Thanks for a really interesting article. It's not hard to see why our government wants to push the idea that Putin has simply gone crazy. That stops any serious discussion that our own policies have anything to do with the current situation - especially the green energy agenda. But it has been amazing to see how quickly the entire country has gone full-blown neocon.
We've been heading in this "groupthink" direction for years. It's the logical culmination of the idea that free speech is dangerous, that "misinformation" should be surpressed, and that the elites should control what are considered acceptable views. We bought into the idea that debate and persuasion are unnecessary, it's better and safer to shut down the offending arguments.
I never agree with Kamala Harris, but when she said recently that the American people are "getting exactly what they ordered" in the election, she is absolutely correct. Ideas have consequences.
Thanks Heyjude! The groupthink is so quickly and easily achieved now, when we get targeted messages of what we want to see and hear. It worked in the 1950s too, but it’s so much quicker and easier now.
Yes, social media is a propagandist's dream. It facilitates both dissemination of "correct thought", and detecting and eliminating dissent. This goes way beyond just targeted messaging.
And anyone who talks about the "dangerous spread of misinformation" is guilty of complicity in allowing this to happen.
It goes beyond targeted messaging, agreed, _but_ I think it’s the targeted messaging that helps the propaganda along. More conservative outlets are focusing on how Putin is a threat to us, how we need to stand up to him and show him we’re not weak. It appeals to people who value authoritarianism, strength, showing others we’re #1. More liberal outlets are appealing to the poor refugees, and the situation for the terrified people of Ukraine caught in the middle of danger. It appeals to people’s sense of care and concern for other people in trouble.
Once we’re all united against Putin (who totally deserves people united against him by the way) but once our emotional systems are activated in ways that “work on us” we are primed to run on emotion and not rational logic. So if the government wants to do anything, it will be a very easy sell.
One other small bone of contention- co-mingling "conservative" and "authoritarianism". Back to labels. It bothers because I've always been libertarian- leaning conservative, primal because of my belief in individual liberty, so uniquely enshrined in our Constitution. It's the exact opposite of authoritarianism. Not only were our founders fed up with being ruled, they saw the danger of pure democracy (another word thoroughly misunderstood due to careless usage). Though Trump was more populist, it's laughable to label him an authoritarian. What "ruler" would allow the peasants to keep more of their labor, unburdened by regulations? Now, one could argue for or against the policies. He was no pure conservative. But to classify them as fascist or authoritarian is mis-labeling. Yet he and any conservative are now labeled as such, thanks largely to our media. I understand your mention here isn't intended that way (I hope). You've written extensively about the danger of labels,, and that's one reason I enjoy your perspective. It just drives me nuts whenever i see it mentioned that way. Really like this article
When I hear Trump described as authoritarian, I think of things like his “strongman” type speeches (talking about throwing people out of his rallies) and that ridiculous military parade he wanted to throw for himself. It was very reminiscent of Mussolini. But he didn’t want power so much as perhaps uncritical adulation so... I see your point but I think of Trump as an authoritarian yes. Or at very least a hard-core narcissist, which often goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
If he wanted to disrupt those perceptions he could have really drained the swamp (he didn’t even try), put a damper on his own nepotistic tendencies (he didn’t), or gone against the wishes of the deep state (for instance by pardoning Assange who arguably helped him get elected although I’m pretty sure that wasn’t Assange’s intention--but he didn’t-- he said a lot of outrageous stuff and gloried in the attention but didn’t carry through on his big promises.
I don’t think he was smart enough, and certainly not emotionally resilient enough, to be president.
Not that we’ve done any better with the nepotistic dotard we have now.
Definitely narcissistic. His personality polarizes, no question. I disagree re his job performance and intelligence. He came in naive on issues like the swamp. It's far deeper and entrenched than anyone knew. Noone, however, attains that level of success dumbing their way into it. He speaks in hyperbole because he thinks that way- big big big. That being said, he deserves criticism in areas you mentioned. He also deserves fair assessment. Remember, he faced a total deep state operation run against him, unlike anything we've ever seen. I'm no Trump apologist. But the guy took arrows noone should have to face
Trump wasnt my main point. I mentor him because he formed a convenient link between the labels "conservative" and "authoritarian"/"fascist". The media exploited it to no end, dehumanizing political opposition. (I have a lot of thoughts on dehumanizing. I think I'll write some tonight). That's what pisses me and many others off about it. Trump was merely a proxy. The real target was anyone "conservative"
Your points are well taken. I love the conversation, and you have a way of finding different angles that provoke rethinking of today's challenges- a rare commodity. Thank you
Very interesting article. How in the world did Ukraine become a US and Western obsession? I can't think of another country that's dominated our affairs over the last several years. And nobody knows what the hell is going on. The NATO thing makes sense. We wouldn't want that at our border. But there is something very odd with its outsized influence. We've had hunter, 2016 election, impeachment over a phone call, now this cluster- over Ukraine? There's got to be something fishy going on between the political class and that country. If you don't pledge allegiance hard enough, you get trashed. Makes no sense
I think if nothing else, we’ve learned that our media is an arm of our government / intelligence agencies, and we can’t believe anything we see on the news, which is really sad and really difficult for us. See for instance this short video. It’s eerie how all our news media tell the same false story: https://youtu.be/8qQazyJ99OE
Just watched this. Amazing. And it was kind of my point with the conservative labeling mentioned above. It's a coordinated word attack by appearance. And it's downright dangerous
Exactly. And war is profitable. It doesn’t take a supergenius to figure that out, and that’s not a “conspiracy theory” but a plain fact. Scott Ritter tried to talk us out of war with Iraq, but war with Iraq was very profitable to, say, Dick Cheney and anyone else invested in weapons manufacturers. It will be profitable again, and it’s a lot easier when you have everyone’s agreement.
No doubt we're not getting the "whole story" about Ukraine. Doubt the American public got the whole story about Japan before or after Pearl Harbor, either. (I've been around for a while, but I wasn't quite "around" back then.)
That we seem more easily psychologically influenced and persuadable now than perhaps in the past is not a surprise, if you have a little understanding about the human psyche and take into account the advent of the digital age. I mean, a whole new occupation has recently become popular because of that fact...the "influencers" that permeate social media platforms. As to whether or not we truly have free will because of that, well I don't know (although I know what I believe.) And if I do decide one way or the other, how am I to know if that's actually my own inner decision or something totally "influenced" from without? Bit of a Catch 22, no?
I like regular fries. Curly fries...eehh. So I'm probably not nearly as smart as I think I am. On the other hand, I've never spent so much as a nano second on Twitter, and eschew all social media as if it were the plague. So, while not a genius by any means, how dumb can I possibly be?
I think we’re not _just_ not getting the full story about Ukraine. I’m seeing people who normally seem level-headed and rational promote the most ridiculous urban-legend sounding stuff about the most wicked atrocities imaginable. People’s critical faculties have left the building.
Eschewing all social media, super-genius level (I can’t say the same for myself). The curly fries thing though… puts just a teensy tarnish on it.
Should we really call them Nazis for having far right views?
The word gets thrown around so easily nowadays, that I doubt people realize how much weight this word carries and how many horrible views are necessary to reach this.
I might be biased due to German perception and somehow a different understanding of what this word means compared to the rest of the world.
Otherwise once again a very interesting article, which brought up many important points to keep a neutral view in these times.
Thanks for your comment! I am not an expert on Ukraine and the specific beliefs of its far-right — not even close— but my understanding from Ritter and a few others is that these influential Ukrainians in the military who are supported by the oligarch (who has also bought and paid for their actor president Zelensky) are associated with white supremacists and neo-Nazi ideology and use Nazi insignia or symbols, and these people have a outsized influence on the government compared to their numbers. Perhaps it’s oversimplified to call them “Nazis”— would neo-Nazis be more accurate? White supremacists?
I think Putin is probably sincerely worried about “Nazis” but also it’s a convenient talking point / propaganda point for him too. Russians hate “Nazis” still. I think the biggest problem is the US influence and the US doesn’t care if they have influence via Nazis or Islamic extremists or anyone else. The US is completely amoral in this respect.
I'm having trouble getting the "labels" thread to display properly, so I will just write a new comment.
I understand why people object to labels that tend to put groups of people and viewpoints in separate little boxes. In reality, hardly anyone fits completely in one labeled "box". But language is important. We always tell kids to "use your words". I fear that is something we are losing. We don't seem to be able to agree on definitions of words anymore, and I think that is dangerous for a culture. Can't define "woman" if you are not a biologist?
Maybe political ideas have become like a kaleidoscope that has fallen into a new pattern. Then we need a way to describe the new pattern.
To be fair to the “I’m not a biologist” woman, she knew that whatever she might say, she was walking into a political mine field. I wish she had been braver and cared more about that issue, but she just wasn’t, and didn’t.
However, I agree about definitions. We don’t have common understandings of basic things, and we think our common understandings are “right” and the other people with their different understandings of basic terms are wrong and sort of bad. It’s hard to get anywhere.
Thanks for a really interesting article. It's not hard to see why our government wants to push the idea that Putin has simply gone crazy. That stops any serious discussion that our own policies have anything to do with the current situation - especially the green energy agenda. But it has been amazing to see how quickly the entire country has gone full-blown neocon.
We've been heading in this "groupthink" direction for years. It's the logical culmination of the idea that free speech is dangerous, that "misinformation" should be surpressed, and that the elites should control what are considered acceptable views. We bought into the idea that debate and persuasion are unnecessary, it's better and safer to shut down the offending arguments.
I never agree with Kamala Harris, but when she said recently that the American people are "getting exactly what they ordered" in the election, she is absolutely correct. Ideas have consequences.
Thanks Heyjude! The groupthink is so quickly and easily achieved now, when we get targeted messages of what we want to see and hear. It worked in the 1950s too, but it’s so much quicker and easier now.
Yes, social media is a propagandist's dream. It facilitates both dissemination of "correct thought", and detecting and eliminating dissent. This goes way beyond just targeted messaging.
And anyone who talks about the "dangerous spread of misinformation" is guilty of complicity in allowing this to happen.
It goes beyond targeted messaging, agreed, _but_ I think it’s the targeted messaging that helps the propaganda along. More conservative outlets are focusing on how Putin is a threat to us, how we need to stand up to him and show him we’re not weak. It appeals to people who value authoritarianism, strength, showing others we’re #1. More liberal outlets are appealing to the poor refugees, and the situation for the terrified people of Ukraine caught in the middle of danger. It appeals to people’s sense of care and concern for other people in trouble.
Once we’re all united against Putin (who totally deserves people united against him by the way) but once our emotional systems are activated in ways that “work on us” we are primed to run on emotion and not rational logic. So if the government wants to do anything, it will be a very easy sell.
One other small bone of contention- co-mingling "conservative" and "authoritarianism". Back to labels. It bothers because I've always been libertarian- leaning conservative, primal because of my belief in individual liberty, so uniquely enshrined in our Constitution. It's the exact opposite of authoritarianism. Not only were our founders fed up with being ruled, they saw the danger of pure democracy (another word thoroughly misunderstood due to careless usage). Though Trump was more populist, it's laughable to label him an authoritarian. What "ruler" would allow the peasants to keep more of their labor, unburdened by regulations? Now, one could argue for or against the policies. He was no pure conservative. But to classify them as fascist or authoritarian is mis-labeling. Yet he and any conservative are now labeled as such, thanks largely to our media. I understand your mention here isn't intended that way (I hope). You've written extensively about the danger of labels,, and that's one reason I enjoy your perspective. It just drives me nuts whenever i see it mentioned that way. Really like this article
When I hear Trump described as authoritarian, I think of things like his “strongman” type speeches (talking about throwing people out of his rallies) and that ridiculous military parade he wanted to throw for himself. It was very reminiscent of Mussolini. But he didn’t want power so much as perhaps uncritical adulation so... I see your point but I think of Trump as an authoritarian yes. Or at very least a hard-core narcissist, which often goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
If he wanted to disrupt those perceptions he could have really drained the swamp (he didn’t even try), put a damper on his own nepotistic tendencies (he didn’t), or gone against the wishes of the deep state (for instance by pardoning Assange who arguably helped him get elected although I’m pretty sure that wasn’t Assange’s intention--but he didn’t-- he said a lot of outrageous stuff and gloried in the attention but didn’t carry through on his big promises.
I don’t think he was smart enough, and certainly not emotionally resilient enough, to be president.
Not that we’ve done any better with the nepotistic dotard we have now.
Definitely narcissistic. His personality polarizes, no question. I disagree re his job performance and intelligence. He came in naive on issues like the swamp. It's far deeper and entrenched than anyone knew. Noone, however, attains that level of success dumbing their way into it. He speaks in hyperbole because he thinks that way- big big big. That being said, he deserves criticism in areas you mentioned. He also deserves fair assessment. Remember, he faced a total deep state operation run against him, unlike anything we've ever seen. I'm no Trump apologist. But the guy took arrows noone should have to face
Trump wasnt my main point. I mentor him because he formed a convenient link between the labels "conservative" and "authoritarian"/"fascist". The media exploited it to no end, dehumanizing political opposition. (I have a lot of thoughts on dehumanizing. I think I'll write some tonight). That's what pisses me and many others off about it. Trump was merely a proxy. The real target was anyone "conservative"
Your points are well taken. I love the conversation, and you have a way of finding different angles that provoke rethinking of today's challenges- a rare commodity. Thank you
Very interesting article. How in the world did Ukraine become a US and Western obsession? I can't think of another country that's dominated our affairs over the last several years. And nobody knows what the hell is going on. The NATO thing makes sense. We wouldn't want that at our border. But there is something very odd with its outsized influence. We've had hunter, 2016 election, impeachment over a phone call, now this cluster- over Ukraine? There's got to be something fishy going on between the political class and that country. If you don't pledge allegiance hard enough, you get trashed. Makes no sense
I think if nothing else, we’ve learned that our media is an arm of our government / intelligence agencies, and we can’t believe anything we see on the news, which is really sad and really difficult for us. See for instance this short video. It’s eerie how all our news media tell the same false story: https://youtu.be/8qQazyJ99OE
Just watched this. Amazing. And it was kind of my point with the conservative labeling mentioned above. It's a coordinated word attack by appearance. And it's downright dangerous
How odd that both trains of thought (the sinners and the saints) seem to be converging on "we need more war"....
Exactly. And war is profitable. It doesn’t take a supergenius to figure that out, and that’s not a “conspiracy theory” but a plain fact. Scott Ritter tried to talk us out of war with Iraq, but war with Iraq was very profitable to, say, Dick Cheney and anyone else invested in weapons manufacturers. It will be profitable again, and it’s a lot easier when you have everyone’s agreement.
No doubt we're not getting the "whole story" about Ukraine. Doubt the American public got the whole story about Japan before or after Pearl Harbor, either. (I've been around for a while, but I wasn't quite "around" back then.)
That we seem more easily psychologically influenced and persuadable now than perhaps in the past is not a surprise, if you have a little understanding about the human psyche and take into account the advent of the digital age. I mean, a whole new occupation has recently become popular because of that fact...the "influencers" that permeate social media platforms. As to whether or not we truly have free will because of that, well I don't know (although I know what I believe.) And if I do decide one way or the other, how am I to know if that's actually my own inner decision or something totally "influenced" from without? Bit of a Catch 22, no?
I like regular fries. Curly fries...eehh. So I'm probably not nearly as smart as I think I am. On the other hand, I've never spent so much as a nano second on Twitter, and eschew all social media as if it were the plague. So, while not a genius by any means, how dumb can I possibly be?
I think we’re not _just_ not getting the full story about Ukraine. I’m seeing people who normally seem level-headed and rational promote the most ridiculous urban-legend sounding stuff about the most wicked atrocities imaginable. People’s critical faculties have left the building.
Eschewing all social media, super-genius level (I can’t say the same for myself). The curly fries thing though… puts just a teensy tarnish on it.
How 'bout onion rings? I really like those! Any extra credit for that?
Yesssssss!
Should we really call them Nazis for having far right views?
The word gets thrown around so easily nowadays, that I doubt people realize how much weight this word carries and how many horrible views are necessary to reach this.
I might be biased due to German perception and somehow a different understanding of what this word means compared to the rest of the world.
Otherwise once again a very interesting article, which brought up many important points to keep a neutral view in these times.
Thanks and have a great day
Thanks for your comment! I am not an expert on Ukraine and the specific beliefs of its far-right — not even close— but my understanding from Ritter and a few others is that these influential Ukrainians in the military who are supported by the oligarch (who has also bought and paid for their actor president Zelensky) are associated with white supremacists and neo-Nazi ideology and use Nazi insignia or symbols, and these people have a outsized influence on the government compared to their numbers. Perhaps it’s oversimplified to call them “Nazis”— would neo-Nazis be more accurate? White supremacists?
I think Putin is probably sincerely worried about “Nazis” but also it’s a convenient talking point / propaganda point for him too. Russians hate “Nazis” still. I think the biggest problem is the US influence and the US doesn’t care if they have influence via Nazis or Islamic extremists or anyone else. The US is completely amoral in this respect.
I'm having trouble getting the "labels" thread to display properly, so I will just write a new comment.
I understand why people object to labels that tend to put groups of people and viewpoints in separate little boxes. In reality, hardly anyone fits completely in one labeled "box". But language is important. We always tell kids to "use your words". I fear that is something we are losing. We don't seem to be able to agree on definitions of words anymore, and I think that is dangerous for a culture. Can't define "woman" if you are not a biologist?
Maybe political ideas have become like a kaleidoscope that has fallen into a new pattern. Then we need a way to describe the new pattern.
To be fair to the “I’m not a biologist” woman, she knew that whatever she might say, she was walking into a political mine field. I wish she had been braver and cared more about that issue, but she just wasn’t, and didn’t.
However, I agree about definitions. We don’t have common understandings of basic things, and we think our common understandings are “right” and the other people with their different understandings of basic terms are wrong and sort of bad. It’s hard to get anywhere.
Yes, I agree that she was avoiding a political minefield. The problem is that there would BE a minefield over the definition of a basic English word.