2
Some feeds I'm interested in.
(lemmy.ml)
I'm going to say up front that I know this is a lot of RSS feeds. You are welcome to tell me I need to trim the list a bit.
- Caitlin Johnst: https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/feed
- Socialism For All: https://socialismforall.substack.com/feed
- Dropsite News https://www.dropsitenews.com/feed
- Historicly: https://www.historicly.net/feed
- Ken Klippenstein: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/feed
- Inside China Business: https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/feed
News and Politics:
- Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/democracynow.rss
- Common Dreams: https://www.commondreams.org/feeds/news.rss
- MR Online: https://mronline.org/feed/
- Peoples Dispatch: https://peoplesdispatch.org/feed/
- Truthout: https://truthout.org/feed/?withoutcomments=1
- Workers World: https://www.workers.org/feed/
- Mondoweiss: https://mondoweiss.net/feed/
- The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/feed/?mk=fl_is_on_feature_page&mv=1
- The Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/feed/
- Geopolitical Economy Report: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/feed/
- In These Times: https://inthesetimes.com/rss
- Liberation News: https://www.liberationnews.org/feed/
- MintPress News: https://www.mintpressnews.com/feed/
- Counter Punch: https://www.counterpunch.org/feed/
- Break Through News: https://breakthroughnews.org/feed/
- Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/feed/
Comics:
- Penny Arcade: https://www.penny-arcade.com/feed/
- Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/rss
What's your take on this?
https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/many-westerners-have-been-brainwashed-5e7
In terms of the content of the reading, it aligns with my views; however, I don't subscribe to the notion of "brainwashing" and think it's a flawed means to describe why people hold beliefs or align themselves politically. It has its roots in CIA propaganda during the Korean War to explain away the confessions of war crimes by returned POW-war crimes we know now really happened. In terms of production, the AI voice reading of paid content is "fine," in my opinion (but I will accept others find it off-putting). I will often use something like "Piper" to turn articles into audio to listen to while driving. This sounds like it could be a Piper model if I had to guess, and it's also not difficult to make a model of yourself to automate the reading of your own work if you desired to do so (no idea if that's what they're doing, however).
Nothing seems odd about it to you? The comments underneath, the overall thrust of the narrative or weird phrasings in the script, nothing like that? Like would you listen to this (or could you imagine someone doing so) as your podcast listening, would that be a normal thing to do?
It seems objectively clearly disinfo-y to me is why I am asking, I am curious for another perspective, I'm not trying to give you a hard time if your answer is "no it seems fine." Check out the comments under the article too, if you want an additional reason why I am alarmed by this.
Yeah, the comments are a real mixed bag, and it does make me wonder if they're doing proper moderation.
There is a strange and unfortunate alignment between anti-imperialists and neocons regarding Russia that causes this. Anti-Imperialists understand that the Russian Federation is an oligarchy but that there is a historical aggressor in the NATO alliance that still exists today. In many ways, the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is like a shambling zombie, resurrected from the end of the Cold War, and Ukraine continues to be used as a wedge against Russia, as it had been used historically. Somehow, despite NATO winning the conflict with the USSR, they continue to press on east with their aliance, against all previous agreements and current demands of the Russian Federation. Anti-Imperialists see Russia "standing against imperialism" but know that it's not out of some ideological commitment but due to historical forces that are still playing out today. Russia would want nothing more than to be like the imperialists of Europe and America, but those imperialists stand in its way. My hope, as an anti-imperialist, is for an end to the conflict and NATO (and Russian) expansionism.
Neocons are hoping the conflict with NATO and Russia with Ukraine at the center will lead to a weakening of both and that the US can leverage this into getting each to align themselves with US intrists against China. The war has already created a market for US oil in Europe and has already committed NATO to increasing its defense spending (which will likely mean increased spending within the US military industry). It's a daring gamble, one that isn't exactly paying off. There are just too many external forces playing around the doller-dominated world market and finding new avenues for trade. The Neocons care nothing about Palistinians; they are fine to conflate Jewdism and Zionism, because that conflict is just another angle of attack on the same target. It's all in service of paving the road to war with China. The neocons are a big tent as well, which is why you get these pro-Russia, anti-Isreal (read antisemitic), Christian extremist types in the comments of publications.
The content of the reading doesn't seem strange to me; I, personally, know people who hold the kind of opinions the piece is talking about; I've had those same conversations with them about there needing to be an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and that (from my estimation, based on how these negotiations have been going) NATO keeps injecting itself into negotiations in ways that stall and prolong the conflict. This obviously has negative outcomes for Ukraine, which grows more reactionary by the month, driving all kinds of enlistment campaigns to drag more of its able-bodied people onto the battle field. It does have the potential to cause a wider conflict, one I think Russia isn't interested in (otherwise we'd be in a wider conflict already), and one I would almost expect NATO to manufacture an inciting incident for.
I've done a skim of the other content on this substack, and it doesn't scream "antisemite in sheep's clothing," which is something I'm always trying to avoid. I've reported the clearly antisemitic comments on that post, and we should keep an eye on them to see if they're removed. If they don't remove those comments, I'm fine with removing the feed. I'll bookmark that post and check in on it between today and tomorrow.
What's your take on Russia lying about important elements of their conduct of the war? Like claiming initially that the forces invading Crimea were nothing to do with them, claiming that they were definitely not planning to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine within the week when the US started announcing that that's what they were planning, that kind of thing.
What's your take on Russia launching a massive attack on Ukraine's energy infrastructure the same day as making an agreement that the two countries wouldn't attack each other's energy infrastructure?
I'm not necessarily asking these questions to start a debate with you, if you don't want to be in one, you don't have to answer if you would rather just agree to disagree type of thing. It's that I have a whole different massive global set of context that all of this needs to be put within, separate and distinct from the massive global set of context you just laid out, and I'm trying to get a sense of how some of the events on the ground fit into your context you're proposing here.
Sure. I'm trying not to be heavy handed about just ejecting any source the instant it says something good about Russia, but this to me in my framework is screamingly obvious disinfo. Literally as far as pretty much every single checkbox. I sort of lean in the direction of you and me talking it out at least a little bit, instead of me just telling you "No I veto" right off the bat or anything, but yeah I'd like to talk about this source definitely.
This definitely isn't a neocon source. Neocons like America (or at least the military-industrial complex segment of it), they take Israel's side, they don't like Jeremy Corbyn (or wouldn't if they knew who he was), etc etc.
Currently, I don't have the time or the energy to get into a back and forth about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, respectfully. However, I'll say this:
Russia is an oligarchical power at war. They'll do things that an oligarchical power at war will do, which is my nuts and bolts assessment most of the time. That doesn't change my perspective on NATO, however, and the history leading up to these events. It would seem to me that the conditions inside Ukraine are a byproduct (deliberate or otherwise) of NATO meddling in the country. The conditions for the current conflict developed out of both the 2004 and 2010 elections in the country and the eventual "Maidan Revolution" in 2014, which the US clearly wanted to happen, considering how many US officials flew over there. Neither of us could say what the state of things would be if Yanukovych was allowed to govern independently.
See, I'm not seeking information that says "good" things about Russia. I definitely do not think there is anything "good" happening in Russia. What I do think though is that Russia being squeezed between NATO aggression and its long-standing partnership with China causes Russia to align itself in an anti-imperialist fashion. Internally, the country is still extremely reactionary, and seeing the progress the CPRF makes gives me hope one day it can shake off this reactionary moment in history and strive for something better again. This idea that anti-imperialists like myself think that Russia is "good" really misses the forest for the trees. BRICs is objectively good, for example, and something that aligns more with China's outlook on world cooperation than Russia's even though it's involved with the project. Russia doesn't have the same kind of leverage the West has financially, and as such, their international loans have been historically more favorable than ones that come out of the IMF, for example, to be competitive (one of the reasons behind the 2014 Maidan Revolution).
I mean, this should make you wonder what their angle is, then, shouldn't it? Why would a publication that seems to earnestly embrace working-class politics and their representatives, like Corbyn, also have this perspective about the Russia/Ukraine conflict that we're discussing? Ultimately, a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
Fair enough, I won't try to make you do it then.
Because they are not earnestly embracing working-class politics, is obviously my answer to this. In my view, any anti-imperialist publication would clearly be against a massive imperialist power killing a million of its own people in a ridiculous and pointless war, not to mention however many Ukrainians, instead of seeking alternative framings where it wasn't really their fault because look what Ukraine was wearing they were asking for it.
Supporting the insurgent wing of the left-est end of British political power, to splinter the effective resistance to the corrupt and fascist wing, is another tactic that would make perfect sense for a publication whose primary goal was victory for Russian-aligned fascism. That's what has happened, to pretty good effect, in the US, France, and Canada, just off the top of my head, and I don't think it is coincidence that it is happening in so many places simultaneously just as a lot of people saying weird little collections of things have inserted themselves into the discourse in a big way.
That's, honestly, one of the reasons I do think so strongly that it's disinfo: The amalgamation of different viewpoints that don't normally belong together ("the Jews are secretly in charge of everything and trying to kill all the Christians" + "Labour's not left enough, we need better than them to help the Palestinians" + "the war in Ukraine is mostly NATO's fault"). I mean, sure, not everyone needs to subscribe to a single monolithic viewpoint in order to be genuine. But a lot of these sources seem to string together exactly the same bloc of misaligned viewpoints, and it always seems to be in a way that wends its way around to whatever would help Russia the most in whatever situation (for example by adding into that "green energy is a scam, we need fossil fuels from Russia to save the European economy" and "AOC is supporting genocide let's stop supporting her" and similar discordant things).
Honestly, I'm not sure were going to see eye to eye here. You're effectively arguing that my highly critical perspective on NATO isn't valid or justified, while acknowledging that my highly critical perspective on israel is vaid and justified, to the point that NYT isn't on the site (which I'm fine with, especially after this recent article they published). When both perspectives are rooted in anti-imperialist views, in historical materialist views, in analysis that accurately places the US at the center of both these conflicts (with NATO as the lapdog in the Ukraine conflict).
With everything the US has been doing to facilitate and aid in the genocide of Palestinians, is it that hard to imagine that they would put another country is a dire position to support their own geopolitical ends? That they would engineer conditions in Ukraine that would goad and provoke Russia into a conflict? I mean Lindsey Graham was quoted saying:
He says the quite part out loud. These are the words of racketeers, not allies. The US State department, in collaboration with Israel are genociding Palestinians, and in collaboration with NATO pushing Ukrainians into the meat grinder of war. This doesn't even touch other active conflicts they engineer, like the one in the DRC, which has never gotten the same level of press.
There is no good way out of this for Ukraine, NATO and the US state department do not care about what's best for them. They will hang them out to dry and squeeze every last drop of value out of their people and their land. It won't end with Ukraine either. NATO has it's sights on China, they will do the same thing to Taiwan, and any other small nation in China's vicinity.
I'm not sure at this point that NATO would even allow it to end. They would have Zelensky killed and replaced if necessary. It's not outside of the US playbook.
What? No. I'm just saying that I disagree with it.
(Actually, highly critical perspective of NATO in general I can completely agree with, I spent a lot of my youth being vigorously critical of NATO while they were engaged in bombing the shit out of Yugoslavia and critical of the US for a huge multitude of reasons. I'm just saying that this particular criticism of NATO, that they were the ones that engineered the Ukraine war, I disagree with.)
It's not hard to imagine, they do it constantly. Including, right now, to Ukraine, by being overall a shitty partner, providing an inconsistent supply of weapons which the Ukrainians can't really turn down but which also come with a big laundry list of restrictions on how they're allowed to use them. I get why they do it, starting WW3 is something that impacts the US and they don't want that, whereas dead Ukrainians aren't something that impacts them so they're fine with it. I'm just saying that doesn't automatically mean that any particular theory which also includes them putting another country in a dire position etc etc automatically therefore becomes true.
You said you didn't want to debate the Ukraine war, so I didn't really say much about it, but if you want me to explain in detail why I don't agree with the theory I'm fine with doing that.