Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

publicbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 260 posts

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#71

Post by ptsneves »

lifewallet_dev wrote: post #33
mschuster91 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People get silenced in the US every day because they have a different opinions on current events, for example the US proxy war with Russia. Uh, sorry what? It was Russia that decided to invade a sovereign country for annexation. Not the other way around. And of course everyone is free to disagree with your take. You are not being "silenced" or "canceled", you are being told your opinion is completely contrary to fa…

More propaganda, listen to the other side... oh well it's banned everywhere.

I have some sympathy for contrarians, not because of their accuracy but because they are the canary in the mine for freedom of speech. Wrong statements also give the opportunity for argument and thus replacement of dogma with reasoning.

I upvoted you above, and I believe your opinion on the proxy war is valid. Victimizing yourself though means that you are unable to stand by your arguments and are just poisoning the well for others who can. Having a different opinion requires effort and often disparagement.

> More propaganda, listen to the other side... oh well it's banned everywhere. This is just low effort.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#72

Post by mschuster91 »

oefrha wrote: post #58
mschuster91 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the allies of Ukraine supposed to look away at the first time since the OG 1933-45 Nazis that someone tries to re-draw borders and annex countries using war?! What Russia did was a complete and utter shart on the international rule of law.

Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. And I’m not even counting the invade-and-install-a-puppet kind of wars.

> Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders.

I was talking about annexation wars. Not about countries fighting for independence / collapse aftermaths (like the former Yugoslavian countries or the Vietnam war).

But yes, you're correct, I forgot about the first Iraq war where Iraq tried to annex Kuwait and the US (and others) responded under UNSC authorization. And I completely ignored Africa, because honestly I don't have much knowledge about these and to be frank they aren't really relevant.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#73

Post by chpatrick »

mandmandam wrote: post #40
chpatrick wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the US certainly has some issues but it's still a million times better than Russia et al. There are degrees of evil.

Gobal opinion is pretty clear that Russia are majorly in the wrong right now. However, global opinion hasn't forgotten what America did in the Middle East. And South America. And in America. And is doing still. No country except America thinks that we are "a million times better than Russia", I promise you.

I live in a former eastern bloc country and I think that. That doesn't mean I think the US hasn't committed crimes of its own. I wouldn't live in the US either due to its social issues. But between the US or Russia, I'd choose the US any day.

Russia's been in the wrong not just right now but for centuries.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#74

Post by ptsneves »

somenameforme wrote: post #8
trabant00 wrote: post #2

I've been thinking a lot about these kind of scenarios lately: Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are p…

IMO information doesn't have the impact most people think it does. It seems to play much more of a role in shaping long-term views rather than driving immediate short-term responses. One would have expected the Snowden revelations to trigger a monumental response. They did not, and so a cynic might say people mostly didn't care. But that also seems wrong. Rather it seems to have played (and is playing) a significant…

Really nice insight: > So the point I'd make with this is that information itself is something that should be free. Because it shapes views. Where things get dodgy is in 'inorganic' organizing and promotion.

It is this that I would like journalists and even states to protect the people against. Not censor but a nice little banner like Youtube and Twitter saying this media comes from and is part of a campaign. In that banner then publish the analysis and criteria used.

Youtube does it for in-video advertising so the logic exists even in the commercial space. I find it plausible it would be valuable in the virtual agora.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#75

Post by throwaway6734 »

bombolo wrote: post #69
throwaway6734 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about the Marshall plan or the massive amounts of technical advancements due to the US or the billions of people lifted out of poverty due to the US secured global order. The US has been an imperfect superpower but objectively the most benevolent. Realistically, what would be a better alternative to US hegemony?

> The US has been an imperfect superpower but objectively the most benevolent. I'm sure the south americans that get a golpe every time they try to have a democratic elections disagree. Possibly also the afghan women that had equal rights during communism might feel that USA wasn't very benevolent. I've also met refugees who had to leave their country because of USA bombing them (for made up chemical weapons). They a…

What superpower has been more benevolent than the US?

>Clearly USA is advantageous for you (and me!) but I wouldn't presume it is for the majority of people.

Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty due to the economic system that has been maintained via US power.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#76

Post by jasmer »

theFco wrote: post #5
trabant00 wrote: post #2

I've been thinking a lot about these kind of scenarios lately: Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are p…

In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American valu…

[flagged]

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#77

Post by pjc50 »

jasmer wrote: post #76
theFco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American valu…

[flagged]

[citation needed] on Allende.

This is what the CIA ended up supporting: disappearances (i.e. secret mass murder) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/17/chile-families...

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#78

Post by pjc50 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #72
oefrha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. And I’m not even counting the invade-and-install-a-puppet kind of wars.

> Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. I was talking about annexation wars. Not about countries fighting for independence / collapse aftermaths (like the former Yugoslavian countries or the Vietnam war). But yes, you're correct, I forgot about the first Iraq war where Iraq tried to annex Kuwait and the US (and others) responded under UNSC auth…

And the (surprisingly similar to the current situation) annexation of Northern Cyprus by Greece in 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

The situation there has basically been .. abandoned. Yet another long term frozen conflict.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#79

Post by 7952 »

Nevermark wrote: post #9
mihaic wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in democratic countries you have a milder version of this: the most successful politicians are usually those that can get the backing of the political class. Acting against the interests of the political class means you're without the bureaucratic apparatus that would have allowed you to make meaningful and lasting change. There really does seem to be an "optimal amount of corruption" in absolutely any sufficien…

That there is optimal corruption, in a static system, makes sense to me. Changing the system for the better (I.e. start requiring US Supreme Court justices to actually avoid conflicts of interest, or forbid coordinated out of state money for state’s senate races) could incrementally reduce the corruption stable point. — What strikes me as a missed opportunity, is that democracies haven’t institutionalized a response…

I think most of the response needed to suppress bad behaviour is cultural and peer pressure. Rules and regulations just externalise that problem into an administrative function. People can demonstrate compliance without having to worry about the actual purpose of the rule. And that technical compliance can be used to protect them from any consequences.
Post reply on HN