No surprise, following the leaks Snowden was painted as a traitor that clearly only pandered to Russian interests.
More pieces of the Zeitgeist, really.
US media is just Propaganda.
Not to say that every leftist does this. There are those who are principled enough to not buy into the propaganda.
“Oust Trump”? Are you under the impression that Trump is still in office from which he could be ousted?
Aaron Mate is a regular on his show.
Jimmy has been debunking the Russiagate conspiracy for years now. He's a comedian turned truth-teller. I stumbled across his show many years ago, and my honest first impression was that this guy looks like a shady used car salesman, so I was very skeptical of his claims. He will go into angry tirades often.
But after seeing enough of his segments, and seeing how things unfold over weeks and months, I realized he's actually legit. Whenever I see news unfold now on mainstream news, for example - the Nordstream pipeline being blown up and Russia being blamed for it, I know I will get a more accurate assessment of the truth from Jimmy Dore. And again, it's not that I take his word for it, I see how things unfold weeks and months later and turns out he was right.
Note: The left smears Dore as a right-winger. That's so bullshit. He's actually progressive and more left than the establishment left - antiwar, wants universal healthcare, pro-union pro-worker, free-speech. Dore was one of the first people to endorse and interview AOC when it looked like she was a legit anti-establishment lefty (that turned out to be wrong). The left doesn't like him because he criticizes them from the real left and reveals their hypocrisy and corruption.
Trump assassinated a foreign dignitary, but not much else. His rhetoric is worse and aesthetically he’s somewhat worse, sure.
I don’t see much practical difference.
It is true that Biden was heavily involved in foreign affairs during that time, but that may actually be why he might currently be the perfect president to have during the war in Ukraine. For a US president, he's doing a much better job at finding a good balance in supporting Ukraine without escalating than I can imagine any other recent president would have done.
Was Biden responsible for the drone strikes? I thought that was Obama's thing. It was certainly a terrible atrocity and something that should never have happened. With Obama's presidency I had high hopes and ended up mostly disappointed. With Biden, I had very low expectations, but he's surpassed them. Not my favourite guy, but definitely better than Trump. Better than Bush. Possibly even better than Obama.
Although I'm deeply disappointed about his union busting. Train union busting, even. I thought he liked trains. That is where I expected much better from him.
Of course Biden wouldn’t support unions. Like his entire party, he represents one faction of US capital.
For what it’s worth, US communists and trade unionists don’t talk about Biden the way liberals like you do.
If you want a more neutral perspective on American media, look at foreign media. Trump is worse than the US media are willing to tell you, and Hunter Biden's laptop seems to be entirely made-up by US media and a couple of political figures.
But also, people with political agendas have been messing with that laptop for years, so it's hard to trust anything coming from that laptop anymore. Whatever evidence there may be has been quite thoroughly compromised. The fact that it was handed to people with a political axe to grind, rather than to the police, was a mistake.
I'd put it a bit differently but I think we have the same idea in mind: people believe what resonates well in their minds because they are already tuned for this. So if someone likes to believe that natural medicine is good, then their mind is more likely to believe in big pharma conspiracies and that homeopathy is valid medicine (yes, I'm aware that natural medicine can be evidence-based and homeopathy is not natural).
In that sense, propaganda always needs to consider how minds are tuned already to give them something that they like to consume.
Oh, the best one (not in the above book as that was written in the 1990s, before the following): Israel offered the Palestinians up to 94% of all lands they claimed their own. Unilateral, without demands. On 3 occasions and under 2 different PMs. The Palestinian leadership refused each time with no counterdemand.
Read a book.
Footnote: This isn't to say propaganda isn't ravaging the West.
Here’s a book for you to read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Pale...
Will you actually read it?
You are simplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. It's not "Israelis are angels, Palestinians are devils", but it's not the reverse either. It's a complex issue in which there isn't an easy path out, because of the actions of both sides.
Israel isn't solely to blame for the problems of the Palestinians; they were even refugees in Arab countries before they became Israeli refugees. And their current situation is at least partially caused by themselves, and at least partially caused by the fact that other powers in the region have a lot of incentive for the conflict to continue. It's also partially caused by Israel having incentive to continue the current situation, as it is strategically beneficial to Israel. (Which of course doesn't make it right!)
More to the point of your original post, I think coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian situation is very biased against Israel in most parts of the world, including the US. And I say this even as someone who is very "leftist" in my views of the situation, and absolutely hate what our current government is doing (in many ways, but including in this way). And in fact, I hate how Israel has acted over the last many years, though I, like most Israeli, have no idea how to "fix" the current situation.
At what point in history did any leader of Israel have any chance to change the course of history? I have learned more about this subject than I have wanted to, and since the event that ended in 1945, they have done the best they can with what they had
Any politician who steps out of line on the issue, even just pointing at obvious facts on the ground, is disciplined immediately. See what happened to Rashida Tlaib a few years ago for making mild factual observations.
I'm opposed to laws against boycotting, fwiw.
Its an occupation started by the Arther Balfour deceleration in 1917. Started with Zionist crime gangs that later turned into the mossad and other occupational military forces who run the apartheid occupation.
It doesn't matter where Palestinians come from, why they live there, etc, ITS AN OCCUPATION, as simple as that.
Its an occupation of one of the holliest lands for all three religions, with ethnic cleansing against Palestinian Muslims and Christians, through every way possible, killing journalists, children, families, mass killings.
Yet when Palestinians go to defend their land and their rights they are called terrorists, what unfavorable coverage are you talking about? Palestinians throwing Molotovs against occupation forces? Terrorists, Ukrainians doing the exact same thing? Heros.
But the whole “both sides are wrong” issue is total bullshit. One side has all the power and the other exists below the boot. One side is actively ethnically cleansing Palestine and the other side is being ethnically cleansed. You can’t possibly make both sides equal in blame.
I think there's something really fundamentally wrong with US media. And not just with Fox News, but with all of them.
Therefore corporate media ends up defending the status quo, by default or by design.
I remember all the talk about quiet quitting and working home and all that, but because media has slowly shifted away from that, I seemed to think about it less. In fact, I completely forgot about quiet quitting until you just mentioned it, when I realized they have slowly blocked it out.
Imagine that. It took me a while to realize that. And I still needed something to remind me of it. A lot of people aren't constantly reminded about it, which means they'll think more about whatever is currently in the media and keep falling for their trap.
You probably mean Marxist-Leninist "Communist" states. Those are centralised capitalist states, China, NK, etc. There a lot of explanations regarding why Marxist-Leninism only leads to a more centralised form of capitalism.
Communism is understood to be an ideal state (in the platonic sense of the word), it isn't meant to be achieved, more of a thought experiment or something to strive for.
>We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
Socialism. Socialism is different from Communism, it isn't an utopia or an ideal.
Where do you aim to take this conversation?
> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.
In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?
I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
Alternatively, in a system with more democracy, like Socialism. Where there isn't vast amounts of inequality, the surveillance state would have a hard time to exists.
My response was not irrelevant as your question contained a contradiction which I pointed out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that you are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy-fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy occurs, if and only if, the other person never defines what is a true Scotsman. I can give you concrete definitions with no logical contradictions, whether or not you accept them, that's on you.
>I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organised themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
It seems like you are going by the definition of Socialism that is common in the United States. The definition that says Socialism is when the government does stuff and you probably think Scandinavian countries are Socialists. Those countries are not Socialists, they are Capitalists. There are no currently existing Socialists countries. Here the definition so you don't accuse me of being Scottish, Socialism is when the workers (not the government) own the means of production. The so-called democracy of the workplace.
That Isa false dichotomy
Being opposed to capitalism does not make one a communist.
There are more than two things
It’s not like he has any good options. I don’t blame him for staying in Russia.
Frankly as a non American I don’t know why you’re weighing in so strongly on this.
Ecuador
Yes, the level of wiretapping and surveillance was bad. It should have been exposed.
However, that's not all he took. And those documents have had negative effects on U.S. operations and that of their allies.
I have my conjectures and speculations, but ultimately, I do not believe Snowden is completely in the right.
Page 20:
"As of August 19, 2016, press outlets had published or referenced taken by Snowden.'™ This represents less than one-tenth of one percent of the nearly 1.5 million documents the IC assesses Snowden removed."
Page 22:
“As of June 2016, the most recent DoD review identified 13 high-risk issues . . . . Eight of the 13 relate to [redacted] capabilities of DoD; if the Russian or Chinese governments have access to this information, American troops will be at greater risk in any future conflict.”
It’s not like I don’t believe that Snowden likely took things that endanger elements of national security. However, I’m going to need a bit more evidence to believe a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens, and equates “risks to national security” with “things that make us look bad”.
> a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens
You are biased.
I’m claiming they are being vague.
Something can be technically true, and while it is given a framing that is far out of proportion with the supporting evidence.
> > a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens You are biased.
Snowden’s leaks demonstrated that what I said is a fact, and no one in the government even disputes the content of those leaks!
> How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information?
I don’t know, but that does mean you just get to exclaim “it’s classified!!!” And I magically just have to believe everything you say.
> Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.
The report provided no evidence to dispute. Again, the national security apparatus has shown itself time and again to not be trustworthy: gulf of Tonkin, wmd in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, spying on its own citizens and lying about it to congress under oath (and getting away with it with no consequences). Flagrantly violating the law (Iran contra), etc etc.
I’d rather be “biased” than a rube.
They said there were 13 risks and that 8 would be bad/endanger troops if China and or Russia were aware. That’s it. How many troops? Endanger them how? What kind of information are talking about? Sources and methods? Weapons systems? Other technology? Literally any detail???
I understand your position is that “they’re in a bind”. Well, there shouldn’t have squandered their reputation by lying about major issues facing the American people like war making, mass surveillance, illegal activities, etc.
Finally, the sheer number of documents he extracted was a red herring/immaterial to nation security. All that matters is content.
Edit: a move careful reading of the report demonstrates that the 1.5 million number appears to only refer to the number of non blank documents that were downloaded, it is not at all clear that the is any way for the government to get a precise measurement of what Snowden actually took with him to Hong Kong and disclosed. Anything that hasn’t been disclosed in public would therefore be purely speculative on the part of the US government.
I am not sure why we struggle so much with that idea given the complexity of the situation.
See: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/18/the-trouble-wi...
He obviously had a negative opinion about the US government and very little trust for it, so he is quite biased, but that seems expected given his history. I don't read this as him somehow supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Degenerate is a stretch, but 'criminal' does not seem controversial. Whether you agree with the laws or not, hate the USG, love Snowden, whatever, the fact remains that he did most likely break the law. He hasn't been convicted, true, but his own choice to stay out of the US suggests he believes he would be.
If my government had secret programs that my own courts would rule illegal later, I damn well hope that someone is going to run to the press,and I also hope that this someone is gonna get a medal...
Are you simply going to tolerate corruption, illegal and unethical behavior as long as there is some law that forbids talking about that?!
What he did was clearly not espionage, because he didn't sell info to a foreign country, he released it to the American public. And if I recall correctly, he made sure not all of it was released, and it was redacted as responsibly as he could. That's not how espionage works. Charging these whistleblowers with espionage is a flagrant abuse of the law.
Snowden, despite the injustices he revealed, fell on the wrong side of American opinion in relation to the military, foreign policy, and associated intelligence agencies.
I wouldn't be so fast to use the word "deeply" there.
Though clearly I think most Republican voters are pretty explicit about it. At least the ones I have met. This is kind of the undertone to "America First" really.
EDIT: And I'd add that many often seem to have the attitude that this extends to other countries in the American sphere of influence; even self-style liberals will make comments ot the effect that Canada or France or Germany etc are all benefiting from the US's world dominance and that we basically "owe them one"; as if this isn't in reality a two-sided coin where the US gets ... plenty... in return
Still I'd rather have US dominance than Russian.
Americans know they have spies, they know the CIA and the NSA exist and have a vague idea what they do. They know it's unpleasant and may be technically illegal and they're fine with delegating their elected leaders to deal with that for them.
I don't know; maybe there are plenty of people like this. But I think there are many (more?) of us who are not OK with these things but feel powerless to do anything about them.
And that includes those of us who do appreciate America's hegemony and the relative safety and prosperity that it affords us, but who think that doing things like spying on citizens, bombing weddings, supporting coups, assassinating dissidents, invading and occupying countries for no good reason, torturing (e.g. waterboarding) prisoners, detaining people indefinitely, etc. are both morally wrong and counter-productive toward maintaining our position of power and prosperity and esteem in the world.
Snowden is a half-way martyr.
He made the decision to die for a cause, and then backed out of that decision and swore an oath of allegiance to modern day Hitler.
He showed an example of someone who didn't like the consequences of his actions and if you want to escape the consequences of your actions, you do that via corruption: swearing loyalty to someone powerful and reaping the benefits of that loyalty (them shielding you from consequences) in exchange for your servitude. In order to prevent being a victim of corruption, he chose to engage in corruption.
Him and Wikileaks together delegitimized the American government and ultimately created a fertile ground for a fascist to be elected president. (I think it's more arguable that Obama was the person who delegitimized the establishment).
His ultimate fate, to see his legacy largely ignored and unaddressed, to become a slave to a dictator, and to see that his oath of allegiance calls into question his sacrifice... I don't think America could have created a harsher punishment if we had tried.
I think America's founding fathers would understand and be sympathetic to his plight, but be disappointed.
FWIW, I have been in rooms talking about hardening infrastructure against government malfeasance. There were a lot of engineers at companies mentioned in prism docs that said "lets assume this is true, how did it happen," and worked on hardening infrastructure against the attacks they could imagine. So while outwardly his sacrifice seems largely in vain, it lives in the memory of many engineers who see hardening their systems against government action as a real importance many of whom donate to many organizations like the EFF.
It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays the people who work the whistleblowers channels livelihoods doing something bad.
I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it.
There are no good answers.
> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
1. Snowden materially damaged the US government.
2. Snowden swore an oath of allegiance to the entity who most desires to damage the US government.
My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.
All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable).
I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense.
I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them.
I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions.
> Where is the evidence for that?
I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence.
Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.
Any proof to back up this wild claim?
Certainly it's debatable whether swearing an oath to Russia is the same as swearing an oath to Putin. I don't believe there's much of one.
The comparison might not be entirely spot-on, but it's not that far off either.
The only thing Putin has in common with Hitler is being a jerk. There's no commonality between Nazi ideology and the Russian state, and beating the nazis is a huge part of their national identity.
Hilariously, you're more likely to find Nazi fans in the Ukranian militias.
Do not let some internet meme stop you from identifying fascism when it's real.
That Putin doesn't use the symbolism is irrelevant. That he's doing similar actions is what should concern you.
Indeed it does not. In fact, the US itself has had its share of fascist tendencies.
Fascism is a specific ideology, and while Putin does not officially subscribe to that ideology, in practice he operates like he does. As did Stalin.
Mind you, not all fascism is Nazism either. There's a difference between Hitler's fascism and Mussolini's fascism. Franco's fascism wasn't even warlike. There's room for differences. But Stalin and Putin are sufficiently similar to put them in the same corner.
But let's talk definitions, shall we? I'm using Umberto Eco's definition because it's well known, and established well before Putin came to power, so not tailored to him in any way:
> "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
Putin absolutely does this. He's constantly claiming traditional values, is best buds with the leader of the Russian Orthodox church, etc.
> "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
Again, Putin does this. He rejects many modern concepts like equality, rule of law, LGBTQ rights, free press, etc.
> "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
His war has certainly become a case of action for action's sake, lacking very clear goals. He isn't fully anti-intellectual and does use some highly conservative intellectuals, but he does attack modern aspects of western culture and science.
> "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
Definitely. Dissenters find themselves falling out of windows. You're not allowed to disagree. Russian media are fully state-controlled now and only allowed to say what Putin wants. There's no room for intellectual discourse or critical reasoning in Russia.
> "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Russia being a multicultural empire isn't as racist as the Nazis were (though non-ethnic Russians do seem to be second class citizens), but he does instill fear of foreign connections, and Russian organisations that he doesn't like are often branded foreign agents. Other differences he strongly opposes are of course LGBTQ people.
> "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
I'm not sure how big of an issue this is in Russia. Is there even a middle class? He does promise them food on the table if they leave the politics to him.
> "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
This one is pretty clear. Everything is an American plot to him. Ukrainian people can't possibly want freedom by themselves, it has to be an American plot. He's hyping up NATO as a threat, claiming to already be at war with NATO in order to justify his war on Ukraine. It's less of an internal thing than with the Nazis, though. Except of course that any Russian who disagrees with him is proof of this foreign plot.
> Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
He does this. He keeps saying the West is decadent and destroying itself, while simultaneously branding it as a threat to unite against.
> "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
Putin has been talking about the prospect of decades of war. I think it's unfair to count his mobilization towards this, as mobilization is common in many countries. Although in his case it's for an offensive war, of course. However, I can't help but think of the letter of a Russian wife who wrote to her husband to rape some Ukrainian women. There's a horrific obsession with dehumanising violence there.
> "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Less sure about this one, except maybe in painting outsiders as decadent and weak. I don't think today's Russia is as hierarchical as Nazi-Germany or Stalin's USSR was. Though he does like to surround himself with macho oligarchs and strongmen.
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
Not sure about this one either. He certainly expects Russians to be eager to die, and the Russian death count in the assault on Bakhmut is staggering, but I'm not sure that counts as a cult of death. This is one that Ukraine sounds more guilty of. But then, they kinda need to in order to keep morale high in the defense of their country. Ukraine didn't choose this conflict.
> "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
We've seen him bare-chested on a horse, right? He certainly loves his machismo. As does Trump, by the way.
> "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
Also less the case, I think. He even held some fake referenda. I'm not sure to what extent he claims to speak for all Russians.
> "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
I don't speak Russian, so I can't tell. Well, "war" is a "special military operation", so there's that.
Still, Putin hits most of these points. Some of them very hard.
What was unique about fascism was the ethnic superiority and the unifying totalitarianism where all public/private resources are aimed at national goals. Russia is too multiethnic for the former and too disorganized for the latter.
> Rally around the flag, point to the external enemy, it's all pre-industrial, fascists didn't invent it.
Flags were far less common or standardised in pre-industrial societies. People didn't fight for their lord or king because of propaganda about an external enemy (with the possible exception of the crusades), but simply because their lord or king wanted to go to war and that was their place in the world.
> What was unique about fascism was the ethnic superiority
That too existed before. There were many places in the Middle Ages where Jews had reduced rights, for example. It's the kind of division that fascism loves to build on.
> unifying totalitarianism where all public/private resources are aimed at national goals.
That's more like it. More specifically, the extreme nationalism and elevating those national goals to some higher ideal and inevitable necessity. And that's something Russia definitely does. Or tries. You're right that they're not very effective at it, but it is definitely how Putin talks, and how the fascist ideologues he relies on, talk.
Yes they are. You're engaging in binary thinking here. These demagogical patterns that Umberto Eco describes were in The Iliad, they've been tropes as long as we've had writing at least, probably longer.
First russians did when they occupied some territory of Ukraine is to remove and prohibit Ukranian language.
It is as similar to Nazi as could be except the name. Their ideology is to slowly remove any nation russia controls and claim them to be russians. Rise children as russians and kill nation if it doesn’t obey. Literally.
We can argue if it’s new form of Nazi or not but perhaps it’s much worse.
Exactly. Such tactic if reducing seriousness can be also used to promote future crimes. Hitler didn’t became ‘Hitler as we know him’ in one day. There were stages of ‘progress’.
He had no choice but to acquire a Russian citizenship since the US gov stranded him there. Unless you think rotting in a US super max prison for the rest of your life is a viable choice.
He blew the whistle and he doesn’t owe you anything and certainly doesn’t owe it to you to make a martyr of himself. Pathetic.
Just curious, do you consider Bush, who started the Iraq war, to be a modern Hitler too?
Bush did more damage to America than Russia could ever hope to have done. I think he damaged America more than Trump.
I think America's time in Iraq was not fundamentally genocidal and I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home so I think it falls short of "Hitler". While we did destroy the regime, I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi." I could be convinced that we were worse than I think.
'I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi."'
That's not what genocide is.[0] Destroying 'notions' isn't a genocide.
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
"I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home"
I don't think there was much opposition[1] thanks to American free mass media[2] and ones who did protest occasionally got arrested. [3][4]
"I could be convinced that we were worse than I think."
Don't really want to, my point is that Hitler has set a pretty high bar and both Bush and Putin failed to reach it. So far at least :( Look at the genocide in Rwanda, that's what qualifies as a good attempt.
As a side note, do you remember Bush's Freudian slip when he said Iraq instead of Ukraine? The laugh in the audience is pretty disturbing [5].
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/sprj.irq.antiw...
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sproj.irq.peace.protest...
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Keep in mind: Putin does do these things. Ukrainian children are separated from their families and placed with Russian families to be raised as Russians. That's genocide. Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported and made to live as Russians on the other side of Russia, separate from other Ukrainians. There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed. And we've seen the result of massacres.
Sure, Putin doesn't do industrial scale murder of millions the way Hitler did, but as you point out, genocide is broader than that.
Really? Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place? Calling that a 'genocide' is cynical distortion and serves only Ukrainian propaganda.
"Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported "
"Reportedly"?
"and made to live as Russians"
What does it even mean? Drinking vodka and playing balalaika?
"There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed."
"Plenty"? I don't know what you are talking about but just go to Ukrainian segment of Facebook, which allowed hate speech against Russians, and tons of genocidal fantasies.
No, I would reunite them with their families. Intentionally refusing to do so and leaving them with Russian families to raise as Russians is genocide. You don't get to whitewash that.
This is not some people on Facebook; the UN has condemned it, the ICC issued arrest warrants, it's widely documented. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russia... for some sources.
Same with the other stuff. Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.
Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.
That's 7 out 193 countries. Hmm, I wonder why.
By the way, the Ukraine itself didn't recognize the obvious genocide of Armenians by Turkey during WW1.[0] Countries can be very flexible when recognizing or not recognizing something as genocide is in their interest.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Internationa...
Seriously? The Ukraine had over 30 years of independence for that.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_recognition a total of 34 countries have recognised the Armenian genocide as genocide. That's not a lot. Even the UK and half of Scandinavia haven't. That Ukraine hasn't means nothing, it doesn't mean they don't consider it genocide, and it certainly doesn't mean they're okay with genocide. You're being overly anal about this issue.
it’s not a delusion. it’s typical russian propaganda tactics. explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224
A false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially
in mental conditions.
Delusion in the form of denial is a natural response to grief. "This entity that I am apart of is doing something heinously evil" would naturally cause grief. I experienced grief in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan because I believed my country was doing something evil.
Denial is the first stage of grief, and I think we are seeing denial in the form of delusion, delusion supported by propaganda.
Exactly. He doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter for russian propaganda which is known for intentional twisting facts and expressions and making their opponent to explain obvious lies. Russian propaganda uses such twisting as en excuse to promote their narrative even if unrelated.
The initial question about Bush was invented in order to shift the discussion from undesired topic and deliver narrative in which actions of Bush and putin would look similar which is intentional lie to cover genocide actions performed by russia in Ukraine.
I think it is about avoiding personal responsibility more than it is about a desire to spread propaganda. Alternatively, it might be about showing that ones side is powerful and willing to fight.
If American elections are a sham, then it justifies Russia's sham elections.
If Americans don't get a say in how they are ruled, then Russian citizens don't have to be upset or take responsibility for their own lack of say in how they are ruled.
If America invades Iraq, that justifies China's pending invasion of Taiwan or Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
The battlefield is going to be the arbiter of whether Taiwan is part of china or not too.
These people live in a fundamentally "us vs them" world and frame every problem in terms of a "them." The question is how do we got from "us vs them" to "us vs the problem" or said a different way: justice for all.
I agree. This way is more precise or I can reformulate what I’ve said this way: shift discussion toward justification to avoid responsibility.
> I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
well, I know the feeling. Actually it’s the goal of propagandists to create such regret and more preferably a desperation with lack of wish to fight for reason to prevail. They try to exhaust opponent by intentionally saying some bs and forcing opponent to explain obvious things while push their lies and mostly ignoring the answers.
On the other hand I should say that I enjoyed reading your argument and the very fact that propaganda was met with a proper response done in good faith. I think this keeps hope and light to those who read it. At least it has this effect for me and I am thankful to you for your efforts.
>The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
Unfortunately.
It is still a question what to do with intentional propagandists. Giving them answers that are blocking their ability to spread another lie is degrading the discussion. Giving them proper answers feeds them with grounds to push their narrative more.
Perhaps in a discussions with such people we should pronounce that we kind of know what they are doing and address the core of their motivations instead of the topic itself which they aren’t discussing properly anyway. I am not sure it will work and still looking for a better solution.
This really is the core of it. If it were anywhere but Russia, I would probably hail him as a hero who made a great sacrifice, but instead despite my general distrust and dislike of the US government, I feel like his motives deserve questioning.
I am open to being convinced that I am over emphasizing Russia. I am definitely no Snowden scholar and I'm not very well read past the various headlines and comments I've read over the years.
Lol. After Assange/Manning, that demonstrates a singular failure of imagination.
Snowden released unredacted classified documents that lead to real-world damage and potentially casualties. Compare that to wikileaks which redacted locations, IP addresses and other sensitive information.
He wasn't a hacker by any means. He was a lowly SharePoint admin that was rumoured to have been coerced remotely by the Russians.
He was angry with the NSA for being denied a promotion for TAO which drove him over the edge.
It isn't hard to theorize that Russian and Chinese assets lurk the corners of chatrooms, looking for depressed/vulnerable US assets to coerce and corrupt. Money well spent for the West's enemies.
If a single American intelligence asset lost their life because of Snowden's leaks would your opinion change?
Can you point to a specific article in the Washington Post or The Guardian which you believe lead to casualties?
(The rest of your comment is rumor, wild speculation, and in the case of 'lowly sharepoint admin', outright misrepresentation)
Do you realistically think the Washington Post or The Guardian would make Snowden look bad by aligning IC asset fatalities with his leaks? I doubt it.
Consider this: IP addresses and devices of Western assets were leaked in the documents. Counter-intelligence can use those to correlate known or suspected IC assets. This has real-world consequences.
The way Intelligence works is much more shrouded in secrecy. Everyone in the know knows he had privileged access via his job and leaked the entirety of the documents without redactions because he was mad at being passed up for the TAO job. His bosses were interviewed which confirms my statements - 1
Swift on Security is an example of a Twitter account with connections to IC. Her statements on the subject echo how the industry feels about Snowden. - 2
1/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/what-snowden-get...
2/ https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/64971712356500684...
Also your Slate.com link contradicts your explanation for his ostensible disgruntlement - Ctl-F "TAO offered him a job". Not that it ever made the slightest bit of sense in the first place - who would banish themselves from their homeland over that? Snowden's character study is as crystal-clear as it is inconvenient to the NSA: the man was an idealist.
When I first heard his story I expected him to be hailed as a hero, and thought we might even have a holiday to celebrate him for risking his life, freedom, and career to inform us that our government is doing something deeply unethical in secret with our own money, that violates our basic freedoms. Thank you Snowden.