The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Left Employing “Roger Lyons Strategy” Against Trump. Russia Impervious to All Strategies
Breitbart made a list of fake news--some of it won Pulitzers.
Breitbart made a list of fake news--some of it won Pulitzers.

The two big stories this week: “fake news” and Russia’s alleged manipulation of our election. Actually, in my opinion, they’re non-stories.

In regard to fake news, I have a confession to make. First, some preface.

To put my podcasts together I trawl through news websites on the internet for stories of interest.

The big American broadsheet newspaper websites have mostly disappeared behind paywalls. I can’t afford more than one of those, so I subscribe to the New York Times online version—not because I like the damn thing, but because of its influence, which I need to track.

The tabloids are still free to access online; and I get the print edition of one of them, the New York Post, delivered daily because my wife likes it. Foreign tabloids are still mostly free, too: I read the London Daily Express and Daily Mail online every day.

There’s nothing wrong with tabloids. If you skip over the Elvis sightings and celebrity gossip and don’t mind bad grammar, they tell you as much about what’s going on as most of us need to know. And the opinion pieces are less rigidly CultMarx party line that those in the broadsheets.

After that I rely on secondary sites and aggregators: Breitbart, RealClearPolitics, the Daily Caller, Drudge, and some specialized sites like Asia Times for Far Eastern stuff, Discover magazine for science, and so on.

And then there are links and clips that listeners send me, some from bloggers or local newspapers. And yes, I read blogs myself. There are 26 in my Feedly.com feed, and they of course often link to news stories.

OK, now my confession.

A couple of podcasts ago I read a story that caught my fancy. There was a link to it in one of the blogs, and a listener—not the blogger—also sent me the same link. I did a segment on it for Radio Derb.

Fortunately, this podcast, before it goes on the air, gets scrutinized by VDARE.com’s James Fulford. Nothing gets past James. He spotted the source—it was a website called The Boston Tribune—as a fake news site. He cross-checked with the fact-checker site Snopes.com, and sure enough the story was bogus. I had to do some fast editing on the Radio Derb sound file before James would let me on the air.

That, by the way, is more journalistic due diligence from VDARE.com than you get at some major news outlets—a thing to bear in mind when deciding whether to (a) sign up for a subscription to one of the broadsheet newspaper web sites, or (b) donate to VDARE.com.

There is actually a commercial rationale for the existence of these fake news websites. If, like the Boston Tribune, you can work up a good newspaperish-looking website, a lot of underpaid ink-stained wretches like me, zipping around the internet looking for stories, will be taken in during a moment of haste, distraction, or intoxication. They’ll link to your fake story, pass it on to others, and you’ll get enough clicks to make you worth the attention of advertisers, who will pay you good dollars to place their ads. [Ker-ching!] Hey, it’s a living.

But I can’t get worked up about this, or about the current “fake news” fake hysteria, because I have never held journalists in the high regard in which they hold themselves.

My general approach was expressed in a column I wrote thirteen years ago for National Review: Journalists are Scum.” In that column, I summoned up the traditional British view of the journalistic profession as the haunt of drunks, vagabonds, perverts, con artists, and scoundrels.

The canonical expression of that viewpoint was Evelyn Waugh’s 1933 novel Scoop, whose lead character, William Boot, was based on my old editor at the London Daily Telegraph, Bill Deedes. Bill was actually an honest hard-working journalist with a good nose for a story, but some of the other characters in Waugh’s novel were less scrupulous. The American reporter Wenlock Jakes, for example. Quote from Scoop:

Why, once Jakes went out to cover a revolution in one of the Balkan capitals. He overslept in his carriage, woke up at the wrong station, didn’t know any different, got out, went straight to an hotel, and cabled off a thousand-word story about barricades in the streets, flaming churches, machine-guns answering the rattle of his typewriter as he wrote, a dead child, like a broken doll, spreadeagled in the deserted roadway below his window—you know.

So yes, fake news has been around for ever. It’s probably as old as real news … maybe older. I bet someone back in Mycenae was fake-newsing the Trojan War.

That Democrats are raising the specter of fake news as something peculiar to late 2016 and the Trump campaign bespeaks a complete lack of historical and literary awareness.

Not to mention desperation.

I am likewise unmoved by the fuss about the Russians influencing our elections via leaked emails.

My reaction to this was: Duh. Of course the Russians would like to influence our elections. We’d influence theirs, if they had any that were half-way genuine. We actually did spend tens of millions of dollars t rying to influence the Ukrainian elections two years ago. [Ukraine crisis: Putin adviser accuses US of meddling,BBC, February 6, 2014]

And what did the Russians actually accomplish in the way of influencing our elections? Answer: We don’t know, since the evidence that they did anything is entirely circumstantial.

On the very worst interpretation, all the Russians did was expose the cynicism and dishonesty of Mrs. Clinton and her operatives by releasing their emails—what Judge Andrew Napolitano has referred to as “the truthful revelation of private facts.” [Did the Russians Hack Hillary?, Unz.com, December 15, 2016]If you want to know how politicians and their staffers talk to each other in private, you generally have to wait a decade or two until the memoirs are published. Wikileaks—possibly with Russian help—gave us the same information without the time lag, that’s all.

I can’t see anything here to get agitated about. The main thought I come away with is: Why don’t we have hackers as good as theirs, to access Vladimir Putin’s emails, and Xi Jinping’s, and Kim Jong Un’s, and broadcast them to their people?

That would at least be playing the game in a spirited fashion, instead of hunkering curled up in a corner and whining.

What’s really going on here with the fusses about fake news and Russian interference is what I’m going to christen the Roger Lyons Strategy.

Readers of my monthly diaries here at VDARE.com will recall my reminiscing, in last month’s diary, about some very obscure events of fifty-three years ago, events that brought me my first real political insight.

ORDER IT NOW

In very brief: I was a freshman undergraduate at University College, London. The college’s student union held an election for union president. There was a Leftist candidate named Roger Lyons and a conservative candidate whose name I’ve forgotten. A ballot was held, and the conservative won.

The Leftists wouldn’t accept that result. They called endless meetings, raised endless tiny points of order. At last the mass of students got bored with it all and let them have their way. The election was re-held. Roger Lyons was elected. (He later rose to glory as a senior official in Britain’s labor movement, not without some patches of controversy.).

That’s what the Left is like, always and everywhere. They are relentless in the pursuit of power. Byron said that

Love is of man’s life a thing apart,

‘Tis woman’s whole existence.”

Something similar applies to political passion. For a conservative, politics is one feature of a many-faceted life. To a leftist, it’s his whole existence.

And the Left is anti-realist. They don’t like reality. They are in fact prisoners of the Moralistic Fallacy: the belief that anything that offends my personal sensibilities cannot be the case.

Hence all the huffing about “no such thing as race.” If there were innate race differences in personality and behavior, that would be emotionally offensive to CultMarx sensibilities. Ergo there can’t be.

Last month’s election result was a real thing, a fact in the world. So far as I can determine, there was nothing false or illusory about it. From the point of view of the Left, though, it was the wrong result. It cannot be a fact in the world because it’s wrong: that is, it has caused Cultural Marxists to experience negative emotions.

Hence all the hysteria: demands for recounts, “fake news,” Russian hacking, intimidation of Electors.

I doubt it’ll stop there. Like Roger Lyons and his supporters all those years ago, the Left won’t quit. The Trump administration, both pre- and post-Inauguration, will be pestered with allegations, inquiries, lawsuits, protests … This show will run and run.

When events hurt your feelings, they can’t possibly be real events. There was a plot, a conspiracy, covert action. Someone, somewhere, was pulling a hidden lever.

We have to find that person and punish him!

What about the larger question of whether Russia is a natural enemy of the U.S.A.? Is it?

My answer would be no, with qualifications.

Russia belongs to Western Civilization, to which they’ve made great contributions. In music and the arts, in literature, in science and math, Russia has been a major player since at least the 18th century. The MacTutor biographical dictionary of important mathematicians lists 130 born in Russia. I covered some of them in my own books about the history of mathematics.

Culturally, civilizationally, Russians are our brothers and sisters. Without their contributions, Western Civ. would be the poorer.

That said, you then have to say this: That of all the great European nations, Russia alone has never really struggled up out of medieval despotism into full civic nationhood. Politically, Russia is the problem child of the modern West.

Is there anything we can do about this? I doubt it. Nations—especially old nations with ingrained political habits—are not malleable things.

Not that we haven’t tried. Here’s Colonel Ralph Peters, in a New York Post column published December 11th. [Vladimir Putin will always be America’s enemy]

Before I get to the pertinent quote, let me just note that Peters [Email him] is a neocon, with a line in militaristic bluster that would have had the last Kaiser nodding along enthusiastically. Sample quote:

To align ourselves with Putin in 2017 would be the equivalent of allying with Hitler in 1937.

Hoo-kay, Colonel; time for a refill on the meds, perhaps.

But in among all the neocon bombast and sleight of hand, Peters writes:

I served in Washington (traveling often to Moscow) as the Soviet Union died of organ failure. Far from attempting to punish the “new” Russia, we and our European allies fell all over ourselves to indulge Moscow’s whims and encourage investment. Our State Department’s infatuation with the “new” Russia was embarrassingly extreme.

Yes, it was. We believe, in our blithe American optimism, that once a nation is shown the benefits of constitutional democracy it will leap to embrace that form of government.

In the nineties in Russia, and again in the Middle East a decade later, that belief was field-tested. The field tests did not go well.

If there’s nothing positive we can do, though, there are follies we can avoid. If we can’t actually do anything to improve Russia, we should at least not do things that stimulate their worst national characteristics.

Like, for example, moving NATO up to their borders. Colonel Peters tells us that the desire of East Europeans to join NATO is understandable, as of course it is. He cites the horrors of Soviet imperialism, quote (with links added) :

The slaughter of workers in Berlin in 1953 … The bloodbath in Hungary in ’56 … Soviet tanks rolling into Prague in ’68 …

But Peters forgets to mention that Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson did nothing about those atrocities—and that nothing was what the American public wanted them to do.

If Russia does something similar today—to Latvia, say—we are obliged by treaty to go to war against Russia.

Plainly that’s what Ralph Peters wants. But is it what Americans want?

(Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Will they really bang on forever, the Left? Won’t the day be saved by some all-American virtues: impatience, the search for new fashions, low boredom threshold, the deep desire to curry favour with those in power, frivolity?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/left-employing-roger-lyons-strategy-against-trump-russia-impervious-to-all-strategies/#comment-1695393
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I love Russia and Russians. No people given to driving the way they do and drinking they way they do can be all bad.

    And John, if you need to know how to skirt the NYT’s paywall, please contact me via my registered unz.com site email address. It’s easy and moreover no one should be contributing a penny toward that destroyer of worlds, that colossal force for evil; that enemy of American civilization.

    Frankly though, since this year’s election I’ve quit visiting both the NYT and WP–their pretensions to journalistic integrity having become strained past the breaking point. I don’t miss them, and anyway Google News pretty much carries everything in them: it’s essentially an MSM aggregator.

    Read More
  3. It is easy to circumvent the Washington Post paywall, if you make the routine a habit. I clear the cookies and offsite website data every ten articles, and that is all that is needed. It’s a bit tedious at first, but you get used to it.

    The real problem, of course, is that the Washington Post is now close to being a fake news site, with no boundaries between opinion and reportage. You pretty much have to parse every line of an article to correct for slant and spin.

    Read More
  4. [of all the great European nations, Russia alone has never really struggled up out of medieval despotism into full civic nationhood.]

    May sound good to some, but it’s empty guff. Not long ago Englishmen said the same thing about Germany. What has changed? Only the needs of propaganda. And the same could always have been said of Italy, but the difference is that nobody fears Italy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Not long ago Englishmen said the same thing about Germany. What has changed?"

    Not a lot. They were pretty good technologists and industrially productive in 1913 and 1938 too. Germans are still blindly following a leader into the abyss - but this time there may not be a recognisable Germany at the end of the process.

    (Not that a Brit has anything to crow about.)
  5. That said, you then have to say this: That of all the great European nations, Russia alone has never really struggled up out of medieval despotism into full civic nationhood. Politically, Russia is the problem child of the modern West.

    But if you say that, you really ought also to say that Russia alone, of all the “great European nations” and their American offspring, has not succumbed to the basically suicidal anti-nationalist social liberalism that uses political correctness, censorship and indoctrination to impose belief in straightforwardly untrue dogmas about race, culture, sexuality and sexual behaviour.

    In the nineties in Russia, and again in the Middle East a decade later, that belief was field-tested. The field tests did not go well.

    Partly, perhaps mostly, because much of the supposedly charitable activity in such endeavours is inevitably actually malign, whether from carpetbaggers seeking to profit for themselves, or external interests seeking to further their own agendas. And it involves further destabilisation by shifting the already damaged power balances within the country, attacking some remaining power centres and interest groups and supporting others.

    In the US sphere, from a safe distance, such issues are naturally downplayed as unfortunate side effects or necessary evils, but in the target countries they loom far larger and create profound hostility and resistance, opposition and long term bitterness.

    In Russia, the US sphere’s activities in the 1990s are not generally remembered favourably, even before the Kosovo war blew away any further pretence. On the impact of this latter event, and subsequent US sphere strategic activities, we should recognise the force in Solzhenitsyn’s words from 2007:

    “When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.

    This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It’s fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.

    So, the perception of the West as mostly a “knight of democracy” has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.”

    SPIEGEL Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Read More
  6. John, you talked around the edges of other characteristics of Liberals.

    In a massive projection, they believe everyone is conspiring against them because they are typically involved in conspiracies against everyone else in their diabolical quest for power to change, reshape, and reeducate the rest of the world — the essence of totalitarianism, recognizing that the difference between socialists, feminists, Cultural Marxists, and Communists is a matter of degree. Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton’s are classical examples of this.

    Liberals also share emotions regarding the universality of humankind (gender, age, race, culture, and religion are irrelevant social constructs) and the felt need to do away with the traditional family … hence, their warmth for the LGBTQxyz movement.

    Families lead to familial associations, that lead to social congregations, that lead to political opposition. It is much easier to deal with recalcitrant individuals than organized opposition, especially when you are trying to forcibly recast human nature and the material world in the image of a radical set of political, social, and economic phantasms.

    Read More
  7. Russia started timidly in Syria and falsely claimed to be pulling out after stablising the Assad position in Aleppo, but because the West had did nothing much the steamrollering is now going to crush the resistance completely.

    In innovation terms, Russia is an eternal petrified forest, merely exporting resources. It now needs Western technology to enable profitable supply of cheap clean energy to Chinese manufacturing, which is will let them continue deindustrializing the West.

    Trump will come in with all the justification he needs to cut off Russia from its indefeasible supplier of advanced know-how (as Anthony C. Sutton showed, Russia has zero ability to make technological advances of it’s own). Russia will then realise, as it did when Reagan ceased the gifting of Western inventiveness, that the US cannot be thwarted with impunity

    Read More
  8. @5371
    [of all the great European nations, Russia alone has never really struggled up out of medieval despotism into full civic nationhood.]

    May sound good to some, but it's empty guff. Not long ago Englishmen said the same thing about Germany. What has changed? Only the needs of propaganda. And the same could always have been said of Italy, but the difference is that nobody fears Italy.

    “Not long ago Englishmen said the same thing about Germany. What has changed?”

    Not a lot. They were pretty good technologists and industrially productive in 1913 and 1938 too. Germans are still blindly following a leader into the abyss – but this time there may not be a recognisable Germany at the end of the process.

    (Not that a Brit has anything to crow about.)

    Read More
  9. […] also been cited as the "canonical text" on the hot topic of "fake news" in a journalistic  weblog The Unz Review, quoting the Wenlock Jakes […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering