ISIS not enough? How about another Cold War?

Standard

Both Western as well as Russian media sources seem to want to create another Cold War.  (Yes, some people are that evil.)  We can’t forget that within every authoritarian regime there have been propaganda agents diligently working to maintain some type of diversion so that oppression/elitism/inequality are never discussed.  Western propaganda is no different.

This is very dangerous because media trying to stir up Cold War conditions just so they have a constant scare tactic (and a constant source of eye-catching news) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BBC logo

Gorbachev

(Click for link)

RT Logo Question More

Noam Chomsky

(Click for link)

From my perspective, I don’t think the Cold War was nearly as big of a deal as it was portrayed.  I’m positive the elitists on both sides quickly developed a common understanding that such things could be exploited to divert attention away from more pressing matters.  As much as I dislike George Orwell, he was right in depicting three global superpowers dominating the world with a piece left as undisputed territory.

Let’s pretend the West is Oceania, Russia is Eurasia, China is Eastasia and that the Middle East and Africa represent the disputed territories.  Despite the mental gymnastics one must do to visualize something so otherworldly, once this mental analogy is solidly in place, one can begin to see that the tactics of constant warfare, fighting for global dominance, and shifting of alliances seen within the novel also apply to the real world.

Russian media genuinely tries to make the West out to be a bad guy while Western media does the same to Russia (as well as China.)  Both Russian and Western media use chaos and terrorism within “the disputed territories” to their advantage.  However, if that tactic is becoming too obvious, neither have a problem recreating another Cold War stalemate that can be exploited by both sides.  Upon hearing about possible warfare, right-wing extremists will immediately start calling for greater military investment (just like during the Cold War, just like Nineteen Eighty-Four, just like Ancient Rome, etc.) just like they did when Putin and the West first tussled over Crimea:

Daily Signal Logo

Putin Obama

(Click for link)

People pathologically push for conditions where their natural/instinctive drives are selected for.  If someone is a natural born slave driver, they need a system that is oppressive (it doesn’t matter which one as long as there is a demand for slave drivers.)  If somebody is pathologically wired to constantly call for investment in warfare, they will do so regardless of common sense or lessons from history.


(However, there are also those who genuinely do want a more fair and harmonious world and try to push for such conditions since it’s a complete waste of time/energy/resources maintaining gross inequality purely for the sake of those who are good at maintaining it.)

In Chomsky’s defence, I feel RT sensationalized what he was saying:

Chomsky:

“…it’s come ominously close several times in the past…”

Headline:

‘World ominously close to nuclear war – Noam Chomsky to RT’

Advertisements

Israel can’t even claim self-defence anymore.

Standard

The Netanyahu government lied about the three teens they knew were murdered by a different clan and used this as an excuse to go on a violent rampage before Hamas decided to fight back with its first rocket.

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-nightmare-gaza?page=0%2C1
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/killed-turning-onslaught.html

The Netanyahu government repeated this tactic a second time and accused Hamas of breaking the ceasefire because they claimed Hamas captured an Israeli soldier, who again turned out to have already been dead. This resulted in massive destruction and death of countless civilians.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-gaza-hamas-missing-soldier-20140802-story.html

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

The BBC

1) Is there a BBC documentary on the 1953 Iranian coup d’état?

2) Take a look at these two articles and decide for yourself which one sounds more honest:

One of the other big issues on the front pages now is Chinese “aggressiveness.” There is a lot of concern about the fact that the Chinese are building up their missile forces. Is China planning to conquer the world? Big debates about it. Well, what is really going on? For years China has been in the lead in trying to prevent the militarization of space. If you look at the debates and the Disarmament Commission of the UN General Assembly, the votes are 160 to 1 or 2. The U.S. insists on the militarization of space. It will not permit the outer space treaty to explicitly bar military relations in space.

Clinton’s position was that the U.S. should control space for military purposes. The Bush administration is more extreme. Their position is the U.S. should own space, their words, We have to own space for military purposes. So that is the spectrum of discussion here. The Chinese have been trying to block it and that is well understood. You read the most respectable journal in the world, I suppose, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and you find leading strategic analysts, John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher, a couple of years ago, warning that the Bush administration’s aggressive militarization is leading to what they call “ultimate doom.” Of course, there is going to be a reaction to it. You threaten people with destruction, they are going to react. These analysts call on peace-loving nations to counter Bush’s aggressive militarism. They hope that China will lead peace-loving nations to counter U.S. aggressiveness. It’s a pretty remarkable comment on the impossibility of achieving democracy in the United States. Again, the logic is pretty elementary. Steinbrunner and Gallagher are assuming that the United States cannot be a democratic society; it’s not one of the options, so therefore we hope that maybe China will do something.

Well, China finally did something. It signaled to the United States that they noticed that we were trying to use space for military purposes, so China shot down one of their satellites. Everyone understands why — the mili- tarization and weaponization of space depends on satellites. While missiles are very difficult or maybe impossible to stop, satellites are very easy to shoot down. You know where they are. So China is saying, “Okay, we understand you are militarizing space. We’re going to counter it not by militarizing space, we can’t compete with you that way, but by shooting down your satellites.” That is what was behind the satellite shooting. Every military analyst certainly understood it and every lay person can understand it. But take a look at the debate. The discussion was about, “Is China trying it conquer the world by shooting down one of its own satellites?”

via We Own the World, by Noam Chomsky.

or

Capturebbc

via BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China confirms satellite downed.

Nobel Prize for Noam Chomsky

Standard

Why is it that those who contribute to nothing but war, terrorism, and bloodshed get Nobel Peace Prizes, but a true dissident like Noam Chomsky, who has proven time and time again that he is one of the only honest intellectuals (amongst the big-name intellectuals that is) left, goes unnoticed and unrecognized?

Yes, part of being a true dissident is that you do it despite the recognition, and sometimes in the face of more sinister forms of recognition, but I think that now is the time to right previous wrongs.  It’s pretty clear now who has been contributing to terror and who has been opposing it.


The Nobel Peace Prize committee has pretty much been pandering to the very vapid and unenlightened Western liberal mindset that wants to pretend that the West is genuinely level-headed and, thus, needs to act as the global policeman.  This is why they gave the prize to Barack Obama and Liu Xiaobo, in my opinion.

It’s a type of Western liberal PR tactic.


People who have contributed to nothing but war, violence and bloodshed:

Number of Nobel Peace Prizes shared amongst them: 3


Those who stood up against Western and Israeli terror while all other intellectuals were whitewashing the crimes:

Number of Nobel Peace Prizes shared amongst them: 0

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Michio Kaku

Michio Kaku showed the type of person he is on his futurism discussion (which I watched on Youtube.)  He was discussing type 1, 2 and 3 civilizations.  He said we are transitioning from a type 0 to type 1 civilization which is by far the most difficult transition.  I don’t disagree with him on this point.

However, he stated that the largest barrier to our transition is terrorism stemming from Middle Easterners.  This to me is laughable.

Ann Coulter got it right (and it’s why Noam Chomsky states that US conservatives are often more perceptively consistent than US liberals) when she stated that compared to the Nazi war machine which the US had to face, the terrorists are nothing.  And she’s right.  These are scattered groups from second and third world nations with low-quality technology and training and these are humanity’s biggest threat?