the citizenry. And drone strikes don't, really.
That hazy collage of feel-good nationalism is trotted out every election year, and every candidate
engages in it to one degree or another. Peace is a hard sell next to the belligerent effusions
of a Donald Trump. His crazed rantings against immigrants, his bizarre fantasies as to how
he would handle world leaders via telephone call, as well as his boorishness in general, has thousands
flocking to hear him speak. But what they're cheering is an avatar of a blood-soaked ideology,
one that cloaks itself in the native symbols and culture, breeding hate and intolerance, until the
bilious nationalism reaches just the right temperature and then boils over into lawless fascism.
As Jeffrey Tucker
points out,
Trump is nothing new. The graveyard of twentieth century tyrannies is a testament to just how
much death and destruction can be induced by a charismatic parasite bellowing the tenets of a flag-wrapped
tyranny. Most of what we hear coming from leaders today is fascism to a greater or lesser extent.
If what we mean by fascism to be a Religion of the State, a militant nationalism taken to its logical
conclusion, then every leader engages in it, because it ignites something primitive and sinister
in the minds of voters.
We understand war theoretically, and distantly, but what of those who are forced to carry out
the fever dreams of politicians? Blindly thanking veterans for their service, we feel a sense
of duty discharged, and never think to look more deeply into their traumas, or the scheme they were
tricked into executing. Military recruiters, the unscrupulous peddlers of military slavery,
are treated as a benign influence on young people today. Their pushy, overindulgent attitude
toward our 18-year olds should piss us off more than it does, since what they are conning the young
into is becoming the expendable plaything for the whims of the current Administration.
War is the pith of total government. The source of all its power, war and the threat of
war provide the excuse for every injustice, every outrage, every restriction of liberty or further
bilking of the citizen-hosts. As the Warfare State trots out the familiar sermons of threats
from abroad, potential greatness at home, and wars to be fought, one would do well to reflect that
war enriches the State at the expense of the rest of us. It consumes our lives, our liberty,
our wallets, and the future of our children and grandchildren. The current crop of candidates
who peddle military greatness are the enemy of peace and prosperity, and when they so openly declaim
their lust for war, we should frankly believe what they say. And after hearing them, we should
recognize the would-be tyrant in our midst, hawking hyper-militarism under the guise of national
greatness, and treat them like the vermin they clearly are.
Shane Smith lives in Norman, Oklahoma and writes for
Red Dirt Report.
"...He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour"."
"...he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil", and said poor countries
should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries.
"
"..."Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for
social exclusion or the destruction of nature"."
"...The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor"
"...A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW, between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between
the West and the East, while the war is on. ... Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism
in it's modern form lies near this war, and both are made by the same people."
"...Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor."
"...There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests."
"...An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy."
"...Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)..."
Pope Francis has urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a
"new colonialism" by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the
"sacred rights" of labor, lodging and land.
In one of the longest, most passionate and sweeping speeches of his pontificate, the Argentine-born
pope used his visit to Bolivia
to ask forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic church in its treatment of native
Americans during what he called the "so-called conquest of America".
The pontiff also demanded an immediate end to what he called the "genocide" of Christians taking
place in the Middle East and beyond, describing it as a third world war.
"Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our
brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus," Pope Francis
said.
"In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide
is taking place, and it must end."
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil", and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap
labour for developed countries.
Repeating some of the themes of his
landmark encyclical Laudato Si on the environment last month, Francis said time was running out
to save the planet from perhaps irreversible harm to the ecosystem.
Pope Francis shakes hands with a mining worker's leader watched by Bolivia's president
Evo Morales, right, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
Francis made the address in the city of Santa Cruz to participants of the second
world meeting of popular movements, an international body that brings together organisations
of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed and peasants
who have lost their land. The Vatican hosted the first meeting last year.
He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour".
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the left-wing Bolivian president
Evo Morales, who wore
a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He was executed
in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops.
"Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern
for social exclusion or the destruction of nature".
"This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, labourers find it intolerable,
communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother
Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable," he said in an hour-long speech
that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
Since his election in 2013, the first pope from Latin America has often spoken out in defence
of the poor and against unbridled capitalism but the speech in Santa Cruz was the most comprehensive
to date on the issues he has championed.
Francis' previous attacks on capitalism have prompted stiff criticism from politicians and commentators
in the United States, where he is due to visit in September.
The pontiff appeared to take a swipe at international monetary organisations such as the IMF and
the development aid policies by some developed countries.
"No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their
sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously
prejudice the possibility of peace and justice," he said.
"The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor," he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate
for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where
previously "there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy".
In one of the sections on colonialism, he said:
"I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of
America in the name of God."
He added: "I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offences of the church herself, but
also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.
"There was sin and an abundant amount of it."
The audience gave Francis a standing ovation when he put on a yellow miner's hat that was given
to him at the end of his speech.
The pope made his speech at the end of his first full day in Bolivia, where he arrived on Wednesday.
On Thursday morning he said a mass for hundreds of thousands of people and said that everyone had
a moral duty to help the poor, and that those with means could not wish they would just "go away".
Francis praised Bolivia's social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. On Friday, he will visit
Bolivia's notoriously violent Palmasola prison.
The pope
looked bemused on Wednesday night when Morales handed him one of the more unusual gifts he has
received: a sculpted wooden hammer and sickle – the symbol of communism – with a figure of a crucified
Christ resting on the hammer.
Francis leaves on Friday for Paraguay, the last stop on his "homecoming" trip.
The Pope didn't actually say "unbridled capitalism is the dung of the devil" did he?
So why is that the headline of this piece?
valeronfreza 10 Jul 2015 08:46
Actually, I find one of his thoughts really interesting. A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW,
between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between the West and the East, while the
war is on. The whole civilized world takes part in this mess, the thing is that this war looks
different from what we're used to see. I mean, we get information, made by those, who wants us
to see it different, like something, that happening far away, though it's dangerous as hell.
Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism in it's modern form lies near this war,
and both are made by the same people.
cblyth79 10 Jul 2015 08:41
he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil"
He has hit the nail on the head. This is everything that is wrong with society. Every decision
is taken with regards to making as much money as possible. However, the great irony is that even
if people do make money, their constant desire for more means they are never happy or fulfilled.
Meanwhile, socially and environmentally we suffer greatly due to this ultimately fruitless pursuit
of as much money as possible.
PM782_ -> Greenshoots 10 Jul 2015 08:40
Generally speaking, you are right of course.
I have very little time for virgin men in silly hats & dresses, carrying crucifixes and expecting
everyone to take them seriously when history shows us they cannot be trusted to act in an ethical
way, and will (as always) be more concerned about amassing money and influence than doing any
good in the world.
The whole thing is ludicrous and you should be ashamed that you believe in it. It is really
astonishing.
Greenshoots -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 08:39
Atheist trope. One could as easily say "Religion compels unreasonable people to do reasonable
things".
Westonboy -> pol098 10 Jul 2015 08:37
I'm happy to salute the personal contributions you make but, of course, the computer that you
will have used to write or test your software is a product of capitalism.
Also, most of the the goods you recycle or give away are no doubt the products of capitalism.
Anti-capitalists don't seem to have any alternative method of wealth creation.
EnglishChapin 10 Jul 2015 08:26
In the article:
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil"
In the headline:
"Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis"
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 08:24
As a Unitarian/Universalist I am equally, if not more, wary of that practice. Francis, however,
is a public figure who has the right to express his opinion. While he was definitely speaking
to a Catholic audience, he was not giving his words the weight of a Papal Encyclical. Also, it
is the accepted and expected belief of Catholics that the Pope directs their thinking as far as
faith goes. I do not see his words being a act of forcing his will on me, personally. All public
figures have the right to express their opinion on that subject. I also believe that regulation
should go further than dealing with "negative externalities" unless you view the financial crisis
of 2008 as a negative externality . While the causes of the crisis were complex and varied, lax
regulatory oversight during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations played a role in creating the
conditions for it.
Why do you want poor people to rise up? On what sense? Revolution to topple world governments,
what's next? What kind of governmental system will we apply to ensure law and order? Will it be
one world government by the Vatican?
I'm glad you set everyone straight on this. We were all thinking capitalism is an economic
and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners
for profit, rather than by the state. But clearly capitalism involves greed for money, exploitation
and environmental destruction. The very fact you've attempted to pick at this shows you're missing
the overarching point. The Pope is criticizing how our unregulated "socioeconomic system" - which
was capitalism the last time I looked - for being responsible for ruining society, enslaving men
and women and destroying human fraternity. All of which is pretty spot on. Excuse me for having
to clarify this for you.
citizen_1111 10 Jul 2015 07:48
Wouldn't it be great if newspapers like the Guardian printed the truth, rather than spin. The
pope did not say that "unbridled capitalism is the dung of devil". Here's the actual paragraph.
It's nothing like the Guardian's deceptive headline.
Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible
harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being
brutally punished.
And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea
called "the dung of the devil". An unfettered pursuit of money rules.
The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's
decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society,
it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one
another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.
So he's actually referring to greed for money - a moral sin .... not capitalism, which is basically
meritocratic mechanism of funding businesses.
HobbesianWorld -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 07:41
Wrong, it's a predominantly Christian nation. Christians don't own it. Under the Constitution,
all beliefs in matters of religion are equal.
Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor.
Capitalism isn't a sacred arm of Christianity, yet many (most?) Christians tend to favor Wall
Street's gluttony and greed while millions of children live in poverty. Is that what we should
see in a "Christian" nation? It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
PM782_ 10 Jul 2015 07:33
The guy in charge of 1 billion plus devout catholics, with all the riches of the Vatican, preaches
to us about how excessive capitalism is a bad thing.
This pope seems more reasonable than his predecessors however until he actually DOES something
that makes the world a better place and in some way makes up for the history of atrocious behavior
that the Catholic church has engaged in, I'm simply not interested.
It is strange though, seeing how many people are hoodwinked by a few choice words, when the
organization he represents has been an utter blight on humanity since it began.
heretoeternity -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:32
There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests.
Laurence W 10 Jul 2015 07:18
Devout capitalists/corporatists may not see the symmetry between John Paul II's defiance of
the bankruptcy of unbridled Communism and Francis's defiance of the bankruptcy of unfettered Capitalism.
They cling to their irrational faith (and that is what it is) in Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
The collapse of Communism does not somehow validate Capitalism. It seems Capitalism's true believers
must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st. Century.
ideation2020 -> PeterAB12 10 Jul 2015 07:11
In the West there is a marked reduction in family size since about 1965. There are also far
more women at work, the workforce has adapted to almost full attendance of female workers. We
generally have accommodated an increase of 70% by reducing family size and equally as important
is the accommodation and full attendance of single a and" won't marry" adults.
SmileyFace2 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:10
But Capitalism has resulted in a Plutocracy which leads to rule by the top 1%. So it is not
quite a simple as you seem to think hence the need for a mixed economy.
HobbesianWorld 10 Jul 2015 07:08
While I wouldn't put it that way, the Pope is correct that unfettered capitalism is the major
source of injustice, especially the injustice of poverty.
It's a source of dark humor for me to hear Christians call the U.S. a "Christian nation" even
as they fight to maintain and enhance the cause of poverty--unbridled corporatism; profit over
humanity, wealth over justice and selfishness over honor.
Brian Milne -> Kevin Lim 10 Jul 2015 06:59
How much time have you spent in South America? I spent 18 years going back and forth as part
of my job, must admit I have not spoken to a Liberation Theology priest (he was actually a Jesuit
originally) since October. So perhaps I am just a little bit out of synch.
Life paths include being allowed to express one's sexuality openly and not risk excommunication
and denunciation by the church, to be allowed to have abortions and use contraception without
being told that you will go to Hell, to be allowed to 'formally' leave the church (some countries
still require religion on official document) and to follow political streams that the church condemns
as unchristian to name but just a few. By using the pressure of condemnation in the afterlife
people are to this day controlled by fear.
Sure nobody is obliged to put money in the dish but too many still fear the stigma of not doing
so. If this man can end that then it would be a job well done, but he will not, will he?
cblyth79 -> Manjush 10 Jul 2015 06:51
I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but to me the real problem is the capitalist consumerism
of first-world countries and the damage this is causing to the planet. Even if the populations
of third-world countries doubled they would not get anywhere near the CO2 that we produce. And
that's not even to mention the fact that we have caused climate change and they haven't. To blame
overpopulation is to out the blame on third-world countries, when it should be squarely on us.
VivF -> dysro1 10 Jul 2015 06:50
Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)...
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
Drew -> Layton 10 Jul 2015 06:48
Yay! Religion has done something that isn't rape, muder, burning at the stake, ripping people's
breasts off, implement, beheading, shooting people on beaches, blowing things up, being homophobic,
sexist, racist or generally being a complete twat! Let's all jump up and down and burn a pilot!
YAY!
Kathy -> Foulds 10 Jul 2015 06:42
We are in very new times....Pope Francis is not afraid to challenge the status quo...Alleluia.
Tony Menezes 10 Jul 2015 06:24
The national interest of the unbridled capitalists has sidelined morality and justice. The
third world war has started albeit piecemeal.
This is a strong wake up call from someone that must be listened to.
Greenshoots -> rgrabman 10 Jul 2015 06:23
I can only speak for the UK where I have yet to find a Catholic friend who is not immensely
supportive of what the Pope has to say, whatever prominent Tory Catholics may have to say. Catholics
on the whole tend to vote Labour.
If you want to see a precursor to what the Pope is now saying, read the Catholic bishops document
"The common good" from 1996:
"As at the end of the 19th century, Catholic Social Teaching is concerned to protect the poor
and vulnerable from the chill winds of economic forces. The defeat of Communism should not mean
the triumph of unbridled capitalism."
"The Catholic doctrine of the common good is incompatible with unlimited freemarket, or laissez-faire,
capitalism ...".
Unconstituted -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:22
Massively disagree with that bit about him being a non-scientist etc.
If skeptics are still unsure after all the science that has been thrown at them, then perhaps
they aren't influenced that way. They follow figures that they personally respect.
And the Pope has a huge following. I am certain that he will have given a lot of people pause
for thought recently.
Like many here, as an atheist, I'm no fan of the guy. But causes like social justice, climate
change etc need more than just reams of studies. It needs PR.
Greenshoots -> clogexpat 10 Jul 2015 06:17
Which is incorrect because the left is not, and never has been, an identifiable tribe in British
politics.
I agree that many people are not tribal about being left wing. They are willing to partner with
people whom they disagree with on some issues but where there is a common cause.
However, you just have to read many of the posts in this thread to see that, for many other people,
it is a form of tribal allegiance because they, in response to the Pope saying something they
probably do agree with, they cannot refrain from attacking him on unrelated issues. They are not
interested in supporting the common cause.
Longasyourarm -> MaximTS 10 Jul 2015 06:15
Well spotted but many here are in it for the opportunity to exercise their demons of hatred,
bigotry and racism. Most don't even read the article and jump right to the comments in their haste
to slag off Catholics, the Pope, Religion in general. I suppose it is still better than invasion
of other countries and stealing their stuff, isn't it Tony?
domrice 10 Jul 2015 06:13
Finally, a pontiff brave enough to enunciate the core values of Jesus Christ. Oh that the world
had political leaders who weren't shameless slaves to the moneylenders.
discreto -> SmileyFace2 10 Jul 2015 06:11
That is because the Free Trade is not Fair Trade, this is what Pope Francis is talking about.
Capitalism is Free Trade it is not Fair Trade with the People who work to ensure the Goods are
there to trade are not getting what is a Fair and Just Living wage, they are being used by the
Corporations who make Millions out of their hard work. I support Pope Francis and his Courage
in speaking up for the People in developing Countries who are made to depend on Capitalism against
their will. At last he is the Pope who is acknowledging the sins of the Church both past and present,
with a strong voice of Apology. It would be good if he could sit down with The First Nations of
America to take part in their native Ritual of Smudging from Smoke of burnt Herbs and grasses
for forgiveness and Peace. I pray for Pope Francis's Protection.
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:02
An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy.
ID1780902 10 Jul 2015 05:55
Why so many negative comments? Here we have an extremely high profile figure publicly rallying
people all over the world to help with climate change, and to oppose some of the excesses of capitalism.
Regardless of what you think of the Catholic church, many people will listen to what he says,
and take it very seriously. If he only changes the mind of a single climate-change denier that
would be enough, but I think he will do a lot more than that, particularly in the US.
In Saakashvili news:
Yesterday Saakashvili showed off for
President Porky's approval his 2 new assistants: his left-hand man, and his right-hand girl.
They will get important jobs at Saak's side, helping him to rule Odessa Province.
The man (let's
get him over with first, so we can concentrate on the girl) is Vladimir Zhmak. He is 51 years
old, an Afghan veteran and a businessman. He has no experience in government service which, according
to Saakashvili, makes him a perfect candidate for this government position.
Moving along to Saakashvili's "girl Friday", it's none other than 25-year-old Julia Marushevskaya,
who became famous during Maidan when a video clip of her went viral.
Marushevakaya is of Ukrainian origin (Odessa Province), but spent most of her student years in
the U.S., where she attended 2 prestigious American universities: Harvard and Stanford.
When Maidan happened, Julia became an international media star, with her interviews and video
clips about the protests. Her most famous video was entitled: "I am Ukrainian", in which Julia
called for people to revolt against the "tyrant" Yanukovych. The video gained around 7 million
views worldwide.
The video was meant to look fresh and spontaneous, but researchers back in March unrooted the
fact that it was produced by a professional British photographer named
Graham Mitchell, and
directed by a professional Hollywood director named
Ben Moses .
In other words, like everything else about Maidan, the video, and Julia herself, were produced
in the West.
[yalensis: and I would bet money that Julia was placed in this position by her American handlers,
in order to keep an eye on their erratic Gruzian Gauleiter. Julia may be aware that previous "young
things" in Saakashvili's cabinet in Gruzia were expected to sleep with him, as part of the job.
Which is why Saak's wife eventually left him. But if Julia is a true CIA pro, then she can keep
her natural revulsion down to a manageable level…]
"... What infuriates me is the assumption that everything Russia puts out as fact is actually
disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being caught lying again
and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed."
"...I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda
outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So why is
more propaganda needed?"
"...Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work.
The EU produced a marvelous
graphic extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and
the salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability
of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of extortion-junkies,
bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today, and see how many came
true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance in Ukraine has certainly taken
a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence. "
And the latest news from Inside the Bubble or, the EU as it's sometimes known, is this breathless
piece from the Guardian announcing the actions the Bubble leaders are planning to take to counter
Russian 'propaganda'.
"The document, drafted by the EU's diplomatic corps, also calls for efforts
to persuade people in countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova of the benefits of European-style
reforms.
The plan was prepared ahead of the EU summit in Brussels and offers a strategy to provide alternatives
sources of information to outlets such as Russia's state-funded RT television, amid an increasingly
polarised media environment sparked by the war in Ukraine.
A communications unit called the East StratCom Team, launched in April, will support EU delegations
in the six eastern neighbourhood countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and
Ukraine – as well as in Russia itself.
The main objectives include communicating and promoting "EU policies and values", supporting
independent media and increasing awareness of "disinformation activities by external actors".
The document states that communication towards the east should "first and foremost focus on the
development of positive and effective messages regarding EU policies towards the region".
Brussels needs to spread the message that reforms promoted by the European Union "can, over time,
have a positive impact on their daily lives," the action plan says. It stresses that the strategy
should highlight the benefits, not the bureaucracy, focusing on clearly explaining the positive
effects of EU programmes and policies rather than going into details about the policies."
The author of the paper or report called "The Kremlin's Hall of Mirrors" to which this Guardian
article refers is Peter Pomerantsev and everything makes an appearance therein including Putin's
troll factory. It goes without saying that everything coming out of Russia is propaganda while
everything coming out of the West is the God's Honest Truth. Pure unvarnished facts. Take this
snippet where he tells the tale of one Margo Gontar who's involved with StopFake:
"At times like this, she had always reached out to western media for a sense of something
solid, but this was starting to slip too. Whenever somewhere like the BBC or Tagesspiegel published
a story, they felt obliged to present the Kremlin's version of events – fascists, western conspiracy,
etc – as the other side, for balance. Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty
was futile: if the truth was constantly shifting before her eyes, and there was always another
side to every story, was there anything solid left to hold on to?"
Yeah, I always reach out to western media for the self-same reasons. And if the BBC's coverage
of Ukraine has ever been impartial, well, I must have blinked and missed it.
In similar vein, Pomerantsev spends a lot of the article ridiculing RT as here:-
"Presenters rarely challenge the views of "experts" during discussions of subjects such
as the Syria conflict – where Moscow has backed President Bashar al-Assad. One regular guest
has suggested that the Syrian civil war was "planned in 1997 by Paul Wolfowitz", while another
has described the death toll as "a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad".
I take it that Mr Pomerantsev has heard neither of the Yinon plan dating from the 1970's which
started that a key part of Israel's foreign policy objectives should be the break-up of the surrounding
nation states into mutually hostile ethnic statelets nor the Project for a New American Century,
a neo-con outfit in which Wolfowitz played a leading role, that targeted around seven countries,
including Iraq and Syria for destruction.
This is the issue Mr P the EU and NATO are really complaining about – in the past their statements
would pass without challenge, but not any longer.
'Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty was futile: if the truth was constantly
shifting before her eyes, and there was always another side to every story, was there anything
solid left to hold on to?"'
That's the shreds of your conscience screaming at you to pull your
head out of your arse. You know you're full of it – why not quit before you completely damn yourself?
What infuriates me is the assumption – as Fern alluded – that everything Russia puts out as fact
is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being
caught lying again and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed.
I remember some smart arse on the Guardian CiF commenting after I had posted a lengthy contribution
in which I had used Levada sourced statistics: "You do realize that all your sources are Russian?"
US government media Radio Liberty reports
on "strategic communications action plan" they probably had a pivotal role in writing, about how
they plan to pump more money into Ukrainian and other post-soviet media in order to promote Europeanization,
which would technically be what RFE would call "propaganda". Both Russian media and Western media
especially RFE is complicit in "disinformation propaganda campaigns" and I struggle to understand
what quite "EU policies and values" are exactly, other than promoting LGTB rights. Nonetheless,
why do we need to promote "EU policies and values" in three Caucasus countries and two European
countries one traditionally Russian and the other which will never be integrated into the EU.
Is it just me or does this look less about promoting are values and more about turning post-soviet
states against Russia? Something which was previously carried out in Ukraine before the coup as
highlighted in some Wikileaks documents on Crimea.
-
"Lesm" had this to say:
This article itself is a good example of the kind of propaganda that the EU is thinking of
expanding to the East. Rt was itself started by the Russians as an antidote to the relentless
Western propaganda contained in the "news" that comes from the Western Controlled wire services
and media empires. The thing I find quite funny about the West is their habit of suggesting always
that they are simply responding to things being done to them rather than initiating actions that
others are responding to. So the West never does "terrorism", it only does "counter-terrorism".
Equally it never does propaganda, it only counters propaganda from the "other" side.
The reality is of course quite different. The West, and in particular the US, the UK and NATO,
are the largest and most successful terrorist organisations on the planet. In addition the old
USSR acknowledged that it simply could not compete with the propaganda mechanisms of the West
as they were so pervasive and so well disguised as to be unbeatable!!!!
-
Reader "DomesticExtremist" is unconvinced that the EU is democratic:
European values = declaring Conchita Wurst the winner of Eurovision 2014 even though the telephone
(popular) vote was won by Donatan and Cleo.
A metaphor for Western democracy if ever there was.
[ThatJ: I hate it when people speak only of the EU, EU, EU… it's like we're helping to cement
the view in the public's mind that the EU is kinda like an "United States of Europe". Distinction
between the member countries must be made. I'll try to speak of "Brussels" instead of the European
Union, because Brussels belongs to a country only (Belgium), and the message is clear enough:
the dictates of Brussels are alien to the European countries.]
-
A bigoted homophobe named "Lordoflight23″ thinks US-exported, Brussels-welcomed values are
uninspiring:
The values of supporting moderate opposition and creating extremist, backing all "good regimes"
around the world, the two most powerful EU leaders being wiretapped and still do nothing about
it, gay parades and bearded women. Some values that is.
-
Kremlin troll "Alphysicist" resorts to whataboutism, links to a RT article:
So in Germany Salve.TV took a broadcast from RT.com, and is now under fire from media watchdogs.
That is EU pluralism! Real values.
I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda
outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So
why is more propaganda needed?
I like RT, because one gets to hear many who are persona non grata in the Western media. John
Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, George Galloway, Udo Ulfkotte, and
the list goes on and on. And they have many interesting things to say! Also, even if RT is connected
to the Kremlin, the persons above are saying their own opinions, regardless of the Kremlin. This
is why RT is a really useful supplement to western propaganda.
ThatJ, thanks for posting those comments from Guardian correspondents, baffling as always that
they seem more informed than the journalists paid to write for the paper. Glad to hear it's not
only me struggling to understand what 'western values' actually are.
Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work.
The EU produced
a marvelous graphic
extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and the
salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability
of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of
extortion-junkies, bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today,
and see how many came true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance
in Ukraine has certainly taken a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence.
Washington has been leading a policy of economic espionage against France for more than a decade
by intercepting communications of the Finance minister and all corporate contracts valued at more
than $200 million, according to a new WikiLeaks report.
The revelations come in line with the ongoing
publications of top secret documents from the US surveillance operations against France, dubbed by
the whistleblowing site "Espionnage
Élysée."
The Monday publications consist of seven top secret documents which detail the American National
Security Agency's (NSA) economic espionage operations against Paris.
According to the WikiLeaks report, "NSA has been tasked with obtaining intelligence on all
aspects of the French economy, from government policy, diplomacy, banking and participation in international
bodies to infrastructural development, business practices and trade activities."
The documents allegedly show that Washington has started spying on the French economic sector
as early as 2002. WikiLeaks said that some documents were authorized for sharing with NSA's Anglophone
partners – the so-called "Five Eyes" group – Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.
The report strongly suggests that the UK has also benefited from the US economic espionage activities
against France.
"The United States not only uses the results of this spying itself, but swaps these intercepts
with the United Kingdom. Do French citizens deserve to know that their country is being taken to
the cleaners by the spies of supposedly allied countries? Mais oui!" said WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange in a statement on Monday.
The documents published on Monday also reveal US spying on the conversations and communications
the French Finance Minister, a French Senator, officials within the Treasury and Economic Policy
Directorate, the French ambassador to the US, and officials with "direct responsibility for EU trade
policy."
The leaked NSA documents reveal internal French deliberation and policy on the World Trade Organization,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the G7 and the G20, the 2013 French budget, the decline
of the automotive industry in France, and the involvement of French companies in the Oil for Food
program in Iraq during the 1990s, the report said.
"The US has been conducting economic espionage against France for more than a decade. Not
only has it spied on the French Finance Minister, it has ordered the interception of every French
company contract or negotiation valued at more than $200 million," said Assange.
"That covers not only all of France's major companies, from BNP Paribas, AXA and Credit
Agricole to Peugeot and Renault, Total and Orange, but it also affects the major French farming
associations. $200 million is roughly 3,000 French jobs. Hundreds of such contracts are signed
every year."
On June 23, WikiLeaks announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on
the NSA, concerning its alleged interception of communications within the French government over
the last ten years.
In the first tranche of leaked documents WikiLeaks claimed that NSA targeted high-level officials
in Paris including French presidents Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, as well
as cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US.
Despite the tapping claims made by WikiLeaks, US President Barack Obama has assured his French
counterpart Francois Hollande that Washington hasn't been spying on Paris top officials.
Hollande, on his part, released a statement saying that the spying is "unacceptable" and "France
will not tolerate it."
It's not the first time that the NSA has been revealed to be spying on European leaders. According
to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published at the end of 2013 the US intelligence agency
had previously targeted the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The tapping scandal is
believed to have created a rift between Washington and Berlin.
The US collects the information through spy operations regardless of its sensitivity, as it has
the ability to do so, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst told RT.
"It's hard to be surprised by any revelations of this kind," he said. "The snooping
is conducted because it's possible to conduct it. In a new way we have a technical collection
on steroids. The President of the US said that just because we can collect this material, doesn't
mean we should. The thing has a momentum, an inertia of its own. Since about ten years ago it
has become possible to collect everything, and that's precisely what we're doing."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
