Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Propaganda And The Press

To the US foreign policy press Russia "is bombing schools, hospitals and civilians" in Aleppo, Syria whereas the US and its proxies are "liberating" Mosul, Iraq and face an enemy that uses civilians as "human shields."

Actually, the US and Russia are both trying to rid an allied country of terrorists who control part of the country and are using the exact same methods. They find the terrorists and bomb them. They try to kill them. If they happen to be near civilians the civilians are often collateral damage.

Even with the foreign policy press acting as our government's propagandists most Americans oppose their government's endless war and there's endless proof of that if you just Google some terms like this: "US public poll data war in middle east". One article that comes up says that even when the foreign policy press was reporting that Syria used chemical weapons on its own citizens, 60 percent of Americas said we should stay out it and only 9 percent said we should get involved.

By the way, when investigative reporter Seymour Hersch found the reports to be lies the foreign policy press ignored him. It now seems that Turkey, working through militias conducted that attack to try to get the west involved in Syria. The foreign policy press, however, isn't interested in anything that doesn't promote the narrative put forth by their sources in government and think tanks who make their living off of war.

Hillary Clinton, who wants to escalate the war against Syria and expand it to war with Russia, won't say that in so many words because, as she told Goldman Sachs top employees in one of her $250k private speeches, you have to have a public position and a private position. What we get is her public position. If you want to know her private position you can ask a family in a Middle Eastern country when they wake up to the whistle of an incoming American bomb.


Note: Clinton has defended herself on that 'public position-private position' statement by referencing a recent film about Abraham Lincoln and saying that's what Lincoln was doing when he was trying to end slavery. You must use different arguments for different people, she said. At least that's her public position.




4 comments:

  1. The way I see it, Russia probably wouldn't be much involved militarily with Syria right now if we and NATO were not also actively involved militarily in the Middle East, not just right now but for the past 15 years.

    There's a little bit of a sense of "keeping up with the Joneses" about it, but it goes deeper than that. I've seen maps that show NATO and related forces arrayed around the Russian Federation like hyenas around a downed wildebeest. Only this wildebeest is still trying very hard not to be dead. I think that, from the Russian perspective, they don't feel that they have any choice but to counter our military incursions and adventures with ones of their own, unless they're willing to accept us as being the absolute rulers of the world. And they are not willing to accept that.

    If the Russians are hacking people like the DNC and Ron Podesta and feeding their emails to WikiLeaks (I'm not so sure they are), it would be understandable. When you feel as threatened as they must be feeling, you lash out with whatever you've got. They've got a lot of capable computer people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I still have trouble having rational thoughts about Russians. Mostly due to recollections of our "duck and cover" lessons crawling under my wooden desk in second grade while they prepared to "nuke" St. Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm a veteran of those "duck and cover" drills too, TroutBirder. My fear and distrust of the Soviet Union ended only when the Soviet Union ended, although its last Premier -- Mikhail Gorbachev -- was okay by me. I have no great trust in Vladimir Putin either. He's a shrewd little autocrat, interested mostly in holding onto power.

    But what I came to learn, a couple of years out of high school, was that socialism is the most democratic economic system there is. America is better to the extent that we have it (e.g., Social Security, public schools, public fire and police departments, public parks, etc.) and poorer to the extent that we don't have it. Capitalism most certainly is not democratic. Capitalism is what medieval feudalism eventually became, once we transitioned from an agrarian to an industrialized civilization. It's a class system in which the "haves" build and maintain power over the "have-nots."

    There's this myth of upward mobility called "The American Dream" -- the fantasy that anybody in America can become a rich and successful capitalist -- which simply isn't borne-out by observation. The rich people who rule my town today are the sons and daughters of the rich people who ruled our town 35 years ago. And their grandparents ran things 35 years before them. If you've been around more than a few decades it's plain to see that ours definitely is a rigged system!

    I also learned that much of the hatred and mistrust of the Soviet system that we learned in school back in the 1950s and 1960s was fed by capitalist propaganda, propagated not only by both Democratic and Republican politicians, but also by the corporate media and even our school system. Socialists were purged from teaching in America's schools at the height of McCarthy's Red Scare movement, and for a while from Hollywood too (the infamous Black List). We still haven't recovered from all of that 1950s paranoia.

    That's not to say that Soviet leaders weren't corrupt. Clearly many of them were. But they were never as dire a threat to America as the media and our teachers would have had us believe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some good points but I remain convinced of the following: let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs- mixed market capitalism & lets reestablish the proper mix...much strong role for central government from the wildly distorted swing to the right of recent decades. Oh and a reinvigorate role for unions...:)

    ReplyDelete