Ralph speaks to law professor, Barbara McQuade, who specializes in national security issues and has written a book that outlines the very real threat to American democracy, “Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America.” Also, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson sums up Israeli goals in its war on the Palestinians with three words “eradication, elimination, and expulsion.”
Interviewing Democratic operatives and pretending that they are independent is a form of propaganda. The Democrats and Republicans, including Trump, use lies equally. They all believe in war and the curtailment civil liberties. Hillary Clinton stole an election by manipulating the primary process. There is plenty of reason to distrust the election process. Besides the “insurrection” was a riot. There was no actual threat to our already broken government. The source of the undermining of the social value of the internet is the corruption inherent in our current political process. It’s not the internet. It’s the oligarchy that has overthrown our democracy (read “Democracy in Chains”). The pretend conflict between Trump and Biden is: One) a struggle between different oligarchal power centers, that care nothing about the People. And Two) use Congress and the executive as performers, play acting at governance. While the real power resides in the very wealthy. Barbara McQuade, as a member of the national security state, obviously hates Trump and is utterly untrustworthy. She should be ignored.
I, for one, (not to mention millions of other Americans) am so grateful for Mr. Nader's 90 years of serving this country and its people. And he has done so in the face of implacable odds from the corporate-capitalist establishment.
The obscenely mega-rich continue to find new and ingenious ways to skirt the law, steal from the working class and rig the entire system in their favor; but without Mr. Nader it would be far worse.
*******************
Listening to the interview I am reminded of Dr. Morris Berman's recognition that a lot of people have never learned to think critically. Many practice a form of mimesis which might commonly be called being a "copy-cat." The late Rush Limbaugh's loyal followers were called "ditto-heads" because they simply agreed with whatever Limbaugh told them to believe. Trump's die-hard followers seem to suffer from the same lack of critical thinking skills. '
To deviate from my point, this is why higher education is so important in maintaining a democracy. When people simply act in the manner of "monkey see, monkey do" people can be manipulated by self-aggrandizing, amoral opportunists like Trump into metaphorically cutting their own throats.
Thank you as always for the interesting and provocative episode.
I say “provocative” because I agree with other commenters that Ms. McQuade’s point of view is at least questionable.
I have not read Ms. McQuade's book but listening to her interview, reading what few reviews are available and finding out she is a contributor on MSNBC and CBS leads me to believe she has a considerable bias.
She is obviously fond of the term “misinformation.” In my observation, it means: Everyone who disagrees with the position put out by the establishment (and Democratic Party) is 100% wrong and probably a white supporter of Donald Trump. In my opinion, it is a term invented to discourage honest debate and hence, free speech.
As others have observed, it was once “disinformation” to challenge the validity of Russiagate. It was also Russian disinformation to believe Hunter Biden’s laptop was really Hunter’s laptop. It was disinformation to take the position Covid may have resulted from a lab leak. Or for that matter, to challenge the obvious lie Sadam Hussain had WMD’s at the ready and therefore, it was necessary for us to attack and turn the world upside down. Eventually, the facts came out and we found out who was actually spreading disinformation. I could go on and on.
I would have liked to have asked Ms. McQuade to opine on whether or not Colonel Wilkerson was a purveyor of disinformation because he takes the view Ukraine is an unnecessary war and that Israel’s attack on the Palestinians is an unmitigated genocide. Such views were and still are being labeled “disinformation” by Ms. McQuade’s employers, MSNBC and CBS, so I suspect she does too. A debate between her and Colonel Wilkerson would have been a lively affair.
The irony is rich when an expert and bestselling author on disinformation references Russian social media influencing the 2016 election—a theory that has been heavily questioned. "We find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior," stated one recent study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9). So, where's the real disinformation hiding? I love and will continue to support the show. But please get back to welcoming guests who don’t already have platforms in the mainstream media and at elite law schools!
I know Mr. Nader does not like internet anonymity, so out of respect, my name is Matthew Hansen, I live in the 12th District of California. I typically "hide" behind a username to protect my personal data, not so that I may say things without fear of being exposed, or things I would not say in polite society.
Full disclosure, I've not read Barbara McQuade's book, but when I heard her talk about her "National Security" course my eyes rolled into the back of my head and I suspected this book was not going to be worth any decent human being's time. Respectfully Mr. Nader, I cannot disagree with you more on your internet stance. First, I've never lived in a Democracy, so I don't really no what it's like, but it seems to me the one's who are pushing this "threat to Democracy" are more worried about the threat to the status quo than any threat to we the people. They are worried about the loss of global hegemony; the one's desperate to keep a dying empire's stranglehold over the entire world.
The one's who committed one the world's largest environmental catastrophe in history in the Nord Stream 2 explosion and tried to blame Russia for it, and then claim to care about the environment. For that matter, the one's who keep the fact that the U.S. military is the single largest contributor of climate change in the world out of public discourse. The one's prosecuting Julian Assange for publishing the truth, but dismissing him as just a hacker, when he did not obtain the information through hacking. The one's addicted to endless war. The one's who are 24/7 gaslighting the American public and running cover for Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza and continued crimes in the West Bank.
The same one's who will, with a straight face, say that it is "genocide" for Russia to change the borders of another country (and to be clear it is against international law, I am not defending that), but will shrug at the U.S.'s illegal occupation of parts of Syria or Israel's theft of the Golan Heights. The same people who will ban the sale of weapons to the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi battalion the Azov Brigade in 2018, but then the moment they can be used against Russia, they will rebrand them as freedom fighters and simply say (as the New York Times did), that they don't understand how harmful the Nazi iconography they so proudly wear is, and how it might offend some people. Or that the Nazi iconography that they so proudly wear is somehow Russian disinformation.
The same people who will tell those of us in the streets protesting, that we shouldn't casually throw around the word genocide, but will casually throw it at our adversaries. I'd like to point out that neither Russia, nor China have active, credible cases against them at the International Court of Justice. Our closest ally on the other hand...
My point is, the U.S. State Department is one of the largest purveyors of disinformation this world has ever known, and yet people like Mrs. McQuade will never speak out against that. Last year Mr. Nader, you had on a guest who was talking about proxy wars. You and the guest talked about how Joe Biden has never seen a war he didn't support, but that is also true of Hillary Clinton. It wasn't Russia that cost Clinton the election, it was because she is a bad candidate, she is a sadistic, war-mongering neo-con who was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya, Africa's most prosperous country; a country that now has open slave markets and as far as I know, is still without a central government.
You can blame Russia all you want, but it's hard to take anyone seriously when 1) not a single Russian "operative" was linked to the Russian troll farm, nor a single Russian "operative" indicted (correct me if I'm wrong) and thus not linked to the Russian government, 2) the Russian troll farm was found to be putting out mostly non-political memes that did not even reach that many people, 3) the Russian troll farm did not spend very much on the memes it put out, although I cannot remember what the estimate actually was, 4) more people voted for Gary Johnson than Jill Stein by an order of magnitude and even more eligible voters simply did not vote in 2016 (to be clear, if we are pretending to be a Democracy, then people have every right to vote for whichever candidate they believe to be the best, my vote for instance does not belong to the Democratic party, it belongs to me. If they want my vote, they damn well have to earn it), 5) top DNC officials had to resign over the Hillary Clinton scandal in which leaked emails from the DNC showed how they were rigging the election against Bernie Sanders, 6) they pulled the same Russian nonsense against Bernie Sanders in 2020 when he was running away with the primary, and 7) the biggest foreign actor interfering in our elections is Israel and has always been Israel.
Mr. Nader, the internet is not a perfect place, but it at least gives a voice to the people. Yes, there is plenty of disinformation, or misinformation (any of that on my part in the above paragraphs is unintentional; feel free to correct any if there is any). I'm sorry, but regulation of that kind has no place in social media, they should be forums of free expression, not what the U.S. Government (you know, the ones doing the disinformation themselves) deems okay. On the other hand, the news is full of propaganda and only speaks from the perspective of the U.S. Government or the corporations (same thing, right?). If they succeed in their censorship campaign and their silencing of dissenting voices, then what do we the people have left? We don't live in Soviet Russia, this is supposed to be the "Land of the Free".
When I look to the upcoming election, I feel hopeless. I will of course be voting for a third party candidate again (likely Claudia De La Cruz this time around, I voted for Gloria La Riva in 2020), but obviously it's going to be between either the current enabler of genocide or the future enabler of genocide, with a slight possibility of a third enabler of genocide in RFK Jr. It's sick, it's twisted, it's heartbreaking, it's depressing. If Genocide Joe even debates in the general election it's going to come down to two elderly men arguing about which one is more supportive of Israel. Some Democracy we have.
As a counter point to Barbara McQuade, I'd love for you to interview Janine Jackson of FAIR.org if either of you are willing.
Thank you for all the work you've done over the years Ralph, I'll forever be a supporter even when I disagree with you.
I am so disappointed that I cannot refer anyone to this episode, because the Wilkerson segment was so good, but the McQuade segment was so horrifyingly awful. The worst, and most consequential, purveyors of disinformation are the very people who breathlessly decry disinformation, the government and the legacy corporate media (including NBC/MSNBC, employer of McQuade), the institutions that want to maintain their monopoly on information. When they lie, *millions* die. On January 6 *one* person was killed (by the government). You *must* have on Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, or Aaron Maté to debunk the falsehoods and censorious recommendations touted by this guest !
Want to fix the internet? Want to fix the media? Make it peer to peer and take its ownership away from tech billionaires and government control. Most propaganda comes from those with a financial stake in it. The idea of an "information highway" was intended to be publicly held vehicle of communication.
Shall Klassik take it that if 'Mark Twain', 'Voltaire', and 'George Orwell' were alive today, Mr. Nader would want them to be banned from the Internet since they preferred to publish under pen names?
Anonymity on the Internet may cause some problems, but I reckon the most influential sources of political disinformation come from 'real people' with affiliations with 'real' organizations. Anyway, anonymity gives people the power to engage in political discussions without fear of repercussions from one's family, employers, and the town's bishop. Anonymity is often key in giving people the freedom to expose corruption. In areas with tighter restrictions on speech, anonymity is almost a necessity for people to speak freely.
Moreover, anonymity gives Netizens the freedom of being judged solely by the content of their publications and not by their ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, and so forth. This can be a very liberating experience for many people which may help them engage in the public process.
Let's look at anonymity another way. Back after the 2016 election, there was much talk in the media about people who appeared to be anti-Trump in 'real-life', but who then voted for Trump (whether this was actually any major factor in swinging the election, Klassik knows not). Shall the tradition of secret ballots be done away with because there are people who, at least in the eyes of some, seem perfectly well-adjusted in real-life who then turn into anti-social figures when given the power to vote anonymously?
The establishment Dem neocon "lawyer" you talked to did not seem to care anything about lying and disinformation by the Democrats (and I am a progressive, which means the Democrats are to the right of me since they danced over to the Dick Cheney/Bush foreign policy alliance with people lIke Nuland the past 15 years); she only wishes punitive action against "disinformation" by the GOP (who are to the right of the Dems and both are right of center). Both parties are putting out disinformation of different types.
She loves the security state to have everybody's names and views in their growing Total Information Awareness snooping databases, like Nikki Haley - who equates those who want a cease fire in Gaza with "pro Hamas" and likely thinks anyone against funding the deaths of more Ukrainians and Russians as "pro Russia."
I am surprised it gives you such a thrill to sidle up to the "national security" lawyer who wants to have no anonymity. Did you forget WHY anonymity can be important, particularly for those dissenting in an unpopular view or for whistle blowers? Of COURSE the security state wants more data on people. They are collecting every shred they can gather and even buying private data that shouldn't be allowed for businesses to collect.
Why don't you do something for our privacy rights instead of helping the State put its foot on our necks quashing dissent? Why is it only California has any consumer privacy rights? Shouldn't that be a federal interest to protect all of us instead of just a few people in the nation? And here you are trying to give up our names if we have an unpopular view.
If you understand the First Amendment why are you not understanding that speech needs as much protection as possible as does the privacy of voting and dissent? This is elementary but you forgot. Then you agreed with Wilkerson that the oligarchy is in control of a lot including the media and the govt, but yet you want to give out the names of people who might anonymously venture a dissenting opinion about lies we see in the media but who might not want to wind up on a govt "list" over an anti war opinion that the govt or partisans of a party in power finds contrary to their military industrial complex lobbyist preferences.
For instance, Palestinians don’t want the Israeliev-Hamass war, endlessly debated by politicians in session while their people die
They just want the war to stop
And not start again
But please start the water again
Humanitarian pauses are just cruel
Humanitarian pauses are just a cruel and cynical charade
People from the Middle East are all semites
All of them
Regardless, of which Abrahamic religion they follow
All Arabs are Semites
All Jews are not semites but the original Jews came from where the Semites came from
When I use a word, I would like it to mean the same to you and to me
I would like the words that I use to be fine and understandable and not have to be changed so that my words will be correct according to somebody,
could that be you
Or so that my audience will listen to it correctly
And I can participate in a manufactured consent
Manufactured consent from Chomsky and Hermann has become quite a repeated phrase
I’d like to keep using it
I understand it
I hope you understand it
It’s meaning is simple and not couched in confusing rhetoric
I want to keep using manufactured consent, and I don’t want to have to change the phrase with cheap euphemistic language like
“ My idea that I agree with”
That might be a good euphemistic phrase to replace manufactured consent by our corporate masters
Still using Edward Bernese’s work
Who was Freuds nephew
And the head of manipulation/propaganda for the tri lateral commission designed to keep people under control in a democracy that did not really exist
If it existed, we the people would want an agrarian reform
so they had to be manipulated out of thinking that way with propaganda
I may be talking about you
Am I digressing
Talk about anti-semantics
Don’t you euphemize if that is a verb as George Carlin said
Don’t couch your phrases
Don’t take the life out of language
Don’t phase down, fossil fuels
Phase them out
Don’t say that war will be delivered in phases
Stop the war
Don’t minimize phase 1 while thinking about minimizing phase 2, while making phase 3 really big and maybe minimizing phase 4 I don’t think that’ll happen, but then maybe phase 5 wouldn’t be necessary
Col. Wilkerson is against the U.S. war in Ukraine and he speaks against it on other YouTube sources. He calls it a "debacle" and a "catastrophe", he calls for immediate negotiation on Russian terms. Judge Napolitano's YouTube production is where I listen, and there are several other very creditable voices supporting this view. Nader did not delve into it at all, many listeners may be unaware. I've been critical and in opposition for over a year, and I'm frustrated no end. It's needless death and violence. The citizens of eastern Ukraine have a right of self-determination, and after the anti-democratic revolution in 2014 they held referendums, and they were bombed ceaselessly with 14,000 deaths in the 8 years before the 2022 invasion by Russia. Benjamin Abelow has written "How the West Brought War to Ukraine", and professor Jeffrey Sachs also speaks persuasively. It is a major U.S. debacle, it should be examined on shows like the Nader R.H.. I suggest Ralph travel to Moscow and interview Putin, that would be a great service. I'm serious. Thousands are dying needlessly, Ukraine seems to be losing badly. 99% of Americans support this debacle. Wilkerson said he's not too concerned about a second Trump presidency. I agree. We have a choice between a genocide perpetrator and pathological liar. What a democracy!
Ms. McQuade has picked a bad example for a "disinformation" complaint. Apparently, someone was warning citizens about Hillary. She should not be a Presidential candidate. She did bad things as Secretary of State. She is, indeed, not an honest representative of what US citizens need or other countries need. In this case, Ms. McQuade is spreading disinformation, herself.
"Let 'em know what you want and let 'em know you're gonna unelect them if they don't do it."
Col. Wilkerson
Town halls can be a part of letting 'em know what you want.
The question left unanswered is how do we let them know we're gonna unelect them if they don't do what we want.
As Col. Wilkerson said their decisions are based on money- not us.
As 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics which would change the dynamic the politicians base their decisions on to us instead of money the best way available is to demonstrate that we will not only not vote for them if they take big money we will vote against them by casting a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on the ballot in 2024.
As little as 10% of citizens nationally casting such a vote in 2024 could inspire more citizens to participate in 2026 and inspire candidates to run small donor campaigns in both the primaries and general elections in 2026.
It is time to issue Ralph a summons to address how we can use our votes to demand small donor candidates which is the first step in electing small donor legislators that will base their decisions on us instead of money.
I think that the issue of disinformation on the Internet needs to be viewed from the perspective that so many have been mesmerized by thier online addiction, and especially kids, that the ability to think critically about what’s seen and read online is not in the reach of people who generally have poor crtitical thinking and reading skills with which to begin. The Internet is difficult to rein in because bringing social media to heel, so to speak, comes up against the right, except for kids, to read, listen to, and see almost anything online. The Internet czars have become fabulously wealthy online and the fight against big money is not generally one that ordinary people can win.
Col. Wilkerson is one of the best authorities on the military actions of the US and its allies. Both Israel and the US act, the US through its support with weaponry, with abandon in the Gaza Strip and the laws of war mean nothing to those in power in this country and in Israel. When once the murder of innocents in war may have moved some with a modicum of conscience, that human quality is either not present in recent wars, or obscene profiteering from war clouds many arguments about any of the ancient and contemporary rules of war.
I disagree with ther colonel in one aspect of his argument about war and that is his observation about nuclear submarines being the best defense for the US. Nuclear submarines armed with multiple hydrogn bombs are ticking time bombs, as they are subject to human miscalculations in their use and we are a profoundly flawed species.
Interviewing Democratic operatives and pretending that they are independent is a form of propaganda. The Democrats and Republicans, including Trump, use lies equally. They all believe in war and the curtailment civil liberties. Hillary Clinton stole an election by manipulating the primary process. There is plenty of reason to distrust the election process. Besides the “insurrection” was a riot. There was no actual threat to our already broken government. The source of the undermining of the social value of the internet is the corruption inherent in our current political process. It’s not the internet. It’s the oligarchy that has overthrown our democracy (read “Democracy in Chains”). The pretend conflict between Trump and Biden is: One) a struggle between different oligarchal power centers, that care nothing about the People. And Two) use Congress and the executive as performers, play acting at governance. While the real power resides in the very wealthy. Barbara McQuade, as a member of the national security state, obviously hates Trump and is utterly untrustworthy. She should be ignored.
I, for one, (not to mention millions of other Americans) am so grateful for Mr. Nader's 90 years of serving this country and its people. And he has done so in the face of implacable odds from the corporate-capitalist establishment.
The obscenely mega-rich continue to find new and ingenious ways to skirt the law, steal from the working class and rig the entire system in their favor; but without Mr. Nader it would be far worse.
*******************
Listening to the interview I am reminded of Dr. Morris Berman's recognition that a lot of people have never learned to think critically. Many practice a form of mimesis which might commonly be called being a "copy-cat." The late Rush Limbaugh's loyal followers were called "ditto-heads" because they simply agreed with whatever Limbaugh told them to believe. Trump's die-hard followers seem to suffer from the same lack of critical thinking skills. '
To deviate from my point, this is why higher education is so important in maintaining a democracy. When people simply act in the manner of "monkey see, monkey do" people can be manipulated by self-aggrandizing, amoral opportunists like Trump into metaphorically cutting their own throats.
Thank you as always for the interesting and provocative episode.
I say “provocative” because I agree with other commenters that Ms. McQuade’s point of view is at least questionable.
I have not read Ms. McQuade's book but listening to her interview, reading what few reviews are available and finding out she is a contributor on MSNBC and CBS leads me to believe she has a considerable bias.
She is obviously fond of the term “misinformation.” In my observation, it means: Everyone who disagrees with the position put out by the establishment (and Democratic Party) is 100% wrong and probably a white supporter of Donald Trump. In my opinion, it is a term invented to discourage honest debate and hence, free speech.
As others have observed, it was once “disinformation” to challenge the validity of Russiagate. It was also Russian disinformation to believe Hunter Biden’s laptop was really Hunter’s laptop. It was disinformation to take the position Covid may have resulted from a lab leak. Or for that matter, to challenge the obvious lie Sadam Hussain had WMD’s at the ready and therefore, it was necessary for us to attack and turn the world upside down. Eventually, the facts came out and we found out who was actually spreading disinformation. I could go on and on.
I would have liked to have asked Ms. McQuade to opine on whether or not Colonel Wilkerson was a purveyor of disinformation because he takes the view Ukraine is an unnecessary war and that Israel’s attack on the Palestinians is an unmitigated genocide. Such views were and still are being labeled “disinformation” by Ms. McQuade’s employers, MSNBC and CBS, so I suspect she does too. A debate between her and Colonel Wilkerson would have been a lively affair.
The irony is rich when an expert and bestselling author on disinformation references Russian social media influencing the 2016 election—a theory that has been heavily questioned. "We find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior," stated one recent study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9). So, where's the real disinformation hiding? I love and will continue to support the show. But please get back to welcoming guests who don’t already have platforms in the mainstream media and at elite law schools!
She is so wrong- Russiagate? Please listen to Glenn Greenwald , the Grayzone & Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal
She us pushing more blue bs and mixing with a bit of truth
OMG! We have to wake up and take and demand action! Heads in sand doesn’t work!
I know Mr. Nader does not like internet anonymity, so out of respect, my name is Matthew Hansen, I live in the 12th District of California. I typically "hide" behind a username to protect my personal data, not so that I may say things without fear of being exposed, or things I would not say in polite society.
Full disclosure, I've not read Barbara McQuade's book, but when I heard her talk about her "National Security" course my eyes rolled into the back of my head and I suspected this book was not going to be worth any decent human being's time. Respectfully Mr. Nader, I cannot disagree with you more on your internet stance. First, I've never lived in a Democracy, so I don't really no what it's like, but it seems to me the one's who are pushing this "threat to Democracy" are more worried about the threat to the status quo than any threat to we the people. They are worried about the loss of global hegemony; the one's desperate to keep a dying empire's stranglehold over the entire world.
The one's who committed one the world's largest environmental catastrophe in history in the Nord Stream 2 explosion and tried to blame Russia for it, and then claim to care about the environment. For that matter, the one's who keep the fact that the U.S. military is the single largest contributor of climate change in the world out of public discourse. The one's prosecuting Julian Assange for publishing the truth, but dismissing him as just a hacker, when he did not obtain the information through hacking. The one's addicted to endless war. The one's who are 24/7 gaslighting the American public and running cover for Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza and continued crimes in the West Bank.
The same one's who will, with a straight face, say that it is "genocide" for Russia to change the borders of another country (and to be clear it is against international law, I am not defending that), but will shrug at the U.S.'s illegal occupation of parts of Syria or Israel's theft of the Golan Heights. The same people who will ban the sale of weapons to the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi battalion the Azov Brigade in 2018, but then the moment they can be used against Russia, they will rebrand them as freedom fighters and simply say (as the New York Times did), that they don't understand how harmful the Nazi iconography they so proudly wear is, and how it might offend some people. Or that the Nazi iconography that they so proudly wear is somehow Russian disinformation.
The same people who will tell those of us in the streets protesting, that we shouldn't casually throw around the word genocide, but will casually throw it at our adversaries. I'd like to point out that neither Russia, nor China have active, credible cases against them at the International Court of Justice. Our closest ally on the other hand...
My point is, the U.S. State Department is one of the largest purveyors of disinformation this world has ever known, and yet people like Mrs. McQuade will never speak out against that. Last year Mr. Nader, you had on a guest who was talking about proxy wars. You and the guest talked about how Joe Biden has never seen a war he didn't support, but that is also true of Hillary Clinton. It wasn't Russia that cost Clinton the election, it was because she is a bad candidate, she is a sadistic, war-mongering neo-con who was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya, Africa's most prosperous country; a country that now has open slave markets and as far as I know, is still without a central government.
You can blame Russia all you want, but it's hard to take anyone seriously when 1) not a single Russian "operative" was linked to the Russian troll farm, nor a single Russian "operative" indicted (correct me if I'm wrong) and thus not linked to the Russian government, 2) the Russian troll farm was found to be putting out mostly non-political memes that did not even reach that many people, 3) the Russian troll farm did not spend very much on the memes it put out, although I cannot remember what the estimate actually was, 4) more people voted for Gary Johnson than Jill Stein by an order of magnitude and even more eligible voters simply did not vote in 2016 (to be clear, if we are pretending to be a Democracy, then people have every right to vote for whichever candidate they believe to be the best, my vote for instance does not belong to the Democratic party, it belongs to me. If they want my vote, they damn well have to earn it), 5) top DNC officials had to resign over the Hillary Clinton scandal in which leaked emails from the DNC showed how they were rigging the election against Bernie Sanders, 6) they pulled the same Russian nonsense against Bernie Sanders in 2020 when he was running away with the primary, and 7) the biggest foreign actor interfering in our elections is Israel and has always been Israel.
Mr. Nader, the internet is not a perfect place, but it at least gives a voice to the people. Yes, there is plenty of disinformation, or misinformation (any of that on my part in the above paragraphs is unintentional; feel free to correct any if there is any). I'm sorry, but regulation of that kind has no place in social media, they should be forums of free expression, not what the U.S. Government (you know, the ones doing the disinformation themselves) deems okay. On the other hand, the news is full of propaganda and only speaks from the perspective of the U.S. Government or the corporations (same thing, right?). If they succeed in their censorship campaign and their silencing of dissenting voices, then what do we the people have left? We don't live in Soviet Russia, this is supposed to be the "Land of the Free".
When I look to the upcoming election, I feel hopeless. I will of course be voting for a third party candidate again (likely Claudia De La Cruz this time around, I voted for Gloria La Riva in 2020), but obviously it's going to be between either the current enabler of genocide or the future enabler of genocide, with a slight possibility of a third enabler of genocide in RFK Jr. It's sick, it's twisted, it's heartbreaking, it's depressing. If Genocide Joe even debates in the general election it's going to come down to two elderly men arguing about which one is more supportive of Israel. Some Democracy we have.
As a counter point to Barbara McQuade, I'd love for you to interview Janine Jackson of FAIR.org if either of you are willing.
Thank you for all the work you've done over the years Ralph, I'll forever be a supporter even when I disagree with you.
I am so disappointed that I cannot refer anyone to this episode, because the Wilkerson segment was so good, but the McQuade segment was so horrifyingly awful. The worst, and most consequential, purveyors of disinformation are the very people who breathlessly decry disinformation, the government and the legacy corporate media (including NBC/MSNBC, employer of McQuade), the institutions that want to maintain their monopoly on information. When they lie, *millions* die. On January 6 *one* person was killed (by the government). You *must* have on Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, or Aaron Maté to debunk the falsehoods and censorious recommendations touted by this guest !
Want to fix the internet? Want to fix the media? Make it peer to peer and take its ownership away from tech billionaires and government control. Most propaganda comes from those with a financial stake in it. The idea of an "information highway" was intended to be publicly held vehicle of communication.
Shall Klassik take it that if 'Mark Twain', 'Voltaire', and 'George Orwell' were alive today, Mr. Nader would want them to be banned from the Internet since they preferred to publish under pen names?
Anonymity on the Internet may cause some problems, but I reckon the most influential sources of political disinformation come from 'real people' with affiliations with 'real' organizations. Anyway, anonymity gives people the power to engage in political discussions without fear of repercussions from one's family, employers, and the town's bishop. Anonymity is often key in giving people the freedom to expose corruption. In areas with tighter restrictions on speech, anonymity is almost a necessity for people to speak freely.
Moreover, anonymity gives Netizens the freedom of being judged solely by the content of their publications and not by their ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, and so forth. This can be a very liberating experience for many people which may help them engage in the public process.
Let's look at anonymity another way. Back after the 2016 election, there was much talk in the media about people who appeared to be anti-Trump in 'real-life', but who then voted for Trump (whether this was actually any major factor in swinging the election, Klassik knows not). Shall the tradition of secret ballots be done away with because there are people who, at least in the eyes of some, seem perfectly well-adjusted in real-life who then turn into anti-social figures when given the power to vote anonymously?
The establishment Dem neocon "lawyer" you talked to did not seem to care anything about lying and disinformation by the Democrats (and I am a progressive, which means the Democrats are to the right of me since they danced over to the Dick Cheney/Bush foreign policy alliance with people lIke Nuland the past 15 years); she only wishes punitive action against "disinformation" by the GOP (who are to the right of the Dems and both are right of center). Both parties are putting out disinformation of different types.
She loves the security state to have everybody's names and views in their growing Total Information Awareness snooping databases, like Nikki Haley - who equates those who want a cease fire in Gaza with "pro Hamas" and likely thinks anyone against funding the deaths of more Ukrainians and Russians as "pro Russia."
https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-publish-name-of-every-pro-hamas-protester-2023-11?op=1
I am surprised it gives you such a thrill to sidle up to the "national security" lawyer who wants to have no anonymity. Did you forget WHY anonymity can be important, particularly for those dissenting in an unpopular view or for whistle blowers? Of COURSE the security state wants more data on people. They are collecting every shred they can gather and even buying private data that shouldn't be allowed for businesses to collect.
Why don't you do something for our privacy rights instead of helping the State put its foot on our necks quashing dissent? Why is it only California has any consumer privacy rights? Shouldn't that be a federal interest to protect all of us instead of just a few people in the nation? And here you are trying to give up our names if we have an unpopular view.
If you understand the First Amendment why are you not understanding that speech needs as much protection as possible as does the privacy of voting and dissent? This is elementary but you forgot. Then you agreed with Wilkerson that the oligarchy is in control of a lot including the media and the govt, but yet you want to give out the names of people who might anonymously venture a dissenting opinion about lies we see in the media but who might not want to wind up on a govt "list" over an anti war opinion that the govt or partisans of a party in power finds contrary to their military industrial complex lobbyist preferences.
PHILOSOPHY
ANTI-SEMANTICS
Paul Teich©️12/20/23
A word play on anti-Semitic
Rather than stopping the war
They are arguing over what words to use
Talk is cheap
For instance, Palestinians don’t want the Israeliev-Hamass war, endlessly debated by politicians in session while their people die
They just want the war to stop
And not start again
But please start the water again
Humanitarian pauses are just cruel
Humanitarian pauses are just a cruel and cynical charade
People from the Middle East are all semites
All of them
Regardless, of which Abrahamic religion they follow
All Arabs are Semites
All Jews are not semites but the original Jews came from where the Semites came from
When I use a word, I would like it to mean the same to you and to me
I would like the words that I use to be fine and understandable and not have to be changed so that my words will be correct according to somebody,
could that be you
Or so that my audience will listen to it correctly
And I can participate in a manufactured consent
Manufactured consent from Chomsky and Hermann has become quite a repeated phrase
I’d like to keep using it
I understand it
I hope you understand it
It’s meaning is simple and not couched in confusing rhetoric
I want to keep using manufactured consent, and I don’t want to have to change the phrase with cheap euphemistic language like
“ My idea that I agree with”
That might be a good euphemistic phrase to replace manufactured consent by our corporate masters
Still using Edward Bernese’s work
Who was Freuds nephew
And the head of manipulation/propaganda for the tri lateral commission designed to keep people under control in a democracy that did not really exist
If it existed, we the people would want an agrarian reform
so they had to be manipulated out of thinking that way with propaganda
I may be talking about you
Am I digressing
Talk about anti-semantics
Don’t you euphemize if that is a verb as George Carlin said
Don’t couch your phrases
Don’t take the life out of language
Don’t phase down, fossil fuels
Phase them out
Don’t say that war will be delivered in phases
Stop the war
Don’t minimize phase 1 while thinking about minimizing phase 2, while making phase 3 really big and maybe minimizing phase 4 I don’t think that’ll happen, but then maybe phase 5 wouldn’t be necessary
Or we could stop the war
Col. Wilkerson is against the U.S. war in Ukraine and he speaks against it on other YouTube sources. He calls it a "debacle" and a "catastrophe", he calls for immediate negotiation on Russian terms. Judge Napolitano's YouTube production is where I listen, and there are several other very creditable voices supporting this view. Nader did not delve into it at all, many listeners may be unaware. I've been critical and in opposition for over a year, and I'm frustrated no end. It's needless death and violence. The citizens of eastern Ukraine have a right of self-determination, and after the anti-democratic revolution in 2014 they held referendums, and they were bombed ceaselessly with 14,000 deaths in the 8 years before the 2022 invasion by Russia. Benjamin Abelow has written "How the West Brought War to Ukraine", and professor Jeffrey Sachs also speaks persuasively. It is a major U.S. debacle, it should be examined on shows like the Nader R.H.. I suggest Ralph travel to Moscow and interview Putin, that would be a great service. I'm serious. Thousands are dying needlessly, Ukraine seems to be losing badly. 99% of Americans support this debacle. Wilkerson said he's not too concerned about a second Trump presidency. I agree. We have a choice between a genocide perpetrator and pathological liar. What a democracy!
Ms. McQuade has picked a bad example for a "disinformation" complaint. Apparently, someone was warning citizens about Hillary. She should not be a Presidential candidate. She did bad things as Secretary of State. She is, indeed, not an honest representative of what US citizens need or other countries need. In this case, Ms. McQuade is spreading disinformation, herself.
"Let 'em know what you want and let 'em know you're gonna unelect them if they don't do it."
Col. Wilkerson
Town halls can be a part of letting 'em know what you want.
The question left unanswered is how do we let them know we're gonna unelect them if they don't do what we want.
As Col. Wilkerson said their decisions are based on money- not us.
As 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics which would change the dynamic the politicians base their decisions on to us instead of money the best way available is to demonstrate that we will not only not vote for them if they take big money we will vote against them by casting a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on the ballot in 2024.
As little as 10% of citizens nationally casting such a vote in 2024 could inspire more citizens to participate in 2026 and inspire candidates to run small donor campaigns in both the primaries and general elections in 2026.
It is time to issue Ralph a summons to address how we can use our votes to demand small donor candidates which is the first step in electing small donor legislators that will base their decisions on us instead of money.
Wake up.
Wise up.
Rise up.
I think that the issue of disinformation on the Internet needs to be viewed from the perspective that so many have been mesmerized by thier online addiction, and especially kids, that the ability to think critically about what’s seen and read online is not in the reach of people who generally have poor crtitical thinking and reading skills with which to begin. The Internet is difficult to rein in because bringing social media to heel, so to speak, comes up against the right, except for kids, to read, listen to, and see almost anything online. The Internet czars have become fabulously wealthy online and the fight against big money is not generally one that ordinary people can win.
Col. Wilkerson is one of the best authorities on the military actions of the US and its allies. Both Israel and the US act, the US through its support with weaponry, with abandon in the Gaza Strip and the laws of war mean nothing to those in power in this country and in Israel. When once the murder of innocents in war may have moved some with a modicum of conscience, that human quality is either not present in recent wars, or obscene profiteering from war clouds many arguments about any of the ancient and contemporary rules of war.
I disagree with ther colonel in one aspect of his argument about war and that is his observation about nuclear submarines being the best defense for the US. Nuclear submarines armed with multiple hydrogn bombs are ticking time bombs, as they are subject to human miscalculations in their use and we are a profoundly flawed species.