Dissent, and the New Cold War — John Batchelor Interviews Stephen F. Cohen

Batchelor this week begins with an interesting discussion of how Joe McCarthy was finally considered a threat to the Eisenhower presidency as his power base grew. McCarthy’s goal was to be a very viable presidential candidate and he was succeeding. Cohen finds this interesting in that Russians would call McCarthyism a “living history” event and uses the introduction to compare the Russian experience to the American counterpart. The Soviet system eventually did moderate and became less invasive after Stalin’s reign of abuses, but censorship in the Russian media was the norm (almost to the end of the Soviet Era) and Cohen finds the present controls in the US MSM very similar to those extremes. Cohen also muses that dtente efforts may have been serious problems for other presidents. But this time around the goals of the new McCarthyism are geared to both destroying dtente and a president. And, Cohen remarks, for those who depend on the MSM for their news it is working.
How were the Soviet “efforts to safeguard its orthodoxy and preserve its narrative similar or different from the present state of the American MSM? Cohen maintains there were some close similarities. Some of these mutual efforts are obvious – like exclusion of alternate points of view – in US mainstream print media. Suppression of dissidents (Andrei Dmitrievich Sackharov is a Soviet example) is also in play in the United States with labels such as “Putin Apologists” who find themselves stigmatized with criticism. Both Cohen and Batchelor have experienced this. Cohen describes this new McCarthyism as a kind of “cancer, metaphorically” such that this harangue of a narrative restrains people like Sec. State, Tillerson from performing their functions. The Soviets also misrepresented facts to maintain their narrative for Russians. The bottom line for both regimes that indulge in this kind of propaganda is that deceit is hugely damaging on multi-levels.
One of the facts left out, Cohen mentions, is a huge one involving how the DNC handled the “hack”, that it did not call the FBI but a private investigation agency (Crowdstrike). This bunch labelled the problem as being due to Russian involvement. And so the narrative began. The FBI never investigated these findings! Other groups looked at these findings and nothing was found to implicate Russia. No facts whatsoever. It was all deceit. These facts have been excluded. In the Soviet system the KGB was used as the expert sources for spin propaganda. In the US, however, the heads of agencies have stood up and supported the narrative – like James Comey, Director of the FBI did very recently. Cohen is still unsure whether the FBI ever looked closely at the DNC situation. He suspects that Comey was told not to.

This post was published at Audioboom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*