Corporate media

un articol foarte bun pe UNZ:

[…] it’s always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever. But sometimes the enemy is one of “us” … a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump, Corbyn, or Julian Assange.

[…]

Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. […]

The demonization of the empire’s enemies is not a deception … it is a loyalty test. It is a ritual in which the masses (who, let’s face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters’ enemies. Cooperative slaves have plenty of pent-up hatred to unleash upon their masters’ enemies. They have all the pent-up hatred of their masters (which they do not dare direct at their masters, except within the limits their masters allow), and they have all the hatred of themselves for being cooperative, and … well, basically, cowards.

[…]

This is why we are witnessing so many liberals (and liberals in leftist’s clothing) rushing to express their loathing of Assange in the same breath as they pretend to support him, not because they honestly believe the content of the official Julian Assange narrative that the ruling classes are disseminating, but because (a) they fear the consequences of not robotically repeating this narrative, and (b) Assange has committed the cardinal sin of reminding them that actual “resistance” to the global capitalist empire is possible, but only if you’re willing to pay the price.

AM are două articole interesante. Unul despre aviația comercială, unul despre “noutăți discrete“.

Fionna Hill is a typical Brookings Institute and, particularly, late Richard Pipes’, “product” (confused neocon that is) with “expertise” in Russia and Former Soviet Union being primarily in her knowledge of Russian language. But it is interesting that she still made it to Moscow in a very non-public manner. Which leads us to two possibilities:
1. She (and she is a perfect candidate for such a role, as any neocon is) may have been sent in a futile attempt to dictate to Russia some US demands. Well, Russia saw bigger and better bullies than  her and remained unimpressed whatsoever. In general, trying to pressure Russia doesn’t work, plus the United States realistically is not in any position to dictate anything. So, in this case we may assume that she went to Moscow with a different mission.
2. That different mission could be an attempt to arrange some kind of process with Russia which may lead to unfreezing of bilateral relations which would make possible some kind of “deal” in a long run. Strangely, such a mission and whatever this hypothetical deal may be, could be even more difficult than trying to bully Russia because Russians:
a) Fully recognize own strength and the geopolitical trend, they themselves are setting to a large degree;
b) US is not viewed as treaty-worthy subject anymore.
Un nou interviu SL.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 + 1 =

I accept the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.