This is, by far, the most important story of the decade and explains a lot of what we're seeing. The implications for the US Dollar are especially dramatic.
back
2 comments
This explains nothing. It is a side-effect of poor domestic monetary and social policies that call into question the long term stability of Western democracy.
The poor domestic monetary policy is the equivalent of one or two fewer lifeboats but make no mistake: the end of the petrodollar is the iceberg.
This is also why the US is in the manufacturing consent stage of a war with china. China may or may not have aspirations to global imperialism, but the US certainly does. And providing economic alternatives to subservience to american interests is a direct threat to that.
Such a fun term to discredit popular consensus or democratic votes. "Manufactured consent", the rallying cry of failed and unpopular ideologues. But it certainly tracks that the person who coined the term is a genocide denialist for a foreign dictator.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Ch...
What was the consent or consensus, when Iraq was attacked for alleged weapons of mass destruction?
That's actually a great example
> A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United...
Remember that the popular consensus isn't always the right thing to do. We can nearly always explain this as a product of emotions and groupthink. Why then does our favorite genocide denialist resort to convoluted conspiracy theories?
>In Manufacturing Consent (1988), Chomsky and Herman discussed the media reaction to their earlier writings on the Cambodian genocide. They summarised the position which they had taken in After the Cataclysm (1979):
>>As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.”
its like a child, after being caught with chocolate on their entire face, and after a long scolding, admits that it is possible that there might have been at some point been a chocolate eating binge (but that he was correct in eating the chocolate).
you should go read what they originally said at the time of the genocide. its similar to saying we shouldnt believe the stories of jewish refugees at the time of the holocaust because the us and the nazis happened to be enemies.
> how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population
imagine if someone said this about the reporting of the holocaust. the cambodian genocide is comparable in terms of numbers to the holocaust btw. so shameless and yet people still defend these people
Their point was that the US media downplays its own atrocities while playing up those of its enemies.
Their statements seem reasonable in that context. What you’re claiming is outright denial is more like hedging, and an open admission that they don’t trust the source.
It reflects poor judgment on his part, but what you’re arguing isn’t in good faith.
Denying the holocaust today is reprehensible. Denying it in 1943 was understandable, given the limited facts at the time. Similarly, denying the Cambodian genocide in a book in 1979, literally right in the middle of it, isn’t the same as denying it today.
He sure fucking is! He's incredibly shitty and racist, and will make hypocritical excuses for all kinds of horrors. That doesn't make his insights about certain aspects of US imperialism incorrect. It's a useful concept and an accurate term to describe what is happening in this context.