thanks karl.. the issue of history is a fascinating one.. it is a retelling of a story of the past essentially, but it can be retold a number of different ways, depending on who is doing the telling.. it is like 2 people at the scene of an accident, but viewing the accident from a different angle...
i am reminded of timothy synder, the yale prof who has tried to retell history in a way that favours the west and trashes russia.. i suspect he is paid for his position by the cia, or some other arm of the gov't... bloodlands is one of his books.. in this regard he is an amazing propagandist who has fabricated a story which serves a higher purpose - usa gov't... annie applebaum and others like her do the very same thing... it is another arm of the war on russia - retell the story in the most egregious way possible..
As I said, you don't get to own the facts. They are there for all to see, and the act of eyesight in humans is for ***the brain to interpret*** the impulses it gets from its eyes, which is why no one ***views the facts*** exactly the same. Yet the facts remain the facts. Being as faithful as possible to relay the facts by placing them into context is the ***craft*** of ***real*** historians. And the above example is why all history is revisionary as long as it's objective and honest. Purposely slanting history is the same sort of crime as giving false testimony, and many are guilty.
This is interesting. I view history as a science. Even primary sources are written with the bias of the writer who was there watching it happen. When we read the primary source we add our own bias, conditioning and upbringing. The skill is in observing these biases, making hypothesis and then comparing and testing against other sources.
When people do science, what they chose to study is based on what they can get funded and published which means all science is biased to what people can make money out of.
Biomedical science is virtually 'owned' by big pharma. When the legacy or alt media cherry pick what to report on they are also being owned by the money.
If we want to talk of real historians or real scientists they are those willing to go back to the sources or papers and debate the interpretation.
Slanting is like giving false testimony but it's the censorship of debate (aka doing history and science) on the 'facts' which is a really big, frightening problem.
Indeed, it does, but the optic system - if we accept that interpretation - has nothing to do with meaning 😎. It is that old problem of brain and mind, which we seem not to be able to resolve 😇
Thanks as usual Karl. I do like the notion of "... historiosophy as an understanding of the path of the state through its historical experience." in terms of providing another lense for the study of geopolitical and social history.
I can think of at least two examples of 'imperial projects' that may have been responses to traumatic events in their formative years.
Circa 387BC Rome was invaded/conquered by Brennus' Gauls and went on to conquer the whole Italian peninsula and then the Mediterranean Basin.
1812 Great Britain did the same to Washington, which went on to where we are now.
The 1812 War was far longer than 1812-1815 and began with the undeclared war against France during Adams presidency. Imperial expansion was on the minds of pre-revolutionary colonists prior to 1763 and continued. Virginia's Charter mandated it all the lands to the Pacific Ocean, for example, and there're many others. The period too many overlook is between 1620 and 1720 when Hakluyt's Plantation plan took hold along with the influence of the English Civil War on settlement and Colonial politics. We Americans learn very little about the English Civil War despite its very large impact on our Colonial development. And then there's the affect made by William of Orange that's also ignored. If I were allowed to design US History courses, they would be two years at minimum, not the one-year, two semester design that attempts to jam everything into and thus omits too much. The reality is very few Americans actually learn what's most important about the USA's history, which is a major cause of our political problems.
Hiya, lots going on here, the discussion about the creation of a false left for bleeding hearts. They've been disguising rich industrialists and finance capitalists at a vanity project in Switzerland as evil communists who want to destroy and/or control the world with left wing policies for awhile. I would say people wouldn't fall for it, but lots of people i know have! This and climate denying industry groups like Heartland (writing in the Hill in 2020 linking 'covid' to climate as a means of control by the WEF) plus deliberately created transactivism has led to a swing to the far right, the patriarchy and support for fossil fuels and animal ag.
There's also the discussion of disinformation and censorship. As someone who was permanently censored from Twitter for wanting to debate 'the facts' on the evidence of the existence of viruses- I'm wondering what the covid dissent was in Russia and how it was handled?
There were no mandates in Russia aside from social distancing, and they made the best vaccine, but it wasn't made mandatory. Russia clearly was affected by China's stance and the information China provided. I highly suggest learning about the basics of microbiology via the excellent book by Lynn Margulis, "Microcosmos" wherein viruses are just one of a vast universe of organisms that control our lives and environment.
As someone firmly on the left, I find it odd that the left is described as not being interested in the economic conditions that victimize people. I've always found that interesting. I guess there are different factions of the left.
Yes, certainly there're different factions. But what Dr. Hudson's attacking is the Faux Left and its relations with the Democrat Party. The New Dealers and their humanistic approach to the problem that looked at/into the power structure had real influence on social policy during the Great Depression in the USA, but that all came to a halt with WW2, never to live again. The war and the power structure that arose during it trashed as much of the New Deal as they could, and the reasons why the poor are poor today arise from that change. Financial Apartheid is what Hudson calls it which I featured in a substack and is from this page, https://michael-hudson.com/2024/01/debt-makes-the-world-go-around/
That makes a lot of sense. There are so many on the faux left in North America leaving people like me politically homeless. And there are lots of us trying to figure out what to do.
Hiya, i think Hudson makes a really important point. The hypocritical green and compassion washing rich people at the WEF are assuredly not left wing but are used to discredit any left wing style government policies on climate change or green taxes, for example, as the thin end of total control wedge which will end up with them depopulating us to 5 million or so, forcing us to be living at home, unable to go out and on social credit.
This furthers the agenda of the neocons who are charge of the US and Europe. They are currently pitting neoliberals against the far right in the EU, they don't mind which is in power. The discrediting of green polices and rise of nationalism of course benefits the fossil fuel, animal ag and arms industries.
There is no left wing like Hudson talks of, I think, in the UK since John Smith died in 1994 and Blair and Brown created the Tory B party- New Labour.
Hudson says it's not between right and left. It's between the US neocons plus its vassals and the Global majority. Though more importantly it's about what kind of civilisation we want to live in - hegemony and unipolarity vs multipolarity.
He doesn't hold any hope for the people of Europe, we just have to go through it, and then when the Empire collapses, which it will, asking the BRICS to help us create a socialist system- bearing in mind that climate change may thwart everyones chances at prosperity.
I think that the answer to your point is given by Michael Hudson - and, since I have always considered myself on the left, I do agree with him: “When I’ve been criticizing the left, this isn’t the left of my generation that was concerned with what I’m talking about.”
They're what're known as parenetical remarks, the sort you'd make while annotating a text, which is what I'm doing more of to provide a running commentary along with a conclusion. So, a modification of style that's functional for me and readers too.
Yes, I know what those brackets mean...I used them in my writing....it is a convention, after all 😇 - I was just curious if they were inserted by you or by the editor of the piece 😘
Response to Karl Sanchez' "Who Owns History? Timofey Bordachev: Russia and the West Are Creating Their Own Versions of History"
"I’m not interested in once they’re poor, how you wring your hands. I’m interested in what is creating all of this inequality in this economic polarization. I’m interested in the overall economy." - Michael Hudson
That's a fairly smart remark. We individualist anarchists know how it works. First you get a "society" (as opposed to a "tribe" or a "community" which is bad enough.) Then you get a "state". After that, you're screwed.
They can't comprehend that it needs to start with individuals, not collectives. Because humans deep down know the problem is human nature, so they're scared of individuals. Being hierarchical primates, they have to find someone to kowtow to. They haven't evolved to be individuals - only some, per the Bell Curve, can do that (the so-called "psychopaths"). So they rely on collective action. But that changes nothing. The alphas take control, the betas kowtow, the omegas resist, and the game keeps rolling, whether under monarchy or fascism or socialism or any of the other ideologies.
Human social relations are a joke. There's no fixing it absent a transcendence of human nature - which by the way will also transcend the notion of "economy" (depending on the ubiquity of nanotech). You don't need an "economy" when you can construct from raw matter anything you can design. Not to mention that such entities have no biological needs - so much for Maslow's "hierarchy of needs", which is completely the wrong way to look at the issue. I'll be discussing "the only valid Five Goals" humans should be concerned about in a future Substack.
The socialists are as far from a solution as the capitalists. Both would need the Hubble Telescope to see it.
thanks karl.. the issue of history is a fascinating one.. it is a retelling of a story of the past essentially, but it can be retold a number of different ways, depending on who is doing the telling.. it is like 2 people at the scene of an accident, but viewing the accident from a different angle...
i am reminded of timothy synder, the yale prof who has tried to retell history in a way that favours the west and trashes russia.. i suspect he is paid for his position by the cia, or some other arm of the gov't... bloodlands is one of his books.. in this regard he is an amazing propagandist who has fabricated a story which serves a higher purpose - usa gov't... annie applebaum and others like her do the very same thing... it is another arm of the war on russia - retell the story in the most egregious way possible..
As I said, you don't get to own the facts. They are there for all to see, and the act of eyesight in humans is for ***the brain to interpret*** the impulses it gets from its eyes, which is why no one ***views the facts*** exactly the same. Yet the facts remain the facts. Being as faithful as possible to relay the facts by placing them into context is the ***craft*** of ***real*** historians. And the above example is why all history is revisionary as long as it's objective and honest. Purposely slanting history is the same sort of crime as giving false testimony, and many are guilty.
This is interesting. I view history as a science. Even primary sources are written with the bias of the writer who was there watching it happen. When we read the primary source we add our own bias, conditioning and upbringing. The skill is in observing these biases, making hypothesis and then comparing and testing against other sources.
When people do science, what they chose to study is based on what they can get funded and published which means all science is biased to what people can make money out of.
Biomedical science is virtually 'owned' by big pharma. When the legacy or alt media cherry pick what to report on they are also being owned by the money.
If we want to talk of real historians or real scientists they are those willing to go back to the sources or papers and debate the interpretation.
Slanting is like giving false testimony but it's the censorship of debate (aka doing history and science) on the 'facts' which is a really big, frightening problem.
Oh, please, not you too....brain signals......
Well, that is how the optic system works.
Indeed, it does, but the optic system - if we accept that interpretation - has nothing to do with meaning 😎. It is that old problem of brain and mind, which we seem not to be able to resolve 😇
Thanks as usual Karl. I do like the notion of "... historiosophy as an understanding of the path of the state through its historical experience." in terms of providing another lense for the study of geopolitical and social history.
I can think of at least two examples of 'imperial projects' that may have been responses to traumatic events in their formative years.
Circa 387BC Rome was invaded/conquered by Brennus' Gauls and went on to conquer the whole Italian peninsula and then the Mediterranean Basin.
1812 Great Britain did the same to Washington, which went on to where we are now.
Both could be said to have over reacted. ;o)
The 1812 War was far longer than 1812-1815 and began with the undeclared war against France during Adams presidency. Imperial expansion was on the minds of pre-revolutionary colonists prior to 1763 and continued. Virginia's Charter mandated it all the lands to the Pacific Ocean, for example, and there're many others. The period too many overlook is between 1620 and 1720 when Hakluyt's Plantation plan took hold along with the influence of the English Civil War on settlement and Colonial politics. We Americans learn very little about the English Civil War despite its very large impact on our Colonial development. And then there's the affect made by William of Orange that's also ignored. If I were allowed to design US History courses, they would be two years at minimum, not the one-year, two semester design that attempts to jam everything into and thus omits too much. The reality is very few Americans actually learn what's most important about the USA's history, which is a major cause of our political problems.
Thanks for that additional information.
More food for thought and grist for the mill, so to speak. Cheers.
Hiya, lots going on here, the discussion about the creation of a false left for bleeding hearts. They've been disguising rich industrialists and finance capitalists at a vanity project in Switzerland as evil communists who want to destroy and/or control the world with left wing policies for awhile. I would say people wouldn't fall for it, but lots of people i know have! This and climate denying industry groups like Heartland (writing in the Hill in 2020 linking 'covid' to climate as a means of control by the WEF) plus deliberately created transactivism has led to a swing to the far right, the patriarchy and support for fossil fuels and animal ag.
There's also the discussion of disinformation and censorship. As someone who was permanently censored from Twitter for wanting to debate 'the facts' on the evidence of the existence of viruses- I'm wondering what the covid dissent was in Russia and how it was handled?
There were no mandates in Russia aside from social distancing, and they made the best vaccine, but it wasn't made mandatory. Russia clearly was affected by China's stance and the information China provided. I highly suggest learning about the basics of microbiology via the excellent book by Lynn Margulis, "Microcosmos" wherein viruses are just one of a vast universe of organisms that control our lives and environment.
As someone firmly on the left, I find it odd that the left is described as not being interested in the economic conditions that victimize people. I've always found that interesting. I guess there are different factions of the left.
Yes, certainly there're different factions. But what Dr. Hudson's attacking is the Faux Left and its relations with the Democrat Party. The New Dealers and their humanistic approach to the problem that looked at/into the power structure had real influence on social policy during the Great Depression in the USA, but that all came to a halt with WW2, never to live again. The war and the power structure that arose during it trashed as much of the New Deal as they could, and the reasons why the poor are poor today arise from that change. Financial Apartheid is what Hudson calls it which I featured in a substack and is from this page, https://michael-hudson.com/2024/01/debt-makes-the-world-go-around/
There's more to it, but the above's a start.
That makes a lot of sense. There are so many on the faux left in North America leaving people like me politically homeless. And there are lots of us trying to figure out what to do.
Hiya, i think Hudson makes a really important point. The hypocritical green and compassion washing rich people at the WEF are assuredly not left wing but are used to discredit any left wing style government policies on climate change or green taxes, for example, as the thin end of total control wedge which will end up with them depopulating us to 5 million or so, forcing us to be living at home, unable to go out and on social credit.
This furthers the agenda of the neocons who are charge of the US and Europe. They are currently pitting neoliberals against the far right in the EU, they don't mind which is in power. The discrediting of green polices and rise of nationalism of course benefits the fossil fuel, animal ag and arms industries.
There is no left wing like Hudson talks of, I think, in the UK since John Smith died in 1994 and Blair and Brown created the Tory B party- New Labour.
Hudson says it's not between right and left. It's between the US neocons plus its vassals and the Global majority. Though more importantly it's about what kind of civilisation we want to live in - hegemony and unipolarity vs multipolarity.
He doesn't hold any hope for the people of Europe, we just have to go through it, and then when the Empire collapses, which it will, asking the BRICS to help us create a socialist system- bearing in mind that climate change may thwart everyones chances at prosperity.
i understand it from how michael hudson explains it..
I think that the answer to your point is given by Michael Hudson - and, since I have always considered myself on the left, I do agree with him: “When I’ve been criticizing the left, this isn’t the left of my generation that was concerned with what I’m talking about.”
Karl, thank you. Reading it now. Can you tell me who inserted the text in square brackets?
i believe that is karl emphasizing the text or commenting on it..
I thought Karl said he only highlighted the text 😘
They're what're known as parenetical remarks, the sort you'd make while annotating a text, which is what I'm doing more of to provide a running commentary along with a conclusion. So, a modification of style that's functional for me and readers too.
Yes, I know what those brackets mean...I used them in my writing....it is a convention, after all 😇 - I was just curious if they were inserted by you or by the editor of the piece 😘
I try to make a distinction for readers as confusion is to be avoided.
[My Emphasis] - he does that too, as my copy and paste suggests..
Response to Karl Sanchez' "Who Owns History? Timofey Bordachev: Russia and the West Are Creating Their Own Versions of History"
"I’m not interested in once they’re poor, how you wring your hands. I’m interested in what is creating all of this inequality in this economic polarization. I’m interested in the overall economy." - Michael Hudson
That's a fairly smart remark. We individualist anarchists know how it works. First you get a "society" (as opposed to a "tribe" or a "community" which is bad enough.) Then you get a "state". After that, you're screwed.
They can't comprehend that it needs to start with individuals, not collectives. Because humans deep down know the problem is human nature, so they're scared of individuals. Being hierarchical primates, they have to find someone to kowtow to. They haven't evolved to be individuals - only some, per the Bell Curve, can do that (the so-called "psychopaths"). So they rely on collective action. But that changes nothing. The alphas take control, the betas kowtow, the omegas resist, and the game keeps rolling, whether under monarchy or fascism or socialism or any of the other ideologies.
Human social relations are a joke. There's no fixing it absent a transcendence of human nature - which by the way will also transcend the notion of "economy" (depending on the ubiquity of nanotech). You don't need an "economy" when you can construct from raw matter anything you can design. Not to mention that such entities have no biological needs - so much for Maslow's "hierarchy of needs", which is completely the wrong way to look at the issue. I'll be discussing "the only valid Five Goals" humans should be concerned about in a future Substack.
The socialists are as far from a solution as the capitalists. Both would need the Hubble Telescope to see it.
"We individualist anarchists"
An anarchist would not accept the clot shots from tyrants and then brag about it as you did.
You are not an anarchist at all, just a weak, cowardly, compliant sheep baaa baaa.