This is the best-written news-commentary I’ve ever seen: Paul Craig Roberts on the U.S. newsmedia.
It’s not merely a historical account, but the cited events are placed into their true context, which makes it shocking (since such truthfulness is almost never published, anywhere; the public just rarely gets to see it — and, when they do, it gets drowned-out by the constant flood of propaganda).
His view is generally consistent with this:
Senator Richard Black «The Global Elite Wants A Thermonuclear War With Russia».
However, Roberts thinks that «The Global Elite» want only the increased military budgets and weapons-sales — only the brinksmanship — not the forcing beyond that point, into a U.S.-NATO conquest of Russia (as viewed by the believers in America’s ‘nuclear primacy’), or else a global nuclear winter (as viewed by those who say that, in any war between the U.S. and Russia, the very idea of ‘nuclear primacy’ is sheer stupidity). Of course, if that war would produce a nuclear winter, then there would be no winner, but two losers — plus the entire world lost. However, the believers in ‘nuclear primacy’ include many extremely influential, and powerful, people, which is why such a concept gets published in such extremely influential publications as introduced the ’nuclear primacy’ concept.
Oddly, both Roberts and Black are Republicans, which used to be an even more neoconservative (or neoliberal) Party than the Democrats; but which, now, polls show to be less anti-Russian than Democrats are. Unlike Roberts, Black still considers himself to be a Republican. Perhaps he has political ambitions.
On March 14th, an astute blogger headlined «The Democrats Anti-Russia Campaign Falls Apart» and he argued that the neoconservatives’ campaign is heading into some rough waters, which could sink the neoconservative ship, but perhaps he was merely over-reacting: the wave that he’s seeing might already have peaked. Another astute blogger bannered «American Corporate MSM Is Merged With CIA And Has Been Since The 1950s» and he documented the case, but who can say whether that situation continues today? It’s certainly not consistent with what would be found in a democratic nation, but does it continue, even today (and maybe even worse now)?
Without a trustworthy newsmedia — especially on the most important issues of state, such as international relations and war and peace — there cannot be a democracy. Isn’t that clear, or did I miss something here?
Perhaps this helps explain why former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has said, of his own country, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members».
If the newsmedia do their job only for the wealthy, and merely pretend to be interested in other values such as equality and anti-corruption, then how is democracy even possible? How can democracy result from such sheer hypocrisy?
If both sides in a political contest are actually two sides of the same aristocracy (or, as Carter referred to it, «oligarchy»), then what meaning is left to «democracy»? Does that term then become, itself, no longer a living and functioning reality, but simply a corpse of that, bandied about on the remaining shrunken tiny and narrow real political field, by the two contending teams that represent, actually, the very same aristocracy?
If that’s the case, then what should one think about the routine assertions by such a nation’s politicians, condemning other regimes as being a «dictatorship»? Would that then be a hypocrisy on top of a hypocrisy? Maybe we’ll invent a new term to refer to it: meta-hypocrisy.