A look at American Empire through the standard lens

Simon ShusterThe interview in the video below was quite good for showing what “manufactured consent” looks like in person. Simon Shuster is an affable, seemingly reasonable person who represents exactly what the U.S. empire wants him to represent. When Aaron pushes back, though, he concedes that Aaron is right but then doubles down on his opinion anyway—and always expressed in a friendly manner, negating the disagreement for the untrained listener.

If you listen to what he’s saying, he admits that Ukraine did want to outlaw Russian as an official language (but that no-one really noticed), or that banning supposedly Russian-influenced media in Ukraine was unconstitutional (but that didn’t affect Ukraine’s dedication to democracy and freedom).

He’s a con man who doesn’t even know he’s a con man.

It’s like someone who’s taking money out of your wallet, while agreeing with you that crime is bad and that stealing is wrong.

Ukraine vs. Russia: Nuclear War, Frozen Conflict, or Peace? Debate w/ Simon Shuster by Useful Idiots (YouTube)

Aaron shows a tremendous amount of patience and really does an excellent interview, despite Shuster repeatedly accusing him of believing what are solely Russian talking points. Anything that doesn’t agree with Shuster’s (and the U.S. empire’s) narrative is de-facto Russian propaganda.

As Shuster reminded Aaron multiple times: he was there, in Ukraine and discussed everything in multiple conversations with Zelensky, and it’s all detailed in his book (which I wonder if he’s just assuming that Aaron hadn’t read it, as with pretty much all mainstream interviewers). Shuster also called Aaron intellectually lazy to his face? Like, he didn’t even notice that he was doing it. Aaron pretended not to notice.

Shuster can say things that amount to: Zelensky is an upstanding fighter for freedom and democracy who has, unfortunately and against the exhortations of his advisors, shut down free speech and most media in his country as he veers toward a full year past his elected term with no elections in sight … all without losing a step. He’ll admit to all of this but is so accustomed to people listening to his tone and not his words that he feels he can get away with it.

It reminds me of when Ted Danson was reading the gory details of a boxing match from the pages of Sports Illustrated to put a baby to sleep in Three Men and a Baby (IMDb):

“It doesn’t matter what I read, it’s the tone you use. She doesn’t understand the words anyway […]”

To Shuster’s credit: when Aaron says something that is partially drawn from Shuster’s book and partially drawn from Shuster’s own sources that is diametrically opposed to what he himself happens to be saying, he says, “that’s a fair point.” Soon after, though, he will state his previous conclusion as if he’d proven it. Instead, what he’d done is agreed with the information countervailing his argument and then reiterated his opposite conclusion, but in a tone of voice that implies agreement. The words disagree but the tone agrees.

At about 54:00, he answers Katie’s question about a possible nuclear war by saying that, again, he has relatives in Russia and that he has access to Russian media[1] and that the “flippant way” that they discuss nuclear war is “maddening”. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Has he watched the U.S. media and the U.S. administration talk about nuclear war? What does he think of that? How much worse could it be? If you asked him whether the attitude toward nuclear war was similarly—if not equally—flippant, he would probably agree! But then he would continue to believe that the Russians were much, much worse—because that’s how he’s been programmed. He would be completely unperturbed. As proof, a little while later he says,

“Schuster: I agree with the consensus view that Russia needs to lose this war and be defeated in Ukraine, in order for it not to continue with its broader ideolological program of defeating the west, defeating NATO.”

Sure, Ok. I mean, that’s why your book is on the NYT best-seller list, dude. Noam Chomsky had your number a long time ago: If you didn’t believe what you believe, then you wouldn’t be in the position that you are. It’s a self-regulating system.

Shuster goes on to accuse Russia of waging a “civilizational war” (instead of the other way around) and that it is the West that is “trying to stop that” (again, instead of the other way around). He concludes with a smile, saying that this is the “consensus view”, knowing that the people he’s talking to know that already and are not accepting it but also knowing that he couldn’t possibly be expected to doubt the consensus view, else he wouldn’t be who he is.

“Katie: So you’re saying—and this is not a rhetorical question—that some kind of nuclear war is preferable to letting Russia win, for the sake of democracy?”

Shuster doesn’t disagree. How could he?

Instead, Shuster says that Zelensky told him, “Russia’s already hitting us with everything have; if they hit us with a nuke, then we’ll keep fighting.” This is so wildly out of touch with reality. Shuster can acknowledge that Russia is winning but then believes Zelensky when he says he’ll keep fighting no matter what. Ukraine is already having trouble fighting as it is. But it will continue fighting through a nuclear attack.

He knows that Russia isn’t interested in the goals he ascribes to it—European dominance and empire—because otherwise he would advocate fighting even harder against them.

The only thing that can happen now is that more people die but there will be no change to the result, unless NATO steps in with its own troops and directly attacks Russia. The only reason it doesn’t do that is because of the nuclear threat. Why doesn’t Shuster discuss that, if the goal is so important, why doesn’t NATO directly fight for Ukraine? If he believes that it’s a civilizational war, then he should be all-in, no?

Of course, he knows—and simultaneously cannot acknowledge—that this would start an all-out European war. He knows that Russia isn’t interested in the goals he ascribes to it—European dominance and empire—because otherwise he would advocate fighting even harder against them. But, at the same time, he cannot say that we should just reconcile with Russia and stop the bloodshed because he knows that the real goal for which he’s a cheerleader is to bleed Russia and weaken it. That is the goal that he is advocating for without directly advocating it. The propaganda about Russia wanting to wage a civilizational war is just that: propaganda intended to garner support.

It’s fascinating to watch him say things like,

“We’re not choosing between peace and nuclear-use; we’re choosing between ways to contain a very aggressive authoritarian regime that has set out to basically humble and destroy the West.”

…without at-all understanding how that could very much and much more believably be the Russian viewpoint, by replacing the final words “the West” with “Russia”. There would be no war without NATO pushing toward Russia. Russia hadn’t moved an inch westward for about 80 years. Most of the rest of world sees it that way, not the way that Shuster puts it.

Shuster has so much faith in the “brains up in the [U.S.] State Department and the Pentagon” that they are working in everyone’s best interests. It’s almost like he thinks they’re competent, amazing as that seems. He is a lackey for empire but an extremely affable one, so he’s all the more dangerous.

“If you allow Russia to swallow up Ukraine and get its way in Ukraine to neuter it militarily and so on, it won’t satisfy the appetites of the beast that Putin has unleashed with Russian militarism and expansionism.”

Breathtaking. 🤡👏👏👏