All this crying about fake news and the post-truth world...

Since Brexit and the Orange Wonderboy there has been much lamentation about all the fake news on Facebook, the Evil Russian Misinformation Factories, and in general, how inaccurate and untrustworthy the information is you get from social media. We live in an era when facts don't matter anymore; when not a couple of well-dressed talking heads are giving out the information, but the rabble makes it up for themselves.

If only everyone stuck to the real journalists is the unspoken (or spoken) conclusion. You know, the real McCoy; guys (and gals) in trench coats and sharp pens, investigating leads, running around and striking fear into the heart of the Establishment.

There are two problems with this. The first is: they lie as much as the "fake news" does. (I have no idea how the Independent dared to publish this article; it discredits them and every other news agency in the Free World... It's something we knew, but seeing it in print in a large -well, relatively large- newspaper is nothing if not miraculous. And this is the second time...) This has been quite obvious in the case of Aleppo, the Iraq War, the migrant crisis, the Russian hacks (I've still not seen anything that can constitute as proof of the accusations), or anything, really. It's not hard to see them; you just have to spend five minutes to find ample proof of the media being dishonest either by withholding information or by straight-out lying to the reader/watcher. They don't report, they manufacture facts to conform their agenda. We always have lived in the post-truth world.

The other is this. So here we have a very brazen (but not unique) example where a "real" journalist simply stole something from the social networks. It seems like there's a positive feedback here: something gets posted or Reddit (or Digg or Facebook or whatever), this gets nicked by the "real" media, and gets posted on Reddit again, which, in turn, gets reported in the media. They do it so shamelessly, they even quote reddit users. It's a self-sustaining perpetual machine that produces an endless stream of shit.

These people are part of the problem; the people who are supposed to be doing the journalism became simply content-thiefs. They killed journalism by replacing investigation with "cats that look like Hitler" (yes, a Bridget Jones reference; figure that, the movie actually had something meaningful to say), and "you would not believe what happened after this man told a woman not to apply makeup on the tube". Guess what I don't give a fuck. I would have, however, appreciated an honest assessment of the situation in Aleppo. As in: why did certain politicians call the members of Al Quaida "moderate rebels". And maybe a mention of how people of Aleppo did not support them to begin with; this kind of puts their heroic struggle into a different light. But we got "she did not know why the crowd was cheering her", and "can you go through all 10 of these horrible photos".

And, ladies and gentlemen, this is why the system is rotten to the core. This is why we have Brexit, why the Right is getting stronger, and why the Orange Ape (sorry, apes, I know I'm smearing your reputation) got into the White House.

Aleppo and Mosul again - the double standards and the media

I guess the hypocrisy cannot increase indefinitely; sooner or later others -who work for the very media outlets I've been criticising, and who have been responsible for forming the public opinion and pressuring politicians-  tend to realize, or rather, face the facts.

Enter the Independent.

Weirdly they finally admit what I've been saying all along. I wonder what it took to make them to do so. Mind you, I'm not claiming to be a prophet of any kind; I just used common sense and a wee bit of history. Something, that apparently can be ignored freely by the media and politicians, without any repercussions whatsoever.

Very few articles acknowledge the Western media and political elite's hypocrisy about Israel, the Middle East, and those great allies they keep in the region. Heck, 40 000 are dead in Mosul, but there's Boris anywhere yelling war crimes.

The media has a real responsibility for the reasons outlined above. They should not just be able to get away with an "oops, sorry". Heads should roll. They helped their political masters to get countries into wars since the time of Yellow Journalism started; some accountancy should be expected by now. These people helped to spread death and suffering, and now they look around innocently, saying "what? Us? But we're just reporting the news!"

They should burn in hell.

Interesting look on "collateral damage"

Weird. The media and the political machine is still raging about how the Syrians and Russians are monsters and war crimes for bombing hospitals, and operating in a heavily populated area against the moderate rebels. (Which is, admittedly, a horrible thing to do. I'm not trying to say that it's all daisies and rainbows; it is a brutal and quite frankly, hard to justify thing to do.)

However... let's see what the very same people say about doing the very same thing when they themselves are doing it. (I've already written about the interesting contrast about Mosul and Aleppo, so let's leave that part out for now.)

Bombing hospitals - Russia vs USA. (Or Saudi Arabia, but they did bomb a school, so it's not the same I guess.) Mind you, bombing hospitals (and their parking lots) is against the law even IF enemy combatants are hiding in it, yet Israel is quite happy to do so; again, no angry accusations of war crimes there. (Even though in this case it is a deliberate action. As is using white phosphorus in built-up areas against humans.) It seems like you cannot avoid making mistakes when fighting in a city; and the Russians hit a hospital by mistake. Still a war crime, I guess, right?

Well...

What happens when the US and its allies kill people?

Well, of course, it's unintentional, so it's not a crime. It's a kind of weird logic, since you normally can't claim this in front of a court, but let's just think about this. The US and its allies conduct operations in a sovereign country against the wishes of its legitimate government, and kills the soldiers of said government. (The US also supports "moderate" rebels fighting said government, let's add hastily.) But it was unintentional, so it's cool. It's also regrettable when they unintentionally drone weddings and innocent people in general, who happen to be in the wrong place (in their own country) at the wrong time. While we KNOW that any collateral damage the Syrians and Russians cause is absolutely intended and should be condemned.

Interesting.

Snooper's Charter

So finally, the government has gone through with the mass surveillance bill even the Americans would admire: the so-called Snooper's Charter.

Good job, you. I wonder what would Orwell say, but let's forget about that part.

What I'm really curious about is the muted response from the EU and Western powers. You would expect a general outcry, based on what happens whenever a newspaper goes bust in Hungary (never mind it was seriously in debt), or the government flaunts some shady surveillance bill idea, but no. While these things are obvious signs of dictatorship and totalitarianism in Hungary, clearly it's not the case in the UK. No general condemnation, no fiery speeches about Western values (sorry, Values). So to recap: the UK enacts a bill that would make any Stazi leader wet his pants, and nobody bats an eye. It's fine. Some left-leaning newspapers write some alarmist articles, but in general the political landscape (and the media) does not give a shit. Not one little bit of shit. No calls to impose sanctions for breaching EU's fundamental values, or exclude the UK from the EU (I know, I know, but it is a symbolic gesture, OK? You're not leaving, we're throwing you out because, guess what, you are shitting on the fundamental values we hold dear). This is quite telling about the whole issue of hypocrisy, doesn't it? The tone is similarly muted from the Hungarian Left; somehow there are no hysterical cries of totalitarian take-over of the most admired democracy... they are fine with this; the "West" is still the idol to look up to. Sure. Let's ignore the worrying signs that things are seriously going wrong everywhere. And if you don't think the UK is in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms, think about these issues:

1. Spying on MPs
2. Forward Intelligence Team
3. Special Demonstration Squad

and let's not forget about surveillance of peaceful groups, to the extend of undercover officers having families with the subjects of surveillance. Good job doing this democracy-thingy. And even the Germans are doing it: as usual, they prefer to do it so that they can be seen as clear.

What we see here is a general trend moving towards a totalitarian surveillance state in the Western World, but of course it's only a problem when a shitty little country is trying to emulate the big brothers (the term used in more than one meaning here, in case you miss the reference). Nobody wants to point out that the emperor has no clothes; perhaps the supposedly free press is not so free after all. (Who would have thought? They must be free, since about 70% is owned by one individual...)

How Trump is already betraying his voters

So the Independent (among others) is already loud with articles about how Trump is already backtracking on his campaign promises, and betraying his voters. Ha-ha. What an asshole- already betraying everyone.

Can I ask you a question? Would you like him better if he actually meant all the shit he said? Count your blessings, you idiots, that he might not be as crazy as he seemed...

Some people...

Terrorism and the Balkan route -perceptions last year and today

So it seems like Abdeslam did use the Balkan route for smuggling terrorists into Europe. So did others.

Let this sink in for a while. Even though it seems like people have a memory of a goldfish (not to mention politicians and journalists, who are entirely possible that not members of the same species as the rest of us), let's just recall a couple of things from last year. Like that infamous cartoon with the rats. (Let's forget that the whole outrage was manufactured since the cartoon did not suggest what the outraged journalists said it did.) Or that the EU's counter terrorism chief said there was unlikely to be a connection between migrants and terrorists. Or ask the UN High Commissioner for refugees. Or the fact that the entire Left in Hungary (and the international press) used this as a political tool against the Hungarian government instead of actually recognising the threat unchecked migration (or worse, if they did, they used it as a weapon against Orban nevertheless. Priorities, I guess.)

Curiously all these people are silent now. The news that terrorists indeed used the Balkan route is quietly dropped and forgotten. No mea culpas, no retrospective analyses how they could been so wrong, how the others who were right were painted as the villains... No; this whole business is best left forgotten, and move on to the next shouting campaign without any lessons learned.

Guess what. This is what gave you Brexit and Trump. This is why the Far Right is getting stronger everywhere. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a racist neckbeard, and you especially can't do that (and keep doing it) when they are right and you are wrong. You might have the bullhorn to shout, but the credibility deficit is growing. You probably should have noticed after the Brexit vote or Trump's victory that things are not so swell outside your bubble, but you apparently have not.

I guess we're all going to suffer for it.

Increasing tensions with a nuclear superpower - smart or not?

Weirdly the narrative of "Evil Russia" is very much alive on both the Left and the Righ. You got the odd Chomsky who actually argues for a bit restraint of provoking the Russians, but in general if you read online comments or listen to NATO chiefs and politicians, you have this feeling of collective insanity.

Everyone seems to have accepted the narrative that "The Russians Must Be Stopped", and that "provocative steps are necessary to ensure peace". It seems like there's a collective amnesia about the history of the last 25 years, and everyone is just happily engaging in their happiest paranoid Cold War mindset.

First of all- the argument that we can't let a country just do whatever it wants- the world has changed.

Really.

Iraq war, anyone? Torture? Cyber attacks against a sovereign country? (An act of war, actually.) Threat of a nuclear strike against a sovereign country? (You know, a war crime in itself.) Mass surveillance even -grasp!- of foreign politicians? Bombing sovereign countries? Supporting "moderate" rebels (aka the merry men of ISIS)? Talking about and executing regime changes? Drone strikes in areas which are outside of a war zone? Assassinations? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Supporting murderous medieval regimes who wage horrible wars in Yemen?
These things are a-OK? If the Russians put a fleet close to US coastal waters every time the Americans exercised their hyper-interventionist policies, we would have all died of a nuclear holocaust by now.

But I digress. Let's not engage in "whataboutery", as these things are labelled whenever they are brought up as an inconvenient counterpoint.

Let's focus on Russia.

Why are the Russians are so damned aggressive, you'd ask. Well, you can ask why a guy in the pub is so darn aggressive once you took his drink and tried kissing his girlfriend.

They are aggressive, because they have been provoked, idiots.

What has the NATO been doing to provoke them, you ask? After all, they're just minding their own business, not doing any hostile moves?

Well, for one, they are expanding east, in direct violation of their promise. And make no mistake: this is an aggressive move against the Russians. The NATO has not ceased its anti-Russian rhetoric since the Cold War. (Ironically this whole Cold War thing seems to be a product of American paranoia; the Soviet Union seemed to have tried to join NATO... although don't quote me on these; and they are tangential points, anyhow.)
The Russians have experienced two devastating wars from the West, and ignoring their history and their attitude (isolationist, pretty defensive and xenophobic) is stupid. They want their buffer states around them, and if you threaten this you threaten them. It's that simple. Ask the Americans about Latin America if you want to see something similar. If you look at Russian interventions they usually were defensive in nature. Even the famous Winter War started because Stalin wanted some buffer between him and the Germans.

Foreign adventures like the war against Georgia is normally brought up at this point. Too bad the narrative is a lie, is it? Funnily the truth isn't the "evil Ruskies against the poor, defenceless Georgians" as it is still touted by the media. Weird in this era of the free press, is it?

Ukraine is being brought up. Consider this: you remove a pro-Russian government with a coup, and install a pro-Western (pretty far right) one  instead, threatening their access to their only warm water port. Can I ask you something politely? What the fuck did you think would happen? Seriously. Did you expect them to just accept the fact that their direct neighbour is a pro-NATO country, while you have been putting NATO bases, radars and other "defensive" structures in Central Europe? Have you forgotten what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Hint: something to do with the nukes in Turkey.) They wanted to keep their bloody port, so they took the Crimea. You did not have to be a genius to see what would happen.

With Syria we see a similar issue. While human rights mean nothing when our dictators are trampling them (see: House of Saud), they mean everything when we can screw the Russians over. Assad might not be a pleasant individual, but he is miles ahead of the US/Saudi supported fundamentalist "moderate" rebels who not only hate Christians, they hate Muslims, too, if they don't subscribe for their own particular sect. And in this case hatred does not mean toilet papering each other's lawn. I have Syrian friends (Christian Arabs), and they all said: Assad is the best alternative. (Even the Syrian expat community in Budapest seems to think so if the window of a Syrian shop is any indication: it has a huge poster of Assad on it.) The civil war was a horrible crime the US and her allies helped to fester. It needs to stop. And the only people willing to put a stop to it is Assad and the Russians. Trump -and it pains me to say so- is right in this. Once the war is over, then the issues can be addressed; but nothing will be gained from supporting rebel fractions whom we think are "moderate". (I wonder what the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist looks like.) Just look at what happened in Mosul after a little western meddling: the community is completely torn apart by hate.

Pushing the Russians will not help at all. Raising tensions when both sides can essentially destroy all human lives on this planet is just fucking stupid (and I apologise for the word but this is the best description I could find). What you need is de-escalation, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. The Russians are smart enough for that; the US and her allies so far have been unable to grasp that perhaps they can't always dictate things from the position of absolute power. It works when you're pushing over little dictators you nurtured, but it does not work with a superpower. And like it or not, Russia IS a superpower, even if the Russian GDP is low. There is more to a superpower than GDP, you know. A couple of thousands of nuclear warheads will do the trick.