Pogo Revisited: We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

In an interesting article about modern and earlier responses to Fascism, John Pilger said this: 

According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 alone Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day.  He bombed the poorest people on earth, in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.

Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the “terrorist target”. A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama’s drones killed 4,700 people. “Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that,” he said, "but we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda.”

Like the fascism of the 1930s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent media whose description now fits that of the Nuremberg prosecutor: “Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically … In the propaganda system … it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.

Pilger's point is that Obama, and Clinton too, are not liberals. I suppose it depends on what your definition of is is. 

This argument also risks committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  

The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, " No true Scotsman would do such a thing".^[2]

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

So I would disagree with my friends who think Obama is a conservative. It is instead that liberals have adopted the conservative view of Foreign Policy, and the conservatives have adopted the liberal view of Foreign Policy—at least Trump has. So it is that conservatives who have not made the switch will say that Trump is not a "true" conservative, and liberals who have not switched either will say that Obama is not a "true" liberal. This is actually a return to the traditional views of liberals and conservatives from the 30's. 

So we live in a weird world where Obama is more "conservative" than Trump. Or as Weird Al said in song, "Everything You Know Is Wrong." 

Did Russia Hack?

There were three separate hacks of various Democrat and Clinton emails. I have actually read almost nothing about the most important of these, the hacking of Hillary Clinton's email account. I find this rather odd. 

The hacking of Podesta's email gets the second amount of press. Anyone whose password is p@ssw0rd, almost deserves to get hacked. There is actually some evidence that Russian nationals were involved. It is not strong, but it does exist. If I was a Russian government hacker, I would not use a Russian IP address. So the much admired Russian government hacking group was incompetent, or it was someone else wanting to implicate Russia. I am open to either argument. 

What recieves the most press is the hacking of the DNC. If you believe Wikileaks, this was not a hack. It was a leak from a disgruntled DNC employee who was a Sanders' supporter. When you read the unclassified portion of the report of this leak, there is no evidence about who did it. Most of the report is about Russian TV—RT, Russia Today. It refers to programs aired several years ago and claims that this is proof of Russian interference in the US election. Most nations have propaganda arms, the US version is the Voice of America. 

If what was being said was along the lines of: The Russians are logical suspects in these hackings, I would have no objections, they are logical suspects. As is China, Israel and a guy living in his parents basement typing away on his computer in his underwear. 

If you want to hear a security expert, whose salary does not depend on what he says, watch this video. 

Corporate Media Lies

But then again so does alternative media. Here is a good example of the echo chamber that is media, they don't even consder the memes they promote are false. 

Most News Is Fake

Most videos you see on the news is to some extent faked. That is just the nature of the news. There is a narrative, and that narrative determines what is broadcast. You are being played. 

This particular video was immediately removed after it was posted by the "White Helmets." But a copy had already been made: 

The White Helmets are funded by the West:

1: The White Helmets receive funding from UK ($65m via UK Foreign Office), US (US State Dept via USAID $ 23m), Holland ($ 4.5m), Germany ($ 7.87m) and Japan (undisclosed sum from the Intl Cooperation Agency), Denmark (undisclosed sum) – via the Mayday Rescue “foundation” that was set up by the British ex-military trainer of the White Helmets in order to transfer funding to the White Helmets. The White Helmets also receive equipment and supplies from various EU member states. This funding is concealed behind the generic heading of “Emergency Health and Relief Support to the Population Affected by the Crisis in Syria”, through the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG-ECHO), formerly known as the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office.

You can read the link for an alternative narrative on the White Helmets. 

But remember, you are being played. 

What If Jesus Was Appointed to Trump's Cabinet?

Jesus as Secretary of Defense Obviously, this is absurd. But my purpose here is to outline what would be said about Jesus if he was nominated for a cabinet position. 

• Jesus' parents were forced to get married.
• Jesus was a troubled youth that ran away from home. 
• Even though Jesus was a professional man, he relied on women for his livelihood. He did not work. 
• One of men closest to Jesus was a known terrorist. Another associate committed suicide. Another associate betrayed him at the end. 
• Jesus compared people of a different ethic background than himself to dogs.
• Jesus never married. You know what that means. 
• His supporters burnt Rome.
• His supporters refused to show allegiance to our nation (by burning incense to the emperor). 
• Jesus is a Jew. 
• Jesus is a phony faith healer. 
• Jesus supported a law that condemned homosexuality. 
• Jesus told stories rather than use plain language in order to deceive his listeners. 

Jesus would never be confirmed to Trump's cabinet. 

My point is not to say that Trump's picks are great. My point is that the quality, or lack of it, to Trump's picks don't matter. He is Trump. The same kind of thing took place with Obama, Bush and Clinton. It just depends on the political orientation of a particular media outlet. 

Don't be deceived.