a question for capis

[peaccenicked]

"The US government is spreading lies. Why is this considered so unusual? After all, our entire foreign policy is based on a structure of lies, the central one being the inevitable beneficence and altruism of the United States as a world power; and this, in turn, is based on the Biggest Lie of Them All, the one that seeks to justify and explain every bit of self-aggrandizement on the part of our great and glorious leaders: the lie of "democracy," which rubberstamps, every four years or so, decisions that have already been made by those who really rule.

EMANATIONS OF UNTRUTH

So they're lying to us: but lies come in all sorts of colors and shades of prevarication, including the more subtle emanations of untruth that might be called lies of omission. Liars must always cover their tracks: indeed, government officials spend a lot of their time, energy – and your money – doing exactly that. It isn't what they're telling us that matters so much: any halfway conscious human being is smart enough to discount that right off the bat. It's what they're not telling us that counts.

GATE-KEEPERS

Of course, in this day and age, for a lie to go over, government officials must have at least the passive cooperation of journalists – or at least those relatively few gatekeepers who pretty much still determine what gets reported and what is relegated to the Memory Hole. This doesn't mean that journalists are recruited to write lies, but, somehow, they know what not to write about.

TWO SPIKED STORIES

A good example is the four-part series on Fox News reporting on an extensive Israeli spy operation in the US that was discovered, apparently, prior to 9/11 – and raising the possibility of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. After four days of one stunning revelation after another – the Israelis had penetrated US government communications systems, they had been watching Al Qaeda cells in the US, and had sent agents to penetrate US military facilities – the story dropped like a stone in a bottomless abyss, noiselessly and seemingly without leaving so much as a ripple of air in its wake. Another example: the story about how the stocks of certain companies with a 9/11 connection were dramatically manipulated in the days and hours prior to the attacks. Who profited? What became of the promised Securities and Exchange Commission investigation? So far we have heard not a peep out of the news media on this, nor has anyone in Congress bothered to ask questions. " Justin Raimando
Why?

[Guest]

I have a question for you.

Why is it that you go berserk whenever the so-called "capitalists" try and hold your ideology responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union, yet you think it's appropriate to hold their ideology responsible for all the relatively minor flaws in the American system?

Oh, and the answer to your "question" is that America, perhaps unfortunately, does not have a state-controlled media. News organizations and journalists are private citizens who report whatever they damn well please, even when they're obviously biased morons like the fellow that wrote this little piece.

[Xvall]

We don't go berserk when you talk about the Soviet Union. In fact, I'm sure that we have criticized the Soviet Union far more than any capitalists on this board. You see, unlike you, we're able to admit when people claiming to represent something obviously go against the true ideals of our prefered system. However, people here in America still worship slavers like George Washington and Patrick Henry. They even celebrate Harry Truman, the murdurer of over 300,000 civilians, over in Washington D.C. So before you go around calling us hypocrites, why don't you look back on your imperialist history instead of hanging a flag outside your house thinking that you are doing a deed for your country.

[peaccenicked]

guest,
I take it you are a christian, I now hold you responsible for the Spanish inquisition.
Get a life and dont be absurd.
realitively minor flaws like preventing sept 11
get a brain.
If you ask awkard questions then you are a moron
go lick Bush's arse. Inhuman filth.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:52 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[Guest]

First of all, kids, don't go making silly inferences. That goes for both of you...Drake makes some pretty wild presumptions about my political views, and peaccenicked obviously goes out on a limb about my religion (based on what, I don't know). By the way, calling people "inhuman filth" based on these limited and rather sloppy inferences might point to the reason why nobody listens to you.

Second of all, I'll make my argument a little more clear for you. A cursory examination of the board in general and this forum specifically shows that the "communists" here spend most of their time indicting the United States, and using those indictments as de facto arguments against capitalism (peaccenicked himself spends more time on this than anyone). Yet whenever the "capitalists" make similar arguments about communist regimes, you all wail about how your ideology isn't responsible for such things. It's a self-serving bias, and I'm just trying to make you aware of it so that you might become better critical thinkers.

And I find it amusing that peaccenicked calls me a moron because of my grammar. Ironic.

[Xvall]

I made no presumptions about you. I stated a fact about your country. American history glorifies Colombus, George Washington, And Patrick Henry. They do Celebrate Harry Truman in washington D.C? Do you want me to post links?

As for communist regimes, we tend to denounce most of them. Like I said before, those regimes don't necesarrily represent communism? Are you white? Can I shoot you because Hitler was white, and you might become like him? You logic makes no sense. In that case Native Americans should be allowed to shoot civilians because technically the government stole the land, and those people are 'responsible for their regimes'...

- Drake Dracoli

[peaccenicked]

first of all what on earth have these regimes to do with
commuist practice.
You have nt a cell of sense in your brain
You may as well say that all a's are b's
Hitler called himself a socialist
Hitler was a nazi but you are just
scum who protects the wealth and priveledge of a parasitical few and in to days world
a moral thug.
you are not a critical thinker merely a mud slinging puppet of capitalism.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:36 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[Guest]

Have I made any pro-capitalist remarks?

"I made no presumptions about you. I stated a fact about your country."
And how do you know what country I'm from?

And the two of you are arguing my point precisely. You imagine yourselves as supporting an economic or political theory, not a nation.

See, your problem is that you assumed that because I'm critical of you, I'm supporting capitalism and decrying communism. This is a dangerous and paranoid way to think. I don't think that Drake understands my point fully, and I'm beginning to think that peaccenicked is just a knee-jerk asshole.

The most simple way to put my point is this: if you don't want the atrocities of communist nations to be used as arguments against communism, you can't use the flaws of America as arguments against capitalism. This is not to say that you shouldn't use America as a good example of a capitalist nation, but you have to stick to the topic at hand. Corrupt government officials and selective media reporting have nothing to do with capitalism. peaccenicked seems to post a lot of what I assume are copyrighted anti-American screeds on this board that have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or capitalism. That's my only point.

[peaccenicked]

america does not have a state controlled media but
is almost uniform in its obedience to government
wishes.
To suggest otherwise is to diguise capitalism as something better than what it appears to be.
It is pro capitalist remark.
The flaws of America are essentially capitilast and tied to the needs of capital, The government and media are
its greatest supporters.
So what are you talking about?

[Guest]

"To suggest otherwise is to diguise capitalism as something better than what it appears to be."
Once again, a media that is supportive of the government is not necessarily a feature of capitalism. You have yet to present any argument connecting the two...I'd love to hear one.

"The flaws of America are essentially capitilast and tied to the needs of capital"
Oh, here's your argument. Because you say so, it must be true. I understand completely now.

[TheDerminator]

Ah, the naievty of our guest.
You think that just because some newspapers in bourgeios society are against a specific government that the support is not intrinsic, aw shucks.
It does not matter the fucking government they all support your shit "free market". The media is owned by the fucking bourgeoisie, and the interconnection is staring you in the fucking face.
Your bleeding heart liberal journalists and your anti-political correctness traditionalists are two sides of the same rusty old coin and heads you win tails we lose.
It all ends up supporting bombing the fuck out of a mountain in Afghanistan, and not just fucking mountains.
derminated.

[peaccenicked]

To my original question.why no investigation ?
because the journalist is a moron.
Nixon would have loved you.

[Imperial Power]

Peace, guest has brought up an excellent point which relates to the example I showed you in the other thread. If you said you were a nazi but were not for killing the Jews that wouldn't make you any less open to criticism.

[peaccenicked]

Your logic is absurd.
Firstly a nazi bases his views on nazi texts, such as the world conspiracy theory.
If you said you were a christian that makes you open for
being slung mud at via the Spanish inquisition.
you are doing everything you can to maitain what is just an insult to every socialist intelligence.

[Rosa]

"peaccenicked obviously goes out on a limb about my religion (based on what, I don't know)."
to Guest and Imp:have you ever heard of "example used for explaining things& drawing paralels in purpose of understandig"? Your ignorance is obviously not the result of poor education, but also of insuffience of logic. Ccc...+'m so ashamed for explaining that 1+1 is 2, sorry peaccnick, but it seems that your opponents need it put in that way.

[Guest]

"I take it you are a christian"

[Rosa]

"let's say that somebody is cristian...would you hold him responsable for the Spanish inquisition...?" Do you prefer it that way? Do you understand?If "not", please let me know. if "yes", continue arguing. If you have something to say. Don't think so, you just wanted to jump on another theme.

[Guest]

Let me explain it slowly, using small words.

The problem with a lot of radicals is that they are quick to make assumptions. If someone doesn't think that socialism is the cat's pajamas, radicals like peaccenicked and drake tend to automatically assume certain things about them. That's a nasty habit to get into. The fact is that he didn't say "Should we blame Christians for the Inquisition." He said "I take it you are Christian." Not that I was offended...I happen to be Christian. But it's still something that you radicals are going to have to overcome if you ever want to participate in mainstream public discourse.

Furthermore, his argument made no sense. I pointed out that he was trying to blame people who hold an ideology (capitalism) for societal flaws that are not based on the tenets of said ideology (mass media that is supportive of the government). He seemed to be echoing my point, by asking if, as a person who holds a certain ideology (Christianity), I should be blamed for societal flaws that were not based on the tenets of said ideology (the Spanish Inquisition). He doesn't like it when his ideology is blamed for the atrocities of the USSR, and I don't like it when my ideology is blamed for stupid pissant societal quirks like the mass media, and Christians don't like it when they get shit for what Ferdinand did in 1492. So do unto others as you would have done to you, is my only point here.

[Rosa]

your point was that all the leftists support totalitarism, which is not the case.
So, his argument has made a sense.
your ideology is unfairly, bcs it doesn't give an equal chances to all the people. So, even liberal ideology hmust have the socialism in its roots, baby. (if its all about "achievement")

[Guest]

"your point was that all the leftists support totalitarism"
What on Earth are you talking about?

[Rosa]

bc of yours:"Why is it that you go berserk whenever the so-called "capitalists" try and hold your ideology responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union, "