You're quoting an article that was posted days before the exchange about totalitarianism happened and which I only re-sourced as a means of giving people an introductory idea about how propaganda works in the West. I never said that article was about the USSR or any totalitarian state. In fact, I think I made it clear it was in reference to the West (I mean the title literally spells it out).
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Right, and we can reach something like an agreement if we take the totalitarian/autocratic distinction into account (there are two distinct arguments being made in this thread, one about a pure totalitarian/democratic model, another about the relative effectiveness of Russian/Western propaganda). Yes, Western propaganda is better than Russian, but if the problem here is that someone disagrees with that then this is a non-point, a long and winding way to say there is no problem (you're free to disagree).
On the other hand, if you read the replies I've dealt with in depth which are typically just ad hominem remarks that don't engage with the argument (no names), then you might also understand why I sought clarification. Like dealing with the Sun Tzu quote (problems being made where there are/should be none).
@Mciahel Goodman is your argument that Western nations are better at propaganda but acknowledging that the Western population is educated and informed enough to not be fully indoctrinated by it? Or are you arguing that the Western population has been more indoctrinated by Western propaganda than let's say the Chinese population by Chinese propaganda?
I'd be highly sceptical of the latter claim.
I'd be highly sceptical of the latter claim.
A bit from each column but Western populations are clearly not educated/informed enough to avoid indoctrination for a few reasons (it begins in school, for a start, where you can't make a defense). As for the second, Western populations are more indoctrinated insofar as they can't discern their own indoctrination. They typically trust their media in ways that people living in totalitarian regimes do not. There has been an uptake in media literacy lately, but its effects are yet to be seen (more people do discern that they are being indoctrinated and propagandized, but they're sitll a minority). Think about it like this, the media is not giving you outright lies (usually) but is constructed in such a way as to lie by omission (by removing dissent from the mainstream).
The Chinese case is more about autocracy but they don't have to be more indoctrinated because the Chinese can place dissidents in large prison camps which the West cannot do. China today is more effective than China thirty years ago, but that's because they have become "freer" so the information they receive is not entirely false, in fact it has to be true to the extent that the relevant classes can make informed decisions regarding capital. You have to take into account that autocracies retain an element of repressive state control which works in tandem with ideological state control, whereas democracies work almost eclusively (with regard to dissidents) through the ideological state apparatus. That means that Western populations are controlled entirely by propaganda at the level of dissent whereas autocracies use both symbolic violence (propaganda/ideological state apparatus) and actual violence (police restriction/repressive state apparatus). That they have to resort to actual violence, is, in fact, quite often a good proof of the ineffectiveness of their indoctrination mechanisms.
Edit: Will follow up later as I appreciate this might not be the easiest/most lucid account and it seems worth putting the ambiguities to rest.
Last edited:
Original Twitter Thread
His bio:
#Disinformation analyst #Russian Disinfo against #Ukraine #MediaLiteracy trainer & Political Advisor Programmatic director
@ZentrumSM
co-founder
@VIEgoEU
He is a self-professed disinformation analyst who promotes media literacy. He also promotes disinformation, or misinformation, depending on whether he intends to mislead or does so by mistake.
From which there are 12 points:
(1) Russian Disinfo-Strategy
Professor @TimothyDSnyder
tried to warn us already in 2014. Putin is using different (disinfo) stories, for different target audiences. He has a storyline for the far left, for the far right, some storylines fit to both parts of the political spectrum.
True.
(2) What Europeans have completely overseen, especially during the last months, was that he has also specific storylines for the European audience and his own, domestic audience. "NATO expansion" vs. "Genocide in Donbas" "Nazis in Ukraine", "imminent Ukrainian attack on Donbas/Crimea"
True.
(3) If we take a look at the messages he delivered to his domestic audience, it is quite easy to see, that there was never a realistic chance to reach a diplomatic solution. You can't tell your people about "attacks" or "genocide" and not react, just because NATO takes a step back.
Not true (debateable). If the US had given Russia an insanely good offer, would they have gone to war? I doubt it.
(4) I spoke to several "pro regime" Russians since the beginning of the 2022 war. "Ukrainians are Nazis", "what happened in Donbas since 2014?" are their main arguments. When I debunk these narratives, their last "hope" is to claim "but we cannot allow NATO to come so close".
"Ukrainians are Nazis": not true. "Some Ukrainians are Nazis": is true.
(5) What worries me, that they seem quite well prepared, they are "educated", with the tools of their propaganda playbook. Western audiences are much less prepared to debunk any of the Russian disinformation narratives except the existance of the war itself ("special operation").
Ambiguous, but the propaganda war has quite clearly been asymmetrical. Remember the Ghost of Kyiv and the Spartan Islanders? And a lot of other fake stories that mainstream news outlets even stated were fake or likely fake but were good for morale, so it was not that important. The idea that the Russians are better prepared for a propaganda war has no factual bearing.
(6) Media Literacy is not enough to withstand Russian propaganda against Ukraine. We need to educate our societies about Ukraine, about the situation there, about what really happened in 2014 and the several myths spread by the Russian Federation.
OK. Media literacy is insufficient for all kinds of propaganda, but largely insufficient for internal propaganda (this twitter thread is one long propaganda mission which frames Russian propaganda as the threat thereby concealing the effect of its own aim).
(7) Knowledge about the biographies of Igor Girkin, Alexander Borodai and many actors of Kremlin propaganda, such as Kiselyov, Solovyov, Simonyan and Peskov, is a good starting point.
No claim, just a plan about how to side and promulgate a particular narrative ideology.
(8) I think we should focus on
- Donbas and how it started there
- disinfo about a "Russian language ban" in Ukraine
Not only the far right/far left believes in those myths
Dubious. He will go on to claim that there was no Russian language ban.
More here (9)
(9) If you are a teacher or journalist (thread)
1) there was never a "civil war" or "ethnic conflict" in Ukraine
2) there was never any kind of "Russian language ban"
3) The founders of the "separatist republics" were Russian nationalists from Moscow not coal miners from Donbas
(1) Not true. There has been a civil war ongoing for eight years. Call it an ethnic conflict if you want, but you are dealing with semantics.
(2) Not true:
"Ukraine’s parliament has adopted a law that will require the use of the Ukrainian language in most aspects of public life, a decision supporters say will strengthen national identity but that critics contend could disenfranchise the country’s native Russian speakers.
The law, which passed with a 278-38 majority, will require all Ukrainian citizens to know the state language and that it be used while performing official duties. Those subject to the latter requirement will include politicians, judges, doctors, employees of the national bank and state-owned companies, officers in the military, teachers and others.
The new law also requires that 90% of TV and film content be in Ukrainian and for Ukrainian-language printed media and books to make up at least 50% of the total output."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...law-enforcing-use-of-ukrainian-in-public-life
That is, a de facto ban on the Russian language (what people familiar with segregation studies will understand immediately as a discriminatory practice designed to disenfranchise).
(3) Questionable. No doubt there was Russian influence (from beyond the Donbass, from inside Russia) but he is trying to claim that they were not really "Ukrainian" (the thousands upon thousands of separatist fighters), and this is done by comparing "Russian national" to the pastoral image of "coal miner", as if you only qualify as non-Russian agent if you are this romanticised Ukrainian coal miner. It is misdirection.
He moves on to provide more propaganda instructions in the guise of being alarmed about the superiority of Russian propaganda:
(10) If you host a panel discussion, correct your guests, if they use these false narratives, made up by the Kremlin.
Ukraine has never waged war against its own people.
Russian speaking Ukrainians ≠ "Separatists", they also love their country.
“Ukraine has never waged a war against its own people”. Not completely true, or a misleading value judgement. A civil war, even one confined to the Donbas region meets that exact definition.
(11) Putin's war against Ukraine is not about NATO, it is because he does not allow his neighbours to have a free, democratic and European future and he wants to restore the "Russian Empire".
Perhaps some truth to this, but NATO is clearly an issue (however much, people can decide for themselves). On his other points, if it is about democracy and freedom, why not invade Finland?
(12) Ukraine was non-aligned in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and attacked in Donbas. This is why the idea of joining NATO became popular.
Ukraine had been receiving NATO support covertly well before the annexation of Crimea. This is recognised in the Atlantic Council's own document (and there is obvious proof of CIA/State Department involvement in the Maidan coup). A misleading claim as NATO was popular (a thing) before even Maidan.
OK, so that is 12 points in which the author deals with some truth and adds in some intentional or unintentional deception (poor disinformation analyst or it's an Orwellian use of the term). The framing of the issue is the threat of "Russian propaganda" and how we should all be worried as it is too powerful for us to withstand. This conceals the dual purpose of the thread. One, assume he is somewhat/entirely genuine, and the first purpose is to raise the alarm. Two, assume he has an interest in pushing his own narrative and it becomes propaganda about propaganda and concealed as such.
Now a statement from the Atlantic Council's Global Strategy Document (2022):
They state: "The list of Kremlin provocations is long and includes military action notably in Georgia and Ukraine and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in the United States and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators" (AC 10).
Modifying the first statement you get two and each is correct:
1. "The list of Kremlin provocations is long and includes military action notably in Georgia and Ukraine and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in the United States and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators."
2. "The list of [Washington's] provocations is long and includes military action notably in [Latin and South America, as well as the Middle East] and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in [Russia and] and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators."
(Link: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/con...ion-today-for-constructive-relations-tomorrow)
The second statement, however, will never (or exceedingly rarely) make it into prime-time news coverage (will you see it on NBC?). In the first statement, Russia quite often broadcasts aspects of its role abroad. They do not do it in the sense of "Russia is evil, it interferes with other countries", but in the sense of "It is alleged that Russia has interfered with other countries" [context being that those alleging this are viewed as "evil": the US or other boogeymen].
Reconstructed versions of each statement are broadcast in both the US and Russia. In the US, it is framed as "democracy" or "freedom" doing what "democracy/freedom" must do from a morally obligated viewpoint. That is, the US as benign hegemon is presupposed and rarely questioned. The authors of this document presuppose this view so much that it never occurred to them to invert the terms and see how fitting their description is of their own position.
If there is a jarring difference, it is that Russia, being much more limited in its capacity to wage war and interfere with countries abroad, takes a backhanded pride when it does manage to do so. This boosts Putin's prestige via Russian military power with that part of his base which suffered humiliation in the Yeltsin years and can now bask in the reflected glory of a newly powerful Russian state.
When (1) is disseminated in Russia, it is presented from a position of faux denial which achieves two distinct aims: it popularizes the idea that Russia is powerful abroad for an internal audience resentful of the West whilst also formally denying these accusations in the same instance. This amounts to a clever affirmation-by-denial methodology: Russian state does not care if its people believe or disbelieve the claim (US elections, for example). In fact, by refuting it they are validating it [their influence within the US system] and that is what is clever from RT/Sputnik/Russian state point of view.
That is a very brief functional way of looking at propaganda. I will deal with the more theoretical/abstract point I was trying to make later (the totalitarian/autocracy/democracy distinctions) and then people should understand what I meant even if they disagree with me.
His bio:
#Disinformation analyst #Russian Disinfo against #Ukraine #MediaLiteracy trainer & Political Advisor Programmatic director
@ZentrumSM
co-founder
@VIEgoEU
He is a self-professed disinformation analyst who promotes media literacy. He also promotes disinformation, or misinformation, depending on whether he intends to mislead or does so by mistake.
From which there are 12 points:
(1) Russian Disinfo-Strategy
Professor @TimothyDSnyder
tried to warn us already in 2014. Putin is using different (disinfo) stories, for different target audiences. He has a storyline for the far left, for the far right, some storylines fit to both parts of the political spectrum.
True.
(2) What Europeans have completely overseen, especially during the last months, was that he has also specific storylines for the European audience and his own, domestic audience. "NATO expansion" vs. "Genocide in Donbas" "Nazis in Ukraine", "imminent Ukrainian attack on Donbas/Crimea"
True.
(3) If we take a look at the messages he delivered to his domestic audience, it is quite easy to see, that there was never a realistic chance to reach a diplomatic solution. You can't tell your people about "attacks" or "genocide" and not react, just because NATO takes a step back.
Not true (debateable). If the US had given Russia an insanely good offer, would they have gone to war? I doubt it.
(4) I spoke to several "pro regime" Russians since the beginning of the 2022 war. "Ukrainians are Nazis", "what happened in Donbas since 2014?" are their main arguments. When I debunk these narratives, their last "hope" is to claim "but we cannot allow NATO to come so close".
"Ukrainians are Nazis": not true. "Some Ukrainians are Nazis": is true.
(5) What worries me, that they seem quite well prepared, they are "educated", with the tools of their propaganda playbook. Western audiences are much less prepared to debunk any of the Russian disinformation narratives except the existance of the war itself ("special operation").
Ambiguous, but the propaganda war has quite clearly been asymmetrical. Remember the Ghost of Kyiv and the Spartan Islanders? And a lot of other fake stories that mainstream news outlets even stated were fake or likely fake but were good for morale, so it was not that important. The idea that the Russians are better prepared for a propaganda war has no factual bearing.
(6) Media Literacy is not enough to withstand Russian propaganda against Ukraine. We need to educate our societies about Ukraine, about the situation there, about what really happened in 2014 and the several myths spread by the Russian Federation.
OK. Media literacy is insufficient for all kinds of propaganda, but largely insufficient for internal propaganda (this twitter thread is one long propaganda mission which frames Russian propaganda as the threat thereby concealing the effect of its own aim).
(7) Knowledge about the biographies of Igor Girkin, Alexander Borodai and many actors of Kremlin propaganda, such as Kiselyov, Solovyov, Simonyan and Peskov, is a good starting point.
No claim, just a plan about how to side and promulgate a particular narrative ideology.
(8) I think we should focus on
- Donbas and how it started there
- disinfo about a "Russian language ban" in Ukraine
Not only the far right/far left believes in those myths
Dubious. He will go on to claim that there was no Russian language ban.
More here (9)
(9) If you are a teacher or journalist (thread)
1) there was never a "civil war" or "ethnic conflict" in Ukraine
2) there was never any kind of "Russian language ban"
3) The founders of the "separatist republics" were Russian nationalists from Moscow not coal miners from Donbas
(1) Not true. There has been a civil war ongoing for eight years. Call it an ethnic conflict if you want, but you are dealing with semantics.
(2) Not true:
"Ukraine’s parliament has adopted a law that will require the use of the Ukrainian language in most aspects of public life, a decision supporters say will strengthen national identity but that critics contend could disenfranchise the country’s native Russian speakers.
The law, which passed with a 278-38 majority, will require all Ukrainian citizens to know the state language and that it be used while performing official duties. Those subject to the latter requirement will include politicians, judges, doctors, employees of the national bank and state-owned companies, officers in the military, teachers and others.
The new law also requires that 90% of TV and film content be in Ukrainian and for Ukrainian-language printed media and books to make up at least 50% of the total output."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...law-enforcing-use-of-ukrainian-in-public-life
That is, a de facto ban on the Russian language (what people familiar with segregation studies will understand immediately as a discriminatory practice designed to disenfranchise).
(3) Questionable. No doubt there was Russian influence (from beyond the Donbass, from inside Russia) but he is trying to claim that they were not really "Ukrainian" (the thousands upon thousands of separatist fighters), and this is done by comparing "Russian national" to the pastoral image of "coal miner", as if you only qualify as non-Russian agent if you are this romanticised Ukrainian coal miner. It is misdirection.
He moves on to provide more propaganda instructions in the guise of being alarmed about the superiority of Russian propaganda:
(10) If you host a panel discussion, correct your guests, if they use these false narratives, made up by the Kremlin.
Ukraine has never waged war against its own people.
Russian speaking Ukrainians ≠ "Separatists", they also love their country.
“Ukraine has never waged a war against its own people”. Not completely true, or a misleading value judgement. A civil war, even one confined to the Donbas region meets that exact definition.
(11) Putin's war against Ukraine is not about NATO, it is because he does not allow his neighbours to have a free, democratic and European future and he wants to restore the "Russian Empire".
Perhaps some truth to this, but NATO is clearly an issue (however much, people can decide for themselves). On his other points, if it is about democracy and freedom, why not invade Finland?
(12) Ukraine was non-aligned in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and attacked in Donbas. This is why the idea of joining NATO became popular.
Ukraine had been receiving NATO support covertly well before the annexation of Crimea. This is recognised in the Atlantic Council's own document (and there is obvious proof of CIA/State Department involvement in the Maidan coup). A misleading claim as NATO was popular (a thing) before even Maidan.
OK, so that is 12 points in which the author deals with some truth and adds in some intentional or unintentional deception (poor disinformation analyst or it's an Orwellian use of the term). The framing of the issue is the threat of "Russian propaganda" and how we should all be worried as it is too powerful for us to withstand. This conceals the dual purpose of the thread. One, assume he is somewhat/entirely genuine, and the first purpose is to raise the alarm. Two, assume he has an interest in pushing his own narrative and it becomes propaganda about propaganda and concealed as such.
Now a statement from the Atlantic Council's Global Strategy Document (2022):
They state: "The list of Kremlin provocations is long and includes military action notably in Georgia and Ukraine and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in the United States and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators" (AC 10).
Modifying the first statement you get two and each is correct:
1. "The list of Kremlin provocations is long and includes military action notably in Georgia and Ukraine and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in the United States and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators."
2. "The list of [Washington's] provocations is long and includes military action notably in [Latin and South America, as well as the Middle East] and changing borders by force, relentless and ongoing cyberattacks, electoral interference in [Russia and] and numerous other democratic countries, assassinations abroad, disinformation campaigns, coup attempts, and efforts to buck up dictators."
(Link: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/con...ion-today-for-constructive-relations-tomorrow)
The second statement, however, will never (or exceedingly rarely) make it into prime-time news coverage (will you see it on NBC?). In the first statement, Russia quite often broadcasts aspects of its role abroad. They do not do it in the sense of "Russia is evil, it interferes with other countries", but in the sense of "It is alleged that Russia has interfered with other countries" [context being that those alleging this are viewed as "evil": the US or other boogeymen].
Reconstructed versions of each statement are broadcast in both the US and Russia. In the US, it is framed as "democracy" or "freedom" doing what "democracy/freedom" must do from a morally obligated viewpoint. That is, the US as benign hegemon is presupposed and rarely questioned. The authors of this document presuppose this view so much that it never occurred to them to invert the terms and see how fitting their description is of their own position.
If there is a jarring difference, it is that Russia, being much more limited in its capacity to wage war and interfere with countries abroad, takes a backhanded pride when it does manage to do so. This boosts Putin's prestige via Russian military power with that part of his base which suffered humiliation in the Yeltsin years and can now bask in the reflected glory of a newly powerful Russian state.
When (1) is disseminated in Russia, it is presented from a position of faux denial which achieves two distinct aims: it popularizes the idea that Russia is powerful abroad for an internal audience resentful of the West whilst also formally denying these accusations in the same instance. This amounts to a clever affirmation-by-denial methodology: Russian state does not care if its people believe or disbelieve the claim (US elections, for example). In fact, by refuting it they are validating it [their influence within the US system] and that is what is clever from RT/Sputnik/Russian state point of view.
That is a very brief functional way of looking at propaganda. I will deal with the more theoretical/abstract point I was trying to make later (the totalitarian/autocracy/democracy distinctions) and then people should understand what I meant even if they disagree with me.
Last edited:
R/chodi and r/indiaspeaks have both been banned by reddit. Both these subs have spent years calling for genocide of minorities but the moment they support Russia they get banned.
Last edited:
I agree bro. Every cloud has a silver lining
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...pple-tyrant-putin-internal-applicants-welcome
The arrogance of this article. Yea let's encourage a coup that will likely cost thousands of lives and destroy a country, same to what these Western powers have tried to do in Libyia and Syria.
" Meanwhile, backsliding, fence-sitting, ostensibly pro-western governments in Israel, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE that refuse to sanction Russia, must be firmly reminded who their real friends are – and how their interests are best served. "
What the f*ck.
The arrogance of this article. Yea let's encourage a coup that will likely cost thousands of lives and destroy a country, same to what these Western powers have tried to do in Libyia and Syria.
" Meanwhile, backsliding, fence-sitting, ostensibly pro-western governments in Israel, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE that refuse to sanction Russia, must be firmly reminded who their real friends are – and how their interests are best served. "
What the f*ck.
@Mciahel Goodman
A long read but a good one (in case you have not seen it): http://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/17/h...-to-power-and-sociopathic-racist-gaslighting/
Title:
HAMSTER IN A WHEEL: INTERNATIONAL LAW, CRISIS, EXCEPTIONALISM, WHATABOUTERY, SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER, AND SOCIOPATHIC, RACIST GASLIGHTING
A long read but a good one (in case you have not seen it): http://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/17/h...-to-power-and-sociopathic-racist-gaslighting/
Title:
HAMSTER IN A WHEEL: INTERNATIONAL LAW, CRISIS, EXCEPTIONALISM, WHATABOUTERY, SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER, AND SOCIOPATHIC, RACIST GASLIGHTING
Last edited:
That looks good, thanks (was thinking about the idea of the "perpetual crisis" lately so will give it a read).
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Isn’t it sexism that the Russian leader always has to be a ‘strong man’? The country needs to join the world in 2022 not the 1970s
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Not that stupid though. In recent years, several Eastern European countries have had women in high positions of their respective governments.
Maia Sandu - President of Moldova
Natalia Gavrilița - Prime Minister of Moldova
Sanna Marin - Prime Minister of Finland
Vjosa Osmani - President of Kosovo
Kaja Kallas - Prime Minister of Estonia
Kersti Kaljulaid - Former President of Estonia
Ingrida Šimonytė - Prime Minister of Lithuania
Zuzana Čaputová - President of Slovakia
Salome Zourabichvili - President of Georgia
Ana Brnabić - Prime Minister of Serbia
Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - Former President of Croatia
Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine was a driving force behind the push for her country towards the EU before Yanukovych did his shenanigans against her and precipitated his own downfall later. We can say whatever we want, but Eastern Europeans already broke the barrier a lot more times and long before most Western countries have done so. In any case, the Putin type of machismo deserves to die and be buried forever as the last thing a country needs is a leader voided of any sense of empathy and touch with reality.
Sure it is. But it is equally sexism to assume that a woman would do stuff different. Some of the most bloodthirsty leaders in history have been women (this also applies to Russia). So a woman as Russian president might still want to be a "strong leader" and still want to fight such wars.
I agree with your last paragraph. My point is simply that electing a woman isn't a guarantee to get rid of that mindset.
And in general I think gender equality was far better in northern and eastern European countries than in western. It is no coincidence I think that for example Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany, not in the West. So you could even add Germany to your list.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that statistic.
Yet I doubt that you can conclude that simply by involving women you get better results in a peace process. I would like to create the hypothesis that more evolved societies tend to have better equality and at the same time tend to be more peaceful - so that this statistic is correlation, not causality. Or in other words, the solution isn't to involve women for the sake of it, but to develop a society to a point were it's natural that women are involved.
And even if it should be a causality, it still is statistics that gives no indication how a certain individual might behave.
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Discrimination means choosing or favouring one thing over another (e.g. you might discriminate between brown bread and white bread, and favour the former) - it doesn't necessarily have negative connotations.
Discrimination on the basis of gender- yes. Stupid - no, not in this instance.
It's clear by almost every measure that men are far more prone than women to both commit and glorify violence. You only have to look at the violent crime stats to see this.
It's very obvious to me that if every political leader across the world was female, and every senior military commander was also female, there would be far less warfare in the world.
An excellent article. My running commentary below. Most of my objections were answered in the article itself (the author using the received premises to establish the inconsistencies, I thought, briefly, I was about to disagree with the entire piece). Thanks.
The argument is itself discredited (almost a priori) by the fact that it originates from a hypocritical context. To make a moral pronunciation from a position easily defined as structural immorality, is to be absurd. Whataboutism, as conceived here, should be understood not as a deflection tactic (though some may use it as such) but as a call for consistency without which we cannot credibly judge anyone (and cannot, moreover [as state managers for example] expect our fellow citizens to take such arguments seriously).
It isn't morally corrupt except as far as one cannot avoid moral contagion when responding to a person (or state) positively drenched in such. It is however not a justification, that is true. The point, though, is that wars are not legally justifiable (when was the outbreak of war decided by a council of lawyers?) except after the fact in hermeneutic or before the fact in politically contaminated casus belli. Law is politics but politics is not law; war as legal or illegal, when not a moral judgement, is a political judgement, whether this is enshrined in legalise or in polemic. Moreover, lawyers will be the first to note that law quite often has nothing particularly to do with morality but with procedure and precedent (a series of structural principles which are continuously revised to justify or condemn new acts after the fact). Law is typically a reactionary profession though there may be ideological legal minds (the doctrine of centrism is an ideology, hollow though it is, based on maintaining the status quo).
Well, yes, exactly. And the problem with the discourse has been conflating the intentions of those with no link or tie to Russia or Russian interests with anti-Russian propaganda (as Russian propagandists).
This does not hold, or if it does, then how many convictions should now be overruled? What is a suitable timeline for someone to become a new person and therefore not be responsible for the things they previously did? Ignoring the metaphysical, let's deal with the actual. Gordon Brown condemned the invasion in his capacity as public speaker and ex-Prime Minister and ex-Chancellor during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was because of his position as such that his remarks were even broadcast as relevant; Gordon Brown the non-public man who never held state office is a fictitious construct, a clever legal argument which dances around the reality of the situation (it is sophistry).
Yes. It is an ethnocentrism which elevates the European as exceptional in a perverse way. It is perverse, primarily, because it is this same image of the European (now manifest in those who preach Ukranian exceptionalism) which was marshalled when we went about the business of regime change in the Middle East (the 21st century's refrain of the "white man's burden"). The exceptionalism is thus double ("ethnocentrism squared").
But to move back on my earlier commentary, it is not technically Ukraine that is "exceptional", it is America and Europe which are exceptional, and which use Ukraine as proxy to maintain said exceptionalism. Ukraine was not exceptional during 2014-2022 (or rather, it was not exceptional until Maidan after which its exceptionalism died down to be reprised in the context of Russia's invasion and our collectiv(izing) response).
Absolutely. Pick any Western country (or Western European) you can name and the above holds.
All of this is accurate (especially the plural usage of "we" which works to exclude and presume rather than work toward any actual unity).
Yes.
Exactly, the Rubicon has been crossed except you could be forgiven for thinking there was no crossing: the results are already in, we are not welcoming the Yemenis, we are not even speaking about stopping arms shipments to the Saudis and Emiratis. We balance this latter inconsistency by equivocation: we invoke a realist version of geopolitics which we abandon completely in the Ukranian case (we must support the Saudis because [insert Iran or Russia again or whoever you want]).
Yes.
I agree with the rest (in-between) and that is a good conclusion. Excellent article.
“Now we witness the Black Riders finally together — all nine Riders — giving chase to Arwen and Frodo. When we see the Orcs destroy their environment, it is this big scandal. But Arwen is able to send a whole herd of watery horses down a river, no doubt a very delicate ecosystem, and probably completely demolish it, and no one says anything about that.”
Chomsky and Zinn commentary on The Fellowship of the Ring - Parts One and Two
Chomsky and Zinn commentary on The Fellowship of the Ring - Parts One and Two
Very good
Edit: I take it this was written after Iraq 03 as a response to bith their positions.
The actual quote:
Instead of another longwinded post, I just want to reproduce part of an article which deconstructs the general idea of propaganda in democratic societies:
For anyone interested, you can download the full text for free here (may have to create an account).
One of the stranger exchanges I've had on here I think and perhaps the first time I've thought your arguments are not particularly in good faith, as @Rajma has suggested. Especially the rather weird obfuscation regarding authoritarian/ totalitarian, when I've never once mentioned the word totalitarian.
The whole argument you're presenting about propaganda essentially boils down to 2 fundamental points. Propaganda in authoritarian/ autocratic states is so obvious that 'the people' know they're being fed propaganda and therefore don't believe it. Meanwhile, the propaganda in the West is so subtle, so superb, that Westerners don't realise they're being fed propaganda.
Like I said in my initial post, I can only assume that this comes from someone who hasn't lived in such a state/ who doesn't know people from such states. It is not, imo, correct to say that 'people' know they are being fed propaganda. This may be the case to some extent in big cities, from outward leaning members of that society who may consume outside media and use western social media etc. This is far less likely to be the case outside of those circles and these are the circles that you are infinitely less likely to interact with, unless you happen to speak fluent Chinese/ Russian/Arabic etc.
Rajma and Harms have already spoken of their own experiences with Russian for instance and one of them is totally non-representative of Russian society at large, whilst the other doesn't even live in Russia. I know quite a few Chinese people, including young who are in their 20s/30s, who genuinely believed for instance that a red bracelet they had to wear at school contained the blood of the Communist martyrs, encouraged by both their school and parents and only realised the low likelihood of this when they went to study abroad. Most Chinese do not study abroad. There was a long queue outside Mao's mausoleum when I visited of crying Chinese people (though if you told me the Royals receive a similar reverence here I'd agree!)
The country which I am most closely associated with now via a section of my wife's family (Egypt), and in which I have also spent a portion of my life, is no different. A good portion of those in-laws, despite being well-off, well-educated, with access to satellite TV and the internet/YT etc and some having travelled abroad, will parrot the official party (Sisi) line in almost everything, even for things that are genuinely so nonsensical that its difficult to imagine how they came up with them. Once you go outside the big cities, especially into the countryside, where people are less likely to be well-educated, less likely to consume anything other than official government media and where they have constant streams of what to think from such media/ their local imam/priest/tribal leader, the questioning becomes even less. I have been in a room of fellow doctors who are Egyptian who live and have lived in the UK for a long while with over half claiming that the military device which cures Hep B/C/HIV and turns it into kofta, is real. Doctors. Living in the West. (https://arabist.net/blog/2014/3/11/kofta-gate) (https://scoopempire.com/egypt-doctors-suspended-using-kofta-aids-device/)
It is also the absolute height of arrogance to state that someone thinking 'Western' propaganda (by itself a ridiculous term, as German or Spanish media is not the same as American or Italian) is not 'better' than Russian media thinks there is no problem, which are two wildly different statements with absolutely no link. Just as it would be foolish to say that because you think Western propaganda is better than Russian, that you don't think there's a problem in the Russian media sphere.
It's a shame because there's an inkling of a point underneath the weird comparison that it's better elsewhere. For example this this morning from the BBC:
Now I'm not going to necessarily presume about 'western media'. I've barely had enough time to follow it properly, let alone in many different outlets across different countries and languages. Potentially things have changed since I last looked this up last week too. But it's not true that it's one of the few countries still to do so. Last I looked about a week ago, it was essentially USA/Canada/EU/UK/Switzerland/Australia/NZ/Singapore/SK/Japan/Taiwan. And one random tiny south American country. So essentially 'the global north'.
Which is not to downplay those sanctions but to criticise the framing. The condemnation has been almost universal, the sanctions far less so.
Now I'm not going to necessarily presume about 'western media'. I've barely had enough time to follow it properly, let alone in many different outlets across different countries and languages. Potentially things have changed since I last looked this up last week too. But it's not true that it's one of the few countries still to do so. Last I looked about a week ago, it was essentially USA/Canada/EU/UK/Switzerland/Australia/NZ/Singapore/SK/Japan/Taiwan. And one random tiny south American country. So essentially 'the global north'.
Which is not to downplay those sanctions but to criticise the framing. The condemnation has been almost universal, the sanctions far less so.
@africanspur They are talking about NATO countries.
That is true in fairness, morning mind still at work here. Its worded in a slightly weird way but you're right, I've read that incorrectly I think.
No worries, it happens to all of us.
Yeah, I agree. The sanctions map is basically the EU/UK, NATO, and the Asian countries you list. The majority of countries don't want to get in the midle of (what they see as) an American/Russo-Chinese split. At least, it's easier for them to condemn Russia than it is to follow up on that through sanctions. The majority of the world, really, has been outside the sanctions regime.
I took your original post the wrong way (actually thought you were talking about totalitarianism) but you make some good points in this post which I'm taking into account. I address some of them above which almost clarifies what I meant (don't really want to go back over it right now).
That's not what I meant. But Western media is more homogenous (if we mean OECD+EU) than is presumed. The American model has been taken by most at this point though there were real differences decades ago and might be again in the future. I was never saying there wasn't a problem with Russian media, either. My point there is that Russian media is absolutely propagandistic (and we are told such, and many Russians acknowledge it, too) whereas we rarely view our media as being propaganda (which it always is).
Last edited:
Think he may be referring to the promise of land to 1000 Scottish crofters and their families (Red Hand of Ulster etc.) shipped to what is now Northern Ireland a couple of centuries back?
Not to derail this thread too much, but this link gives a brief history...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla...anglicising and 'civilising' parts of Ireland.
It started under the Tudors, with sponsored plantations in places like Munster. Anyway, let’s avoid that particular rabbithole in a Ukraine thread.
History has a habit of influencing the present. The 'legitimacy' of Britain's current control of the 6 counties hinges entirely on the fact that the Unionist community in that very carefully selected part of the island was and is (for now), larger than the Republican community. If it wasn't for English, and later British, governments manipulating the demographics of the area through forced displacement, oppression and discrimination against Irish people and settlement of British people, Northern Ireland would simply not exist as a political entity. At the same time, the reason Northern Ireland exists in its current form is because, in the peace treaty which ended the War of Independence, Britain decided where the lines would be drawn and did so to maximise the amount of territory it could maintain with the veneer of legitimacy granted by a majority Unionist population. Off the top of my head, only Counties Down, Antrim and maybe Derry had a majority Unionist population in 1922. If a vote had been done county-by-county, Northern Ireland could be a 3 county state. Regardless of your political bent and your views on the legitimacy of Northern Ireland generally, it's difficult to classify British control over Omagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone as anything other than a colonial landgrab.
The relevance of the above to Russia's annexation of Ukrainian over the last decade (and Russian action in Ukraine historically) is quite clear. I'm pretty sure the Russian majority in Crimea was created centuries ago by the forced displacement of the Crimean Tatars. In the present day, it's a playbook Putin has used and likely will use again to provide a paper-thin sliver of legitimacy to Russia's territorial expansion. Use force, or the threat thereof, to drive as many non-Russians as possible out of an area, move more Russians in, work out the biggest possible area where you can guarantee a 'loyal' majority and arrange a referendum in that area in which the majority you've created votes to transfer ownership of the land to Russia. Fix the referendum for good measure and start governing the territory despite the international outcry. As in Northern Ireland, and basically anywhere where a colonial power has forcibly settled against the wishes of the current inhabitants (America, for one), once there is a generation or two of 'loyal' Russian citizens born and bred in an area it suddenly becomes very difficult to argue that the land isn't theirs and they need to pack up and give it back.
Last edited:
The DUP have gerrymandered the feck out of NI.
Gerrymandering is basically the founding principle of Northern Ireland, no surprise that the DUP hold it very close to their hearts as a proud British tradition.
There’s nationalist parts of Belfast that are just catching up with development simply because the government didn’t want their numbers rising in their area.
And Russia has hundreds of them. These are nasty feckers.
Where did they send them, Australia? Or just southern Ireland? I should know more about all that seeing as I have Irish and English descent (and Welsh and Scottish).
We deported loads to the Caribbean after the Civil War too.
That is very interesting and thank you for posting it.