John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JIM AL-KHALILI
“Aliens may not exist – but that’s good news for our survival”
I just cannot accept the study as being valid.
It boils down to speculation with some numbers assigned. It goes against the basic concept that the sheer size of the cosmos guarantees abundance of life, a concept embraced by some of our greatest physicists, including Hawking and Fermi.
This view of the cosmos reminds me of ancient religious people who had the arrogance to say the earth and all its creatures were created just for mankind. And we still have lots of humans who believe that. It is based on the skimpiest bits of evidence, such as our failure so far to pick-up radio signals or to experience any sightings or contacts.
Advanced alien civilizations may well have discovered new forms of communication of which we are not yet aware, including quantum operations.
Our own use of radio waves is only about a century old. It takes four-and-a-half years for a signal to go just one way from the nearest star, and that is truly an infinitesimal distance in astronomical terms. It represents a next-door neighbor, so to speak, considering the billions of known galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions or billions of stars.
I also tend to think that at some point with any intelligent species, machines eventually take over from the biological critters. Brains invent and keep inventing, striving to make life better and more convenient, just as they discover and keep discovering principles which result in still more powerful inventions. This is a basic driving force in human history, which itself only goes back about a fifth of a million years.
And this continuous effort to invent and to discover leads directly to what we are glimpsing the first bits of right now in our own civilization.
Artificial intelligence and associated machines seem likely to be the next great stage of evolution, as when mammals arose and dinosaurs - who had ruled the planet for a couple of hundred million years, even evolving huge varieties of their type over that time – completely disappeared.
Wherever this evolutionary change has occurred in the cosmos, there would then be very little interest in critters like us, critters who still, despite all our pretensions, resemble chimpanzees in so many ways, as in marching out to murder groups of neighboring chimps regularly.
We’re doing it right now on a colossal scale. American now drops a large bomb somewhere every twelve minutes of every day. It spends a trillion dollars, all costs included, a year on destruction and death.
Those who say we are alone in the vastness of the cosmos remind me also of another form of thinking earlier in human civilization. It was a conception in a number of earlier civilizations and empires that there was nothing worth knowing about beyond their borders, just mere barbarians in the far hinterlands. Arrogance has long been a human trait.
I don't see how anyone can think things are radically different in various corners of the universe. The same physical principles and processes appear to apply everywhere.
We haven't even discovered all of the principles yet, and we do not yet grasp the full life-cycle of our own species, but there is no reason to believe things are greatly different in different locations of the cosmos, except to the extent that they are either earlier-on or later along our path.
Where there is water, oxygen, and some warmth – and that has to be in tens of billions of places – there almost certainly will be life in some form. The novas of stars and the collisions of galaxies are constantly spewing out chemicals which in the deep reaches of space form all kinds of compounds, including organic ones. These drift and are picked up by comets and meteors which sometimes deposit them on suitable planetary surfaces. It is all a huge ongoing, stochastic process.
Of course, there may also be forms of life without our same basic requirements.
Readers interested in the topic of alien life may enjoy a little story I wrote many years ago:
http://chuckmanmiscellanea.blogspot.com/2006/11/short-story-cosmic-hum.html
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SOMETIMES YOU SIDE WITH THE DEVIL - THE CASE OF TURKEY'S ELECTION AND ERDOGAN - PICKING YOUR BATTLES AND ALLIES STRATEGICALLY IN THE MURKINESS OF WORLD AFFAIRS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY HARUN YAHYA IN PRAVDA
“'Turkey's choice' is not only Turkey's
“Turkey is gearing up for an important election that is going to take place on June 24th. Turks will choose their new President who will be in office for the next five years”
The situation in Turkey is one of those where one has to make a choice based not on any ideals or hopes but on certain nightmarish realities.
Erdogan is a very strange man. Sometimes he says things one can praise for their insight and suitability. Other times, he sounds like a genuine madman. His lunatic pleas and lawsuits in Europe against cartoons or other journalism he finds offensive. His various threats against this, that, and the other.
And his acts follow the same pattern, perhaps tending more on the side of madness. His brutal non-stop campaign against the Kurds. His years-long covert participation in the horrors of Syria, he was an early major partner in trying to destroy a peaceful country. Turkish border guards even discovered containers of poison gas being smuggled into Syria in a Turkish security services vehicle. The journalists who reported the facts remain in prison. His literally insane attack on a Russian bomber when he became frustrated at Putin's success in breaking up what Turkey was doing in Syria.
But in the end, his position vis-a-vis Russia is important in Putin's tremendous efforts to oppose American exceptionalism and hyper-aggression. And there can be little doubt the United States would be pleased to see Erdogan go. I have no doubt the big attempted coup against Erdogan was at least in part CIA work, and I am sure that today the CIA is pumping money and resources into the political opposition.
Also, after Erdogan's past lunacy in attacking Russia, he appears to have settled into a mutually beneficial relationship, a very good thing for all those who do not want to see the now-crazed United States dominating the planet, as it is very much trying to do. By the way, Putin’s handling of that entire business with Turkey showed him at his very best and most effective.
So, in the end, I do think it best that Erdogan be re-elected. You do have to pick your battles carefully in this world. And also have to embrace some allies you otherwise would rather not, a philosophy to which the very pragmatic and effective Putin holds.
This election is certainly one of those times. Hold your nose and vote Erdogan. And the truth is, in the end, there is no one in Turkey with the power to just suddenly make everything better anyway, and the CIA beckons just around the corner in the darkness.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY HARUN YAHYA IN PRAVDA
“'Turkey's choice' is not only Turkey's
“Turkey is gearing up for an important election that is going to take place on June 24th. Turks will choose their new President who will be in office for the next five years”
The situation in Turkey is one of those where one has to make a choice based not on any ideals or hopes but on certain nightmarish realities.
Erdogan is a very strange man. Sometimes he says things one can praise for their insight and suitability. Other times, he sounds like a genuine madman. His lunatic pleas and lawsuits in Europe against cartoons or other journalism he finds offensive. His various threats against this, that, and the other.
And his acts follow the same pattern, perhaps tending more on the side of madness. His brutal non-stop campaign against the Kurds. His years-long covert participation in the horrors of Syria, he was an early major partner in trying to destroy a peaceful country. Turkish border guards even discovered containers of poison gas being smuggled into Syria in a Turkish security services vehicle. The journalists who reported the facts remain in prison. His literally insane attack on a Russian bomber when he became frustrated at Putin's success in breaking up what Turkey was doing in Syria.
But in the end, his position vis-a-vis Russia is important in Putin's tremendous efforts to oppose American exceptionalism and hyper-aggression. And there can be little doubt the United States would be pleased to see Erdogan go. I have no doubt the big attempted coup against Erdogan was at least in part CIA work, and I am sure that today the CIA is pumping money and resources into the political opposition.
Also, after Erdogan's past lunacy in attacking Russia, he appears to have settled into a mutually beneficial relationship, a very good thing for all those who do not want to see the now-crazed United States dominating the planet, as it is very much trying to do. By the way, Putin’s handling of that entire business with Turkey showed him at his very best and most effective.
So, in the end, I do think it best that Erdogan be re-elected. You do have to pick your battles carefully in this world. And also have to embrace some allies you otherwise would rather not, a philosophy to which the very pragmatic and effective Putin holds.
This election is certainly one of those times. Hold your nose and vote Erdogan. And the truth is, in the end, there is no one in Turkey with the power to just suddenly make everything better anyway, and the CIA beckons just around the corner in the darkness.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ACTUALLY TALKING TO THE PEOPLE YOU ALWAYS TALK ABOUT - HERE, IRAN - WHAT REAL JOURNALISM WOULD DO - FACT THAT YOU NEVER SEE THAT IN AMERICA'S CORPORATE PRESS SHOULD ITSELF RAISE QUESTIONS BUT IT DOESN'T
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW BY CHRIS HEDGES IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“The View from Iran - Chris Hedges Talks to Iran's UN Ambassador
“Hedges is invaluable. Here he largely reproduces verbatim what Iranian officials are saying, which is almost completely barred from the main news media which only allows the Israeli view. A dangerous situation.”
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/view-iran-chris-hedges-talks-irans-un-ambassador/ri23866
Good interview.
Readers and viewers in "the West" receive virtually no exposure to high-level spokespeople from countries like Iran.
You might think in theory since countries like Iran or Syria are so much in the news, there might be more effort to gain accurate information about them, and from good sources within the countries.
But of course, that is not how it works at all.
America's tightly-controlled press (not by the state directly but by a quite small number of owners loyal to the state's interests) and its political establishment do exactly the opposite. Iran and Syria are only in the news because they are targets, and you don’t have interviews with those you are targeting.
The American establishment wants you to hear about such places only from the outside, which is to say, only from the official American perspective.
If the average citizen were really thinking about these matters, they'd realize that just the fact alone of never hearing from anyone in a number of countries, countries often on the lips of politicians, says a very great deal about the press and its intentions.
There is never any real effort to inform people about international affairs in America, only to motivate them in supporting the official, established view, something which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with informing people.
And I have to say, increasingly, this is so also for Canada and Western Europe which are under the American shadow as perhaps never before in my lifetime.
This just again points out the immense contemporary importance of Russian media.
Russian media have their own bias, of course, but it is not the bias of the one party trying to control the entire planet, and that fact alone is very important.
Chris Hedges is one of those rare Americans, combining intelligence being well-informed with dedication to getting at the truth. He has worked towards that for years. A very admirable journalist.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW BY CHRIS HEDGES IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“The View from Iran - Chris Hedges Talks to Iran's UN Ambassador
“Hedges is invaluable. Here he largely reproduces verbatim what Iranian officials are saying, which is almost completely barred from the main news media which only allows the Israeli view. A dangerous situation.”
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/view-iran-chris-hedges-talks-irans-un-ambassador/ri23866
Good interview.
Readers and viewers in "the West" receive virtually no exposure to high-level spokespeople from countries like Iran.
You might think in theory since countries like Iran or Syria are so much in the news, there might be more effort to gain accurate information about them, and from good sources within the countries.
But of course, that is not how it works at all.
America's tightly-controlled press (not by the state directly but by a quite small number of owners loyal to the state's interests) and its political establishment do exactly the opposite. Iran and Syria are only in the news because they are targets, and you don’t have interviews with those you are targeting.
The American establishment wants you to hear about such places only from the outside, which is to say, only from the official American perspective.
If the average citizen were really thinking about these matters, they'd realize that just the fact alone of never hearing from anyone in a number of countries, countries often on the lips of politicians, says a very great deal about the press and its intentions.
There is never any real effort to inform people about international affairs in America, only to motivate them in supporting the official, established view, something which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with informing people.
And I have to say, increasingly, this is so also for Canada and Western Europe which are under the American shadow as perhaps never before in my lifetime.
This just again points out the immense contemporary importance of Russian media.
Russian media have their own bias, of course, but it is not the bias of the one party trying to control the entire planet, and that fact alone is very important.
Chris Hedges is one of those rare Americans, combining intelligence being well-informed with dedication to getting at the truth. He has worked towards that for years. A very admirable journalist.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE HORRIBLE PEOPLE LEADING THE UNITED STATES TODAY - AND THAT ISN'T JUST TRUMP - ARE DRIVING THE WORLD TOWARDS DESTRUCTION OF MANY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS AND LIKELY TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEPRESSION
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MOHAMED EL-ERIAN IN THE GUARDIAN
"The G7 has not been dealt a fatal blow..."
Well, not quite so fast.
It takes a while to feel the full impact of something like Trump's G-7 performance.
It was nothing less than frightening.
And Trump's every step and word since has been equally frightening, I think it possible the G-7 will come to mark something of an historical watershed.
You see, already Europe eats a great deal of American crap - everything from politely accepting its rampage through the Middle East, which has directly hurt Europe through masses of piteous refugees, to supporting America’s massive assault on Russia, which costs Europe literally billions in trade and impedes cooperation of every description for no rational cause.
Those needlessly destructive things could be accepted for a while from an old ally whom Europe knows is suffering from internal problems and having doubts about its future identity, but can they continue to be accepted from the extended nightmare America rapidly is becoming?
Who really is more dangerous to Europe's long-term interests, a Russia wanting to cooperate and be a productive partner or an America taking every possible opportunity to oppose, to argue, to call names, and to pile on still more demands for eating crap?
Whether it is caging children at its border or quitting United Nations’ organizations like UNESCO and the Human Rights Council or killing legally-innocent people with drones on an industrial scale or slapping down European sensibilities in everything from the environment to telling them from whom they may buy commodities or ripping-up valid, working international agreements, we see a steady march towards a kind of international nihilism from America.
It is very unsettling, and there appears to be no end in sight. In the serious American efforts now underway to start a massive international trade war, openly boasting about something that will hurt the entire planet and possibly contribute to toppling an already weak international economic system into depression, it is hard to believe that traditional Western alignments can remain unaffected.
As in an old marriage where one of the partners suddenly turns abusive and intolerably demanding, the old friendly ties of alliance cannot be stretched to accept just anything.
Some very dangerous and unpleasant people now are running American policy, and Trump is just the ugliest big-mouth among them. A spokesperson from hell. He certainly is not alone in determining the nation’s course. Indeed, American government doesn’t work that way. Presidential powers are quite limited except in the role of commander-in-chief in a war. America may not be terribly democratic, but power is divided among established elite groups – the Senate, the House, powerful lobbies, the major security services, and the Pentagon - and some consensus is absolutely required for extreme policies and acts.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/john-chuckman-essay-hurtling-into-darkness-americas-great-leap-towards-global-tyranny/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/john-chuckman-essay-dangerous-flailing-and-bellowing-of-the-beast/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/decline-of-the-american-empire/
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MOHAMED EL-ERIAN IN THE GUARDIAN
"The G7 has not been dealt a fatal blow..."
Well, not quite so fast.
It takes a while to feel the full impact of something like Trump's G-7 performance.
It was nothing less than frightening.
And Trump's every step and word since has been equally frightening, I think it possible the G-7 will come to mark something of an historical watershed.
You see, already Europe eats a great deal of American crap - everything from politely accepting its rampage through the Middle East, which has directly hurt Europe through masses of piteous refugees, to supporting America’s massive assault on Russia, which costs Europe literally billions in trade and impedes cooperation of every description for no rational cause.
Those needlessly destructive things could be accepted for a while from an old ally whom Europe knows is suffering from internal problems and having doubts about its future identity, but can they continue to be accepted from the extended nightmare America rapidly is becoming?
Who really is more dangerous to Europe's long-term interests, a Russia wanting to cooperate and be a productive partner or an America taking every possible opportunity to oppose, to argue, to call names, and to pile on still more demands for eating crap?
Whether it is caging children at its border or quitting United Nations’ organizations like UNESCO and the Human Rights Council or killing legally-innocent people with drones on an industrial scale or slapping down European sensibilities in everything from the environment to telling them from whom they may buy commodities or ripping-up valid, working international agreements, we see a steady march towards a kind of international nihilism from America.
It is very unsettling, and there appears to be no end in sight. In the serious American efforts now underway to start a massive international trade war, openly boasting about something that will hurt the entire planet and possibly contribute to toppling an already weak international economic system into depression, it is hard to believe that traditional Western alignments can remain unaffected.
As in an old marriage where one of the partners suddenly turns abusive and intolerably demanding, the old friendly ties of alliance cannot be stretched to accept just anything.
Some very dangerous and unpleasant people now are running American policy, and Trump is just the ugliest big-mouth among them. A spokesperson from hell. He certainly is not alone in determining the nation’s course. Indeed, American government doesn’t work that way. Presidential powers are quite limited except in the role of commander-in-chief in a war. America may not be terribly democratic, but power is divided among established elite groups – the Senate, the House, powerful lobbies, the major security services, and the Pentagon - and some consensus is absolutely required for extreme policies and acts.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/john-chuckman-essay-hurtling-into-darkness-americas-great-leap-towards-global-tyranny/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/john-chuckman-essay-dangerous-flailing-and-bellowing-of-the-beast/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/decline-of-the-american-empire/
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHY EVEN THE WORST NEW LAWS CANNOT BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" IN ISRAEL - AS THE NEW LAW TO BAN FILMING ISRAELI SOLDIERS
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Nothing to see here! Israeli ministers approve ‘unconstitutional’ bill to ban filming of IDF actions”
Israel has no Bill or Charter of Rights, so something like this cannot be ‘unconstitutional,’ even in quotes.
Given Israel's structure and founding principles, there never can be a Bill of Rights. It would be like Nationalist South Africa or the American Confederacy having a Bill of Rights. The concept makes no sense.
Of course, the whole idea of defined and protected rights is so that a tyrannical-minded democratic majority does not permanently suppress a minority.
Democracies can be tyrannical just as much as dictatorships, and Israel proves that every single day.
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Nothing to see here! Israeli ministers approve ‘unconstitutional’ bill to ban filming of IDF actions”
Israel has no Bill or Charter of Rights, so something like this cannot be ‘unconstitutional,’ even in quotes.
Given Israel's structure and founding principles, there never can be a Bill of Rights. It would be like Nationalist South Africa or the American Confederacy having a Bill of Rights. The concept makes no sense.
Of course, the whole idea of defined and protected rights is so that a tyrannical-minded democratic majority does not permanently suppress a minority.
Democracies can be tyrannical just as much as dictatorships, and Israel proves that every single day.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WORLD'S REAL "ROCKET MAN," THE NOISY FOOL IN THE OVAL OFFICE, ORDERS A WHOLE NEW BRANCH OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES CREATED WITHOUT A DIME IN HIS POCKET
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Trump Announces Formation of Official space Force
“He said that he is directing the Pentagon to create the space force as an independent service branch to join the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard”
What a complete idiot the man is.
All he knows, in anything, is "I wanna be number one!"
America cannot pay the bills of its current military, which costs the best part of a trillion a year when you take account of everything such as the VA.
Where does the money come from to even begin this stunt?
And when, before very long, Trump plunges the world into a new Great Depression with all his trade wars and fights with everyone on the planet on top of an already-fragile world economic system, he won't even be able to borrow it.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Trump Announces Formation of Official space Force
“He said that he is directing the Pentagon to create the space force as an independent service branch to join the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard”
What a complete idiot the man is.
All he knows, in anything, is "I wanna be number one!"
America cannot pay the bills of its current military, which costs the best part of a trillion a year when you take account of everything such as the VA.
Where does the money come from to even begin this stunt?
And when, before very long, Trump plunges the world into a new Great Depression with all his trade wars and fights with everyone on the planet on top of an already-fragile world economic system, he won't even be able to borrow it.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: PUTIN'S REAL QUALITIES AND STRENGTHS - RUSSIA'S PUTIN AND CHINA'S ZI HAVE HISTORIC DESTINIES - NO ONE ELSE CAN BLUNT AMERICA'S RAGING HORMONAL URGE TO DOMINATE THE EARTH
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER DUGIN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“'Putin Is Surrounded by Liberals' - an Interview with Alexander Dugin “
Sorry, but this seems like gibberish to me.
It is not even clear what is meant by the word "liberal."
There are many meanings for that word, and unfortunately in some circles a word with a proud and wonderful history has been dragged in the dirt.
In the history of Europe, true liberalism is about basic freedoms and human dignity. Its membership list has been a very distinguished one.
The truth about Putin, whom I admire and follow in the news, is that in general he is an extremely pragmatic man, not an ideologue of any type.
His strong Russian nationalism, which of course is valued by Russians and not valued by others, as I see it, actually serves a larger global purpose at this time.
America's current intense hormonal surge of exceptionalism and entitlement and its hyper-aggressive acts absolutely require offsetting forces in the world.
Well, we sure do not see them coming from Europe whose leaders have acted the role of cheerleaders for America for years, and to their own harm and detriment, only further encouraging America's current rampage.
Putin and Xi are just the men for the job, each of them coming at it from somewhat different directions and with somewhat different goals. Their roles, as I see them, are historic and very important for everyone.
The net effect of a good deal that they do serves the larger global human interest in opposing a global dictator.
Putin's views on building many partnerships abroad and looking to a multi-polar world where the interests of each country are respected is just what we want.
And so is China's magnificent effort to build new paths for global trade and enterprise.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER DUGIN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“'Putin Is Surrounded by Liberals' - an Interview with Alexander Dugin “
Sorry, but this seems like gibberish to me.
It is not even clear what is meant by the word "liberal."
There are many meanings for that word, and unfortunately in some circles a word with a proud and wonderful history has been dragged in the dirt.
In the history of Europe, true liberalism is about basic freedoms and human dignity. Its membership list has been a very distinguished one.
The truth about Putin, whom I admire and follow in the news, is that in general he is an extremely pragmatic man, not an ideologue of any type.
His strong Russian nationalism, which of course is valued by Russians and not valued by others, as I see it, actually serves a larger global purpose at this time.
America's current intense hormonal surge of exceptionalism and entitlement and its hyper-aggressive acts absolutely require offsetting forces in the world.
Well, we sure do not see them coming from Europe whose leaders have acted the role of cheerleaders for America for years, and to their own harm and detriment, only further encouraging America's current rampage.
Putin and Xi are just the men for the job, each of them coming at it from somewhat different directions and with somewhat different goals. Their roles, as I see them, are historic and very important for everyone.
The net effect of a good deal that they do serves the larger global human interest in opposing a global dictator.
Putin's views on building many partnerships abroad and looking to a multi-polar world where the interests of each country are respected is just what we want.
And so is China's magnificent effort to build new paths for global trade and enterprise.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: COLUMN ON POLITICAL POPULISM DOING WELL OWING TO PEOPLE'S SENSE OF INSECURITY - YES BUT OTHER THINGS ARE AT WORK - OUR GOVERNMENTS LIE FULL TIME AND SEEM INCOMPETENT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LARRY ELLIOTT IN THE GUARDIAN
"It's easy to see why populists do well in an age of insecurity'
I think the author has used the wrong word.
There is of course insecurity, but I think other qualities dominate.
This is an age of government deception as I've never seen in my lifetime.
Almost nothing national governments tell us is true anymore.
I do think people get very tired of the idea that they are almost never being told the truth. They may not all understand in detail but a sense of the state of things manages to get through.
In addition, governments in Europe, from Britain to Germany, give any observer the impression almost of incompetence, and that I believe is more than a mere impression.
Is there a leader in Europe who seems able to deal with the problems facing his or her country, especially the major ones?
Not that I can see.
In most cases, they are unable even to admit what the basic problems are.
And, then, going back to the first point, they lie about it.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LARRY ELLIOTT IN THE GUARDIAN
"It's easy to see why populists do well in an age of insecurity'
I think the author has used the wrong word.
There is of course insecurity, but I think other qualities dominate.
This is an age of government deception as I've never seen in my lifetime.
Almost nothing national governments tell us is true anymore.
I do think people get very tired of the idea that they are almost never being told the truth. They may not all understand in detail but a sense of the state of things manages to get through.
In addition, governments in Europe, from Britain to Germany, give any observer the impression almost of incompetence, and that I believe is more than a mere impression.
Is there a leader in Europe who seems able to deal with the problems facing his or her country, especially the major ones?
Not that I can see.
In most cases, they are unable even to admit what the basic problems are.
And, then, going back to the first point, they lie about it.
Friday, June 15, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRANSSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY - THE IGNORANCE DOESN'T STOP - HERE ARE SOME OF THE BASIC FACTS OF HUMAN SEXUAL IDENTITY - THEY SHOULD HELP WITH THE IGNORANCE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“America Is 'Committing Suicide' By Allowing Trannies in the Military (Russian TV News)”
Pretty trashy stuff.
Efforts to make jokes out of the fact that some people are gay are a quarter-of-a-century out of date.
And they weren't in good taste then.
It is estimated that somewhere between 4% and 10% of any human population is gay. If you are observant, you can also see this identity occurs with some animals, too, such as dogs.
It is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. You might just as well make fun of skin color or the size of people.
There were, in fact, some very famous soldiers who were gay.
Starting with Alexander the Great
___________________________
Response to a comment:
Sorry, but that displays terrible ignorance.
Sexual identity has at least two major components.
One is the set of organs with which a person is born.
The other is that portion of the brain dealing with all the thoughts and feelings concerned with sex.
These can be out of sync, as they very much are for transsexuals. For such people, sex-change operations are their only escape from a perpetual psychological crisis in their lives. They, of course, are not a perfect solution, but they appear to work well for some.
You see, with biology and human life, across millions of beings in all their variety, there really is no such thing as 'perfect.' There is endless variety and differences. Nature experiments with us continuously as a population.
For transsexuals, as with everything else with humans, there also is a whole range of degrees or intensities involved. Some are simply able to live with the internal conflict. Others are not.
Just think about even "the ordinary or normal” range of sexual identity and the vast differences we find. We have males and females who can never have enough sex. We have males and females who want nothing to do with sex. Asexual people, too, are a reality. And, of course, we have everything in between the extremes.
We have males who have serious psychological problems concerning the size of their organ. We have females who just can never achieve a climax. And on and on, as many variations and twists as you can imagine, and they all exist.
By the way, are you aware that all new human fetuses are female to start with? A portion of them become male as they develop.
That portion is more than half. We have more male babies born than female, however, males suffer a much higher rate of death in infancy and childhood, and so by the time children are adults, there are more females.
Did you know that babies born with both sets of sex organs are a fairly regular occurrence? Historically, doctors arbitrarily selected one or the other and did some cutting.
But not always. Hermaphroditic people have lived that way their whole lives sometimes. I wonder, by your way of thinking, how they are supposed to identify and respond?
Not only that, but many males and females are physically incomplete or irregular in some way. We have males with no testes. We have males with such tiny penises that they cannot have normal sex. We have females who are shaped so that they cannot have normal sex or have babies.
Sexual identity is a very complex thing, and almost anything that you can imagine happening does indeed happen at times. I don’t know why anyone would choose to disparage those born with an unfortunate or uncomfortable set of circumstances.
After all, nature does the same with all other portions of the body. Retarded brains. Brilliant brains. Short. Tall. Hairy chests. Smooth chests. Well-formed limbs. Malformed limbs, or sometimes no limbs. Huge breasts. Almost no breasts. You don’t make fun or criticize them, I hope?
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“America Is 'Committing Suicide' By Allowing Trannies in the Military (Russian TV News)”
Pretty trashy stuff.
Efforts to make jokes out of the fact that some people are gay are a quarter-of-a-century out of date.
And they weren't in good taste then.
It is estimated that somewhere between 4% and 10% of any human population is gay. If you are observant, you can also see this identity occurs with some animals, too, such as dogs.
It is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. You might just as well make fun of skin color or the size of people.
There were, in fact, some very famous soldiers who were gay.
Starting with Alexander the Great
___________________________
Response to a comment:
Sorry, but that displays terrible ignorance.
Sexual identity has at least two major components.
One is the set of organs with which a person is born.
The other is that portion of the brain dealing with all the thoughts and feelings concerned with sex.
These can be out of sync, as they very much are for transsexuals. For such people, sex-change operations are their only escape from a perpetual psychological crisis in their lives. They, of course, are not a perfect solution, but they appear to work well for some.
You see, with biology and human life, across millions of beings in all their variety, there really is no such thing as 'perfect.' There is endless variety and differences. Nature experiments with us continuously as a population.
For transsexuals, as with everything else with humans, there also is a whole range of degrees or intensities involved. Some are simply able to live with the internal conflict. Others are not.
Just think about even "the ordinary or normal” range of sexual identity and the vast differences we find. We have males and females who can never have enough sex. We have males and females who want nothing to do with sex. Asexual people, too, are a reality. And, of course, we have everything in between the extremes.
We have males who have serious psychological problems concerning the size of their organ. We have females who just can never achieve a climax. And on and on, as many variations and twists as you can imagine, and they all exist.
By the way, are you aware that all new human fetuses are female to start with? A portion of them become male as they develop.
That portion is more than half. We have more male babies born than female, however, males suffer a much higher rate of death in infancy and childhood, and so by the time children are adults, there are more females.
Did you know that babies born with both sets of sex organs are a fairly regular occurrence? Historically, doctors arbitrarily selected one or the other and did some cutting.
But not always. Hermaphroditic people have lived that way their whole lives sometimes. I wonder, by your way of thinking, how they are supposed to identify and respond?
Not only that, but many males and females are physically incomplete or irregular in some way. We have males with no testes. We have males with such tiny penises that they cannot have normal sex. We have females who are shaped so that they cannot have normal sex or have babies.
Sexual identity is a very complex thing, and almost anything that you can imagine happening does indeed happen at times. I don’t know why anyone would choose to disparage those born with an unfortunate or uncomfortable set of circumstances.
After all, nature does the same with all other portions of the body. Retarded brains. Brilliant brains. Short. Tall. Hairy chests. Smooth chests. Well-formed limbs. Malformed limbs, or sometimes no limbs. Huge breasts. Almost no breasts. You don’t make fun or criticize them, I hope?
Thursday, June 14, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: IN A DISCUSSION ON AMERICAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS THE GORBACHEV-REAGAN ERA IS CITED - BUT AMERICA HAS CHANGED SO IMMENSELY SINCE THEN, IT IS USELESS TO CITE - SUMMARY OF AMERICAN CHANGES
John Chuckman
COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Is Europe Too Brainwashed to Normalize Relations with Russia?'
I think the author has used the wrong word.
Not "brainwashed," "intimidated."
Europe hasn’t a single bold leader to challenge anything the United States says or does.
_____________________________
Response to a comment:
You conveniently forget one thing, the passage of time.
Citing American-Russian relations in Gorbachev's time is irrelevant to the situation which exists today.
We have an altogether different America, and in so many unpleasant ways.
Just to start, there is America’s widespread use of mercenary terrorists, people who pose as independent jihadi-types, in its efforts to destroy a number of legitimate governments it doesn’t like. Outfits like al Nusrah and ISIS serve effectively as American allies, having received everything they have – weapons, transportation, intelligence, and money - through dark channels under American control.
This murky world has many dark aspects, including hellish outfits like the Western government-supported White Helmets. They are ceaselessly proclaimed to be humanitarian, but they are known in fact to be affiliated with terrorist groups in Syria, having been investigated closely by a number of independent journalists.
They were involved inciting totally-illegal American missile attacks against Syria by staging faked chemical weapons incidents, producing disinformation videos for public consumption. Earlier, they may well have staged real incidents, too. We know with certainty that there was an elaborate American effort some years ago to supply small amounts of chemical weapons to some terrorist outfits in Syria from the murdered Qaddafi's stocks. Hillary Clinton ran it.
And there’s good old Hollywood ready to give a “documentary” about this crummy organization an Oscar. Perhaps some technicians in Hollywood supplied the White Helmets with the equipment, know-how, and props they use in making disinformation videos?
We’ve even had photographic proof of White Helmets using make-up on children who would be filmed as poison-gas victims. Of course, it is the same Hollywood which each year puts on a huge gala dinner to raise money for Israel’s army. Millions of dollars every year. And Israel is known to be one of the main sponsors of efforts for Syria’s destruction.
All of the ugly stuff in Europe labelled as “international terror,” such terrible activity as in Paris for example, is in fact direct “blowback” from the American- Israeli-Saudi efforts in the Middle East, which are well supported covertly by France and Britain, the countries where it is easiest to carry out reprisals.
We have America’s Neocon Wars burning through the Middle East with at least two million killings and countless refugees over the last decade and a half. We have Europe almost destabilized by armies of refugees from bombing and American-supported mercenaries, with America itself not willing to lift a finger to help.
“Full-spectrum dominance” has become a stated national purpose of the United States, a goal the German Wehrmacht might well have embraced.
America now conducts aggression across a huge front in many lands, bombing daily, somewhere or other.
We have the stunning establishment of a permanent American industrial-scale machinery for extrajudicial killing, absolutely no different in its legality or morals to what the old much-hated junta in Argentina did by "disappearing" people it did not like.
But while this is stunning to someone of my age and sensibilities, we see no reaction of any degree against such an unholy institution from inside the United States. No reaction by political leaders. No reaction by the public. No reaction by the press.
This, in my view, might be the most-convincing measure of what a vastly changed-for-the-worst place America is. Give someone a name like “terrorist,” which, after all, is not so very different or scientifically-established a concept than calling someone “witch,” and it is perfectly okay to murder them with no evidence or charges or rights.
Of course, the entire concept of this kind of “witchery” has been adopted from calmly watching Israel’s grisly operations in de-legitimizing an entire people from whom they have taken everything, right down to their dignity as human beings.
American (and the now greatly American-influenced European) reaction to Israel’s small army of snipers, week after week, shooting down thousands of unarmed people in Gaza, killing many and permanently crippling many others through the use of illegal dum-dum bullets has been appalling. If you ever wondered how something like the Holocaust could happen, here is your number-one contemporary lesson in the poisonous nature of human psychology intermingling with politics and power.
How about the President of the United States, Trump, telling the CIA, not long ago, that it should decide who is killed by drones and missiles? The CIA as judge, jury, and executioner? The concept simply leaves anyone with either a sense of justice or morality gasping. But was there any great protest? Organized mass killing by a security agency now quietly operates in the background almost like some air-conditioning equipment switched on.
We had the breathtaking establishment of an American International Torture Gulag with a number of dark sites used for victims who were simply kidnapped right off the streets of the world and shipped off, every one of them legally guilty of nothing. All secretly subject to torture by the psychopaths of the CIA. And then, we have one of the reputedly bloodiest practitioners appointed to head the CIA by Trump. It is a changed America indeed.
We now have the established, systematic abuse of the rights and privacy of American citizens, with practices and technology which make the old East German Stasi look amateurish. While Trump and others go on over gun ownership, all of the truly vital parts of the Bill of Rights are being gutted with each passing day. The FBI enjoys close to unlimited powers to interfere and spy and incite and play dirty tricks. The CIA now openly interferes in domestic matters, its head actually having spoken out on political matters several times, all in complete violation of its own charter. Does anyone protest?
At home in the United States, a galaxy of massive NSA super-computer dark sites now work around-the-clock against the rights Americans thought they had. And here is an outfit whose very product, vast files of recordings of the most intimate communications, endangers ultimately every aspect of American life, certainly including elections.
The work of the NSA creates powerful opportunities for everything from blackmail to intimidation, and, in my observation over time, when something becomes a real possibility, it eventually emerges as a reality. That’s just the way power and human psychology work.
Today, we see America’s piece-by-piece work to bend to its will, or destroy, international organizations such as the United Nations. It feels entitled to withhold or end legal treaty obligations such as dues to various UN agencies. And we actually see open, public intimidation of members just before a vote. Has there ever been a more intimidating and disgraceful spectacle than Nikki Haley and Donald Trump warning people about the consequences of their votes? That’s some support for democratic rights. But where is the protest?
America now has a United Nations ambassador with such retrogressive and outlandish views that she might happily have "worked towards the Fuhrer," as the Germans used to say, had she been born a century earlier and in Germany. And she boldly punctuates all of her excesses with crass public statements any decent person should be ashamed of.
Yes, indeed, it is a changed America, one infinitely worse than in the past cited, and it has very little to do with Putin or Russia, beyond the fact that he is a target for a great deal of the aggression and hatred we see coming from America. Why? Simply because he is seen as opposing much of the American aggression and unbalanced insistence on its own exceptionalism. He is not a saint, but at any given time in world political affairs, you must carefully choose your battles and you must choose allegiances which least threaten peace and cherished values.
We have an American power establishment, utterly corrupted by money and unchallenged power, now playing the 21st century-version of the Ancien Regime in 18th century France before the Revolution.
COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Is Europe Too Brainwashed to Normalize Relations with Russia?'
I think the author has used the wrong word.
Not "brainwashed," "intimidated."
Europe hasn’t a single bold leader to challenge anything the United States says or does.
_____________________________
Response to a comment:
You conveniently forget one thing, the passage of time.
Citing American-Russian relations in Gorbachev's time is irrelevant to the situation which exists today.
We have an altogether different America, and in so many unpleasant ways.
Just to start, there is America’s widespread use of mercenary terrorists, people who pose as independent jihadi-types, in its efforts to destroy a number of legitimate governments it doesn’t like. Outfits like al Nusrah and ISIS serve effectively as American allies, having received everything they have – weapons, transportation, intelligence, and money - through dark channels under American control.
This murky world has many dark aspects, including hellish outfits like the Western government-supported White Helmets. They are ceaselessly proclaimed to be humanitarian, but they are known in fact to be affiliated with terrorist groups in Syria, having been investigated closely by a number of independent journalists.
They were involved inciting totally-illegal American missile attacks against Syria by staging faked chemical weapons incidents, producing disinformation videos for public consumption. Earlier, they may well have staged real incidents, too. We know with certainty that there was an elaborate American effort some years ago to supply small amounts of chemical weapons to some terrorist outfits in Syria from the murdered Qaddafi's stocks. Hillary Clinton ran it.
And there’s good old Hollywood ready to give a “documentary” about this crummy organization an Oscar. Perhaps some technicians in Hollywood supplied the White Helmets with the equipment, know-how, and props they use in making disinformation videos?
We’ve even had photographic proof of White Helmets using make-up on children who would be filmed as poison-gas victims. Of course, it is the same Hollywood which each year puts on a huge gala dinner to raise money for Israel’s army. Millions of dollars every year. And Israel is known to be one of the main sponsors of efforts for Syria’s destruction.
All of the ugly stuff in Europe labelled as “international terror,” such terrible activity as in Paris for example, is in fact direct “blowback” from the American- Israeli-Saudi efforts in the Middle East, which are well supported covertly by France and Britain, the countries where it is easiest to carry out reprisals.
We have America’s Neocon Wars burning through the Middle East with at least two million killings and countless refugees over the last decade and a half. We have Europe almost destabilized by armies of refugees from bombing and American-supported mercenaries, with America itself not willing to lift a finger to help.
“Full-spectrum dominance” has become a stated national purpose of the United States, a goal the German Wehrmacht might well have embraced.
America now conducts aggression across a huge front in many lands, bombing daily, somewhere or other.
We have the stunning establishment of a permanent American industrial-scale machinery for extrajudicial killing, absolutely no different in its legality or morals to what the old much-hated junta in Argentina did by "disappearing" people it did not like.
But while this is stunning to someone of my age and sensibilities, we see no reaction of any degree against such an unholy institution from inside the United States. No reaction by political leaders. No reaction by the public. No reaction by the press.
This, in my view, might be the most-convincing measure of what a vastly changed-for-the-worst place America is. Give someone a name like “terrorist,” which, after all, is not so very different or scientifically-established a concept than calling someone “witch,” and it is perfectly okay to murder them with no evidence or charges or rights.
Of course, the entire concept of this kind of “witchery” has been adopted from calmly watching Israel’s grisly operations in de-legitimizing an entire people from whom they have taken everything, right down to their dignity as human beings.
American (and the now greatly American-influenced European) reaction to Israel’s small army of snipers, week after week, shooting down thousands of unarmed people in Gaza, killing many and permanently crippling many others through the use of illegal dum-dum bullets has been appalling. If you ever wondered how something like the Holocaust could happen, here is your number-one contemporary lesson in the poisonous nature of human psychology intermingling with politics and power.
How about the President of the United States, Trump, telling the CIA, not long ago, that it should decide who is killed by drones and missiles? The CIA as judge, jury, and executioner? The concept simply leaves anyone with either a sense of justice or morality gasping. But was there any great protest? Organized mass killing by a security agency now quietly operates in the background almost like some air-conditioning equipment switched on.
We had the breathtaking establishment of an American International Torture Gulag with a number of dark sites used for victims who were simply kidnapped right off the streets of the world and shipped off, every one of them legally guilty of nothing. All secretly subject to torture by the psychopaths of the CIA. And then, we have one of the reputedly bloodiest practitioners appointed to head the CIA by Trump. It is a changed America indeed.
We now have the established, systematic abuse of the rights and privacy of American citizens, with practices and technology which make the old East German Stasi look amateurish. While Trump and others go on over gun ownership, all of the truly vital parts of the Bill of Rights are being gutted with each passing day. The FBI enjoys close to unlimited powers to interfere and spy and incite and play dirty tricks. The CIA now openly interferes in domestic matters, its head actually having spoken out on political matters several times, all in complete violation of its own charter. Does anyone protest?
At home in the United States, a galaxy of massive NSA super-computer dark sites now work around-the-clock against the rights Americans thought they had. And here is an outfit whose very product, vast files of recordings of the most intimate communications, endangers ultimately every aspect of American life, certainly including elections.
The work of the NSA creates powerful opportunities for everything from blackmail to intimidation, and, in my observation over time, when something becomes a real possibility, it eventually emerges as a reality. That’s just the way power and human psychology work.
Today, we see America’s piece-by-piece work to bend to its will, or destroy, international organizations such as the United Nations. It feels entitled to withhold or end legal treaty obligations such as dues to various UN agencies. And we actually see open, public intimidation of members just before a vote. Has there ever been a more intimidating and disgraceful spectacle than Nikki Haley and Donald Trump warning people about the consequences of their votes? That’s some support for democratic rights. But where is the protest?
America now has a United Nations ambassador with such retrogressive and outlandish views that she might happily have "worked towards the Fuhrer," as the Germans used to say, had she been born a century earlier and in Germany. And she boldly punctuates all of her excesses with crass public statements any decent person should be ashamed of.
Yes, indeed, it is a changed America, one infinitely worse than in the past cited, and it has very little to do with Putin or Russia, beyond the fact that he is a target for a great deal of the aggression and hatred we see coming from America. Why? Simply because he is seen as opposing much of the American aggression and unbalanced insistence on its own exceptionalism. He is not a saint, but at any given time in world political affairs, you must carefully choose your battles and you must choose allegiances which least threaten peace and cherished values.
We have an American power establishment, utterly corrupted by money and unchallenged power, now playing the 21st century-version of the Ancien Regime in 18th century France before the Revolution.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A REPORT SAYS BITCOIN GROWTH INVOLVED FRAUD AND MANIPULATION - HAS CIA BEEN BEHIND THIS TO MAKE OFF-THE-BOOKS PROFITS AS IT DID WITH DRUGS AND GUNS AND COUNTERFEITING?
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Bitcoin’s skyrocketing growth was ‘fraud and manipulation’ – report”
Some have said bitcoin is a CIA creation for making lots of off-the-books money.
That wouldn't surprise. After all, we know CIA has done everything from drug- and gun-running to counterfeiting currency to get illicit income.
What not everyone appreciates is that the kind of people who are best at the operations, as opposed to the pure intelligence, function of CIA are without doubt intelligent psychopaths who enjoy such games.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Bitcoin’s skyrocketing growth was ‘fraud and manipulation’ – report”
Some have said bitcoin is a CIA creation for making lots of off-the-books money.
That wouldn't surprise. After all, we know CIA has done everything from drug- and gun-running to counterfeiting currency to get illicit income.
What not everyone appreciates is that the kind of people who are best at the operations, as opposed to the pure intelligence, function of CIA are without doubt intelligent psychopaths who enjoy such games.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: MORE ON THE MOST TERRIBLE EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY - HITLER'S INVASION OF RUSSIA - QUESTIONS AROUND STALIN'S COMPETENCE IN LEADING
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Stalin Gifted Hitler Victory in 1941 and It Cost Millions of Russian Lives
“The Soviet military debacle in Operation Barbarossa had less to do with Wehrmacht brilliance and more to do with self-inflicted Soviet blows”
I don't agree with the analysis.
It is just one more example of many such things that have been around for decades.
One old story had Stalin falling into a drunken stupor for days when Hitler actually invaded with no commander daring to act on his own initiative.
All these stories are less than sound and often based on fragmentary evidence.
The fact is that, at the time of the invasion, Hitler's Germany had built the most remarkable military machine the world had seen in a very long time.
High esprit, top-notch armor and fighter planes, great new training and personal equipment for the troops.
And the results were well demonstrated in a series of lightning victories in Europe.
Russia could not possibly at the time have duplicated these things.
Of course, errors were made on Stalin's side. Aren't they always with the military?
The Germans, for example, missed the clear opportunity to wipe out the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk during their startling victory in France, something which would have inflicted an unbelievable psychological blow.
The Germans also started the Russia campaign considerably later in the year than was originally planned, owing to various little emergency situations that had to be dealt with.
A two-month earlier start would have meant less cold weather and adverse conditions, but the Germans were not able to do it.
Further, many analysts say the whole invasion was a miscalculation by Hitler, someone who always viewed Slavic people as inferior in ability. Hitler's intelligence was faulty. He was unaware of many things, and, in particular, of the massive reserves of Soviet armor Stalin had created in the east.
I'm not at all sure that Stalin did the best possible with all of his resources - after all, the Soviet economy had seen some pretty horrific steps taken over the years - but the only thing that counts in war is success, and in the end, he had that.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Stalin Gifted Hitler Victory in 1941 and It Cost Millions of Russian Lives
“The Soviet military debacle in Operation Barbarossa had less to do with Wehrmacht brilliance and more to do with self-inflicted Soviet blows”
I don't agree with the analysis.
It is just one more example of many such things that have been around for decades.
One old story had Stalin falling into a drunken stupor for days when Hitler actually invaded with no commander daring to act on his own initiative.
All these stories are less than sound and often based on fragmentary evidence.
The fact is that, at the time of the invasion, Hitler's Germany had built the most remarkable military machine the world had seen in a very long time.
High esprit, top-notch armor and fighter planes, great new training and personal equipment for the troops.
And the results were well demonstrated in a series of lightning victories in Europe.
Russia could not possibly at the time have duplicated these things.
Of course, errors were made on Stalin's side. Aren't they always with the military?
The Germans, for example, missed the clear opportunity to wipe out the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk during their startling victory in France, something which would have inflicted an unbelievable psychological blow.
The Germans also started the Russia campaign considerably later in the year than was originally planned, owing to various little emergency situations that had to be dealt with.
A two-month earlier start would have meant less cold weather and adverse conditions, but the Germans were not able to do it.
Further, many analysts say the whole invasion was a miscalculation by Hitler, someone who always viewed Slavic people as inferior in ability. Hitler's intelligence was faulty. He was unaware of many things, and, in particular, of the massive reserves of Soviet armor Stalin had created in the east.
I'm not at all sure that Stalin did the best possible with all of his resources - after all, the Soviet economy had seen some pretty horrific steps taken over the years - but the only thing that counts in war is success, and in the end, he had that.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: HERE'S THE CLEAREST CASE OF OUR PRESS WORKING OVERTIME AS PROPAGANDISTS INSTEAD OF AS JOURNALISTS - THE GUARDIAN IS BACK WITH YET MORE TRUCK-LOADS OF RUSSOPHOBIC HATRED
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
Well, if you ever doubted the extreme bias that gets woven into the words of our mainline press, The Guardian offers, on the subject of Russia, a series of efforts about as subtle as a punch in the stomach. Its tone and determination to make a negative point, having nothing to do with journalism and certainly not editorial integrity, are in keeping with efforts made for a group of other favorite Guardian hobby-horses, most notably the never-ending campaign against the British Labour Party’s nonexistent anti-Semitism.
Propaganda posing as journalism is a disease which has infected the entire Western press and broadcasting, and at a time of America’s intense Russophobia and hyper-aggression in world affairs, it has been deliberately spread, almost resembling a form of germ warfare.
You see, the trouble is, for people not paying close attention or not having the background to judge, this stuff undoubtedly has a pernicious effect on Western public opinion. Just negative or suggestive headlines on a subject, day after day, have an effect for the casual reader of an advertising slogan or jingle repeated countless times on the radio or television. We know, by experience, that advertising works. After all, it’s pretty well the way America runs its elections for high office.
It is pernicious because the real driving force behind all the Russophobia involves the current terrible efforts of America’s power establishment to impose its will upon weaker states everywhere around the world. And I think it fair to characterize the effort as a contemporary, somewhat more-subtle form of fascism.
Now, often, not a mailed fist to the face as in the 1930s versions of fascism, but a false smile with an elbow to the gut or a leg sticking out to trip you or a bit of poisonous fare offered. Although America remains just as able to crush masses of lives in the crude fashion of 1930s Germany. A million corpses in Iraq and another half a million in Syria plus uncounted masses in many lesser places, from Gaza and Yemen to Libya, scream that truth to anyone who will bother to look.
The mainline press’s job is to keep you from looking or thinking.
“What to watch during the World Cup if you can't stand football
“Couldn’t care less about the action in Russia? Here is a top TV alternative to tune in to on each day of the group stage’
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/12/what-to-watch-on-tv-if-you-hate-the-world-cup#comments
Guardian, you are relentless in your prejudices.
This is just another attack on Russia and its World Cup, albeit thinly disguised as chummy advice.
Get over it.
Harboring such prejudice against a country and expressing it so many different ways borders on a mania.
And coming from you, who always are going on in your efforts to establish a liberal credibility about people who express this or that prejudice, from making fun of overweight people or not respecting women to regular screeds against fantasized anti-Semitism, the obvious prejudice is laughably hypocritical.
AFTERNOTE:
And the very next day after, here’s another fair-minded, name-calling article about the world Cup in The Guardian:
“Robbie Williams 'selling soul to dictator Putin' in World Cup gig
“Singer handing Russian leader PR coup by performing at opening ceremony, say critics”
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/12/robbie-williams-selling-soul-to-dictator-putin-in-world-cup-gig
And readers may enjoy this previous record low point in Guardian journalism:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
Well, if you ever doubted the extreme bias that gets woven into the words of our mainline press, The Guardian offers, on the subject of Russia, a series of efforts about as subtle as a punch in the stomach. Its tone and determination to make a negative point, having nothing to do with journalism and certainly not editorial integrity, are in keeping with efforts made for a group of other favorite Guardian hobby-horses, most notably the never-ending campaign against the British Labour Party’s nonexistent anti-Semitism.
Propaganda posing as journalism is a disease which has infected the entire Western press and broadcasting, and at a time of America’s intense Russophobia and hyper-aggression in world affairs, it has been deliberately spread, almost resembling a form of germ warfare.
You see, the trouble is, for people not paying close attention or not having the background to judge, this stuff undoubtedly has a pernicious effect on Western public opinion. Just negative or suggestive headlines on a subject, day after day, have an effect for the casual reader of an advertising slogan or jingle repeated countless times on the radio or television. We know, by experience, that advertising works. After all, it’s pretty well the way America runs its elections for high office.
It is pernicious because the real driving force behind all the Russophobia involves the current terrible efforts of America’s power establishment to impose its will upon weaker states everywhere around the world. And I think it fair to characterize the effort as a contemporary, somewhat more-subtle form of fascism.
Now, often, not a mailed fist to the face as in the 1930s versions of fascism, but a false smile with an elbow to the gut or a leg sticking out to trip you or a bit of poisonous fare offered. Although America remains just as able to crush masses of lives in the crude fashion of 1930s Germany. A million corpses in Iraq and another half a million in Syria plus uncounted masses in many lesser places, from Gaza and Yemen to Libya, scream that truth to anyone who will bother to look.
The mainline press’s job is to keep you from looking or thinking.
“What to watch during the World Cup if you can't stand football
“Couldn’t care less about the action in Russia? Here is a top TV alternative to tune in to on each day of the group stage’
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/12/what-to-watch-on-tv-if-you-hate-the-world-cup#comments
Guardian, you are relentless in your prejudices.
This is just another attack on Russia and its World Cup, albeit thinly disguised as chummy advice.
Get over it.
Harboring such prejudice against a country and expressing it so many different ways borders on a mania.
And coming from you, who always are going on in your efforts to establish a liberal credibility about people who express this or that prejudice, from making fun of overweight people or not respecting women to regular screeds against fantasized anti-Semitism, the obvious prejudice is laughably hypocritical.
AFTERNOTE:
And the very next day after, here’s another fair-minded, name-calling article about the world Cup in The Guardian:
“Robbie Williams 'selling soul to dictator Putin' in World Cup gig
“Singer handing Russian leader PR coup by performing at opening ceremony, say critics”
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/12/robbie-williams-selling-soul-to-dictator-putin-in-world-cup-gig
And readers may enjoy this previous record low point in Guardian journalism:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SMALL AMAZING THINGS DO SOMETIMES HAPPEN - PRESIDENT ASSAD GIVEN SPACE IN ONE BRITISH PAPER TO EXPLAIN TRUTHS ABOUT SYRIA'S WAR AND THE PHONY WHITE HELMETS
John Chuckman
COMMENT TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“In a rare interview getting coverage by British media, President Assad blames the UK-created White Helmets for the Douma chemical hoax, and says the UK, France, USA “and their puppets” are responsible for the war in Syria.”
It is gratifying to see Syria's views on the whole ugly matter finally get a little publicity in the West.
We've had six years of total horror and lies - all brought to us by America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and, originally Turkey.
And involving other still-secret horrors like what America was doing at Benghazi, which related to the dark efforts in Syria.
Of course, we had the great independent investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, tell us about the ugly Hillary Clinton effort to get small quantities of the murdered Qaddafi's poison gas supplies (he kept stocks as a deterrent to nuclear Israel) smuggled into Syria in order to give that other totally dishonest player, Obama, the opportunity to bomb the crap out of Syria's army after they supposedly "crossed a red line" set by America's self-congratulatory moral uprightness in war and killing.
Some of the Russian news sources have done this for a while, but our disinformation people work very hard to discredit them.
But here is a British source, at long last, giving Assad's voice some exposure.
I’ve suggested in mainline press comments for a while, in the limited opportunities where such comments are allowed, that everyone “reports” events from Syria without either going there or talking to officials or other key players there. It is truly self-incriminating “journalism.”
And people like myself who have watched this whole so-called "civil war" reasonably closely know that Assad is being truthful, far more truthful than Trump or Obama or Clinton or Cameron or May or Hollande or Macron or than any of our "enlightened" leaders in the West.
I'm not sure just what behind-the-scenes stuff is going on in Syria right now, possibly involving a settlement between various participants - Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, Israel - but I'm pretty sure something is underway, some kind of compromise, and this publication first could reflect that.
COMMENT TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“In a rare interview getting coverage by British media, President Assad blames the UK-created White Helmets for the Douma chemical hoax, and says the UK, France, USA “and their puppets” are responsible for the war in Syria.”
It is gratifying to see Syria's views on the whole ugly matter finally get a little publicity in the West.
We've had six years of total horror and lies - all brought to us by America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and, originally Turkey.
And involving other still-secret horrors like what America was doing at Benghazi, which related to the dark efforts in Syria.
Of course, we had the great independent investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, tell us about the ugly Hillary Clinton effort to get small quantities of the murdered Qaddafi's poison gas supplies (he kept stocks as a deterrent to nuclear Israel) smuggled into Syria in order to give that other totally dishonest player, Obama, the opportunity to bomb the crap out of Syria's army after they supposedly "crossed a red line" set by America's self-congratulatory moral uprightness in war and killing.
Some of the Russian news sources have done this for a while, but our disinformation people work very hard to discredit them.
But here is a British source, at long last, giving Assad's voice some exposure.
I’ve suggested in mainline press comments for a while, in the limited opportunities where such comments are allowed, that everyone “reports” events from Syria without either going there or talking to officials or other key players there. It is truly self-incriminating “journalism.”
And people like myself who have watched this whole so-called "civil war" reasonably closely know that Assad is being truthful, far more truthful than Trump or Obama or Clinton or Cameron or May or Hollande or Macron or than any of our "enlightened" leaders in the West.
I'm not sure just what behind-the-scenes stuff is going on in Syria right now, possibly involving a settlement between various participants - Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, Israel - but I'm pretty sure something is underway, some kind of compromise, and this publication first could reflect that.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: NATO SHOULD HAVE BEEN LONG OBSOLETE - HERE'S HOW AND WHY AMERICA HAS RE-INVENTED IT - GIVING NATO A SORT OF GEO-POLITICAL MAKE-OVER TO SERVE NEW AMERICAN INTERESTS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Desperate for Reason to Exist, NATO Installs Itself in Latin America
“The US military colony of Colombia is now a "global partner" of NATO, spooking Bolivia and Venezuela”
"Desperate for Reason to Exist, NATO..."
But NATO very much does have a reason to exist.
It’s a relatively new one, and it's just that it is an embarrassing one to discuss it openly.
The reason for NATO today is to serve making all America's wars and incursions have the appearance of being multi-lateral and international in character.
America’s general, openly-expressed contempt for the United Nations and undermining of it and other international organizations help create this need for a kind of geopolitical fig leaf. Bombing just seems so much more humane and proper with a couple of French and English and German planes accompanying America’s fleets.
We do very much live in an era of constant deception in constant wars. We see flimsy excuses, slogans, dark operations, and dishonest claims almost constantly now with America’s new hyper-aggression across many lands.
So why not add this pretense of international unity? It serves the same purpose as the dark-ops and false claims in covering America’s bloody trail across the planet, effectively hiding it or making it seem less than it is and giving it a sense of international cause. Of course, it isn’t international at all, it is all about American dominance.
A small contingent of European troops here and there serves the purpose of making the headlines read "NATO bombing" instead of "American bombing." It is entirely deceptive, but deception, along with bombing, is what America does these days. The European governments involved are not deceived, they are weak-willed and quietly intimidated.
America does not hesitate to use suggestions or threats with its financial and economic power behind the scenes to “convince” allies. We see this practice embarrassingly out in the open with votes at the United Nations and in other compromised international organizations and agencies. We’ve seen it in the unfortunate Dutch JIT investigation of the crash of MH-17 or in all the maneuvering around the coup-installed government of Ukraine and its many embarrassing failures.
In recent years, there have been many examples which make this point about the new purpose of NATO.
Perhaps, the strongest example was in Afghanistan. America had an army and air force there for years and was carrying on with the most brutal tactics imaginable, detailed in an essay I’ve given a reference for below (of course, it still is behaving like this, killing civilians daily, but that’s another story).
NATO countries were all pressed to "contribute" to this mighty and worthy cause.
In fact, most of them sent token forces - groups like 500 or 800 or 1,000 troops - and many of the troops served in non-combat roles such as policing or cooking or other housekeeping duties.
The small forces implicitly gave the lie to American claims of a terrible threat to the world - were the threat of Afghanistan even remotely what America claimed, we can be sure that France and Germany and others would have displayed a far more robust response. But token forces just being there still served the America's generation of press releases and stories reading, "NATO does this or that."
Readers may enjoy this background on America's pointless war in Afghanistan:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/americas-brutal-tactics/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sorry-mr-prime-minister-afghanistan-is-not-our-war/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/a-response-to-hillary-clintons-assertion-that-all-nations-should-play-a-part-in-the-afghanistan-mission/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Desperate for Reason to Exist, NATO Installs Itself in Latin America
“The US military colony of Colombia is now a "global partner" of NATO, spooking Bolivia and Venezuela”
"Desperate for Reason to Exist, NATO..."
But NATO very much does have a reason to exist.
It’s a relatively new one, and it's just that it is an embarrassing one to discuss it openly.
The reason for NATO today is to serve making all America's wars and incursions have the appearance of being multi-lateral and international in character.
America’s general, openly-expressed contempt for the United Nations and undermining of it and other international organizations help create this need for a kind of geopolitical fig leaf. Bombing just seems so much more humane and proper with a couple of French and English and German planes accompanying America’s fleets.
We do very much live in an era of constant deception in constant wars. We see flimsy excuses, slogans, dark operations, and dishonest claims almost constantly now with America’s new hyper-aggression across many lands.
So why not add this pretense of international unity? It serves the same purpose as the dark-ops and false claims in covering America’s bloody trail across the planet, effectively hiding it or making it seem less than it is and giving it a sense of international cause. Of course, it isn’t international at all, it is all about American dominance.
A small contingent of European troops here and there serves the purpose of making the headlines read "NATO bombing" instead of "American bombing." It is entirely deceptive, but deception, along with bombing, is what America does these days. The European governments involved are not deceived, they are weak-willed and quietly intimidated.
America does not hesitate to use suggestions or threats with its financial and economic power behind the scenes to “convince” allies. We see this practice embarrassingly out in the open with votes at the United Nations and in other compromised international organizations and agencies. We’ve seen it in the unfortunate Dutch JIT investigation of the crash of MH-17 or in all the maneuvering around the coup-installed government of Ukraine and its many embarrassing failures.
In recent years, there have been many examples which make this point about the new purpose of NATO.
Perhaps, the strongest example was in Afghanistan. America had an army and air force there for years and was carrying on with the most brutal tactics imaginable, detailed in an essay I’ve given a reference for below (of course, it still is behaving like this, killing civilians daily, but that’s another story).
NATO countries were all pressed to "contribute" to this mighty and worthy cause.
In fact, most of them sent token forces - groups like 500 or 800 or 1,000 troops - and many of the troops served in non-combat roles such as policing or cooking or other housekeeping duties.
The small forces implicitly gave the lie to American claims of a terrible threat to the world - were the threat of Afghanistan even remotely what America claimed, we can be sure that France and Germany and others would have displayed a far more robust response. But token forces just being there still served the America's generation of press releases and stories reading, "NATO does this or that."
Readers may enjoy this background on America's pointless war in Afghanistan:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/americas-brutal-tactics/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sorry-mr-prime-minister-afghanistan-is-not-our-war/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/a-response-to-hillary-clintons-assertion-that-all-nations-should-play-a-part-in-the-afghanistan-mission/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICAN HOMELAND SECURITY IS MAKING A LIST OF ALL BLOGGERS - HERE'S A GOOD MEASURE OF HOW FAR AMERICA HAS TRAVELED INTO DARKNESS OVER RECENT DECADES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Homeland Security Is Compiling a List Of All Bloggers, Journalists And 'Social Media Influencers'
"If this sounds extremely creepy to you, that is because it is extremely creepy”
Had an American agency done this kind of thing just a few decades ago, there would have been outrage.
Remember Nixon's notorious lists? An enemies’ list. A friends' list. Even, I believe, A Jewish list. Outrageous stuff. And our press pretty well said so.
But now, here, with Homeland Security announcing such a ghastly and threatening list as a project, is a measure of just how much things have changed inside America.
An oppressive, new bloated agency of government busies itself with just such stuff, and we hear no complaints.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Homeland Security Is Compiling a List Of All Bloggers, Journalists And 'Social Media Influencers'
"If this sounds extremely creepy to you, that is because it is extremely creepy”
Had an American agency done this kind of thing just a few decades ago, there would have been outrage.
Remember Nixon's notorious lists? An enemies’ list. A friends' list. Even, I believe, A Jewish list. Outrageous stuff. And our press pretty well said so.
But now, here, with Homeland Security announcing such a ghastly and threatening list as a project, is a measure of just how much things have changed inside America.
An oppressive, new bloated agency of government busies itself with just such stuff, and we hear no complaints.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICAN BLUBBERING ABOUT A GANG LIKE MS-13 WHILE AMERICA'S OWN TROOPS HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS A THOUSAND TIMES OVER IN A DOZEN LANDS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Animals: Eight MS-13 gang members indicted for Long Island murders”
There is nothing these "animals" have done that has not already been done by American troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Somalia, and in a host of other unfortunate places such as Vietnam and North Korea.
It does seem to me this kind of marking out some criminal gang as special horrors shows complete willful ignorance of the realities of war.
And, of course, today's United States is at war continuously somewhere or another.
The world's worst criminal gang, without question, is housed in the Pentagon and at Langley, Virginia.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Animals: Eight MS-13 gang members indicted for Long Island murders”
There is nothing these "animals" have done that has not already been done by American troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Somalia, and in a host of other unfortunate places such as Vietnam and North Korea.
It does seem to me this kind of marking out some criminal gang as special horrors shows complete willful ignorance of the realities of war.
And, of course, today's United States is at war continuously somewhere or another.
The world's worst criminal gang, without question, is housed in the Pentagon and at Langley, Virginia.
Monday, June 11, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ARTICLE ON THE MISUSE OF HISTORY AS PROPAGANDA - YES, BUT THE PROBLEM IS DEEPER - THE ROT IS IN THE BLOODY PURSUIT OF EMPIRE WHILE PRETENDING TO BE A DECENT SOCIETY - LIES IN JOURNALISM, LIES IN HISTORY, LIES IN POLITICS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“We Need Great Historians - Our Knowledge of WW2 Is Completely Wrong”
“The use of history as propaganda prevents us from learning from history. Thus, we continue to make the same mistakes.”
Yes, indeed.
I think it important to point out that our contemporary history - that is, journalism - suffers in precisely the same way. The accumulated stories of journalism, after all, in part become the stories of history.
There are many divisions of various characteristics among human minds, and I think a legitimate one is a basic divide between those who see truth as a basic pursuit and those who see manipulation of events as a basic pursuit, avoiding any concern with truth.
I am not sure that this is widely appreciated, but I think the division does relate to other basic psychological divisions.
Many of the people in any society who seek power tend to be either narcissists or even psychopaths, and we know how much concerned with truth such minds are. Indeed, for such people, truth is just what they say it is, what we might call the ultimate egotism, egotism over reality.
There is no cure for such minds. We will always have some of them among us. Society must defend itself from them with forms of checks and balances never considered by the largely failed political system created by America’s Founding Fathers.
But that is not an easy thing to do since such individuals are often people of great superficial charm and strong drives, qualities which contribute to success in politics.
Given a leader who has a dark agenda, the same qualities in others will make them attractive for appointment to various powerful offices. Just look at the entire recent crop of Trump appointments. You literally could not find a more hellish bunch.
So long as a nation like the United States accepts that it is desirable to pursue world empire, all of these factors automatically come into play. Dark operations abroad require the services of the people who otherwise would be the least desirable people in the world to appoint to anything.
And so long as you have such dark projects going, you will absolutely require a great deal of lies and cover-up so that the general population does not understand what is happening. Here, automatically, the press is enlisted. It cannot be allowed to honestly investigate and tell citizens the truth. It must support the lies and deception. It would be accused of disloyalty or even treason if it failed in its unwritten obligations.
I’ve said it many times, but it is worth saying again, that you cannot have both a world empire and a decent society. They are completely incompatible. Just look at an abomination like Guantanamo or the CIA’s gulag of black sites for torture. How can such behavior in any way be compatible with the words of the Bill of Rights? Clearly, it cannot. So, taking all of your Nazi-like impulses and just moving them offshore, so average Americans do not have to see them, is okay?
There are a thousand matters such as that which arise in the course of empire, and they all involve lies and deception and hiding. Benghazi? I know what it was, but every American politician will continue to lie. Just as they all lie about the obvious provocations in Syria – all carried out by the mercenary-fake jihadi gangs America has always supported - with faked chemical attacks as an excuse to bomb poor Syria’s army yet again while self-righteously proclaiming your own ethical “principles” of war.
I think ordinary Americans do not appreciate this fully, and there’s almost no one “out there” in the press or in the ranks of academic history and certainly not in the kind of politics America practices – a political duopoly which literally floats on big money with both parties being equal supporters of empire and its associated utter lack of ethics - to tell them otherwise.
It is hard to feel even a small impulse of hope. If you choose to do evil – and by God, what else are matters such as Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, or acceptance of the living hell into which the Palestinians are consigned? – then you cannot have an honest press nor, for the most part, honest historians.
It all starts with a corrupt political system, and America’s politics are as utterly corrupt as you will find on the planet. They are completely governed by big money and the interests of big money. Everything else follows – the lies, the wars, the psychopaths serving, and an immense amount of killing and destruction.
No journalists and no historians, except a very few tolerated as outliers or eccentrics, can be expected to stand up to that.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“We Need Great Historians - Our Knowledge of WW2 Is Completely Wrong”
“The use of history as propaganda prevents us from learning from history. Thus, we continue to make the same mistakes.”
Yes, indeed.
I think it important to point out that our contemporary history - that is, journalism - suffers in precisely the same way. The accumulated stories of journalism, after all, in part become the stories of history.
There are many divisions of various characteristics among human minds, and I think a legitimate one is a basic divide between those who see truth as a basic pursuit and those who see manipulation of events as a basic pursuit, avoiding any concern with truth.
I am not sure that this is widely appreciated, but I think the division does relate to other basic psychological divisions.
Many of the people in any society who seek power tend to be either narcissists or even psychopaths, and we know how much concerned with truth such minds are. Indeed, for such people, truth is just what they say it is, what we might call the ultimate egotism, egotism over reality.
There is no cure for such minds. We will always have some of them among us. Society must defend itself from them with forms of checks and balances never considered by the largely failed political system created by America’s Founding Fathers.
But that is not an easy thing to do since such individuals are often people of great superficial charm and strong drives, qualities which contribute to success in politics.
Given a leader who has a dark agenda, the same qualities in others will make them attractive for appointment to various powerful offices. Just look at the entire recent crop of Trump appointments. You literally could not find a more hellish bunch.
So long as a nation like the United States accepts that it is desirable to pursue world empire, all of these factors automatically come into play. Dark operations abroad require the services of the people who otherwise would be the least desirable people in the world to appoint to anything.
And so long as you have such dark projects going, you will absolutely require a great deal of lies and cover-up so that the general population does not understand what is happening. Here, automatically, the press is enlisted. It cannot be allowed to honestly investigate and tell citizens the truth. It must support the lies and deception. It would be accused of disloyalty or even treason if it failed in its unwritten obligations.
I’ve said it many times, but it is worth saying again, that you cannot have both a world empire and a decent society. They are completely incompatible. Just look at an abomination like Guantanamo or the CIA’s gulag of black sites for torture. How can such behavior in any way be compatible with the words of the Bill of Rights? Clearly, it cannot. So, taking all of your Nazi-like impulses and just moving them offshore, so average Americans do not have to see them, is okay?
There are a thousand matters such as that which arise in the course of empire, and they all involve lies and deception and hiding. Benghazi? I know what it was, but every American politician will continue to lie. Just as they all lie about the obvious provocations in Syria – all carried out by the mercenary-fake jihadi gangs America has always supported - with faked chemical attacks as an excuse to bomb poor Syria’s army yet again while self-righteously proclaiming your own ethical “principles” of war.
I think ordinary Americans do not appreciate this fully, and there’s almost no one “out there” in the press or in the ranks of academic history and certainly not in the kind of politics America practices – a political duopoly which literally floats on big money with both parties being equal supporters of empire and its associated utter lack of ethics - to tell them otherwise.
It is hard to feel even a small impulse of hope. If you choose to do evil – and by God, what else are matters such as Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, or acceptance of the living hell into which the Palestinians are consigned? – then you cannot have an honest press nor, for the most part, honest historians.
It all starts with a corrupt political system, and America’s politics are as utterly corrupt as you will find on the planet. They are completely governed by big money and the interests of big money. Everything else follows – the lies, the wars, the psychopaths serving, and an immense amount of killing and destruction.
No journalists and no historians, except a very few tolerated as outliers or eccentrics, can be expected to stand up to that.
Saturday, June 09, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: REFLECTIONS ON WINSTON CHURCHILL AND THE NATURE OF HISTORY AS WE RECEIVE IT IN BOOKS - RESPONSE TO AN IMPRESSIVE VIDEO PRESENTATION BY THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, "CHURCHILL'S WAR"
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
[Responding to a video of David Irving’s presentation in Toronto, years ago, about his book, Churchill’s War]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=iwFzm6rZH3o
I was a student of WWII during one period of my life, and I read major biographies of Churchill as well as Churchill's complete six-volume history of the war. Many war histories and the biographies of other figures, such as Roosevelt, also provide insight into Churchill.
I had not been exposed to David Irving, although I was aware of him, and I never saw the original documents that Irving has so meticulously dug out of archives and obtained in interviews with many individuals.
However, in the course of my own more casual studies, I came to the realization independently that Churchill was a very different kind of man than the one portrayed in old television documentaries. Far less heroic, far less principled, with an immensely inflated opinion of himself, considerably shabbier in his private dealings than recognized, admiring some things most of us would not see as admirable, and possessing a number of other less-than-admirable qualities. He was an aristocrat, “a great man” as he referred to himself, and a highly flawed one.
He reminds me in a number of details of Thomas Jefferson, an American figure I once studied at length and one often claimed almost as a demi-god of democracy, but who, in fact, was not an admirable man in most of his life’s dealings and who was anything but a believer in democracy. Jefferson’s myth is a fine example of what establishment historians and officialdom can manage to foist on the public, leaving a legend in many ways the opposite of the actual person upon which it is based.
Churchill’s record of supporting blundering war efforts like the Dardanelles is well known. He seemed almost to have a penchant for such efforts, although they tend to be minimized in the overall history-volume picture of him.
His support for British imperialism is fairly well known, and on more than one occasion, he was certainly ready to be brutal with locals in any way challenging British authority.
His contempt for many aspect of democracy – such as scornful comments on meeting average British voters – are also known, but again rather minimized as impish.
His starting, rather than Hitler’s doing so, the bombing of civilians in cities is covered in some books, but it is not widely featured or appreciated.
His drinking is well known, but its extent is definitely minimized and its effect softened in all the volumes I’ve read, to the point of something almost cherubic like Winnie sure does like a generous brandy with his bath.
Well, I've finished the video of David Irving's talk in Toronto about Churchill's War, and what an impressive performance it is.
I can’t embrace all of Irving’s perspective, as for example about there being no documents showing Hitler’s awareness of the Holocaust. Of course, there are no such documents. That’s the way dirty work is always conducted at the highest level. Try finding a document showing benign-looking old Dwight Eisenhower having signed off on assassinations and attempted assassinations and coups, even against democratic governments, in his day. They don’t exist, and deliberately so, but believe me those dark operations didn’t happen behind the President’s back.
But there are enough self-obviously accurate claims in Irving’s talk, supported by documentation, to be extremely entertaining and quite eye-opening, even for someone such as myself who is reasonably well-read and cynical about a figure like Churchill. Irving’s work in digging out documents is simply astonishing, as are his memory for facts and names and dates and his ability to present lucidly what he has discovered. He is impressive.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
[Responding to a video of David Irving’s presentation in Toronto, years ago, about his book, Churchill’s War]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=iwFzm6rZH3o
I was a student of WWII during one period of my life, and I read major biographies of Churchill as well as Churchill's complete six-volume history of the war. Many war histories and the biographies of other figures, such as Roosevelt, also provide insight into Churchill.
I had not been exposed to David Irving, although I was aware of him, and I never saw the original documents that Irving has so meticulously dug out of archives and obtained in interviews with many individuals.
However, in the course of my own more casual studies, I came to the realization independently that Churchill was a very different kind of man than the one portrayed in old television documentaries. Far less heroic, far less principled, with an immensely inflated opinion of himself, considerably shabbier in his private dealings than recognized, admiring some things most of us would not see as admirable, and possessing a number of other less-than-admirable qualities. He was an aristocrat, “a great man” as he referred to himself, and a highly flawed one.
He reminds me in a number of details of Thomas Jefferson, an American figure I once studied at length and one often claimed almost as a demi-god of democracy, but who, in fact, was not an admirable man in most of his life’s dealings and who was anything but a believer in democracy. Jefferson’s myth is a fine example of what establishment historians and officialdom can manage to foist on the public, leaving a legend in many ways the opposite of the actual person upon which it is based.
Churchill’s record of supporting blundering war efforts like the Dardanelles is well known. He seemed almost to have a penchant for such efforts, although they tend to be minimized in the overall history-volume picture of him.
His support for British imperialism is fairly well known, and on more than one occasion, he was certainly ready to be brutal with locals in any way challenging British authority.
His contempt for many aspect of democracy – such as scornful comments on meeting average British voters – are also known, but again rather minimized as impish.
His starting, rather than Hitler’s doing so, the bombing of civilians in cities is covered in some books, but it is not widely featured or appreciated.
His drinking is well known, but its extent is definitely minimized and its effect softened in all the volumes I’ve read, to the point of something almost cherubic like Winnie sure does like a generous brandy with his bath.
Well, I've finished the video of David Irving's talk in Toronto about Churchill's War, and what an impressive performance it is.
I can’t embrace all of Irving’s perspective, as for example about there being no documents showing Hitler’s awareness of the Holocaust. Of course, there are no such documents. That’s the way dirty work is always conducted at the highest level. Try finding a document showing benign-looking old Dwight Eisenhower having signed off on assassinations and attempted assassinations and coups, even against democratic governments, in his day. They don’t exist, and deliberately so, but believe me those dark operations didn’t happen behind the President’s back.
But there are enough self-obviously accurate claims in Irving’s talk, supported by documentation, to be extremely entertaining and quite eye-opening, even for someone such as myself who is reasonably well-read and cynical about a figure like Churchill. Irving’s work in digging out documents is simply astonishing, as are his memory for facts and names and dates and his ability to present lucidly what he has discovered. He is impressive.
Friday, June 08, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE REALITIES OF THE BRITISH-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP - SAME PATTERN AS THE AMERICAN-ISRAELI ONE AND THE FRENCH-ISRAELI ONE - NO WONDER THE MIDEAST BURNS - IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAIRNESS OR ETHICAL POLICY HERE - A WORD ON TERROR
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN TRUTHNEWS
“The disturbing truth about the UK’s special relationship with Israel [Theresa May’s insipid effort to mention Israel’s extreme Gaza violence to a visiting Netanyahu]”
This cozy, ethics-free British relationship with Israel has been a fact at least since Tony Blair's day. It actually goes back further – Churchill was a great promoter of Israeli interests, Churchill, the great pretender on democratic values, was always ready to do any dirty deal he thought would help secure Britain’s Empire - but Blair gave the whole business new life and impulse in our time.
One of the chief aspects of Blair's "New Labour" rebranding of the old Labour Party was just such a relationship with Britain’s Israel lobby, although you will never find that openly discussed in the press. But you could see it clearly in Blair's actions.
Just as in the United States – a place where the practices are even more flagrant, perhaps because politics there is so openly and completely steeped in money - the rewards for politicians coming to such arrangements are generous. There is generous campaign funding, favorable mainline press treatment (plus the avoidance of its opposite, embarrassing or demeaning treatment), and the assistance of talented individuals associated with the lobby on various political problems and projects over time.
It’s a pretty attractive package which finds a lot of takers, the only price being that you leave behind any sense of fairness concerning the people of the Middle East and that you simply ignore endless brutality and oppression by the state of Israel. You must have a tough hide, as they say.
Since it is simply a fact that high-level politics, as a career, tends to attract narcissistic personalities and even sociopathic ones – and there is no better, clearer example than Tony Blair - the more normal range of human emotions and sympathies and moral concerns play very little role.
Blair joined the illegal and highly destructive Iraq invasion because the Israel lobby strongly favored it. He simply ignored the rest of the world, including the UN where the matter had been debated and rejected, and made a compact with the devil in the form of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush presidency to launch an illegal invasion.
He accepted the fraudulent American-produced “evidence” about weapons of mass destruction, added still more of his own by pressuring security services to do what it is security services do, lie and cheat for an end, and ignored what all the experts in weapons inspection were telling us in public, that there were no such weapons. The invasion was effectively for the direct benefit of Israel, never mind all the disinformation at the time about oil.
Afterwards, Blair was rewarded, for his help in killing a million people and destroying a modern society for at least a generation, with the Israel "Peace" Prize of a million dollars plus a number of lucrative sinecures and favors.
And Blair remains at the forefront of the attack against Jeremy Corbyn's current leadership of the Labour Party, a massive attack which has tended to center on totally specious grounds of accommodating anti-Semitism in the Party’s ranks. There's been a genuine Joe McCarthy-style witch hunt in Britain, and at length, around that subject.
The truth is, I believe, Corbyn is much disliked by Israel and its lobby in Britain because, one, he is a genuine liberal, something always mistrusted and even hated in Israel, and, two, he is fair-minded about the Israel-Palestine horror.
You really aren't allowed to be "fair-minded" where Israel is concerned. The undercurrent on that subject always reminds of the brutal ugliness in the United States at the time of its Vietnam holocaust, that last a word well justified by the fact that the United States killed, often in the most horrible fashion, about three million people there, was further instrumental in the killing of another million in Cambodia, and left behind a truly hellish legacy of landmines and soil drenched with agent Orange.
But “Love it or leave it!” “My country, right or wrong!” “The Reds are at the gates!” was what you heard shouted in the streets of America as all that got underway.
David Cameron and Theresa May certainly have never even pretended to be fair-minded about the Middle East or ever raised any difficulties over the most destructive American policies and practices there.
By the way, Britain, under these last two national leaders, has been covertly and deeply involved in yet another Israel-related project, the destruction of Syria by mercenary armies posing as jihadis, the use of disguised mercenaries being a lot cheaper and less risky than mounting a massive traditional invasion as was done in Iraq.
The inaccurately-described Syrian Civil War has been, from the beginning, a covert project of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and, originally, Turkey.
Again, the war’s purpose has been to destroy a country whose leadership did not toe the line of American policy in the Middle East, especially where it concerns Israel. You are not allowed to be independent-minded, and you are not allowed to say that your own country has interests which American policy takes no account of. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the millions of refugees created, the destabilization of Europe by refugee floods, and the vast destruction in a truly beautiful and historic land.
Britain has lied steadily for half a dozen years about what it has been doing in Syria, and May maintains the same line.
France, too, has always lied about its role in Syria. Macron and Hollande both have displayed almost embarrassing deference towards Israel's brutal thug, Netanyahu, while they cooperate in efforts to destroy or dismember Syria.
The various "terror attacks" in Paris were simply "blowback” as a result of France’s destructive participation in Syria, Libya, etc. Such attacks only represent young men trying to get back at a powerful state for its secret organized destruction of their places and relatives and friends. They bear no resemblance to the stories we are fed constantly by our mainline press about terror out of fanatical hatred for Western values and religious intolerance.
Our entire popular concept of terror is a deliberately-promoted construct to support America’s rampage through the Middle East, its Neocon Wars of the last fifteen years, and its unblinking support for an Israel which everyone with eyes can see treats millions of people as less-than-human and with unending brutality.
___________________________
Response to a comment, ‘Amazing --- Israel can murder people with illegal dumdum bullets and that is just "securing their borders:"’
We literally live in a kind of Twilight Zone where foreign policy and Israel are concerned.
I don't think there has ever in memory been such gross hypocrisy and open lying.
Standards have hit bottom as the concept of “might makes right” is pretty well openly embraced in the West under American pressure.
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN TRUTHNEWS
“The disturbing truth about the UK’s special relationship with Israel [Theresa May’s insipid effort to mention Israel’s extreme Gaza violence to a visiting Netanyahu]”
This cozy, ethics-free British relationship with Israel has been a fact at least since Tony Blair's day. It actually goes back further – Churchill was a great promoter of Israeli interests, Churchill, the great pretender on democratic values, was always ready to do any dirty deal he thought would help secure Britain’s Empire - but Blair gave the whole business new life and impulse in our time.
One of the chief aspects of Blair's "New Labour" rebranding of the old Labour Party was just such a relationship with Britain’s Israel lobby, although you will never find that openly discussed in the press. But you could see it clearly in Blair's actions.
Just as in the United States – a place where the practices are even more flagrant, perhaps because politics there is so openly and completely steeped in money - the rewards for politicians coming to such arrangements are generous. There is generous campaign funding, favorable mainline press treatment (plus the avoidance of its opposite, embarrassing or demeaning treatment), and the assistance of talented individuals associated with the lobby on various political problems and projects over time.
It’s a pretty attractive package which finds a lot of takers, the only price being that you leave behind any sense of fairness concerning the people of the Middle East and that you simply ignore endless brutality and oppression by the state of Israel. You must have a tough hide, as they say.
Since it is simply a fact that high-level politics, as a career, tends to attract narcissistic personalities and even sociopathic ones – and there is no better, clearer example than Tony Blair - the more normal range of human emotions and sympathies and moral concerns play very little role.
Blair joined the illegal and highly destructive Iraq invasion because the Israel lobby strongly favored it. He simply ignored the rest of the world, including the UN where the matter had been debated and rejected, and made a compact with the devil in the form of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush presidency to launch an illegal invasion.
He accepted the fraudulent American-produced “evidence” about weapons of mass destruction, added still more of his own by pressuring security services to do what it is security services do, lie and cheat for an end, and ignored what all the experts in weapons inspection were telling us in public, that there were no such weapons. The invasion was effectively for the direct benefit of Israel, never mind all the disinformation at the time about oil.
Afterwards, Blair was rewarded, for his help in killing a million people and destroying a modern society for at least a generation, with the Israel "Peace" Prize of a million dollars plus a number of lucrative sinecures and favors.
And Blair remains at the forefront of the attack against Jeremy Corbyn's current leadership of the Labour Party, a massive attack which has tended to center on totally specious grounds of accommodating anti-Semitism in the Party’s ranks. There's been a genuine Joe McCarthy-style witch hunt in Britain, and at length, around that subject.
The truth is, I believe, Corbyn is much disliked by Israel and its lobby in Britain because, one, he is a genuine liberal, something always mistrusted and even hated in Israel, and, two, he is fair-minded about the Israel-Palestine horror.
You really aren't allowed to be "fair-minded" where Israel is concerned. The undercurrent on that subject always reminds of the brutal ugliness in the United States at the time of its Vietnam holocaust, that last a word well justified by the fact that the United States killed, often in the most horrible fashion, about three million people there, was further instrumental in the killing of another million in Cambodia, and left behind a truly hellish legacy of landmines and soil drenched with agent Orange.
But “Love it or leave it!” “My country, right or wrong!” “The Reds are at the gates!” was what you heard shouted in the streets of America as all that got underway.
David Cameron and Theresa May certainly have never even pretended to be fair-minded about the Middle East or ever raised any difficulties over the most destructive American policies and practices there.
By the way, Britain, under these last two national leaders, has been covertly and deeply involved in yet another Israel-related project, the destruction of Syria by mercenary armies posing as jihadis, the use of disguised mercenaries being a lot cheaper and less risky than mounting a massive traditional invasion as was done in Iraq.
The inaccurately-described Syrian Civil War has been, from the beginning, a covert project of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and, originally, Turkey.
Again, the war’s purpose has been to destroy a country whose leadership did not toe the line of American policy in the Middle East, especially where it concerns Israel. You are not allowed to be independent-minded, and you are not allowed to say that your own country has interests which American policy takes no account of. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the millions of refugees created, the destabilization of Europe by refugee floods, and the vast destruction in a truly beautiful and historic land.
Britain has lied steadily for half a dozen years about what it has been doing in Syria, and May maintains the same line.
France, too, has always lied about its role in Syria. Macron and Hollande both have displayed almost embarrassing deference towards Israel's brutal thug, Netanyahu, while they cooperate in efforts to destroy or dismember Syria.
The various "terror attacks" in Paris were simply "blowback” as a result of France’s destructive participation in Syria, Libya, etc. Such attacks only represent young men trying to get back at a powerful state for its secret organized destruction of their places and relatives and friends. They bear no resemblance to the stories we are fed constantly by our mainline press about terror out of fanatical hatred for Western values and religious intolerance.
Our entire popular concept of terror is a deliberately-promoted construct to support America’s rampage through the Middle East, its Neocon Wars of the last fifteen years, and its unblinking support for an Israel which everyone with eyes can see treats millions of people as less-than-human and with unending brutality.
___________________________
Response to a comment, ‘Amazing --- Israel can murder people with illegal dumdum bullets and that is just "securing their borders:"’
We literally live in a kind of Twilight Zone where foreign policy and Israel are concerned.
I don't think there has ever in memory been such gross hypocrisy and open lying.
Standards have hit bottom as the concept of “might makes right” is pretty well openly embraced in the West under American pressure.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ON TRUTH AND OUR PRESS AND MEDIA - THE NEW AND PRETENTIOUS NONSENSE OF FACT-CHECKING BY THE SAME PRESS AND MEDIA - ONLY WAY TO GET SOME TRUTH
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHARLES BAUSMAN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Dear Elon [Musk], We Can Build a Media Fact-Check Machine for You - We've Got the Know-How'"
Dear RI Editor, The Very Idea of Fact-Check Machines is Absurd - No Matter Who Builds Them.
No one has both the command of quality information and the impartiality of viewpoint even to attempt this.
The very concept is an illegitimate child of the “fake news” phenomenon.
We've always had facts and errors and deliberate propaganda mixed into our news since the first newspaper was printed. It has always been the job of readers to sort things out for themselves. No one can do that for them.
Readers must read and cross-check and critically compare while taking account of the likely motives of each source if they want to be at all informed. It’s a bit like writing an academic paper, you cannot take one source as authority, but it is a bit more complicated than academic papers because with the news we have the undeniable presence of deliberate lies and propaganda, perhaps more so today because there are so very many dark projects being carried on by major actors, projects they do not want others to understand. Some part of “the truth” can be teased out with effort, but even then, no claim can be made to complete accuracy.
The only solid truth we have is science, but science doesn’t deal with the dark labyrinths of human affairs and politics.
What we call “truth” in journalism and politics is something altogether different. It’s about trying to have a rough working knowledge or perspective about some event. Unfortunately, these are generally the kinds of event – affairs of state and foreign policy and wars - where everyone reporting on them is either reluctant to tell you what they know or is actively interested in hiding at least part of what happened or simply doesn’t know anything but doesn’t want to admit the fact.
There is no magic formula anyone can offer for this kind of truth. You can’t run laboratory experiments, repeating them many times, as you would in hard science.
The very idea of “truth checks” or “truth machines” reminds me strongly of the Millennial generation's constant flow of fads, as with the new best vitamin supplement, the new best herbal preparation, or the new best yoga routine – unscientific nonsense almost all of it or, at best, tidbits of scientific findings stretched beyond their supportable limits, but if you enjoy indulging in it as a pastime, go ahead.
Public affairs though have much greater consequences - including a great deal of death and destruction as well as the spending of vast amounts of money - than whether someone happens “to get it wrong” about a vitamin supplement. So, a conscientious citizen’s making an effort to understand is important.
As soon as Musk announced his "media truth" idea, he went further down in my estimation – further, that is, than the P. T. Barnum- style self-promoter that he indeed is - down there to the lower regions along with the likes of Zuckerberg, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Washington Post, and spokespeople for the State Department and NATO, and the whole shady gang pretending to hand us truth as though it were a plum on a platter.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHARLES BAUSMAN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Dear Elon [Musk], We Can Build a Media Fact-Check Machine for You - We've Got the Know-How'"
Dear RI Editor, The Very Idea of Fact-Check Machines is Absurd - No Matter Who Builds Them.
No one has both the command of quality information and the impartiality of viewpoint even to attempt this.
The very concept is an illegitimate child of the “fake news” phenomenon.
We've always had facts and errors and deliberate propaganda mixed into our news since the first newspaper was printed. It has always been the job of readers to sort things out for themselves. No one can do that for them.
Readers must read and cross-check and critically compare while taking account of the likely motives of each source if they want to be at all informed. It’s a bit like writing an academic paper, you cannot take one source as authority, but it is a bit more complicated than academic papers because with the news we have the undeniable presence of deliberate lies and propaganda, perhaps more so today because there are so very many dark projects being carried on by major actors, projects they do not want others to understand. Some part of “the truth” can be teased out with effort, but even then, no claim can be made to complete accuracy.
The only solid truth we have is science, but science doesn’t deal with the dark labyrinths of human affairs and politics.
What we call “truth” in journalism and politics is something altogether different. It’s about trying to have a rough working knowledge or perspective about some event. Unfortunately, these are generally the kinds of event – affairs of state and foreign policy and wars - where everyone reporting on them is either reluctant to tell you what they know or is actively interested in hiding at least part of what happened or simply doesn’t know anything but doesn’t want to admit the fact.
There is no magic formula anyone can offer for this kind of truth. You can’t run laboratory experiments, repeating them many times, as you would in hard science.
The very idea of “truth checks” or “truth machines” reminds me strongly of the Millennial generation's constant flow of fads, as with the new best vitamin supplement, the new best herbal preparation, or the new best yoga routine – unscientific nonsense almost all of it or, at best, tidbits of scientific findings stretched beyond their supportable limits, but if you enjoy indulging in it as a pastime, go ahead.
Public affairs though have much greater consequences - including a great deal of death and destruction as well as the spending of vast amounts of money - than whether someone happens “to get it wrong” about a vitamin supplement. So, a conscientious citizen’s making an effort to understand is important.
As soon as Musk announced his "media truth" idea, he went further down in my estimation – further, that is, than the P. T. Barnum- style self-promoter that he indeed is - down there to the lower regions along with the likes of Zuckerberg, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Washington Post, and spokespeople for the State Department and NATO, and the whole shady gang pretending to hand us truth as though it were a plum on a platter.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHEN BULLIES SPEAK: VERY UNWELCOME WORDS, INTERFERING IN GERMANY'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS, BY AMERICA'S NEW AMBASSADOR THERE, RICHARD GRENELL, ARE FOLLOWED BY TOTAL IGNORANCE FROM STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON HEATHER NAUERT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Seeking to soothe feathers ruffled by comments from the US ambassador to Berlin, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert only made it worse by citing the Allied landings in Normandy as an example of US ties with Germany.
“The bumbling answer came after a barrage of questions were asked about statements made by Richard Grenell, the recently-appointed US ambassador to Germany.”
Simply unbelievable what we've seen over recent years as the quality of spokespersons and diplomats from the world's most powerful country.
I think the most telling truth in all this is that there is almost no shame or embarrassment left in Washington. Bullies simply don't feel those things.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“Seeking to soothe feathers ruffled by comments from the US ambassador to Berlin, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert only made it worse by citing the Allied landings in Normandy as an example of US ties with Germany.
“The bumbling answer came after a barrage of questions were asked about statements made by Richard Grenell, the recently-appointed US ambassador to Germany.”
Simply unbelievable what we've seen over recent years as the quality of spokespersons and diplomats from the world's most powerful country.
I think the most telling truth in all this is that there is almost no shame or embarrassment left in Washington. Bullies simply don't feel those things.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: COMMENT ON THE WORK OF SCOTTISH ARCHITECT CHARLES MACKINTOSH
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
“Charles Rennie Mackintosh: 'He was doing art deco before it existed'”
I've always admired the work of Mackintosh.
There are strong hints of Frank Lloyd Wright in his work, but they are only hints, it is not derivative.
Neither Mackintosh nor Wright was a man of the people, very much elitists, the kind of creative forces who give architecture a bad name in some circles.
In the end though, if a building is a continuing pleasure to see and to use over a century, that is the measure in my mind of fine architecture and a real contribution to the built environment.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
“Charles Rennie Mackintosh: 'He was doing art deco before it existed'”
I've always admired the work of Mackintosh.
There are strong hints of Frank Lloyd Wright in his work, but they are only hints, it is not derivative.
Neither Mackintosh nor Wright was a man of the people, very much elitists, the kind of creative forces who give architecture a bad name in some circles.
In the end though, if a building is a continuing pleasure to see and to use over a century, that is the measure in my mind of fine architecture and a real contribution to the built environment.
Wednesday, June 06, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE MANY CONTRADICTIONS THAT ARE PART OF AMERICAN SOCIETY - SOMETHING NOT ALWAYS APPRECIATED BY OUTSIDE OBSERVERS AND NOT ALWAYS APPRECIATED BY AMERICANS THEMSELVES
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DAVID R. HOFFMAN IN PRAVDA
“I love free speech; I hate free speech”
A good piece on the conflicts that are part of the social fabric of America.
I must say, as someone who has both studied America and lived there a large fraction of my life, American society is just loaded with such dichotomies and contradictions.
The interesting and not-at-all mainline American historian, Page Smith, who wrote a massive multi-volume history of the United States he called “a people’s history,” often described America as “schizophrenic.” While his use of the psychiatric term was not technically correct, it nevertheless fit a popular usage, and in that sense, it is very accurate. “I love free speech; I hate free speech,” indeed.
Americans like to regard themselves as uniquely free, but that is, and never was, true. There’s almost an advertising image stamped into the consciousness of most Americans about the unique quality of freedom they enjoy, but it is just that, an image, a kind of sustaining illusion, resembling similar illusions fiercely embraced by many religious or highly ideological people. And it is no coincidence that some very astute observers have called America’s set of Patriotic beliefs and practices the American Civic Religion.
America has always included a powerful element favoring strict rules and elaborate bureaucracy and censorship and dislike of dissent and readiness to control. It even has had many sizable popular movements in its history which for all the world resemble fascism. The Know Nothing Party, the American Bund, the Klu Klux Klan, the private militia movement, the Aryan Churches, and on and on.
A number of American states had laws for the legal sterilization of those deemed “unfit” before Hitler had them in Germany, and tens of thousands were indeed sterilized. Henry Ford, whose social views were expressed in a book, was admired by Hitler.
The great American journalist and historian of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, well aware of these things, said that maybe America would be the first country actually choosing to go fascist. A bit exaggerated, but an astute observation, as valid today as it was then.
Just look at the wide-spread American reverence for the military and the flag and the police, institutions and a symbol whose actual record of employment is anything but admirable. America’s local police kill well more than 1,100 citizens every year on the streets – far more than any supposed terror group - yet public sentiment to support them remains strong, and there is bitter opposition to groups protesting for reform. We’ve seen downright hatred for American football players who dared to quietly kneel during the National Anthem as a respectful form of protest, and the ugly attitude was echoed right up into the Oval office.
Again, with respect to the American tendency for inflexible rules as opposed to free and relaxed situations, just try doing anything with the folks at the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration or at the Veterans’ Administration or many other major agencies, and you'll find out just how free-and-breezy America really is even in day-in, day-out matters. Some of the situations you’ll find yourself in will be reminiscent of the old USSR’s bureaucracy.
You know, when you take a simple mortgage on a home in America, you literally sign a stack of papers an inch thick, so complex you cannot possibly understand what it is that you are signing. The same experience is repeated in many activities in America.
As for rights, they really exist anywhere only so long as the overwhelming majority agree that they do. And that group opinion changes and fluctuates over time. You cannot write a piece of parchment that truly guarantees rights even though it claims that it does. There certainly are no absolute rights, and I think it was the early Puritan tradition which convinced early Americans there was. America's parchment rights have been violated countless times.
And they very much continue to be violated today with everything from the Patriot Act and the NSA and Homeland Security to the total corruption of elections and voter rights by big money.
The Bill of Rights originally was unenforceable by the Supreme Court, it had no real force of law, and Jefferson threatened the secession of Virginia if the court took that role which he regarded as a violation of States' Rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court won the right. However, the actual record of decisions by the Supreme Court includes many shameful chapters.
Indeed, the long gruesome history of the Rights of States versus the those of the Federal government in America – a subject which was the true cause of the American Civil War, and not slavery, as is often mistakenly asserted - is full of contradictions to this day.
Today, for an individual to bring a case to the Supreme Court, something which costs a very large sum of money in legal fees, is unrealistic, unless he or she is supported by some affluent organization or special interest. And the quality of decisions made still leaves much to be desired, sticking to such narrow interpretations of constitutional law as to resemble the writings of Church Scholastics from the Middle Ages. Some guarantee of everyone’s rights.
Many times, written rights were simply ignored by the American government. Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Civil War. Slavery went on and on, and nothing violates rights like slavery. Supreme Court decisions were made on aspects of slavery which violated every right defined by the Bill of Rights. After slavery was finally abolished, the South’s “Jim Crow Laws” carried right on enforcing many of the realities of slavery for another century.
The American right to vote started with about one-percent of the population being qualified - that's about the same percent of Chinese people in the Communist Party which decides that county’s leadership. Yet those corny, school-room images of the pious Founders and their frock coats and wigs hide pretty much the same reality as China. You had to be male, white, a certain age, and have a certain net worth. The president was not elected directly, and the powerful Senate was appointed well into the Twentieth Century.
Today, most Americans can vote, but their elections are governed by big money with the two political parties both working contentedly under a heavily-organized regime of money. This effectively excludes all others from ever getting the opportunity and exposure to perhaps take the country in new directions. So, America is effectively ruled by a two-party duopoly completely beholden to the country’s plutocratic class, but “democracy” and “choice” remain the slogans and rallying cries heard everywhere.
Over the last many decades, the creation and growth of outfits like the FBI and CIA have grossly violated citizens’ rights and continue to do so. Today, the United States has 17 national security agencies. The actual work of these agencies often does not resemble the words of their charters or the legislation establishing them, but realistically there is no one to complain to, except the money-driven members of the two parties in Congress.
It's a long and complex story, with confusion and dark corners not widely appreciated abroad. Indeed, few ordinary Americans understand it either, but that doesn't stop them blubbering endlessly about rights, like the right to own guns, something easily disputed by the very words of the Second Amendment.
The blubbering about rights makes many Americans feel good when the realities of their situation should very much make them feel otherwise.
Gun ownership might be the most symbolic in this regard of many rights we could examine. What difference in the world has gun ownership made to the prevention of tyrannical government in America, something asserted endlessly as being necessary for a free country? None at all. Abusive laws and powerful, oppressive agencies at home and abusive imperial wars abroad go right on serving the interests of the people who really run the country, and, by all appearances, it’s only going to become worse.
Just one of a great many examples suffices. In what kind of society can a man, who wasn’t even initially elected and without a declaration of war as stipulated in the Constitution, lead a nation into a long and terrible war that would literally slaughter several million abroad, using ordinary citizens’ tax dollars and the bodies of conscripted young men to do it? Ironically, all those young men were told they were doing so to defend freedom, and, to this day, many of them still believe it.
Further on the topic of contradictions in America, readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/john-chuckman-essay-the-illusion-of-rights/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/lessons-from-the-american-revolution/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/reflections-on-the-origins-and-meaning-of-americas-independence-day-re-posted-from-6-years-ago-nothing-having-changed/
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DAVID R. HOFFMAN IN PRAVDA
“I love free speech; I hate free speech”
A good piece on the conflicts that are part of the social fabric of America.
I must say, as someone who has both studied America and lived there a large fraction of my life, American society is just loaded with such dichotomies and contradictions.
The interesting and not-at-all mainline American historian, Page Smith, who wrote a massive multi-volume history of the United States he called “a people’s history,” often described America as “schizophrenic.” While his use of the psychiatric term was not technically correct, it nevertheless fit a popular usage, and in that sense, it is very accurate. “I love free speech; I hate free speech,” indeed.
Americans like to regard themselves as uniquely free, but that is, and never was, true. There’s almost an advertising image stamped into the consciousness of most Americans about the unique quality of freedom they enjoy, but it is just that, an image, a kind of sustaining illusion, resembling similar illusions fiercely embraced by many religious or highly ideological people. And it is no coincidence that some very astute observers have called America’s set of Patriotic beliefs and practices the American Civic Religion.
America has always included a powerful element favoring strict rules and elaborate bureaucracy and censorship and dislike of dissent and readiness to control. It even has had many sizable popular movements in its history which for all the world resemble fascism. The Know Nothing Party, the American Bund, the Klu Klux Klan, the private militia movement, the Aryan Churches, and on and on.
A number of American states had laws for the legal sterilization of those deemed “unfit” before Hitler had them in Germany, and tens of thousands were indeed sterilized. Henry Ford, whose social views were expressed in a book, was admired by Hitler.
The great American journalist and historian of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, well aware of these things, said that maybe America would be the first country actually choosing to go fascist. A bit exaggerated, but an astute observation, as valid today as it was then.
Just look at the wide-spread American reverence for the military and the flag and the police, institutions and a symbol whose actual record of employment is anything but admirable. America’s local police kill well more than 1,100 citizens every year on the streets – far more than any supposed terror group - yet public sentiment to support them remains strong, and there is bitter opposition to groups protesting for reform. We’ve seen downright hatred for American football players who dared to quietly kneel during the National Anthem as a respectful form of protest, and the ugly attitude was echoed right up into the Oval office.
Again, with respect to the American tendency for inflexible rules as opposed to free and relaxed situations, just try doing anything with the folks at the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration or at the Veterans’ Administration or many other major agencies, and you'll find out just how free-and-breezy America really is even in day-in, day-out matters. Some of the situations you’ll find yourself in will be reminiscent of the old USSR’s bureaucracy.
You know, when you take a simple mortgage on a home in America, you literally sign a stack of papers an inch thick, so complex you cannot possibly understand what it is that you are signing. The same experience is repeated in many activities in America.
As for rights, they really exist anywhere only so long as the overwhelming majority agree that they do. And that group opinion changes and fluctuates over time. You cannot write a piece of parchment that truly guarantees rights even though it claims that it does. There certainly are no absolute rights, and I think it was the early Puritan tradition which convinced early Americans there was. America's parchment rights have been violated countless times.
And they very much continue to be violated today with everything from the Patriot Act and the NSA and Homeland Security to the total corruption of elections and voter rights by big money.
The Bill of Rights originally was unenforceable by the Supreme Court, it had no real force of law, and Jefferson threatened the secession of Virginia if the court took that role which he regarded as a violation of States' Rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court won the right. However, the actual record of decisions by the Supreme Court includes many shameful chapters.
Indeed, the long gruesome history of the Rights of States versus the those of the Federal government in America – a subject which was the true cause of the American Civil War, and not slavery, as is often mistakenly asserted - is full of contradictions to this day.
Today, for an individual to bring a case to the Supreme Court, something which costs a very large sum of money in legal fees, is unrealistic, unless he or she is supported by some affluent organization or special interest. And the quality of decisions made still leaves much to be desired, sticking to such narrow interpretations of constitutional law as to resemble the writings of Church Scholastics from the Middle Ages. Some guarantee of everyone’s rights.
Many times, written rights were simply ignored by the American government. Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Civil War. Slavery went on and on, and nothing violates rights like slavery. Supreme Court decisions were made on aspects of slavery which violated every right defined by the Bill of Rights. After slavery was finally abolished, the South’s “Jim Crow Laws” carried right on enforcing many of the realities of slavery for another century.
The American right to vote started with about one-percent of the population being qualified - that's about the same percent of Chinese people in the Communist Party which decides that county’s leadership. Yet those corny, school-room images of the pious Founders and their frock coats and wigs hide pretty much the same reality as China. You had to be male, white, a certain age, and have a certain net worth. The president was not elected directly, and the powerful Senate was appointed well into the Twentieth Century.
Today, most Americans can vote, but their elections are governed by big money with the two political parties both working contentedly under a heavily-organized regime of money. This effectively excludes all others from ever getting the opportunity and exposure to perhaps take the country in new directions. So, America is effectively ruled by a two-party duopoly completely beholden to the country’s plutocratic class, but “democracy” and “choice” remain the slogans and rallying cries heard everywhere.
Over the last many decades, the creation and growth of outfits like the FBI and CIA have grossly violated citizens’ rights and continue to do so. Today, the United States has 17 national security agencies. The actual work of these agencies often does not resemble the words of their charters or the legislation establishing them, but realistically there is no one to complain to, except the money-driven members of the two parties in Congress.
It's a long and complex story, with confusion and dark corners not widely appreciated abroad. Indeed, few ordinary Americans understand it either, but that doesn't stop them blubbering endlessly about rights, like the right to own guns, something easily disputed by the very words of the Second Amendment.
The blubbering about rights makes many Americans feel good when the realities of their situation should very much make them feel otherwise.
Gun ownership might be the most symbolic in this regard of many rights we could examine. What difference in the world has gun ownership made to the prevention of tyrannical government in America, something asserted endlessly as being necessary for a free country? None at all. Abusive laws and powerful, oppressive agencies at home and abusive imperial wars abroad go right on serving the interests of the people who really run the country, and, by all appearances, it’s only going to become worse.
Just one of a great many examples suffices. In what kind of society can a man, who wasn’t even initially elected and without a declaration of war as stipulated in the Constitution, lead a nation into a long and terrible war that would literally slaughter several million abroad, using ordinary citizens’ tax dollars and the bodies of conscripted young men to do it? Ironically, all those young men were told they were doing so to defend freedom, and, to this day, many of them still believe it.
Further on the topic of contradictions in America, readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/john-chuckman-essay-the-illusion-of-rights/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/lessons-from-the-american-revolution/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/reflections-on-the-origins-and-meaning-of-americas-independence-day-re-posted-from-6-years-ago-nothing-having-changed/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AGAIN PUTIN DISPLAYS HIS REMARKABLE QUALITIES IN AN INTERVIEW WITH AUSTRIAN TELEVISION - THE WEST HAS NO LEADER WITH THIS SET OF SKILLS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN PRAVDA
“Putin's interview for Austrian television: Tough answers to most provocative questions”
Some Interesting points.
The Austrian journalist was out-of-line a few times (asking something again before Putin even had finished the answer to the previous question) as likely would be the case for many Western journalists doing such an interview, given the highly charged political environment in which they work and the pressures to get a cheap reaction rather than some information. But President Putin perfectly brought him back into line, and did so in his own language, German.
An unusual gesture for a politician or political leader being interviewed in the West, refreshing, and entirely appropriate and fitting. Our own politicians follow the now-standardized practice of just not answering a question and “staying on message” by repeating the same non-answer over and over, a highly annoying practice, originating in the United States, which yields zero potential for listeners to learn anything.
When you listen to Putin, you learn something. I think that alone is one of the significant measures of this extraordinary man.
I did like the journalist's general observations, after the interview, on Putin's voice and manner. A soft, sonorous voice and a calm, unpretentious manner. I find that highly accurate judging from my own observations over the Internet.
Just compare the bellowing and bluster and hammy-acted sternness of Trump or, indeed, the frequently displayed arrogance and preachiness of Obama.
Russia has an extraordinary man as its leader, undoubtedly a man who will be spoken of a century from now, while most of the West's current crop of leaders are utterly forgettable.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN PRAVDA
“Putin's interview for Austrian television: Tough answers to most provocative questions”
Some Interesting points.
The Austrian journalist was out-of-line a few times (asking something again before Putin even had finished the answer to the previous question) as likely would be the case for many Western journalists doing such an interview, given the highly charged political environment in which they work and the pressures to get a cheap reaction rather than some information. But President Putin perfectly brought him back into line, and did so in his own language, German.
An unusual gesture for a politician or political leader being interviewed in the West, refreshing, and entirely appropriate and fitting. Our own politicians follow the now-standardized practice of just not answering a question and “staying on message” by repeating the same non-answer over and over, a highly annoying practice, originating in the United States, which yields zero potential for listeners to learn anything.
When you listen to Putin, you learn something. I think that alone is one of the significant measures of this extraordinary man.
I did like the journalist's general observations, after the interview, on Putin's voice and manner. A soft, sonorous voice and a calm, unpretentious manner. I find that highly accurate judging from my own observations over the Internet.
Just compare the bellowing and bluster and hammy-acted sternness of Trump or, indeed, the frequently displayed arrogance and preachiness of Obama.
Russia has an extraordinary man as its leader, undoubtedly a man who will be spoken of a century from now, while most of the West's current crop of leaders are utterly forgettable.
Tuesday, June 05, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ON THE MOST TERRIBLE EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY, HITLER'S INVASION OF RUSSIA - AUTHOR ASKS WAS HITLER'S INVASION REALLY TO FOIL AN ATTACK BY STALIN, PROVING ONLY HOW LITTLE HE UNDERSTANDS HIS SUBJECT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY RON UNZ IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Was Hitler's Invasion of Russia Defensive, to Foil an Attack by Stalin?"
There has always been the speculation that, with these two powerful states and two ruthless dictators, it was just a matter of time before one attacked the other. But that was speculation. The fact is Hitler literally felt himself destined to invade Russia, and Stalin had a gigantic job on his hands inside the USSR.
There is no evidence that Stalin was planning to invade Europe. None.
Stalin had enough problems at home without setting out on any fantastic venture, a venture which, by the way, would have brought him into direct conflict with the United States, which would never allow Europe to go under, just as it did not allow it to go under the Germans in WWI.
Not only that, but an invasion by Stalin would give the United States an excuse it would welcome to end the Soviet Union.
Stalin was actually in many ways a far more cautious man than many realize. Even though the USSR at this time had some of the world’s best spy networks abroad, owing to idealistic motivations of some educated foreigners in the 1930s, Stalin was so cautious, he often rejected really good intelligence brought to him for fear it was planted.
He was always ready to take advantage of a favorable opportunity right before his eyes, but he wasn't one to go seeking titanic new problems abroad. Russia, for example, had had enough problems in its war with Finland, a comparatively small, but very tough and determined, country.
Stalin did fully understand that Hitler would one day attack - how could he not with Hitler always talking of it? - and he prepared for it. His preparations were part of what stopped Hitler. German intelligence much underestimated the extent of things like Soviet armor reserves.
Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a treaty which surprised the world in 1939, Stalin worked very hard to deliver on promises and any shipments of resources Germany requested. It looked odd to be assisting the enemy you expected would invade one day, but Stalin was buying time, time to keep intense preparations going for the eventual invasion.
Stalin had massive reserves of tanks in the East. They weren't the best quality, as compared to Germany's best stuff, but they proved to more than make up for the fact in their sheer numbers. Some of the Germans’ most sophisticated equipment proved difficult and costly to maintain and repair – and especially given long supply lines and winter - whereas some of the Soviet equipment could almost be viewed as disposable.
We know Hitler's single biggest dream was always - going clear back to writing “Mein Kamp”’ in the 1920s - the conquest of Russia. He basically saw it as an act which could make Germany competitive with the United States in terms of amount of agrarian lands and bigger markets and space in which to grow in the long term.
He only got entangled in many of the conquests in Europe - apart from the early consolidation of Germany with re-occupying the Rhineland and seizing Czechoslovakia and the merger with Austria - because western leaders were not willing to give him a free hand with his dream mission.
By the way, if he had stopped at this early stage of consolidating a larger Germany, he might have gone down as one of the great German Chancellors, one who successfully enlarged Germany in the very heart of Europe, but, no, there was always the fantastic dream of Russia and new lands in the East. He actually did see himself as on a kind of mystical Teutonic religious crusade.
His diplomacy, over and over emphasized to the West, that they should allow Germany to move East and crush Communism, and his view did have supporters in the West. Remember, countries like Britain and the United States actually had sent some troops to Russia to intervene in the early days of the USSR. They were inadequate and unsuccessful, but the effort reveals the hostility the West felt. A hostility Hitler constantly tried to exploit.
But the prospect, some years down the road, of facing such an enlarged Germany was not a welcome one for many leaders in the West.
Hitler had nightmarish notions of clearing large parts of Russia for Germans and reducing Russian populations to mass slavery to serve the Reich. His visions were on such a scale that, even if he had been given a free hand, likely in the end, he would have created a mess. What a vast population and territory to try holding in subjugation and slavery.
What the author has effectively done here is to revive the Hitlerian argument to the West about Russia. That seems most unfortunate, but of course it comes at a time of intense American anti-Russian hysteria.
If readers want a little background on what the invasion actually did, see:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/john-chuckman-comment-russian-victory-day-parade-ignorantly-called-defiant-russias-wwii-experience-has-no-parallel-in-all-human-history-dwarfing-american-and-french-and-british-losses-now-a/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY RON UNZ IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Was Hitler's Invasion of Russia Defensive, to Foil an Attack by Stalin?"
There has always been the speculation that, with these two powerful states and two ruthless dictators, it was just a matter of time before one attacked the other. But that was speculation. The fact is Hitler literally felt himself destined to invade Russia, and Stalin had a gigantic job on his hands inside the USSR.
There is no evidence that Stalin was planning to invade Europe. None.
Stalin had enough problems at home without setting out on any fantastic venture, a venture which, by the way, would have brought him into direct conflict with the United States, which would never allow Europe to go under, just as it did not allow it to go under the Germans in WWI.
Not only that, but an invasion by Stalin would give the United States an excuse it would welcome to end the Soviet Union.
Stalin was actually in many ways a far more cautious man than many realize. Even though the USSR at this time had some of the world’s best spy networks abroad, owing to idealistic motivations of some educated foreigners in the 1930s, Stalin was so cautious, he often rejected really good intelligence brought to him for fear it was planted.
He was always ready to take advantage of a favorable opportunity right before his eyes, but he wasn't one to go seeking titanic new problems abroad. Russia, for example, had had enough problems in its war with Finland, a comparatively small, but very tough and determined, country.
Stalin did fully understand that Hitler would one day attack - how could he not with Hitler always talking of it? - and he prepared for it. His preparations were part of what stopped Hitler. German intelligence much underestimated the extent of things like Soviet armor reserves.
Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a treaty which surprised the world in 1939, Stalin worked very hard to deliver on promises and any shipments of resources Germany requested. It looked odd to be assisting the enemy you expected would invade one day, but Stalin was buying time, time to keep intense preparations going for the eventual invasion.
Stalin had massive reserves of tanks in the East. They weren't the best quality, as compared to Germany's best stuff, but they proved to more than make up for the fact in their sheer numbers. Some of the Germans’ most sophisticated equipment proved difficult and costly to maintain and repair – and especially given long supply lines and winter - whereas some of the Soviet equipment could almost be viewed as disposable.
We know Hitler's single biggest dream was always - going clear back to writing “Mein Kamp”’ in the 1920s - the conquest of Russia. He basically saw it as an act which could make Germany competitive with the United States in terms of amount of agrarian lands and bigger markets and space in which to grow in the long term.
He only got entangled in many of the conquests in Europe - apart from the early consolidation of Germany with re-occupying the Rhineland and seizing Czechoslovakia and the merger with Austria - because western leaders were not willing to give him a free hand with his dream mission.
By the way, if he had stopped at this early stage of consolidating a larger Germany, he might have gone down as one of the great German Chancellors, one who successfully enlarged Germany in the very heart of Europe, but, no, there was always the fantastic dream of Russia and new lands in the East. He actually did see himself as on a kind of mystical Teutonic religious crusade.
His diplomacy, over and over emphasized to the West, that they should allow Germany to move East and crush Communism, and his view did have supporters in the West. Remember, countries like Britain and the United States actually had sent some troops to Russia to intervene in the early days of the USSR. They were inadequate and unsuccessful, but the effort reveals the hostility the West felt. A hostility Hitler constantly tried to exploit.
But the prospect, some years down the road, of facing such an enlarged Germany was not a welcome one for many leaders in the West.
Hitler had nightmarish notions of clearing large parts of Russia for Germans and reducing Russian populations to mass slavery to serve the Reich. His visions were on such a scale that, even if he had been given a free hand, likely in the end, he would have created a mess. What a vast population and territory to try holding in subjugation and slavery.
What the author has effectively done here is to revive the Hitlerian argument to the West about Russia. That seems most unfortunate, but of course it comes at a time of intense American anti-Russian hysteria.
If readers want a little background on what the invasion actually did, see:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/john-chuckman-comment-russian-victory-day-parade-ignorantly-called-defiant-russias-wwii-experience-has-no-parallel-in-all-human-history-dwarfing-american-and-french-and-british-losses-now-a/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: MORE ON THE "HATE PUTIN" CAMPAIGN OF MAINLINE WESTERN PUBLICATIONS - A VIVID DEMONSTRATION WITH A SERIES OF MAGAZINE COVERS FROM THE ECONOMIST AND TIME
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHARLES BAUSMAN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Hating on Putin by western Media - Part 2: THE ECONOMIST
“An ongoing outrage"
This featuring of a large series of negative-looking publication covers from The Economist and Time Magazine is a very effective way to drive the point home about the relentless efforts being made against Putin and Russia now.
The US is in the middle of an anti-Russian insane frenzy, and this stuff is just supporting propaganda and disinformation.
I recall the former CIA disinformation officer who talked once of sitting down to his "mighty Wurlitzer Organ" and hitting the keys to get a story "out there." The "keys" were publications like Time or the New York Times or the Washington Post, etc.
Today, the effort is just as intense in a country like Britain as it is in America, Western Europe having little independence of view or policies anymore.
Russia is seen as a major barrier against America's new hyper-aggression, and there is an additional factor at work with America's colony in the Middle East.
The hyper-aggression is seen by Israel apologists and lobbyists as a form of security for Israel, as well as assistance for Israel's own aggressive goals in its region.
Therefore, Russia is not good.
Since the "high-end" press in the West is owned or controlled by people completely sympathetic to Israel, this approach follows naturally enough.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHARLES BAUSMAN IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Hating on Putin by western Media - Part 2: THE ECONOMIST
“An ongoing outrage"
This featuring of a large series of negative-looking publication covers from The Economist and Time Magazine is a very effective way to drive the point home about the relentless efforts being made against Putin and Russia now.
The US is in the middle of an anti-Russian insane frenzy, and this stuff is just supporting propaganda and disinformation.
I recall the former CIA disinformation officer who talked once of sitting down to his "mighty Wurlitzer Organ" and hitting the keys to get a story "out there." The "keys" were publications like Time or the New York Times or the Washington Post, etc.
Today, the effort is just as intense in a country like Britain as it is in America, Western Europe having little independence of view or policies anymore.
Russia is seen as a major barrier against America's new hyper-aggression, and there is an additional factor at work with America's colony in the Middle East.
The hyper-aggression is seen by Israel apologists and lobbyists as a form of security for Israel, as well as assistance for Israel's own aggressive goals in its region.
Therefore, Russia is not good.
Since the "high-end" press in the West is owned or controlled by people completely sympathetic to Israel, this approach follows naturally enough.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: BRITAIN'S NEW HOME SECRETARY OFFERS FATUOUS WORDS ON THE THREAT OF TERROR - HERE ARE SOME HARD TRUTHS ABOUT THE NATURE EXTENT AND CAUSES OF TERROR
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
“Javid promises 'no safe spaces for terrorists' as he unveils counter-terrorism strategy
"Javid promises 'no safe spaces for terrorists'"
Ridiculous rhetoric.
As though Britain had been offering some until Home Secretary Sajid Javid came along.
The number of people who die from "terror," is insignificant compared to dozens of other causes such as road accidents or drugs or medical malpractice.
But promoting the idea of terror has grown into an industry with Western governments and the corporate press. It keeps citizens ready to accept what would otherwise be unacceptable.
But quite apart from that promotion of a public mood to justify dark government activity, the truth is that terror is just not a threat worth much thinking about, unless you live in a place like Syria or Libya or Yemen, where the terror is not brought to you by any genuine terror groups but by employees and nationals of states like America, Britain, France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
That is real terror with half a million dead in Syria, tens of thousands in Yemen, and we have no count in Libya, but know that it is chaos.
Of course, this nonsense is also an effective distraction from the dull fact of a paralyzed British government which gets nothing done anywhere.
So, every couple of weeks, they choose, "Will it be another dastardly attack by some Russian or imagined dastardly plans by "terrorists'?
This is a government by children with no ability, no courage, and no character.
Readers may enjoy these essays on various aspects of the subject of terror:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/2186/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/john-chuckman-essay-some-hard-facts-about-terror/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/how-terror-has-lost-its-meaning/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/2174/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/when-terror-is-just-fine/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
“Javid promises 'no safe spaces for terrorists' as he unveils counter-terrorism strategy
"Javid promises 'no safe spaces for terrorists'"
Ridiculous rhetoric.
As though Britain had been offering some until Home Secretary Sajid Javid came along.
The number of people who die from "terror," is insignificant compared to dozens of other causes such as road accidents or drugs or medical malpractice.
But promoting the idea of terror has grown into an industry with Western governments and the corporate press. It keeps citizens ready to accept what would otherwise be unacceptable.
But quite apart from that promotion of a public mood to justify dark government activity, the truth is that terror is just not a threat worth much thinking about, unless you live in a place like Syria or Libya or Yemen, where the terror is not brought to you by any genuine terror groups but by employees and nationals of states like America, Britain, France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
That is real terror with half a million dead in Syria, tens of thousands in Yemen, and we have no count in Libya, but know that it is chaos.
Of course, this nonsense is also an effective distraction from the dull fact of a paralyzed British government which gets nothing done anywhere.
So, every couple of weeks, they choose, "Will it be another dastardly attack by some Russian or imagined dastardly plans by "terrorists'?
This is a government by children with no ability, no courage, and no character.
Readers may enjoy these essays on various aspects of the subject of terror:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/2186/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/john-chuckman-essay-some-hard-facts-about-terror/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/how-terror-has-lost-its-meaning/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/2174/
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/when-terror-is-just-fine/
Sunday, June 03, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES MATTIS SHOOTS HIS MOUTH OFF AGAIN, DEMONSTRATING THE WORST AMERICAN ARROGANCE - KIM, YOU REALLY MIGHT BE SAFER WITH YOUR WARHEADS!
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“No sanctions relief for N. Korea until ‘verifiable & irreversible’ denuclearization – Mattis”
What an arrogant idiot.
There is to be no relief of sanctions.
Previously Mattis also said there would be no removal of the large American forces on the border with South Korea.
These announcements also come in an atmosphere of demonstrated American untrustworthiness regarding international agreements.
And we have such encouraging recent examples, don’t we, as Libya and Iran as encouragement?
Wow, sign me up for a deal like that right away!
Kim, I think you’re safer with your warheads.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA TODAY
“No sanctions relief for N. Korea until ‘verifiable & irreversible’ denuclearization – Mattis”
What an arrogant idiot.
There is to be no relief of sanctions.
Previously Mattis also said there would be no removal of the large American forces on the border with South Korea.
These announcements also come in an atmosphere of demonstrated American untrustworthiness regarding international agreements.
And we have such encouraging recent examples, don’t we, as Libya and Iran as encouragement?
Wow, sign me up for a deal like that right away!
Kim, I think you’re safer with your warheads.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRUMP'S DESTRUCTIVENESS TO TRADE - BUT HIS CONCERN MAY BE POLITICS FOR HIS BASE AND NOT ECONOMICS - HOW TRUMP NOW WELL SERVES AMERICA'S ESTABLISHMENT - GLIMMER OF FUTURE WORLD HOPE IN ALL THIS U.S. CHAOS?
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LARRY ELLIOTT IN THE GUARDIAN
“The rust belt is being sold a lie – China has funded US spending
“The president’s bizarre solutions to the US trade deficit threaten to send his country into recession”
"Make no mistake: Trump’s strategy is a sign of weakness not strength.’
That is correct.
However, this can be looked at from various perspectives. Besides, it is not at all certain that Trump even understands these economic matters.
If you look at it from Trump’s political perspective, he is showily, noisily serving the interests of his political base, which consists of folks who go to gun meets, get angry about football games marred by protest, dislike the very idea of migration, love Walmart, are fans of NASCAR, treat the American Flag as a holy relic, and not infrequently live in trailer parks.
They hate the UN and all international organizations. They regard any kind of talk about global relations as stupid or treacherous, and they believe America is involved with any of these only because of the treachery of "liberals," never for a moment realizing there are almost no such critters resident in America.
NAFTA and other trade agreements plus international affairs generally have long been angrily bellowed about by this crowd. The only acceptable exception in international affairs is bombing people, and that's always welcome.
In a sense, too, Trump is serving the American power establishment. They were doubtful about him at first, but I think he has won them over with his immediate capitulation as any kind of maverick or independent thinker, his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush-Obama imperial wars, his support for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale, and his readiness to spend the United States into the poorhouse on the military, which by the way, if you count all the true costs, such as veterans’ affairs, is running at about a trillion dollars a year.
The power establishment couldn’t care in the least for Trump’s belly-over-belt crowd. They indeed care little for most Americans, only caring for their own privileged crowd. But it appears that Trump’s efforts for his political base also happens to serve some of their interests, the major one of which is an aggressive reassertion of American dominance everywhere in hope of being able to shape future events in a changing world.
They have adopted this goal because they recognize America’s relative decline since the lucky glory days post-WWII when America didn’t have a competitor standing. Today, it has many, and more emerge regularly. That is a reality which will not change. So, the idea is to dominate and push them all around, shaping future events by might and not right or fair hard work, and Trump has proven he is pretty good at pushing people around.
It all makes a highly dangerous situation, but it could have the positive side effect of realigning thinking and friendships and trade relations among many countries, perhaps marking an historical watershed. I am hopeful for this, as something immensely more positive and economically creative than everyone’s saluting the American flag daily and awaiting new orders for sanctions or bombing somewhere.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LARRY ELLIOTT IN THE GUARDIAN
“The rust belt is being sold a lie – China has funded US spending
“The president’s bizarre solutions to the US trade deficit threaten to send his country into recession”
"Make no mistake: Trump’s strategy is a sign of weakness not strength.’
That is correct.
However, this can be looked at from various perspectives. Besides, it is not at all certain that Trump even understands these economic matters.
If you look at it from Trump’s political perspective, he is showily, noisily serving the interests of his political base, which consists of folks who go to gun meets, get angry about football games marred by protest, dislike the very idea of migration, love Walmart, are fans of NASCAR, treat the American Flag as a holy relic, and not infrequently live in trailer parks.
They hate the UN and all international organizations. They regard any kind of talk about global relations as stupid or treacherous, and they believe America is involved with any of these only because of the treachery of "liberals," never for a moment realizing there are almost no such critters resident in America.
NAFTA and other trade agreements plus international affairs generally have long been angrily bellowed about by this crowd. The only acceptable exception in international affairs is bombing people, and that's always welcome.
In a sense, too, Trump is serving the American power establishment. They were doubtful about him at first, but I think he has won them over with his immediate capitulation as any kind of maverick or independent thinker, his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush-Obama imperial wars, his support for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale, and his readiness to spend the United States into the poorhouse on the military, which by the way, if you count all the true costs, such as veterans’ affairs, is running at about a trillion dollars a year.
The power establishment couldn’t care in the least for Trump’s belly-over-belt crowd. They indeed care little for most Americans, only caring for their own privileged crowd. But it appears that Trump’s efforts for his political base also happens to serve some of their interests, the major one of which is an aggressive reassertion of American dominance everywhere in hope of being able to shape future events in a changing world.
They have adopted this goal because they recognize America’s relative decline since the lucky glory days post-WWII when America didn’t have a competitor standing. Today, it has many, and more emerge regularly. That is a reality which will not change. So, the idea is to dominate and push them all around, shaping future events by might and not right or fair hard work, and Trump has proven he is pretty good at pushing people around.
It all makes a highly dangerous situation, but it could have the positive side effect of realigning thinking and friendships and trade relations among many countries, perhaps marking an historical watershed. I am hopeful for this, as something immensely more positive and economically creative than everyone’s saluting the American flag daily and awaiting new orders for sanctions or bombing somewhere.
Friday, June 01, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: POLITICAL COMEDIAN MICHELLE WOLF DOES AN INTERVIEW
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW WITH COMEDIAN MICHELLE WOLF IN THE GUARDIAN
“Michelle Wolf: ‘It’s weird that Trump doesn’t have a sense of humour’”
I'm fond of the tradition of fiercely critical political comedians.
People like America's David Frye, George Carlin, Dick Gregory, or Mort Sahl.
So, of course, I thought Michelle's jokes at the White House Correspondents' Dinner were great.
God, politically-correct we have coming out of all our orifices. We need no more, ever.
And this White House itself is crude, arrogant, hostile, and often found ranting nonsense, and with no apologies offered.
It's hard to see what they could ever have to complain about.
Besides, today's America is such a bizarre and frightening place, I think tough political humor is desperately needed.
Mark Twain said that nothing can withstand the assault of laughter.
Here's hoping.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW WITH COMEDIAN MICHELLE WOLF IN THE GUARDIAN
“Michelle Wolf: ‘It’s weird that Trump doesn’t have a sense of humour’”
I'm fond of the tradition of fiercely critical political comedians.
People like America's David Frye, George Carlin, Dick Gregory, or Mort Sahl.
So, of course, I thought Michelle's jokes at the White House Correspondents' Dinner were great.
God, politically-correct we have coming out of all our orifices. We need no more, ever.
And this White House itself is crude, arrogant, hostile, and often found ranting nonsense, and with no apologies offered.
It's hard to see what they could ever have to complain about.
Besides, today's America is such a bizarre and frightening place, I think tough political humor is desperately needed.
Mark Twain said that nothing can withstand the assault of laughter.
Here's hoping.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE MANY STUPIDITIES OF SANCTIONS AND HOW THEY ARE USED - ALONG WITH BOMBING PEOPLE THEY HAVE BECOME FAVORITE ACTIVITIES FOR AMERICA'S POWER ESTABLISHMENT - BUT WHY DO ORDINARY AMERICANS NOT OPPOSE THEM?
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOV’T SLVES
“How the US Bullies the World into Its Sanctions Regime”
In most instances, the reasons for America’s laying sanctions are either mistaken or, perhaps more often, simply high-handed. They are a way of making others do what you want them to do, short of war.
We have a number of examples today, with that of Venezuela being an outstanding one. Here is a democratic government which continues holding elections even in times of great stress, accused of being undemocratic, and it is fighting for its life against sanctions and CIA dark operations and threats from Washington of still more dire actions.
Sanctions are virtually never principled, although tiresome language actually abusing principles is often used to defend them.
When it does come to really principled matters, American sanctions are rarely imposed. In America, principles are never permitted to stand in the way of the establishment’s selfish interests.
A current example is Israel’s appalling treatment of the Palestinians. Another is the violent and criminal behavior Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines. Both situations are as appropriate cases for principled sanctions as you are likely to find, but the word “sanction” is never heard from Washington.
The past example of Nationalist South Africa, of course, springs to mind.
The American power establishment valued that country as a “bulwark against communism” and did not want to hurt it, despite its terrible record of human abuse. Only when the American public began to lead, pressuring some corporations and joining forces with other nations who were acting, did Washington reluctantly lay sanctions.
So, truth be told, almost all sanctions are misguided and selfish, having nothing to do with values or principles. Only the rarest examples are otherwise.
And, on strictly practical grounds, many sanctions ultimately do not work. There isn’t always a stick big enough to use for a given case.
And, further, many sanctions even have counter-productive results, such as causing nations to substitute new products or services for sanctioned ones or to find new creative channels for obtaining the sanctioned ones.
Why do Americans even think their government has the right to hurl these thunderbolts at so many in the first place?
America is the only country in the world that announces sanctions almost as regularly as announcements are made about flights at a big city airport.
When America is not starting wars, it is trying to attack people with sanctions.
Does that not speak clearly of being an international bully?
Why would anyone want to embrace that identity?
Well, bullies are just bullies and do what it is that bullies do, and that explains the motivations of America’s truly corrupt power establishment, but why do ordinary Americans in any way support it?
Perhaps, the fact that they seem to do so is the clearest evidence of just how manipulated the American public is by its press and politicians, of just how much they are sheep-like followers rather than the independent-minded people they enjoy crediting themselves with being.
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOV’T SLVES
“How the US Bullies the World into Its Sanctions Regime”
In most instances, the reasons for America’s laying sanctions are either mistaken or, perhaps more often, simply high-handed. They are a way of making others do what you want them to do, short of war.
We have a number of examples today, with that of Venezuela being an outstanding one. Here is a democratic government which continues holding elections even in times of great stress, accused of being undemocratic, and it is fighting for its life against sanctions and CIA dark operations and threats from Washington of still more dire actions.
Sanctions are virtually never principled, although tiresome language actually abusing principles is often used to defend them.
When it does come to really principled matters, American sanctions are rarely imposed. In America, principles are never permitted to stand in the way of the establishment’s selfish interests.
A current example is Israel’s appalling treatment of the Palestinians. Another is the violent and criminal behavior Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines. Both situations are as appropriate cases for principled sanctions as you are likely to find, but the word “sanction” is never heard from Washington.
The past example of Nationalist South Africa, of course, springs to mind.
The American power establishment valued that country as a “bulwark against communism” and did not want to hurt it, despite its terrible record of human abuse. Only when the American public began to lead, pressuring some corporations and joining forces with other nations who were acting, did Washington reluctantly lay sanctions.
So, truth be told, almost all sanctions are misguided and selfish, having nothing to do with values or principles. Only the rarest examples are otherwise.
And, on strictly practical grounds, many sanctions ultimately do not work. There isn’t always a stick big enough to use for a given case.
And, further, many sanctions even have counter-productive results, such as causing nations to substitute new products or services for sanctioned ones or to find new creative channels for obtaining the sanctioned ones.
Why do Americans even think their government has the right to hurl these thunderbolts at so many in the first place?
America is the only country in the world that announces sanctions almost as regularly as announcements are made about flights at a big city airport.
When America is not starting wars, it is trying to attack people with sanctions.
Does that not speak clearly of being an international bully?
Why would anyone want to embrace that identity?
Well, bullies are just bullies and do what it is that bullies do, and that explains the motivations of America’s truly corrupt power establishment, but why do ordinary Americans in any way support it?
Perhaps, the fact that they seem to do so is the clearest evidence of just how manipulated the American public is by its press and politicians, of just how much they are sheep-like followers rather than the independent-minded people they enjoy crediting themselves with being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)