Transcript of Bashar al Assad’s Victory Speech, 2020

Bashar_al-Assad_in_Russia_(2015-10-21)_08

*Applause*

Thank you! Thank you all! Throughout this long and difficult conflict I have frequently expressed my deepest gratitude to you, members of parliament, my military from the chief of the general staff to the lowest-ranking recruit, and of course, to my foreign allies Russia and Iran. A thousand speeches would not be enough to fully express how much I feel indebted to all those who rallied to the flag during Syria’s darkest hour. There are so many who deserve boundless gratitude for helping us overcome our enemies, the so-called Free Syrian Army jihadists, the Kurdish separatist terrorists in the north, the Islamic State, and the most tenacious of all adversaries, the White Helmets, better known as Al Qaeda! Damascus was besieged by terrorists of every kind, some even disguised as little children, but you did not waver and because of your resolve we have triumphed!

But I trust you will forgive me when I dedicate this speech to another steadfast ally of the Syrian Arab Republic, one which up until now has never received my thanks, our thanks, for all its unflagging support for myself and the government I lead. Naturally I am speaking about the Western left and the anti-war movement it leads.

They go by many different names, many of them claim to be Marxists, Communists. I’m sure some of you, and indeed even myself at one time, feared that their ideological leanings might prevent them from supporting our government, which is in no way Marxist or leftist and to be honest, is arguably rightist if anything. Some of us were afraid they might look upon our past actions such as jailing leftists or helping the CIA with its rendition program in the War on Terror and reject us entirely in favor of the terrorist uprising which was also totally orchestrated by the CIA, Mossad, and Saudi Arabia. But no, they were not discouraged by any of that. Quite the opposite.

Despite the fact that almost none of these people had ever been to Syria, or even anywhere in the Middle East for that matter, despite the fact that for many of them their only source of factual information about what was happening here was our ally’s satellite TV network RT and a collection of various Russia-connected blogs all citing the same sources, these people saw the truth of our struggle and boldly stood up to their own governments. When their imperialist regimes accused us of using chemical weapons as a pretext for a massive invasion on par with the 2003 Iraq War in 2013, 2017, and 2018, these intrepid anti-imperialists could not be swayed by the insidious propaganda of terrorist organizations such as the United Nations or the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. On the contrary, they were more than willing to take the word of their far-right wing ideological opponents and speak the truth- that these chemical attacks never happened, that they were staged by the Al Qaeda White Helmets. Or the chemical attacks actually happened, but the rebels carried them out. Or the Islamic State. Or the White Helmets actually gassed civilians themselves. All of those are totally real things that actually happened, and the Western revolutionary left were not afraid to speak that truth to power.

Indeed, so loyal were they to our cause that they never flinched from entering into tacit alliances with those who could honestly be called fascists in order to get our message to their own countrymen. So determined were they in spreading that message, than when our neocon and neoliberal enemies tried to point out their strange and seemingly contradictory alliances, those brave leftists simply acted as though no such collaboration ever took place, or insisted that it didn’t matter. But it did matter. It mattered so much too us.

And that is why I’m announcing that the Syrian Arab Republic is prepared to give back to the Western left that stood so loyally by its side throughout this seemingly never-ending conflict. The revolutionary movement that dedicated so much time to defending our just regime deserves no less than our material and moral support in its own struggle, which of course is something I have always deeply cared about. I especially care about the local struggles of groups like Stop the War Coalition in the United Kingdom, the Communist Party of Great Britain (ML), and the Workers’ World Party in the United States, to name a few. That is why I say to the following to them and all their comrades worldwide:

We have not forgotten your sacrifices and struggle in our name. We have not forgotten how you put off your own organizing and issues in order to march in the streets with our flag and defend our regime no matter what it was accused of doing. We have not forgotten how you were totally unconcerned with your so-called credibility when you embraced and repeated our side of the story, indeed our sides of each story, when so many people called you cranks and conspiracy theorists for doing so. We have not forgotten how you were more than willing to enter into strategic alliances with self-identified neo-Nazis and white supremacists in order to spread our message- the message that anyone who opposed us was a bloodthirsty Wahhabist terrorist. We admire your confidence and resolve as you diligently and consistently lectured traitorous Syrian former-citizens despite never having been to the Middle East or speaking Arabic. Many people, lacking that kind of experience, would never want to appear so arrogant and condescending by telling a person what is really happening in their country when they have never set foot even in the region. But you were not afraid to do exactly that. You knew these people had to be terrorists and pawns of the United States and Israel, you were right, and you spoke the truth.

And because you did all this, it is now time for us to fight for you. Now that we have victory, peace, and a lot more living space in Syria for reasons you should not concern yourself with, I am ordering my generals to set up numerous educational and training camps for left revolutionaries. As a caveat I must say that you may be sharing your quarters with people who are your ideological enemies on the far-right in your home country, but from what I’ve seen you’ve managed to get along somehow for my sake and I’m sure you’ll work something out.

In addition to the free use of our infrastructure and facilities with which you can train legions of loyal, dedicated revolutionaries to struggle against your own exploiters at home, I offer you the use of our media facilities as well. Any leftist party who showed support for us will be able to obtain its own satellite network to reach viewers back home.

I was also especially touched by those of you who, after the last false flag chemical attack staged by the White Helmets in Douma, pointed out that the US government had poisoned its own people in Flint, Michigan. Others asked why no other countries were talking about bombing the US when police used tear gas on protesters at Standing Rock. Such rhetorical brilliance was so inspiring that I have decided to set aside some of our oil revenue toward providing the people of Flint the clean water they deserve! We will also provide any leftist organization in the US with high quality gas masks to protect themselves at their next protest, which will no doubt be in support of a cause I deeply agree with and care about.

Another thing these leftists have shown me is that we as Baathists need to remember the socialist aspect of Arab Socialism, one of the core ideas in the Baathist ideology. Now that we are no longer under imperialist threat, I hereby announce that we will be carrying out a new constitutional referendum with the goal of setting up not only a truly socialist society, but in fact a fully democratic communist society of which the leadership of the long-dead Soviet Union could only dream of. Our resources will be publicly owned so that every man, woman, and child will be guaranteed access to adequate shelter, food, clothing, education, and healthcare. This we shall achieve by instituting the combination of direct democracy and labor time calculation-based planning according to the theories of Paul Cockshott, an author whose work I have read extensively throughout this conflict.

Having established true functioning communism, I shall resign as president and remain merely head of the party, which will only minimally interfere in the administration of day-to-day life. More importantly, as the Syrian Arab Republic becomes the first territory living under functioning modern communism, it will become a beacon of light, spreading socialist theory and praxis throughout the world. Where the Russians and Chinese failed, we shall succeed!

And let me say this to my comrades in the Western left- this is only the beginning. You stood up for me and proclaimed the truth, that I am the Lion of Damascus and flame of secularism in a Middle East infested with hordes of bloodthirsty jihadists. For that I shall open the floodgates of my country’s wealth and back your revolutions because you backed our war for survival! Moreover, my allies Russia, as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, which I assure you have nothing to do with Russia and are an internal matter for Nazi-controlled Ukraine, agree with me one hundred percent when it comes to this new initiative. They have offered to send you whatever you need so that working people in your nations can fight for and seize the rights they so sorely deserve!

The right to rebel against tyrants is universal and just! It is not like that rebellion against me because I am in no way a tyrant and those were all head-chopping takfiri Al Qaeda Islamic State terrorists who were paid by the CIA and Israel. You are nothing like them and thus have every right to revolution and freedom!

So from the bottom of my heart, and on behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic, soon to be the Syrian Communist Republic, I say as emphatically as possible. Thank you, anti-imperialists! Thank you all! 

*Standing ovation and applause*

Advertisements

Yes to Alternative Voices, No to Bullshit

I have been very open about the fact that I like the work of Matt Taibbi. For one thing, I started reading his stuff long before I even knew that he worked at The eXile. Now obviously there is a lot of problematic things with that, but since then Matt has gone on to do some genuinely great work, and he’s got a very entertaining style as well. So naturally I found this recent tweet a little odd:

Naturally, Taibbi got a lot of flak for that, largely because of who he was retweeting. Johnstone calls herself a “rogue journalist” (translation: not really a journalist at all) who has become known for lecturing the American left (she’s Australian) about how they need to work with the “anti-establishment” right to defeat the “empire” or some such Duginist bullshit. Now in all fairness to Johnstone, she claimed she wasn’t in favor of leftists working with the alt-right, but rather working with figures like Mike Cernovich, who doesn’t identify as alt-right and is often feuding with some people who do. That being said, that argument is stupid and Cernovich is a total scumbag who supports Trump, alt-right or not. Don’t take it from me though, just look at what definitely-not-a-neocon Ben Norton had to say about this:

Now back to Taibbi, who said that people should consider the argument and not who made it, i.e. Johnstone. I wholeheartedly agree- almost anyone can be right on the busted clock principle alone so let’s just leave Johnstone out of this entirely and focus on the argument itself.

First of all let’s just toss out this notion that more diversity in the “mainstream media” would “silence RT.” RT, like Sputnik, are now money making schemes for people like Margarita Simonyan and countless other people on the take. Margarita is on record comparing RT to an information weapon. According to her, it needs funding for the same reason the Ministry of Defense needs funding, to protect the privileged status of Russia’s tiny elite to “defend” against the dastardly West that hates Russia for no reason.

“The information weapon, of course, is used in critical moments, and war is always a critical moment. And it’s war. It’s a weapon like any other. Do you understand? And to say, why do we need it — it’s about the same as saying: ‘Why do we need the Ministry of Defense, if there is no war?’ –Margarita Simonyan

Now I get that the argument in question is actually implying that if people in the West see more anti-war or let’s say “anti-establishment” voices on their mainstream networks, RT’s audience will dry up and then perhaps the Russian government will start cutting its funding and maybe shutting down bureaus. I can tell you this is bullshit just based on the words of Simonyan I alluded to above.

More importantly, RT doesn’t have a massive audience or following anywhere. Plenty of people have pointed this out in the past. This is why they constantly harp on their Youtube views, despite the fact that their top hundred most-viewed videos include maybe two that have anything to do with Russian politics, and all their channels combined are dwarfed by the audience of a racist Swedish moron who screams at video games.

No, it’s not a lack of audience or ratings that would kill RT’s funding. If anything keeps it in business it’s alarmist quotes from Western leaders and think tank “information warriors” that make it out at something to be feared. RT’s editors actually collect these quotes and celebrate them, as they did in the end of a video celebrating their 10-year anniversary in 2015.

This is not to say that opening up “mainstream” media to more diverse voices, especially anti-war voices when a possible war looms on the horizon, wouldn’t reduce RT’s audience; it just wouldn’t make RT go away. Even if they were bereft of a significant audience because viewers flocked back to “mainstream media” outlets in droves to see more “anti-war” voices, the Russian government would still need to get out its message in service of its foreign policy goals.

See without outside influence, a lot of American and other Western “dissident” types would tend to ignore many issues of great importance to the Kremlin. Were it not for a major Russian propaganda offensive, very few Americans would pay any attention to Ukraine, for example, because that is simply not important to them. In order to make sure people outside of Russia believe that Ukraine is run by gay Jewish Nazis or that the Russian domestic opposition is a CIA front (controlled by gay Jewish Nazi CIA handlers), the Kremlin would need to keep broadcasting its messaging. And so they would, no matter how few people are actually watching.

But as soon as we debunk that part of the argument we get into the bigger problem- what does it mean to give a platform to “alternative views,” including antiwar views? To dissect this we need to first understand that for the left at least, we still haven’t woken up to the fact that a lot of us have been viewing global politics via the prism of 2002-2003, i.e. the invasion of Iraq, for far too long. It was in the run-up to that war that we saw what future historians ought to call The Great Failure of the American Media (specifically American media since international media, including some international versions of US networks, was often more critical or even-handed). Pretty much everyone above a certain age knows this story- in the aftermath of 9/11 news networks didn’t want to appear “unpatriotic.” Fox News was banging the drums of war as loudly as possible and other networks began tailing them. This led to such disturbing actions such as the firing of Phil Donahue from MSNBC and deliberately stacking talk shows with pro-war guests.

But while US media outlets still have their biases towards military interventions of all kinds, one can’t pretend that the political landscape in regards to war is the same as it was under Bush post-9/11, because it just plain isn’t. In the last presidential election, Hillary Clinton was smeared as the “war-mongering” candidate, while conservatives actually started criticizing the Iraq War (to be fair the far-right paleo-conservatives always did that). Sean Hannity, a man who spent years spewing white-hot vitriol at anti-war voices under Bush and on occasion even claimed Iraqi WMDs had been discovered well after the US government reported that they had not, has become Donald Trump’s biggest defender in spite of his repeated isolationist statements. In fact if we go back to 2013, when Assad’s forces first used chemical weapons on a large scale, we see that while Republicans did mostly back the idea of military intervention to punish the regime, they seemed to be mostly in favor of cruise missile strikes or the use of other weapons that wouldn’t endanger American lives. In the end Obama couldn’t find support for any real intervention and ended up making a deal with Putin that obviously didn’t work. Less than a year later, the Obama administration advised Ukraine’s new government to stand down and not resist the Russian takeover of the Crimea even when Ukrainian forces could have spoiled the annexation plan. Even as Putin expanded his aggression with a war in the Donbas, the US administration held fast to its assertion that there was no military solution to the crisis. Putin clearly didn’t see it that way.

Nowadays the situation is quite different. One day we hear Trump is talking about pulling out of Syria as fast as possible, and then a few weeks later he’s launching cruise missiles at Damascus, but very politely warning the regime’s Russian allies well in advance. Before each of Trump’s strikes on Syria (2017, 2018), much of the radical left went into Iraq-era hysterics about war-mongering, often arguing against an Iraq-like ground invasion that nobody had even seriously suggested. I’m sad to say that around the time of the most recent strikes there was a Chapo Trap House episode on the subject that made me cringe because of the bad arguments. But it’s not their problem- the whole Western left, largely because it is stuck in the Cold War, the Iraq War era, or often a combination of both, just plain sucks when it comes to foreign policy. And here’s where we get to the whole problem of having anti-war guests on mainstream outlets.

You see, back in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq this was a pretty straightforward thing. You could find highly qualified critics of the Bush administration’s case for war who weren’t even necessarily motivated by an anti-war or pacifist ideology. It was a simple matter of the administration trying to make the case that Iraq posed a credible threat to the US and its allies due to its possession of WMDs and programs to acquire bigger, more powerful WMDs, ie nuclear weapons. Many of the claims they would put forth could be roundly debunked at the time, such as the case of the aluminum tubes. Sure they could have brought on ideological opponents of the war like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges (who by my research appeared on Charlie Rose’s program prior to the invasion), but there were plenty of guests they could have brought on to debunk administration claims based on technical expertise alone. They did not, with disastrous consequences for the whole world.

Today, however, the situation is quite different. Today many people who call themselves anti-war, be they left or right, are often cheering for or at least excusing some other war, either in Syria or somewhere else. If a self-proclaimed “anti-war” guest engages in rationalizing Bashar al Assad’s violence (arguably aggression since he started retaking territory in 2016 rather than suing for peace) or Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, how can they honestly be called anti-war? Oh sure, they’re against the wars you don’t like, but you can’t call them “anti-war.” More importantly for the network, they can’t honestly claim such a guest is anti-war.

Another problem is that in contrast to the potential anti-war guests you might have had back in 2002 and early 2003, nowadays it’s often the so-called “anti-war” guests who, like Caitlin Johnstone, traffic in conspiracy theories that are often generated by the propaganda mills of the Assad regime or their Russian allies (or worseworse). Everything is now a “false flag,” with seven or eight “alternative” explanations being generated sometimes in the space of a week. How can a media company be more ethical by inviting on a person who bases their case against military intervention on a conspiracy theory put out by some Kremlin or Syrian government source, when one can find numerous other theories of the same event, some of which contradict that guest’s particular narrative? Should they maybe bring on two such anti-war guests, one that says there was no chemical attack in Douma and another who says there was a chemical attack but it was carried out by the White Helmets, and let them duke it out on air?

See the problem is that in the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration was making extraordinary claims and failing to provide adequate evidence. As such there were a lot of legitimate anti-war guests they could have brought on. Yet I don’t know any rational opponent of the Iraq War who insists that mainstream media outlets should have brought on 9/11 truthers whose “criticism” of the administration’s case for war was that it was based on a false flag attack carried out by the government itself.

And speaking of false flags, that brings us to another problem- why stop at anti-war guests? There’s no doubt a significant portion of RT’s audience that also listens to Infowars- should mainstream media outlets be inviting Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson on more often to steal some of that demographic from the green monster in Moscow? I know what they could do- next time there’s a mass shooting (there’s possibly one happening as I write this) somewhere in the US they could do a live call with a stringer on site and Alex Jones on the other line. The local stringer can pass on the first responders’ report on the incident while Jones explains how the inter-dimensional demons engineered yet another false flag attack to justify a total gun ban that they forgot to pass after the previous 132 mass shootings in the past few years. That would definitely sap some of RT’s audience!

And you know what? A lot of neo-Nazis and other assorted fascists also apparently love RT, so you know what that means! Now we’ve got to invite more Western neo-Nazis on mainstream media outlets to sap RT’s ratings even further. Well okay, the mainstream media has kind of been doing that already, but you get the idea.

Lastly, I should point out that these days you do see more anti-war or anti-government voices on TV, just not in any way that is helpful. Take Glenn Greenwald’s numerous appearances on Fox News, for example. Should leftists all flock to Fox News? Hell they’d probably be better off sticking with RT- watching five minutes of Sean Hannity has always made me want to punch through the screen whereas Mark Sleboda is just a really silly dude* who inspired one of the greatest memes among Russia watchers.

 

In all seriousness here, we need to address a much bigger problem in media these days, one that Matt Taibbi has actually written about for quite some time now. Namely, it is the problem of media reorganizing itself to provide consumers with precisely the version of reality they prefer. Taibbi has taken this conversation a step further taken this conversation a step further by writing about how Facebook is now arguably a “de facto media regulator.” Even long before reading that article I noticed how platforms like Facebook and Youtube would recommend pages and videos, respectively, that linked to highly questionable content. And of course if you clicked on any of that, you’d get more recommendations for similar content. Whereas with Fox News you might be forced to occasionally see something that challenges your worldview, the internet gives you the ability to totally block out any contradictory information to the point where you can be confident that the Earth is actually flat, or #QAnon seems like a plausible source of information.

 

My point is simply that we may have passed a point of no return where simply improving the diversity of opinion in the mainstream media won’t improve anything. RT’s head office could get sucked into a black hole tomorrow and we’d still be just as thoroughly screwed as we have been in the past few years. If anything the problem with people tuning into RT (I have never known anyone who regularly does this) is really just a symptom of that much larger problem. If they’re going to RT to hear the latest false-flag theory about MH17 or the Skripal poisoning, we’re not going to solve anything by airing such bullshit theories on CNN. All we’d be doing is further poisoning an already extremely toxic media space.

So would more anti-war voices help anything? Sure- I’m all for it so long as the anti-war guests are legitimately anti-war, and more importantly, if their arguments are based in reality and not bullshit unfalsifiable conspiracy theories. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

So I have to say I think Taibbi really swung and missed on this issue, but I know he knows better because he’s written entire books on this kind of problem.

 

 

 

 

*A silly dude who really wants you to know he has a CRIMEAN WIFE. Never forget, you Western pig whores!

Ubisoft Starts Civil War in Russia to Promote Far Cry 6

TAGANROG- The game developer Ubisoft initiated an armed insurgency in southern Russia as a special promotional event for its upcoming release Far Cry 6, which is set in a “former Soviet republic in the midst of a civil war.” A company spokesperson said customers who pre-order the game will be automatically entered in a contest in which winners will be given a free tour of the newly-created republic of “Rostovia,” as the fictional country in the game is known. The grand prize winner will be allowed to act as Rostovia’s official Minister of Energy for a week.

Since armed clashes first began in the city of Rostov-na-Donu last week, the Kremlin has reacted extremely negatively to the game developer’s promotional event. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it an “egregious provocation” and “an act of war.”

While the Foreign Minister was quick to point a finger at the United States, a State Department spokesperson denied any US government involvement.

“The United States government does not exercise any control over this private company, which, incidentally, is French,” the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile residents of the newly created “Republic of Rostovia” have been overly supportive of the new Ubisoft regime. Svetlana Malinovskaya, 38, runs a small grocery shop in one of Rostov’s suburbs and is quite happy with the new city administration.

“They got rid of all the corrupt bureaucrats and they’re actually doing something about the roads,” she said.

“Even better- they’re going to put my shop in the game, and my kids get all the downloadable content for free!”

While polls show that 96 percent of residents prefer the Ubisoft regime to Moscow’s rule, the fledgling republic has had to pay the price for its radical experiment in local democracy and cutting edge video game marketing. According to the most recent UN report, the conflict has so far claimed close to 3,000 casualties. An informal ceasefire which went into effect on Friday is expected to reduce the losses, and OSCE monitors have already been dispatched to the line of contact.

Russia’s representative at the United Nations introduced a Security Council resolution to condemn the game developer’s “unprovoked aggression and continued occupation of the Russian Federation’s territory.” In an official response letter, Ubisoft pointed out that it is not a state and possesses no armed forces. According to the company, all armed individuals involved in the “marketing event” are in fact “promotional contractors” who were hired locally within the Russian Federation.

The Dark Future: It’s a Blog About Star Wars Again

In a few years they will start making Star Wars films via computer algorithm. They will be designed to create a pastiche of characters and images that reference the original series, post original trilogy, prequels, etc. A Star Wars for every fan.

The program will create a random-named protagonist and then it will be assigned to be a relative/acquaintance/friend/mentor of some important character from the main original films, e.g. Wint Blinko, Han Solo’s forgotten nephew. Based on this, a plot will be assembled with various references to Han Solo’s story, e.g. it will turn out that our hero learned about the importance of a blaster from Han! Or a love interest will say “I love you” and he’ll respond with “I know,” and the whole audience laughs and claps because they get the reference.

Of course technology being what it is, many of these computer-manufactured films will have errors and bugs. Some may introduce subplots that are unresolved, or a supporting character may be missing in the second half of the film for no reason. In this case, Disney will release no refunds nor apologies. There will just be a statement like: “We regret that our latest film, Uncle Owen’s Garbage Man: A Star Wars Story, was released without an ending or audio from 1:09:47-1:13:08. We hope next months release of AT-ST Pilot Adventure works out better.”

Fans the world over will curse the company, and yet they will continue to fork over their money.

Generations later, war has ended human civilization. Nature begins to reclaim the Earth. But there, in a Disney bunker complex somewhere in northern California, the Star Wars supercomputer lives on, immortal. Directly connected to cinema screens around the world, every few months a new Star Wars movie is released. If an alien visitor were to touch down on the planet and stumble upon a cinema, they might be able to catch Wookie Battle: A Star Wars Story.

Powered by nuclear batteries designed to run on fuel that won’t run out for millions of years, the Star Wars computer lives on as the final tombstone of humankind…

Moving On

Some time ago I promised to write about why I’m dialing down my operations, including this blog (it’s not going away though). That day has come. As I alluded to around the same time, part of the reason has to do with changing employment and focus on other activities such as martial arts and trying to learn screenwriting. In other words, I’m “getting out” of the Russia watching business mainly due to very positive changes in my life. And that is a big relief, because to be honest this business is ugly and I’ve been trying to break out of it almost since the very beginning.

I suppose the main reason for hanging up my spurs is that to be honest, the blog accomplished what it was meant to. I never managed to make a living directly from it, but it got me plenty of work and jobs thanks to the people it reached. Nowadays it seems kind of redundant because while Russia does still come up with the occasional curve ball, it tends to follow the same pattern for long periods of time. When it comes to commentary, there’s very little I can say that I haven’t said before. Yes, my views on these subjects do evolve as more facts become available, but in general things don’t change. And when it comes to breaking news about Russia, I could never hold a candle to a site like Meduza or The Moscow Times. 

Another issue is the tribalism surrounding Russia and especially Ukraine, the latter being “my side,” so to speak. This tribalism is what leads to the phenomenon of taking fire from your own side, because you fail to fully conform to what the tribe demands. This, more than anything else, is the most demoralizing aspect of this business.

In the tribal discourse, you are attacked by your own side for failing to say the right slogans, or questioning certain claims, strategies, tactics, etc. I put special emphasis on the word say here, because for tribalists, whom I have in the past dubbed as cheerleaders or football nationalists for their resemblance to sports fans, all that matters is that you say the right things in public. Actions to back your words are rarely a concern. Whether the slogans or talking points are conducive to a winning strategy is also irrelevant to the tribe. To put it simply, this is magical thinking, whereby engaging in rituals and saying the correct invocations equates to positive results in the real world. And yet while these empty gestures continually fail to achieve real results, the tribe insists that you do not question them, otherwise you are disloyal and working for the other side.

This magical thinking seems to pervade nearly all politics these days. If Trump tweets that the economy is good, then it’s good. If you question that you must be a libcuck who wants to hand out green cards to ISIS fighters. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the 2016 election must have been “stolen” by the Russians, even though nobody has bothered to actually look at the impact of its interference in terms of changing voters’ opinions.* Question that, even if you overtly acknowledge the facts of Russian interference, and you’re an apologist for the Kremlin.

I have little tolerance for such childlike behavior among adults. I do not confuse obstinacy with integrity or moral consistency, just as I do not confuse the world of politics for the world of team sports. If there’s one consistent thread in the positive feedback to this blog over the years, it’s for balance and honesty. Not balance for the sake of balance, mind you, but balance based on evidence and context. This is probably the reason why I’ve managed to attract so many loyal readers whose political worldview differs so greatly from my own. In a world where people increasingly choose their own realities, I have tried to maintain an appreciation for what can be asserted as objectively true.

I’ll continue to post here from time to time, though the content might be very different from what I normally wrote about. Also, I will be looking to write for various publications as well as finally get around to writing my book, something I wasn’t able to do during the roller-coaster years of 2014-2017. The struggle does not end here- I’m merely writing another chapter.

On the Homefront

Long time readers are well aware that when this whole “Russian information warfare” panic kicked off in 2014, I steadfastly insisted that the best remedy to this and other hostile state propaganda was for governments to focus on their own behavior and engage with their own citizens to address grievances and correct past wrongs. The reason for this is very simple. The US government, for example, cannot control what the Kremlin or its proxies such as the “Internet Research Agency” (better known as “the Troll Factory”) do. RT, Sputnik, and dozens of other pro-Kremlin propaganda sites are going to keep spinning their yarns and exporting them abroad. Sure, they can be made to register as foreign agents so they have to disclose their funding and Facebook or Twitter can try to crack down on fake pages and bots, respectively, but ultimately the only person who can stop this activity is Vladimir Putin or someone designated to do so by him, and I see no evidence to suggest this will happen anytime soon. Thus the only thing in the equation that the US government can actually control is its own behavior.

Extrapolating from this, we must admit that the interest in bullshit “alternative news,” whether it is produced in Russia or at home (and to be sure a lot of Russian propaganda is just rehashed, regurgitated American bullshit) is largely driven by actions carried out by the US government in recent decades. Actually it would be better to say it is a result of actions and inactions- actions like invading Iraq and inaction when it comes to helping ordinary Americans struggling with foreclosure, student loans, unemployment and underemployment, healthcare, etc. By addressing both of these issues, the US government could rebuild its credibility after so many foreign policy disasters and rebuild its trust with voters by addressing their needs as opposed to those of the top richest people in the country. But you already see the problem with this, right?

Put simply, it is not in the financial interest of the people who run this country to adopt this view when it comes to countering hostile propaganda. And it is their financial interest that matters above all. It is far easier to just throw a couple bucks at Molly McKew types, whose whole approach centers on loudly screaming about Russian influence and propaganda and producing no actual solutions apart from maybe censorship of certain internet platforms or useless symbolic actions that do nothing to stop the flow of propaganda or reduce its audience. Is there anything that could wake these decision makers up?

Well maybe this will.

It’s a story about a man who was enthusiastically willing to spy for the Russians and was caught by an undercover FBI agent posing as a Russian handler after turning over vital technical data about satellite technology. According to the report, suspect Gregory Allen Justice “was assigned to a team working to build and test U.S. military satellites, including projects for the Air Force, Navy, and NASA that involved satellites with communication, navigational, and observational technology. The trade secrets and other technical data he had access to as part of his job related to areas such as satellite operations testing, firmware installed on satellites, and anti-jamming technology.”

Gee that kind of looks like the thing you wouldn’t want a hostile state to get their hands on! Why would Mr. Justice do such a thing?!

Justice explained to his “handler” that his motivation for his activities was to pay his wife’s medical bills (and indeed, our investigation revealed that his wife was suffering from a variety of medical issues and he had told her she had to cancel some of her appointments). But our investigation also revealed that the $3,500 Justice received—plus approximately $20,000 of his own money—went toward gifts of cash and merchandise for an online girlfriend he had never met in person.

As we see here, Mr. Justice’s claim about paying for his wife’s medical bills was just a lie. But something like this could just as easily be true for many Americans. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, people do not simply give up and die most of the time. Desperation leads to desperate measures, and the next contractor who’s being crushed by medical bills, mortgage debt, or student loans might be inclined to do some work for a hostile foreign power in exchange for relief. In this case, the FBI was doubly lucky- that their undercover agent reached him first, and that the guy was apparently in love with some kind of cam girl or email scammer.

So if we’re looking at ways the US government can engage with citizens and prevent them from selling their services to hostile foreign powers in order to keep their heads above water, what could they possibly do to prevent a real case of espionage driven by medical bills. Yes…What is to be done? What could we possibly do about that?

 

Problem solved.

Letting the Chips Fall

In debates over healthcare it is not uncommon to hear both mainstream conservatives and “libertarians” insist that healthcare is not right, and therefore those who cannot afford it are shit out of luck.

Some of these folks don’t even shy away from coming out and saying “let them die.”

 

Of course this is an immoral worldview, but conservatives have a wide variety of excuses for peddling it. In general, they will defend their claims with vague references to “freedom” and “personal responsibility,” often rationalizing letting fellow Americans die by essentially writing mental fan fiction whereby those poor Americans become undeserving. They’re lazy, they have too many kids, etc. Hey whatever helps you sleep at night, right?

But there’s another problem with the whole “let ’em die” attitude, and it extends beyond the realm of healthcare into the broader question of the welfare state itself. As it turns out, we do have historical experience with societies that lacked any sort of significant welfare state. Sadly, there are few Americans alive today who can personally remember that era, and Americans in general have next to no understanding of the Gilded Era. And Victorian Britain? Forget about it.

The important lesson we can get from the history of such times and places is that the sink-or-swim, let ’em die attitude simply does not work, because as it turns out, people really prefer living to dying. To see what I’m getting at, we must first envision how the conservative attitude plays out in their own heads.

In the conservative worldview, the government doesn’t waste money on helping unemployed people or those who need healthcare and can’t afford private insurance (or the prices hospitals arbitrarily set in collaboration with said insurance companies).

 

This, of course, is supposed to lead to lower taxes, making the government run more efficiently! More Americans get to keep more of their paychecks, and businessmen feel so generous that they create more jobs and raise wages. People who are poor, knowing there is no safety net, have an incentive to work hard and be extra productive, and if they do not- they’re screwed and it’s all their own fault. There’s an element of social Darwinism to it, because the lazy and inept get culled from the herd.

The only problem with this, however, is that in real life people aren’t poor due to their personal decisions or qualities but rather due to the fluctuations of the labor market, commodity prices, injuries or illnesses, generational poverty, sudden divorces, etc. More importantly, nobody who suddenly comes down with an illness or whose relative does simply throws up their hands and says: “Well I guess I should have worked harder so I could have afforded healthcare!” Same thing when it comes to food and shelter. People fight, unsuccessfully perhaps, but they fight nonetheless to survive.

Have you ever noticed how developing countries often tend to have problems with crime of all sorts in their major urban centers? When society orients itself to serve the super-rich and upper-middle class with no significant concern for the poor population, the latter doesn’t just go off into the forest or desert to die. They eke out a living in slums or favelas and they survive. That being said, these areas tend to be rife with crime, crime which can often claim victims among the middle and upper classes. So it was with urban centers in the United States for decades. Ditto Victorian Britain. Same with Moscow in the “Wild 90’s” or some parts of Ukraine these days.

The main takeaway here is that the cost of a laissez faire, “let ’em die” society far outweighs almost any form of bureaucratic welfare state. Most Americans don’t know shit about how their own welfare system works (or doesn’t) anyway, but what’s worse is that they have no idea what happens if you got rid of what’s left of the system. In their mind they put away that extra money they save in taxes and start their own business. In reality, whole areas of cities if not cities themselves turn into dens of crime and murder, the very thing that conservatives are constantly in fear of. If you deny people the ability to survive and get ahead via legal means, a certain portion of them will inevitably take what they need by any means necessary.

This is why the whole debate about healthcare and welfare needs to change. It’s not about “caring for the poor” or being compassionate. To be sure it is about those things on a certain level, but that doesn’t do enough to drive home the imperative. These things must be properly portrayed as an investment in America and its society, an investment in the American people. And this investment is necessary because without it, there is an alternative too terrible to consider and there is precedent to back that up (for this I highly recommend getting this book). Even if someone wants to stick by their immoral position that the poor or those who can’t otherwise afford healthcare should be left to their own devices, this degenerate person should be reminded that their ideal scenario would not play out in the real world the way it does in their head, and for that reason alone their proposal must be dismissed as utterly unworkable.

It matters not what you think these healthcare or welfare recipients are like or whether you think their decisions in life are the right ones. For one thing, you don’t actually know their situation, and what is far more important is that this person or their relatives aren’t driven to carjack you one day because they lack access to the basic necessities of life. If you value wagging your finger at hypothetical “unworthy” poor people you imagined in your head (and a lot of Americans tend to picture that person incorrectly) more than you value living in a developed country with a healthy society, well then perhaps you’re the one whose expendable.