When Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard announced her candidacy for the presidency on CNN last month, I had a feeling I’d be writing about her a fair bit. Not because I particularly want her to be president, but because I knew her candidacy would cause the narrative control mechanizations of the political/media class to overextend themselves, leaving them open to attack, exposure, and the weakening of their control of the narrative.

Mere hours before her campaign officially launched, NBC News published an astonishingly blatant smear piece titled “Russia’s propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard,” subtitled “Experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.” One of the article’s authors shared it on Twitter with the caption, “The Kremlin already has a crush on Tulsi Gabbard.”

The article reported that media outlets tied to the Russian government had been talking a lot about Gabbard’s candidacy, ironically citing as an example an RT article which documented the attempts by the US mainstream media to paint Gabbard as a Kremlin agent. The article’s authors cited the existence of such articles combined with the existence of “chatter” about Gabbard on the anonymous message board 8chan (relevant for God knows what reason) as evidence to substantiate its blaring headline. Even more hilariously, the source for its weird 8chan claim is named as none other than Renee DiResta of the narrative control firm New Knowledge, which was recently embroiled in a scandal for staging a “false flag operation” in an Alabama Senate race which gave one of the candidates the false appearance of being amplified by Russian bots.

This article is of course absurd. As we discussed recently, you will always see Russia on the same US foreign policy page as anti-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard, because Russia, like so many other nations, opposes US interventionism. To treat this as some sort of shocking conspiracy instead of obvious and mundane is journalistic malpractice. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose the war agendas of the US-centralized empire, none of which have anything to do with having any loyalty to or sympathies for the Russian government.

But we will continue to see this tactic used again and again and again against any and all opposition to US-led interventionism for as long as the Russiagate psyop maintains its grip upon western consciousness. And make no mistake, these smears have everything to do with anti-interventionism and nothing to do with Russia. There will never, ever be an antiwar voice who the political/media class and their centrist followers espouse as good and valid; they’ll never say “Ahh, finally, someone who hates war and also isn’t aligned with Russia! We can get behind this one!” That will never, ever happen, because it is the opposition to war and interventionism itself which is being rejected, and in the McCarthyite environment of Russia hysteria, tarring it as “Russian” simply makes a practical excuse for that rejection.

All the biggest conflicts in the world can be described as unipolarism vs multipolarism: the unipolarists who support the global hegemony of the US-centralized empire at any cost, versus the multipolarists who oppose that dominance and support the existence of multiple power structures in the world. The governments of Russia, China, Iran and their allies are predominantly multipolarist in their geopolitical outlook, and they tend to be more in favor of non-interventionism, since unipolarity can only be held in place by brute force and aggression. Unipolarists, therefore, can always paint western anti-interventionists as Russian assets, since the Russian government is multipolarist and opposed to the interventionism of the unipolarists.

The nonstop propaganda campaign to keep the coals of Russia hysteria burning white hot at all times can therefore be looked at first and foremost as a psychological operation to kill support for multipolarism around the world. It can of course be used to manufacture consent for escalations against Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc as needed, but it can also be used to attack the ideology of anti-interventionism itself by smearing anyone who opposes unipolar oppression and aggression as an agent of a nefarious oppositional government.

The social engineers have succeeded in constructing a narrative control device which encapsulates the entire agenda of the unipolar world order in a single bumper sticker-sized talking point: “Russia opposes Big Brother, therefore anyone who opposes Big Brother is Russian.” This device didn’t take an amazing intellectual feat to create; all they had to do was recreate the paranoid insanity of the original cold war, and they already had a blueprint for that. It was simply a matter of shepherding us back there.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there emerged a popular notion of a “peace dividend” in which defense spending could be reduced in the absence of America’s sole rival and the abundant excess funds used to take care of the American people instead. The only problem was that a lot of people had gotten very rich and powerful as a result of that cold war defense spending, and it wasn’t long before they started circulating the idea of using America’s newly uncontested might for a very expensive campaign to hammer down a liberal world order led by the beneficent guidance of the United States government. Soon the neoconservatives were pushing their unipolarist narratives in high levels of influence with great effect, and shortly thereafter they got their “new Pearl Harbor” in the form of the 9/11 attacks which justified an explosion in defense spending, interventionism and expansionism, just as the neoconservative Project for a New American Century had called for. And the rest is history.

And now our collective consciousness is planted right back in the center of that paranoid, hawkish political environment of the first cold war. The main difference now is of course that Russia is nothing remotely like a superpower today, and that the establishment Russia narrative is made entirely out of narrative, but the most important difference is that this time the establishment narratives are not taking place within the hermetically sealed bubbles of major news media corporations. People are able to communicate with each other and share information far more easily than they were prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, and westerners are able to easily access Russian media and anti-interventionist narratives if they want to.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, as I never tire of saying. This difficulty in replicating the hermetically sealed media environment of the original cold war poses a severe challenge for narrative control, and it is for this reason reason that there is now so much skepticism of the establishment Russia narrative. It is also the reason for the establishment’s aggressive maneuvers to censor the internet, to demonize Russian media, and to smear anti-interventionist perspectives.

But we can’t keep living this way. We all know this, deep down. The people at the helm of the unipolar world order are advancing an ecocidal world economy which is stripping the earth bare and filling the air with poison while at the same time pushing more and more aggressively against the multipolarist powers, one of which happens to have thousands of nuclear warheads at its disposal. The unipolarity so enthusiastically promoted by the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers has reached the end of the line after just a few short years, and now it’s time to dispense with it and try something else. They will necessarily smear us with everything but the kitchen sink for saying so, but we are right and they are wrong. The state of the world today proves this beyond a doubt.


Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

82 responses to “Why All Anti-Interventionists Will Necessarily Be Smeared As Russian Assets”

  1. With Dmitri Alperovitch (RUSSIAN!!!) and Crowdstrike, along with New Knowledge (ex-NSA and State Department workers), you can replicate Russiagate and computer hacks without any involvement of real Russians. Throw in Max Boot (an obvious dissembling RUSSIAN!!!) and everything becomes clear…

  2. This is probably one of the best presentations on the start of WW1 and its connection to Oil.

    It would seem quite apt, given Venzuelas unhappiness at SpartUSA less than subtle attempt to get their hands on Venezuelas junk.

  3. In Caitlins writing “narrative” carries a lot of weight and she goes to some length to explain what she uses it to illustrate. As the hierarchical, myth-making authoritarian followers that humans so often are, narrative is as good a word as any to name the beliefs, the world-views the half-truths and the lies we carry with us, pick up in sidewalk and churches, share with others or are injected during sleep, which is most of the time. Like viruses.

    If Rod has something useful to contribute, by all means, do. Nitpicking and sneering doesn’t real;ly do it.

    1. “If Rod has something useful to contribute, by all means, do. Nitpicking and sneering doesn’t real;ly do it.”

      First, I try to avoid nitpicking (but I do it for fun sometimes) and I never sneer. That would be impolite and I might get a barrage of MSM propaganda written about me like the hero, who I would be proud to share a foxhole with, Nick Sandmann.

      I think “narrative,” as I have explained previously is a planted propaganda term. Caitlin apparently picked it up mid-2018 and built a theory around it. IMO, this is beyond IC expectations as the effect is neutralizing, which is an important goal of word replacement propaganda.
      The word “Russiagate” is preforming a similar function for the IC but my sense of its origin is less certain. “Gate” as a suffix has so often been used by the MSM and others since Watergate, it is more likely to have more organic roots. Nevertheless, it does suggest that Trump is a modern-day Nixon every time it’s used by anyone.
      Narrative reminds me of back in the ’60s when Marshall McLuhan wrote a book called “Understanding Media.” Nearly all the social scientists were gaga over the profundity of his thesis that “the medium is the message.” I read it – and I read it again. I didn’t get it.
      I’ve heard and read lots of explanations. It still doesn’t make sense to me, but that line has become so famous, you’ve probably heard it before. The reason I don’t get it is because it’s BS. The experts who were gaga over it were simply duped.
      What was going on here? I don’t remember how long it took me to figure it out but at some point, came the dawn – Book sales. McLuhan’s book sold millions. He got my money. What a concept. And it works time and again. I’ve bought a bunch of those books.
      Another example: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” This one took the social scientists by storm again. Millions were sold based on a theory called Transactional Analysis.” People were into analyzing every conversation, trying to label interactions and having great fun with the concept. Labeling is usually big with these theories. It helps people engage with the subject and feel like they’re really learning something. It’s really a search for dopamine.
      A more recent one that was similar but truly corny was “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” I mean, who doesn’t want to understand the opposite sex, right? Well, here’s your guide book based on a counselor’s communication theory. The guy could easily retire from the proceeds of that one. He did not get my money.
      Caitlin’s a smart lady. I’m guessing we can look forward to a tome from our prolific hostess sometime in the not too distant future – Narrative to the core. To deliver the best shot of dopamine, I expect a narrative matrix with magic and maybe like some J.R.R. Tolkien effects.
      I think I’ll stick to her rabble-rousing blog. I always preferred Erich Von Daniken anywho.

      I sincerely hope you consider this a “useful” contribution. Thanks for asking.

      1. Chinagate is more apropos to Russiagate than Watergate. The Clintons traded Communist China permanent most favored nation trade status. Offshored jobs to China, relaxed restrictions on technology transfer to the Communists, including military technology in the hope of China being a threat to RUSSIA!!! Now they are close allies. Clinton was forced to return the foreign donations AFTER he was flush with cash from new-found pay-to-play donors. Win-win for the Clintons and China.

    2. Rod, my teen years were in the NE US 1960s. I turned 18 in 1968 and my birth date was put in the annual selective service lottery. But luckily my date was pulled late enough to not be drafted. It’s amazing what potentially being “called up” does to awaken ones political awareness.
      For example, I was absolutely fascinated by Skinnerian “behaviorism” and was so taken with his book “Walden Two” that I visited Twin Oaks in Virginia a couple of times and lived for a short period of time at one of its “offspring” communites called East Wind, then in West Brookfield, Mass., which moved not long thereafter to near Gainesville, Missouri where it still exists today. Both Twin Oaks and East Wind have web sites.
      I’ll put my question to you very succinctly. Do you see any hope, any way, for humanity to avoid nuclear war or environmental catastrophe leading to human extinction and, if so, how will humanity avoid them?

    3. “Do you see any hope, any way, for humanity to avoid nuclear war or environmental catastrophe leading to human extinction and, if so, how will humanity avoid them?”
      Sorry, I never think about that stuff. I kinda doubt those things will happen, but if they do, it was fun while it lasted. Oh, I have always opposed nuclear energy, mainly based on the fact that they’ve never figured out how to handle the waste. In the ’70s, I used to write against it. I can’t believe part of my utility bill goes to the STNP. And the idiots in Austin had a choice! Later after seeing the error of their ways, it was too late to get out. I saw some lady on TV recently saying she had come up with a way to make use of it. I’ll believe it when I see it.
      BTW, I was into behaviorism bigtime back then. I put my kids on a token economy. I didn’t stick with it, but in psychospeak, I would consider myself a cognitive behaviorist now.

  4. ‘The governments of Russia, China, Iran and their allies are predominantly multipolarist in their geopolitical outlook, and they tend to be more in favor of non-interventionism’

    Well, in fairness, they are against *US* interventionism, not necessarily against, say, *their own* interventionism. While Russia was provoked first in South Ossetia by the Georgian attack on its peacekeepers, it did present its subsequent operations on Georgian territory as a ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the style of NATO’s 1999 Kosovo operation. I don’t expect China and Iran to abstain from interventionism on principle either (China wouldn’t rule out a re-incorporation of Taiwan by force, if I remember correctly). I’m sure each of them would prefer a unipolar world, as long as they themselves were the pole – I mean, who wouldn’t? It’s their military weakness in comparison to the US that forces them (and anybody else who isn’t a US satellite) to appeal to the principles of international law and largely confines their actions within it. One needn’t have any illusions about the general outlooks and preferences of the leaderships of those countries just because one is usually on the same page as them with respect to the actions of the US.

    ‘… unipolarity can only be held in place by brute force and aggression’

    If being a ‘pole’ means simply being an economic powerhouse and cultural centre, then, depending on the circumstances, both unipolarity and multipolarity can occur without brute force and aggression. If being a ‘pole’ means controlling weaker countries and violating their sovereignty in the way the US is doing that now, then both unipolarity and multipolarity will be maintained by brute force and aggression. ‘Poles’ in the latter sense should not exist at all – not one, not many. Nobody – not the US, not Russia, not China, not Iran – is entitled to control of other, weaker countries either in the entire world or just in ‘their own backyard’ or ‘their own sphere of influence’. I doubt that the Russian, Chinese and Iranian establishments would agree with me on this, so I can’t say that, as an anti-imperialist, I share their views on multipolarity. I don’t want several empires, just as I don’t want a single global empire; both would entail violations of collective and thus individual sovereignty.
    Multipolarity in terms of military and economic power could be somewhat useful by preventing the concentration of too much unconstrained and easily abused power in one place, but the opportunities for playing off two or three unhinged imperial tyrants against each other would be rather limited. The primary value of such multipolarity lies in the fact that it can function as an (imperfect and unstable) guarantee of a world order based on international law. Of course, to be truly stable, in the long run, that world order would need to be policed by an independent UN army.

  5. Caitlin, Here’s a “Narrative” for contemplation and personal reflection:
    “A person travels alone down an unmarked path in the forest and comes upon a stream. The traveler is thirsty, but she’s uncertain about the condition of the water–is it safe to drink? After some thought, the traveler decides to let her horse have the first drink, and observe its reaction. The horse and traveler ultimately both drink the water with no adverse effects. The traveler is relieved, but feels a moral obligation to post a sign by the water for future travelers”. The point of the narrative? The first traveler tried to do the right thing, but those who come along behind her must decide for themselves whether to drink the water. Your use of the word ‘narrative’ is precisely correct in context and application. In my study of Hermeneutics, or the theory of methodology and interpretation of verbal and non-verbal communications, the narrative is used to assemble building blocks of communication meaning called “signs” or “semantics”. Owen Flanagan, a brilliant researcher in metaphysics and human consciousness at Duke University writes: “evidence strongly suggest that humans in all cultures come to cast their own identity in some sort of narrative form”. So, narratives are a way for people to make sense of their surroundings and physical condition. The narrative process is critical to the development of personal and cultural identity, and in the creation and construction of memories (real and fictional) that represent our fundamental concept of self. Our ‘self concepts’ are essential to the understanding of human value, ours and others. How we individually perceive ourselves, in effect defines how we perceive others. Psychopaths (read that political leaders) who use narrative to effectively control how we perceive ourselves potentially have immense power over every dimension of our existence. We all exist in the narrative matrix to some degree, either of our own creation or that which is imposed on us by others. Unfortunately, we don’t all have the same cognitive comprehensive and ability to process truth from fiction. That’s when the signs by the watering hole become important. Thanks for planting the sign, Caitlin. Each of us has to decide whether to drink the water.

    1. For the moment let us assume that human beings have not changed much genetically since the ice sheets retreated to where they were before the industrial revolution. Make believe you’ve just been born to a woman who lived 10,000 years ago and are living in that time. You learned how to survive from your parents and perhaps others in a group or tribe and you have grown up to be a lucky adult of say 40 years of age. How different would your day to day behavior, including “thinking”, be from your day to day behavior and thinking and speaking and writing of today?
      Whatever your answer, because we have assumed near-indentical genetic makeup, I say that the difference would be solely due to “the matrix” you just happened to be born into 10,000 years ago and the present-day matrix of today that you just happened to be born into.
      The realization and acceptance that the matrix one just happen to be raised in “causes” the vast majority of behavior (and NOT genetic endowment) is an important thing to accept because present day arguments against a possibly better economic arrangement than the present one (that’s the result of thousands of years of evolution with and Elite class controlling things with an iron grip) is that the present one is the best “fit” for “human nature”. If day to day behavior, including thinking, is due to a “matrix” (AKA reinforcing or punishing environment), the first step in achieving a better arrangement for the future is to decide what that better arangement “looks like” in MINUTE DETAIL. After that, the old matrix is changed to a new one so that that better arrangement can be achieved. Obviously, the present day Elite don’t want to change a damned thing and will resist change with all of their power, but They are few and we are many and we still have the right to vote and can out-vote the Elite every time. The problem for us is that we have to imagine a better arrangement than the one we grew up in and, because we have been brainwashed from day 1 with many outright lies, we are going to have great difficulty imagining that different arrangement. I can demonstrate why this will be the case.
      We can attempt to answer what SHOULD be two bone-simple questions about a potentially better arrangement right here and right now.
      Do we want to live in an economic system in which robots do most of the tasks that must be done — manufacture things, dig ditches plow fields, bring in the crops, paint and install roof shingles the buildings, etc.? (I sure do.)
      Ideally, if robots can replace most human labor, who should “own” the robots and thereby benefit from the products of the robots’ “labor”?

      1. Agree that each of us is a product and reflection of our environment. Yet, at the core of our being lies a cognitive awareness of our unique human character. Our self-concepts reflect, for the most part, the influence of powerful people who control the narratives of our existence, i.e. family, identity groups, government, etc. By the time each of us is old enough to develop an independent self-concept, we have already been largely co-opted by group think and those who “own” the narrative matrix. As humans we possess an inexplicable intuitive capacity that has yet to be achieved by AI–a capacity for living self-awareness that no machine algorithm can replicate. Through that self-awareness, we sense emotions such as joy, peace, contentment, hope, remorse, hate, anger, envy, etc. Every human social-economic-political organization at large scale is controlled by ruthless psychopaths who “understand” us. They have learned how to control our ‘human nature’–videlicet, the Beast “allows” us to ‘own’ property as his tenants. He “allows” us to vote. He “allows” us to dissent. He “allows” us to criticize him. But, he will NOT release his grip on our lives. The beast is not afraid of the people. Through our ignorance and sub-conscious fear, the masses actually “believe” they are free–while every move is monitored, regulated and controlled. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s much easier to hold a person in bondage when he has never tasted true freedom. But, you will have to kill a free man before he will allow you to set the chains. Our search for a better way must begin with an answer to the question: “What Price Freedom”. Your words have the ring of sincerity and truth. Best wishes to you.

      2. Charlie, what is “freedom”? More specifically, how would you and others behave on a day to day basis (who does what tasks for what benefit) in a society “free” of an Elite, without that Elite’s “guidance”, free to do whatever you desired?
        I’m reminded of the original, old movie “The Time Machine” with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimieux. Taylor’s character uses his time machine to take him into the distant future to see what human society has turned into. During the journey he sees nuclear war. Long after the war he exits the time machine and meets the Eloi — a very young population that is completely disinterested in just about anything, even one of their own, drowning in a stream. They have completely lost touch with human history. The live only in the present, for the present. They don’t even know why their society is the way it is. They don’t even know where their food comes from or who delivers it. They’re a bewildered herd of cattle for slaughter.

        1. Your question has merit, but assumes the possibility of achieving an integrated social-economic-political organization at significant scale (i.e. nation). You misinterpret my comments if you think that’s what I believe is possible. I do believe that human organizations can exist at smaller scale based on the principles of “personal freedom” and “self-determination”. For the purpose of this exercise, let’s agree that “personal freedom” is “the state of not being imprisoned, enslaved, or coerced; the condition of unrestrained liberty to act in one’s own interests according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, so long as that condition is uniformly established for all members of the society”. So, our hypothetical socio-economic organization at human scale– say a maximum of 25,000 people– is based on a system of common values and a moral code of conduct that is freely accepted by each person who voluntarily chooses to be a part of the community. Does such a human organization require a mechanism for the enforcement of the moral code of conduct? Yes, and the enforcement must be completely transparent, uniform and just. Is the enforcement mechanism controlled by “elected” members of the community? Possibly, but not necessarily. The division of labor, the exercise of trade, the administration of charity, and the entire conduct of public affairs would be based on the universal and absolute recognition of individual natural rights. Specifically, that each person owns his life, his body, his labor, and his justly acquired property. To believe that no self-selected group of human beings at small scale is capable of self-governance, is to accept the totalitarian propaganda of the state and its elites. I reject that thesis and the attendant concept that all men must be ‘ruled’. Wise leadership is self-evident in those who are called to serve, and people with moral character and common values can live together in peace.

          1. Hey Charles are you familiar with “freedom cells” and if so what are your thoughts? If not here is link below.

            It seems to you (if I am not mis reading you) the problem is the scale of human organizations.

            1. Orlando, I was not familiar with Freedom Cells, but gave it a look. The Freedom Cells concept is very consistent with the Human Scale Concept. If you’re interested, I recommend the book “Human Scale Revisited” by Kirkpatrick Sale. Yes, I think the scale of everything man creates is relevant to the health of our human condition.

        2. Hey Ish,are you familiar with “freedom cells” and if so what are your thoughts? If not here is link below

      3. Further, RT has recently posted on their site a short video by a guy named Slavoj Zizek, who is supposedly a Slovenian “philosopher” who has made somewhat of a reputation for himself. He gives his take on what’s going on with the Yellow Vest phenomenon in France and how whatever you want to call the present system cannot possibly satisfy the protesters’ demands. Although it’s somewhat useful to watch the short video in its entirety, what I find most interesting begins at 4:21.
        “Enlightened leadership”? A bureaucracy that “somehow organizes things in a way which is impenetrable to me. Somehow water comes, electricity comes, there is healthcare and so on. I don’t have to know how all this works. I can live in my own niche. I think this is the future and we shouldn’t be afraid to put this as our motto.”

        Brilliant man, eh? If his thinking is representative of that of the young socialists in the USA, the Elite don’t have a damned thing to worry about. What’s the exact wording of “our motto”, Mr. Zizek?

      4. ISHKABIBBLE: “…hit only the reply button on the SECOND-widest comment, and then name the person to whom you are replying. This will eliminate the narrowing of successive comments and allow a more lengthy discussion of the widest comment (as a ‘topic’).”

        Excellent suggestion. I did that on this reply but I was thinking about replying to the widest comment – the one you replied to. Would that put the cart before the horse?

        1. Actually, hitting reply on the widest would be better. Then all successive replies will be the second-widest with and be in correct order ………I think.

        2. True, but everybody would have to play by that rule. With a reply link under every post, newbies especially wouldn’t comply. I might try it anyway. Not on this one tho.
          My post to you ended up above the post I was replying to. I think this one might too. Oh well…

    2. Dear Charlie and Orlando, first, I suggest that as an alternative to hitting the “reply” button underneath each reply, and thereby reducing the width of the reply to literally a single word on each line, hit only the reply button on the SECOND-widest comment, and then name the person to whom you are replying. This will eliminate the narrowing of successive comments and allow a more lengthy discussion of the widest comment (as a “topic”).
      Orlando, I took a look at your freedom cell link. I think that as a way of manufacturing the necessities of life, it is inferior to whatever you want to call the present system (again, henceforth “W”). However, as a way of imagining and “manufacturing” an alternative matrix, it is promising. For manufacturing the necessities of life and beyond, the Mondragon co-operative IMO shows great promise as an intermediary to a final, ideal matrix.
      Charlie wrote:
      “For the purpose of this exercise, let’s agree that “personal freedom” is “the state of not being imprisoned, enslaved, or coerced; the condition of unrestrained liberty to act in one’s own interests according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, so long as that condition is uniformly established for all members of the society”.
      Again using the 10,000 year old matrix versus today’s matrix as “causers” of most of day to day behavior and what one thinks about, the words “conscience”, “liberty”, “enslavement”, “imprrisonment”, “interests” have little practical meaning unless they are defined by real day-to-day conditions or behavior. The question is: what controls what? For example, within say a small tribe, the parents have to teach their children not to kill the other members of the tribe. Thus, the children don’t kill other members of the tribe. Whether that entails an assumed “conscience” or not is, practically speaking, irrelevant. However, for competitive or territorial reasons, the killing of members of a distant tribe may be perfectly OK. Again, whether “consience” is involved is, practically speaking, irrelevant.

      1. Ishkabibble,
        Some definitions (mine, not textbook) to help with this discussion avoid confusion about what you think I think I’m saying:

        1. Conscience: “the capacity to differentiate what contributes to the health and prosperity of our individual and common human condition vs. what degrades and destroys our humanity–along with the associated controlling behavioral impulses”.
        2. Liberty: “unrestrained, peaceful action guided by personal conscience”.
        3. Enslavement: “coercive restraint, physical or mental, imposed on individual free will and peaceful action”.
        4. Imprisonment: “#3, plus the complete and debilitating restriction of independent free action and physical movement”.
        5. Interests: “the perception of personal benefit derived from independent, peaceful action”.

        As to the question: “who controls what”, the answer becomes self-evident when the disposition of 1-5 are resolved, on a personal and collective level.

        IMO, ‘conscience’ is not ‘irrelevant’, but a critical reflection of our cognitive comprehension and undergirding individual moral concepts regarding the nature of our human existence. If ‘conscience’ is ‘irrelevant’ and plays no role in the development of our concepts of self and others, then we are intrinsically reduced to nothing more than servile drones on the global economic plantation, as well as obedient, unquestioning foot soldiers for the power structure.

        If humans can demonstrate the ability to create large scale, totalitarian, and highly destructive societies, then by implication, we can certainly demonstrate the obverse. ‘Conscience’ is the key.

        I work for a living, so this is quick and off the cuff. Please forgive the oversight if the dots don’t connect to form the pattern I’m trying to convey. Charlie

        PS: Thanks for the helpful advice about the ‘reply button’–I’m old and not very literate about these things!

    3. Charlie, I am trying to support my argument that “conscience” is taught/controlled by the matrix we just happened to be brought up in, in the exact same way that mathematics or how to make a fire with two pieces of a tree. “Psycopathy” is not a disease; it is taught.

      1. I have no objection to the argument that conscience is taught. There is irrefutable scientific evidence to confirm the validity of the thesis. I’ll only reiterate that regardless of the origin or source, conscience is the key to our view of self and others, and ultimately to our actions.

    4. But if conscience is taught by the matrix, it is the matrix which must be changed in order to change conscience to change behavior.
      The present matrix, by a faulty, fatal process of natural selection, selects psychopaths and liars to be leaders and MSM “presenters”. Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Comey, Brennan, Maddow, Williams, etc. etc. are the perfect examples. The biggest offenders are the most richly rewarded by the present matrix. Therefore how to change the matrix is the most important question in a nuclear age. Only after the matrix is changed will “minds” change.
      IMO, the movie “The Matrix” is one of the most important movies ever precisely because it pretty much describes what the Neos of today are up against. What is needed now is another great movie, or another great narrative, that describes a better, peaceful matrix.

  6. BDS…………………..STOP FUNDING WAR CRIMINAL ISRAEL. Have a nice day. Free Assange and Snowden. Ban Russian Dressing from U$ Congre$$$ Cafeteria. Vote? Non Sheeple Convention? Will Politicians endorse a mobilization to D.C. to stop the ce$$pool? We don’t need them, but they could help. Kill ur tv , etc.. Peace…!!

  7. There is no Democrats vs Republicans, no conservatives vs progressives, and the ‘Empire’ isn’t a U.S. phenomenon. There is ‘the people vs the elites’ or the 99% vs 1%.

    I’m surprised no one has brought up Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley or The Anglo-American Establishment or the Rhodes Round Table, CFR, Internationalists (secret societies, ‘blue blood’ families, universities, bankers & industrialists, etc, etc). I don’t protest calling the establishment US centralized because I’m butt-hurt by being featured as the cause for the world’s ills, but because there is so much written about the British/US ‘Special Relationship, the brains & the braun of the international ‘liberal world order’, and the few multi-nationals who think they are entitled to control all people and all things, by virtue of being smarter and better than the rest of us.
    This is a thousands year philosophy of soils vs souls, land is king, man is a beast, and ruler vs ruled. I’ve included a video, please watch, that examines somewhat the Anglo, US (5 Eyes, Great Game, alliances with anti democrats, etc) connection, but there are many places to research this. I strongly recommend the Spider’s Web documentary for the same sense of who’s behind world affairs and why it’s not just up to US citizens to kick out our govt and peace will break out around the world. It’s not that simple. We are all in this together.

    I add, too, one reason a boob like Trump is SO hated and MUST be removed is BECAUSE he’s not part of the UK/US club, he’s an outsider, and has talked about a Russia, China US relationship. That’s a death warrant for him and is the main reason why the UK and US created his removal thru Russiagate.
    Btw, if this prints twice, it wouldn’t be the first time (rather cleverly put, if I may say so). But, apologies if it does.


    1. “here is no Democrats vs Republicans, no conservatives vs progressives, and the ‘Empire’ isn’t a U.S. phenomenon. There is ‘the people vs the elites’ or the 99% vs 1%.”
      I agree 100%. I would add “no left versus right” to conservative versus progressive. Although these 4 words seem to be convenient shortcuts, they are counterproductive and divisive to the nth degree, IMO, which is exactly why they are used so often in the MSM. Just as you say, it’s we, the average people of the world against the Elite of the WORLD as in one single place rather than as many places as there are “nations”. National boundaries mean absolutely nothing to the transnational Elite.

    2. I should have also added that national boundaries are another “legal” means that transnational Elite use to avoid laws and regulations that are “local” to individual nations. The EU and “Five Eyes” are the perfect examples. In the case of the latter, national governments can spy on their own citizens, even if that is illegal, by telling the other “eyes” to do the spying and then share information. In the case of the EU, “Brussels” decides everything for all the nations that are members of the EU. The ECB is the only “place” the Euro can be printed (out of thin air, no less), so when a nation like Greece gets out of hand, Euros start getting very scarce and very long lines start to appear at ATMs.

  8. First, I have no dislike of Russia. Three of my ancestors emigrated from there to the U.S. I do have a dislike of the American war machine, fueled by and profited from by the oligarchs who have pull the strings on nearly everyone of our politicians.
    Second, NBC (and MSNBC) are owned by the cable company Comcast which, in turn, was founded by the Roberts family, who are now both its chief officers and arch-conservatives. Like nearly all mainstream media, money comes above all else and, maintaining the status quo is crucial to them. They can tolerate a neoliberal if they must, but god forbid a real progressive might rise far enough to be a threat to that status quo. In part, that is why Russiagate is nonsense. If the Russians were going to meddle at all, it would have been Bernie Sanders that they shot down, not Hillary Clinton who, no matter how much they dislike her, was (in the short run) no real threat to an unchanging world scene.
    In Tolkein’s Lord of The Rings trilogy, Mordor did not give up easily; it rained its terror until the last but, eventually was defeated by the forces of good (many believe that the trilogy was about a benevolent U.S. that saved the world in WW II, but a U.S. that is no longer recognizable in that form). So, as I see it, there are two possible futures for this country. One will be a continuation of the current slide into complete totalitarianism or, the alternative, the Second U.S. Revolutionary War of Independence. In the grand scheme of things, Russiagate may come to be of minimal direct significance.
    Of course, either one does depend upon the survival of the human species in a world that has already begun to strike back against the abuses levied on it by humans.
    Who will be the victor? Your guess is as good as mine.

  9. I saw that someone named Sherrod Brown was being touted as a potential Democratic presidential candidate and had a quick look at his wiki entry. Quelle horreur!

    He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Russian studies from Yale University in 1974. Clearly he is a long–term Russian sympathizer, err, fellow traveler, err, plant just waiting to betray the secret Coca Cola formula to the dastardly Communists Soviets KGB well somebody over there.

    The interesting and scary thing is that the insane level of fear and paranoia we are seeing in sections of the US population is something that has been there since the US War of Independence and probably before.

    I fell over an interesting article from back in 1964 that describes some of the waves of paranoia and hysteria that has hit the USA. It is The Paranoid Style in Politics by Richard Hofstadter (Harpers Magazine, 1964.) https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

    A couple of selected quotes:

    It is a notorious fact that the Monarchs of Europe and the Pope of Rome are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and religious institutions. We have the best reasons for believing that corruption has found its way into our Executive Chamber, and that our Executive head is tainted with the infectious venom of Catholicism …. The Pope has recently sent his ambassador of state to this country on a secret commission, the effect of which is an extraordinary boldness of the Catholic Church throughout the United States.

    It is amazing the country survived such an onslaught. The Catholics even got to the president. Now where have we heard something like this?

    McCarthy pictured Marshall as the focal figure in a betrayal of American interests stretching in time from the strategic plans for World War II to the formulation of the Marshall Plan. Marshall was associated with practically every American failure or defeat, McCarthy insisted, and none of this was either accident or incompetence. There was a “baffling pattern” of Marshall’s interventions in the war, which always conduced to the well-being of the Kremlin.

  10. IMO, it is absoultely necessary for people to “look at the bigger picture”, but within the big historical context, in order to imagine the intimate details of a better way forward. IMO, this great article does exactly that. Caitlin, I think you in particular are going to appreciate it, and it may perhaps stimulate your to write in some new directions.

  11. “Even more hilariously, the source [was] . . . New Knowledge.” As with the First Draft Coalition, there is nothing hilarious about it. Step by step, as scripted and staged, this is the next planned point: NBC News, world stage, boldly crammed into everyone’s faces. This is no longer a “McCarthyite environment of Russia hysteria”; it is now, blatantly, beyond. “This article is of course [obscenely] absurd..” Yes, and this is where/when they know that most know what is actually taking place. “[T]hey got their ‘new Pearl Harbor.’” “[T]hey got their” retroactive immunity. “[T]hey got their” (never to end) war on terrorism. “[T]hey got their” desired memos – to cover all. “[T]hey got their” WMD modus operandi. “[T]hey got their” new definitions (torture is enhanced interrogation). It is time, their time, the very time “they” concocted. And, anyone who dares stand for or speak Truth to Power will be targeted – obviously, ruthlessly, soullessly.

  12. Other issues are of more concern than that of the false Russiagate bullshit. Gabbard walked out of the DNC with the knowledge they riggeg the primary against Sanders, doing so within a silence of it happening. Ties to Steve Bannon and far right groups out of India. In which there was a conservative family relationship with her father also, involving money trails.

    From Jacobin

    “In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

    In other words, Gabbard would continue the Obama administration’s foreign policy, which itself was a continuation (and in some ways ramping up) of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. She would keep up the drone bombing of seven Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa — perhaps even expand it — while also relying more on special operations forces, which are already raiding, assassinating, and gathering intelligence in 70 percent of the world’s countries.

    This isn’t antiwar, it’s just war on a different scale. This is also another version of silence. A silence about the fact that there are no terrorist if we don’t fund and supply weapons to create terrorist. Every terrorist group out there has been the creation of ours and other governments, epecially the UK’s, to lead the programs of regime change for profits of the deep state in some manor. From Latin America to Afghan Charlie to Iraq, Lybia, then Syria. All having been funded and supported mostly by the US to install far right governments to pillaging resources. In Latin America using the IMF to destroy economies.

    She did not agree with the Iran deal, another bogus enemy to fear monger against. That conservatives loved her for.

    Breitbart gleefully quoted her in headlines expressing “many” and “great” concerns over the deal as it was being negotiated. On the day the agreement was finalized, she issued a statement saying, “We cannot afford to make the same mistake with Iran that was made with North Korea,” citing North Korea’s abrogation of the Agreed Framework agreement it had signed in 1994. When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his unprecedented speech to Congress in March 2015 in an attempt to torpedo the deal, Gabbard didn’t join the significant number of Democrats who boycotted the speech. She attended it.

    Another Israeli lover? We love their warring though, huh?

    In light of this, the fact that Gabbard received a “Champion of Freedom” award at the Jewish Values Gala — an awards ceremony held by the World Values Network, which was founded by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, an enthusiastic Trump supporter — in between campaigning for Sanders is less puzzling.

    On Rabbi Shmuley’s Facebook page, Gabbard’s award win is recounted in the same post that celebrates making then–Secretary of State John Kerry renounce his statements that Israeli policies contribute to terrorism against Israel. A photo from the event shows Gabbard posing with Rabbi Shmuley and Miriam Adelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson (Adelson himself is a major Trump supporter, and happens to believe Palestinians are “a made-up people”). As her Democratic primary opponent pointed out, Gabbard has introduced Adelson-backed legislation to Congress before.

    This pretty much sums up my silence statement above.

    So what is the cause of terrorism, according to Gabbard? Islam, of course.

    Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend


    1. Great comment. Unfortunately, you may be right. We’ll see her real stripes soon enough. If she doesn’t start talking about how she intends to transition the US economy from a war-based one to a peace-based one, that will indicate to me that she is not anti-war, nor anti-imperialsim; in other words, another Sanders or O’bomb’em.
      IMO, the goal of the Ds this time around is going to be to field Bilderberger-approved Ds of ALL stripes as sort of vote “vacuum cleaners”. Whatever you believe in, there will be a D that you can vote for. Then, just like the last time around, all of these candidates will throw their support behind whatever “hope and change” O’bomb’em clone becomes the D side of the same coin in the election. After Mr. or Mrs or Ms or Whatever becomes POTUS, that person will slip on O’bomb’em’s shoes and order the State Dept., etc. to continue the wars of USD hegemony around the world for the benefit of US corporations.

      1. I totally agree! This democratic primary is being played out just like the circus of the 2016 republican primary with over 20 candidates. It only magnifies the inability of the party to be one of unity and actually proves it of being one of a creation of drama to capture the sheep in an illusion of false hope. I have little doubt Trump was virtually hand picked even before the primary of 2016 started. He was, IMO, the one chosen to move the country as far right as they could get away with. A win, his, will move us further right, a loss, will be a warning sign to many Americans being unhappy and temporarily slow the pace, as they continue the same policies that have now been established. It has been the cycle since the Reagan era. They will not allow us to become so disenfranchised that we actually have enough citizens give up and begin voting for the Green Party , like myself and others, having awaken from the 2 establishment party perception management and the media they use as their tool to keep them in ignorance. They and the media rig 2016 with virtually billions in free avocation for Trump. The silence to the rigging of the democratic primary by both parties is not a coincidence. It is a collaboration of agenda! And Russiagate was a means to fool the public and distract them from the reality of that agenda.

      2. Sandernistas chose to ignore what Black Agenda Report said about Sanders being the sheepdog and how this is played out during s(e)lection cycles.

        Will Gabbard be the new sheepdog/ positioning herself already for V.P.?

    2. I have posted this earlier about Gabbard and it was removed. Another so called “left darling” Ocasio-Cortez is willing to ‘evolve’ on her stance concerning Israel.

      I highly recommend people watch “The Lobby” to see how dissent is undermined in the Anglo-Zionist empire.

    3. Former U.S. congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has been talking about “The Lobby” for years.

      1. The interviewer Hashemi(US citizen) in the clip above was recently held in a U.S. prison for eleven days without cause.
        “Arrest of Marzieh Hashemi reveals bipartisan nature of police state”

  13. “…the narrative control firm New Knowledge, which was recently embroiled in a scandal for staging a “false flag operation” in an Alabama Senate race which gave one of the candidates the false appearance of being amplified by Russian bots.”

    “One” of the candidates? This was a purely leftist hit job. I have a feeling if this op was done instead by the right against a leftist opponent that that fact would not have been masked.

    Smearing someone personally because of their political views is the first thing the left does with anyone who does not agree with them. So it is interesting to watch the left, once again, display their hypocrisy.

    Otherwise another good article – as usual – by Caitlin.

  14. Klaus von Berlin Avatar
    Klaus von Berlin

    Well written Caitlyn .those who peddle bullshit are fixtures of American society.the bullshit artist now occupies important position,from the white house ,in the media world ,he abounds on madison avenue .his stock in trade is hype, rhetoric and verbal mirage.In the end bullshit deprives us of the vital political arguments and as a result, most of the populace have withdrawn from critical dialogue.

  15. Johny Conspiranoid Avatar
    Johny Conspiranoid

    Tulsi Gabbard is still a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Controlled Oposition?

  16. “The social engineers have succeeded in constructing a narrative control device which encapsulates the entire agenda of the unipolar world order in a single bumper sticker-sized talking point:..”

    ‘Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia’ until they are not. ‘Oceania has always been at war with Euroasia’ until they are not.

    Trump, Putin and Xi have close ties to Henry Kissinger.

    1. Trump is pulling us out of Syria. Out of Afghanistan. Ending the Yemen conflict. Working with North Korea despite push-back from the intel community and undermining by the Dems. Forcing the EU to meet their own defense obligations. Take off your blinders.

      1. I’ll believe he’s pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan after it’s happened. Meanwhile, he’s advancing longstanding neocon agendas against Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and WikiLeaks, just like the neocons and war whores he surrounds himself with have long wanted.

      2. Charles, what Caitlin just posted. Watch what a man actually does, not what he says.

        1. I’ll believe Trump’s not some clever psyop when hard core criminals from the Bush, Clinton, and Bath House Barry Obama Crime Families do hard time in prison where they have long belonged, when the troops come home from the longest war in U.S. history, when troops come home from Syria, and when N. and S. Korea are unified. So far Trump has been more of a neoconartist than the former alcoholic, coke head moron son of pedophile, closet case GHW Bush, serial rapist Bill Clinton, and closet case Bath House Barry Obama aka drone boy. There are some positive points to Trump’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder caused chaos. He’s rapidly hastening the already precipitous decline of the U.S. Empire. Trump pushed U.S. Empire off a cliff toward which it was rapidly rolling anyway, and in 20 years, one won’t recognize the U.S. which will be in economic shambles. The phony funny money petro dollar accounts for increasingly smaller, and smaller percentages of total global trade. If the Chinese were sinister, and they can be, particularly after they were sufficiently brain washed by the psychotic, sexual deviant Mao, with his Cultural Revolution, they would rapidly dump all their U.S. Treasury holdings, and suck up the suffering it would bring to their people. It’s likely the rest of the world that holds U.S. debt would do the same and without the ability to float phony funny money debt, the U.S. Permanent War For Profits Party that occupies the Capitol Building wouldn’t be able to continue waging its illegal, undeclared wars on the rest of the world. The Chinese in the past have gutted out mass suffering under Mao so it wouldn’t be too difficult for them to do it yet again. The Chinese are good at their own phony funny money economics, so they could quite easily match Trump’s narcissistic induced economic chaos. Of course, those of us in the U.S. who like purchasing useless crap made by Chinese 12 year olds toiling in sweat shops that would make the predatory capitalists of 19th Century America quite jealous would have to suffer a bit.

          1. Dennis, I agree that Trump is just the current puppet. All of politics is just Kabuki theater.

      3. We must consider ALL possibilities of the results of secret, ongoing negotiations between the three superpowers (of one type or another).
        The Big Three all have, essentially, the same whatever you want to call it (henceforth simply “W”) economy. Therefore, all three Ws require imports and exports to one degree or another. For example, China is very dependent upon exporting manufactured stuff to the world. Russia is dependent upon exporting agricultural products and oil. The US is the world’s greatest exporter of war and some technology and movies and, most of all, weapons and war. The latter two are extremely expensive, so the US is digging itself into a debt hole that is literally impossible for it to “pay back”.
        Although Agent Orange hopes to turn back the clock and MAGA by becoming what it was right after WWII — what China is today, that will be impossible because many other nations can manufacture and grow their own stuff.
        Again, the Big Three are vitally dependent upon exports and will literally fight to maintain their export markets — their “interests”. This leads to certain unpleasant realities that are making themselves known this very day. Push is coming to shove.
        Which leads us back to ALL the possibilites of secret negotiations. IMO it is possible that AO has made a deal with China and Russia in which they have decided “spheres of influence” or, in gangster terms, whose territory is whose. AO is supposedly going to remove troops from Syria, Afghanistan, and he’s supposedly going to make nice with North Korea. In return, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi are going to respect, essentially, the Monroe Doctrine.
        Although the above might avert a nuclear war, the peoples of the other nations of the world are going to continue to be ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of the Elites of the Big Three. Unfortunately, W being what it is, this will only be a delaying tactic for either worldwide revolution, environmental disaster or, again, nuclear war. That is because W is a fatally flawed “system”.

        1. “Which leads us back to ALL the possibilites of secret negotiations. IMO it is possible that AO has made a deal with China and Russia in which they have decided “spheres of influence” or, in gangster terms, whose territory is whose. AO is supposedly going to remove troops from Syria, Afghanistan, and he’s supposedly going to make nice with North Korea. In return, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi are going to respect, essentially, the Monroe Doctrine.”

          Ish, I think you are hitting it right on the head. The latest talk has been the ‘progress’ being made between the trade war between China and the U.S. while at the same time the war in Syria is winding down with Syria and Russia as the clear victors.

          Concurrently Oceania pivots to South America.

    2. That’s interesting, because we know about the ‘close ties’ UK and US politicians at the highest levels have with Kissinger. I confess I didn’t know about his connections to Putin and Xi but if, as you say, they also have ‘close ties’ to Kissinger, perhaps he could act as intermediary and, in his last years on earth, soften his legacy somewhat from war and torture to world peace.

  17. Caitlin I am a first time commentator and I love what you are doing. Having studied Carl Jung for a long time I am inclined to offer another interpretation of the conflict you so well describe. The capitalist ruling class is an expression of collective psychological ego-mania, and they are battling with the collective unconscious for control. For the West Russia represents to Europeans the activity of the collective unconscious, from which the real solution is in the process of emerging. This for me reveals the deeper unspoken fear that the ego has of the unconscious. The western ego maniacs can hardly accuse the unconscious of stealing their hegemony (election) from them so they must project that onto Russia and unconsciously know they have to desperately hammer away on Russia because their real feared enemy (the unconscious) cannot be named. Makes sense to me and opens the door to a deeper psychological/spiritual understanding of the conflict.

    Do you know much about Jung?

  18. Another good one CJ. Never too many paragraphs; maybe the next one is the one that lights the light for someone new.

  19. The influence of Russia on American politics is insignificant compared to the influence of Israel. Yet the left doesn’t seem to be bothered by the endless wars in the Middle East for no discernible American interest. The Russians are doing their best to keep their heads above water. Why don’t we deal with the real problem?

  20. “Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, as I never tire of saying.”
    “Narrative” 12 times in this essay. Good show! Since it’s so important, how do you gain control of it? What should readers do about it? What is the purpose of “saying” it? Can you provide a synonym for it?

    1. You’re literally the only person I’ve ever seen voicing objection to this word, so I’m not going to spend a lot of energy on this. I’ve written extensively on what I mean by that word and what readers can do to seize control of the narrative. Here are a few examples:





      1. “You’re literally the only person I’ve ever seen voicing objection to this word…”
        Get literally used to it.
        I enjoyed reading all 3 examples. #3 would have been enough. Really a lot of very good stuff there. Thanks much. I especially like the parts about mental constructs and chattering. So true. I wonder how much of that is words. You know, once a path is made, it’s usually settled. Chemistry can help break habitual thinking for some but not all.
        I also enjoyed the movie, The Matrix. Action packed and full of surprises. Realistic? Well, you can’t have everything, right? I found it just a tad short on dot connecting.
        I like the desert and the mountains in the desert. Me and Don Juan go way back. Have you ever gone to the Outback alone and pitched a tent in a place so remote, you thought nobody had ever been there before? Then you go to dig a hole for your crap and there’s an old rusty can. Happens all the time. So many people.
        But you’re doing great. You show a good grasp of the power of propaganda. Never stop learning. Please do keep in touch. Tata!

      2. Caitlin,
        I left a post about RCV in reply to William a few hours ago. Weirdly, it hasn’t appeared in the comments but when I tried to repost it just now, I got the message that it is a duplicate. I think my other posts have posted immediately. I did include a couple links in the RCV post so I wonder if they were a no-no, or if I’m being moderated. I usually get moderated for a while before being banned altogether, which has happened countless times on various fora since the advent of the Net. So, I’m wondering what’s up?
        On another matter, since I’ve acquired a few logically challenged pea brains, I would like to clarify my thoughts on narratives as you have defined them, especially in your linked Matrix post. That post was what I needed to see what you mean by the term. That’s what I’ve been trying to get at. A review of my prior comments on this term should make that clear, although I realize it may not because some people don’t comprehend plain English very well.
        That stated, my opinion of the term has not changed. It has nothing to do with what I “think” it means. It has little to do with what Oxford or Webster says it means. It has to do with real world use, connotations and associations. I had suspected that your idea was to replace Establishment propaganda with collectivist propaganda. I’m still not sure about that.
        I appreciate your leftist utopian view because years ago, I was a leftist. I’ve probably read more Chomsky than you. I even attended one of his lectures. But I’m not comfortable with labels. I remain antiwar in general and I support reduction of the US military footprint around the globe. This we have in common. Sorry to dispute the validity of your core concept, but I am not controlled by narratives, and neither am I “Woke.”
        Your Matrix post acknowledges why I found your narratives difficult to conceptualize. To me, it’s still mushy and it’s a spoon. At the same time, you have an engaging style and impressive following. I hope you help some get beyond the propaganda. I see the huge investment you have made in the concept. I also read with great interest how you saw narratives as key to your utopian “new operating system”:
        “…together, we’ll not only smash the narratives that imprison us like a human caterpillar swallowing the narrative bullshit and forcing it into the mouth of the next slave, but we’ll also create new narratives, better narratives, healthier narratives, for ourselves and for each other, about how the world is and what we want it to be.
        Because here’s the thing: since it’s all narrative, anything is possible.”
        “New narratives?” Would that be like collectivist narratives? Sounds like magical thinking. But people do eat this kind of thing up. Cults especially thrive on it. Are you still into astrology too?
        What happened to my post to William about ACV and compulsory voting? That’s real world stuff. Realistic ideas for positive change. Not allowed here in the narrative matrix?

    2. Rod, you repeatedly claim that Caitlin should not use the word “narrative” because it is not accurate. So I will ask yet again, What is the correct word you think she should be using instead?

      1. He doesn’t know. Too much peyote, desert heat, and dryness, and Carlos Castaneda, who ran a creepy cult, and wrote a bunch of weird books, has fried his brain into oblivion. Castaneda was a creation of the CIA, and Rod bought it all hook, line, sinker, and peyote. https://logosmedia.com/SpiesinAcademicClothing_MKULTRA

        1. Dennis, good MKULTRA reference. But I think it could simply be intellectual cowardice at play here too.

        2. You’re always good for a laugh, Dennis. However, I do prefer your Skankles commentaries.

          1. Thanks, Rod, and I read all of the works of Carlos Castaneda twice, and I found them intriguing because I appreciate mysticism. I tried to find a reference I recall from one of his books I read while I was in high school to the non-stop internal dialogue that rambles on endlessly in the human mind bringing some sense of order, or disorder in the case of most, I suppose, but I couldn’t find it. I think it was in the first book, and was made by the supposed Yaqui Indian, Don Juan. Do you recall it? If so, which book was it that contained it?

        3. “Do you recall it? If so, which book was it that contained it?”

          I sorta do but I don’t remember which one. I think I still have the first 5 or 6 of them They started getting too far out for even me. Nothing like running thru the Chihuahua in Big Bend on a full moon, dodging diamondbacks. Oh yeah!

          1. Oh well, in any event I just wanted some confirmation that I read it, even if I could not later find it when I reread his works. If you have a chance, read through the post I linked above from logosmedia about the CIA’s roll in creating the drug culture of the late 1960’s. It’s quite a fascinating read. Castaneda is mentioned in it, and I was always a bit suspicious of his story of his supposed work as a graduate student of anthropology at UCLA, and when I later learned that he was really just the head of a weird cult of women, similar to Charlie Manson, except without the murders, his bizarre stories, probably all fictional, made sense. He was just a dope head novelist, albeit a rather clever one.

      2. He doesn’t say because he doesn’t have one. Caitlin has given him far enough of her time. If he’s going to quibble over a term that he doesn’t seem to want to expand his vocabulary around, there’s nothing you can do for such people. The old expression ‘lead a horse to water’ is applicable here. If he hasn’t been able to see a narrative slant to every mainstream news story, it’s because he’s being intentionally obtuse.

        1. Baby, agreed.

        2. Right outta the woodwork, eh Baby Gerald? May I call you SFB for short?

      3. “Rod, you repeatedly claim that Caitlin should not use the word ‘narrative’ because it is not accurate.”
        Straw man. Never happened. 100% liar.
        Obsessed psycho-poster?

        1. Rod, your response to Greg posted Feb 3:

          “Greg, the question is how effective is the word. How well does it communicate the author’s intended meaning? I submit that the word ‘narrative’ is not effective. I further submit that the word’s connotations do not convey the author’s intended meaning. In fact, they undermine her thesis.”

          Rod (posted in a previous CJ post), “There is always a better word for whatever is intended by this misuse of the word narrative.”

          So I will ask one more time What word do you think is more accurate than “narrative”?

          1. How about “conspiracy theory”? Russiagate is not a narrative, it’s a conspiracy theory. Claiming 2 parties ‘colluded’ is by the exact definition a conspiracy theory. So let’s put the negative connotation where it belongs. The Covington boys ‘berating’ a poor Indian: conspiracy theory. 19 highjackers on 9/11, seven of whom are verified alive: conspiracy theory. “Old white men” out to get (your victim here): conspiracy theory. Wage gap: conspiracy theory. Trump promoting violence against CNN: conspiracy theory.
            All of the media is just one big conspiracy theory. When is the last time the news gave you an actual detailed account of an event, with only verified facts and figures and no editorial? Probably before you were born. Accuracy and the use of the right word went out the window years ago. It’s time to fight fire with a flamethrower. The alt media simply have better journalists and better personalities. Sadly these folks will have to go slumming and beat the MSM at their own game. And they can. But if the accurate reporting of the news paid any dividends the MSM would still do it. We have the numbers on our side. When we start screaming ‘conspiracy theory’ about everything, it will be more than enough to drown out their cries, and maybe just drown them completely. Then we can craft our new ‘narratives’.

            1. Dutch, the term “conspiracy theory” was invented by the CIA to create a mistrust of those who would dare question the official government version of JFK’s murder. Whenever I am called a conspiracy theorist I proudly inform the accuser that I am a government story fact checker and since the evidence is clear the gov is not telling the truth then yes, I am a conspiracy theorist. Then I ask them if they believe the official story is completely true or not. I have yet hear anyone reply that they do believe the official story 100% thus making them also conspiracy theorists as well.
              What astonishes me is how anyone can think that TPTB do not plan (conspire) to do anything. That is all they do.

        2. Mr Scum: “So I will ask one more time What word do you think is more accurate than ‘narrative’?”
          Right, so I answered this question quite directly in a previous post without even being asked. Since you’re so obsessed with trying to catch me slipping up somehow, you really should pay closer attention. Since I’m a nice guy, I’ll repeat: It depends on the context and the author’s intent.
          No follow-up questions will be entertained. You’re welcome.

          1. Rod, if you do not know the author’s intent or the context then how can you claim that her use of the word “narrative” is improper? And if you do know the content and the author’s intent and you proclaim that the word “narrative” is improper then logically you should be able to say what is the proper word the author should use instead of “narrative”. So which is it?

            I think it is rather obvious to any unbiased reader that you are being obtuse to avoid answering my simple, legitimate question. I will let the reader decide for herself/himself why you refuse to answer.

            1. Another straw man, Box o’ rocks.
              Nobody cares.

  21. Anyone who is against the spreading of freedom and democracy at the point of a gun and with a high expenditure of high explosives is obvious a …… “Pinko Commie” (Cold War 1.0 version) or ….. “Putin’s Agent” (Cold War 2.0) version. After all, there’ plenty of money to be made, supplying the army with the tools of the trade, and anyone interfering with the rich getting even richer is obviously an anti-American Putin Commie.

  22. I guess it is safe to say, in addition to “If the US Government and its media propaganda arms dislike it, I like it,” I should add, “If the Kremlin likes it, I like it!” Does that make me a RussBott or some such?!?!

    What a Bizarro World we live in – the US really is the Evil Empire our mothers warned us about!

    1. I would not go so far as to totally endorse the Kremlin’s likes. You could end up endorsing beet borscht and pickled herring in sour cream.

      1. Love the tongue-in cheek. still, while I can’t stand beet borscht, I love picked herring in sour cream (and thin sliced onions, of course).

        1. Pickled herring yes but hold the sour cream.

Leave a Reply