******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cyber/u-s-indictments-show-technical-evidence-for-russian-hacking-accusations-idUSKBN1K32X1 On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Michael Marking via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > > Yes! Where’s the real evidence? > > Crossing a thread line here, I agree with Louis Proyect, who wrote on > Friday 2018.07.20, “Frankly, I don't care if Russia helped Trump get > elected or not.” Nor am I convinced that a Clinton victory would have > made much difference. > > Trump has performed a great service to the leadership and backers of > both parties: he has provided a highly effective distraction. While > various supporters and opponents have vociferously made their views > known – and garnered a lot of media coverage in the process – the > main event, the looting of the main body of the people, has gone or > continued pretty much unnoticed in the press and among the people in > the street. It’s all about tweets and abuse of expense accounts and > Russian collusion, and not about the deeper story. Yes, Trump represents > the ruling class, in the same way that a clown represents a circus. It > doesn’t matter whether he does it intentionally or knowingly or not, but > he does it anyway. He’s a great distraction. > > This whole matter of Russian collusion and the purloined DNC files > serves as a good example, as a part of the distraction. Whether the > collusion issue matters or not in the grand scheme of things, it has > resulted in the insanity of just about everyone. Maybe I’m missing > something here, so someone help me, but where is the evidence for any > version of this story? I looked at the indictment: it has allegations, > but no evidence. I looked at the DNI report: the same story. The gold > standard for forensic evidence would be Clinton’s server, but, as Trump > asked, where is it? (I doubt if Trump really comprehends the > significance of his own question here.) Destruction of evidence is a > crime, too, but does anyone care? I’m certainly not defending Trump > here, but I don’t believe any statements by anyone from the FBI, CIA, > NSA, or anyone else in the so-called intelligence community, nor do I > have any confidence in whatever Putin or just about anyone else says. > This whole thing is just a big show. > > When I tell someone I can’t accept the official version of this or that > story (the JFK assassination, the 2001 WTC demolition, and so on), and > people ask me what really happened, I almost always have to answer, “I > don’t know, but the official story doesn’t work, it isn’t consistent > with the facts”. But people have an extremely difficult time accepting > that. It’s as if people demand an answer, even a wrong one, and refuse > to be put into a position of ignorance. They’d rather be wrong than > ignorant. > > I’m new to this Marxism thing. Somehow, until the last two years, I’d > never been exposed to it. But it works well for my minimalist approach > to certainty. It doesn’t matter if Putin helped Trump or if Wikileaks > got the DNC files from any specific person or what really was behind > any gas attack in Syria: the class analysis subsumes these things. It > has been a little like reading Einstein’s General Theory: it encompasses > the Special Theory, which generalizes Newton’s laws, and so on. It makes > predictions which can be tested. It’s not complete, as we still don’t > have a grand theory of everything, but it’s up the ladder. > > Of course, I get sucked into these ancillary questions, too. It’s fun, > I’m a sucker for unsolved puzzles, and I like a good story and > appreciate entertainment. Meanwhile, as Michelle Wolf pointed out at the > White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the folks in Flint still don’t have > clean drinking water. And, I might add, they’re still dying and > otherwise suffering all over the world. > > I’m not asking anyone to drop these topics. As I said, I enjoy them. > I’ve stopped reading some “news” sites since I began reading this list: > it’s a great source of links to news and more. > > So I ask all you old-timers, in all humility, what have I been missing? > Where is the real evidence that Julian Assange was or wasn’t duped, > that he colluded or participated? While I’d find it hard to swallow a > line that the Russian state didn’t fool around with computers and > opinions and engaged in propagandizing, is there any real evidence that > the DNC files ended up in the hands of Wikileaks because of the Russians > and not because of an insider’s leak? Is there any real evidence that > Assange knew one way or the other? As far as I can see, we (the > outsiders?) don’t really know anything for sure. That’s pretty > remarkable, in itself. In fact, that’s probably more interesting than > the truth behind the revelation of the files. Just as, the truth behind > the lack of a real, independent investigation into the 2001 WTC event is > probably just as interesting as, if not more so than, the event itself. > It’s one thing to commit a crime, and another thing – usually more > difficult – to avoid discovery. > > It’s possible to create a lot of contradictory stories, many credible to > varying degrees, when we have no unimpeachable facts. That seems to be > where we are. > > I imagine that the lack, itself, of our knowledge probably says more > about the class and other social structure than do the details of the > events. In a very real way, the control of access to facts says a lot > about who’s really in power. Yes, it’s consistent with our supposed > class structure. And, unlike whether Assange did this or Trump did that, > we don’t have to speculate: we know that we don’t know. > > The extreme compartmentalization of knowledge in the world is a new > thing, I think. Back in the Nineteenth Century, the capitalists > discussed openly how to create a world safe from the “predations” of the > proletariat, they and their allies wrote books and no one cared who read > them: they had power and they felt safe. Now there is secrecy, and > apocalypse carries the death penalty or worse. Am I wrong, or when was > this first recognized? > > Did Marx, or does Marxism, say anything about knowledge, or lack of it, > among the proletariat, and how it would relate to revolution? It seems > that holding strong opinions without conclusive evidence results in > avoidable division. What that was or is said, applies to the current > information and disinformation wars? > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/ > options/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
