People who like me are skeptics of Russiagate (who believe that Russia did not attempt to influence the US election through illegal activities, or collusion with Trump) include nearly all of the antiwar leftists I know of, and smartest people I know of, including:
Edward S. Herman (MIT professor of finance, co-author (w Noam Chomsky) of Manufacturing Consent, the antiwar left's most well known book). Wrote detailed article denouncing the Russiagate narrative as a classic war consent manufacturing campaign in July 2017, just before his death. Published in the most respected Marxist magazine Monthy Review.
Robert Parry--award winning antiwar journalist who broke major stories about Iran Contra and CIA Cocaine Smuggling--debunked Russiagate talking points several times a week from 2016 onwards Here's one classic report by Parry in late 2017, where he deconstructs reporting in the New York Times about the alleged troll farm that placed Facebook ads, showing most of the reported $100,000 ads had absolutely nothing to do with the electoral politics--such as puppy pictures--and the actual tiny dollar amounts spent on political topics. Sadly, Parry died of cancer in January 2018, but his website ConsortiumNews continues with contributions by like minded reporters about a wide variety of topics. It's fair to say ConsortiumNews tilts left, mainly antiwar, pro environment, and pro civil rights, as do all the writers I highlight at the top.
Yves Smith (founder of Naked Capitalism, another of my favorite sites). He linked this great story by Norman Solomon (another of my heroes) showing the elite manufactured obsession with Russigate isn't paying off, constituents want other issues addressed more.
Social critic and growth limits theorist James Howard Kuntzler (End of Nowhere, The Long Emergency) declares Russiagate to be a dangerous irrationality driven by justifiable hatred of Trump.
Doug Henwood (New York radio journalist, author of After the New Economy and other books)
Max Blumenthal (antiwar journalist, son of Bill Clinton's key advisor Sid Blumenthal). In this story he shows that an early Mueller indictment actually shows the influence of Israel, not Russia, a point never made in the mainstream media, but often made in the antiwar and anti-Zionist media.
Caitlin Johnstone (Australian journalist and blogger)
Scott Ritter (journalist, weapons inspector). Scott has written many articles debunking Russiagate talking points.
Articles by Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at NYU and Princeton, published in The Nation.
Antiwar blogger MoonOfAlabama.
Those who denounce and debunk the Russiagate narrative include all of the writers who appear at ConsortiumNews, Counterpunch, Truthdig, Portside, InformationClearingHouse, GlobalResearch, Moon of Alabama. Virtually all of the commenters on these and similar many antiwar and left blogs I've ever seen. Of course--Julian Assange himself, who consistently denied Russians or Russian linked intermediaries leaked him DNC materials.
Many on the left like Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have hedged, admitting the Russians might have done some things, but denouncing the overreaction, on the basis that we have and continue to do far worse. The left leaning The Nation simply never talks about Russiagate-per-se even while it is constantly examining Trump himself.
Perhaps not all of who could be described as radical and antiwar, left or right, but most, and all I find respectable so far.
And the antiwar right as well, the including antiwar libertarians such as Ron Paul, and well known Paleocons such as Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts who write much nowadays about the need to disassemble the US empire. While many establishment Republicans have made a Russiagate point or two in the past, in general the GOP is leaning more and more against it. Of course Donald Trump himself has denounced it from the beginning.
The bottom line is...even if this were true, pushing it big could be an electoral disaster, which is exactly what Henwood and leftists have been saying for a long time, and now a major national poll as reported by Norman Solomon above.
Who promotes the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that Russians illegally conspired with Trump? Most strongly the "centrist" Democrats...the Clinton Campaign started the Russiagate narrative with the claim that Russians were behind the Wikileaks release of material showing favoritism toward Hillary at the DNC. The Clinton campaign quickly changed the message from DNC corruption to Russian Influence. (I tell this story in greater detail below.)
So, yeah, as very many I read are pointing out now, Russiagate was originally a plan by the "centrist liberal" elites to destroy the antiwar left, and it may be destroying the middle as well, by setting them up for another "unexpected" electoral wipeout. One wonders how much the elite cares.
The Story
The incredible takeoff of Bernie Sanders during the spring of 2016. By late spring, the mainstream media was giving people many reasons NOT to vote for Bernie, of course starting with the claim that Bernie was less electable and if he were selected as Democratic candidate. Then more and more stories arose discrediting the supporters of Bernie as thuglike "Bernie Bros." That was failing too, it was beginning to look like Bernie might pull ahead. At a critical point, Wikileaks relased emails proving the DNC was working against Bernie. Bernie was now vindicated and he might have been victorious if this were the last word. But this new story didn't have much play, because almost immediately a new story replaced it: the story that it had been Russians had hacked the DNC and given the emails to Wikileaks (and never mind what the emails showed). In fact the Russiagate story of alleged Russian Hacking began hours after the still univestigated murder of Seth Rich, as if to change the narrative quickly.
So the story, if not the fact, was a war on the left from the very beginning. And it has continued from there and morphed into a general purpose condemnation of leftists, the antiwar left and right, Russians, and so on.
The Problems with the Russiagate Story:
* Despite all the screaming heads on military-industrial-complex owned or operated "mainstream" media, including "public" media, no actual public evidence has been presented for the central claim of collusion between Trump and Russia in activity which illegally influenced the election. We are being asked to believe the word of Intelligence and other Government officials who have frequently lied us into war and other disasters before.
* Not only have Intelligence agencies lied, they have murdered, drugged, tortured, and many other crimes, with not a person being held accountable. And yet, these are the ones, some of them, often anonymous, that we must trust to believe the Russiagate stories. Already some have been proven to be hacks on Russiage itself.
* It is a war consent manufacturing psyop, designed to demonize Russia and countries allied with Russia, to ramp up the New Cold War which could result in nuclear annihiliation, rather than spending money on useful things, like renewable energy which might save humanity. But along the way to annihiliation or collapse, he military industrial complex will make more money on "modernizing" weapons systems, because of course we continue to fear the evil other and must be "prepared" to counter them at any cost. The consent manufacturing aspect of Russiagate was clearly spelled out by
* It is a McCarthyite war on leftist and antiwar journalists and websites. Almost from the beginning antiwar and leftist websites who questioned Russiagate or other aspects of establishment malfeasance were categorized by mainstream media as Russian Trolls, to be marginalized by blacklisting, casting out of search lists, and so on. This has been implemented more and more. Bernie Sanders supporters were the first to feel the heat, when the leak of information about DNC favoritism toward Hillary was immediately buried with the (still unsubstantiated) claim that Russians were behind it, with the implication that Russians might prefer the nomination of Bernie and therefore it might not be patriotic to vote for him. Those demonized by Russiagate included many of my favorite websites, including ConsortiumNews and NakedCapitalism. Even now Bernie is feeling heat for not doing enough to stop Russiagate.
* It was an attempt to tie the hands of Trump so he would not be able to ramp down tensions with Russia as he claimed he would do during his campaign. Indeed, he has still not lifted the sanctions on Russia, though he did, this month, actually meet with Putin, which should have been hailed as a good thing in itself. But because he did not follow the Russigate script, and punish Putin for his alleged interference, which neither Trump nor other Americans believe, it was called Treason in the mainstream media.
* It is beyond hypocrisy, since it is well documented the US has substantially influenced over 81 foreign elections, and continues operating very well funded influence operations today through the National Endowment for Democracy and other "aid" and intelligence operations. Billions of dollars are spent every year on such things, which include the well known Radio Liberty (formerly Voice of America). We have operated heavily in Eastern Europe and continue to do so in all of Latin America.
* And that 81 is not even counting the government violent overthrows we orchestrated or contributed to, such as in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and many other countries. This is far worse than mere electoral "influence."
* And then, the wars, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which we engaged or contributed or still contribute to.
* The fact that we still sanction Russia! For reclaiming a tiny bit of territory they had controlled for nearly 200 years, where in a referendum over 90% wanted to resume Russian citizenship, and not the western government that had resulted from the most recent US backed coup. This was a bloodless "conquest." Compare this to our endless war in Afghanistan and proxy wars elsewhere.
* I'm all for tactically slowing Trump down, though I'm not impressed by the "sex" scandals so far. But anyway, scandal mania against Trump as was done to Bill Clinton would be fine with me. What irks me is the New Cold War with Russia that Russiagate puts front and center, and all the dangers and ill consequences that portends, and of course the war on independent and leftist and antiwar thinking. Fighting Putin or Russia in the way won't do anything good for the people said to be hurt by them, such as women and homosexuals in Russia, or Syrians, or global warming (since Russia is an oil producer...one guy said we must stop Putin because of that...but the US is an even larger oil producer).
* The way to do those good things, is first and foremost, is to end war and empire. Only then will anyone be able to afford to make the changes necessary. So ending the New Cold War is actually our highest priority. We must do that first, or nothing else important is possible. To start that process, it's worth toning down the advirsarial rhethoric. To stop looking for faults in others. To be as generous as we can, overlook trangressions, as long as we can still move forwards.
* Even if there were a Russiagate as the media spelled out, it would have only made a tiny difference in the election. I doubt it would have changed any precincts, let alone states. Our own plutocracy spends billions to influence this game, before and after elections.
* In that context, it's hard to believe the Russians would have tried their hand on the small scale indicated in the official stories, such as the DNC emails. The danger of being caught would be far worse than the possibility of doing anything useful. They would also have had to have better statistics than anyone else to do the clever targeting required.
* In the case of the leaks about DNC favoritism of Hillary over Bernie, the DNC server was never provided to government authorities. It was sent for examination by a firm with known anti-Russia neocon ownership, matching the attitude of Hillary herself. This is one of the central flaws, and much of the privately gathered data could have been doctored or selected. Trump was correct to comment on this.
* The media has pooh poohed the potential involvement of Seth Rich. However, even Julian Assage has suggested his involvement by mentioning him in response. Actually, here too, investigation of the Seth Rich murder was stopped under pressure from a top Democrat. Seth Rich could have been murdered precisely because he alone could prove who the leaker was (assuming it was himself) and certain people would rather that information be replaced with a new more useful perpetrator: the Russians! Also, of course, as a threat to anyone else who might get the idea of leaking from the DNC.
* Jesus expressed one aspect of this idea of fundamental ethics the best when he said to remove the log from your own eye before protesting the speck in your neighbors. That is exactly applicable here, including magnitude as I've argued above. We should be ethical, and be most critical of our own faults, before criticizing others.
* In the case where there's not even any evidence, it's worse. It's "bearing false witness." We should not be talking about this unless we are absolutely sure. To be sure, one should hear all sides, including the Russiagate skeptics, so we can grasp "the whole truth." But the mainstream media would try to make you think that is unpatriotic or white supremacist (they have an angle for everybody).
* It's a distraction, from the things we should be focused on, which our own government is now doing, including our current ongoing very large scale influence and war operations, which we should not be doing, and should stop right now. And our own oil production, mistreatment of immigrants and certain minorities, etc, etc. It's even a great time waster for me. How much time I'd have for other things if Russiagate narrative had never been advanced (by Hillary and friends first, I believe).
* Polls are now showing the Russiagate focus is not doing the Democratic Party any good. Polls suggest politicians need to be focused on constituents immediate concerns.
More Links:
UK News aggregator 21Wire has assembled a treasure trove of anti-Russiagate articles, including a vast number by Robert Parry, but also Ron Paul, Stephen Cohen, and others.
Edward S. Herman (MIT professor of finance, co-author (w Noam Chomsky) of Manufacturing Consent, the antiwar left's most well known book). Wrote detailed article denouncing the Russiagate narrative as a classic war consent manufacturing campaign in July 2017, just before his death. Published in the most respected Marxist magazine Monthy Review.
Robert Parry--award winning antiwar journalist who broke major stories about Iran Contra and CIA Cocaine Smuggling--debunked Russiagate talking points several times a week from 2016 onwards Here's one classic report by Parry in late 2017, where he deconstructs reporting in the New York Times about the alleged troll farm that placed Facebook ads, showing most of the reported $100,000 ads had absolutely nothing to do with the electoral politics--such as puppy pictures--and the actual tiny dollar amounts spent on political topics. Sadly, Parry died of cancer in January 2018, but his website ConsortiumNews continues with contributions by like minded reporters about a wide variety of topics. It's fair to say ConsortiumNews tilts left, mainly antiwar, pro environment, and pro civil rights, as do all the writers I highlight at the top.
Yves Smith (founder of Naked Capitalism, another of my favorite sites). He linked this great story by Norman Solomon (another of my heroes) showing the elite manufactured obsession with Russigate isn't paying off, constituents want other issues addressed more.
Social critic and growth limits theorist James Howard Kuntzler (End of Nowhere, The Long Emergency) declares Russiagate to be a dangerous irrationality driven by justifiable hatred of Trump.
Doug Henwood (New York radio journalist, author of After the New Economy and other books)
Caitlin Johnstone (Australian journalist and blogger)
Scott Ritter (journalist, weapons inspector). Scott has written many articles debunking Russiagate talking points.
Articles by Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at NYU and Princeton, published in The Nation.
Antiwar blogger MoonOfAlabama.
Those who denounce and debunk the Russiagate narrative include all of the writers who appear at ConsortiumNews, Counterpunch, Truthdig, Portside, InformationClearingHouse, GlobalResearch, Moon of Alabama. Virtually all of the commenters on these and similar many antiwar and left blogs I've ever seen. Of course--Julian Assange himself, who consistently denied Russians or Russian linked intermediaries leaked him DNC materials.
Many on the left like Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have hedged, admitting the Russians might have done some things, but denouncing the overreaction, on the basis that we have and continue to do far worse. The left leaning The Nation simply never talks about Russiagate-per-se even while it is constantly examining Trump himself.
Perhaps not all of who could be described as radical and antiwar, left or right, but most, and all I find respectable so far.
And the antiwar right as well, the including antiwar libertarians such as Ron Paul, and well known Paleocons such as Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts who write much nowadays about the need to disassemble the US empire. While many establishment Republicans have made a Russiagate point or two in the past, in general the GOP is leaning more and more against it. Of course Donald Trump himself has denounced it from the beginning.
The bottom line is...even if this were true, pushing it big could be an electoral disaster, which is exactly what Henwood and leftists have been saying for a long time, and now a major national poll as reported by Norman Solomon above.
The Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists
Who promotes the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that Russians illegally conspired with Trump? Most strongly the "centrist" Democrats...the Clinton Campaign started the Russiagate narrative with the claim that Russians were behind the Wikileaks release of material showing favoritism toward Hillary at the DNC. The Clinton campaign quickly changed the message from DNC corruption to Russian Influence. (I tell this story in greater detail below.)
So, yeah, as very many I read are pointing out now, Russiagate was originally a plan by the "centrist liberal" elites to destroy the antiwar left, and it may be destroying the middle as well, by setting them up for another "unexpected" electoral wipeout. One wonders how much the elite cares.
The Story
The incredible takeoff of Bernie Sanders during the spring of 2016. By late spring, the mainstream media was giving people many reasons NOT to vote for Bernie, of course starting with the claim that Bernie was less electable and if he were selected as Democratic candidate. Then more and more stories arose discrediting the supporters of Bernie as thuglike "Bernie Bros." That was failing too, it was beginning to look like Bernie might pull ahead. At a critical point, Wikileaks relased emails proving the DNC was working against Bernie. Bernie was now vindicated and he might have been victorious if this were the last word. But this new story didn't have much play, because almost immediately a new story replaced it: the story that it had been Russians had hacked the DNC and given the emails to Wikileaks (and never mind what the emails showed). In fact the Russiagate story of alleged Russian Hacking began hours after the still univestigated murder of Seth Rich, as if to change the narrative quickly.
So the story, if not the fact, was a war on the left from the very beginning. And it has continued from there and morphed into a general purpose condemnation of leftists, the antiwar left and right, Russians, and so on.
The Problems with the Russiagate Story:
* Despite all the screaming heads on military-industrial-complex owned or operated "mainstream" media, including "public" media, no actual public evidence has been presented for the central claim of collusion between Trump and Russia in activity which illegally influenced the election. We are being asked to believe the word of Intelligence and other Government officials who have frequently lied us into war and other disasters before.
* Not only have Intelligence agencies lied, they have murdered, drugged, tortured, and many other crimes, with not a person being held accountable. And yet, these are the ones, some of them, often anonymous, that we must trust to believe the Russiagate stories. Already some have been proven to be hacks on Russiage itself.
* It is a war consent manufacturing psyop, designed to demonize Russia and countries allied with Russia, to ramp up the New Cold War which could result in nuclear annihiliation, rather than spending money on useful things, like renewable energy which might save humanity. But along the way to annihiliation or collapse, he military industrial complex will make more money on "modernizing" weapons systems, because of course we continue to fear the evil other and must be "prepared" to counter them at any cost. The consent manufacturing aspect of Russiagate was clearly spelled out by
* It is a McCarthyite war on leftist and antiwar journalists and websites. Almost from the beginning antiwar and leftist websites who questioned Russiagate or other aspects of establishment malfeasance were categorized by mainstream media as Russian Trolls, to be marginalized by blacklisting, casting out of search lists, and so on. This has been implemented more and more. Bernie Sanders supporters were the first to feel the heat, when the leak of information about DNC favoritism toward Hillary was immediately buried with the (still unsubstantiated) claim that Russians were behind it, with the implication that Russians might prefer the nomination of Bernie and therefore it might not be patriotic to vote for him. Those demonized by Russiagate included many of my favorite websites, including ConsortiumNews and NakedCapitalism. Even now Bernie is feeling heat for not doing enough to stop Russiagate.
* It was an attempt to tie the hands of Trump so he would not be able to ramp down tensions with Russia as he claimed he would do during his campaign. Indeed, he has still not lifted the sanctions on Russia, though he did, this month, actually meet with Putin, which should have been hailed as a good thing in itself. But because he did not follow the Russigate script, and punish Putin for his alleged interference, which neither Trump nor other Americans believe, it was called Treason in the mainstream media.
* It is beyond hypocrisy, since it is well documented the US has substantially influenced over 81 foreign elections, and continues operating very well funded influence operations today through the National Endowment for Democracy and other "aid" and intelligence operations. Billions of dollars are spent every year on such things, which include the well known Radio Liberty (formerly Voice of America). We have operated heavily in Eastern Europe and continue to do so in all of Latin America.
* And that 81 is not even counting the government violent overthrows we orchestrated or contributed to, such as in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and many other countries. This is far worse than mere electoral "influence."
* And then, the wars, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which we engaged or contributed or still contribute to.
* The fact that we still sanction Russia! For reclaiming a tiny bit of territory they had controlled for nearly 200 years, where in a referendum over 90% wanted to resume Russian citizenship, and not the western government that had resulted from the most recent US backed coup. This was a bloodless "conquest." Compare this to our endless war in Afghanistan and proxy wars elsewhere.
* I'm all for tactically slowing Trump down, though I'm not impressed by the "sex" scandals so far. But anyway, scandal mania against Trump as was done to Bill Clinton would be fine with me. What irks me is the New Cold War with Russia that Russiagate puts front and center, and all the dangers and ill consequences that portends, and of course the war on independent and leftist and antiwar thinking. Fighting Putin or Russia in the way won't do anything good for the people said to be hurt by them, such as women and homosexuals in Russia, or Syrians, or global warming (since Russia is an oil producer...one guy said we must stop Putin because of that...but the US is an even larger oil producer).
* The way to do those good things, is first and foremost, is to end war and empire. Only then will anyone be able to afford to make the changes necessary. So ending the New Cold War is actually our highest priority. We must do that first, or nothing else important is possible. To start that process, it's worth toning down the advirsarial rhethoric. To stop looking for faults in others. To be as generous as we can, overlook trangressions, as long as we can still move forwards.
* Even if there were a Russiagate as the media spelled out, it would have only made a tiny difference in the election. I doubt it would have changed any precincts, let alone states. Our own plutocracy spends billions to influence this game, before and after elections.
* In that context, it's hard to believe the Russians would have tried their hand on the small scale indicated in the official stories, such as the DNC emails. The danger of being caught would be far worse than the possibility of doing anything useful. They would also have had to have better statistics than anyone else to do the clever targeting required.
* In the case of the leaks about DNC favoritism of Hillary over Bernie, the DNC server was never provided to government authorities. It was sent for examination by a firm with known anti-Russia neocon ownership, matching the attitude of Hillary herself. This is one of the central flaws, and much of the privately gathered data could have been doctored or selected. Trump was correct to comment on this.
* The media has pooh poohed the potential involvement of Seth Rich. However, even Julian Assage has suggested his involvement by mentioning him in response. Actually, here too, investigation of the Seth Rich murder was stopped under pressure from a top Democrat. Seth Rich could have been murdered precisely because he alone could prove who the leaker was (assuming it was himself) and certain people would rather that information be replaced with a new more useful perpetrator: the Russians! Also, of course, as a threat to anyone else who might get the idea of leaking from the DNC.
* Jesus expressed one aspect of this idea of fundamental ethics the best when he said to remove the log from your own eye before protesting the speck in your neighbors. That is exactly applicable here, including magnitude as I've argued above. We should be ethical, and be most critical of our own faults, before criticizing others.
* In the case where there's not even any evidence, it's worse. It's "bearing false witness." We should not be talking about this unless we are absolutely sure. To be sure, one should hear all sides, including the Russiagate skeptics, so we can grasp "the whole truth." But the mainstream media would try to make you think that is unpatriotic or white supremacist (they have an angle for everybody).
* It's a distraction, from the things we should be focused on, which our own government is now doing, including our current ongoing very large scale influence and war operations, which we should not be doing, and should stop right now. And our own oil production, mistreatment of immigrants and certain minorities, etc, etc. It's even a great time waster for me. How much time I'd have for other things if Russiagate narrative had never been advanced (by Hillary and friends first, I believe).
* Polls are now showing the Russiagate focus is not doing the Democratic Party any good. Polls suggest politicians need to be focused on constituents immediate concerns.
More Links:
UK News aggregator 21Wire has assembled a treasure trove of anti-Russiagate articles, including a vast number by Robert Parry, but also Ron Paul, Stephen Cohen, and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment