Press Action

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Disinformation: A Crime Against Humanity and a Crime Against Peace

By Kim Petersen

Read full article...

Posted 02/17 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

In other words, who ever says or reports something you disagree with - its disinformation and criminal. Some could argue that the information about Iraq’s WMD’s wasn’t disinformation but merely wrong information (and that Saddam helped validate wrong info). Those people would be brought to the Hague, I suppose, since it appears no one can differentiate between bad info and deception. Yes, and who decides disinformation? I suppose only those who share your worldview—who, thankfully, are irrelevant in global decision-making—will be able to decide such things? Yes, you decide this and the free people of America will denounce your authority and spend endless hours mocking you. First, we don’t think your bright enough to decide on anything—much less whether or thoughts or view or perspectives are criminal. We talked to the Iraqis that you ignored when they were being murdered by Saddam (Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Shiites) and they tell me you have no moral authority. I’ve talked to the Saudi’s who wonder why there are no protests from the Left demanding the UN or US do something about gays murdered, women oppressed and progressives annihilated. They tend to think your intellectual integrity is lacking. Of course, you want to regulate thought and speech and information. Its an inevitable consequence of having no moral authority or intellectual integrity. The big problem is that you’d have to commit yourself to genocide in order to impose this wish on America. There’s a huge void of credibility and motives. Ooops, your rhetoric carries the consequence of creating the outcome you’ve sought to denounce. Excellent! You are hereby accused of a war crime…

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 02:35 PM

The following is from the Editors and Publishers site..........Notice that the wording does NOT prohibit propaganda outside of the US… “The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, “Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law.”

“It’s time for Congress to shut down the Administration’s propaganda mill,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “It has no place in the United States Government.” The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.).”

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/17 at 02:52 PM

A thought provoking article here by Kim Peterson. Somewhat parallel to this line of thought today is Paul Craig Roberts and his CounterPunch article: ‘The Conservative Media: Bush’s Willing Sycophants’

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/17 at 03:54 PM

Disinformation is disseminating misinformation to deceive people into believing something to be true when it is all total bullshit right from the start.

Saddam Hussein had WMD’s in his living room at his palace. Didn’t you know that? He had chemical weapons and the means to deliver them. The Three Stooges were there to document it all. Everybody knows that.

First it was regime change, then it was WMD’s, then it was liberty for the Iraqis. Roses, cakewalks, open arms, no casualties and whatnot ad infinitum.

It was all the truth, not a single solitary lie was told. Unbelievable that the the truth was always in the forefront.

It’s all been talked and written about to death. Don’t expect the truth to be told… ever.

Posted by MDPB from here on 02/17 at 05:35 PM

Remember Charlotte Beers....Hill and Knowlton...the Kuwaiti girl who testified before Congress about the babies being thrown from the incubators....Was anyone ever prosecuted for the lies that started that war?

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/17 at 06:28 PM

It’s apparent that the essential difference between misinformation and disinformation is a matter of intent. It’s the same difference between manslaughter and murder, in some states’ legal statutes.

And while many prosecutors agree that demonstarting intent is one of the hardest elements to substantiate in a successful murder prosecution, they are more than willing to move forward with a manslaughter prosecution if they can’t prove intent.

Malfeasance of conduct of office is not a difficult case to substantiate, however. You don’t need to prove the intent to deceive.

But where were all the voices when the impeachment of our President was more than called for? And where are they now?

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/17 at 07:55 PM

Nader,

Intent is a primary point of contention between all actions and judgements that occur within a political environment. If I believed what was untrue (e.g., WMD’s), but that was accepted by an authoritative consensus (France, Russia, UN, US, Clinton, CIA, etc), do my public conclusions based on this untruth constitute disinformation? No. It may indicate poor information on which decisions (including public conveyance) are made, but it doesn’t imply disinformation. It may even include gross incompetence (which I believe is obvious in the Bush administration), which should be dealt with within the democratic system-- voter majorities decide upon public incompotence, through the representatives they elect (or accept public incompotence until it becomes unacceptable). If the political will exists (which it certainly doesn’t at the moment), intent and incompotence of the current administration could be addressed via impeachment or an election. The election has returned a “not guilty of disinformation” and, perhaps, “we will accept incompotence because the other side appears incompotent in both vision and execution”. What might have been more dangerous for Bush politically (or any American leader in his position) would be to have an authoritative consensus on WMD’s and to not take action after 911. That would have easily been perceived as both wreckless and irresponsible by the voting majority-- since it could have been effectively portrayed that way by the opposition party. Intent would have been challenged then as well, along with competence.

This brings up something else as well. Do all decisions made by government need to be made using perfect information-- or else be considered disinformation and a crime against humanity? The field of Knowledge Management deals extensively with this concept in organizations. In most cases, perfect information is not available, which leads to the question: what is the acceptable quality/quantity of information required to make a decision? and, What are the consequences for not making a decision with available information?

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 09:17 PM

What the majority of voters did on election day, CY, was not exonerate their sitting President, in any shape or form. What they did, instead, was self-indict themselves, I believe. What do I mean by this?

The majority of Americans are willing to be lied to. And the leaders that they elect lie to them, only because their constituents have evidenced that its OK by them to be lied to.

So the issue of whether GWB lied or not is not as important to me as my conviction that most Americans are willing to be lied to. Why should they outraged at a possible significant lie by their top public servant? You first have to decide that being lied to is no longer acceptable to you, before you can hold political leaders accountable for their lies. Most Americans, I believe, haven’t crossed that threshold yet. Which is why I talk with more people on check-out lines than I do here.

And I’ll see your Whitman hand with a Thoreau hand:

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/17 at 10:39 PM

Nader,

Few people on the planet have crossed the threshold you’ve described. What they seek is someone that they feel will do or not do what’s in their best interest. Sometimes, a top official lying is in their best interests. Doesn’t make it morally valid-- but human nature and necessity doesn’t always produce moral validity. Anyone is willing to be lied to. Many would prefer that I’d lie here to validate their subjective abstractions. As Nietzsche said, “Its not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you that has shaken me.”

What’s interesting is that if disinformation became a crime against humanity, someone would have to enforce this law with every totalitarian government in the Arab world, Africa and Asia. Can we all agree that state-run media controlled by authoritarian regimes has but one purpose-- to deploy disinformation? I swear, radicalism produces more war behind the consequences of its logic than the most ambitious warrior nations.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 11:06 PM

That condition may be understandable and acceptable to you, CY, but “j’ai refuse” to accept it for me.

For as long as the majority of my country(wo)men are perfectly willing to be lied to by their elected leaders, my daughter’s future is in serious trouble.

Our leaders are never our problem; they are only symptoms of our problem: the people who elect them are.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/17 at 11:23 PM

An old friend once said to keep your eye on the ball. Mr. Petersen is attempting to define what happens when we get what we want by intent to deceive. That is the point and the thrust of his argument.

Lets take a look: you are a leader of the free world and have huge resources at your disposal. You want to depose the leader of Iraq but have poor information to go on. What do you do? Use your conscience! People are going to die by your decision to go to war here. Are you all right with going ahead when you are unsure if you are right? What are you, some kind of sub-human savage? We can sit here and analyse this thing until the cows come home. The Left, the Right, the Centre, Up, Down: we are human and have no choice by to use our head. Who is using their head in the Bush Administration? So I’ll tell you what: the reason(s) why I read these forums is that I have a chance to see how others in the human race feel about how the naked aggression by these idiots in Washington is destroying humanity which helps to feed my desire to see it stop. It probably helps to know that there are others on this planet who feel REAL peace is what we strive for. Disinformation helped to re-elect that hopeless fool in Washington and the election appeared flawed to the world. So the re-election proved nothing. If we want peace we have to work at it. But if you have a room full of buttons that can fire off the worse destructive fire power the world has ever known, and fill that room with baboons, watch out world, let’s get our great press on the coverage of the “Shock and Awe” that is about to happen! Have you ever looked up the meaning of awe? The murder of innocent people is not awesome. The people advocating this type of thing on humanity are insane. So why are they running the government in Washington? Wake up: the standing of the United States in the world has crumbled to nothing. And they did it all by themselves. Do you think they are happy now?

Posted by Frank from Canada on 02/17 at 11:31 PM

Greetings:

Kim, thank you for posting this article. I am pleased that I happened onto this site when graced with writers like you submitting works that are well thought out and penned.

CY, good trolling work, I think you sparked some good comments. I think I understand your point, though your point is nearly too subtle. Still, I do grasp your point.

Frank, you hit it on the head.

Attempts at staying abreast of reality, especially for Americans who confine their news gathering to corporate media are awash in typified, predefined delusions. We may ultimately be the poster children for the living damned. However, I can not, in good conscience, conclude that these same people are worthy of war crimes. We are a nation of people desperate to keep our low paying jobs. We are trying to avoid rocking the boat, afraid that we will become the cast-aways. We are the burned out workers who want to rest and the end of the day and don’t want to face tomorrow again and again and again.

I won’t damn my neighbors since most of them do not even have the tools to adequately gather news to make sound choices/decisions. Our job is bigger than all of that. We have to build empathetic communities. As Nadar mentioned, his daughter and all our children’s futures are in very real jeopardy.

Regards,

--
Wishing you well

Posted by Jaye from Eureka (like the vacuum) on 02/18 at 12:49 AM

Lies.You can fancy it up and call it whatever you wish to,a lie,is,well,a lie.And for me,how I feel when I’m lied to is diminished.It’s an insult to my intelligence.The Liar(s)are telling me I’m too stupid,the Liar is SO much more superior to me that I’m too dumb to know to truth.Anyone who has had a relationship with an individual who lies knows how much damage it causes and how awful it feels.When it gets personal that is.

Iraq?Not so personal I guess,that’s why it’s “ok"to so many.Name an “ism”,what’s behind it?Lies,about a specific target.Watch TV,there’s a good one.Especially watch commercials,hundreds of them daily,what are most of them based on?Lies,or at the very least,spin(a nice way of saying distraction from the truth).

Rape,there’s a good one.We lie all the time to ourselves about how often it happens.It’s obvious lies have to occur in order for the rapist to not pay a price(convictions for the crime vs number of crimes bears that out).The victim has been lied to all her(or his,though more likely her)life,made to feel shame,guilt,responsibility for an act she had no idea was coming.

Imagine,if one day,all TV programming(and why is it called programming?)ceased.Poof,for whatever reason,no TV.Imagine then the revolt.No sports,no reality TV(which isn’t real,please),no evening news,no ER or CSI.The outcry would be remarkable.And,if it was at all possible,those who run that particular machine would restore it,if they felt threatened enough.

Now imagine,for a moment if that much outrage was reflected publicly,loudly,regularly,relentlessly,toward domestic violence or child preditors(or rape,or government officials who lie and steal,or the number of handgun murders in the US,or,well,pick a problem,there’s a big menu).And THEN,along with that outrage,we began taking such things personally,even if they didn’t happen to us personally.When enough people raise hell over something,it generally begins to change.Not simply or easily,but inroads can be made.

It’s about making things uncomfortable and unacceptable.Americans have shown,over and over in times of crisis they can and do come together and help one another.It happens all the time.So,I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that IF,that same spirit was alive all the time,the lies would lose their power,be exposed faster and thus the Liars would be dealt with suitably.On OUR terms,not theirs.

Posted by Mom Anonymous from GA,USA on 02/18 at 06:50 AM

Nader,

“For as long as the majority of my country(wo)men are perfectly willing to be lied to by their elected leaders, my daughter’s future is in serious trouble. “

They are accepting lies/disformation/misinformation in their interest, just as the Left accepts the same—when it suits their interests. Both may even know it’s lies or , at least, its not the complete truth. Iraq is a case in point. I didn’t feel WMD’s were the only or best rationale for invading Iraq-- although an authoritative consesus concluded Iraq did possess WMD’s. The US needed to send a message to the region that had become a breeding ground of Islamic fascism. It was in our interest to base the war on WMD’s because Kuwait, UAE, etc would not have supported the US had we announced our intention to plant the seeds of democracy and to send a clear message to regional totalitarians. Whatever deception there was—I contend it was submitted primarily for external consumption. The “regional transformation” arguement would have worked just fine for the majority of Americans. In fact, it would have probably have provided Bush with more support in the Nov. election. The WMD arguement was politically undesirable internally but necessary externally.

I have children and I worry about their future as well. Islamic totalitarianism, however, concerns me more than the “problem” with the majority of Americans. The US is at war with Islamic totalitarianism and the majority of the US supports this war. Right now, the question asked by the electorate is: What have you done to defeat Islamic totalitarianism that views our children as legitimate targets? This is the question not answered by the Left or liberals—and why they are not trusted to lead this nation.

“Our leaders are never our problem; they are only symptoms of our problem: the people who elect them are. “

The problem with this arguement is that it presupposes the inability of the arguement, in itself, to change anything. How does one reform the people and who decides if the people must reform? What sort of revival or action is required? The “you are corrupt and dangerous” and “I want you to follow my lead” arguement has yet to change any minds. Perhaps, it has produced the opposite effect.

Also, Americans are suspicious of the intent, motives and compotence of foreign critics and those oppossed to our values, system and ideals. This could be “symptomatic of a problem” that has existed since our founding.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/18 at 08:49 AM

“How does one reform the people and who decides if the people must reform? What sort of revival or action is required? The “you are corrupt and dangerous” and “I want you to follow my lead” arguement has yet to change any minds. Perhaps, it has produced the opposite effect.”

THAT, my friend, is the real heart of the challenge, and the real mission that is before us, in my opinion.

But why are you presupposing that I must see the asleep and conditioned as corrupt and dangerous? I don’t. They are simply mentally asleep (while physiologically awake) and effectively conditioned by the propaganda influences of our society.

Since 80% of the people polled strongly supported the President’s war cry (which was a shrill shreak to those who were awake) at the time leading up to our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation,
GWB had the necessary support to do what he did, when he did it.

Were most of my fellow country(wo)men mentally awake and knew how to exercise some basic critical thinking skills in assessing the need to invade and occupy, however, GWB would not have had the cheering section that he did to go to war on Iraq.

My “enemy” is not GWB or the American majority. My enemy is the mental sleep, and the propaganda tools which induce and buttrice it, that pervades our geographical landscape.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/18 at 10:14 AM

“ They are simply mentally asleep (while physiologically awake) and effectively conditioned by the propaganda influences of our society. “

This, of course, is your subjective interpretation of the “people” and the abstraction of being “asleep”, “conditioned” and “propaganda influences”. The same interpretation could be—and is—attributed to those who share your view with equal validity. Which is to say, a subjective validity based on how one chooses their interpretation. In the end, all that is demonstrated is that it is possible to reach different conclusions based on how we filter “reality”—another subjective abstraction.

“Since 80% of the people polled strongly supported the President’s war cry (which was a shrill shreak to those who were awake) at the time leading up to our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation,
GWB had the necessary support to do what he did, when he did it. “

Yes. Another interesting question would be: did he have the support not to do what he did? Also, were those that claimed to be “awake”, actually awake within the context of a “perfect reality”—or merely the construct that they claim to be a reality and they held to be perfect. The “awakeness” lacks both clarity and objective certainty—lending itself to the interpretation of intellectual, moral and political elitism. The masses might say, why is Saddam’s regime “sovereign” and the individuals that make up Iraq not sovereign? Is the “awakeness” about protecting the legal status of Saddam on the one hand, while ignoring the legal implications of his crimes on the other (with the first legal arguement justifying continuing crimes)? It appears that legality devoid of enforcement presents a moral dilemna. Removing Saddam presents a moral dilemna and not removing him presents a dilemna.

“My “enemy” is not GWB or the American majority. My enemy is the mental sleep, and the propaganda tools which induce and buttrice it, that pervades our geographical landscape. “

My enemy is simply those who would deny the individual his/her sovereignty—which involves the negation of freedom and accountability and self-determination. I love and lend myself to the spirit of the individual—rather than groupings and abstractions that ignore and trivialize the individual. I, therefore, do not pick one group to root for and another to root against and another to which I am indifferent. I choose free individuals and those seeking freedom and those who fight for freedom. My enemy is those who would deny individuals the same choices that they have claimed a right to themselves (because of some imagined sense of spiritual, intellectual, moral, ethnic, cultural or hereditary superiority). That’s why I can claim enemies on the Left and Right.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/18 at 11:03 AM

Nader Rider,

You are so on point in just calling it by another name: propaganda.

Here’s some more relevant material from the latest Alternative Press Review mailing :

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000198.php

Relevant that is, unless one’s ‘suspicious of the intent, motives and competence of foreign critics...’

But one should always listen to foreign critics to prevent moments like Joachim von Ribbentrop’s at Nuremburg:

* * * *

Q. I have a few more questions to ask. You state that you never heard a thing about the cruelties perpetrated in the concentration camps?

Ribbentrop. Yes, that is correct.

Q. During the war you, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, studied the foreign Press and the foreign newspapers. Did you know what the foreign Press was saying?

Ribbentrop. No, that is only true up to a point. I had so much to read and so much work to do every day that on principle I only received the foreign political news selected for me from the foreign Press. Thus, during the whole of the war I never had any news from abroad about the concentration camps, until one day your armies - that is, the Soviet Russian armies - captured the camp at Maidanek in Poland.

* * * *

This diplomatic mind won accolades from Hitler (’Ribbentrop is a genius’), the derison of Prince Otto von Bismark (who thought him to be ‘such an imbecile he is a freak of nature’) and a death sentence from the Tribunal.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/18 at 11:05 AM

Theo,

One can listen to foreign critics and those opposed to our values, system, ideals—and remain suspicious.

PS: I hope I’ve caught you in a good mood.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/18 at 11:24 AM

The thing about calling it disinformation, Theo, is that it allows a propagandist a large dance floor to dance back and forth between the steps of “disinformation” and “misinformation”. While it’s a nice dance to get enthralled in, if you like dancing around conceptual nuances, but it doesn’t force you to confront the harsh reality of its true nature: propaganda. Or, perceptions that are deliberately created to manipulate you to see things in a way someone else wants you to see things, versus how they really are. There’s nothing more effective than garbing a monster with the cloak of good intentions, too, to get you to not notice it.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/18 at 11:27 AM

Thanks Nader Rider ... I gotta agree with you today. It’s sad that the term ‘disinformation’ now lends itself to such obfuscatory quibbling about its meaning. Still, we all know what ‘propaganda’ is. Your straight talk’s cut to the main issue here. Always a pleasure.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/18 at 11:39 AM

When the radical Left calls for the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to be tried for crimes against humanity for “disinformation” and “propaganda”—I will find this arguement to be something other than a duel between propagandists. Its difficult to infer any credibility to an ideology that offers a constant re-hash of totalitarian, state-run media. Its laughable for a political identity that is devoid of moral authority and intellectual integrity to attempt to define the “true nature” of anything, except itself. Unable to offer a compelling, convincing arguements—it appears that the concept of “disinformation” and “propaganda” provide an adequate excuse for irrelevance and a fantasy for becoming relevant . Equally laughable, is the idea that the radical Left would feel they might impose their deluded definitions and judgements upon a free people. To do this would require force and courage and commitment—traits not often assigned to the radical Left.

You are free to define “disinformation”, “truth”, “propaganda” and “morality” any way you like. I am free to do the same. I am also free to reject your definitions. Before you seek to impose these definitions, however, be sure to have an army and a revised tolerance for war-- since your oppressive definitions remove the possibility of debate.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/18 at 12:22 PM

Cannon, didn’t we learn that “everybody’s doing it” stops being an excuse in grade 2, or as Americans call it, second grade. In other words, even if Tommy is pulling Sally’s hair, Joey can still be reprimanded, and can’t simply claim that Tommy also does it.

I would not at all be against more press freedom in all of those countries. The best possible study on Saudi Arabia’s repression comes from a leftist (Asad Abu Khalil,) It is my understanding that many other Arab states have more diverse broadcast media, but less diverse print media, in Lebanon and Syria where one can purchase American magazines but suspicously...of course in all of these states, opposition and leftist journals get shut down. Propaganda in democracies is easier to acheive precisely because of its democracy and free speech. Journalists under the “objective/both sides” model can’t differentiate, or aren’t well trained enough to differentiate between scam artists and professional disinformation artists than they are to much less polished left and antiwar advocates.

In the case of Iran, it can’t be emphasized enough that the US is making it more repressive. This is objective though seems counterintuitive. Most Iranian dissidents, notably Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi are able to publish in their country easier than America (not that its easy in Iran, but Ebadi’s work wasn’t allowed into America.) Ebadi has also said that the American sabre rattling against Iran strengthens the authoritarianism of the state since progressives and secularists are seen in this light to be servants of the Americans. So if America was truly interested in a free media environment in Iran, it would be allowing it to happen, not threatening its government. You have no argument from me about North Korea, whose articles from its state press are often translated humorously in the “readings” section of Harpers’ Magazine - its ludicrous. But the fact remains that even if there are dozens of situations all of the world in which government and media get together for propaganda purposes, that doesn’t mean that its wrong to complain about the most egregious example. If the US is the most powerful country in the world, its activities legitimize similar activities in other more opressive states.

As I said, its a grade 2 excuse. I would think that someone who claims to be a passionate believer in individual liberties, even not a leftist (Paul Craig Roberts is no leftist) would be against this sort of “big government” nexus with “big media.”

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 02/18 at 12:51 PM

Oppressive definitions? No definition comes with the quality of oppressiveness. You may, indeed, feel oppressed by the certain defintion (which is your privilege to do so), but that is your response to a defintion, not the defintion’s quality.

And your characterization that I am “imposing” my defintion is glaringly inaccurate. But I can see why you would like to feel that way. Victimization is an alluring perspective, if not a prevailing one.

For someone who trumpets the sovereignty of the individual, asssuming fuller responsibility for your reactions (i.e. in response to someone else’s defintion) would be a good way of heralding personal responsibility, which is a cornerstone of individual sovereignty.

Your occassional mental masturbations never cease to amuse me, CY. And I thank you for the welcome levity.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/18 at 12:57 PM

j,

I wasn’t intentionally presenting an “everybody’s doing it” arguement—although I can see how I may have clumsily projected this. I was simply pointing out the suspicious intent of those who selectively assign “disinformation” and “propaganda” labels—which could easily be intrepreted as “disinformation” and “propaganda”. The best “disinformation” leverages facts to support a conclusion, while ignoring facts that contradict a conclusion. Given the facts that were ommitted/ignored, I only questioned the intent of those whom some unknown body appointed to define “disinformation” and to enforce penalties for “disinformation”.

I agree that governments should not pay journalists to promote the government’s agenda—at least, not without stamping a disclaimer/warning label on the head or work of the journalist (which is why I oppose state-run media of all sorts). For an individual to make good economic, political and other decisions - he/she needs the best information possible (which is rarely perfect). Media and government should be accountable. CNN should have been held accountable for hiding crimes commited by Saddam in excahnge for access-- and news outlets that lacked “objectivity” in the lead up to the Iraq war should be held accountable (though its unreasonable to expect them to develop intelligence services to dispute WMD claims).

On Iran, I see your point and agree. One could almost argue that it would be more in the interest of Iranians and national security, if the US were to deploy “disinformation” in regards to Iran. Instead of threats, what if we pretended to be getting along wonderfully with the ruling mullahs? We don’t need to tell Iran that we can annihilate them 5 minutes after they test their first nuke. They know this already. Why not give the impression that the mullahs are collaborating with the US or ,worse still, Israel? In this case, could disinformation actually be a good thing? Just a thought…

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/18 at 01:41 PM

Cannon Yonts,

Because you recently appealed to my sense of Gattungswesen (in the Comments to Nate Collins, ‘Harsher and Dreader Realities’.), I respond.

‘Perhaps, I’ve caught you in a bad mood. At any rate, the next time I return maybe your mood will have improved and we can discuss things as two brothers within humanity-- rather than as different species.’

Sadly, in that same post you also said:

‘Jordy made an arguement that Marxism is not Stalinism-and he may be correct. My point is that Stalinism is an inevitable result of Marxism-its what this abstraction evolves to.’

Naturally ‘Stalinism’ or ‘Trotskyism’ or ‘Jordyism’ would necessarily be kinds of ‘Marxism’. So ... ‘Stalinism’ is a kind of ‘Marxism’ ... but ‘Marxism’ is not a kind of ‘Stalinism’. That is why they are not the same. (It’s deeper than that. I recommend Isaac Deutscher’s ‘Marxism in Our Time’.)

Accordingly, I’m hesitant taking you seriously about ‘species’ when you simultaneously demonstrate you cannot differentiate between it and ‘genus’ and encourage reading Aristotle’s ‘Categories’ (the propaedeutical text to the ‘Organon’, the foundational logical apparatus of western civilization itself).

Examining your phrasing, there is no question if Jordy ‘may be correct’, he is simply communicating in English.

I suspect the only people to assert Stalinism is a necessary outcome of Marxism with your confidence were Stalin himself and his sycophants.

Until you concede you are hopelessly misinformed about the radical left you badmouth with such zest here, I am unaware of any polite solution but to ridicule your pleonastic posting.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/18 at 04:52 PM

Yoonts said:
though its unreasonable to expect them to develop intelligence services to dispute WMD claims).

This can’t go without passing. The media, from the right to the so-called liberal (Judy Miller @the Times) bought into unverified information that anyone at the CIA was anonymously saying was “Bullshit.” As well you had Scott Ritter, who was UNSCOM and others openly questioning the claims. Ritter was punished severely for this - he was interviewed a lot for a while, and then they set him up. There was ample ample ample information to discredit wmd claims. For the most part, with the excpetion of individual broadcasters and news organizations, were ignored.

As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, at least in Naziism or Stalinism they were forced to undergo this transformation. Under Bush, the fear does its own job, and even the clinically approved (save Donahue who got fired for having people like Phyliss Bennis on his show to talk about the war) dissenting voices all bought into Chomsky’s classic hawk/dove paradigm from Vietnam as in both hawks and doves think that “going after Saddam” is good, they just question how best it can be done. The whole “mulitlateral"/unipolar coke/pepsi bush/kerry sweet&low/extra sort of thing. No room was provided to advocates of peace and justice, and the few mainstream columnists who opposed the war not as fairweather “they lied” types but from the start is very short (James Fallows and Helen Thomas stand out - most others who suddenly became wild eyed Truman/LBJ type liberal fighters supported the war at the start....)

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 02/18 at 06:38 PM

j,

“unverified information that anyone at the CIA was anonymously saying was “Bullshit.” “

Except for the CIA Director,Tenet(called the intelligence a “slam dunk").

“As well you had Scott Ritter, who was UNSCOM and others openly questioning the claims. “

He questioned the claims after UNSCOM. He quit UNSCOM because he felt Clinton should take stronger action regarding Iraq. He was actually quite the hawk. Of course, he later became a frequent visitor at Saddam’s court and had a change of heart. He proceded to create a movie, paid for by an Iraqi agent, portaying Saddam as a victim. Then, besides the commentary on WMD’s, he tells how the invasion of Iraq will fail and other wisdom that proved fantasy.

“ Ritter was punished severely for this - he was interviewed a lot for a while, and then they set him up.”

Yes, he was trying to get dates with 12-15 year old girls online and got busted. That’s when he lost credibility. Hmmmm...maybe, Saddam was hooking him up with underage girls in exchange for his support. It was common for Saddam’s intell service to dig up personal info on inspectors to use for blackmail/intimidation. Its well documented. Of course, he has helped his credibility lately—he provides anti-American commentary for al Jazaera. Come on j, there has to be someone with more credibility than Ritter. You aren’t asking that me and my gov’t accept Ritter as a character witness for Saddam, are you?

The fact is that there was uncertainty. Leaders have to make decisions with imperfect info.

“No room was provided to advocates of peace and justice,”

Are you referring to oppressed Iraqis that weren’t allowed to speak at ANSWER rallies and liberal anti-war rallies? Certainly, they were seeking peace and justice. Were they not? Why did the Left silence their voice, j? Perhaps, those on the Left would have realized there hadn’t been peace or justice in Iraq for 30 years. The Centre for Human Rights in Iraq compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Over 100,000 people were found in mass graves after the invasion. 700,000 Iraqis died in two wars prior to the invasion. Was the status quo really “peace” and “justice”?

There was plenty of room for advocates of “peace and justice”. Even in my backward hometown, we saw the images of protests organized by ANSWER on our tv. We saw the anti-American venom of Anarchists, Communists and Leftists of all sorts. We saw Penn meet Saddam but not the Kurds, Shiites and Marsh Arabs. My city had protests organized by Leftist groups from NJ and NY-- and we watched them shout down all who disagreed by calling them “fascists” and “baby killers” and “Nazis”. We heard from Moore, Soros and others. These voices were heard and rejected.

j, many of us who supported the war did so for ideals of peace and justice. Many felt that keeping Saddam in power and maintaining the status quo in the region would prevent any hope…

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/18 at 08:41 PM

Theo,

To clarify, I am aware that Marxism is not Stalinism, I merely said its an evolution of Marxism-- because the lack of soveriegnty provided the individual degenerates into totalitarianism. Any system the denies the individual a degree of sovereignty degerates into totalitarianism. This conclusion is shared by Drucker and others.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/18 at 08:57 PM

Cannon Yonts,

No, you did not say Stalinism is ‘an evolution of Marxism’, but it’s Marxism’s ‘inevitable result’.

Talking about an inevitable result here reveals your deficient grasp (and conflation) of both historical entelechy (inevitability) and evolution (which accomodates for chance or random selection). To stick with the categories you have recently adopted (and I’m amazed by their incessant flux): ‘Stalinism’ would no more be an inevitable, final result of ‘Marxism’ than the Cro-Magnon would the inevitable, final result of primatial evolution.

I will not further waste my time.

I again remind you classical Marxism celebrates individual sovereignty and freedom as much as it denies the individual right to ownership of the means of production (again, just read the ‘Communist Manifesto’). One of many examples I could educate you with might be from the anti-Stalinist manifesto of The International Federation of Independent Revolutionary Art, ‘Towards a Free Revolutionary Art’ by Andre Breton and Leon Trotsky, where we read:

‘If, for the better development of the forces of material production, the revolution must build a socialist regime with centralized control, to develop intellectual creation an anarchist regime of individual liberty should from the first be established.’

Your claims elsewhere here on PA that radical leftist thought is actually tantamount to or rooted in nihilism is risible ad oculus, and indicates either your nescience regarding the history of ideas or your casual contempt for that history. Reading your comments here this week has been akin to watching a blind man ride a blind horse.

I see no reason to persist in a charade that you have anything meaningful to say about leftist political thought and remind you I am one of those people you could only interpret as spitting ‘anti-American venom’ on TV, and (being an eclectic thinker) proudly qualify as an ‘Anarchist’, a ‘Communist’ and a ‘Leftist’ among other things (politically, I’m also influenced by Russellian liberalism, classical Chinese philosophy and Aron Nimzovitch’s book on chess, ‘My System’), even as I, in no way, qualify as a ‘nihilist’, a ‘Stalinist’, a ‘totalitarian’, or a—wait for it—‘sycophant’.

The fact that war supporters like you have been rendered unable to distinguish between ‘antiwar’ and ‘anti-American’ is an element of the propaganda we have been trying to discuss here.

If you knew something about our tradition, you might not criticize the left so sharply (and ineptly).

Please, either respect the fact that you are light years out of your league here and make an effort to write some clean and reasonable English, observe the rudiments of common, conversational logic or ... absquatulate. (See, I learned that word from my grandpa, even as my grandmother insisted I learn a smattering or two of proper Latin.)

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/19 at 11:53 AM

Today, John Pilger’s got a good piece about propaganda: ‘Laying the Ground Work for War: First, They Attack the Past’ (CounterPunch).

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/19 at 12:46 PM

Theo,

OK, I could go through your points...but you have already decided that you are smarter and more clever than those with a different viewpoint. I lack that certainty and would reject that certainty in myself. What I have offered is a perspective on how the Left appears to an uneducated, morally questionable, red-state person—like myself. I understand that a profound thinker, such as yourself, with a powerful command of every word in the English dictionary (and perhaps other languages as well)...would be disinclined to share an intellectual exchange with a mere “plugger”. Would could blame you? The fact that you were willing to offer such well-referenced, personalized and unemotional criticism inspires no small amount of gratitute.

The good thing about establishing your intellectual and moral superiorty, is that I can now deal with the future US gov’t you (and those like) you will create. Even though I can no longer own my own business (means of production) , I can at least speak out about my disdain for the new system. Of course, I can’t offer my viewpoint independently since I can’t own the means of production (media outlet) in order to do so...and the state-run media will likely label my viewpoint as “disinformation” (at best). Perhaps, you can get me on a state-run factory or farm. Sure, I may not have the freedom to create my own products and services, express my point of view outside the collective media or make my own determination about how I add value to others—but its a small price to pay for a society in which the smart people (Leftist) rule. Not sure how the new state will handle religion (may be considered disinfo) or other ideological views, but hopefully you can put in a good word and I won’t be sent to a re-education center. Tell them to give me a chance to conform, after all—I’m just a brainwashed, ignorant redneck who can’t help himself.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/19 at 06:37 PM

Cannon Yonts,

You could not go through my points and I do believe I’ve given you a good feel for what would have happened to you if you’d given it a whirl.

I got cans of verbal whupass in assorted flavors by the case here for phonies like you.

As far as you offering ‘a perspective on how the Left appears to an uneducated, morally questionable, red-state person like myself,’ I want you to know that back home I drink with real rednecks. Grew up on a farm. Don’t try any homespun homilies here with me.

I remind you that is was YOU who came in here feigning theoretical acumen, looking for trouble.

All I’ve done is highlight how your tendentious argumentation is so horribly unlettered literatim.

The fact that I took the trouble to educate myself and you did not is not my shame.

Now show a bit of grace and just shuffle on down to the library.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/20 at 08:36 AM

And by the way ... I’ve no intention of involving myself in politics in more than a critical capacity.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/20 at 08:50 AM

Cannon:

You stated “When I say the radical left I imply a form of nihlism—nihlism as the common theme.”

In your latest group of neo-fascist rants you did not use the word “nihilists” at all, but you used “the left” or “leftist” 13 times.

I know that O’Reilly and Scarborough and the other Patriots/Nationalists/Rightists/Libertarianists/Christianists/Puritanists, etc. like to sterotype and lump large numbers of people into the one word explanation “the left”, but I’m sure you realize that this practice ruins the effectiveness of any of your arguments (unless you’re a tv shock jock/journalist).

Posted by elches1917 from on 02/22 at 04:08 PM

Next entry: 'One Man Has Stopped Killing'

Previous entry: Harsher and Dreader Realities: Enough Double Talk on the Left

[ads]

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Disinformation: A Crime Against Humanity and a Crime Against Peace

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate