They're Not Worried About 'Russian Influence', They're Worried About Dissent

Being labeled a Russian propagandist all day every day for criticizing US foreign policy is really weird, but one advantage it comes with is a useful perspective on what people have really been talking about all these years when they warn of the dangers of "Russian propaganda".

I know I'm not a Russian propagandist. I'm not paid by Russia, I have no connections to Russia, and until I started this political commentary gig in 2016 I thought very little about Russia. My opinions about the western empire sometimes turn up on Russian media because I let anyone use my work who wants to, but that was always something they did on their own without my submitting it to them and without any payment or solicitation of any kind. I'm literally just some random westerner sharing political opinions on the internet; those opinions just happen to disagree with the US empire and its stories about itself and its behavior.

Yet for years I've watched people pointing at me as an example of what "Russian propaganda" looks like. This has helped inform my understanding of all the panic about "Russian influence" that's been circulating these last six years, and given me some insight into how seriously it should be taken.

That's one reason why I wasn't surprised by Matt Taibbi's reporting on the Twitter Files revelations about Hamilton 68, an information op run by DC swamp monsters and backed by imperialist think tanks which generated hundreds if not thousands of completely bogus mainstream news reports about online Russian influence over the years.

Hamilton 68 purported to track Russian attempts to influence western thought on social media, but Twitter eventually figured out that the "Russians" the operation has been tracking were actually mostly real, mostly American accounts who just happened to say things that didn't perfectly align with the official Beltway consensus. These accounts were often right-leaning, but also included people like Consortium News editor Joe Lauria, who's about as far from a rightist as you can get.

They played a massive role in fanning the flames of public hysteria about online Russian influence, but while they did this by pretending to track the behavior of Russian influence ops, in reality they were tracking dissent.

One of the craziest things happening in the world today is the way westerners are being brainwashed by western propaganda into panicking about Russian propaganda, something that has no meaningful existence in the west. Before RT was shut down it was drawing a whopping 0.04 percent of the UK’s total TV audience. The much-touted Russian election interference campaign on Facebook was mostly unrelated to the election and affected "approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content" according o Facebook. Research by New York University into Russian trolling behavior on Twitter in the lead-up to the 2016 election has found "no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior." A study by the University of Adelaide found that despite all the warnings of Russian bots and trolls following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the overwhelming majority of inauthentic behavior on Twitter during that time was anti-Russian in nature.

Russia exerts essentially zero influence over what westerners think, yet we're all meant to freak out about "Russian propaganda" while western oligarchs and government agencies continually hammer our minds with propaganda designed to manufacture our consent for the status quo which benefits them.

All this and we're still seeing calls for more narrative management from the western empire, like the recent American Purpose article "The Long War of Ideas" being promoted by people like Bill Kristol which calls for a resurrection of CIA culture war tactics like those used during the last cold war. Every day there's some new liberal politician sermonizing about the need to do more to fight Russian influence and protect American minds from "disinformation", even as we are shown over and over again that what they really want is to shut down dissident voices. 

That's what we're seeing in the continual efforts to increase online censorship, in the bogus new "fact-checking" industry, in calls to increase the output of formal US government propaganda operations like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, in the way all dissent about Russia has been forcefully purged from the western media in recent years, in the way empire-amplified trolling operations have been shouting down and drowning out critics of US foreign policy online, in the way censorship via algorithm has emerged as one of the major methods of restricting dissident speech.

They claim there needs to be a massive escalation in propaganda, censorship and online psyops in order to fight "Russian influence", while the only influence operations we're being subjected to in any meaningful way are only ever of the western variety. They just want to do more of that.

Our rulers aren't actually worried about "Russian influence", they're worried about dissent. They're worried the public won't consent to the "great power competition" they plan to subject us to for the foreseeable future unless they can exert massive influence over our minds, because they know that otherwise we will recognize that our interests are directly harmed by the economic warfare, exploding military spending and nuclear brinkmanship which necessarily accompanies that campaign to reign in Russia and stop the rise of China.

They're propagandizing us about the threat of foreign propaganda in order to justify propagandizing us more. We're being manipulated into consenting to agendas that no healthy person would ever consent to without copious amounts of manipulation.

Reprinted with permission from Caitlin's Newsletter.
Support the author on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal.

from They're Not Worried About 'Russian Influence', They're Worried About Dissent

Smack-Down! Hungary Pushes Back Against Obnoxious US Ambassador

US Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman and his husband.

Biden's Ambassador to Hungary, David Pressman, is a particularly odious specimen in a long line of obnoxious US residents of Szabadság tér since the end of Hungary's subjection to Soviet control in 1989.

Before him, Soap Opera producer and Obama glamor-queen moneybags Coleen Bell warned Hungarians in 2016 to get on board with the destruction of Syria or face the wrath of DC.

Secretary of State Tony Blinken's own father, Donald, did the Clinton Administration's bidding - which was to promote with the entire weight of the US government the return of the communists - when he was US Ambassador to Hungary in the 1990s. I remember it well as editorial page editor of the largest English language newspaper in Central Europe, in Budapest: fielding calls from the US Embassy demanding that I tone down criticisms of "former" communists in my weekly editorials.

The US wanted an obedient Hungary, not an independent and democratic Hungary. Kind of like what the Soviet Union wanted.

Washington's overt meddling and manipulation of Hungary's internal politics has been ongoing from the beginning of the post-Cold War era, when the long-discredited Mark Palmer decided that his seat on the Ambassadorial throne in Budapest entitled him to live like Smaug upon all the gold of St. Steven's ancient kingdom. Then-Secretary of State James Baker gave Palmer 24 hours to vacate his position as US Ambassador due to the disgusting corruption. Things haven't improved much since then.

The State Department has repeatedly meddled in the Hungarian elections, trying without success to undermine and overthrow the popular Fidesz-led government. And Washington has  habitually interfered in Hungary's domestic media market, subsidizing all manner of anti-Fidesz outlets - in the name of "independent" media.

It's OK when we do it, but even a hoax cooked up by the Hillary campaign that Russia might be trying to influence the US elections led the US establishment to spend six-years-and-counting in paroxysms of panic over the "reds under our beds."

"Tin soldiers and Putin's coming..."

The whole thing was a dirty lie, but still it managed to cripple our country.

Many of us otherwise admiring the willingness of Fidesz to stand up for Hungary's own national interest in the face of incessant US manipulations have been slightly frustrated by the extreme patience and go-slow approach of Budapest toward its wannabe new overlords in DC.

But all of that has suddenly changed. 

A Hungary that has openly embraced its 1,100 year old Christian values and has, similarly to Russia, banned the aggressive promotion of homosexuality to children in schools, unsurprisingly found itself in the cross-hairs of a Biden Administration that smirks approvingly at the open sexualization of children by men dressed as women.

So what better way to get back at Hungary than for Biden's handlers to send a man married to another man - with two children - to parade around Hungary as the face of America?

Since then, Ambassador Pressman has been endlessly hectoring Hungary to "get with the program" of the NATO/US war on Russia and has been relentless in attacking Hungary's attempts to remain neutral in the conflict.

No doubt the neoccon ideologue Pressman has no clue that hundreds of thousands of ethnic Hungarians were without consent placed outside the borders of Hungary in the lop-sided diktat after WWI and that those ethnic Hungarians have been aggressively pursued by Zelensky's regime to feed into the meat grinder of eastern Ukraine.

It's a win-win for Ukraine: how to get rid of your minorities "problem"? Send them immediately to the front lines to be slaughtered. 

It should not be a surprise that Hungary disapproves of this policy of Ukraine ethnically-cleansing its territories of Hungarians, gypsies, and other "troublesome" minorities. So why would they endorse such a policy as laid out by Pressman and his masters in Washington?

But Pressman pressed on, demanding that Hungary abandon its own national interests in the service of neocon Washington and Brussels' interests.

Then it happened. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó finally pushed back. Hard. Responding to Pressman's meddling in Hungarian internal affairs, he released a statement:

It's completely irrelevant what he or any other ambassador thinks about domestic political developments in Hungary, because they have nothing to do with it. So, we ask for more respect for Hungarians.

But the thick-headed Pressman didn't take the hint, responding:

Respectfully, we do not consider Russia’s attempt to unilaterally redraw the borders of Europe as just a 'domestic political development in Hungary.'

[That's rich coming from a US government that has repeatedly used military force in unprovoked wars throughout the Middle East and that has redrawn the borders of Serbia by force after illegally bombing the country to smithereens and salting the earth with depleted uranium munitions.]

Pressman's snark led Szijjártó to lock and load, firing off a blistering rebuke to Washington's meddling flunky:

Regarding statements of the US Ambassador to Budapest I would like to say the following: It is irrelevant - absolutely irrelevant - what he or any other Ambassador thinks about domestic political developments in Hungary because it has nothing to do with him. It's not for him to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs, and if he wishes to use his stay in Hungary to criticize the actions of a government elected by a clear majority of the Hungarian people and legitimized by the Hungarian people, he will have a very difficult job in working effectively to improve cooperation between the two countries. 

Because when we welcome ambassadors we mean it literally. We welcome Ambassadors, people who we believe are sent by their host country to work on improving and developing relations between the two countries on the basis of mutual respect.

We do not accept governors or procurators sent here to say how we should live our lives. That era is over.

Hungary is a sovereign country. No one from the outside can tell us how to live. It is therefore irrelevant what a citizen of another country - even an ambassador - thinks about the internal political processes in Hungary, and it is up to the Hungarian people to decide whether the government is working well or not, whether they are satisfied with it or not. 

In the forthcoming Parliamentary elections, this will be expressed, as been expressed quite clearly in recent years, even though efforts have been made to inspire and even finance contrary decisions from other parts of the world. Perhaps even from where the Ambassador comes from. 

So we ask for more respect for the Hungarians, even from the Ambassador.

This is a new era in Hungarian-US relations. And I would argue that it is healthy for both Hungary and the United States. 

And why am I pleased that Hungary has pushed back? American patriotism. I want the neocons, and all their works and all their pomps, to be smacked down and fully discredited forever. Washington's aggressive foreign policy does not serve America's interest, but rather the special interest of the military-industrial complex and all the cottage industries built up around it - including Congress, the media, and the think tanks/NGOs. It's all a racket that undermines our safety, destroys the economy, and rots our moral fiber. 

What should Hungary do? Of course I would like to see Budapest accelerate its push-back against Washington's meddling, but there is no doubt Orban is in a tricky situation. Openly embracing Russia makes little sense at the moment, but slowly building anti-war coalitions based on a clear-headed understanding of history is not a bad idea. 

When the smoke clears, Ukraine will have miserably lost. More than 200,000 Ukrainian men will have been slaughtered for a result that could have been achieved in April 2022 with the loss of scant that. Washington's neocons always can be counted on to come up with the stupidest ideas. Ideas that are guaranteed to lose. And they could not care less about 200K dead Ukrainians. You gotta break a few eggs. They need to be stopped, and we all owe the Hungarian foreign minister a "thanks" for putting that process in motion.

from Smack-Down! Hungary Pushes Back Against Obnoxious US Ambassador

President Biden Wants to End the New Hampshire Primary’s First-in-the-Nation Status. Is He Just Trying to Benefit Himself?

In every United States presidential contest since 1920, New Hampshire has held the first primary. That tradition of over 100 years is in President Joe Biden’s sights for elimination. Why?

Norman Solomon argues in a Friday Salon article that the reason Biden is calling on the Democratic National Committee to vote on Saturday to replace New Hampshire with South Carolina in the first-in-the-nation primary slot for the Democratic presidential race is to help ensure Biden is reelected — not to advance Biden’s purported rationale related to South Carolina having more “diversity.”

Back in the 2020 presidential election, Solomon recalls, Biden came in fifth in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary with just eight percent of the vote. Later, the South Carolina primary, where Biden won first, “rescued his electoral hopes … sending Biden on his way to the Democratic nomination.”

For the 2024 presidential election, the situation in New Hampshire for Biden appears again to be bad, especially considering that being the incumbent president normally provides a big boost. Solomon writes:

New polling underscores why Biden is so eager to bump New Hampshire from the first-in-the-nation spot it has held for more than 100 years. In the Granite State, 'two-thirds of likely Democratic primary voters don't want President Joe Biden to seek re-election,' the UNH Survey Center found. 'Biden is statistically tied with several 2020 rivals, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, all of whom are more personally popular than Biden among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire.'

Read Solomon’s article here.

from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2023/february/03/president-biden-wants-to-end-the-new-hampshire-primary-s-first-in-the-nation-status-is-he-just-trying-to-benefit-himself/

What Does 'Unprovoked' Mean?

Note the following sentence in a New York Times news story yesterday by Michael Schwirtz and Anton Troianovski about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Mr. Putin’s attempt to put a veneer of nobility on an unprovoked invasion that has killed thousands of civilians and turned millions more into refugees was made in the Russian city once known as Stalingrad, on the 80th anniversary of a victory there against Nazi Germany that changed the course of World War II.” (Italics added.)

The operative word is “unprovoked.” 

First of all, it’s a strange word for news reporters to be using because it’s more in the nature of a commentary or editorial. News reporters are supposed to report the news, and the editorial department of a newspaper is supposed to render opinions and commentary on the news. Schwirtz and Troianovski do both in their news article. 

Second, and more important, for the life of me, I cannot understand how Schwirtz and Troianovski are unable to see that Russia’s invasion was provoked. It was provoked knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately.

Now, one could argue that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine wasn’t justified. That’s a different word from “unprovoked.” An invasion can be “provoked” and “unjustified” at the same time. My hunch is that Schwirtz and Troianovski meant to use the word “unjustified” rather than the word “unprovoked.”

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact was terminated, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. As far was Russia was concerned, the Cold War was over.

Not so, however, for the United States and, specifically, for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. The Cold War had been very beneficial to the US national-security establishment in terms of ever-increasing power within the federal governmental structure and ever-increasing taxpayer-funded largess to finance America’s Cold War military machine, including its vast army of voracious “defense” contractors who had become dependent on feeding at the public trough. 

Thus, while Russia was ready to move on, the US national-security establishment was not. It was determined to not let go of its Cold War racket.

NATO had been brought into existence after World War II to ostensibly protect Western Europe from an invasion by the Soviet Union. But the notion of such an invasion was ludicrous from the start. Russia had been devastated by the war. As many as 27 million Soviet citizens were killed as a result of the war. That’s 27 million people! That’s a lot of people. Moreover, the entire industrial might of the country had been decimated. 

The Soviets knew that if they started a war with their former World War II partners and allies, the United States would immediately come to their assistance. The United States had not suffered any damage to its industrial capacity and was still fully capable of fielding a massive army. Moreover, the United States had a monopoly on nuclear bombs and had displayed a willingness to use them against people living in populated cities. Thus, there was never any realistic possibility whatsoever that the Soviet Union was going to invade Western Europe. NATO served no purpose whatsoever. 

Recall that one of the major reasons for all the death and destruction that Russia had experienced during the war was Germany’s surprise invasion of the Soviet Union, an invasion that almost resulted in the German conquest of Russia. German troops made it all the way to Stalingrad before they met with defeat, partly because of the tenacity of the Russian people but mostly because of the brutality of the Russian winter. 

Make no mistake about it: Germany’s near-conquest of their country — and the massive death and destruction wreaked by Germany on their country — was seared into the collective conscience of the Russian people. No Russian generation will ever forget it. Thus, when Germany decides to send tanks to Ukraine in the hopes that Ukraine ultimately joins NATO, which would enable German tanks, troops, and missiles to be aligned on Russia’s border, one should be able to at least understand why the Russian people might feel a bit uneasy about that.

In fact, Schwirtz’s and Troianovski’s news article mocked Russian president Vladimir Putin for using the 80th anniversary of Russia’s victory at Stalingrad to deliver a speech about the war in Ukraine. In their mockery, Schwirtz and Troianovski are clearly unable to draw the link between Germany’s near conquest of Russia and Germany’s current thirst to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, which would enable Germany to put its tanks, missiles, and troops along Russia’s border. 

Once the Cold War was over, NATO had fulfilled its ostensible mission. There was no longer any threat of the Soviet Union invading Western Europe. Thus, this old Cold War dinosaur clearly should have gone out of business.

Instead, the Pentagon decided to keep NATO in existence and, even worse, began using NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact, which was enabling the United States and Germany to move their troops, missiles, bases, and armaments eastward, i.e., ever closer to Russia’s border. 

Throughout this process, Russia was, not surprisingly, vehemently objecting. Russia continuously asked: If the Cold War was really over, then what was the point of doing this? NATO’s answer was that there was nothing to be concerned about. The United States and Germany were both peace-loving nations that would never aggress against Russia. 

That, of course, is a ridiculous notion. For its part, Germany had already aggressed against the Soviet Union in World War II, which had resulted in 27 million Russian deaths, the total destruction of the country, and the near-conquest of Russia. For its part, the United States was, in the words of Martin Luther King, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” 

How could anyone not understand why Russia would be concerned about NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s border, especially when there was no good reason to do so?

As Russia continuously objected to NATO’s expansion, Russia made it clear that there was one “red line” that would finally provoke a Russian reaction — the threat to absorb Ukraine into NATO. That would enable Germany and the United States to place their tanks, nuclear missiles, bases, armaments, and troops on Russia’s border. Given Germany’s prior invasion of the Soviet Union and the US propensity for violence, that was unacceptable to Russia.

The United States and Germany, operating through NATO, knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately crossed that “red line,” knowing full well that it was a “red line” for Russia. By threatening to absorb Ukraine into NATO, they knew that Russia would respond because Russian had said that it would respond. 

Thus, when President Biden claimed that his “intelligence” had learned that Russia would invade Ukraine, he was being disingenuous. He knew Russia would invade because Russia had been saying it would invade if the United States, Germany, and other NATO powers crossed its “red line” by threatening to absorb Ukraine into NATO.

Thus, there is no doubt that the Pentagon, operating through NATO, did provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. Again, one can argue that the Pentagon’s action did not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but one cannot rationally say that Russia’s invasion was “unprovoked,” as Schwirtz and Troianovski did yesterday in their news story in the New York Times.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

from What Does 'Unprovoked' Mean?

Behind Closed Doors, Pentagon Warns Congress Of Ukraine's Weakness

Although the narrative pushed by the US government and propped up by the mainstream media is that "Ukraine is winning," in a recent classified briefing to Congress the Pentagon is singing a very different tune. As the Biden Administration continues up the escalation escalator, shouldn't the American people hear what military experts really believe? Also today: Why F-16s? And...when a medical school goes "woke." Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Behind Closed Doors, Pentagon Warns Congress Of Ukraine's Weakness

Could Brazil’s Lula and Israel’s Netanyahu Help End the Ukraine War?

With the United States and a few other nations dumping money and weapons nonstop into Ukraine in an apparent effort to ensure the Ukraine War continues until the death of the last Ukrainian soldier, it can seem that peace has no chance. In fact, it can seem that much more likely than peace breaking out is the war escalating into a full-out world war.

But, there are plenty of nations that have not taken a side in the war. Maybe a move toward peace can be aided by actions of political leaders from some of these nations.

Two national political leaders who have discussed this week the possibility that they could help move down a path to peace are Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Interviewed at CNN, Netanyahu declared that, “if asked by all relevant parties,” which from the context of his comments seems to include Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, he “would certainly consider” becoming a mediator to facilitate ending the Ukraine War. Further, Netanyahu stated, “I’m not pushing myself” to take on this responsibility. Netanyahu elaborated:

I’ve been around long enough to know that there has to be a ripe time and the right circumstances. If they arise, I’ll certainly consider it.

Meanwhile, Lula, speaking at a joint press conference with Germany Chancellor Olaf Scholz, expressed his willingness to help bring a negotiated end to the Ukraine War. Writing about Lula’s comments in a Tuesday Politico article, Hans von der Burchard reported that Lula “proposed to establish a peace-oriented club of nonaligned countries like China, Brazil, India and Indonesia, which he said have thus far not been involved in discussions on the war.” Lula also expressed in the press conference a commitment to continuing Brazil’s detachment from the ongoing war, a position likely advantageous for helping negotiate a peaceful conclusion. Von der Burchard wrote:

Lula also rejected the possibility that Brazil could help Ukraine to fend off Russian missile or drone attacks by selling its units of the German-made Gepard air defense tanks along with corresponding ammunition: 'Brazil has no interest in handing over munitions that can be used in the war between Ukraine and Russia,' Lula said. 'We are a country committed to peace.'

These comments by Lula and Netanyahu suggest a potential off-ramp from the continuing escalation of commitment of the US and a few other nations to the Ukraine War. How about moving from fueling the war to giving Lula, Netanyahu, or other third parties the chance to help advance negotiation to end the war?

from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2023/february/01/could-brazil-s-lula-and-israel-s-netanyahu-help-end-the-ukraine-war/

Biden Announces More Billions To Ukraine As Americans Sour On War

Yesterday the Biden Administration announced yet another military aid package to Ukraine including yet more powerful weapons. This comes as a new PEW Poll shows that Americans increasingly believe that the US is doing too much to help Ukraine. Also today: The US government investigates its massive aid transfers to Ukraine and finds no misuse of funds. Shocker! Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Biden Announces More Billions To Ukraine As Americans Sour On War