blinkandwheeze posted:It's been months now and i still don't really understand what they are saying russia actually did
Yeah this is exactly what's at the core of this, nothing in terms of an actual event, everything in terms of the political goal. There is no "there" there and what we see instead is bad-faith enabling of a materially-driven, never-ending anti-foreign narrative by U.S. intelligence services that want more funding and less oversight to perform the activities of imperialism, as currently performed by Democrat-style liberals in politics and the media who feel it's politically expedient for them in terms of the next election.
The Democrats here, from the Clinton campaign to the Democrat-friendly news press, and probably all the way down to much of the "grassroots" people re-posting these stories on social media, are all folks who couldn't really care less about Russia, who don't see it as a threat to themselves or the U.S. in any real way and who are probably more than a little afraid that too much scratching will reveal the names of their own political leading lights, though I think most of the people in the intelligence agencies feeding them the "information" are far more politically adept than the political figures themselves and aren't likely to point fingers at their own current backers until they secure different ones.
The intelligence agencies care about Russia in terms of their own long-standing foreign policy agendas, and they care about Trump's administration insofar as the agencies don't feel they can depend on them to follow or support the well-established Washington narrative that facilitates those agendas. The agencies like smooth operations and Trump's people don't seem to be greatly interested in that concept, otherwise they'd be asking those agencies "What should we do?" all the time and there would be no friction there. I think even a lot of Democrats, if they bother to think about it, realize that attitude toward the U.S. intelligence/investigation agencies is warranted, i.e., that if there were a problem there to be concerned about but the agencies felt they were getting what they wanted out of the White House, we'd never hear a thing about that problem from them, while history shows those same agencies are fully willing and able to create a "problem" where none exists to get their way (and that they'll usually do that anyway because of the benefits of applying constant pressure even against the compliant).
I posted that graph a while back of the see-sawing of support for the CIA between Democrats and Republicans in recent years and I still think the correct way of seeing it is, they only need one at any given time.
oh dear, Hillary says "covfefe" was a distraction from Russia, Trump's budget, it's "classic authoritarian" she says
— eve peyser (@evepeyser) May 31, 2017
cars posted:
kali is... literally black. *smokes rises from computer circuits*
People in covfefe houses shouldn't throw covfefe. https://t.co/M7oK5Z6qwF
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 1, 2017
Political Engagement: MAXIMUM
insta_gramsci posted:*turns typo or whatever into meme*
Political Engagement: MAXIMUM
That's straight up the nature of the medium, if @POTUS tweeted nothing but "teh" the media feeding off of this shit would completely lose it
cars posted:The intelligence agencies care about Russia in terms of their own long-standing foreign policy agendas
i don't get what they're trying to achieve by demonizing russia. the ussr is gone, capitalism has been restored... unless they want to justify an upcoming war, why push this so hard?
I wanna suggest that they're gearing up for a contest over resources of the post-icecap arctic, too, except what little I've read on that claims that the U.S. genuinely doesn't have that shit on its radar, which seems surprising to me and could be wrong but what do I know
Synergy posted:cars posted:The intelligence agencies care about Russia in terms of their own long-standing foreign policy agendas
i don't get what they're trying to achieve by demonizing russia. the ussr is gone, capitalism has been restored... unless they want to justify an upcoming war, why push this so hard?
i think honestly it's as simple as a scapegoat to blame for the assassination of yassy queen by the moron donald trump
Synergy posted:i don't get what they're trying to achieve by demonizing russia. the ussr is gone, capitalism has been restored... unless they want to justify an upcoming war, why push this so hard?
their agenda is to dominate the countries immediately to Russia's west through proxies, for the same reason that they're trying to perform the acts of imperialism everywhere else in the world, and to muster financial support for that and reduce oversight they need to give supporting politicians at home political capital to spend against Russia as a hated foe. The thing about contemporary Russia is that it's shown its willingness and ability to resist this pressure as few countries can and it's unusual in that regard, and its bourgeois-nationalist leadership can also use that position to bolster resistance elsewhere, so it receives an extra dose of propaganda.
Here we have another US intelligence document proving that Russia hacked the election. This time,there's not even the most basic paragraph of justification for why it had to have been Russia, simply stating that "Russia did it" in the first sentence is enough to prove it now. The whole document is nothing more than a description for how a phishing attack works. It's interesting to me that they decided to "leak" it to the Intercept this time instead of just releasing it outright.
edit: also this article called Russia a nation state lol why do amerikans not know anything at all
Edited by colddays ()
mediumpig posted:Or been more cautious against being an unwitting NSA mouthpiece.
they never cared either time and just went for the best clickbait title to draw traffic first, and covered their asses with some bet hedging weasel words second. that's quality professional journalism.
cars posted:Synergy posted:i don't get what they're trying to achieve by demonizing russia. the ussr is gone, capitalism has been restored... unless they want to justify an upcoming war, why push this so hard?
their agenda is to dominate the countries immediately to Russia's west through proxies, for the same reason that they're trying to perform the acts of imperialism everywhere else in the world, and to muster financial support for that and reduce oversight they need to give supporting politicians at home political capital to spend against Russia as a hated foe. The thing about contemporary Russia is that it's shown its willingness and ability to resist this pressure as few countries can and it's unusual in that regard, and its bourgeois-nationalist leadership can also use that position to bolster resistance elsewhere, so it receives an extra dose of propaganda.
To go even a little more foundational then this, and it's maybe just 101 but worth bringing up if people are still asking the question on this forum: the current goal of capitalist imperialism is not necessarily to make every country into a parliamentary-capitalist state, but rather to exercise dominance in a system that works to extract resources and discipline labor in a global economy. It's one of the elements of capitalist crisis, for that matter, that capitalists worldwide aren't going to form themselves into a single, friendly hegemonic bloc into which any state's ruling class can and does enter as soon as they declare their moral support for the capitalist mode of production. States and national bourgeoisie elements don't have to be non-capitalist to be anti-imperialist (unless you're a certain strain of Trot or ultra-left purist) and, in fact, some of them will end up defending their own interests in practically anti-imperialist ways without having much choice in the matter.
That's putting aside how governments can and do call themselves "socialist" while actively working for the interests of capitalist imperialism, the leaders of interwar Poland being an example that's interested me lately. And in that case, even Trotskyists who accused Stalin's government of liquidating the Polish Communist Party didn't think it was a legitimate goal for Communists to allow Poland's previously/nominally "socialist" ruling clique any breathing room to reestablish their influence. In the end, key figures in the state or the ruling class declaring the state to be one thing or another doesn't make it so. After all, there are a lot of people in the United States of all classes, if asked to name the #1 force in the world that "fights imperialism", would answer, well, it's the U.S. military, of course.
colddays posted:there's not even the most basic paragraph of justification for why it had to have been Russia, simply stating that "Russia did it" in the first sentence is enough to prove it now. The whole document is nothing more than a description for how a phishing attack works.
If you think it's a good idea to try to convince left-leaning people in Western countries that they should treat statements from their own intelligence agencies with skepticism no matter the avenue by which they're released, and I do, then a big part of that has to be to explain why such people should bother to question those statements when they're advantageous in the moment for center-left parties. It's one reason why I think it's incumbent on people who have that goal of encouraging skepticism among such people (and I realize plenty of people on the left don't) to continue to hammer the legacies of previous Labour Party, Democratic Party, etc. governments with criticism, even if it's "divisive" while trying to get people to show up to your anti-Trump march or whatever.
To me, the division that happens there is going to be between people who are likely to act as allies of socialism and socialist movements in the future and the people who likely never will, and that probably will have less to do with their internal moral decision-making than with the material factors underpinning their lives. A lot of the time, people only learn to ask the right questions when they suspect that failing to do that will fuck them over big time and soon.
Still can't get over this part of Hillary Clinton's book. h/t @JeanetteJing pic.twitter.com/R7MMXoODEg
— Samuel Sinyangwe (@samswey) June 6, 2017
Hillary: I did however get some convicted murderers as servants which freaked me out (and based on the reaction to my last post on black people I won't go into why)
cars posted:colddays posted:there's not even the most basic paragraph of justification for why it had to have been Russia, simply stating that "Russia did it" in the first sentence is enough to prove it now. The whole document is nothing more than a description for how a phishing attack works.
If you think it's a good idea to try to convince left-leaning people in Western countries that they should treat statements from their own intelligence agencies with skepticism no matter the avenue by which they're released, and I do, then a big part of that has to be to explain why such people should bother to question those statements when they're advantageous in the moment for center-left parties. It's one reason why I think it's incumbent on people who have that goal of encouraging skepticism among such people (and I realize plenty of people on the left don't) to continue to hammer the legacies of previous Labour Party, Democratic Party, etc. governments with criticism, even if it's "divisive" while trying to get people to show up to your anti-Trump march or whatever.
To me, the division that happens there is going to be between people who are likely to act as allies of socialism and socialist movements in the future and the people who likely never will, and that probably will have less to do with their internal moral decision-making than with the material factors underpinning their lives. A lot of the time, people only learn to ask the right questions when they suspect that failing to do that will fuck them over big time and soon.
uhhhh pic.twitter.com/CQhPYjTsXv
— KRANG T. NELSON (@KrangTNelson) June 7, 2017
hey posted:cars posted:colddays posted:there's not even the most basic paragraph of justification for why it had to have been Russia, simply stating that "Russia did it" in the first sentence is enough to prove it now. The whole document is nothing more than a description for how a phishing attack works.
If you think it's a good idea to try to convince left-leaning people in Western countries that they should treat statements from their own intelligence agencies with skepticism no matter the avenue by which they're released, and I do, then a big part of that has to be to explain why such people should bother to question those statements when they're advantageous in the moment for center-left parties. It's one reason why I think it's incumbent on people who have that goal of encouraging skepticism among such people (and I realize plenty of people on the left don't) to continue to hammer the legacies of previous Labour Party, Democratic Party, etc. governments with criticism, even if it's "divisive" while trying to get people to show up to your anti-Trump march or whatever.
To me, the division that happens there is going to be between people who are likely to act as allies of socialism and socialist movements in the future and the people who likely never will, and that probably will have less to do with their internal moral decision-making than with the material factors underpinning their lives. A lot of the time, people only learn to ask the right questions when they suspect that failing to do that will fuck them over big time and soon.
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:uhhhh pic.twitter.com/CQhPYjTsXv
— KRANG T. NELSON (@KrangTNelson) June 7, 2017
I love the terms of the deal. fucking 50/50. half to the corporation, half to the penitentiary. It sounds like lazy screen-writing.
"okay bryan, let's here us your pitch"
"okay. there's this woman, and she wants to be president. okay. now. she's corrupt. how corrupt? let me tell you. uhhh. she has this corporation. and it harvests bloods from prisoners. fucked up right?"
"how does this corporation get access to the prisoners?"
"well. uhhh. the cops are crooked right. they get a cut of the pie. 50/50. even split. not bad eh?"
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:uhhhh pic.twitter.com/CQhPYjTsXv
— KRANG T. NELSON (@KrangTNelson) June 7, 2017
I think we need to stop making cynical jokes, no matter how outlandish we make them they keep retroactively becoming real.
parabolart posted:I read that like 5 times and still dont know what the fuck
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves