Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov provokes laughter with claim his country is victim in Ukraine war
The veteran foreign minister was ridiculed at an Indian conference for suggesting that the West and Ukraine were the aggressors in the conflict.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia's longstanding foreign minister, provoked laughter from an audience at an international conference in India when he attempted to portray his country as the victim of the war in Ukraine.
Addressing the Raisina Dialogue, an event in New Delhi that debates the major challenges facing the world in politics and economics and one of few such events globally that still invites Russian politicians to attend, the 72-year-old staked the unlikely claim that Russia was trying to stop the war.
"The war, which we are trying to stop, which was launched against us using Ukrainian people, of course, influenced the policy of Russia, including energy policy," he said to a chorus of laughs and groans.
"And the blunt way to describe what changed: we would not anymore rely on any partners in the West. We would not allow them to blow the pipelines again," he continued, apparently referring to the explosions that caused damage to the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea in September 2022.
I wonder what was the "special military operation"...
I am confident now the Ukrainians were hurled at russian troops at the border. Russia probably had no other chance that to inv....counterattack the attacking Ukrainians in order to stop the hurling. You cant expect a (once) great nation like Russia to just stand put and watch the ukrainians being hurled at russian soldiers, do you?
And of course, the price for this cruel attack (of Ukraine, NATO, US, "the west") must be the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast, because thats what a great nation like Russia would do, because thats what a great nation like Russia deserves in compensation for this injustice.
This is a handy guide to the kinds of statements that make up pro-war propaganda, compiled by a Belgian historian.
We could use the list to play Bingo on this thread.
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
long version:
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves![edit]
According to Morelli, statesmen of all countries themselves have always solemnly assured that they do not want war. Wars are always undesired, only very rarely a war is seen positively by the population. With the emergence of democracy, the consent of the population becomes indispensable, so war must be rejected and everyone must be a pacifist at heart, unlike in the Middle Ages, when the opinion of the population was of little importance. "Thus, the French government mobilizes the army and announces at the same time that mobilization is not a war, but on the contrary the best way to secure peace." "If all the leaders are inspired by the same will to peace, one wonders why wars break out after all." The second principle provides an answer to this question.
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war![edit]
Morelli puts forward that this principle follows from the fact that each party assures to be compelled to declare war in order to prevent the adversary from "destroying our values", endangering our freedom, or destroying us altogether. It is the paradox of a war that is waged to prevent wars. This leads us almost to George Orwell's mythical phrase: "War is peace." In line with this understanding, the US was forced to wage war against Iraq, because Iraq had left no other choice. They react only, defending themselves against provocations of the enemy, who is fully responsible for the outbreak of the war. "Daladier assures in his 'Call to the Nation' on September 3, 1939 - taking over the responsibility of France for the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles -:' Germany has already refused to respond to the people with a good heart at this time have raised their voice for peace in the world. [...] We wage the war because they force it on us. '"Ribbentrop justified the war against Poland by saying:" The Fuehrer does not want war. He resolves on this with a heavy heart. But the decision on war and peace does not depend on him.[2] It depends on Poland. In certain vital questions for the Reich, Poland has to give in and fulfill the demands that we can not do without. If Poland refuses, the responsibility for a conflict lies with her and not with Germany. "(p. 16 in the French original) In the same sense, on January 9, 1991 we could read about the Gulf War in Le Soir: "The peace that the whole world desires more than anything else, can not be built on simple concessions to an act of piracy."[3] The same is true of the Iraq war, because before the war broke out, on September 12, 2002 Le Parisien titled: How Saddam prepares for war.
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil[edit]
Morelli writes: "You can not hate a group of people altogether, not even as your enemies. It is therefore more effective to direct the hatred to the leading personality of the enemy country. This way, "the enemy" will have a face, and this face will naturally become the object of hatred."
She comments: "The victor will always portray himself as a pacifist who loves peaceful agreements and mutual understanding, but is forced into war by the opposing camp, as Bush or Blair did." "The enemy camp is most certainly run by a maniac, a monster (Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), (...) which challenges us and from which one must free humanity."[4]
The first step in the process of demonization, according to Morelli, is the reduction of a whole country to a single person, as if nobody lived in Iraq, except Saddam Hussein with his "scary" Republican guards and his "frightful" weapons of mass destruction.
Personalizing conflicts is typical of a particular view of history, according to which history is made by heroes, by "great people". Anne Morelli rejects this view of history and writes tirelessly about what official historiography conceals. The official account of history is idealistic and metaphysical in that it assumes that history is the result of great ideas and great people. She opposes this view with a dialectical and materialistic one, in which history is explained from the basis of the relations between people and from social movements.
The opponent is characterized by all conceivable ills and evils. They range from the physical appearance to sexual life. Thus, Le Vif in L'Express on April 8, 1999 depicts the "terrible Milosevic", she quotes no statement or written document of the "ruler of Belgrade", but highlights his abnormal mood swings, his morbid and brutal outbursts of anger: "When getting in rage, his face is distorted. But all of a sudden, he will regain his composure." Of course, this demonization is used for other purposes as well, as all tools of propaganda are. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, reports that in the US university teachers who disliked Michel Foucault's popularity in their high schools wrote books on Foucault's private life. According to them, this "masochistic and crazy homosexual" practiced "unnatural, scandalous and unacceptable sexual practices." By disqualifying Foucault as a person, they could spare themselves the more difficult confrontation with the author's thinking or with the discourses of a political person and "refute" him on the basis of moral judgments.
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests![edit]
Morelli analyzes that the economic and geopolitical goals of war must be masked by an ideal, by moral and legitimate values. Thus, George W. Bush declared, "There are people who will never understand this. The fight is not for oil, the fight is against brutal aggression". Le Monde wrote on January 22, 1991: "The goals of this war are first and foremost the goals of the UN Security Council. We participate in this war for the reasons behind the decisions of the Security Council and the goal essentially is the liberation of Kuwait." "In our modern societies, different from Louis XIV's time, a war can only be started with the consent of the people. Gramsci has shown to what extent the cultural supremacy and the consent to government decisions are necessary.[5] This approval is easy to win if the people believe that their freedom, their lives and their honor depend on this war. "For example, the goals of the First World War can be summarized in three points:" - to destroy militarism, - defend the smaller states, - prepare the world for democracy. These very honorable goals have since been repeated almost literally on the eve of each conflict, even though they do not fit the true purpose." "It is necessary to persuade public opinion that we, unlike our enemies, go to war for infinitely honorable motives." "For the Yugoslav war, we find the same deviation of the official goals from the unacknowledged goals of the conflict." NATO officially intervenes in order to preserve the multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo and in order to prevent minorities from being abused, in order to establish democracy and thus in order to end the rule of a dictator. It is in the defense of the sacred concerns of human rights. But not only at the end of this war you can see that none of these goals have been achieved, you have moved remarkably far away from a multi - ethnic society and from violence against minorities, this time Serbs and Roma. This violence is part of everyday life, but you realize that the economic and geopolitical goals have been achieved that have never been never spoken of."[6]
Morelli adds: "The principle has a complement: that the enemy is a bloodthirsty monster representing a barbaric society."
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention[edit]
Morelli maintains that the stories about the atrocities of the enemy are an essential element of propaganda. Cruelties are part of all wars. But insisting on the view that only the enemy has committed atrocities and that the "humanitarian" army was loved by the population makes stories of atrocities part of the propaganda. Moreover, Morelli goes on, war propaganda is not content with the actual incidents, it needs to invent inhuman atrocities in order to make the enemy look like Hitler's alter ego.
She sees hardly any differences in the way atrocities are described in different wars. For the period of the First World War, Ponsonby portrays the rendering of gang rape, murder, mistreatment and mutilation of children by German soldiers. Morelli shows how similar reports from wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo are.
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons[edit]
Morelli views this principle as a complement to the previous one. "We do not commit atrocities but, on the contrary, we are going to war chivalrously, following the rules, as in a contest, of course, they are tough and masculine rules." There were furious protests in the First World War against the use of poison gas. Each warring party accused the other of having started it. Although both used gas as a weapon and had been doing research in this field, it was the symbolic expression of inhumane warfare. Therefore, Morelli concludes, it was attributed to the enemy as an indecent and deceitful weapon.
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable[edit]
Morelli explains this principle or commandment as follows: "With rare exceptions, people tend to join the victorious cause. In the case of war, the preference of public opinion depends very much on the apparent results of the conflict. If the results are not good, the propaganda must disguise our losses and exaggerate those of the enemy."
She cites the fact that already in the First World War the losses accumulated within the first month and rose to 313,000 casualties. But the Supreme Command never even reported the loss of a horse and did not publish a list of the dead.
Morelli sees the Iraq war as another example of the prohibiting the publication of photographs of the coffins of American soldiers. The losses of the enemy, however, were gigantic, their army offered no resistance. "This type of information enhances morale in both camps and makes public opinion convinced of the effectiveness of the conflict."[7]
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause[edit]
Morelli states that since the First World War, intellectuals have mostly massively supported their own camp. Each war party could count on the support of artists, writers and musicians who supported the concerns of their countries through initiatives in their fields of activity.[8]
She refers to caricaturists that she thinks are used to justify the war and depict the "butcher" and his atrocities, while others with their camera in hand, produce heart-moving documents about Albanian refugees, carefully selecting those that are most similar to the audience, such as the pretty blonde Albanian child with homesickness in the eye, who should remind us of the Albanian victims.
Everywhere, Morelli writes, "manifests" are published. The Manifesto of the Hundred, aiming at supporting France in the First World War, was signed by André Gide, Claude Monet, Claude Debussy and Paul Claudel. Closer to the present is the Manifesto of the 12 against the "new totalitarianism" of Islamism. These groups of intellectuals, artists and distinguished personalities justify the actions of their respective state power.
9. Our cause is sacred[edit]
This criterion is understood by Morelli in two different ways: in the literal sense, war presents itself as a crusade, backed by a divine mission. One must not escape the will of God, one must fulfill it. This view has gained new importance since George W. Bush took office, Morelli states. The Iraq war appears in this view as a crusade against the "axis of evil", as the "fight of good against evil". It is seen as a duty to bring democracy to Iraq, a value that sprang directly from the will of God. Warfare was thus the realization of the divine will. Political decisions take on a biblical character that eliminates all social and economic issues. The reference to God is made in many ways (In God We Trust, God Save the Queen, Gott mit uns [God with us], ...) and serves to justify the actions of the sovereign without any chance of contradiction.
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor[edit]
This last principle complements all others, Morelli explains. Whoever questions only one of the principles is necessarily a collaborator. There are only two areas, good and bad. You can only be for or against evil. The opponents of the Kosovo war are thus accomplices of Milošević. Whole groups are considered anti-American, Pierre Bourdieu, Régis Debray, Serge Halimi, Noam Chomsky or Harold Pinter. The "pacifist family" includes Gisèle Halimi, Renaud, Abbé Pierre... and their press organs, i.e. Le Monde Diplomatique and the PCF.
Therefore, Morelli says, it is made impossible to give a dissenting opinion without running the risk of a "lynching process of the media". The normal pluralism of opinions no longer exists, all opposition is silenced and discredited by fake arguments.
According to Morelli, this procedure was applied again in the Iraq war, although the world public was far more divided than in the Kosovo conflict. Being against the war meant advocating for Saddam Hussein. The same design was used in a completely different context, namely during the vote on the European Constitution. To be against the Constitution was seen to mean to be against Europe.
March 6, 2023 at 12:58 am (This post was last modified: March 6, 2023 at 1:35 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:This is a handy guide to the kinds of statements that make up the Actual Anti War Stance (because being against Russia's invasion is the Anti War Stance)
We could use the list to play Bingo on this thread.
Fixed the statement above. Also, it's rich to criticize other people on this thread when you are the coward who blocks everyone
Quote:1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
Yup because that is reality. One side invading. One side is defending. Kind of elementary as Ukraine has not invaded Russia. In fact, no one has invaded Russia. This isn't propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine and nothing anyone else did justifies that. Russia created the astroturf separatist movements and funded them. So no matter how you look at it Russia started the war. Also, NATO can take in any members it wants and any nation should be allowed to join NATO if they want to. None of that Justifies an invasion. This isn't propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
Putin is a demonstrable, Murderer, Liar, and Thug. His popularity is built solely on his iron grip on the media and his willingness to dispose of his critics. This isn't propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
No one arguing that. A stable free Ukraine is very much in Western interests as is curtailing Russian aggression in Europe. There is self-interest in punishing Russia for its actions by handing them a loss in Ukraine as it will hopefully move it away from such belligerent actions in the future.This isn't propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
By their own admission, they purposefully commit atrocities. And no one is saying Ukraine has been perfect in the war. No war is 100% clean in war. But the contrast between Russia's actions and Ukraine's actions is stark. And trying to pretend there has been equivalence is simply nonsense. This isn't propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
They do. Russia has used Cluster Munitions and Thermobaric weapons both are illegal under international laws. This is not propaganda it's a fact.
Quote:7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
No one arguing this. Ukraine's losses have been bad. But Russia's losses have been truly horrific. This isn't propaganda it's a simple statistical fact.
Quote:8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
That's your side's argument. You won't shut up about this expert or that expert supporting your position. Though most of the time their fringe opinions with clear biases or links to the Putin regime or like ironically you trying to take a list and force reality to fit it. Despite it not actually fitting what's actually going on.
Quote:9. Our cause is sacred
No one here is saying it is sacred. Russia by contrast puts all kinds of Religious hookum on this invasion.
Quote:10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
Considering just about every person you trot out in this thread either has links to Russia or consistent Russian sympathies. This holds true. Thus is not propaganda.
Quote:long version:
The long version is just as much nonsense as the short version only it uses more words to convey the nonsense. Sometimes it's not propaganda. Sometimes it's really how things are. Some times evil people start shit and you are within your rights to kick their ass.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
(March 5, 2023 at 10:58 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is a handy guide to the kinds of statements that make up pro-war propaganda, compiled by a Belgian historian.
We could use the list to play Bingo on this thread.
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
long version:
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves![edit]
According to Morelli, statesmen of all countries themselves have always solemnly assured that they do not want war. Wars are always undesired, only very rarely a war is seen positively by the population. With the emergence of democracy, the consent of the population becomes indispensable, so war must be rejected and everyone must be a pacifist at heart, unlike in the Middle Ages, when the opinion of the population was of little importance. "Thus, the French government mobilizes the army and announces at the same time that mobilization is not a war, but on the contrary the best way to secure peace." "If all the leaders are inspired by the same will to peace, one wonders why wars break out after all." The second principle provides an answer to this question.
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war![edit]
Morelli puts forward that this principle follows from the fact that each party assures to be compelled to declare war in order to prevent the adversary from "destroying our values", endangering our freedom, or destroying us altogether. It is the paradox of a war that is waged to prevent wars. This leads us almost to George Orwell's mythical phrase: "War is peace." In line with this understanding, the US was forced to wage war against Iraq, because Iraq had left no other choice. They react only, defending themselves against provocations of the enemy, who is fully responsible for the outbreak of the war. "Daladier assures in his 'Call to the Nation' on September 3, 1939 - taking over the responsibility of France for the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles -:' Germany has already refused to respond to the people with a good heart at this time have raised their voice for peace in the world. [...] We wage the war because they force it on us. '"Ribbentrop justified the war against Poland by saying:" The Fuehrer does not want war. He resolves on this with a heavy heart. But the decision on war and peace does not depend on him.[2] It depends on Poland. In certain vital questions for the Reich, Poland has to give in and fulfill the demands that we can not do without. If Poland refuses, the responsibility for a conflict lies with her and not with Germany. "(p. 16 in the French original) In the same sense, on January 9, 1991 we could read about the Gulf War in Le Soir: "The peace that the whole world desires more than anything else, can not be built on simple concessions to an act of piracy."[3] The same is true of the Iraq war, because before the war broke out, on September 12, 2002 Le Parisien titled: How Saddam prepares for war.
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil[edit]
Morelli writes: "You can not hate a group of people altogether, not even as your enemies. It is therefore more effective to direct the hatred to the leading personality of the enemy country. This way, "the enemy" will have a face, and this face will naturally become the object of hatred."
She comments: "The victor will always portray himself as a pacifist who loves peaceful agreements and mutual understanding, but is forced into war by the opposing camp, as Bush or Blair did." "The enemy camp is most certainly run by a maniac, a monster (Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), (...) which challenges us and from which one must free humanity."[4]
The first step in the process of demonization, according to Morelli, is the reduction of a whole country to a single person, as if nobody lived in Iraq, except Saddam Hussein with his "scary" Republican guards and his "frightful" weapons of mass destruction.
Personalizing conflicts is typical of a particular view of history, according to which history is made by heroes, by "great people". Anne Morelli rejects this view of history and writes tirelessly about what official historiography conceals. The official account of history is idealistic and metaphysical in that it assumes that history is the result of great ideas and great people. She opposes this view with a dialectical and materialistic one, in which history is explained from the basis of the relations between people and from social movements.
The opponent is characterized by all conceivable ills and evils. They range from the physical appearance to sexual life. Thus, Le Vif in L'Express on April 8, 1999 depicts the "terrible Milosevic", she quotes no statement or written document of the "ruler of Belgrade", but highlights his abnormal mood swings, his morbid and brutal outbursts of anger: "When getting in rage, his face is distorted. But all of a sudden, he will regain his composure." Of course, this demonization is used for other purposes as well, as all tools of propaganda are. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, reports that in the US university teachers who disliked Michel Foucault's popularity in their high schools wrote books on Foucault's private life. According to them, this "masochistic and crazy homosexual" practiced "unnatural, scandalous and unacceptable sexual practices." By disqualifying Foucault as a person, they could spare themselves the more difficult confrontation with the author's thinking or with the discourses of a political person and "refute" him on the basis of moral judgments.
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests![edit]
Morelli analyzes that the economic and geopolitical goals of war must be masked by an ideal, by moral and legitimate values. Thus, George W. Bush declared, "There are people who will never understand this. The fight is not for oil, the fight is against brutal aggression". Le Monde wrote on January 22, 1991: "The goals of this war are first and foremost the goals of the UN Security Council. We participate in this war for the reasons behind the decisions of the Security Council and the goal essentially is the liberation of Kuwait." "In our modern societies, different from Louis XIV's time, a war can only be started with the consent of the people. Gramsci has shown to what extent the cultural supremacy and the consent to government decisions are necessary.[5] This approval is easy to win if the people believe that their freedom, their lives and their honor depend on this war. "For example, the goals of the First World War can be summarized in three points:" - to destroy militarism, - defend the smaller states, - prepare the world for democracy. These very honorable goals have since been repeated almost literally on the eve of each conflict, even though they do not fit the true purpose." "It is necessary to persuade public opinion that we, unlike our enemies, go to war for infinitely honorable motives." "For the Yugoslav war, we find the same deviation of the official goals from the unacknowledged goals of the conflict." NATO officially intervenes in order to preserve the multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo and in order to prevent minorities from being abused, in order to establish democracy and thus in order to end the rule of a dictator. It is in the defense of the sacred concerns of human rights. But not only at the end of this war you can see that none of these goals have been achieved, you have moved remarkably far away from a multi - ethnic society and from violence against minorities, this time Serbs and Roma. This violence is part of everyday life, but you realize that the economic and geopolitical goals have been achieved that have never been never spoken of."[6]
Morelli adds: "The principle has a complement: that the enemy is a bloodthirsty monster representing a barbaric society."
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention[edit]
Morelli maintains that the stories about the atrocities of the enemy are an essential element of propaganda. Cruelties are part of all wars. But insisting on the view that only the enemy has committed atrocities and that the "humanitarian" army was loved by the population makes stories of atrocities part of the propaganda. Moreover, Morelli goes on, war propaganda is not content with the actual incidents, it needs to invent inhuman atrocities in order to make the enemy look like Hitler's alter ego.
She sees hardly any differences in the way atrocities are described in different wars. For the period of the First World War, Ponsonby portrays the rendering of gang rape, murder, mistreatment and mutilation of children by German soldiers. Morelli shows how similar reports from wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo are.
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons[edit]
Morelli views this principle as a complement to the previous one. "We do not commit atrocities but, on the contrary, we are going to war chivalrously, following the rules, as in a contest, of course, they are tough and masculine rules." There were furious protests in the First World War against the use of poison gas. Each warring party accused the other of having started it. Although both used gas as a weapon and had been doing research in this field, it was the symbolic expression of inhumane warfare. Therefore, Morelli concludes, it was attributed to the enemy as an indecent and deceitful weapon.
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable[edit]
Morelli explains this principle or commandment as follows: "With rare exceptions, people tend to join the victorious cause. In the case of war, the preference of public opinion depends very much on the apparent results of the conflict. If the results are not good, the propaganda must disguise our losses and exaggerate those of the enemy."
She cites the fact that already in the First World War the losses accumulated within the first month and rose to 313,000 casualties. But the Supreme Command never even reported the loss of a horse and did not publish a list of the dead.
Morelli sees the Iraq war as another example of the prohibiting the publication of photographs of the coffins of American soldiers. The losses of the enemy, however, were gigantic, their army offered no resistance. "This type of information enhances morale in both camps and makes public opinion convinced of the effectiveness of the conflict."[7]
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause[edit]
Morelli states that since the First World War, intellectuals have mostly massively supported their own camp. Each war party could count on the support of artists, writers and musicians who supported the concerns of their countries through initiatives in their fields of activity.[8]
She refers to caricaturists that she thinks are used to justify the war and depict the "butcher" and his atrocities, while others with their camera in hand, produce heart-moving documents about Albanian refugees, carefully selecting those that are most similar to the audience, such as the pretty blonde Albanian child with homesickness in the eye, who should remind us of the Albanian victims.
Everywhere, Morelli writes, "manifests" are published. The Manifesto of the Hundred, aiming at supporting France in the First World War, was signed by André Gide, Claude Monet, Claude Debussy and Paul Claudel. Closer to the present is the Manifesto of the 12 against the "new totalitarianism" of Islamism. These groups of intellectuals, artists and distinguished personalities justify the actions of their respective state power.
9. Our cause is sacred[edit]
This criterion is understood by Morelli in two different ways: in the literal sense, war presents itself as a crusade, backed by a divine mission. One must not escape the will of God, one must fulfill it. This view has gained new importance since George W. Bush took office, Morelli states. The Iraq war appears in this view as a crusade against the "axis of evil", as the "fight of good against evil". It is seen as a duty to bring democracy to Iraq, a value that sprang directly from the will of God. Warfare was thus the realization of the divine will. Political decisions take on a biblical character that eliminates all social and economic issues. The reference to God is made in many ways (In God We Trust, God Save the Queen, Gott mit uns [God with us], ...) and serves to justify the actions of the sovereign without any chance of contradiction.
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor[edit]
This last principle complements all others, Morelli explains. Whoever questions only one of the principles is necessarily a collaborator. There are only two areas, good and bad. You can only be for or against evil. The opponents of the Kosovo war are thus accomplices of Milošević. Whole groups are considered anti-American, Pierre Bourdieu, Régis Debray, Serge Halimi, Noam Chomsky or Harold Pinter. The "pacifist family" includes Gisèle Halimi, Renaud, Abbé Pierre... and their press organs, i.e. Le Monde Diplomatique and the PCF.
Therefore, Morelli says, it is made impossible to give a dissenting opinion without running the risk of a "lynching process of the media". The normal pluralism of opinions no longer exists, all opposition is silenced and discredited by fake arguments.
According to Morelli, this procedure was applied again in the Iraq war, although the world public was far more divided than in the Kosovo conflict. Being against the war meant advocating for Saddam Hussein. The same design was used in a completely different context, namely during the vote on the European Constitution. To be against the Constitution was seen to mean to be against Europe.
For you to complain of propaganda is rich indeed considering the effluvia you've posted.
(March 5, 2023 at 10:58 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is a handy guide to the kinds of statements that make up pro-war propaganda, compiled by a Belgian historian.
We could use the list to play Bingo on this thread.
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
long version:
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves![edit]
According to Morelli, statesmen of all countries themselves have always solemnly assured that they do not want war. Wars are always undesired, only very rarely a war is seen positively by the population. With the emergence of democracy, the consent of the population becomes indispensable, so war must be rejected and everyone must be a pacifist at heart, unlike in the Middle Ages, when the opinion of the population was of little importance. "Thus, the French government mobilizes the army and announces at the same time that mobilization is not a war, but on the contrary the best way to secure peace." "If all the leaders are inspired by the same will to peace, one wonders why wars break out after all." The second principle provides an answer to this question.
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war![edit]
Morelli puts forward that this principle follows from the fact that each party assures to be compelled to declare war in order to prevent the adversary from "destroying our values", endangering our freedom, or destroying us altogether. It is the paradox of a war that is waged to prevent wars. This leads us almost to George Orwell's mythical phrase: "War is peace." In line with this understanding, the US was forced to wage war against Iraq, because Iraq had left no other choice. They react only, defending themselves against provocations of the enemy, who is fully responsible for the outbreak of the war. "Daladier assures in his 'Call to the Nation' on September 3, 1939 - taking over the responsibility of France for the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles -:' Germany has already refused to respond to the people with a good heart at this time have raised their voice for peace in the world. [...] We wage the war because they force it on us. '"Ribbentrop justified the war against Poland by saying:" The Fuehrer does not want war. He resolves on this with a heavy heart. But the decision on war and peace does not depend on him.[2] It depends on Poland. In certain vital questions for the Reich, Poland has to give in and fulfill the demands that we can not do without. If Poland refuses, the responsibility for a conflict lies with her and not with Germany. "(p. 16 in the French original) In the same sense, on January 9, 1991 we could read about the Gulf War in Le Soir: "The peace that the whole world desires more than anything else, can not be built on simple concessions to an act of piracy."[3] The same is true of the Iraq war, because before the war broke out, on September 12, 2002 Le Parisien titled: How Saddam prepares for war.
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil[edit]
Morelli writes: "You can not hate a group of people altogether, not even as your enemies. It is therefore more effective to direct the hatred to the leading personality of the enemy country. This way, "the enemy" will have a face, and this face will naturally become the object of hatred."
She comments: "The victor will always portray himself as a pacifist who loves peaceful agreements and mutual understanding, but is forced into war by the opposing camp, as Bush or Blair did." "The enemy camp is most certainly run by a maniac, a monster (Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), (...) which challenges us and from which one must free humanity."[4]
The first step in the process of demonization, according to Morelli, is the reduction of a whole country to a single person, as if nobody lived in Iraq, except Saddam Hussein with his "scary" Republican guards and his "frightful" weapons of mass destruction.
Personalizing conflicts is typical of a particular view of history, according to which history is made by heroes, by "great people". Anne Morelli rejects this view of history and writes tirelessly about what official historiography conceals. The official account of history is idealistic and metaphysical in that it assumes that history is the result of great ideas and great people. She opposes this view with a dialectical and materialistic one, in which history is explained from the basis of the relations between people and from social movements.
The opponent is characterized by all conceivable ills and evils. They range from the physical appearance to sexual life. Thus, Le Vif in L'Express on April 8, 1999 depicts the "terrible Milosevic", she quotes no statement or written document of the "ruler of Belgrade", but highlights his abnormal mood swings, his morbid and brutal outbursts of anger: "When getting in rage, his face is distorted. But all of a sudden, he will regain his composure." Of course, this demonization is used for other purposes as well, as all tools of propaganda are. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, reports that in the US university teachers who disliked Michel Foucault's popularity in their high schools wrote books on Foucault's private life. According to them, this "masochistic and crazy homosexual" practiced "unnatural, scandalous and unacceptable sexual practices." By disqualifying Foucault as a person, they could spare themselves the more difficult confrontation with the author's thinking or with the discourses of a political person and "refute" him on the basis of moral judgments.
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests![edit]
Morelli analyzes that the economic and geopolitical goals of war must be masked by an ideal, by moral and legitimate values. Thus, George W. Bush declared, "There are people who will never understand this. The fight is not for oil, the fight is against brutal aggression". Le Monde wrote on January 22, 1991: "The goals of this war are first and foremost the goals of the UN Security Council. We participate in this war for the reasons behind the decisions of the Security Council and the goal essentially is the liberation of Kuwait." "In our modern societies, different from Louis XIV's time, a war can only be started with the consent of the people. Gramsci has shown to what extent the cultural supremacy and the consent to government decisions are necessary.[5] This approval is easy to win if the people believe that their freedom, their lives and their honor depend on this war. "For example, the goals of the First World War can be summarized in three points:" - to destroy militarism, - defend the smaller states, - prepare the world for democracy. These very honorable goals have since been repeated almost literally on the eve of each conflict, even though they do not fit the true purpose." "It is necessary to persuade public opinion that we, unlike our enemies, go to war for infinitely honorable motives." "For the Yugoslav war, we find the same deviation of the official goals from the unacknowledged goals of the conflict." NATO officially intervenes in order to preserve the multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo and in order to prevent minorities from being abused, in order to establish democracy and thus in order to end the rule of a dictator. It is in the defense of the sacred concerns of human rights. But not only at the end of this war you can see that none of these goals have been achieved, you have moved remarkably far away from a multi - ethnic society and from violence against minorities, this time Serbs and Roma. This violence is part of everyday life, but you realize that the economic and geopolitical goals have been achieved that have never been never spoken of."[6]
Morelli adds: "The principle has a complement: that the enemy is a bloodthirsty monster representing a barbaric society."
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention[edit]
Morelli maintains that the stories about the atrocities of the enemy are an essential element of propaganda. Cruelties are part of all wars. But insisting on the view that only the enemy has committed atrocities and that the "humanitarian" army was loved by the population makes stories of atrocities part of the propaganda. Moreover, Morelli goes on, war propaganda is not content with the actual incidents, it needs to invent inhuman atrocities in order to make the enemy look like Hitler's alter ego.
She sees hardly any differences in the way atrocities are described in different wars. For the period of the First World War, Ponsonby portrays the rendering of gang rape, murder, mistreatment and mutilation of children by German soldiers. Morelli shows how similar reports from wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo are.
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons[edit]
Morelli views this principle as a complement to the previous one. "We do not commit atrocities but, on the contrary, we are going to war chivalrously, following the rules, as in a contest, of course, they are tough and masculine rules." There were furious protests in the First World War against the use of poison gas. Each warring party accused the other of having started it. Although both used gas as a weapon and had been doing research in this field, it was the symbolic expression of inhumane warfare. Therefore, Morelli concludes, it was attributed to the enemy as an indecent and deceitful weapon.
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable[edit]
Morelli explains this principle or commandment as follows: "With rare exceptions, people tend to join the victorious cause. In the case of war, the preference of public opinion depends very much on the apparent results of the conflict. If the results are not good, the propaganda must disguise our losses and exaggerate those of the enemy."
She cites the fact that already in the First World War the losses accumulated within the first month and rose to 313,000 casualties. But the Supreme Command never even reported the loss of a horse and did not publish a list of the dead.
Morelli sees the Iraq war as another example of the prohibiting the publication of photographs of the coffins of American soldiers. The losses of the enemy, however, were gigantic, their army offered no resistance. "This type of information enhances morale in both camps and makes public opinion convinced of the effectiveness of the conflict."[7]
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause[edit]
Morelli states that since the First World War, intellectuals have mostly massively supported their own camp. Each war party could count on the support of artists, writers and musicians who supported the concerns of their countries through initiatives in their fields of activity.[8]
She refers to caricaturists that she thinks are used to justify the war and depict the "butcher" and his atrocities, while others with their camera in hand, produce heart-moving documents about Albanian refugees, carefully selecting those that are most similar to the audience, such as the pretty blonde Albanian child with homesickness in the eye, who should remind us of the Albanian victims.
Everywhere, Morelli writes, "manifests" are published. The Manifesto of the Hundred, aiming at supporting France in the First World War, was signed by André Gide, Claude Monet, Claude Debussy and Paul Claudel. Closer to the present is the Manifesto of the 12 against the "new totalitarianism" of Islamism. These groups of intellectuals, artists and distinguished personalities justify the actions of their respective state power.
9. Our cause is sacred[edit]
This criterion is understood by Morelli in two different ways: in the literal sense, war presents itself as a crusade, backed by a divine mission. One must not escape the will of God, one must fulfill it. This view has gained new importance since George W. Bush took office, Morelli states. The Iraq war appears in this view as a crusade against the "axis of evil", as the "fight of good against evil". It is seen as a duty to bring democracy to Iraq, a value that sprang directly from the will of God. Warfare was thus the realization of the divine will. Political decisions take on a biblical character that eliminates all social and economic issues. The reference to God is made in many ways (In God We Trust, God Save the Queen, Gott mit uns [God with us], ...) and serves to justify the actions of the sovereign without any chance of contradiction.
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor[edit]
This last principle complements all others, Morelli explains. Whoever questions only one of the principles is necessarily a collaborator. There are only two areas, good and bad. You can only be for or against evil. The opponents of the Kosovo war are thus accomplices of Milošević. Whole groups are considered anti-American, Pierre Bourdieu, Régis Debray, Serge Halimi, Noam Chomsky or Harold Pinter. The "pacifist family" includes Gisèle Halimi, Renaud, Abbé Pierre... and their press organs, i.e. Le Monde Diplomatique and the PCF.
Therefore, Morelli says, it is made impossible to give a dissenting opinion without running the risk of a "lynching process of the media". The normal pluralism of opinions no longer exists, all opposition is silenced and discredited by fake arguments.
According to Morelli, this procedure was applied again in the Iraq war, although the world public was far more divided than in the Kosovo conflict. Being against the war meant advocating for Saddam Hussein. The same design was used in a completely different context, namely during the vote on the European Constitution. To be against the Constitution was seen to mean to be against Europe.
For you to complain of propaganda is rich indeed considering the effluvia you've posted.
At this point its pretty safe to assume Bel is lying on purpose, just like Lawrow.
Russia invaded Ukraine, and Russia is the one responsible for taking that decision.
Portraying Russia as the victim is disgusting and ridiculous, as we have seen with Lawrow in India. Lawrow and Bel, both have no shame.
(March 4, 2023 at 6:51 am)Leonardo17 Wrote: are said to have been
By whom?
Quote:I am only saying that if you are picking a side you have to see clearly what side it is you have decided to be a part of.
I chose to live in Japan a long time ago. It's been a good choice.
But since you have said you would rather go through a nuclear war than live in "Orwellian" China, I don't believe you see things clearly at all.
1) There were articles on European press on that in the 90’s. But here is a more recent article:
“After 1980, the post-Mao Party began withdrawing funds from the health system across China, requiring it to make up the shortfall from service charges to mostly uninsured patients. Selling the organs of executed convicts became a source of income for surgeons, the military and other participants. After 1999, Falun Gong prisoners of conscience became a live organ bank for wealthy Chinese patients and “organ tourists” from abroad, who often preferred that the “donors” were Falun Gong, being healthy persons normally, rather than convicted prisoners.”
https://endtransplantabuse.org/tiananmen...n-context/ + I can also mention the forced labor and assimilation polities in the Turkic Xinjian Region. Another issue that should make you happy: Many western firms prefer to simply ignore the fact that their subsidiaries are providing them products that were produced as a result of forced labor because their will to make profit is simply stronger than their will to respect human rights. 2) No you can believe me on that. We are facing an issue that is similar to the situation in Ukraine here. We have political İslamists in power here (that are one and the same with fascists or KKK members in my opinion). I think that their project is one are the same as the project of Russians in Ukraine. So I am not one of these nuts who volunteer to go and fight with the foreign brigade of the Ukrainians. But on an attitude level I do feel a lot of understanding toward Ukrainians. By the way I came here because I want to share this article on how difficult the situation is on the Ukrainian side also: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-sol...41199.html And just like you, Political İslamists seem to be surprised by this attitude. That’s because the world has been changing (for a while now). This idea of men being some sort of creature who is happy to live as long as he can eat and breed is clearly fading away. Anyone who fails to see this shift is making a huge mistake. And I think these people themselves are not really right in their own minds. That’s how I see this
March 7, 2023 at 6:36 am (This post was last modified: March 7, 2023 at 6:41 am by Leonardo17.)
(March 4, 2023 at 11:19 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(March 4, 2023 at 7:59 am)Belacqua Wrote: But since you have said you would rather go through a nuclear war than live in "Orwellian" China, I don't believe you see things clearly at all.
Not that Bel would know the first thing about fighting for one's convictions.
The depth of some issues are sometimes not fully understood. In the case of an oppressive government, people may be tempted to “Let it go” for now. But societies who do it that way are paying a huge price in the long run. Even if you “make it” on some individual level (Like the Afghans in Europe and in the US) you are still a man or woman without a country and if you are a sensitive person you still end up like the Iranian Journalist Masih Alinejad or the Belarussian exiled politician Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya trying to do something for you country from a foreign country while execution teams are being set on you and being intercepted by the LAPD (as it happened with Masih Alinejad in the end of January.
+ Many Ukranians (mostly women) who fled the Poland or Germany are saying that they have this “feeling of guilt” because they chose to secure the lives of their children instead of staying back home and resisting the Russians.
March 7, 2023 at 7:24 am (This post was last modified: March 7, 2023 at 8:50 am by Belacqua.)
Quote:1) There were articles on European press on that in the 90’s. But here is a more recent article:
“After 1980, the post-Mao Party began withdrawing funds from the health system across China, requiring it to make up the shortfall from service charges to mostly uninsured patients. Selling the organs of executed convicts became a source of income for surgeons, the military and other participants. After 1999, Falun Gong prisoners of conscience became a live organ bank for wealthy Chinese patients and “organ tourists” from abroad, who often preferred that the “donors” were Falun Gong, being healthy persons normally, rather than convicted prisoners.”
You have to be very careful with Falun Gong sources. They are big on Q-Anon, they say that evolution is a lie, they are big pro-Trump people. Japanese people tend to lump them in with other new religions like the Moonies.
There is a great deal of misinformation on the Internet.
Quote:+ I can also mention the forced labor and assimilation polities in the Turkic Xinjian Region.
Another issue that should make you happy: Many western firms prefer to simply ignore the fact that their subsidiaries are providing them products that were produced as a result of forced labor because their will to make profit is simply stronger than their will to respect human rights.
Why do you think this will make me happy? Do you think I am in favor of forced labor?
Quote:2) No you can believe me on that. We are facing an issue that is similar to the situation in Ukraine here. We have political İslamists in power here (that are one and the same with fascists or KKK members in my opinion). I think that their project is one are the same as the project of Russians in Ukraine. So I am not one of these nuts who volunteer to go and fight with the foreign brigade of the Ukrainians. But on an attitude level I do feel a lot of understanding toward Ukrainians. By the way I came here because I want to share this article on how difficult the situation is on the Ukrainian side also: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-sol...41199.html
Believe you on what? That China is Orwellian?
And no one is surprised that Ukrainian soldiers are in bad condition in Bakhmut. Ukraine is losing badly.
Quote:And just like you, Political İslamists seem to be surprised by this attitude. That’s because the world has been changing (for a while now). This idea of men being some sort of creature who is happy to live as long as he can eat and breed is clearly fading away. Anyone who fails to see this shift is making a huge mistake. And I think these people themselves are not really right in their own minds. That’s how I see this
What attitude do you think I will be surprised by? Who has said that people are "happy to live as long as he can eat and breed"?
You seem to be arguing against things I have never said.
Here is a blog post by a British guy who lives in China. I cannot vouch that is 100% accurate, but it might make sense for you to read something by someone who is actually there. He gives links to other sites. Many of the sources I see, both independent (non-corporate) anglophone media and media from Chinese-speakers, corroborate what he's saying.
![[Image: 50D369C5-77C8-4623-B98D-B016E7AC401D.jpg]](https://gdb.rferl.org/50D369C5-77C8-4623-B98D-B016E7AC401D.jpg)
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
![[Image: 7151bc275de2d3d422106a4008215efe.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/51/bc/7151bc275de2d3d422106a4008215efe.jpg)
![[Image: quote-i-d-rather-die-on-my-feet-than-liv...-88-21.jpg]](https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-d-rather-die-on-my-feet-than-live-on-my-knees-emiliano-zapata-37-88-21.jpg)
