Why The US Empire Works So Hard To Control The International Narrative...

Why The US Empire Works So Hard To Control The International Narrative About Russia

13
0
SHARE



On
a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ Freedom Watch,
John Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating
about recent WikiLeaks publications
, and naturally the
subject of government secrecy came up.

“Now I want
to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to
the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for
deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton
said
. “You know Winston Churchill said during World
War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should be
surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

“Do you really
believe that?” asked an incredulous
Napolitano.

“Absolutely,” Bolton
replied.

“You would lie in order to preserve the
truth?” asked Napolitano.

“If I had to say
something I knew was false to protect American national
security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.

“Why do
people in the government think that the laws of society or
the rules don’t apply to them?” Napolitano
asked.

“Because they are not dealing in the civil
society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton
replied. “They are dealing in the anarchic environment
internationally where different rules apply.”

“But
you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the
Constitution mandates certain openness and certain
fairness,” Napolitano protested. “You’re willing to do
away with that in order to attain a temporary military
goal?”

“I think as Justice Jackson said in a
famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact,”
Bolton said. “And I think defending the United States from
foreign threats does require actions that in a normal
business environment in the United States we would find
unprofessional. I don’t make any apology for
it.”

I am going to type a sequence of words that I
have never typed before, and don’t expect to ever type
again:

John Bolton is right.

Bolton is of course
not right in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies
to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble
attempt to justify the
psychopathic measures he himself took
to deceive the
world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of
Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between
nations take place in an “anarchic environment
internationally where different rules
apply.”

Individual nations have governments with
laws that are enforced by those governments. Since we do not
have a single unified government for our planet (at least
not yet), the interactions between those governments is
largely anarchic, and not in a good
way.

“International law”, in reality, only
meaningfully exists to the extent that the international
community is collectively willing to enforce it. In practice
what this means is that only nations which have no influence
over the dominant narratives in the international community
are subject to “international law”.

This is why you
will see leaders
in African nations sentenced to prison
by the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, but the
USA can get away with actually
sanctioning ICC personnel
if they so much as talk about
investigating American war crimes and suffer no consequences
for it whatsoever. It is also why Noam Chomsky
famously said
that if the Nuremberg laws had continued
to be applied with fairness and consistency, then every
post-war US president would have been hanged.

And this
is also why so much effort gets poured into controlling the
dominant international narrative about nations like Russia
which have resisted being absorbed into the US power
alliance. If you have the influence and leverage to control
what narratives the international community accepts as true
about the behavior of a given targeted nation, then you can
do things like manufacture international collaboration with
aggressive economic sanctions of the sort Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer is currently
calling for
in response to the the completely
unsubstantiated narrative
that Russia paid Taliban
fighters bounties to kill occupying forces in
Afghanistan.

Sen. Schumer: “We need in
this coming defense bill… tough sanctions against Russia.”
pic.twitter.com/L3M9hZg0Xm


The Hill (@thehill)
June
28, 2020

In its ongoing slow-motion
third world war
against nations which refuse to be
absorbed into the blob of the US power alliance, this tight
empire-like cluster of allies stands everything to gain by
doing whatever it takes to undermine and sabotage Russia in
an attempt to shove it off the world stage and eliminate the
role it plays
in opposing that war. Advancing as many
narratives as possible about Russia doing nefarious things
on the world stage manufactures consent for international
collaboration toward that end in the form of economic
warfare, proxy conflicts, NATO expansionism and other
measures, as well as facilitating a new arms race by killing
the last of the US-Russia nuclear treaties
and ensuring
a continued imperial military presence
in
Afghanistan.

We haven’t been shown any hard evidence
for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost
certainly never will be. This doesn’t matter as far as the
imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don’t
need actual facts to get this story believed, they just need
narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say
over and over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the
troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and
authoritative tone, and after awhile people will start
assuming it’s true, just because the propagandists have been
doing this.

They’ll add new pieces of data to the
narrative, none of which will constitute hard proof of their
claims, but after enough “bombshell” stories reported in an
assertive and ominous tone of voice, people will start
assuming it’s a proven fact that Russia paid those bounties.
Narrative managers will be able to simply wave their hands
at a disparate, unverified cloud of information and proclaim
that it is a mountain of evidence and that anyone doubting
all this proof must be a kook. (This by the way is a
textbook Gish gallop
fallacy
, where a bunch of individually weak arguments
are presented to give the illusion of a single strong
case.)

This is all because “international law” only
exists in practical terms to the extent that governments
around the world agree to pretend it exists. As long as
US-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing
narrative about what Russia is doing, that empire will be
able to continue to use the pretext of “international law”
as a bludgeon against its enemies. That’s all we’re really
seeing here.

_____________________

Thanks for
reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and
make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the
mailing list for my
website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I
publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported
, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook,
following my antics on
Twitter,
checking out my podcast on either
Youtube,
soundcloud,
Apple
podcasts
or Spotify,
following me on
Steemit,
throwing some money into my tip jar on
Patreon
or
Paypal,
purchasing some of my
sweet
merchandise
, buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone

and
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
. For more info
on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with
this platform,
click
here
. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has
my permission
to republish, use or translate any
part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any
way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

© Scoop Media

 





Source link

LEAVE A REPLY