The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Steve Thomas]

We Need a New Approach to Fighting Malevolent Forces Online

By David Rothkopf Updated Dec. 24, 2022 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-need-a-new-approach-to-fighting-malevolent-forces-online

“Everywhere you look in the past few weeks, the growing risks we face have been made clearer. CIA Director Bill Burns has warned of the potential for TikTok’s Chinese owners to use the app to access data that they could use to threaten our national security. The scandals shaking cryptocurrencies reveal that the world of digital finance presents unique opportunities for scam artists to debunk a gullible and ignorant public. Tech moguls have emerged as the robber barons of our age, wielding unprecedented power, controlling without constraint vast swaths of the marketplace and the means by which we connect and function as a society.”

“AI (artificial intelligence) is a tool that can give a strategic advantage to combatants or be a force-multiplier for terrorists, its development and distribution still largely left to market forces (or constrained by narrow, country-specific programs to limit its development—like those of the U.S. with regard to China). Deep fake technology can make it all but impossible to know the difference between what is happening in the world, and what individual people may be saying or may believe”.

“To date these threats have been addressed piecemeal, when they have been addressed at all. Our failure to anticipate them is a sign of the inadequacy of our government to provide useful oversight, as is our unwillingness to properly regulate Big Tech and challenge the highly concentrated power of a few organizations and individuals.”

“Absent constraints on malevolent actors, protections that ensure safe commerce, the ability to identify and manage threats to our information security, we will put at risk our fundamental freedoms and values in ways that today’s headlines should already be making painfully clear to all.”

Steve Thomas

 

[Mark Knight]

15 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

 

Wherever ANY war is fought, it is the civilian casualties that decide how long that war continues. And by casualties, I don't simply mean deaths and injuries. Jobs lost, homes destroyed, businesses ruined all become part of the toll of war. With the exception of Hawaii, the US was spared from most of the physical damage of WWII. The US was TOTALLY spared from the physical damage of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. While it can be argued that 9/11 is the event that precipitated the war in Iraq [which is insane, since 17 of the 19 people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabians], other than the loss of troops, the US has been spared the direct costs of war since WWII. 

There are, of course, indirect costs of war. Vast portions of the federal budget are spent on our military as they fight in many corners of the globe [I won't get into a discussion of the oxymoronic quality of that mental picture]. While conservatives scoff at the term "peace dividend," imagine what good could be done in our world if such vast sums weren't being spent on warfare and armaments. I don't advocate eliminating defense spending; I simply advocate reallocating SOME of those resources toward peaceful ends.

In WWII, the German air raids over London strengthened British resolve to defeat the Germans. In Ukraine, the same effect is occurring toward Russia today. By the same token, it was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that broke the will of the Japanese to continue fighting in WWII. In Vietnam, it was the will of the majority of the American people that made the US exit the war. So it seems that it has often been the will of the civilian population who are victims of warfare that have determined the outcome, rather than the successes of the soldiers on the battlefields.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Wherever ANY war is fought, it is the civilian casualties that decide how long that war continues. And by casualties, I don't simply mean deaths and injuries. Jobs lost, homes destroyed, businesses ruined all become part of the toll of war. With the exception of Hawaii, the US was spared from most of the physical damage of WWII. The US was TOTALLY spared from the physical damage of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. While it can be argued that 9/11 is the event that precipitated the war in Iraq [which is insane, since 17 of the 19 people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabians], other than the loss of troops, the US has been spared the direct costs of war since WWII. 

There are, of course, indirect costs of war. Vast portions of the federal budget are spent on our military as they fight in many corners of the globe [I won't get into a discussion of the oxymoronic quality of that mental picture]. While conservatives scoff at the term "peace dividend," imagine what good could be done in our world if such vast sums weren't being spent on warfare and armaments. I don't advocate eliminating defense spending; I simply advocate reallocating SOME of those resources toward peaceful ends.

In WWII, the German air raids over London strengthened British resolve to defeat the Germans. In Ukraine, the same effect is occurring toward Russia today. By the same token, it was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that broke the will of the Japanese to continue fighting in WWII. In Vietnam, it was the will of the majority of the American people that made the US exit the war. So it seems that it has often been the will of the civilian population who are victims of warfare that have determined the outcome, rather than the successes of the soldiers on the battlefields.

Lots of wisdom in this post. I have a couple of points. 
 

- When we envisage the good that could have been done if the vast sums thrown at war were used to solve some of the worlds most pressing issues, we often think of things as a shame, a mistake or something else that was out of our hands. In many cases we should IMO think of things another way; that a criminal act has taken place, in manufacturing the consent for war and declaring war, when the ulterior motive is profit. Its a racket that passes tax payers money into the hands of every private corporation that profits from war. 
 

- You’re right about the terror aspect going both ways, it can often break the will of a people, or it can galvanise them. We should spare a thought that propaganda is perhaps the most significant factor in this equation today and for the last century or so. If a media circus on both sides can inspire, give belief and supply enough hate, it can keep a war going. 

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:31 PM, John Cotter said:

Many happy returns, Chris.

Regarding unipolarity vs multipolarity, JFK effectively favoured the latter, since he wanted to end the Cold War rather than win it and he supported the independence of Third World countries.

Mearsheimer’s preference for unipolarity may have more to do with stability than anything else, which would be in keeping with the “amoral” pragmatism of the Realist school of thinking.

Multipolarity is probably more sustainable in the long run, since the pax Americana approach inevitably generates resentment and resistance, which seems be manifested in the increased cooperation between BRICS and Global South countries independently of the USA.

Also, there is an element of stupidity in the hubris of power arising from winning the cold war which has blinded US foreign policy makers to the convergence of interests between the US’s two main adversaries, China and Russia, and to the lunacy of the persistent “poking the bear” in eastern Europe.

As Mearsheimer and others predicted, this has already resulted in disaster, as evidenced by the ongoing destruction of Ukraine. Moreover, since the predictions by western propaganda of an early economic, military and/or political Russian meltdown haven’t come to pass, the far greater and more widespread disaster described by Paul in the podcast I linked seems likely.

To paraphrase the Chinese curse, we’re living in interesting times.

We do live in interesting times.

I will sound like a broken record again by saying, empires go through this tremendous period of progress, they peak and then enter decay. Marx, who I am no fan of, did get it right about the end days of capitalism, that it would be oligarchs cannibalising state institutions. When most of the money and most of the power ends up on the hands of so few, the unipolar situation presents an existential threat to the people. Competition as opposed to monopoly, actually keeps would be tyrants in check to some degree. The hubris is a very real danger. Those arguing against this would use the past 60-80 years in the west as evidence of a great system but, that’s a microcosm of time in a human history that has been filled with misery/struggle and they forget what it took to create that period. It seems there are certainly rhythms to history.   
 

I’ll listen to Paul’s podcast after my partner has gone to bed. 

[Steve Thomas]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109620645245203294

 

The man belongs in a home.

Steve Thomas

[Matt Allison]

Russia is committing atrocities against children:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-places-russia-human-trafficking-child-soldier-lists-2022-07-19/

https://wapo.st/3IjKpZ4

[Kirk Gallaway]

I use to wonder about the usefulness of NATO. I thought if we no longer formalized it and just shut up about it. (Bush Sr. "don't want to gloat")  and let countries choose their destiny on their own. It would have just become obvious!

I SAF don't  now! No matter what the result, there's no way Putin or really anybody benefits from this unless  Putin goes, which could be very good, but there's an outside chance could  be a crap shoot!

Nice going, retrograde turd!

 

As far as single polarity vs, multi polarity. I don't buy any argument that we need Russia to balance the world out. Ideologically, they've never really stood as a Socialist alternative , but a blundered Socialist state now turned kleptocracy. They'll always have their weapons and we  can't do anything  about that.

 

I don't see any benefit to having 3 major flashpoints with the West in the middle. China is a true economic superpower, but that largely couldn't be avoided. The whole South China Sea and Taiwan situation was inevitable, but a lot of the  economic problem can be mitigated. They'll play both ends against the middle but economically they need us 100 times more than they need Russia. But Europe's more dependent on the Chinese than we are.

 

Still China's having growing pains. Their zero covid policy has been a disaster! They didn't push vaccination to the population as a way out of the pandemic as the West did, and their vaccines were sh-tty!.  We have been able to realign some supply chains.

For 20 years their economy grew at a 6% clip, almost unprecedented in history. Now it looks like they'll go to a more normal 2-4%  clip, which is great news for us. Also Xi's also taken a direction toward more Central Government control and state run businesses and put pressure on their private companies.

.

The idea of wanting some multi polar check on the U.S. is understandable but it's whole economic system and it's multi national and as long as people need capital, the only thing that would bring it down is  at least a  decade long collapse of the current economic system, probably with resulting wars, and  great suffering that could eventually result  with the world starting over again, like after WW2 but with a greater consensus. But of course, how can the planet sustain the aftermath of that?.

[Steve Thomas]

On Monday's edition of CNN's edition of "The Lead," political reporter Eva McKend said that the Republicans making demands will just be emboldened to continue making more — and possibly paralyze the whole House.

Ultimately, argued McKend, McCarthy's bind is a demonstration that "you can't abandon your principles in pursuit of power because it ultimately may not work out for you in the end."

Amen

Steve Thomas

[Matt Allison]

The Chinese aren't stupid. They have to be a good actor because they know their economy and society collapses if the U.S. and Europe were to boycott them or even cut down trade with them.

[Matt Allison]

2 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

political reporter Eva McKend said that the Republicans making demands will just be emboldened to continue making more — and possibly paralyze the whole House.

 

Oh it's going to be a complete clown show. A true circus. The final nail in the MAGA coffin.

Thankfully the only damage they can do is to themselves and their party.

[Matthew Koch]

 

[Benjamin Cole]

58 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

From the vid:

POLITICS

BuzzFeed Journalist: Recognizing Victims of Communism Is a ‘White Nationalist Talking Point’

 

 

[John Cotter]

6 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

Regardless of ones political outlook, that’s a useful overview of the numerous internet “news” outlets whose names and content constantly appear on ones screen but the provenance and agenda of which it’s hard to find the time to look into.

[Steve Thomas]

Meet the new MAGA generation: These newly-elected Republicans set to join Team MTG
 By Igor Derysh, Salon 01/03/23

http://www.rawstory.com/meet-the-new-maga-generation-these-newly-elected-republicans-set-to-join-team-mtg/

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

Robert Costa

@costareports

An extraordinary moment in American history. A speaker of the House asks the chairman of the joint chiefs if the nuclear codes are safe because she fears the president is crazy and liable to make a deadly decision to stay in power. From Milley's testimony re: Jan. 8, 2021 call.

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1609924279818412034

 

Steve Thomas