Listen to a reading of this article:

There’s a very important question that we all need to be asking ourselves at this point in history, and that question is as follows: how much are we as a society willing to sacrifice so that the US government can win a propaganda war against Vladimir Putin?

Let me explain.

One severely under-discussed aspect of the latest round of escalations in Silicon Valley censorship which began at the start of the Ukraine war is the fact that it’s an entirely unprecedented order of censorship protocol. While it might look similar to all the other waves of social media purges and new categories of banned content that we’ve been experiencing since it became mainstream doctrine after the 2016 US election that tech platforms need to strictly regulate online speech, the justifications for it have taken a drastic deviation from established patterns.

What sets this new censorship escalation apart from its predecessors is that this time nobody’s pretending that it’s being done in the interests of the people. With the censorship of racists the argument was that they were inciting hate crimes and racial harassment. With the censorship of Alex Jones and QAnon the argument was that they were inciting violence. With the censorship of Covid skeptics the argument was that they were promoting misinformation that could be deadly. Even with the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story it was argued that there was a need to protect election integrity from disinformation of potentially foreign origin.

With censorship relating to the Ukraine war there is no argument that it’s being done to help the people. There is no case to be made that letting people say wrong things about this war kills Ukrainians, Americans, or anyone else. There is no case to be made that disputing claims about Russian war crimes will damage America’s democratic processes. It’s just, “Well we can’t have people saying wrong things about a war, can we?”

Ask a properly brainwashed liberal why they support the censorship of someone who disputes US narratives about Russian war crimes in Bucha or Mariupol and they’ll probably tell you something like “Well, it’s disinformation!” or “Because it’s propaganda!” or “How much is Putin paying you??” But what they won’t be able to do is articulate exactly what specific harm is being done by such speech in the same way that they could when defending the censorship of Covid skeptics or the factions responsible for last year’s riot in the Capitol building.

The one argument you’ll get, if you really press the issue, is that the United States is in a propaganda war with Russia, and it is in our society’s interests for our media institutions to help the United States win that propaganda war. Cold wars are fought between nuclear powers because hot warfare would risk annihilating both nations, leaving only other forms of war like psychological warfare available. There’s no argument that this new escalation in censorship saves lives or protects elections, but there is an argument that it can help facilitate the long-term cold war agendas of the United States.

But what does that mean exactly? It means if we accept this argument we’re knowingly consenting to a situation where all the major news outlets, websites and apps that people look to for information about the world are geared not toward telling us true things about reality, but toward beating Vladimir Putin in some weird psywar. It means abandoning any ambitions of being a truth-based civilization that is guided by facts, and instead accepting an existence as a propaganda-based civilization geared toward making sure we all think thoughts that hurt Moscow’s long-term strategic interests.

And it’s just absolutely freakish that this is a decision that has already been made for us, without any public discussion as to whether or not that’s the kind of society we want to live in. They jumped right from “We’re censoring speech to protect you from violence and viruses” to “We’re censoring speech to help our government conduct information warfare against a foreign adversary.” Without skipping a beat.

The consent-manufacturing class has helped pave the way for this smooth transition with their relentless and ongoing calls for more and more censorship, and for years we’ve been seeing signs that they view it as their duty to help facilitate an information war against Russia.

Back in 2018 we saw a BBC reporter admonish a former high-ranking British navy official for speculating that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria was a false flag, a claim we now have mountains of evidence is likely true thanks to whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The reason the reporter gave for her objection to those comments was that “we’re in an information war with Russia.”

“Given that we’re in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it’s inadvisable to be stating this so publicly given your position and your profile? Isn’t there a danger that you’re muddying the waters?” the BBC’s Annita McVeigh asked Admiral Alan West after his comments.

We saw a similar indication in the mass media a few weeks later in an interview with former Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was admonished by CNN’s Chris Cuomo for highlighting the completely uncontroversial fact that the US is an extremely egregious offender when it comes to interferences in foreign elections.

“You know, that would be the case for Russia to make, not from the American perspective,” Cuomo said in response to Stein’s entirely accurate remarks. “Of course, there’s hypocrisy involved, lots of different big state actors do lots of things that they may not want people to know about. But let Russia say that the United States did it to us, and here’s how they did it, so this is fair play.”

Which is the same as saying, “Forget what’s factually true. Don’t say true things that might help Russian interests. That’s Russia’s job. Our job here on CNN is to say things that hurt Russian interests.

We can trace the mainstreaming of the idea that it’s the western media’s job to manipulate information in the public interest, rather than simply tell the truth, back to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential win. In what was arguably the most significant political moment in the US since 9/11 and its aftermath, the consent-manufacturing class came to the decision that Trump’s election wasn’t a failure of status quo politics but a failure of information control.

In October 2020 during the Hunter Biden laptop scandal The Spectator‘s Stephen L Miller described how the consensus formed among the mainstream press since Clinton’s 2016 loss that it was their moral duty to hide facts from the public which might lead to Trump’s re-election.

“For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over what I will call the ‘but her emails’ dilemma,” Miller writes. “Those who reported dutifully on the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server and spillage of classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids’ table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have been highlighting Trump’s foibles. It’s an error no journalist wants to repeat.”

Once “journalists” accepted that their most important job is not to tell the truth but to keep people from thinking bad thoughts about the status quo political system, it was inevitable that they’d start enthusiastically cheerleading for more internet censorship. They see it as their duty, which is why now the leading proponents of online censorship are corporate media reporters.

But it shouldn’t be this way. There’s no legitimate reason for the Silicon Valley proxies of the most powerful government on earth to be censoring people for disagreeing with that government about a war, yet this is exactly what’s happening and it’s happening more and more. It should alarm us all that it’s becoming increasingly acceptable to silence people not because they’re circulating dangerous disinfo, nor even because they’re saying things that are in any way false, but solely because they are saying things which undermine the US infowar.

People should absolutely be allowed to say things which disagree with the most powerful empire in history about a war. They should even be allowed to say brazenly false things about that war, because otherwise only the powerful will be allowed to say brazenly false things about it.

Free speech is important not because it’s nice to be able to say what you want, but because the free flow of ideas and information creates a check on the powerful. It gives people the ability to hold the powerful to account. Which is exactly why the powerful work to eliminate it.

We should see it as a huge, huge problem that so much of the world has been herded onto these giant monopolistic speech platforms that conduct censorship in complete alignment with the mightiest power structure in the world. This is the exact opposite of putting a check on power.

How much are we as a society willing to give up for the US government and its allies to win a propaganda war against Putin? Are we willing to commit to being a civilization for which the primary consideration with any piece of data is not whether or not it’s true, but whether it helps undermine Russia?

This is a conversation which should already have been going on in mainstream circles for some time now, but it never even started. Let’s start it.


My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

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

77 responses to “How Much Are We Prepared To Sacrifice To Help The US Win A Propaganda War Against Putin?”

  1. thorsjackhammer Avatar

    It’s interesting that the ISS (international space station) is a US/Russia/Europe/Canada/Japan thing and China is ‘banned’ by NASA due to national security concerns, yet, Russia is not considered a threat. Russia also has supplied USA (among others) with the most powerful rocket engines available for satellite launching and space exploration, for decades. This would be be considered shooting oneself in the foot in any other competitive field, and certainly in national security scenarios. So many holes in the official narratives to plug up, these are just a couple.

    1. Sounds like crazed conspiracy theorizing when you type it out like that but all true. It’s got to make for some awkward exchanges on the ISS lately. Humanity needs to collectively escort the national security people out of the building.

      1. thorsjackhammer Avatar

        Honestly Ted, I’m just sitting back and watching all these bullshit full of holes MSM narratives unfold, fully knowing there always will be a vicious struggle for the ‘ruling elites’ to be THE one an only ‘global ruling elite’. Hierarchy is human nature for the ALPHA’s. A double edged sword that you hope you’re on the right side of. If ever there’s a bioweapon that selectively wipes out sociopaths, then I’m all for its deployment. Someone said to me something many years ago along these lines – when there are only sociopaths left on this planet, they will then proceed to wipe each other out. Perhaps we are already at that point?

        1. I think an underappreciated evolutionary component of human behavior is the drive to compel others to aggression against each other (ie, sociopaths). If you think about it, this is significantly more advantageous than individuals being aggressive themselves. If an individual can compel others to mutual violence then they significantly increase the total violence directed at competitors without being exposed to violence themselves. Do the math. It seems the evolutionary pressure selecting for this trait would be significant, and would explain why politicians are for the most part hate mongering trash.

          1. thorsjackhammer Avatar

            Exactly. But there are things called evolutionary dead ends. So, we can only hope that applies to sociopaths. Politicians are the stooges of the sociopaths, puppets that take the heat if necessary. As puppet proxies they often slip and mirror their masters true nature.

  2. I think it’s not as much about how much we are willing to give up as it is about how much we have yet to gain. When it comes to European wars, no opposing views were tolerated here in the US during World Wars I and II either. At least we aren’t putting American citizens of Russian descent into internment camps, yet…

  3. Paul Rackemann Avatar
    Paul Rackemann

    Thanks for pointing out something I hadn’t quite grasped: the fact that this is war propaganda, with no pretense that it is for our own good. It is easy to get into the habit of thinking that it’s just the same old rubbish.
    It could be, though, that the censors have overstepped themselves this time. I recall that something like that happened around the year 1950, just slightly before my time. In America, Senator Joe McCarthy’s effort to regulate everyone’s thoughts to control Communism was defeated. In Australia, the government of the day passed something called the “Communist Party Dissolution Act,” which was an attempt to do the same thing, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia, as I recall it from my history lessons.
    Perhaps other people may be able to tell us more detail.

    1. it wasn’t really defeated; McCarthy was eventually disgraced when he went after the Pentagon, but HUAC and the like continued, ably supported by McCarthy pals like JFK. I think HUAC formally ended in 1975.

  4. Blessthebeasts Avatar

    This is just a continuation of the nonstop propaganda and censorship we have been bombarded with for the last two years. People tolerate and even embrace it.

    1. Demand it, you mean… At least half of them. Tough shit for the other half :o)

  5. I don’t watch TV and I get my news from the Antiwar and Russia Times sites so I miss most of the censorship, at least the western side of it. I would actually be kind of OK with people being pliable brainwashed nitwits if we weren’t all in the same boat going over the same falls.

    I think the core problem is hominids in the big city. Humanity as a group lacks the cognitive and emotional depth to properly function in the modern world. This could change in 50,000-100,000 years if technology stayed constant. We’re fucked. So to answer your question “Are we willing to commit to being a civilization for which the primary consideration with any piece of data is not whether or not it’s true, but whether it helps undermine Russia?” the answer for most people is yes. Truth is a distant second to hatred. Always has been. I don’t know what the answer to this is, but I know it won’t involve the majority of humanity thinking like you and me, because they won’t.

    1. Hatred with the “good guys”‘ (TM) blessing! Can’t get any better than that – short of killing with the “good guys”‘ (TM) blessing of course, the icing on the cake…

  6. US propaganda is reprehensible and other aspects of its behavior are worse. Overall, the USA may well be the world’s most harmful nation. Nevertheless, I ask, Who is fleeing the US for greater freedom to express their opinions? So far, I have few candidate. We should recognize that the evil that flows from the US may be more due to its reach and power than to the proportion of its people who are bad actors.

    1. Edward Snowden? Solzhenitsyn? Then again, if there are others, would we necessarily know their names? Have we polled Guantanamo? And of course there are those, like MLK, who get shot for expressing their opinions and those who are driven to suicide like Gary Webb. Sometimes with a couple of bullets to the back of their heads…

  7. ZIO/US/NATO militaries are nothing but FVCKING resources thieves !

    As we well know the whole ‘ Democracy ‘ thing is complete BS !

  8. The war will be over on May 9th ! 
    Russia are just way too powerful
    !Russia has some awesome sh!t

  9. “An insatiable thirst to learn.”
    A night walk through the dark and seedy mean streets of Nanjing.
    China should scrap its 100 year plan, in my opinion, just toss the fucker in the garbage. It’s already accomplished that in twenty, might as well start working on a one thousand year plan.
    Or a one million year plan. How ’bout it China, can you think that far ahead?
    The idea that the United States can take on China in any meaningful way* is the single stupidest concept I’ve run into in my lifetime.
    If I was the United States, I would eat some humble pie and sign up for the Belt and Road. And if your worried about giving up your sovereignty America, don’t, because you gave that up long ago.
    And maybe, just maybe, the whole genius behind what China is up to with their Belt and Road machinations, is it that it not only wants nation-states to act in their best sovereign interests, it requires them to, before they’re allowed to sign up.
    There’s the rub though. The neo-liberals in the West have no interest in peoples, governments, nation-states, being a part of a greater good, getting local, going green, saving the environment, preventing the biological annihilation of a planet … and so on. When they think planning and infrastructure, they see multiple banks of high frequency supercomputers trading at the speed of light, holding stocks for less than a fraction of a millisecond.
    Talk about not thinking ahead. That’s my country. We must adhere to a one nanosecond plan that’s not even ours.
    *Unless you think nuking your rival is meaningful, of course. Which is the only military option for the US, as it has no proxies in the vicinity of China, to do the fighting for them.

    1. Night walk, Shanghai.
      I’ve been on about 12 of these “night walks” through China’s major – and minor – cities and I have yet to see a scrap of paper on the ground. Not even a gum wrapper, let alone a used up piece of gum. The Communist Party must’ve banned gum chewing or something, on some oppressive whim.
      I did see some plastic garbage in creek bed during a day walk through a rural village, enough perhaps to fill up half of a tall kitchen bag. That was disappointing. I guess you can’t centrally plan away all of your troubles.
      Central planning. What an interesting concept. So utterly reviled in the West, yet so eagerly embraced by China; because it affords them, in my opinion, the best opportunity to achieve a kind of greatness unheard of in human history, on every fucking level imaginable.

      1. A night walk through the rock bottom backwater city of Liuyang.
        It earns its lowly Tier 5 designation. Looks like the most of the city was built before the year 2010. Disgusting. And I’m fairly certain I saw at least a few scaps of paper my vitual walk, and more than a dozen fallen leaves, both of which I found quite disconcerting.
        Fast forward to the last segment to get a better idea of what a hell-hole this sad little city in the mountains truly is.

  10. What sort of protection wou;d you suggest at water level ???

    1. I don’t know but if you’re gonna float sitting ducks, you might as well leave them at home.

      1. Did Noah have one?

  11. When the 10 week special operation ends on May 9th – well – Russia will have kicked the SH!T out of NATO who- of course – are pretending NOT to be NATO !

  12. Russia is far too sophisticated for the WEST !!

    Russia simply can’t be stopped

    This is how Russia does it in Ukraine – Syria and in my opinion Afghanistan !

    1. Pity they didn’t have any of that protection on their flagship though… Words are cheap.

  13. Isn’t that bluecheck hysteria about the Twitter sale a bit excessive though with the snowflakes seeking comfort to get through the week and all the usual suspects up in arms?
    What’s that? Armageddon?
    Well… some think that the problems Musk faces are linked to the fact that the only way Twitter can operate is if it’s run by… the government (that is the deep state part of the US government):

    Now of course, that’s different… But it would explain a lot!

  14. The volume of propaganda from the western media has been astonishing. I’ve wondered if it is the psychological version of waterboarding. It might not kill your body, but it can destroy a one’s ability to think clearly. A person can extricate themselves from it, but first must realize they are being propagandized; and then put some effort in finding other reliable info sources.

    Sadly, some would just rather put a Ukraine flag on their social media or house, chirp “Putin bad!” and get back to coloring Easter eggs. We apparently are living in a time “where logic and proportion, have fallen sloppy dead.” Grace Slick-White Rabbit

    1. Ms. Slick gets my vote for the greatest vocalization ever.
      As for psychic waterboarding, yeah, I agree. That’s what this is. As the orginal Grand Inquisitor Torquemada himself learned in his 16 years of torture preeminency, waterboarding is the most effective technique for maximizing pain, eliciting confessions, and generally destorying minds – either slowly, or rapidly. Your choice.
      And what are we seeing at the moment? A lot of free speech loving Americans are indeed confessing that they need more and more censorship or else they will be driven batshit insane by those evil truthtellers.

  15. The root of this issue can be found in US history before the writing of the Constitution or even the Articles of Confederation. The authors of these documents were adamantly against democracy. They feared a “leveling effect” should the entire population have a say in the running of the country. If you want to strike terror in the hearts of rich people, threaten the means of their parasitism. Since all governments run to some degree on public opinion, it’s necessary to give the illusion that all opinions matter, even if they don’t. The best way to do this is to limit the acceptable range of debate; to engineer consent, as Chomsky put it. It’s easy to get the opulent class to buy into this because it protects their fortunes. The tiers of society directly below the opulent will also buy in as this fits their aspirations to be opulent themselves. The remainder are of no consequence as the are effectively excluded from positions of influence. They get to vote for candidates carefully selected for them and no more.

    This explains the media campaign to demonize Putin and by extension Russia. To the opulent class Russia exists to be asset stripped for the enormous profits to be had. Anyone who impedes this agenda, whether foreign or domestic, must be portrayed as a monster or eliminated from the discussion. Censorship in the US is more subtle than throwing people in jail or closing down a newspaper. You can say whatever you like but you can be heard only if you internalize the values of the opulent class. Tweak the algorithms so that truly dissenting opinions remain in the minority and offer it as proof the system works. Yes, it does work, just not for you.

    1. As the saying goes, the system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.

    2. It also explains why the US goes to a lot of trouble to convince everyone that it is the bastion of democracy but behaves otherwise with multiple systems engineered to bypass the will of the people at all levels of government.
      The lie is built in to everything it does from then onwards. It is fundamentally dishonest and thereby corrupt – right from the start.

    3. thorsjackhammer Avatar

      Pretty much, yep, agree with most of that. But I’m not so positive that Russia is not playing a controlled opposition role with the West, with the mutual target being China. The space station is a good clear example. Why is China left to an truly independent space station program, yet, the ‘West’ and Russia have a shared space station program. Not to mention that Russia has supplied the US, among others, with the most powerful rocket engines for decades now. Isn’t that called shooting oneself in the foot in any other competitive environment? Since the dissolution of the USSR, things may not be as they (MSM portrayed) seem.

  16. Great to see these comments and of course the top quality article from Caitlin. Thanks.
    Its mindboggling that most people who support this sensorship cant see its absurdity. It started with restricting hate speech and now it is all about hate speech towards russians.

  17. The propaganda war against Fauci is having the same chilling effect.

    1. You mean the Dr Frankenstein who unleashed this monster?

      1. Do you still think I work for big pharma?

      2. Hong Kong, with low vaccination rates, especially among the elderly, is seeing much higher death rates than countries with high vaccination rates, as this graph shows:
        from ‘Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy’,
        or, minus paywall,

      3. Naomi Klein wrote Disaster Capitalism to illustrate the very situation we find in Covid. From the beginning, there were effective public measures to contain and control Covid, but they were not followed; furthermore, when Covid became pandemic, neoliberalism’s shortcomings were revealed.
        Covid in America was a public disaster, but not for the elites who profited economically and politically. It is silly to pick on one element of the total failure and assume, for example, that if it were not for Dr Fauci and vaccines, everything would be OK. That people are angry and confused by the Covid pandemic is understandable, that they try to find a culprit is the usual human response.
        I say look to the larger issue of capitalism’s neoliberal world order as a system designed to only care for the very few at the top, as a system incapable of providing for the public good.

    2. That’s rich considering the actual Fauci-instigated “chilling effects” against open discussion of really important medical science stuff like early treatment, dietary and health supplements, the role of natural immunity, the truth about mask-wearing, the utility of lockdowns, the origin of the virus, and just about anything else related to “pandemic response.”
      So what is this propaganda war against Fauci you speak of? Show by your examples who/what is experiencing a chilling effect.

      1. You just accused a complete stranger of lying based on what you were told by a greedy millionaire with an agenda (RFK Jr.). Why do you suppose RFKJ didn’t prove what he was saying? Fauci can’t out spend him, why wouldn’t he show us all this proof he has? And why do Putin, Xi and the world’s leading virologists agree with Fauci about the value of vaccines? Because they all work for Biden’s big conspiracy?

        1. Been at that brandy again?

          1. What brandy is that?

              1. I haven’t had alcohol in over a month, no brandy for at least ten years. Proving once again that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    3. Clearly, a debt-based economic system operated within compound interest policies, cannot sustain itself. Michael Hudson advocates for a debt Jubilee, essentially a ‘start over’ as John Knox implies as a good thing. Hudson in his Super Imperialism treatise shows how the Americans used its foreign currency imbalances to force the world to support its military adventures, its foreign capital accumulations, and its reluctance to raise taxes. It is past time to undo this wrong and return to a world where investment is not tied to usury and where people earn a living sufficient to provide for their needs.

      1. Good luck with that!

  18. “What if you could start over, without debt, and the house would be yours, if you claimed it as yours, under an alternative system?”
    It’s tough action, this starting over process, as so many leaders of nation-states have found out the hard way. Saddam and Muammar being the foremost examples, the first hung and second sodimized to death by bayonet.
    The interesting point Glazyev keeps making; the threat to Russia is more internal than external. Russia can survive anything the West throws at it (outside of nuclear warheads), and will eventually thrive, as long as it can extirpate the treasonous neo-liberal presence in Russia, especially at the highest levels of the banking system.
    This is still proving difficult, however.
    Putin was a neo-liberal globalist sell-out, that’s the bottom-line. This new Putin we’re seeing, the one now claiming his only interest is in doing what’s best for Mother Russia, better watch his back. His foremost enemies at this point, in my opinion, are those forces inside his country that recognize this is a necessary turning point in history, and if he proves unwilling to go along, then he will violently eliminated, along with the rest of Russia’s neo-liberals.

    1. Apologies. I messed up. This a reply to John Day’s two very insightful comments below.

      1. Hey Vlad the Censor Man, let me give you a piece of kindergarten advice, don’t ban YouTube.
        You’re such a dumb ass. You really are. Still copying the West. Hey, if they do it, I gotta do it too!
        Your enemies are not vloggers like Eli Vlad. Yes, she does occassionally offer a few oblique criticisms of your government, but if you think about it, mostly, she just states the obvious.
        For instance, in this video, she points out that you are in charge of a nation-state that is uber-fucking wealthy in resources, so there is no reason why Russia can’t become one the happiest and healthiest societies in the history of civilizations, sanctions be damned.
        Besides, every Russian vlogger that I have had the good fortune to come across, paints your nation – more or less – in a good light. So if you want to make some headway againt the Westerm propaganda shitstorm that is currently blowing you away, I would suggest allowing them to continue doing what their doing.
        Neo-liberals never learn. Also, as the host of this blog has repeatedly pointed out, if you really are confident in the justness of your cause and the ultimate victory of it, you should have nothing to fear from those despicable scoundrels that spread dis, mis, and muy (!) mal information.

    2. Putin bashing, Putin hating has been a US national pastime since about 2002 when he corralled the ‘Made In America’ oligarchs and kicked vultures like Bill Browder out of Russia. I follow Russian Studies scholar Professor Stephen F Cohen in this analysis. So Putin is reviled as a neoliberal autocrat by the left and a murderous dictator on the right; in between, he is just seen as a paranoid madman out to restore the Soviet Empire. The truth is he is simply a Russian nationalist who did not bend to the neoliberal powers that used people like Boris Yeltsin to rape Mother Russia. Putin restored Russian lives to something akin to normalcy and prosperity after the collapse of the Soviet Union–for which he enjoys immense gratitude from the people. He may not be an ideal ruler, but he is by no means an autocratic dictator; rather he is a premium politician and statesman with an enormously difficult political task in an enormously diverse, problematic Russia.

      1. Well said. That is exactly right. Putin is also very knowledgeable about world history and geopolitics. He is very intelligent. He stands heads and shoulders above the US President (not that that is any great accomplishment) and other political leadership in the US. All the US “leadership” knows is bribes, threats and war on any nation that does not follow US orders. The US State Department is composed of incompetent neocons who know nothing about practicing diplomacy. When compared to the professional diplomats of Russia and China, they are a deep source of embarrassment. This was on full display when Blinken and company tried (and failed) to lecture the Chinese delegation about the fraudulent US “Rules Based International Order”. Now the fool in the oval office is further embarrassing us by engaging in ad hominem attacks on other heads of state, e.g. accusing Vladimir Putin of genocide. Can no one in Washington shut the fool up?

  19. I am prepared to send your children, husbands and fathers to fight Russia. I am prepared to have your homes destroyed and families displaced to fight Russia. I am prepared for nuclear weapons to be used in your cities to fight Russia. I am prepared to have you go through whatever hardship necessary to fight Russia. I am committed.

    1. Yes… you should be. Worst poetry I have encountered.

  20. Caitlin is absolutely right!! There should be ZERO censorship. There are a few reasons for this.

    1) the need for censorship assumes that most people are mindless sheep that will believe anything and everything – this is wrong

    2) protecting people from hate speech – nonsense. Get the hate speech out so we can know those who are purveying this garbage.

    3) everyone must have a voice, nazis, evangelical nut cases, antisemites (who believe the world is run by a baby-eating cabal of Jewish bankers), morons that believe Bill Gates is putting tracking chips in vaccines etc.

    Alex Jones should not have been censored – he wound up paying the price for his lies about the Sandy Hook school shootings by being sued by the parents of the victims. All must have the freedom to voice their opinions.

    This is the only way the rest of us can track what the stupids are up to. You censor people on the internet and America could wind up electing a flat Earther to the presidency.

    1. A flat earther might be better than the current warmongering but bumbling and senile fool.

  21. Not having media censorship would definitely be unreasonable.

    Imagine people were allowed to say that Victoria “Fuck the EU” boasted of spending $5 billion (a tidy sum) of US taxpayers’ money to sponsor the coup that ousted democratically elected president Yanukovych and was perpetrated by Ukrainians of nazi persuasion who then proceeded to forbid the use of Russian in the Donbass and shelled them for eight years when they rebelled for a final score of 14,000 dead.

    Imagine people were allowed to say that nobody in the Western media gave a fuck about it because Ukraine was a Democratic hunting ground where the sons of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, among others, could make pots of money with only a visiting card and part of this money ended up in the pockets of the political brands they represented.

    Imagine people were allowed to say that this was what Trump’s impeachment was really about, his request that Zelensky had a look into that scheme being a bridge too far for the likes of Alexander Vindman and George Soros who had vested interests in putting a hermetic lid on the monumental corruption the US was bringing to Ukraine which had already been at Guinness levels for years, with a few Western-compatible oligarchs robbing the population blind – like in Russia in the 90s.

    Imagine people were allowed to debate whether it was a good idea for the West to train Ukrainian troops instead of enforcing the Minsk agreements.

    Imagine people were allowed to discuss whether building biolabs in Ukraine was the best way to promote peace and love.

    Imagine people were allowed to discuss whether accusing Putin for four years, without a shred of evidence, of being Trump’s handler and assassinating or trying to assassinate opponents like Nemtsov, Navalny, Skripal & Co was a fair attitude.

    Imagine people were allowed to debate whether the Covid scam with its overreaching power grabs by WEF trained global leaders on flimsy scientific grounds with the help of corporrupt media joined at the hip with Big Pharma was the first globalist coup on a worldwide scale that, for one thing, provided regime change in the US.

    Imagine if people were allowed to point out that the Covid scam ruined the economy for them and wonder if the present spike in energy and food prices due to illegal sanctions is the continuation of the same policy toward “by 2030, you’ll own nothing and be happy” while we own everything and make you slave for us, including injecting you with all the crap we can think of.

    Imagine if people were allowed to say that contrary to what we learn at school, the government is our worst enemy whose cruelty has no limit as currently illustrated by the treatment of Julian Assange and the bombing of Yemen over which the Western media don’t even have one crocodile tear to shed.

    What would the world be coming to? Why not give people freedom and true democracy while you’re at it instead of the best one money can buy?

      1. In days gone by, speaking the language and understanding the culture were common assets among US diplomats. Nowadays, seeing other nations’ points of view is considered largely irrelevant; a US diplomat’s role is to communicate orders, threats and ultimatums. Nonetheless, there’s some truth in this:
        ‘ As the New York Herald-Tribune put it in 1857, in the United States “diplomacy is the sewer through which flows the scum and refuse of the political puddle. A man not fit to stay at home is just the man to send abroad.” Only one thing has changed about this in the last 165 years. Female campaign donors and celebrities now compete with men for appointments to what they imagine are ambassadorial sinecures in plummy places abroad, leaving seedy and dangerous places to lifers. ‘

        1. Another gem, by Matt Taibbi this time: how the guys who have pushed for censorship for years in the billionaires’ media (like the Wapo) complain that a billionaire (Elon Musk) buying a media (Twitter) to restore free speech would be bad for… free speech. Errr…

          When do they create a Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy?
          As Taibbi points out, “couldn’t Musk just leave Twitter in the hands of responsible, speech-protecting shareholders like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?”

          1. i think that’s the Nobel Peace Prize, they just haven’t bothered to change the name.

    1. Imagine a different world where Victoria Nuland would be shamed for instigating a murderous coup instead of being met by the mainstream corporate media with only with chuckles over her vulgar speech .

      This real world is the state of corruption that America has fallen into.

      America, eater of hog feces.

  22. The US government of course loves that the journalists are now propagandists, and nobody is going to investigate the governments misdeeds, with Assange still being punished.
    It is an inverted world and it will come to an unexpected end – because reality still matters, and karma is a bitch.

  23. Thank you, Caitlin! I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Here are a few of them.

    We’ve gone from “anti-hate” censorship to “responsible health” censorship (both saving lives, as you point out) to some kind of new McCarthyism—with the latter beginning around the 2016 election and the idea that Trump was/is affiliated with Russia. But unlike McCarthyism, with its detest for “communism” and “communists”, the new primary target is the leader of Russia; and, in the background, the leader of China!

    “State-sponsored media” (the example used by Twitter) is a McCarthy-like means of labeling points of view in an effort to dissuade people from curiosity and plant fear. This is exactly what went on before the start of the Cold War.

    I once unearthed old “Life” and “Look” magazines in my parent’s basement from the years immediately following WWII (as few as six months later, I recall). Peppered in with the new happy existence were strange musings of what the USSR might really be about (beginning as few as six months later, as I recall).

    I ran across these magazines in the late ’70s while in my teens, and couldn’t believe how quickly our press had turned against a former ally. I didn’t understand it. Six months after? Hadn’t we just stopped the bad guys and were then resuming normal lives?

    It’s taken all these years, but now, I think I’m beginning to understand.

    The course to prosperity and public obedience in our capitalist world is to always have an enemy at hand. Within our own political system (in the US), it seems to have worked: Vote for the lesser of two evils. The accompanying shaming if you dare question or want something/someone else has generally served to round people up and get them moving on in the right direction. But, after the leak/hack of the Democratic party’s emails and the capital riot/insurrection (dependent upon what you’re reading), the censorship kicked into a higher gear, which leads me to believe that the lives at stake are no longer the peoples’ (as you point out, Caitlin), but the elites’.

    We are being primed for the new McCarthyism, but on a world scale.

    1. “The Truman Doctrine: Beginnings of the Cold War
      The Forum

      President Harry Truman’s address to the United States Congress, and the world, in March 1947 is seen by some historians as marking the start of the Cold War.

      In it, the President committed the USA to the role of defender of global democracy, and pledged to contain the expansion of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. The Truman Doctrine, as it became known, led to the establishment of NATO and, later, US involvement in conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

      But, as Bridget Kendall discovers, the speech and the policy it set out were by no means inevitable – both were shaped as much by misunderstandings and exaggerated fears as they were conflicting ideologies and the actions of the former World War Two allies.”
      (40 minutes)
      or to download:

      PS The programme doesn’t naively take ‘the role of defender of global democracy’ at face value.

      1. Well, Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in ’46 was the first public kick-off (and, yes, Brits & US fascist counterparts had it all ready, already). After FDR died, UK, US finally came out publicly as a couple, they had a baby with 5 eyes. Ugly thing.

        1. Frankly, its pretty hard to point at any one state. I think its bigger, and lots of players, and if you smash one bug on the kitchen floor with a shoe, there are probably still lots more bugs you can’t see.

  24. Caitlin, I fully agree with your comments. I also disagreed with all the censorship of the persons and events you mentioned, for which there were pretexts invented to justify it. The censorship of the story on Hunter Biden’s laptop was particularly egregious because the intelligence agencies intervened to prevent the people from learning important information which would have, and should have, influenced the outcome of a national election. No, I am not a Republican or a Trump supporter. I have never voted for a Republican for national office. The obvious point is that we should not allow our politics to be elevated above our basic civil rights (assuming that we even have left after the attacks which “our” government has made on them for the last 20+ years).
    We should also understand that this attack on our civil liberties did not begin with the propaganda war against Russia on Ukraine or in connection with the other events you mention. It began in earnest immediately following the 9/11 attacks and was, and continues to be, a premeditated assault on on our constitutional rights, particularly under the 1st and 4th amendments. We, the people, are deemed to be the enemy in this war. The electoral/political system which the 1% has managed to install, with the help of a corrupt Supreme Court, is illegitimate. It has succeeded in converting our democracy into a kleptocracy in which the people have almost no influence. The neoliberal economic system installed by the Reagan administration, then enthusiastically endorsed by Clinton, is designed to, and has, enable the ruling class to disempower the people and enable the 1% to loot working people. It has accomplished its intended purpose and has resulted in the greatest inequality of wealth in the history of this Country. Mission Accomplished! With the implementation of these plans to impoverish working people was born the need to (1) keep people in a state of ignorance – the thieves (my name for the 1%) began with an advantage on that point due to the fact that the American people are shockingly ignorant, largely because they have not yet figured out that they are not going to get anything but establishment propaganda from the tv news; and (2) the need to curtail our civil liberties, particularly our right to privacy and our right of free speech and press. These dual purposes have been largely accomplished by the foolish passage by a foolish Congress of laws which has allowed the government to spy on us in every way possible and via censorship.
    Any doubt about whether the Democratic Party would oppose the effective repeal of our freedom of press and speech was removed by Biden’s decision to continue with the meritless, trumped up, case against Julian Assange. The focus now is on the shamefully dishonest “propaganda war” against Russia. As important as that is, the even more important war is the war on our civil liberties which is being waged against all of us. Few people, including the “liberals” have grasped this reality, event though it is glaringly obvious to anyone really paying attention. Please take note of what the US has done to everyone who has had any success in revealing its many war crimes, followed, per standard procedure of demonizing the “offenders”, followed by an ignorant and foolish people (the majority, unfortunately) accepting the false charges against the offenders, the result being the acceptance of the censorship. Can enough people wake up to this reality to resist the ongoing assault by “our” government and its powerful propaganda agents? Given their performance to date, I would not bet a nickel on it.

    1. “The neoliberal economic system … has resulted in the greatest inequality of wealth in the history of this Country. ”
      Internally, maybe. Globally, the US share of global wealth peaked some time ago.
      1960: 40% of global GDP; 2019: 24%.

      1. And this chart, from Piketty, says wealth inequality in the US peaked around 1910, though of couse measuring wealth another way might give different results.
        (from )

      2. I am referring to the movement of wealth within the US from the working people to the rich, what we now refer to as the 1% and the 99%, respectively.

        1. According to this, the top 1% in the US had around 45% of the wealth in 1910, and 35% in 2010, though in terms of movement of wealth, their share’s probably been increasing since then.

  25. By my observations, the US attempt to manufacture consent for regime change in Russia has succeeded. In Facebook and Twitter, the vast majority of posts and comments cheerlead the Ukrainians killing Russians and depict Putin as a deranged, dictatorial monster with designs to at the least restore the Soviet Empire and perhaps march on Washington. People have been made afraid and angry, and they refuse to admit the slightest contradiction to the official narrative.
    That this may only be temporary and that the public will see through the propaganda has been floated, but I recall how many years it took for the Vietnam War narrative to fall apart and there are still holdouts in favor of the War on Iraq.


    Until 2016, this is how I viewed Fox.
    Since then, this is how I view ALL US Corporate news.

  27. The first ten Amendments of the US Constitution is commonly named the Bill of Rights.

    These Rights do not guide the behavior of the Governing State/Ruling dictatorship, but allow for individuals to challenge the violation of these Rights by the Governing State/Ruling dictatorship.

    So an individual has merely the right to bring a suit in court against the government violation of their rights, which is only possible if one has the time and money to bring that suit.

    Government appeals up to the (supremely political) Supreme Court (such as an constitutionally mandated accounting of the budget) are deemed to be political issues, so get your billions of dollars together to elect a Congress in support of your single issue.

    The Constitutionally mandated Declaration of War has been flaunted, not by a Constitutional Amendment, but by a Congress indifferent to the people’s rights, concerned only with the Corporate Person-hood.

  28. Exclusive: Russian geo-economics Tzar Sergey Glazyev introduces the new global financial system
    The world’s new monetary system, underpinned by a digital currency, will be backed by a basket of new foreign currencies and natural resources. And it will liberate the Global South from both western debt and IMF-induced austerity.
    The Cradle: Michael Hudson specifically asks that if this new system enables nations in the Global South to suspend dollarized debt and is based on the ability to pay (in foreign exchange), can these loans be tied to either raw materials or, for China, tangible equity ownership in the capital infrastructure financed by foreign non-dollar credit?
    Glazyev: Transition to the new world economic order will likely be accompanied by systematic refusal to honor obligations in dollars, euro, pound, and yen. In this respect, it will be no different from the example set by the countries issuing these currencies who thought it appropriate to steal foreign exchange reserves of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Russia to the tune of trillions of dollars. Since the US, Britain, EU, and Japan refused to honor their obligations and confiscated the wealth of other nations which was held in their currencies, why should other countries be obliged to pay them back and to service their loans?
    In any case, participation in the new economic system will not be constrained by the obligations in the old one. Countries of the Global South can be full participants of the new system regardless of their accumulated debts in dollars, euro, pound, and yen. Even if they were to default on their obligations in those currencies, this would have no bearing on their credit rating in the new financial system. Nationalization of extraction industry, likewise, would not cause a disruption. Further, should these countries reserve a portion of their natural resources for the backing of the new economic system, their respective weight in the currency basket of the new monetary unit would increase accordingly, providing that nation with larger currency reserves and credit capacity. In addition, bilateral swap lines with trading partner countries would provide them with adequate financing for co-investments and trade financing.

  29. This is the real war, the economic regime-change war. That’s whi this IS WW-3…
    What holds “debt slaves” in their servitude?
    “I owe my soul to the company store.”
    The lack of any alternative is what holds individuals, families, communities and nations in debt-peonage.
    What if such an alternative were to be born into the world of global commerce?
    The American and allied militaries have destroyed nations and rulers which tried to sell oil for anything but dollars, or to create a real alternative system.
    Iraq and Libya are examples. There are others.
    Western military alliances like NATO have destroyed or severely punished any nascent threats to $US hegemony until now. Russia is a direct military competitor to US/NATO and China is a direct economic competitor, and they are in alliance, driven there by the hostile actions of “the west”, militarily and financially.
    During the “Cold War” era, many countries ostracized by the US were supported by Russia, notably Cuba. This was one of the factors which collapsed the economy of the USSR. Both Russia and China have had collapses, recovered and rebuilt along nationalist market-based economies, with rapidly rising living standards for their citizens. They are not perfect, of course, but this contrasts sharply with the west, where real wages for most working people have been stagnant or falling for 45 years or so.
    Debt has filled in the gaps between paycheck-to-paycheck jobs, credit card debt, mortgage refinancing debt. you have to keep food on the table, and gas in the tank.
    What if you could start over, without debt, and the house would be yours, if you claimed it as yours, under an alternative system? Would you switch systems? What if the old system threatened to kill you if you failed to keep paying? What if that threat became less credible as other neighbors survived, and were helped by members of the new system.
    Would you opt into the new system and nationalize the oil wells and lithium mines, untegrate into the new system, and forget those EZ-monthly-payments?

Leave a Reply