I clicked „Join the conversation“ after Jeremy Scahill’s article on groupthink on The Intercept_’s web site, hoping to participate in a forum discussing the piece, and was forwarded to Twitter, to find (at the time I posted) 11 tweets which are all just abuse, three of the tweets graphics. The effect this has would seem to be deft illustration of Scahill’s points, however my guess is the posters would see this otherwise.

The names Seymour Hersh and Daniel Ellsberg were both in international headlines recently as a result of Hersh’s article on the bombing of Nord Stream and Ellsberg’s announcement he is dying of cancer. I was reminded of the early 1970s, when Hersh’s work on Mỹ Lai and Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers made their names household words. I remember Life Magazine’s photographs of Mỹ Lai on my family’s coffee table, the morning paper’s headlines about Vietnam including frequent mention of Ellsberg.

In our school’s Social Studies and History classes we children debated Vietnam, Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers, as we later debated Watergate. Teachers coached debate clubs, and trained us in the art of argument, how to use logic to make points which we had previously researched through careful reading in the library. It did not seem unusual to assume that when I grew up I would live in a world of adults who, like my parents, their friends, our teachers, and the other adults I knew, used careful words to discuss politics.

Cartoons were on kids‘ home televisions after school, of course. We were all familiar with and enjoyed cartoons. But cartoons and scatological humor were not how adults communicated with each other. Our parents might watch Johnny Carson in the evening, but the words of late-night comedians were not what informed adult views of the world.

In 2023 it is odd indeed to be able to continue looking reliably to Seymour Hersh, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Alfred McCoy for informed commentary on world politics, but to see public discourse take the form of children’s cartoons, name-calling and schoolyard taunting, the red-baiting directed against Vietnam War critics who post-9/11 were characterized as sympathizing with „The Terrorists“ now become slandering people as being pro-Putin.

As a child I much enjoyed science fiction novels and movies, the enjoyable frisson of fear when imagining the life of Winston Smith or Guy Montag, D-503, THX or Bernard Marx. At the time I longed for adulthood, for the world of adult challenges. Having now the immersive experience of 2023 and Twitter-based „discourse“ I must say this particular dystopia is not the one I was expecting.

Carey Shenkman: Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, just published a book where he gloats about how he pressured the Ecuadorian government to get rid of Assange. He talked about how he hoped that Assange would be extradited and prosecuted. So, in fact, there are high level officials in the US government that were hoping to take extra legal means to spy on Assange, spy on his lawyers, spy on his visitors.

Robert Scheer: They had copies of his conversation with his attorneys.

Shenkman: Yeah, they’re spying on his lawyers, just as they did with Daniel Ellsberg. I mean, these prosecutions. They think they’re above the law, and that’s really horrifying.

Scheer: Well they are above the law. Let’s cut to the chase here.

Ω Ω Ω

World’s first Atlas of Impunity:

The US is closer to the median than top performers and ranks higher on impunity than both Hungary and Singapore. The US result reflects a weaker performance on the conflict and violence and human rights indicators.

Between 1918 and 1921, Poland was in a state of declared or undeclared war on literally all frontiers except the Romanian. But these—the Polish-Ukrainian War of 1918-19, the Polish-Czech clash of arms in 1919, the Polish-Lithuanian conflict over the Vilnius region in 1919-20, the Polish-Soviet War in 1920, the Polish-German quarrels over Greater Poland and Upper Silesia in 1918-21, and the massive wave of violence perpetrated by soldiers and paramilitaries alike against civilians on territory under Polish control—have almost completely vanished from our memory and do not haunt our imagination.

—Jochen Böhler, Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 65.

FAIR:

Scores of hits from publications across the globe pop up from an internet search for veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s claim that the US destroyed Russia’s Nord Stream gas pipeline.

But what is most striking about the page after page of results from Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo in the weeks following the February 8 posting of Hersh’s story isn’t what is there, but what is not to be found:

•  The Times of London (2/8/23) reported Hersh’s story hours after he posted it on his Substack account, but nothing in the New York Times.
• Britain’s Reuters News Agency moved at least ten stories (2/8/23, 2/9/23, 2/12/2, 2/15/23, among others), the Associated Press not one.
• Not a word broadcast by the major US broadcast networks—NBC, ABC, CBS—or the publicly funded broadcasters PBS and NPR.
• No news stories on the nation’s major cable outlets, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

Daniel Ellsberg:

Dear friends and supporters,

I have difficult news to impart. On February 17, without much warning, I was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer on the basis of a CT scan and an MRI. (As is usual with pancreatic cancer–which has no early symptoms–it was found while looking for something else, relatively minor). I’m sorry to report to you that my doctors have given me three to six months to live. Of course, they emphasize that everyone’s case is individual; it might be more, or less.

I have chosen not to do chemotherapy (which offers no promise) and I have assurance of great hospice care when needed. Please know: right now, I am not in any physical pain, and in fact, after my hip replacement surgery in late 2021, I feel better physically than I have in years! Moreover, my cardiologist has given me license to abandon my salt-free diet of the last six years. This has improved my quality of life dramatically: the pleasure of eating my former favorite foods! And my energy level is high.

Since my diagnosis, I’ve done several interviews and webinars on Ukraine, nuclear weapons, and first amendment issues, and I have two more scheduled this week.

As I just told my son Robert: he’s long known (as my editor) that I work better under a deadline. It turns out that I live better under a deadline!

I feel lucky and grateful that I’ve had a wonderful life far beyond the proverbial three-score years and ten. ( I’ll be ninety-two on April 7th.) I feel the very same way about having a few months more to enjoy life with my wife and family, and in which to continue to pursue the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).

When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening the end of the Vietnam War, unlikely as that seemed (and was). Yet in the end, that action—in ways I could not have foreseen, due to Nixon’s illegal responses—did have an impact on shortening the war. In addition, thanks to Nixon’s crimes, I was spared the imprisonment I expected, and I was able to spend the last fifty years with Patricia and my family, and with you, my friends.

What’s more, I was able to devote those years to doing everything I could think of to alert the world to the perils of nuclear war and wrongful interventions: lobbying, lecturing, writing and joining with others in acts of protest and non-violent resistance.

I wish I could report greater success for our efforts. As I write, „modernization“ of nuclear weapons is ongoing in all nine states that possess them (the US most of all). Russia is making monstrous threats to initiate nuclear war to maintain its control over Crimea and the Donbas–like the dozens of equally illegitimate first-use threats that the US government has made in the past to maintain its military presence in South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and (with the complicity of every member state then in NATO ) West Berlin. The current risk of nuclear war, over Ukraine, is as great as the world has ever seen.

China and India are alone in declaring no-first-use policies. Leadership in the US, Russia, other nuclear weapons states, NATO and other US allies have yet to recognize that such threats of initiating nuclear war–let alone the plans, deployments and exercises meant to make them credible and more ready to be carried out–are and always have been immoral and insane: under any circumstances, for any reasons, by anyone or anywhere.

It is long past time–but not too late!–for the world’s publics at last to challenge and resist the willed moral blindness of their past and current leaders. I will continue, as long as I’m able, to help these efforts. There’s tons more to say about Ukraine and nuclear policy, of course, and you’ll be hearing from me as long as I’m here.

As I look back on the last sixty years of my life, I think there is no greater cause to which I could have dedicated my efforts. For the last forty years we have known that nuclear war between the US and Russia would mean nuclear winter: more than a hundred million tons of smoke and soot from firestorms in cities set ablaze by either side, striking either first or second, would be lofted into the stratosphere where it would not rain out and would envelope the globe within days. That pall would block up to 70% of sunlight for years, destroying all harvests worldwide and causing death by starvation for most of the humans and other vertebrates on earth.

So far as I can find out, this scientific near-consensus has had virtually no effect on the Pentagon’s nuclear war plans or US/NATO (or Russian) nuclear threats. (In a like case of disastrous willful denial by many officials, corporations and other Americans, scientists have known for over three decades that the catastrophic climate change now underway–mainly but not only from burning fossil fuels–is fully comparable to US-Russian nuclear war as another existential risk.)

I’m happy to know that millions of people–including all those friends and comrades to whom I address this message!–have the wisdom, the dedication and the moral courage to carry on with these causes, and to work unceasingly for the survival of our planet and its creatures.

I’m enormously grateful to have had the privilege of knowing and working with such people, past and present. That’s among the most treasured aspects of my very privileged and very lucky life. I want to thank you all for the love and support you have given me in so many ways. Your dedication, courage, and determination to act have inspired and sustained my own efforts.

My wish for you is that at the end of your days you will feel as much joy and gratitude as I do now.

Love, Dan

It’s often hard to know what to make of phrasing which seems unconscious parody. Brave hubris? Desperate farce? So much activity both on social media and in street demonstrations seems to be pageantry for a very narrow audience of the already convinced. If this is whistling past the graveyard personally I’d just as soon avoid the graveyard and spend what is to me productive time reading in the library.

In appearances like this Wagenknecht makes perfect sense, and moderators treat her as if she’s embarrassingly naïve. Mainstream German media argues from authority, from innuendo — she’s obviously wrong because, well, she’s obviously wrong, can’t you see that? Anyone and everyone can see that. And the right-wing likes her: what more proof do you need? There is a satisfied self-righteousness at play which is very culture-specific. It’s tribal behavior, divorced from rationality, devoid of facts.

Christoph Ruf’s piece captures this phenomenon well, citing Franziska Davies‘ calling Jürgen Habermas’ essay in »Süddeutsche Zeitung« »dämlich« and »Schnodder«. Ruf speaks of »fehlende Bescheidenheit« but it’s much more than that: there’s a real absence of logic. This reminds me of similar attacks on Susan Sontag or Noam Chomsky during Gulf War II in the US. You can agree or disagree with the arguments made, but what are you thinking when you call one of these people „naïve“? It’s odd to watch this.