8 ms·

I've been saying this for years. "The CIA created ISIS. Not just funded, but created the situation where such organizations could come up." I constantly get cr

I've been saying this for years. "The CIA created ISIS. Not just funded, but created the situation where such organizations could come up." I constantly get criticized for this. "No, of course America isn't funding ISIS. We're fighting them." I then talk about The Bay of Pigs, the 1973 Coupe in Chile, Iranian Contras, The School of the Americas ... a criminal rap sheet that shows a pattern of sociopathhy by the US government -- and Syria fits that pattern: arm ISIS, bomb Assad and then bomb ISIS too .. we're creating and fighting all the wars. I'm not surprised, but the majority of Americas would be .. if this appeared on CNN, NPR or a major media outlet. Otherwise it's "fake news." When sales for 1984 went up after the Trump election, I was greatly disheartened. It meant the current administration had commandeered the minds of people to think that now was the age of Orwell, when in reality, we've been in 1984 long before I was born and long before my parents were born.

totalZero 9y ago
Setting aside every other part of this discussion: I don't think a state actor can be accurately described as sociopathic. The expectations and interactions among nations are fundamentally different from those among people.
- vosper 9y ago
  Nations are just groups of people, but I agree with you. I'm not generally in favour of applying terms like sociopathic to large groups.
  - ellius 9y ago
    Saying anything is "just a group" of its constituent parts is misleading and incorrect. Behaviors emerge at system levels that are not present among individual "parts."
- duncanawoods 9y ago
  Can you make an argument for believing that? Using psychological terms in a strictly behavioural fashion for groups/countries seems to me to not just be an analogy but capturing the essence of what is observable. Many of the concepts are similar e.g. identity, cooperation, aggression, lying, betrayal, self-preservation, fear etc. You can defend this further and claim that even when examining an individual, you will see conflicting identities and traits that resembles the conflict in a group rather than a constant, simple, single identity. The underlying truth appears to not be not that a group does not have psychological behaviours its that a single simple human identity doesn't really exist and is always an emergent property of some collection of heterogeneous smaller parts identities/modes/processes etc.
- stemc43 9y ago
  If you really look at human interactions they are exactly same as nation - level ones: constant fight for individual success with thinly cover of "moral values".
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do? USSR under Joe did; that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Any Scandinavian country would be a good counter argument. Finland has withstood Soviet/Russian intimidation for more than seven decades without running around instigating insane, right-wing police states across the Globe.
  - keldaris 9y ago
    > Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do? That's simple: they're weak and can't get away with it. The baseline conduct of nation states is basically that of fairly rational psychopaths, capable of evaluating what they can get away with. Deviations from that norm are mostly reminiscent of irrational psychopaths. Anyone who expects "moral", "just" or "trustworthy" behavior from a nation state is just out of their mind.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Finland has withstood Soviet/Russian intimidation for more than seven decades without running around instigating insane, right-wing police states across the Globe. Some would say “submitted to” rather than “withstood”; heck, accommodating a powerful neighbor out of fear and inability to effectively resist is called “Finlandization” for a reason.
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    Most states lack the means to throw their weight around like the USA does. Interstate relations are what anarchy looks like.
  - alrs 9y ago
    Finland's foreign policy was benign, but its domestic policies weren't pretty. Eugenics: http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/530b988476f0db569b00000b http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/530b988476f0db569b00... Kekkonen and the collapse of democracy: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/finns-extend-presidents-term-without-election-soviet-trust-cited.html?mcubz=3 http://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/finns-extend-pres...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
rublev 9y ago
>we've been in 1984 long before I was born and long before my parents were born. Can you expand on this? Thanks.
- kruhft 9y ago
  1984 was simply an extrapolation into the future from someone that already saw the story as a later progression of what is or what has been in societies. The powers that be have always 'watched', there have always been class systems (being a Party member or a Prole), and each class is always said to have it better than the rest, although each always wants to be on the other side, thinking it's better. It's been this way a long time and didn't start with 1984. There's a saying the '1984 is not an instruction manual', but with it's great proliferation amogst all the great works, one has to wonder that it's spread through society can be thought of as an instruction book on how to lead a society into fear and oppression by claiming it is literature.
ep103 9y ago
You're right about ISIS for what its worth. The documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is a really good introduction to the background of that whole story for people who criticize you on the topic. Its very accessible and well researched (and from the BBC, so reputable). But yeah, the short and long of it is that Donald Rumsfeld specifically disbanded the Iraqi command structure after the invasion, against President Bush's orders, because he believed (correctly) that it would result in large groups of them forming armed militias and start a middle eastern uprising. His belief, thanks to the teachings of his mentor Leo Strauss, was that without a mortal philosophical enemy the United States could stay at perpetual war with, the US, buoyed by continued economic prosperity, would continue drifting towards liberal ideals like economic, social and racial equality, and away from things like duty, honor, and fear of god; which in his mind, made America great. In short, they believed the fear of communism is what kept Americans in line, and that the progress of the 60s, once that fear started collapsing, was something that needed to be avoided at all costs from occurring again. So they needed a new enemy, even if we had to make it ourselves. Rumsfeld even, at one point, came out and explicitly said that that was his goal at the time, so its not even a conspiracy. Its publicly stated fact, that gets little to no news coverage. Its like when Dick Cheney came out in an interview over the biopic he published, and admitted on air that the reason he was for torturing people [paraphrased]: "had nothing to do with intelligence. If we tortured suspected terrorists, no one would ever be able to call the Republican party weak on terrorism". He literally admitted to a war crime, and nothing happened.
- Swizec 9y ago
  > He literally admitted to a war crime, and nothing happened. I thought the idea was that you call them terrorists specifically so that they’re not official enemy combatants and the Geneva convention doesn’t apply?
  - pm90 9y ago
    No, its because it was terrorists that caused 9/11. So, you could justify anything if you just said: we're doing it because they're "terrorists".
  - 9y ago
iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
We've always been at war with Eastasia
- shitgoose 9y ago
  thank you for proving GP point. EDIT: "CNN says that we are at war with Eastasia. therefore we are at war with Eastasia."
mythrwy 9y ago
There are a number of groups that benefited from ISIS being in the area. Certainly Iran and Russia getting a poke in the eye probably wasn't a bad thing from the CIA's perspective but they were probably not the only (or even main?) players. More like the gun store and some advisory support. For the other suspects we need only look for the folks who benefited from a buffer between Russia and Iran and their own states and a proxy army keeping Iranian/Syrian/Russian forces tied down. The whole thing is pretty inexcusable though and the people responsible are a level of criminal IMOP. It also appears the scheme isn't going to work out long term and Iran and Russia will continue to have influence in the region. Which given the behavior of our "friends" in the area I can't say I feel terrible about. But I'm probably not looking at it through a geopolitical chess perspective but more a perspective of ruined lives and societies and the spread of extremist ideology.

totalZero 9y ago

Setting aside every other part of this discussion: I don't think a state actor can be accurately described as sociopathic. The expectations and interactions among nations are fundamentally different from those among people.

vosper 9y ago
Nations are just groups of people, but I agree with you. I'm not generally in favour of applying terms like sociopathic to large groups.
- ellius 9y ago
  Saying anything is "just a group" of its constituent parts is misleading and incorrect. Behaviors emerge at system levels that are not present among individual "parts."
duncanawoods 9y ago
Can you make an argument for believing that? Using psychological terms in a strictly behavioural fashion for groups/countries seems to me to not just be an analogy but capturing the essence of what is observable. Many of the concepts are similar e.g. identity, cooperation, aggression, lying, betrayal, self-preservation, fear etc. You can defend this further and claim that even when examining an individual, you will see conflicting identities and traits that resembles the conflict in a group rather than a constant, simple, single identity. The underlying truth appears to not be not that a group does not have psychological behaviours its that a single simple human identity doesn't really exist and is always an emergent property of some collection of heterogeneous smaller parts identities/modes/processes etc.
stemc43 9y ago
If you really look at human interactions they are exactly same as nation - level ones: constant fight for individual success with thinly cover of "moral values".
CapitalistCartr 9y ago
Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do? USSR under Joe did; that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Any Scandinavian country would be a good counter argument. Finland has withstood Soviet/Russian intimidation for more than seven decades without running around instigating insane, right-wing police states across the Globe.
- keldaris 9y ago
  > Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do? That's simple: they're weak and can't get away with it. The baseline conduct of nation states is basically that of fairly rational psychopaths, capable of evaluating what they can get away with. Deviations from that norm are mostly reminiscent of irrational psychopaths. Anyone who expects "moral", "just" or "trustworthy" behavior from a nation state is just out of their mind.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Finland has withstood Soviet/Russian intimidation for more than seven decades without running around instigating insane, right-wing police states across the Globe. Some would say “submitted to” rather than “withstood”; heck, accommodating a powerful neighbor out of fear and inability to effectively resist is called “Finlandization” for a reason.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  Most states lack the means to throw their weight around like the USA does. Interstate relations are what anarchy looks like.
- alrs 9y ago
  Finland's foreign policy was benign, but its domestic policies weren't pretty. Eugenics: http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/530b988476f0db569b00000b http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/530b988476f0db569b00... Kekkonen and the collapse of democracy: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/finns-extend-presidents-term-without-election-soviet-trust-cited.html?mcubz=3 http://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/finns-extend-pres...
- anigbrowl 9y ago

rublev 9y ago

>we've been in 1984 long before I was born and long before my parents were born. Can you expand on this? Thanks.

kruhft 9y ago
1984 was simply an extrapolation into the future from someone that already saw the story as a later progression of what is or what has been in societies. The powers that be have always 'watched', there have always been class systems (being a Party member or a Prole), and each class is always said to have it better than the rest, although each always wants to be on the other side, thinking it's better. It's been this way a long time and didn't start with 1984. There's a saying the '1984 is not an instruction manual', but with it's great proliferation amogst all the great works, one has to wonder that it's spread through society can be thought of as an instruction book on how to lead a society into fear and oppression by claiming it is literature.

ep103 9y ago

You're right about ISIS for what its worth. The documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is a really good introduction to the background of that whole story for people who criticize you on the topic. Its very accessible and well researched (and from the BBC, so reputable). But yeah, the short and long of it is that Donald Rumsfeld specifically disbanded the Iraqi command structure after the invasion, against President Bush's orders, because he believed (correctly) that it would result in large groups of them forming armed militias and start a middle eastern uprising. His belief, thanks to the teachings of his mentor Leo Strauss, was that without a mortal philosophical enemy the United States could stay at perpetual war with, the US, buoyed by continued economic prosperity, would continue drifting towards liberal ideals like economic, social and racial equality, and away from things like duty, honor, and fear of god; which in his mind, made America great. In short, they believed the fear of communism is what kept Americans in line, and that the progress of the 60s, once that fear started collapsing, was something that needed to be avoided at all costs from occurring again. So they needed a new enemy, even if we had to make it ourselves. Rumsfeld even, at one point, came out and explicitly said that that was his goal at the time, so its not even a conspiracy. Its publicly stated fact, that gets little to no news coverage. Its like when Dick Cheney came out in an interview over the biopic he published, and admitted on air that the reason he was for torturing people [paraphrased]: "had nothing to do with intelligence. If we tortured suspected terrorists, no one would ever be able to call the Republican party weak on terrorism". He literally admitted to a war crime, and nothing happened.

Swizec 9y ago
> He literally admitted to a war crime, and nothing happened. I thought the idea was that you call them terrorists specifically so that they’re not official enemy combatants and the Geneva convention doesn’t apply?
- pm90 9y ago
  No, its because it was terrorists that caused 9/11. So, you could justify anything if you just said: we're doing it because they're "terrorists".
- 9y ago

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago

We've always been at war with Eastasia

shitgoose 9y ago
thank you for proving GP point. EDIT: "CNN says that we are at war with Eastasia. therefore we are at war with Eastasia."

mythrwy 9y ago

There are a number of groups that benefited from ISIS being in the area. Certainly Iran and Russia getting a poke in the eye probably wasn't a bad thing from the CIA's perspective but they were probably not the only (or even main?) players. More like the gun store and some advisory support. For the other suspects we need only look for the folks who benefited from a buffer between Russia and Iran and their own states and a proxy army keeping Iranian/Syrian/Russian forces tied down. The whole thing is pretty inexcusable though and the people responsible are a level of criminal IMOP. It also appears the scheme isn't going to work out long term and Iran and Russia will continue to have influence in the region. Which given the behavior of our "friends" in the area I can't say I feel terrible about. But I'm probably not looking at it through a geopolitical chess perspective but more a perspective of ruined lives and societies and the spread of extremist ideology.