Make Social Media, Not War

There's a grain of truth to the notion that “the Russians” (including NGOs and private citizens as well as the Putin regime) “interfered” or “meddled” in the 2016 election. But there's a mountain of falsehood to the notion that their goal was to put Trump into office. Based on the evidence that Inspector Hound, AKA Robert Mueller, and his team have assembled (or chosen to ignore), it can just as easily be argued that their goal was to put Hillary Clinton into office. But if the real goal – as is becoming more clear with each passing day – was, as has been noted by many, to demoralize the American public and shatter their illusions as to the soundness and legitimacy of our electoral system, and of our political system in general, then one has to admit that they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Mission accomplished! And while Russia stands securely as a political monolith with Putin at the top, American politics has been shattered into a million pieces, and Americans have been politicized, fragmented, and set against one another in a way not seen since the run-up to the Civil War. Even the 1960s pale by comparison. And this has been accomplished without a shot being fired.

The main instrument of all of this has been – irony alert! – the so-called social media, which didn't exist in Cold War times, but which have been effectively weaponized by countless parties, and none more effectively than those seeking to create havoc within the American enterprise. After all, didn't we invent the social media? I clearly remember when the Internet was no more than a gleam in the eye of DARPA (no, not Al Gore). It began with ARPANET, which was intended as a tool for the Defense Department, and was dreamed up by the smartest people on the planet at that time. (Well, OK, the smartest people in the U.S. Or the smartest people in the government, whatever.) Back in the 70s when I was working in DoD, DARPA was this mysterious place right across the street, and it was spoken of in hushed tones, like these are the people with huge brains who are way ahead of the technology curve and who are sure to make a difference. And what a difference! Whenever you hop on the Internet to play around with Facebook or Twitter, just remember that you are mere fleas on the backs of giants.

So here we are 40 years later, and it seems like our old enemies have moved in and used our tools against us. And there's no doubt as to what benefits this provides to the new post-Soviet Russia – and to China as well, for that matter. In the current version of The Great Game, the sides have come into sharp focus over the years since the end of the Cold War – or let's call it Cold War I. We have, first and foremost, Russia, which staggered through the drunken haze of the Yeltsin years when the new oligarchy was being created, and emerged – tanned, rested, and ready – to once again assume a dominant role on the world stage. Then we have China, which has done the impossible, namely come up with a hybrid system of political communism plus aggressive economic capitalism. It's almost as if they've taken the main platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties over the decades and merged them; how do you beat something like that?

Another major player in all of this is the EU, which, along with its predecessor organizations – let's give credit where credit is due – has kept the Western European nations from cutting each other's throats for many decades now. Now, one can quibble as to whether the EU is an organization of equals, the way the U.N. is supposed to be; some will say that it's simply the latest manifestation of the German Empire – call it the Fourth Reich. But if so, it can at least count peaceful coexistence among its accomplishments, unlike the previous Reichs. (This may simply be a sign that, at long last, economics has emerged triumphant as the main motivator and model for Europe, as opposed to the nationalism of old.)

Then we have what are called “non-state actors” – globalists on the one hand (not unrelated to the EU, but with a much larger vision and a more comprehensive strategy) and “terrorists” on the other. It turns out that Islam was not taught a lesson as a result of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire; and sure enough, the radical Islamists have a renewed caliphate as their long-term objective.

Then we have Israel, which is the sine qua non of American foreign policy, having been unceremoniously dumped in our lap by Britain. And their continued existence is not unrelated to terrorism, since it constitutes a thorn in the sides of Muslims everywhere. And after all, don't all of our politicians regularly recite, like some kind of litany, that there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel? So why shouldn't anyone with a grudge against Israel also have a grudge against the U.S. (and against lesser “crusaders” or “Franks” like France and England)?

But wait – doesn't this add up to at least seven distinct entities? Isn't that kind of messy? After all, the Cold War had the merit of being, basically, two-sided, with China pretty much sitting it out, the globalists quietly drawing up their program in Brussels, the Islamists hitting the books in madrasas, and Israel making do (up until 1967) without the West Bank. And the Cold War was fought relatively quietly like the chess game that it was, with overt conflicts confined to proxy wars (Vietnam being an exception since it was "proxy" for them but first-hand for us).  It was by no means a calm, peaceful era; it just seems that way compared to what's happening now.

If you insist on sticking with the two-sided Cold War model, you can say that Team A is us, the EU, globalists in general, and Israel... and Team B is Russia and China, who have apparently sat down and divvied up the “turf” like gangsters in Old Chicago. But you still have the “terrorists”, who seem to be bugging everybody, but Team A more than Team B. (Maybe it's because Russia and China have time-tested ways of dealing with that sort of thing, whereas we and the EU are still groping around trying to figure out “why they hate us”.) Israel, of course, knows full well why the Islamists hate them, and are completely unapologetic in dealing with them in any way that seems appropriate – much to the occasional dismay of the U.S. (not so much the EU, which is famously non-judgmental about these things).

But there is one thing that everyone but us has in common – an overriding shared interest, if you will – namely to cut the U.S. down to size. (And actually, a large portion of our political class wants the same thing.) So Russia makes inroads in the Ukraine... and China buys up the lion's share of our national debt... and the EU continues to take advantage of our largess dating from the post-WWII era. And the terrorists manage to stir up trouble faster than we can dispatch troops or bombers to deal with them. (It is they who have, in effect, provided us with an excuse for waging perpetual war and keeping our economy on a war footing. And they don't seem to mind. In fact, they like it, because it vindicates their rationale for waging war against the West.)

The rest of the world is, in effect, treating us like some senile, doddering billionaire in a Hollywood movie – basically clueless and hemorrhaging wealth, but dangerous nonetheless. It's a war of attrition, if you will – and China, patient as always, is waiting for the day when it will be advantageous to call in their chits. Great bites have been taken out of the Soviet Empire of old – but they're being cagey, so far, when it comes to reclaiming them (the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine being the only exceptions – call them trial runs if you like).

So, bottom line, everyone is waiting for Uncle Stupid to break his hip and be moved into the dementia ward – but in the meantime they're doing everything they can to hasten the day, and that includes – ta-da! – using our very own social media to sow doubts among the citizenry.

It's been said that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was that “the termites quit holding hands”. But we have our own termites in the form of political movements, some dating back more than a century. The American Experiment ran aground ages ago; some will argue that it ended with the Civil War. But there was a tremendous amount of energy that persisted, and that ultimately took the form of the American Empire. But that too has run aground, and some will give the war in Vietnam credit for that. And yet the energy persists – and the most remarkable thing is that the American economy can continue to support, and the American people continue to put up with, the continuing high level of folly and catastrophic loss of national wealth attributable to our foreign policy. Any other empire would have collapsed, been carved into pieces, and been put up on the auction block long since – and yet here we are. (Anyone who spends any time thinking about “sustainability” has to look upon this phenomenon with awe; it defies all the laws of economics and politics and yet there it is.)

So yes, to the extent that the Russians (and who knows who else) mounted an “attack” using the social media (and other media as well), it was designed to disrupt, and to cause consternation and dismay, but it was indifferent as to the results of the 2016 election, because that didn't matter. Trump may turn our home-grown “Resistance” types into gibbering psychotics... and he may step on a few toes in the EU... and he may huff and puff at Russia and China, but in the long run it's the same dreary story. Russia and China can put up with the huffing and puffing, and the EU can put up with a few bruised toes, but the terrorists are undeterred... and the globalists seem to get their own way no matter who's in charge. Can anyone seriously claim that Hillary would have done anything significantly different? Oh sure, if you're talking about domestic policy, but to the powers that be – those who play The Great Game -- America's domestic woes are noise level. What counts is not who does what to whom, or to what degree, but the level of fragmentation and – most importantly – the loss of national identity and political will (factors intimately tied to the immigration controversy). Identity politics, on the other hand, will be with us no matter who's in the White House, and it's only going to get worse. (Please recall Obama's, ahem, success at promoting racial healing.) Identity politics is a fragmenting, alienating, divisive phenomenon, which means that our enemies are all for it, and will encourage it as much as possible.

So we have, in a sense, a paradox – we are eating ourselves alive, which seems to be a domestic political matter... but it's being aided and abetted by powers and entities beyond our borders. And even at that, think of how many times over the years we've mounted our own “interference” campaigns against other countries, regimes, and leaders. There are karmic factors in play here. And why are we always the ones who talk about “regime change”? It's because we like the idea and because we're good at it (or, at least, used to be). Other nations and leaders who talk about “regime change” in the U.S., as they are doing non-stop these days, are missing the point. If there's a Deep State that is bent on sabotaging Trump, or anyone else who might occupy the White House, it's hidden in the bowels of the EU, the Kremlin, and the Forbidden City. Our own Deep State is simply, knowingly or not, doing their bidding.

The idea is to get the U.S. out of the way once and for all. Then the rest of the world can go back to doing what it does best, namely trying to kill each other.

Oh, the Irony!

The mainstream media objecting to the FCC putting political commissars into newsrooms and broadcast studios is like a prostitute complaining because she's been told to have an annual health checkup. The MSM have been abject slaves of the Regime for so long that no one can remember when we had an independent press of any consequence, or independent broadcasters aside from marginal radio stations. The Internet has turned out to be the salvation of free speech, and it has, predictably, come under threat of “regulation”, AKA censorship.

But this gambit by the FCC is beyond rich in irony. Historically, we have never had a free press in wartime (e.g. the Civil War, World War II) for the simple reason that the press is expected to do its patriotic duty and unite the country behind the president, no matter who that happens to be (or from which party). And if it should fail in that duty, or show signs of wandering off the reservation, severe sanctions have, historically, been at hand and have been applied. The first crack in this armor, as far as I can recall, came when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite finally expressed doubts – on the air! -- as to the rationale for the Vietnam War, or at least for its continuance... and LBJ was allegedly fit to be tied, because this was tantamount to treason – to a palace coup, in effect. But even there, did this skepticism persist through the election of Nixon in 1968? As I recall, his enemies in the press were more than happy to criticize just about everything about him, but still pulled their punches when it came to the war – because the war was, after all, about America, and our freedoms, and everything that made us great, and... well, you know, all those things that allegedly make Islamic radicals hate us.

But if the press is subservient during wartime, what about the rest of the time? Ah, there's the rub – because our government has now adopted a position of perpetual war, as of 9/11 – which thus puts foreign policy forever out of the bounds of vigorous debate. So that takes care of half the territory – call it Section A (after the custom of most large newspapers devoting the first section to foreign affairs). Section B (domestic affairs), however, is still fair game... right? Well no, not really. Again, mainstream journalists act as scribes, recording secretaries, propaganda agents... but very seldom as bonafide journalists, which would imply some degree of skepticism and an ability to ask tough questions (of the right people, not just of each other). If you want skepticism and serious questioning, you have to go to the margins – to the outsiders – most of whom (again) are found on the Internet, along with a few small-circulation magazines and newsletters.

Now – and I see you, in the back, waving your hand frantically, trying to get my attention – I am intentionally ignoring the current, and completely bogus, distinction – which is talked about as though it was some kind of great continental rift – between the liberal press (being the majority, whether you're talking about print or broadcast media) and the so-called “conservative” press (being the minority, etc.). It's, you know, the usual suspects – the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, and CBS on one side and the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, and “talk radio” on the other. The problem with that latter group is that they represent what has been termed “the acceptable opposition” -- i.e. people who beg to differ, but typically only at the margins. They never call into question any of the true sacred cows – things like the warfare state, perpetuation of the American Empire, the national debt and deficit spending, free trade, etc. Even the most vigorous – i.e. least pathetically wimpy – debates on social policy and economics are still, in nearly all cases, at the margins... about minuscule differences. No one seriously questions entitlements, for example – just the one or two percentage points that take up most of the time and energy in Washington.

To make a related point – when I refer to the Regime, I'm not talking about Obama and his gang of minions, hangers-on, lackeys, and hacks. They are an essential part of the Regime, certainly – they are its functionaries and tools. But it also includes the Republicans. It includes liberals and mainstream conservatives, AKA neocons. Even the Tea Partiers and the Occupy crowd are considered part of the acceptable, if annoying, opposition; they are acceptable because they accept most of the same premises upon which the Regime bases its policies and actions, even though they can have a different line of reasoning based on those premises. What the Regime most emphatically does not include are the libertarians, anyone who is genuinely anti-war (and not just temporarily for political reasons), anarchists (needless to say), and the not-sold-out portion of the Catholic Church – and as you can see, none of these entities has a voice, or a place at the table. In fact, they are actively resisted, demeaned, and marginalized at every opportunity.

So when Rush Limbaugh says that the whole FCC initiative is aimed at Fox News, and at him in particular... well who was it who said “just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you”. But Fox News is, in the broad scheme of things, as much a part of the Regime as are the (formerly) Big Three – and Rush is as much a part of it as... oh, I don't know... how about Brian Williams? He's kind of the Uncle Walter of our time. Oh sure, Rush may point out any number of inconvenient truths about Obama, the Democrats, and liberals in general, but he has a total blind spot when it comes to the Republicans and mainstream conservatives. Well, why not? He is one. It would be like expecting a fish to discover water, as they say. And if one is blind to half of what is wrong in this country, one may as well be totally blind, for all the good it's going to do. When you start out that compromised you can never be a radical or a revolutionary – just a complainer.

So if the media are already on the side of the Regime, and more explicitly on the side of one of its two heads (the Democrats or the Republicans), why do they need continuous monitoring by the government, like kids in some special needs class? Well... there's always a chance that someone might start getting funny ideas about way this country is run, and we can't have that – especially if their job is to represent the mainstream, i.e. the Truth!! No one in the MSM can ever be allowed to look up from their work like the cow in the classic Gary Larson cartoon who says “Hey guys! This is grass! We're eating grass!” You can marginalize pacifists any day of the week, but you can't marginalize CBS, ABC, and NBC – they are charter members of the propaganda ministry. Even the Associated Press and the Washington Post have started talking back to Obama once in a while – cautiously, of course, lest they get smacked upside the head (or worse, have their front-row seat at White House press conferences taken away). So this is what the FCC has in mind, basically – keep the troops from wandering off the reservation (now there's a mixed metaphor for you). As usual in a totalitarian system it's the inner circle that is held to the highest standards, and is punished most severely for failure; Orwell said this very clearly in “1984” and it was shown time and time again in Soviet Russia.

See, here's the point. Obama and Co. have been going from one victory to another – island-hopping, if you will, like our troops in the Pacific after the war turned around – and the amount of control and influence they had over the media back in 2008, say, is no longer enough. The amount they had a year ago is not enough. Power is like any other addictive substance – it only begets the desire for more of the same. So why not clean up the loose ends... get our own house in order (this is the liberals thinking)... and once we have a sworn loyalty oath from the MSM, and a non-aggression pact with Fox News and other neocon outlets, then we can police up the outliers (this process is already underway with Antiwar.com, by the way – but you ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say).

The thing of it is, the totalitarian mindset simply does not tolerate dissent. And it doesn't tolerate any sort of ambivalence, backsliding, doubt, or lukewarmness among its adherents. The notion of the acceptable opposition – well, the Soviets had both Pravda and Izvestia, whoop-te-do. Competition is good, supposedly – but did you ever see the Big Three TV networks of old compete when it came to ideas? No – they were clones of each other – Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledumber. All the competition was commercial, based on games and circuses. How about Time vs. Newsweek? Don't make me laugh. It's been pointed out that the total range of acceptable opinion in this country is dwarfed by that in most of Western Europe – and from what I've seen this is totally true. And yet they are supposedly more “socialistic” (implied: collectivist and conformist) than we are. It's getting to the point where we are as phobic and petrified when it comes to the hard questions as people used to be in the Soviet Union or its satellites. The amount of difference that is perceived as a threat grows smaller with each passing day – the squeeze is on. So small wonder that the FCC wants to formalize (and make overt) something that has been informal and not always reliable up to now. The ultimate goal is to put us all into a prison of ideas (or non-ideas) – a conceptual gulag, as air-tight as North Korea. And this, in turn, is based on the premise that a happy serf is a good serf. What is more pathetic and more productive, and less trouble for its master, than a willing slave who is strung out on social brainwashing?

So yeah, MSM – you've been lapdogs for so long you forgot all about this mysterious thing called “journalism”. And every once in a while a lapdog needs to be treated for fleas – and the FCC is up to the task. But frankly, it won't hurt the liberal press all that much, because their model of reality is that everything is political anyway. So if they can be persuaded that one approach or point of view is more politically acceptable than another, they'll latch right on to it, no problem. They never have any original ideas, after all; leave that to the academics. The neocons, on the other hand, for all of their obvious faults do appear to have a lingering notion of principle and of truth (even if their “truths” are frequently dead wrong) – so they will take offense more readily (as they already have) and feel more put upon when all of this becomes a daily fact of life. Or – they will go out of business entirely and leave the field to the political animals; that's a real possibility.

Self-censorship is all kinds of fun. You don't like the real news, you make it up. You stay on the right side of the powers that be. Et cetera. You get perks. You get invited to the White House correspondents' dinner. But when someone decides they can do a better job of censorship than you can – oh, the indignation! I say it's all richly deserved. If the press had maintained their principles and standards all along, this wouldn't be happening because the government would be – guess what – not a little afraid of the press. But no one's afraid of a lapdog. Even if it only takes a playful nip once in a while, that's one nip too much. The press has been toothless for a long time; now even its dentures are about to be confiscated (for its own good, of course – and for ours).