Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Publius Tacitus — The New York Times Pushes Propaganda War Against Russia

There is no longer any doubt that the New York Times is nothing more than a willing cog in the establishment war machine and is happy to serve as a propaganda platform. While there are times that newspapers and electronic media outlets are unwitting dupes for propaganda, the article penned by MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT (published on 31 July 2017) is the work of willing puppets masquerading as journalists….
Gordon and Schmitt are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Rather than actually report facts and place them in their proper context, they chose instead to push lies as truth and try to help shape public opinion into believing that Russia poses an imminent threat to the west.
One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending while the United States is slated for $650 billion. How much is the US spending on just EUCOM exercises targeted at Russia? Sadly, there is bipartisan stupidity and ignorance when it comes to the issue of properly assessing Russia and the threat it does (or does not) pose to the United States. My cynical conclusion is that as long as Russia is portrayed as the great Red menace bent on world domination we can justify spending $650 billion dollars to thwart an invasion that is not coming.
Rupert Murdoch killed journalism and replaced it with the tabloid model based on infotainment and sensationalism. Fox News was designed by Roger Ailes as a propaganda operation. The rest of the media have followed suit and not reluctantly either. There's money and influence in them thar hills.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
The New York Times Pushes Propaganda War Against Russia
Publius Tacitus

82 comments:

Dan Lynch said...

There is no longer any doubt that the New York Times is nothing more than a willing cog in the establishment war machine

That horse left the barn years ago.

Tom Hickey said...

Right. The Times led the charge over Iraq.

Matt Franko said...

Don't see Slim's angle...

Matt Franko said...

I see Bezos angle with wapo...

Noah Way said...

Bezos has a seat on a Pentagon "advisory" board.

It's all fake news. And the little bit that doesn't fit the narrititve is kept to the fringes of the Internet and scrubbed from search engines by Google algorithms.

Jefferson said...

This screed starts with this piece of artful dishonesty:

Russia’s Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression

Russia is preparing to send as many as 100,000 troops to the eastern edge of NATO territory at the end of the summer, one of the biggest steps yet in the military buildup undertaken by President Vladimir V. Putin and an exercise in intimidation that recalls the most ominous days of the Cold War.

Since when is it an act of "aggression" for a country--Russia in this case--to conduct military exercises in its own territory?

the NY Times didn't say it was an act of aggression; Russia "conduct[ing] military exercises in its own territory" with 100k troops "raise[s] fears of aggression" because Russia annexed Crimea recently. It's not propaganda that people remember Russia's willingness to invade their western neighbors and react accordingly to a troop build-up on that same border.

Matt Franko said...

And don't forget NK shooting icbms into commercial airspace unannounced .... sheesh...

Auburn Parks said...

"Matt and Jefferson you two simple folks just dont understand. Russia and China are the good guys now, and America is the bad guy. private property is evil you see, and collective ownership is the one truth faith of human progress be. If only we became more like the RUssians and Chinese all our problems would go away because everything in those countries is awesome"

signed, Mike Norman Economics

Dan Lynch said...

@Auburn, I enjoy your dry humor, but the fact is that the U.S. is a rogue state. It's not just MNE, it's how the U.S. is viewed by the world: Gallup Poll: U.S. is greatest threat to world peace

@Matt, have you ever heard an announcement when the U.S. or the U.K. launched a practice ICBM into commercial airspace? I haven't. Aren't all international waters considered "commercial airspace? If an Air France jet traveling at a typical speed of 540 mph missed the North Korean missile by 10 minutes, doesn't that mean it missed the missile by 90 miles? Is 90 miles considered a near miss these days? Could it be that Western media is printing fake news to shape public opinion on North Korea?
v
Didn't the U.K. recently launch a missile that veered off course and threatened the U.S.?

When theHMS Vengeance, one of the UK’s four nuclear submarines, test-fired the missile off the coast of Florida, the missile was not out by a few metres but several thousand miles. It had been targeted at the southern Atlantic off the coast of west Africa. Instead, it was heading in the opposite direction, over the US.

Shouldn't we sanction the UK for firing a missile off our coast and threatening us without even having the decency to make an announcement?

Auburn Parks said...

Dan Lynch

I view that over used poll as completely irrelevant to anything important about the way the world works. Before Trump the numbers were completely different and more different still during the Obama and then the Bush years. Were we great before but we are bad now, and if that polling turns around will we be great then? Those polls tell us a very little about politics and media, and about how some people perceive the world, but they dont really tell us anything very useful IMHO.

Dan

please provide the recent and relevant quotes of the UK leaders saying that they want to destroy the US right before the launch test. When you do that, I will consider your analogy more reasonable. Because comparing the responses two two similar events (practice launchgin an ICBM) without mentioning that one was done by a long time ally and the other by a regime that regularly talks about going to war with the us seems to me a smidge unreasonable.

Dan Lynch said...

@Auburn, North Korea has repeatedly stated that it would never use nukes unless it was threatened by another nuclear power.

Of course North Korea would attempt to destroy any country that attacked it -- who wouldn't?

North Korea has repeatedly stated that it wants peace (technically the U.S. is still at war with North Korea), yet that is seldom reported in the West. If we are offended about talk of war, then why don't we agree to end the war?

Why should I consider the U.K. an ally? The U.K. has a shady track record of aggression and genocide.

Tom Hickey said...

"Matt and Jefferson you two simple folks just dont understand. Russia and China are the good guys now, and America is the bad guy. private property is evil you see, and collective ownership is the one truth faith of human progress be. If only we became more like the RUssians and Chinese all our problems would go away because everything in those countries is awesome"

signed, Mike Norman Economics


Attacking a straw man with the fallacy of the excluded middle. "You are either with us or against us," with a bit of "My country right or wrong."

Careful readers will notice a more nuanced POV. People with make up minds won't.

Tom Hickey said...

I view that over used poll as completely irrelevant to anything important about the way the world works. Before Trump the numbers were completely different and more different still during the Obama and then the Bush years.

Pew
Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years (2001-2008)

The Princeton Project on National Security
REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ANTI-AMERICANISM

Auburn Parks said...

Tom

I no longer view you as an honest analyst. Your biases and narrow sightedness are immense and obvious given the posts you select and the commentary you make. Ideologues bore me.

I don't care about the poll it doesn't matter much to anuthing

Auburn Parks said...

So what Dan the us has also said north Korea is not our enemy and we wont use nuclear weapons (which in fact we have evidence for given we fought a war there and didn't use them already). Oh and NK actually invaded the south and not the other way around

Tom Hickey said...

I no longer view you as an honest analyst. Your biases and narrow sightedness are immense

That looks to me like projection, Dan. :o

You will find the stuff you seem to prefer at Daily Kos. But you knew that already.

Tom Hickey said...

So what Dan the us has also said north Korea is not our enemy and we wont use nuclear weapons (which in fact we have evidence for given we fought a war there and didn't use them already).

America doesn't have a mouth.

Rex Tillerson said that and I applaud him for it. He looks to be pretty much alone in this though. As far as I can recall, for just about everyone else, "all options are on the table."

Dan Lynch said...

@Auburn we did not nuke N.K. but we used napalm and anthrax and pretty much bombed it back to the stone age. McArthur WANTED to use nukes. N.K. has not forgotten.

Not saying N.K. is always right and West is always wrong, but we attacked N.K., they did not attack us.

Auburn Parks said...

Yeah and when none of your chicken little bullshit happens just like in sk many previous cases are you going to recant and stop in the future insisting that he US has the worst possible intentions? No you won't because you don't care. Your mind is already made up.

Auburn Parks said...

I hate daily kos those people are just as wrong and dishonest about shit as you or wapo or publius Tacitus

Auburn Parks said...

We did not attack NK they invaded the south with the permission of Stalin and Mao.

If you choose to attack the US you should expect to be destroyed
There's nothing principally wrong with that IMHO.

And before dishonest Tom chimes in and says something ridiculous like "thats American exceptionalism blah blah blah" Just know that I grant that principle to all people and nations in my analysis. So if we invaded NK today I would not blame them for using nukes to.defend themselves against us which is why nukes practically guarantee regime security and the exact.same.reason we should.try to prevent regimes from acquiring them. I don't believe in a universal principle of non intervention so I don't view war and regime.change as inherently evil only a matter of.cost.benefit analysis

Dan Lynch said...

I don't believe in a universal principle of non intervention so I don't view war and regime.change as inherently evil only a matter of.cost.benefit analysis

Howard Zinn spins in his grave.

Whose cost, whose benefit?

Dan Lynch said...

dishonest Tom

It's hard to think of any blogger who is more broadminded and fair than Tom. He puts up with you and me. :-)

Auburn Parks said...

Who.decides? The only possible people that can the us Congress and the voting public. Which is why we need.the electoral process to.be as broad and.representative as.possible so we.don't have worry about cabals making war for their own personal interest and the people's will being irrelevant. Which is why China can't be trusted or any other dictatorships for.that matter.

We will just have to.agree to disagree about toms intellectual honesty. But lets put it this way anyone who.can post hundreds of articles from sources that only ever criticize the US or who.always assume the US has the worst intentions and never offer a corrective like he does on almost all mainstream articles he posts is intellectually dishonest

Dan Lynch said...

Well, by that definition Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are intellectually dishonest, too. Tom, you're in good company.

As Noam put it, he criticizes the U.S. because it his country and he feels responsible for his country. I'm sure Switzerland has issues, too, but I don't feel responsible for Switzerland and Switzerland is not the number one threat to world peace.

Anti-Americanism is a very interesting concept. It’s a concept that only exists in totalitarian states. For example, if someone in Italy, let’s say criticizing the Berlusconi government – they are not accused of being anti-Italian. In the old Soviet Union you could be condemned for being anti-Soviet, in the Brazilian military dictatorship you could be anti-Brazilian. But aside from the US, I don’t know any other non-totalitarian, non-authoritarian country where the concept even exists. That’s a very striking concept. If you’re critical of policy – you’re anti-American.

Auburn Parks said...

Dan

Its not about only criticizing one side that's not the problem. Its applying different standards to different people places and events. Its about being ignorant of or ignoring the other side of.the argument.

These are the types of activities that I'm pointing out that Tom is guilty of just like how he points out all the faults.of.everyone else.

Auburn Parks said...

And I don't subscribe to the view that criticizing a country makes you anti that country so that part of your comment is irrelevant to our conversation

Auburn Parks said...

And your comment about the us being the number one threat to world peace is just plain bullshit. Polling opinion is not reality

Dan Lynch said...

I see. I'm "irrelevant" and Tom is "guilty." All righty then.


Auburn Parks said...

No Dan I most certainly did not say you are irrelevant. You were explaining to me at length how wrong it is to characterize people who criticize the Us as being anti American and about how the US is unique in this (which is also bullshit).

This whole long explanation is Ans was irrelevant to our conversation (my exact words actually) because I don't subscribe to.that pov.

Please describe to me in what sense your comment was not irrelevant to our conversion given that I don't hold the view you described.

Auburn Parks said...

Conversation not conversion damnit

Tom Hickey said...

Who.decides? The only possible people that can the us Congress and the voting public. Which is why we need.the electoral process to.be as broad and.representative as.possible so we.don't have worry about cabals making war for their own personal interest and the people's will being irrelevant.

I am all for government of the people, by the people and for the people, but there are conditions attached to that working.

The public has to be educated enough to understand the issues and surrounding conditions. They must be well informed and interested in current events and policy. The society must be fair and level with no major asymmetries of power, influence and wealth. This doesn't apply to most constitutional republics today that represent themselves as liberal democracies.

Above all, the level of collective consciousness must be high enough to support this kind of development. Societal divisiveness is poison to harmonious development of the process.

Conservatives are not being disingenuous when they distrust the "tyranny of the mob." They are all too aware of what happened immediately after the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. Scores get settled. Blood runs in the streets.

Trying to force change often result in unintended consequences.

That doesn't mean sticking with a poor system when a better alternative is available. It does imply an iterative and incremental approach to development that promotes agility.





Auburn Parks said...

And what are.the alternatives to the liberal rights based Democratic model if all of your necessary conditions don't exist?

Auburn Parks said...

Im confused are you saying that we.should only.have democracies when all of your conditions are met or that democracies work best (whatever that means) when all your conditions are met?

Tom Hickey said...

Its not about only criticizing one side that's not the problem. Its applying different standards to different people places and events. Its about being ignorant of or ignoring the other side of.the argument.

These are the types of activities that I'm pointing out that Tom is guilty of just like how he points out all the faults.of.everyone else.


It is unfortunate if I have created that impression. I assume that everyone is cognizant of the "party line," which is one-sided and marginalizes the opposition if not excluding it altogether. This is the case in economics as well as politics and policy. I try to present other aspects of the issue that I think are relevant.

I have no special window on the world. I have no way of confirming or falsifying much that is put out there. I point out what I think is probably BS. If I agree with something, I usually say so. If I don't, don't draw any conclusion other than I consider the position something to be aware of and take into consideration in the mix.

I aggregate what I consider to be worthwhile presentations of other sides to the questions and issues. MMT and heterodox economics is that in economics, as well as Marx & Engels and Marxist/Marxist economics. I do the same for politics and geopolitics, since I don't think that disciplines can be addressed adequately in isolation, especially when there are relevant facts that are not being considered.

I haven't posted much on MMT of late, since the blogs have cooled off or ceased, other than Bill's and now Peter's since he is posting regularly again. The action is now on Twitter and Facebook. Those interested should look there. There are also lots of papers and videos, which I generally don't link to here either.

There isn't even that much of interest appearing on the RSS feed economically in the US recently, since posting in general has been light and a lot of what is posted is not worth calling attention to. Some of the things that I would post if they were new have already been dealt with so many times here, it is not worth repeating them.

The focus now is on geopolitics and the world economy, and I have been posting mostly on that. This is where the action is now as the world slouches toward war.

I also harp on issues that I think are particularly important, like torture, fake news and the like.

The blogs and people that come up often are matters that I think interest not being widely heard and discussed. This is where aggregation is value added. Most people don't have time or inclination to check these things out regularly and they can come here as one-stop trip.

Auburn Parks said...

You find all the time in the world to comment critically on mainstream news sources and articles you link to here Tom. What I nevver see.you do is a critical commentary in articles posted by truth out vineyard of the waked moon of Alabama publius RT etc etc etc.

None of these sources are.neutral and objective they deserve analytical criticism just as much as the mainstream sources and articles because the issues are.political and economic as you said and as such are not cut and dry and obvious.

Auburn Parks said...

Consider just as an example the excerpt you quote from publius on this very post.

He complains about the fake threat of Russia and uses nominal dollar spending to.justify why Russia is not a threat to.the west.

'Only $60 billion vs the us $600 billion' first of all this is not a valid criticism given that $60 billion can be used to generate a lot of firepower and destruction and secondly Russia is the third largest military spender in the world by dollar volume. So if you ackonwledge that the argument falls apart completely

Imagine saying that the third largest military spending nation on earth poses no threat to the largest spending nation.

This is dumb and illogical.

So right here we have this obvious example of biased reporting and bad analysis. Which is no less dishonest or bumbling then when a NYT editorial complains about the nominal.dollar cost of.Medicare for all without mentioning any of the other relevant context.

There are dozens of.examples like this where your sources do.terrible analysis or are.just plain ideological and biases maybe even propagandist in some contexts. And yet all I ever see.from.you is crickets when it comes to your favored geopolitical ideologues

Tom Hickey said...

And what are.the alternatives to the liberal rights based Democratic model if all of your necessary conditions don't exist?

I am all for liberty, egality and community. I am also for harmony and peace.

My big beef is with the rush that many in the West have to impose what they view as the natural ideal system on others for their own good. This is especially the case with the US liberal internationalist and neoconservative elite. It ignores history and contemporary conditions. They can't even do this in their own countries, let alone others.

The West should look to itself before lecturing others and more importantly attempting to force others. The US is leading the charge to impose Western rules on the whole world at gunpoint. It's just another form of religious crusade about conversion by force, replacing God and theology with natural law, natural rights, and liberal ideology.

There won't be successful government of, by and for the people until historical conditions support it. This is happening gradually. I have said it will take "500 years," meaning a long time. There will be initial attempts but they are likely to be be unsuccessful over time. Time is linear. History is not.

"Capitalism" was a thing long before it got conceptualized and named, for example. It was an outcome of the transition from agriculture to industry as the dominant mode of production. This happened in the West (the Great Divergence) for reasons that are still controversial. But this did give capitalism a Western cast culturally and institutionally.

The digital age will have a similarly profound effect. The agricultural age took millennia to mature. The industrial age took centuries. Perhaps the digital age with only take decades. From what I can judge, digital natives are very different people from analog people. What this implies, we'll have to wait and see.

The historical process is proceeding and something new is being fashioned to transcend but not entirely replace the old. The past is brought into the present by incorporating it into the new. The process is given stability by bringing along what works and adaptability by experimenting with innovation. Unfortunately a lot of baggage is also dragged along, too.

My research into all this has convinced me that the key fundamental is the level of collective consciousness. Raising the level of collective consciousness should be the chief focus.

This is why culture and education are basic. Culture should culture rather than enculturate. Education should lead from within that rather stuff in from without.

This is nothing new. Sages have been saying this from time immemorial.

It comes back to the question about what it means to live a good life in a good society.




Auburn Parks said...

Another potential example. You posted dozens of articles about the fake news and DEM propaganda of.trump Russia collusion. And you've commented many times to.the same effect. Say that the Mueller investigation finds some shady stuff going on. now all of sudden all those articles begin to look foolish and the doubters were the fake news not the mainstream sources and the deep state.

I've yet to.see you one time mention this possibility and be more conservative in your denouncements since the Russian meeting revelation. Maybe I've missed some of your comments there certainly has been no.acknowledgement in your source website posts you link to here

Tom Hickey said...

Im confused are you saying that we.should only.have democracies when all of your conditions are met or that democracies work best (whatever that means) when all your conditions are met?

What does it means for a democracy to fail. Generally degeneration into oligarchy, tyranny, or anarchy. The ancient Greeks explored this, especially Aristotle.

I am saying that successful democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people can only be occurred under the right historical conditions. Otherwise it will not be enduringly successful.

There is no way to know this in advance. It's an experiment.

Some American taunted some Chinese about the success of the American experiment. The Chinese answered, but it's only been a couple of hundred years.

Moreover, it's an open question how well Western liberalism scales, let alone the American version of it.

Auburn Parks said...

Jesus there is so much wrong with that long comment its ridiculous.

The liberal rights based Democratic system is simply the best way to organize large diverse societies and compass direction has nothing to.do with it. The liberal rights Democratic system would still be the best even if the Chinese evolved it instead of the Netherlands Britain the US and finally France. That is being honest. it has nothing to do.with race or ethnicity.

Dan Lynch said...

@Auburn, we all have a point of view.

Russia's point of view is primarily concerned with not being invaded, since they have been invaded several times before and suffered tremendously. They would like to maintain a neutral buffer zone in Eastern Europe. Russians would like to be treated as equals. I can go along with those things, even though Russian culture is somewhat conservative and not to my taste. I do not view Russia as a threat to the U.S..

China's point of view is they want to do business. They don't want make war, they want to make money. I think China has adapted a mercantilist policy and that it will not end well since mercantilism is economic warfare, intentionally or not. Asian culture is very proud and easily offended so even though China is not looking for a fight, I would not be surprised if a war with China breaks out someday.

Post WWII America has been run by John Wayne types who think they won WWII single handedly and that God wants them to police the world and spread capitalism. Add religious fundamentalism and stir. Basically, America is run by crazy people. America's power is declining and it's not going over well. I view this as a dangerous period in American history when anything could happen.

The UK is mostly irrelevant, just a small island where the world's elites like to park their money.

To try to understand another country's point of view is being a good person and a good neighbor. Understanding their point of view does not mean that you approve of every single thing they do.

If you disagree with the slant of Tom's posts, that is what the comments section is for. Tom has been exceptionally tolerant of people who disagree with his slant. I get the impression you simply do not like to see the West bashed?

Auburn Parks said...

Yeah and in 10000 years of human civilization only rational science and its corresponding political system had resulted.in humans breaking through the hard ceiling of animal power.

Chinese culutre failed to evolve into a liberal Democratic rights based system and so they fell behind that's nothing to brag about. And its only.since.they've adopted.the.better.and more.rational approach the west discovered.that china has finally come out of its post ching dynasty dark.age.

That's a lot evidence for my side

Tom Hickey said...

Consider just as an example the excerpt you quote from publius on this very post.

He complains about the fake threat of Russia and uses nominal dollar spending to.justify why Russia is not a threat to.the west.

'Only $60 billion vs the us $600 billion' first of all this is not a valid criticism given that $60 billion can be used to generate a lot of firepower and destruction and secondly

Russia is the third largest military spender in the world by dollar volume. So if you ackonwledge that the argument falls apart completely

Imagine saying that the third largest military spending nation on earth poses no threat to the largest spending nation.

This is dumb and illogical.


We can quibble about the numbers but in terms of real resources, Russia and China's militaries combines are minuscule in comparison with the US military combined with US allies. It's a ridiculously huge advantage and everyone knows this. I will state it clearly neither Russia or China pose a military threat to US national defense. Iran and SK threatening US national defense is absurd.

Those whom American has it its sights have only two recourses. The first is MAD, which the US is constantly trying to overcome, and the second is making an attack so expensive in terms of consequences that it is not worth it.

The second is like dealing with bullies in school. One may know that one cannot beat them, but one can bruise them badly enough they'll choose to pick on someone else.

These are the present strategies of Russia, China, Iran and NK, none of which pose a threat to US national defense. They could pose a threat to US allies, although Russia is not a potential threat that the US makes it out to be for its neighbors. China is potentially a threat to Taiwan. The South China Sea kerfuffle is China reacting to US control of its vital sea passages. The threat to shipping in the straits is non-existent. There is nothing in it for China.

Iran is somewhat a threat to Israel and NK to SK. But neither Iran or SK are in a position to carry out the threat to US allies without risking instant annihilation.

All the blathering is about creating fear to justify increasing military expenditure and political control.

I have already acknowledged that many are out of paradigm with MMT, but it so ubiquitous that is is redundant to keep pointing it out. I'll just declare that no one gets it unless they have the MMT stamp of approval and be done with it.

Auburn Parks said...

Dan

I disagree with your characterizations of the Russian and Chinese pov and that America is in decline.

I dont care.about toms tolerance for my opinions I care about this site being useful and not degenerating into a conspiracy theory Nutter central and his ideological postings are unhelpful.to.tht end. I've complained about kaivey and that Arthur Anderson character as.well on these grounds.


I could.care less.about criticizing the west J do it myself regularly. But don't expect me.to like people writing misleading fake news bullshit because they think the us is the greatest source of evil and danger in the world

Auburn Parks said...

Russia and China are the 2nd and third largest real war resource producing countries in earth. To believe they are not a threat is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. THis.truly.is.dishonesty at its.worst

Tom Hickey said...

Another potential example. You posted dozens of articles about the fake news and DEM propaganda of.trump Russia collusion. And you've commented many times to.the same effect. Say that the Mueller investigation finds some shady stuff going on. now all of sudden all those articles begin to look foolish and the doubters were the fake news not the mainstream sources and the deep state.

I've yet to.see you one time mention this possibility and be more conservative in your denouncements since the Russian meeting revelation. Maybe I've missed some of your comments there certainly has been no.acknowledgement in your source website posts you link to here


I've seen a lot of puff in the liberal media and its reaction in the conservative and al right media. Nothing decisive yet. All allegations and innuendo. Nothing indictable. And in the US if it is legal it is OK.

I have no attachment to DJT or his administration. My complaint is ii appears a soft coup that is being conducted against the president. That's not good for America.

This doesn't imply that I think all is well with the electoral process in the US. I don't think so. But DJT was "duly elected" given the dodgy process in place. Attempting to reverse that is dangerous.

Of course, if evidence that supports allegations of illegal behavior turns up and withstands scrutiny, then the game changes. That has not happened yet.

However, I am also not on board with special prosector fishing expeditions. That is not the American way. There should be credible allegations of a specific crime being committed and an investigation limited to that. I am not a fan of prosecutorial discretion.

Auburn Parks said...

Or just maybe instead of it being a coup conspiracy to oust Donald Trump The Russians really did try to help Trump Impeachment would be completely justifiable and necessary.

So if it's all true you're wrong and you look silly if it's all false you're right in the mainstream look silly. Reality is nobody knows yet so maybe all of your pronouncements about the fake news and the Deep state and the coup are all bullshit. Acknowledging this is intellectually honest not doing so is propaganda .


You still have not

Auburn Parks said...

You mean if evidence turns up like a secret meeting with Russians who said they have secret information to help undermine Hillary? Man if only somebody would provide that evidence maybe somebody in the know maybe somebody like Trump own child will present that evidence


Wait you mean Trump son actually did provide evidence of a secret meeting where the Russian government specifically said they have information to help him. You mean it's not a fishing Expedition at all? Man that's weird if only we had some evidence

Tom Hickey said...



That is an assumption.

It is a key piece in the modern (18th century) Western framework that most Western people assume is the mental correlate of reality.

It looks like a positive assertion (description) but it is heavily normative and prescriptive. It functions as a criterion.

I happen to like this assumption since I was enculturated into it. But I also recognize it for what it is — a stipulation.

Tom Hickey said...

Yeah and in 10000 years of human civilization…..

Auburn, you apparently don't see that as incredibly racist and obtuse. There have been many great civilizations in the past and some have made incredible advances in STEM.Some of these civilizations had been eclipsed or were waning when the inhabitants of what is now Europe were still running around dressed in animal skins.

Many functioned quite well politically. Since the end of the hunter-gather period, elites have dominated and continue to dominant. All the talk about "liberalism" is great — if you are a beneficiary of it rather than a victim.


Tom Hickey said...

Russia and China are the 2nd and third largest real war resource producing countries in earth. To believe they are not a threat is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. THis.truly.is.dishonesty at its.worst

This is not just by view. It is the view of many military people that I read.

This "threat" seems to be all hype so far, but in a few years it may turn into reality through the new arms race that is underway. Russia and China have realized they are in the US crosshairs.

NK and Iran are joke militarily. Take the so-called NK ICBM supposed to be ability to deliver a nuclear strike to the US. Military experts estimate maybe the ability to reach Alaska and Hawaii. They also cast doubt on NK ability to fit a nuclear warhead on an ICBM as see that eventually as some time out.

Yes, NK can hit SK hard (and US troops there). Iran can hit the Gulf countries and US troops there, too. Would they? Not unless attacked. It would be suicide.

Meanwhile the US propaganda machine is sewing fear about NK taking out American cities "if we don't do something sooner than later." And Iran as an imminent threat to Israel. All hype.

Tom Hickey said...

Or just maybe instead of it being a coup conspiracy to oust Donald Trump The Russians really did try to help Trump Impeachment would be completely justifiable and necessary.

Russia attempting to aid Trump is not a cause for impeachment, even if they were to be proved successful, which is preposterous given the other major factors. Impeachment involves showing DJT having been in on it, and there is zero evidence he was. All allegations to the point of an organized smear campaign.

The US does much more to influence foreign elections than Russia is accused of doing in the US, other than tampering with the voting machine, which remains an allegation.

If the DNC hacking allegation turns out to be false and it is established as an insider leak, then a major aspect of the case falls apart. At this point, I think that the leak explanation is more probable.

What I am seeing is a lot of manufactured smoke and the claim that where there is smoke there is fire. This is a propaganda tactic.

jrbarch said...

Tom runs into troubles because he is so broad minded ....

‘War begins in the minds of men, and quickly spills out into the world’. Simple conclusion .....

Auburn Parks said...

No.Tom its not.racist to.acknowledge history. Geography played a much .bigger role than culiture or race but its still.true that humanity stagnated for a.long time when it hit tbe upper bounds of what's possible with muscle.power.

Social development peaked in the west in the 1st century CE and the 12th century song dynasty in the east before finally.reaching those levels again in the 18th century at which point the enlightenment and ffirst industrial revolution happened and we blew past the previous human Hugh water marks. This revolution happened in the west first that's just history man race is.irrelevant.

Social development index scores come.from.the awesome book why the west rules for.now by Ian Morris. Although his.future.prediticons of western downfall are mostly garbage as.he focuses heavily on Govt.debt held by china as a proxy for.economic health

Tom Hickey said...

I will admit to be being highly skeptical of authority. I think I have good reason to be.

As a Vietnam vet I saw the unfolding of the Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation and the continued inability of the elite to admit mistake even when tens of thousands of American lives were being lost, and more wounded, and Vietnam destroyed as a country before moving on to Laos and Cambodia.

Then we got a repeat with the first Gulf War when US Ambassador Gillespie basically told Saddam that the US would not object to his taking Kuwait, and then the second orchestrated by official lies.

Why anyone would continue to give these people the benefit of the doubt beats me.

Auburn Parks said...

"That is an assumption.

It is a key piece in the modern (18th century) Western framework that most Western people assume is the mental correlate of reality.

It looks like a positive assertion (description) but it is heavily normative and prescriptive. It functions as a criterion.

I happen to like this assumption since I was enculturated into it. But I also recognize it for what it is — a stipulation."

Dont know what this is referring to

jrbarch said...

Primitive tribal economy, slave economy, feudal economy, capitalist’s economy.

Just about ripe for a human economy (something civilised, that will unlock human potential, rather than hubris and ego).

Auburn Parks said...

"this is not just by view. It is the view of many military people that I read."

So $60 billion a year in military spending can do no harm? (Russia #3)

But can $220 Billions a year in military spending do harm? (china #2)

If you read military analysts who say that the 2nd and third largest defense spending countries in the world pose no threat to anyone or anything then you need to find some new military analysts to read. No wonder you do such a bad job incubating the geo=political discussion, you read fucking nutter cranks

Auburn Parks said...

JR there was no clear evolution from the left to the right of your comment in human history. All of those things were operative concurrently through the last 5K years of human progress until recently. Capitalism is not a new system, Private property and exchange, profit, and paying others to work for you have always been around and they always will.

Tom Hickey said...

You mean if evidence turns up like a secret meeting with Russians who said they have secret information to help undermine Hillary? Man if only somebody would provide that evidence maybe somebody in the know maybe somebody like Trump own child will present that evidence


Wait you mean Trump son actually did provide evidence of a secret meeting where the Russian government specifically said they have information to help him....


I don't see either a crime or an impeachable offense here, and as far as I can tell no one with authority to do something about does either.

It seems to me there is a lot of faux outrage around this. Even if DJT Jr were offered a packet of illegally obtained information it would not be an offense on his part if he did not accept it.

He may have been naive or stupid about this. But so far no criminal allegations resulting in an investigation, let alone an indictment.

Tom Hickey said...

Tom runs into troubles because he is so broad minded ....

‘War begins in the minds of men, and quickly spills out into the world’. Simple conclusion .....


All problems are in the mind.

Reality just is.

The problems created by the head are resolvable by the heart.

Tom Hickey said...

tom: "That is an assumption.

It is a key piece in the modern (18th century) Western framework that most Western people assume is the mental correlate of reality.

It looks like a positive assertion (description) but it is heavily normative and prescriptive. It functions as a criterion.

I happen to like this assumption since I was enculturated into it. But I also recognize it for what it is — a stipulation."


Auburn: Dont know what this is referring to

Tom: Your assertion The liberal rights based Democratic system is simply the best way to organize large diverse societies and compass direction has nothing to.do with it. The liberal rights Democratic system would still be the best even if the Chinese evolved it instead of the Netherlands Britain the US and finally France. That is being honest. it has nothing to do.with race or ethnicity.

Tom Hickey said...

Primitive tribal economy, slave economy, feudal economy, capitalist’s economy.

Just about ripe for a human economy (something civilised, that will unlock human potential, rather than hubris and ego).


Cue to bring in Meher Baba's discourse on The New Humanity in Discourses.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom even your characterizations of those two events are dishonest and incomplete.

Ho Chih minh was an marxist revolutionary who did want to spread the communist revolution throughout SE asia just like the US claimed, and the domino theory was also partly right as the history shows after 1975. Then the Viet cong murdered as many as 2 million south vietnamese, why should I feel bad about the fact that the US fought him? I dont. I feel bad that the Govt and military were so incompetent that they were unable to provide a better standard of living that fucking backwards ass communists and so many Americans died in vain, but acting like the communist viet cong was some obviously horrible moral tale when I view it as immoral to allow terrible dictators to control million s of people lives.

And as far as the glaspie thing with Saddam, yep that played out badly and is exactly why peaceniks are so full of shit and we should ignore them. With no threat of retaliation, just look at what dictators will do. Thank God for US hegemony and that the period of territorial acquisition war is over thanks to the evil US

Auburn Parks said...

Oh that about the best system,

yeah your response is not helpful just a bunch of assertions with no evidence to supprot them as opposed to the history of human development which backs my position. But we can just as well use simple logic and deduction

What is a better way of Govt then consent of the Governed demonstrated by elected representatives?

What is a better way of society than guaranteed legal indivdual rights?

Tom Hickey said...

If you read military analysts who say that the 2nd and third largest defense spending countries in the world pose no threat to anyone or anything then you need to find some new military analysts to read. No wonder you do s

It's a matter of proportion. Russia and China's military spending is defensive and deterrent rather than offensive. They are not projecting power and cannot project power anywhere near the scale of the US and its allies. The rest is hype to fuel military spending.

Read XI's recent address to the People's Liberation Army (PLA). It's about repelling an attack on China. Which is the only country that could attack China?

Similarly with Russia.

Russia and China both have red lines some distance from their borders and if they perceive an imminent threat within this range, they have warned that they will be forced to respond.

And what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that NK shares a border with both China and Russia. The Russian border is small (17 kilometers/10.56 miles). China will not permit US troops on that border in the event of a conflict and the US military knows this. Russia would likely join China on this issue.

Neither the US nor its allies want a land war in Asia or Eurasia. Nobody wins. Neither Russia nor China need a strong offensive force for this, so they are not invested in one.

The US military is about projecting power globally on several fronts at once. This is a huge undertaking and hugely expensive.

Tom Hickey said...

Capitalism is not a new system, Private property and exchange, profit, and paying others to work for you have always been around and they always will.

Unhistorical, and a key piece in the hype about capitalism being natural. Take is somewhere else. It won't fool us here.

Auburn Parks said...

" but acting like the communist viet cong was some obviously horrible moral tale when I view it as immoral to allow terrible dictators to control million s of people lives."


thist doesnt make any sense...should being "but acting like FIGHTING THE viet cong was some obviously..."


Tom Hickey said...

About Uncle Ho

Born in 1890 in Vietnam under French colonialism to a committed nationalist father, Ho Chi Minh would grow up to lead not one, but two successful wars of independence to liberate his country. In his formative years, Ho traveled widely as a sailor and lived in Paris, Harlem, and Boston, where he worked as a cook, baker, and did menial jobs. In his travels, he made contact with other colonized people, communists and nationalists, and saw the Vietnamese under France as part of an international system of empire.

Returning to Vietnam to expel the French colonizers and emancipate his homeland, Ho Chi Minh looked to the United States, once a colony of the British, as a model—the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence is clearly modeled on the United States Declaration—but also as a potential ally. Ho wrote numerous times to American audiences, presidents and the American people, reaching out for support. But American elites, seeing France expelled and wary of independence movements "infecting" their own colonies, decided to punish Vietnam and engaged in a decades long war of almost unthinkable violence.


http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/hochiminh/

Auburn Parks said...

Totally historical, take your anti capitalist bullshit somewhere else nobody is buying it

Tom Hickey said...

What is a better way of Govt then consent of the Governed demonstrated by elected representatives?

What is a better way of society than guaranteed legal indivdual rights?


A love-based society.

See Meher Baba' s discourse on The New Humanity.

Auburn Parks said...

Thanks for providing me with some propaganda letters from King Ho that was really helpful.

Auburn Parks said...

Love is not a legal document, it cant protect people from violence or oppression. It cant tax a nation and pay millions of people to accomplish specific tasks. Utopian garbage.

I really hope that this is not a serious response. That you would argue that liberal democratic systems arent the best systems because in reality we can all live in a giant commune is remarkable. I can only hope this is a joke

Tom Hickey said...

Love is not a legal document, it cant protect people from violence or oppression. It cant tax a nation and pay millions of people to accomplish specific tasks. Utopian garbage.

I really hope that this is not a serious response. That you would argue that liberal democratic systems arent the best systems because in reality we can all live in a giant commune is remarkable. I can only hope this is a joke


Now you know my true ideology.

It will take a leap in the level of collective consciousness, but sages say it is coming.

jrbarch said...

Love is serious, and the ultimately sensible response: - even though it is for us, constrained by human expression; full of both drama and humour.

Love is the only thing that protects humans from themselves, from violence and suppression; and if we had the eyes to see it, love is the only reason people accomplish the tasks they set themselves. Love has nought to do with living in a commune, everything to do with living in harmony; with us first, necessarily; then others consequentially.

Love is already the basis of all human societies, but is noticeable for its absence rather than its presence. To take darkness out of a room, light a candle. Where there is a vacuum, ignorance and hubris rush in, under the cover of darkness.

Love protects, nurtures, expands; love gives and love receives, joyfully; trust blossoms into love. Love is the most important thing to all humans, but they do not really understand it - there is no end to the ability of this heart, to reward you with the gift of joy.

Love brings clarity to the mind, serenity, and peace to the thirsting heart. Kabir said if all the oceans were turned to ink and the forest paper, he could not write enough about the power of Love.

Love brings innocence. The same love that is in the eyes of a child is still there in the heart of an adult – but concepts and ego, greed, mind, get in the way. That is what in our pride we call ‘maturity’. The most powerful knowledge on the face of this earth is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge begins with the heart and love; it starts with feeling the peace within. The desire to be content, doing what we do, all day every day, is the thirst for love.

Love is not a concept. Love can only be felt - in the heart. It takes a lot of understanding to know and appreciate love. Feeling is our most fundamental reality but we think mind is everything. This is the fundamental human error! We are feeling machines. Without love, we cannot think even walk straight, let alone think straight. Without love, this world would become an impossibly dark place.

What we are looking for, in this life, is within. And it needs to be felt; experienced; not just talked about. It can ‘enlighten’ this world.

On the outside, human beings fall in love with just about everything in sight. They love their cat and they love their dog; they love their cars, and their wives, husbands and children; they love their jobs and they love their possessions. They love their importance and they love some attention. Some people love Russia so much they want to own it. Love is the engine, the energy that drives the human being through each moment, each day, and a lifetime. Love seeks fulfillment.

When the last breath leaves the body, the heart will be filled with gratitude or empty. We are like buckets with holes in them and we seek out other buckets to fill us. Wisdom and experience is the difference.

Problem is none of the above loves are really love. They are all “LIKES”. Love is a beautiful energy, a potential, a seed, nestled in the human heart; and when it sprouts, it seeks the Sun. It takes in the water, the air, and the nourishment from its environment, and seeks the Sun. That is love. Love transforms the human being. And having found that Sun, it shares - because that is the human thing to do. It ‘civilises’ people.

The human being has forgotten what is inside of him and seeks everything else. When the heart is full of gratitude, we are not trying to screw an experience out of everyone and everything else. Happy, kind, generous, human beings would build a world in which they could see themselves reflected – just like we see us reflected right now. But there is something wrong ….. we think the problems are in the mirror; fix the mirror. Change the laws and rules. It’s the same people looking in the mirror. Ahh ….!

Kaivey said...

I love Tom's posts. He puts a lot of hard work in. I recommended this site to PCR saying you don't have to go anywhere else to get the best real news.

I've been less active recently because of illness and I'm also very busy.

I'm aware of my biases, and I'm aware of the biased of the left. I try to be more open to moderate conservatives. Especially as some of them are pro Russia and anti war.

Kaivey said...

I normally refer to Washington rather than the US. Most Americans are liberal minded and want peace. But Washington is evil.

Kaivey said...

I think RT is neutral. It may be selective, but I like it's anti-imperialism view point.

Kaivey said...

I buy it. But I'm not anti capitalism, that's why the libertarians had such a hard time trying to win arguments with me on YouTube. I agreed with the principal is what they said, but I didn't agree with everything.

Capitalism is natural to mankind and the benefits are everywhere. I had a bit missing from an old lawn mower, so I went on eBay and got the part cheap in minutes. I can walk 15 minutes one way and be in beautiful countryside and 15 in the other and go shopping in a hypermarket.

Capitalism would work even better in a social democratic society.

Tom Hickey said...

I buy it. But I'm not anti capitalism, that's why the libertarians had such a hard time trying to win arguments with me on YouTube. I agreed with the principal is what they said, but I didn't agree with everything.

Capitalism is natural to mankind and the benefits are everywhere. I had a bit missing from an old lawn mower, so I went on eBay and got the part cheap in minutes. I can walk 15 minutes one way and be in beautiful countryside and 15 in the other and go shopping in a hypermarket.

Capitalism would work even better in a social democratic society.


Don't confuse capitalism as an economic system with markets. Capitalism is about favoring ownership of real and financial property over labor (people) and land (the environment). Favoring people as a factor is socialism and favoring the environment as a factor is ecologism.

Capitalism is antithetical to social democracy and social democracy. This has led to conflict in the West since the New Deal, and capitalism won by imposing neoliberalism.

The need is for ecological socialism or social ecologism as the dominant system rather than capitalism — before we go extinct. The world is already in the sixth extinction according to some scientists. Of course that is disputed by those assuming unlimited growth.

Tom Hickey said...

Additionally, feudalism is an economic system that privileges land ownership. We tend to think of feudalism as ancient history now and no longer relevant. But the residual of primitive accumulation remains with us after ownership of land was folded into capital. Moreover, colonialism is based on feudalism and much of the world is still under that yoke, especially where indigenous populations were displaced. Additionally, there are still feudal societies where hereditary monarchies and aristocracies rule. So there is still a feudal remnant operative.