I am going on an RT news diet. This coming week, from Sunday April 23rd to Saturday April 29th 2017, I will be getting all my news from RT, a news outlet funded by the Russian government, a sort of Russian BBC. I will stay off of YouTube, Tumblr, Twitter and any other sort of feed. No cable news (other than RT America) or newspapers or news magazines either, of course. If I get a New York Times newsflash on my phone, I will not read it. If a commenter provides a link to a non-RT news outlet, I will not follow it.
I will avoid doing posts on anything in the news. If I do, it will be completely based on RT, with a disclaimer to that effect.
After the week is over, I will record my experiences and later do a post on RT itself.
– Abagond, 2017.
See also:
- rt.com – their website. AVOID: it tried to put malware on my computer. A possible waterhole.
- media diet
- Breitbart News
- Programming note #31 – the same exercise with Breitbart News
- Breitbart news diet
- My Black Media Month review
- Breitbart News
Nommmaaadddd!!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve been quietly reading your thoughts for years. You are consistant, clear, and caring. I appreciate that in this sea of media madness. It’s lovely to know where I can go to get unbiased information. I always learn so much from you Abogond. Thank you. Don’t change and don’t ever quit doing this. I’m thinking about actually writing on my blog that I never touch. Maybe.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great idea! Love your posts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
How about going on a Food Channel diet? Just joking, should be interesting!
LikeLike
Interesting. I have read RT articles in the past though not recently. It probably won’t be as bad as you anticipate.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
@ Ray Winbush
Dr. Winbush, is it really you? My Goodness!!!
LikeLike
Good for you, abagond. Although I would have expected this “diet” to come before you made all those baseless claims (and/or lies) about RT, many of which were completely false.
I can’t wait to read your review of this terrible, anti-America news outlet you already know so much about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is mostly OT but I’m going to stick it here because I think it’s kind of interesting. Yes, election night is several months old now, but I saw this Washington post article about Trump’s low approval rating that hid a fascinating piece of information.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_poll-1202am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f0fbd78661cc
So he’s still a rather unpopular president. HOWEVER, it’s the paragraph near the end that caught my interest.
Did you see that? Of the people polled, 46% were Clinton voters and 43% were Trump voters. Now, after the election, after the Russian hacking propaganda, after 100 days of Trump, Trump would have won among this group, which consists of a majority of Clinton voters, if they had to pick a president on the day they were polled. Wow! I think this lends credence to the idea that the election was decided once the DNC corrupted its own nomination process to select a scandal infested candidate who’s more hated than Trump.
I know “President Trump” is hard for many to swallow but I still smile to myself when I contemplate just how epic the miscalculation was. People preferred to take a risk with the bogeyman that the DNC helped create and market than their own candidate! From another perspective, it’s a modern iteration of the “The Emperor’s new clothes” starring the sycophantic mass media as the general population and American voters as the little child. Regardless, of how they tried to dress up the “emperor” her clothes were invisible to many who voted last November. No wonder she was too shaken to concede on the night. With the outcome, she was exposed and embarassed.
I’d argued, way back, that there was NO larger factor in Trump’s victory than his opponent. Clinton was considered less palatable then and even a Clinton-favoring group would have swung now. This could be because Trump’s presidency hasn’t been as bad as they’d feared [no gassing of Jews or invasion of Canada for Lebensraum yet as we were told to expect]. I saw rumors that Clinton may try again in 2020. She really should, LOL. If all the pre-election fearmongering and a sitting President campaigning for her didn’t give Clinton the win how will she stand a chance after 4 years of Trump [during which the US didn’t join the Russian Federation as were were told to expect] has robbed them of scary hypotheticals. She’s insane is she tries and everyone who doesn’t shoo her away would be even more so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
I don’t see how you draw that conclusion from the statistics provided.
43 percent voted for Trump and 43 percent now say they would again; his numbers have remained exactly the same. 46 percent voted for Clinton and 40 percent now say they would do so again; she has lost numbers, but I see no indication that this 6 percent now would support Trump (as opposed to a third-party candidate or sitting out the election).
LikeLike
@Solitaire
She lost the election and in a recent poll, after “Adolf” became President, she would have done even worse with a group that supported her in November. Yet, somehow, I can’t draw a conclusion that Clinton is less popular than Trump from a poll that says Clinton is less popular than Trump?
Which gym teaches those kind of gymnastics?
LikeLike
Solitare/Origin
I think people are lying to posters. 6% don’t “like” Trump but would secretly support him anyway over Clinton.
On how Democrats see themselves:
“The 28 percent who say the party is in touch with concerns of most Americans is down from 48 percent in 2014 and the biggest drop is among self-identified Democrats, from 83 percent saying they are in touch to just 52 percent today.”
As Origin pointed out up thread the DNC is responsible for where we are today, not Russian trolls, hackers ect.
LikeLike
@ Origin
“Yet, somehow, I can’t draw a conclusion that Clinton is less popular than Trump from a poll that says Clinton is less popular than Trump?”
No, that conclusion is correct.
But I don’t see the numbers supporting the conclusion that Trump has gained in popularity or has won a sizable amount of support from Clinton voters.
His numbers appear to be stagnant.
LikeLike
@ theebonyangel
Most of what you said applies to me too. This is my favorite blog. It has really helped to shape my view of the world.
@ abagond
Thank you for blogging! We probably don’t say that enough. I’m always amazed by your knowledge of a wide range of subjects, and your posts are easy to read. Plus, I can tell that you want to make the world a better place. I’m also amazed by your patience with the hater/troll comments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Solitaire
Fine. It’s just that those were not claims I made so I was a little perplexed by your response. I claimed that people don’t like Clinton not that Trump is very popular. Heck, the article was about his almost historically low approval ratings. Yet when they ask poll respondents who they’d vote for Clinton still loses to Trump! LOL. I guess it’s possible Russia hacked that one too.
LikeLike
@ Origin
I thought you were, based on this:
“Trump would have won among this group, which consists of a majority of Clinton voters”
and this:
“even a Clinton-favoring group would have swung now.”
Apparently I misunderstood and misread your meaning. My apologies.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Yeah, I was just restating the result for the group as a whole. I called it Clinton-favoring because the majority claimed to have voted for her in November. In the poll referenced above she didn’t win with that same group because she lost support. However, I wasn’t commenting on whether individuals who voted for Clinton now support Trump.
@mjb
The DNC wants to do everything but take responsibility. They treated their own base with comtempt then they expected enthusiasm.
LikeLike
Click to access 1186a1Trump100Days.pdf
I didn’t notice that the full poll document had additional information about how the split happened.
LikeLike
Oh shoot! Just watching RT. So funny. Crosstalk. They just concluded with what I recently said about Trump. He’s become Hillary Clinton, i.e. doing what HRC would have done as president. ‘Both forks led to the same place.’ Calling him the ‘transgender president’, since he’s morphed into her. LOL! Those Russians crack me up!
LikeLike
When are you going to change the ticker in the right sidebar so it shows how many unarmed Black people have died at the hands of police for 2017? It still says 2016.
LikeLike
Oh yeah. I just thought about this. The other thing that I like about RT is that it is an antiwar news service. You wont find its on air personnel advocating cheering for and trying to provoke war, like MSM does, nor are they enthralled by the beauty of our weapons.
Also they report unbiasedly on Israel, in contrast to our pro Israeli media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
case in point. the pernicious menace of Rachel maddow
(https://youtu.be/t75EhlBy9Sg?t=5m3s)
LikeLike
Nomad,
“The other thing that I like about RT is that it is an antiwar news service.”
Anti war when it comes to American Imperialism but will be silent if Russia invades neighbouring countries.
LikeLike
and when is that.?
they are antiwar to the people fomenting war throughout the world. guess who that is.
LikeLike
did u see Rachel maddow foaming at the mouth?
LikeLike
@nomad
“and when is that.?”
When people say Russia is “invading” neighbors they’re usually referring to Ukraine/Crimea.
However, I just see it as a reasonable Russian response to the provoked collapse of the government of a neighbor within its sphere of influence. What do you think would happen if China or Russia staged a coup in Mexico or Canada to install governments favorable to them so they can install weapons (“defense”) systems against the USA. I would expect the United States to care. So the idea that Russia was not going to take steps to protect its interests when it shares a border and historical ties with Ukraine is naive.
The population of Crimea is largely ethnic Russian so it is no surprise that they wanted no part of the uprising. Russia also has a military base on the Black Sea in Sevastopol. Would the US allow the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba to be taken over? The US/Nato alliance complained about the legality of Crimea unilaterally declaring independence from Ukraine but they had no problem when Kosovo did it to Serbia. They supported the Kosovan side just as Putin supported the breakaway Crimea. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING RT.COM
It tried to install malware on my computer. AVOID.
For the remainder of the week I will limit my RT consumption to television (RT America).
LikeLike
@Origin
And yet that meme remains. A persistent meme. The average American believes Russia invaded Crimea. It is amazing how effective American propaganda is. We have our own alternate reality, courtesy of MSM.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t trust RT to accurately report what’s going on in Russia. In the same way U.S. Media is biased so is RT in favor of Russian interests. I like that RT is critical of U.S. foreign policy and suspect most of what they report on the U.S. is accurate. But I would caution against believing everything they put out.
I agree with Origin’s take on Crimea/Ukraine.
I know the Russian governemt has cracked down on the LGBT community in Russia. Has RT reported on that ?
I’m currently not watching MSM, RT or other news media. I decided I’m not going to get played any more. It’s all BS anyway.
Try not watching the news for a week. Your mental health will improve.
LikeLike
Not true. That’s confirmation bias and all sides do it argument. I bet you haven’t even watched RT. That’s the if my side does it, yours does it too and if yours is Russian yours does it worse argument. Just because MSM are war mongering hoodwinking foaming at the mouth war criminals does not mean RT is. Watch it before you make that xenophobic claim.
LikeLike
That’s to expected of the news sources of every nation. Myself, I’m not really concerned about whats going on in Russia. Its news about America that I’m interested in. And, as you suspect,
I would too. They’re not perfect, just far better than MSM.
LikeLike
@Nomad
I’ve watched RT only on YouTube.
One plus about RT is they interview people who normally wouldn’t get paid attention too in MSM.
Not confirmation bias. “News” is a manufactured product I’ve chosen to cut back on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abagond said,
“For the remainder of the week I will limit my RT consumption to television (RT America).”
RT America has a YouTube channel with some 40,000 plus videos. I don’t think you will get Mal ware from YouTube.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING RT.COM
It tried to install malware on my computer. AVOID.”
LOL!
I visited RT.com today to see if his latest claim were true. But my top-rated security software didn’t think the site posed any risks, nor did the site try to “install malware on my computer.”
Either abagond is lying again, which wouldn’t be a surprise, or abagond accidentally clicked on the link at the very top of the page that allows users to “Install Extension” to one’s browser–not malware.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@michaeljonbarker
You’re right. I apologize for that first comment. Morning grumpiness.
But yeah. We in the US live in a propaganda bubble courtesy of MSM I see RT as a force that punctures a hole in that bubble. Like they advertise, they give you the news that MSM won’t. They give you the news that MSM hides from you to keep you in that propaganda bubble. Where war is peace and forward is backward. Where day is night. Where good is evil. They are a window outside the propaganda bubble in which Americans live. It is a window outside our manufactured 1984 reality.
LikeLike
I don’t know about watching no news media at all though. You have to have some source of news, even if its just to keep up with the latest hype that’s encroaching on your rights and censoring your freedom of speech.. Just don’t rely on the source of news dedicated to deceiving you. This past year has been a spectacle of how deceptive and manipulative and corrupt and just plain wrong MSM has become. The Russiagate agitprop, the polling fiasco and finally being hoisted by its own fake news petard. It has lost its credibility. And its current beating the drums of war as it did back in 2003 for Iraq only underscores its depravity and probably is a war crime. It doesn’t take much for a news service to be better than these folks. The very fact that MSM, like the DNC, is derelict in their duty is precisely the reason people are turning to RT, alternative media and YouTube for their news.
LikeLike
@ theebonyangel @ Paige
Thank you for your encouragement.
LikeLike
@ resw
It does not happen all the time, just that once, but once is enough for me. It is not that great of a site anyway, in terms of function and content.
LikeLike
@ michaeljonbarker
Thanks.
LikeLike
@abagond
“It does not happen all the time, just that once, but once is enough for me.”
Perhaps if you had not already expressed your distaste for RT before you even read/watched it (not to mention repeating anti-Russian propaganda), I’d take your allegations a bit more seriously.
That in addition to being unable to find other users who’ve experienced a similar problem, it’s only reasonable for me to suspect you’re BSing.
“It is not that great of a site anyway, in terms of function and content”
That seemingly unnecessary bash makes me doubt you will give a reasonably objective review of RT (the news content itself). I sincerely hope you prove me wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ resw
If you trust me so little, then why are you here?
LikeLike
@abagond
I thought we were specifically talking about RT, but “if you trust [President Trump] so little, then why are you here” in America?
Better yet, “if you trust [RT and Russia] so little, then why are you here” talking about an RT “diet”?
LikeLike
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
“Hasn’t one of your attack lines against Abagond been that he’s biased against Russia?”
No. I point out the fact that abagond repeats “anti-Russian propaganda”.
You, on the other hand, have stated, “I am biased against Putin’s Russia”. So we can’t possibly expect any objectivity from you.
“And now you’re calling him a hypocrite when he makes a clear demonstration of open-mindedness”
No, I merely expressed the absurdity of going on an RT “diet” after already forming an negative opinion about it.
“What sort of troll are you?”
There’s no need to ask “what sort of troll are you” because we already know: a racist, white Irish-supremacist one.
LikeLike
So it seems resw and nomad are Russian trolls. Otherwise they wouldn’t need to fight so hard to defend a news channel. I don’t trust Russian puppet Trump either. He never should have been elected president.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
When I claim you said something, I quote you directly. You, on the other hand, constantly fabricate what you claim I said. But then again, the apple doesn’t fall far from the racist, lying tree.
@Anne
I missed the part where I defended RT. Maybe you can quote it.
I can’t help the fact that RT.com did not try “to install malware on my computer” when I visited it the other day, contrary to Abagond’s claim that it’s unsafe. That’s just reporting the facts.
But I’m sure objectivity is tough to recognise when your head is so far up abagond’s rear.
LikeLike
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
“…you were mad at Abagond for allegedly parroting anti-Russian propaganda, and now you’re mad because he’s seeking to challenge his beliefs and expose himself to other sources”
No, you’re wrong as usual. I actually was the one to suggest abagond go on an RT news “diet” in the first place:
“You’d think between abagond’s provincial Univision Communications and Breitbart news “diets”, he’d actually want to go on an RT “diet” so he can actually know what he’s talking about instead of spreading propaganda.”
That was more than 2 months ago, and abagond continued his biased opinions and even false accusations about RT before actually knowing what he was talking about. So I’m well justified in pointing out the absurdity of it all.
So I’ll await your apology and gratitude for my helping abagond to make the “clear demonstration of open-mindedness” of which you spoke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
Didn’t happen. Either you have quite an imagination or you are simply a liar.
I blame the parents.
LikeLike
abagond:
resw:
That is not an actual answer to my question.
LikeLike
Arguing about minutiae is a form of defense because it helps to distract from the main argument. That’s what paid trolls do when they get caught in a lie.
mi·nu·ti·ae
[məˈn(y)o͞oSHēˌē, məˈn(y)o͞oSHēˌī]
NOUN
the small, precise, or trivial details of something:
LikeLike
@Anne
resw defensively argues about minutiae because the bulk of his/her arguments can’t stand up to scrutiny. He/She also utilizes denial of what he/she just wrote.
He/she uses the Goebbels Gambit aka Repetition of the Big Lie.
His/her favorite gambit is name calling and vacuous putdowns. Its like those films that have a chase scene and the pursued (resw) will pull down trash cans to obstruct the path of his/her pursuer or toss marbles or ball bearings in the path to make the pursuer slip and fall.
These maneuvers can be crude but effective with the unwary or with equally defensive adversaries.
I hope he/she is paid by the word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Anne
“Arguing about minutiae is a form of defense because it helps to distract from the main argument.”
You falsely claimed I defended RT, I asked you to quote it, and then you deflected.
Too bad that trollish tactic does nothing to support your defense of your abagond. At least you tried.
@Afrofem
Another desperate attempt to involve yourself by personally attacking without any facts to substantiate your claims. If abagond weren’t biased, he’d call out your trollish behavior for what it is.
But since he’s dishonest and defensive, he’d rather label as trolls the ones who actually refute his lies and hypocrisy with facts.
LikeLike
@abagond
“That is not an actual answer to my question.”
Your question doesn’t deserve an answer because its premise is irrelevant to anything I’ve said on this thread.
If you want to ask a question about something I actually said or about the topic, then by all means…
LikeLike
@resw
LOL! Your boss should dock your pay for that empty response.
LikeLike
I agree with Anne that Nomad and Resw come off as overly defensive when it comes to RT. It is like their toes are being stepped on. For example, I report an issue with their website and I am accused of lying. WTF?
LikeLike
abagond
defending rt? I guess. but you do lie about it. I see myself as pointing out the lies. because I think its a good news service esp with re to blacks and anti imperialism. I think you do a disservice to your audience in your bias against it..
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
You started with this lie and you’ve been repeating it ever since. I simply refute it each time. I guess that makes me overly defensive. What it makes you is russophobic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and I really haven’t noticed resw defending RT. Its just me. You picked on the news service I watch and I’m telling you what I think about that. Me. I’m the one. Call me a Russian troll if you want, I don’t care. Doesn’t effect me one iota. And if it means anti MSM and anti-imperialism and anti war, I wear it as a badge of honor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And here is resw’s refutation. great!
resw
“then RT is certainly questionable because it is owned by the Russian government”
Once again, abagond is touting outright lies or “misinformation” since I’m sure he pretends he doesn’t lie.
The fact is that RT is not “owned by the Russian government”. It’s owned by a nonprofit that receives funding from the government, similar to PBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^^^ This what I am talking about. Instead of merely correcting my mistake like most people, Resw accuses me of lying. Huh? It comes off as overly defensive. Even if you assume he is trolling, RT still seems to be a sensitive point for him. Why is that?
LikeLike
fair enough
LikeLike
but you do keep repeating some form of this statement, as in the Granny post.
Technically you’re not saying that the Russian government controls RT content, but you infer it. Especially to an already russophobic audience.
So I have to point out that this inference is not correct and that your repetition of it is of little relevance and specious.
LikeLike
Here is Putin on why he created RT.
“When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the international scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams…. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena. Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.”
He’s is saying Yes RT is funded by the Russian government and it will present news that reflect the Russian governments postion but don’t worry it’s “Independant” and not propaganda. lol
I hate the MSM media and Western media in general so I’m much more open to RT and am glad that RT, Al Jazeera and others offer alternatives to Western media. I just understand that they have there limitations.
LikeLike
I don’t find that an unreasonable or irrelevant distinction at all. its quite sharp and honest. if only we could say the same for our own blatantly propagandistic msm.
it is independent. far more independent than msm. and far far far more honest. probably far far far far far far far more honest.
LikeLike
I’m a skeptic in all things Nomad.
I don’t think Nomad and Resw are paid Russian trolls either. lol
If Russian trolls showed up here pretending to be “Anti racist” it wouldn’t take too long before they would.trip up their sock puppet.
Nomad is sincere but Resw is about ego and sophistry.
LikeLike
Here is the perfect picture of MSM propaganda in action. Watch perplexed look on this corporate newswoman’s face when she stumbles upon an official that is not following the official narrative. I’ve seen other slip ups like this where for ex Tamron Hall cut the mike of an interviewee because it didn’t fit the prefabricated narrative. RT does not do this and that puts in a league far above MSM.
(https://youtu.be/t6SnIvQKN1Y)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t been around that long but I do get where resw is coming from. truthfully I might not still be hanging around if it wasn’t for resw.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
Don’t have one, but abagond should give you a raise for trying so hard to defend him and persistently troll me.
You also deserve a bonus for derailing. And before you deny it, in usual fashion, you left three comments on this thread, and not a single one of them was about RT or abagond’s “diet.” The same cannot be said about me, unfortunately for you.
LikeLike
I’ll concede that the Russian government has allowed RT some independence.
The difference is that MSM manufactures a particular view point along liberal/conservative lines to market to there respective audience. In spite of politicale differences the pro state default of pro war, pro Isreal, pro corporatism, pro white remains the same across MSM.
I don’t see the Russian government manufacturing propaganda the same way the West does. Rather RT would just not report on an event if it was detrimental to Russian interests.
In news about Syria I would not trust RT or MSM.
There are some news events we will never know the truth behind. Like chemical weapon use in Syria. The weapons could have been supplied through the CIA or through the Russians. Is Assad behind them or was it a third party intervention to create an atmosphere to allow more bombing. Events like this it woukd be unwise to trust any “news” coming from any media source.
LikeLike
@abagond
“For example, I report an issue with their website and I am accused of lying. WTF?”
In fact, I said “EITHER” you are lying “OR” you “accidentally clicked on the link at the very top of the page that allows users to “Install Extension” to one’s browser–not malware.”
So yes, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, if you actually read what I wrote. But, I’m sorry that your persistent bashing of RT does not lend credibility to your claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@nomad
“You started with this lie and you’ve been repeating it ever since.”
I guess we were supposed to use the word “misstatement” instead of lie, as the msm and their followers prefer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
show me the money. I have seen no evidence that this is the case. on the contrary RT’s Abby I forget blasted Putin for his ‘invasion’ of Ukraine. Again, relatively speaking theres less of that kind of thing to report about Putin/Russia. They obey international law, unlike the criminals that run our government. In diplomacy Putin and Russia are giants compared to midget American Keystone Cops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nomad
Here an artical from RT explaining laws criminalizing homosexual conduct in Russia. It made me cringe when I read it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/100000000000001000130951/amp
In regards to news items that RT doesn’t cover I will see what I can dig up.
LikeLike
The Syrian poison gas attack is an example of what he means. MSM automatically blames Russia indirectly. And without evidence. Naturally Russia is not going to go along with that narrative. Not only would it be incompetent reporting it would not be in Russia’s interest to go around blaming itself for everything that goes wrong in the world. It is not in Russia’s interest to go along with he Wests fabricated claims. They see the facts on the ground entirely differently than Americans and at some point this different perspective colors their coverage. The same applies to MSM.
LikeLike
Here’s an artical explainimg a poltical assination in the Ukraine. The artical blames Ukraine for the assination. lol
Propaganda maybe ? I dunno know.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/58d3addfc36188cf4f8b4577/amp
All rougue States carry out politcal assinations including the U.S.
LikeLike
@abagond
“Even if you assume he is trolling, RT still seems to be a sensitive point for him.”
You know very well that I’ve called out your many lies or “misinformation” on myriad subjects, not just on RT. So for you to spread the idea that this is a unique situation when you know it’s not, is one of many reasons why I say you’re dishonest.
LikeLike
@resw
You have yet to call me a liar. My opinions sometimes mirror Abagond’s and sometimes they do not. But Abagond is a “liar”.
You are interested in contesting any topic that is suitable for formatting division. You couldn’t care less about RT.
You have engineerd a power play where you attempt to create “sides” amongst posters with you leading the charge that Abagond is a liar and propagandist, a shill for Hillary, the establishment ect with you having the self awarded moral authority to call him out.
This is really about your ego and elevating your sense of self worth at the expense of this blog. You create a toxic enviroment and then blame Abagond when other posters leave.
Abagond isn’t some cladstine propagandists rather he is just a blogger with opinions that you can agree or disagree with.
LikeLike
@ resw
“…abagond should give you a raise for trying so hard to defend him and persistently troll me.”
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“But Abagond is a “liar””
Whenever I’ve pointed out abagond’s lies, they’ve been backed up by examples.
“You couldn’t care less about RT.”
Why don’t you focus on what you care about and stop pretending to know my intentions.
“You have engineerd a power play where you attempt to create “sides” amongst posters”
I’m afraid all the credit for that goes to abagond who started impugning me and a few others over a year ago for doing nothing but bringing up facts about the presidential candidate he supported.
And of course abagond was the one who lumped certain commenters into the same basket with his continuous use of “Trump Non-Fan Club”.
How convenient of you to leave all that out. But that shows your bias and inability to be objective on this off-topic issue.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
You’ve commented four times now and not a single one was about RT or abagond’s “diet”. Your whole purpose for commenting has been to talk about me, like dozens of times before. Creepy.
Thank you and your colleagues for all the attention, but I’d rather get back on topic.
LikeLike
@resw
Ah yes, resw the “topic watchdog” —— until you wish to derail a thread yourself.
One of the tools in your sophistry backpack. Tell your boss you need a sabbatical or reassignment. Your tools have grown dull and rusty.
LikeLike
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
“You mean like how you insert yourself everywhere I comment to toss out substance-free attacks?”
You mean how you just did? I’ve never attacked you without substance. Like in the Bill O’Reilly thread, I simply pointed out the fact that you frequently derail threads, including to troll people’s English:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/open-thread/#comment-366411
This is just a few.
No one on this blog has ever derailed on spelling and grammar as much as you (and gotten away with it).
LikeLike
@Afrofem
A fifth comment, and it’s still not about RT or abagond’s “diet” and still about me.
But I guess the silver lining is that you fully demonstrated you’re a troll.
LikeLike
got to agree there, but of course having just arrived upon the scene I wasn’t sure what had gone on before. but I walked into a war zone.
LikeLike
@nomad
The campaign season changed everything. I mean, since then, as you can see, it’s always the same three (Afrofem, michaeljonbarker and scribh aka lord of mirkwood) who attack me and defend abagond whenever I point out abagond’s “misinformation.”
Maybe they still haven’t gotten over their candidate’s loss.
LikeLike
How to take a strong blog and make it irrelevant.
By Resw:
Formet distrust amongst posters.
Call blog owner a liar, a shill and propagandist.
Make posts that create the impression that posters are divided on a topic rather then posters having legitimate disagreements.
That divisions with blog participants are between those that want to express the truth verses those who are liars, shills and propagandists.
Create a toxic enviroment by ridiculing and name calling.
Engage with other toxic posters to fill threads with irrelevant content. (Resw X LOM)
Always point the finger somewhere else. When personally challenged deflect back on challenger by calling them racist, a troll, it’s speculation ect yet always remain anonymous.
Never answer the question but rather make it about “facts”, word smithing, relevancy ect and point back to who asked the question.
Readers and posters move on after awhile. What was once about free speech and ideas not offered in the MSM, becomes routinely toxic and turns people off.
A vector has invaded the host bringing disease.
LikeLike
“Maybe they still haven’t gotten over their candidate’s loss.”
Neither Afrofem or myself shilled for Hillary or voted for her.
LikeLike
Robert parry addresses the crisis of MSM dereliction. He doesn’t quite tell us who to trust, as he provocatively titled this post.
The Existential Question of Who to Trust.
But he does tell us who not to trust. MSM. He also expresses how dire our situation is in our need to abandon these war mongering charlatans. I did mention RT was anti war didn’t I?
Who [not] to Trust?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/30/the-existential-question-of-who-to-trust/
RT may not be perfect. But it is much better than this. Much, much better. I don’t buy the all sides are equally bad argument. Or as I call it, the goosey goosey gander.
LikeLike
@resw
“The campaign season changed everything.”
Agreed.
Prior to the past presidential campaign season, resw77 added sharp, witty comments and analyses to various threads. He/She pushed back on the legion of drive-by and resident trolls with facts and figures.
Then resw77 morphed into resw the Trump supporter. Still interesting comments and reasoned arguments.
Then the “I Hate Hillary” crowd filled thread after thread with repetitive, obsessive chatter about the perils of a HRClinton presidency. Other commenters argued fine points, but no one really pushed back on the essential premise that HRC was a lousy candidate who didn’t deserve to be president. I can recall only one commenter expressing admiration for HRC. Everyone else either disliked her (including Abagond) and/or was resigned to her candidacy.
The campaign season was bad enough, but the real drag began after HRC was technically defeated. Instead of declaring “victory” in her defeat, that same crowd went in to Hillary Hate Overdrive. What followed were weeks and weeks of rabid attacks on someone who didn’t matter anymore.
No thoughts or meaningful comments or ideas about the way forward with an unqualified, undisciplined neo-fascist in the Oval Office. Instead, the “I Hate Hillary” crowd began to attack the blog proprietor and anyone who disagreed with them with ultra-personal comments.
To use the analogy of this blog as a cafe, I believe the proprietor uses an “open kitchen” format. He is quite clear about his sources (ingredients) and opinions (seasonings) that make up the published posts (dishes on the menu).
I think anyone who has a problem with the bill of fare has a right to tell the proprietor. From past posts and threads, I have found the proprietor amenable to changing dishes (adding or changing information). I have even read the proprietor admit mistakes and apologize to the clientele with humility and grace.
I don’t think the clientele has a right to toss food around, break dishes, steal the silverware or attack other patrons who enjoy the food and ambiance the proprietor provides. If the food, etc. is not to your liking at this cafe, there are thousands more lining the street.
Heck, with the tools available on the internet, everyone has the opportunity to open their own cafe. That includes you, resw.
LikeLike
well, that’s not what happened at all. no overdrive at all. just some people becoming overly sensitive to dissenting povs on Hillary, esp. abagond. certain people began to verbally assault me and I struck back. trying to coerce me into some doctrinaire position on Hillary/trump. trying to shame me and other astute dissenters. that’s what happened. alienated some good commenters. like fan. I don’t see origin around much either. all on behalf of a candidate no one even liked.
LikeLike
thread after thread. had to. I said Hillary was heading us for WW III. it didn’t register. people kept talking as if she weren’t. so I kept repeating with proof that she was. you all brought that on yourselves.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“Readers and posters move on after awhile. What was once about free speech and ideas not offered in the MSM, becomes routinely toxic and turns people off.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
“abagond who started impugning me and a few others over a year ago for doing nothing but bringing up facts about the presidential candidate he supported.”
This time a year ago the presidential candidate Abagond supported was Bernie Sanders.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
Six comments, all about me and one also about your candidate, none about RT or abagond’s diet.
@michaeljonbarker
Your imagination is fascinating. Too bad none of that happened. And this is at least the 10th thread you and Afrofem derailed to talk about me. It’s flattering (and creepy), but I would think someone your age would behave much differently.
Let’s hope, for your sake, your grown children never read this blog.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
“I said Hillary was heading us for WW III. it didn’t register. people kept talking as if she weren’t. so I kept repeating with proof that she was. you all brought that on yourselves.”
Brought what on ourselves?? Hillary isn’t president. She isn’t starting WW III.
You may have failed to convince some people that HRC was going to start WW III. I’m not sure why that matters. Reasonable people can present their arguments, not convince each other, and agree to disagree.
Plus if it was some life or death situation to convince people — well, now she’s not president. Crisis averted.
LikeLike
@resw
No substantive response, eh. Just more of your Goebbels Gambit aka Repetition of the Big Lie. Oh and of course, your usual denial and deflection techniques.
Par for the course.
LikeLike
^I just don’t get how many threads the four of them are going to jointly derail to defend abagond’s misinformation, personally attack me and other truth tellers, and defend their candidate. It’s like clockwork at this point.
If anyone else did what they routinely do, together, abagond wouldn’t hesitate to label their irrelevant comments as off topic and them as the trolls they clearly are.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
100% of your comments on this thread have been about me, and 0% about RT or abagond’s “diet”. A fact.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
That was written as the Toddler-in-Chief has a naval task force heading for the Korean Peninsula. A move that could start a catastrophic war that threatens Hawaii and the US West Coast.
But at least HRC didn’t give the order.
LikeLike
@”This time a year ago the presidential candidate Abagond supported was Bernie Sanders”
And?
LikeLike
Since all of this is to deflect from abagond’s questionable claims about RT, including the latest one about RT.com trying to install malware, I’ll revisit the topic against the campaign crew’s wishes.
I find it bizarre that it’s so hard to find anyone else on the internet who reported the same issue as abagond. Is it possible that abagond clicked the link to install the extension by accident? Is it possible that abagond’s browser is out of date?
Or is it possible abagond is making this up to successfully steer many of his followers away from reading RT.com so there will be less likelihood they will refute the claims he intends to make in his upcoming review? Just curious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius
“He’s repeatedly says that he hates her, going all the way back to 2008.”
Yet that didn’t stop him from telling his readers to vote for her or voting for her himself (and too bad we don’t have another troll like you to point out your poor grammar).
Abagond also stated this about Sanders:
“From what I can tell, he seems to have no empathy for Black people. To him, Black people are at maybe the level of Canadian geese: it would be a shame to see them get hurt or killed unnecessarily, but if they do, so what, he is not going to lose any sleep over it. It is hardly a crying injustice”
In addition to his support for the DNC candidate he hated, it’s equally shameful he supported a man who, in his own words, lacks “empathy for Black people”.
“There is literally no reason to be talking about Hillary Clinton when we’re 8 days short of 6 months since she lost the election.”
So why don’t you and your colleagues stop talking about her?
LikeLike
Re: malware episode.
I closed my laptop when it was on an RT page. When I opened it hours later it was on a page (a popup, if I remember correctly) called “Microsoft Official Support System” with a domain name of pc-breach-327k0ii.info. That has an IP address of 185.22.173.95 and is located in St Petersburg in the Russian Federation:
http://www.d-analyse.com/a/pc-breach-327k0ii.info.html
LikeLike
@nomad
See, you are doing the same sort of thing as Resw. One cannot have an honest difference of opinion. No, one must be lying.
LikeLike
She was going to be president. Right up till the time the polls closed. The point is people thought she was going to be president but thought nothing of her intentions to provoke a potentially nuclear war with Russia, People here acted like 1) it wasnt true and 2) like it didn’t matter. Don’t appreciate ‘brought it on yourselves’? Alright, I did it because I wanted to. I did it because you needed to know. Trump has indeed led us to the brink of WW III, but at the time of the election, with his talk of rapprochement with Russia, Hillary was the more likely candidate to lead us into WW III.
LikeLike
@abagond
Kudos for getting back on topic and trying to vindicate yourself. I still doubt you, but as I said before, that’s only because you’ve been disparaging and stating false claims about RT (without any evidence) for quite some time now.
I expect your biased crew to believe anything you say, but given what you’ve done, you should expect people to doubt your latest accusation and not get so defensive about it.
LikeLike
@”One cannot have an honest difference of opinion. ”
LOL. Who owns RT is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Your statement above is one of many good examples of how you mislead your readers
LikeLike
@”Umm, there are only two reasons..”
LOL. Didn’t you just say “There is LITERALLY NO REASON to be talking about Hillary Clinton…”? And that quickly, you just thought of two. Bravo!
LikeLike
But “there is LITERALLY NO REASON”, according to you. Yet another example of you contradicting yourself.
LikeLike
I don’t know if you are lying or not. I know some of your assertions are not true. Some of your statements are not technically lies, like ‘Russia funds RT’, which, as I say insinuates the Russian government’s control of its contents. You suggest that this is significant when it is no more significant than other governments that do the same thing . BBC is likely government funded, likewise PBS, yet you dont question their independence.
I don’t know if you’re lying or not, but for someone who professed to hate Hillary Clinton you certainly did not react to criticism and mockery of her the way someone who actually hated her would. You were very defensive of her throughout the campaign and weirdly afterwards as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nomad said,
“BBC is likely government funded, likewise PBS, yet you dont question their independence.”
They are not Independant. In this NPR piece RT is referred too as “The Russian propaganda channel.”
They are part of there respective deep states..
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505751335/-rt-america-the-one-news-outlet-for-which-trump-retains-an-unexpected-affinity
RT allows more freedom for hosts to post on topics that they like. Though state owned it’s not 1984 central planning. That said the story I posted from RT up thread claiming that Ukraine was behind the assination of a former Russian I would rate as propaganda.
LikeLike
Resw derailed the thread when he called Abagond a liar and dishonest. The rest of his posting are about formating discord and distrust. Let’s have a toxic Sunday afternoon.
LikeLike
And therefore a year ago (much less “over a year” ago), Abagond was not “impugning” posters “for doing nothing but bringing up facts about the presidential candidate he supported” IF “presidential candidate” in this statement refers to HRC.
IF “presidential candidate” in this statement refers to HRC, it is demonstrably untrue for the time frame explicitly mentioned.
IF “presidential candidate” in this statement refers to Sanders, I would like to see proof that over a year ago Abagond was “impugning” posters “for doing nothing but bringing up facts about” Bernie Sanders.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
“Trump has indeed led us to the brink of WW III, but at the time of the election, with his talk of rapprochement with Russia…”
Imagine that. Trump lied, just like everyone else who runs for political office.
You tried to tell me that HRC would start WW III. Well, I remember trying to tell you Trump would get us into WW III. You didn’t believe me, either.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s any way we can say for sure whether HRC or Trump would be more likely to cause WW III unless we could somehow run a real-time experiment in parallel universes.
You and I disagreed and still disagree over which one was more likely. But it seems either one may well have headed down that path.
It seems your feelings are stronger than mine about this. I’m not sure why.
I see the “who’s worse: Trump or Hillary” argument more as an intellectual debate, not something to hang my emotions on.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“Resw derailed the thread when he called Abagond a liar and dishonest. ”
In fact, I never called abagond a liar. And of course, you derailed the thread (or at least tried to) far earlier than anyone uttered the word “dishonest.”
LikeLike
Most people who voted for Hillary didn’t see her as a war hawk. I saw her as one. Trump did a lot of complaining about the U.S. getting into needless wars so there was some hope he would keep the U.S. from pursuing war. But his funding of the military, appointment of generals, droning ect points to war as usual.
LikeLike
This comment,
“You know very well that I’ve called out your many lies or “misinformation” on myriad subjects, not just on RT. So for you to spread the idea that this is a unique situation when you know it’s not, is one of many reasons why I say you’re dishonest.”
What would we do without Resw around to make sure we aren’t led astray by Abagond.
LikeLike
“This comment”
…did not include me calling anyone a liar. Try again.
LikeLike
It would be lovely if resw started his/her own blog. The he/she could:
★ make a plan
★ choose and tweak a theme
★ create an editorial calendar and actually have the self-discipline to follow it
★ set up commenting rules
★ hunt for images and reprint permissions
★ write posts that take advantage of current SEO (search engine optimization) techniques
★ write scintillating posts several times a week for three or more years until he/she builds an audience
★ rides herd on a bunch of opinionated commenters and crazy trolls
★ finally meets him/herself with a commenter turned attention seeker who name calls and disrupts threads for a cheap thrill.
If this tone and contents of this blog is really so distressing to you, resw, can we expect your new blog to set us straight in the near future?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
When I search on “WW III”, your warnings did not start till November 19th, ten days AFTER SHE LOST. Why did you feel you “had to” warn us of a danger – that had already passed?
LikeLike
Solitaire
That’s wrong.. I said ‘less likely’. Not the same as saying he wouldn’t. I said that both forks lead to same place. You guys do like he said she said. If I said that, show me where.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
I don’t remember which thread had the discussion on “forks in the road … Godzilla vs King Kong.” So I paraphrased it here as best I could remember.
Ok, so maybe instead of the way I worded it upthread, you said Trump was less likely and I said Trump was more likely.
Not sure how that changes the substance of my larger points or my confusion about the apparent amount of emotional investment in the disagreement.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
Also, I was basing a lot of my paraphrase on our discussion right here. You said above: “I said Hillary was heading us for WW III…. people kept talking as if she weren’t. so I kept repeating with proof that she was.”
Maybe “likely” was implied there? As in “Hillary was likely to head us for WW III”? I didn’t read it as such, sorry.
LikeLike
@solitaire
okay but I went searching
heres me on 4 oct 2016
LikeLike
@ Nomad
I agree that thinking Trump is the lesser evil is not the same as being pro Trump.
But I clearly remember saying at the time that likewise thinking HRC is the lesser evil is not the same as being pro HRC.
I remember that you were for Jill Stein. I know you weren’t voting for Trump. I don’t believe I’ve ever said you did or that you liked him.
MJB and Afrofem have said over and over again that they didn’t vote for HRC, yet they still keep getting told that HRC was their candidate whose loss has devastated them (although not so much by you as by others).
LikeLike
@abagond
I’m sure I warned before. not sure how to search comments by topic. heres me on 29 oct 2016.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Weirdly afterwards? What was weird was all the anti-HRC bashing AFTER she lost, going on for weeks. I felt like I was in “The Twilight Zone”. I could not make sense of it except as trolling.
Before the election, you, Fox News and others would latch onto marginal claims about her which I did not buy. You might see it as me “defending” her. I see it as using the two brain cells I got left.
LikeLike
also I do like telling people how wrong they were, so I wasn’t “warning” after the election. I was gloating or trolling or whatever you wanna call it.
LikeLike
@abagond
we see things very differently. very differently indeed.
LikeLike
heres me 23 jul 2016
LikeLike
michaeljonbarker
“They are not Independant. In this NPR piece RT is referred too as “The Russian propaganda channel.””
Look whos talking. I don’t trust anything American media says about Russia. Its lies.
LikeLike
@abagond
also I remember linking to PCR who was predicting nuclear holocaust if Hillary was elected and obviously agreeing with him. it was a theme in my comments before the election and apparently afterwards.
weird that you thought it was an odd thing to talk about Hillary after the election. it was nothing of the sort. odd that you took umbrage to it. elsewhere on the web people from bar to ha goodman were and still are talking about Hillary’s loss, weeks months after the election.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
No. You read that right. No likely was implied. Hillary was definitely heading us to WW III. Trump was only likely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
my investments are generally not emotional. I am persistent though not relentless.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
“It would be lovely if resw started his/her own blog”
Not sure what that has to do with RT or abagond’s “diet”, but you do not know whether or not I already run a blog or even a full-blown website.
But I guess if you only talked about things you knew, you wouldn’t have a reason to comment.
LikeLike
“When I search on “WW III”, your warnings did not start till November 19th”
Clever trick, abagond.
Did you try broadening your search beyond “WW III” to terms like “WWIII”?
If you did, you’d see nomad talked that as early as July 2016: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/hillary-clinton-for-president/#comment-321000
LikeLike
@resw
“When I search on “WW III”, your warnings did not start till November 19th”
lol. that’s why I kept repeating it. failure to notice by this community. as I say, they brought it upon themselves.
LikeLike
I don’t know how to search comments, but I was looking for the discussion where someone was listing the pros and cons of Hillary vs Trump and they put the likelihood of war in his column, based on his temperament, completely ignoring everything I had said about Hillary actually advocating threatening and preparing for war with Russia. That was where I stated my intention to post every link I ran across that stated Hillary wanted war with Russia. This community had ignored my assertion up to that point. It would no longer because I was going to make sure of it through repetition with links. You brought this upon yourselves.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
Way to not answer my question. Another thing you have in common with Resw.
LikeLike
Question? The last one was
I thought that was pretty well answered. Was there another?
LikeLike
@ nomad
So you kept warning us of a threat that had passed because we had ignored your past warnings? Is that what you are saying?
LikeLike
@abagond
“Way to not answer my question. Another thing you have in common with Resw.”
You haven’t answered any of the questions I posed to you either. So what does that make you?
But nice deflection from your lie or “misstatement” about nomad’s warnings starting after the election, when I easily found at least one from July 2016.
If you want to deceive us, you’ll have to do a better job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
“…you do not know whether or not I already run a blog or even a full-blown website.”
Another ball bearings on the floor gambit. Sigh
Irrelevant. I don’t need to know. I do know if you had an active blog or “full-blown” website you would be so busy producing and marketing your content there that your comments here would be less frequent and a lot more substantial.
That is in contrast to the constant stream of vacuous drivel you write on this forum. (With some notable exceptions).
LikeLike
@abagond
that’s a reasonable summary. yes. my advice. don’t ignore my warnings.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
“I don’t need to know. ”
I don’t think anyone can doubt that. Lack of knowledge about a subject clearly doesn’t prevent you from talking about it anyway.
LikeLike
of course I would not call it ‘warning’ after the election but statement of fact. as it was before.
LikeLike
And I might add, nomad said in July 2016, “EITHER WAY WWIII is a good bet.”
So it makes no difference whether or not abagond’s candidate lost.
LikeLike
@mjb
So I was wondering, does Russia have a deep state? Would it need one? True every state likely has secrets it hides from its citizens, but not every state have hidden power brokers who actually run the state through puppet figureheads. Like ours. Seems that Russia is authoritarian enough to simply tell it citizens up front what it intends and demands. I don’t see Putin as one who would allow a deep state to control him.
Also, now that America’s Deep State has come to our attention we need to reevaluate how we think about who was responsible for 911. Some have accused the Bush administration. Perhaps the Bush administration was merely instrumental. 911 certainly does fit with the apparent Deep State agenda.
LikeLike
And then, since the MSM is part of the Deep State, that would explain why the MSM stands behind a physically impossible official story. That’s why no one who gets their news from MSM has ever heard of Building 7, as I had not before getting on the Net. MSM. Complicit in the 911 cover up. Another reason not to trust them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Central_Intelligence
“George H. W. Bush January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977[12]”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nomad said,
“So I was wondering, does Russia have a deep state?”
I think the deep state in Russia helps keep Putin in power.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is one in Russia. Putin is not a puppet.
LikeLike
@ Nomad.
That doesn’t mean that Putin is a puppet to the deep state rather that he is the head of the deep state.
Contrast that with the U.S. where corperate and military complex are the root of the deep state and the MSM media branches off of that.
LikeLike
sorry man. show me the proof. just because we have a deep state doesn’t mean Russia does. I don’t think it needs one. this sounds like goosey goosey gander.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
Would you agree with this statement.
“In Russia the State works for Putin and in the U.S. the State works for Corperations and the military Industrial complex.”
Maybe we have different interpetations of what a “deep state” is.
Looking back on Russian history I would say that Stalin invented the deep state. That was what George Orwell was writing against in his books.
LikeLike
yes we definitely have a different idea of what a deep state is. the deep state has a hidden agenda that different from the legitimate state’s agenda. I don’t think that’s the case in Russia. probably not china either.
LikeLike
again. this is just opinion. show me proof of a Russian deep state. you know. cite an expert .
LikeLike
deep state, for me, is not a natural part of states. its not like every state has one. deep state is a corruption of the state. deep state is an aberration.
LikeLike
The Deep State has been around in one way or another since the time of the Tsars. It’s been around or something like it from Roman times.
LikeLike
like I say. I don’t just take peoples word. show me a citation. at any rate the modern era deep state is an entirely different animal than anything that could possibly have existed in the past, with the rise of the national security state after ww ii..
LikeLike
@ nomad
That comment belongs here:
Please copy it there and I will deleted it here.
LikeLike
so yes, some trump voters were racist, in the conventional sense of the word, but not all. the trump voters that decided the election were former Obama voters. hows that for irony? even if these flipped Obama voters were closet racists, they overcame their racism enough to vote for a black man twice. that man slapped them in the face. no wonder they voted for trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
done
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
thanks. the one above can go to. I transferred them both
LikeLike
@ Herneith
“The Deep State has been around in one way or another since the time of the Tsars. It’s been around or something like it from Roman times.”
I agree. In my opinion, all imperial powers develop deep states. I think of a deep state as a network of interlocking social, economic and power interests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem Herneith and MJB
until you prove it I don’t believe it.
LikeLike
@Afrofem Herneith and MJB
Lofgren says
you guys seem to be saying that someone applied it retroactively to earlier historical periods. who? citations please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
The term may have been coined in Turkey. The structures have existed in every imperial power.
LikeLike
I know you believe that. I asked for citations. Otherwise I take it as unfounded. At this point, to me its a senseless assertion.
LikeLike
@”The term may have been coined in Turkey. The structures have existed in every imperial power.”
Of course that sophomoric response doesn’t come close to proving her claims.
LikeLike
*his or her claims
LikeLike
that’s interesting, nationalism let’s say, in the highest form, reacting maybe to the multinationals, it’s only due to the internet that anything about all that would be brought to light, it’s certainly contested ground in the us but do the rothschilds and the pope really run the planet? they’d like you to think so!
LikeLike
what I find interesting here, goosey goosey gander, is the presumption that if America is guilty of something or has a fault, all other nations of all times have that same fault. or at least its natural for all nations to have that fault. ‘if America has a deep state, it must be normal. if America has a deep state, so too must Russia. If MSM is propaganda RT is propaganda. goosey goosey gander. but I don’t think you guys appreciate just how exceptional America is.
LikeLike
one thing that makes America exceptional is lack of a moral conscience. in fact I think that absence of conscience -that psychopathology- is the core of American exceptionalism. like pcr says
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/05/sauron-rules-washington/
LikeLike
@ Nomad.
George Orwell books alluded to the deep state. They were based on Stalinism but allegorical in the sense that such extreme statism is possible within any system. Stalin perfected “a government within a government” with his secret police the KGB.
Let’s not forget that Putin served in the KGB for 16 years and rose to power after Yeltsin resigned. I think it would be naive to believe that Russias form of a deep state went away.
It is structured differently then the U.S. but it’s still there keeping Putin in power.
I also think it’s naive to think that RT is completely independent of Russian State influence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nomad said,
“deep state, for me, is not a natural part of states”
And what is a natural State? I think it would be one that reflects the “natural state of man” which is a state of freedom.
A natural state are people who voluntarily come together to form a community or goverment.
That’s different then a Federal or centrally planned State that posses a monopoly on violence. One that caters to corperations for “pay for play” or makes war for profit. One that bestows “natural privilages” on groups or a particular race of people. One whose laws are punitive and views the State as the ultimate victim in a “crime”.
So I am “anti State” but “pro government “. Facists, racists ect are pro state but anti goverment. They want that hammer to make the world in their image.
If you look at the horrendous crimes against humanity through out history there is always an obliging State.
LikeLike
I agree. but you are equating deep state with state. orwell is not a reference unless he uses the term ‘deed state’. what you said is well said but its not what I asked, show me someone else who says the deep state is what you say. you seem to be talking about something else.
LikeLike
without a corroborating reference, this is just something you believe. with only your word to support it.
LikeLike
Nomad we are having a conversation not a debate. It’s OK if we see things differently. I’m not trying to “prove” anything just elucidating my point of view.
LikeLike
oh really? I didn’t know that. in other words you cannot corroborate your assertion. that’s all I wanted to know. if your assertion was valid. apparently it isn’t.
LikeLike
“in other words you cannot corroborate your assertion”
Neither can you.
But how I see things is rooted in a world view that makes it easier for me to determine what is real and what is not.
On the subject of propaganda that is subjective. What maybe propaganda to me may not be propaganda to you.
LikeLike
“in other words you cannot corroborate your assertion”
Neither can you.
wrong. any assertion I make I can corroborate.
propaganda is not subjective
LikeLike
‘propaganda is not subjective”
Here are some examples of what I mean. RT has content calling Isreal an aparthied state and the settlements as “illegal”. In this case I agree with RT.
The U.S. Media is very pro Isreal and they would never include aparthied in the same sentence with Isreal. That said there are plenty of people who belive Isreal is a legitimate state and would disagree that Isreal is an aparthied state.
The MSM calls North Korea a “regime” and as you correctly pointed out elsewhere “regime” is a word the media uses to regularly to push U.S. foreign policy propaganda. In this case though the MSM is correct in that North Korea is in fact totalitarian state which qualifies as a “regime”.
Things aren’t not a clear cut as I think you would like them to be.
In regards to the “deep state” I think it’s is a natural outcome of large governments. There are always groups with economic and militaristic power that buy influence and compromise democracy.
I also think it’s a red flag when Breitbart and Info Wars plays up the “deep state”. They spinnthat fpr there own propaganda purposes.
LikeLike
Quite a statement. Some things are clear cut. Some are not. That’s the purpose of my inquiry. To clarify.
But I do wonder how you know what I would like.
LikeLike
“But I do wonder how you know what I would like.”
Maybe that wasn’t the best way to phrase it. I don’t see it as a clear cut argument.
LikeLike
@MJB
‘propaganda is not subjective”
Yes. propaganda is subjective. But only because its hard to discern. In many cases. In many cases its simply not recognized by the target audience, which is what propagandists desire and it is what makes propaganda effective. Once it is revealed as propaganda, whether out right lie or spin, it loses some of its effectiveness. I say some because people tend to believe propaganda long after it has been objectively disproved.
So people who say this is propaganda ‘to me’ but that is not are likely to be wrong because of the deceptive nature of propaganda itself and, for Americans, because almost everything they take in thru MSM is propaganda. Remember that MSM is part of the Deep State. It is in fact the propaganda wing. We Americans live in a propaganda bubble. Corollary to this lack of awareness of propaganda is the fact that because we live in this insulated propaganda bubble we tend to see the ideas and perspectives that contradict that bubble as propaganda, when in most cases its not. It just seems that way.
So yeah, in the sense that you mean, propaganda is subjective. To a detached observer it can be objectively discerned.
LikeLike
yet another aspect of america’s deep state, in addition to mic, intel community, banksters/wall street, msm
at the top of the deep state power structure?
https://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/israeldeepstate.jpg?w=1024&h=832
LikeLike
I guess that’s why Israel doesn’t have a deep state. it is one. ours.
LikeLike