为什么美国的执政精英层要把俄罗斯和中国（伊朗）视作头号对手？（二） [美国媒体]

Why Are Russia and China (And Iran) Paramount Enemies for the U.S. Ruling Elite?

为什么美国的执政精英层要把俄罗斯和中国（伊朗）视作头号对手？



John V. Walsh
Posted on August 16, 2014
In the wake of the U.S.-engineered coup in Ukraine, the Western Press warns us solemnly and relentlessly that Vladimir Putin is Beelzebub himself, the leader of a vicious and backward Russia. Such deceit is reckless in the extreme since it puts the U.S. at odds with a nuclear power, one that is far from the weak nation that a condescending and insulting Obama sought to depict in his recent interview with The Economist, debunked here. Of course such lies are not new. In our own lifetimes they have been generated to justify US interventions in Korea, Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the list goes on.
What are we to do in the face of this avalanche of lies? Such deception becomes most intense when directed at the three paramount and enduring enemies in the eyes of the US imperial elite – China, Russia and Iran.
But all is not lost. We now have a plan to combat these falsehoods, thanks to Secretary of State John Kerry whom we in Massachusetts know all too well as a blundering, blustering, bellicose blowhard –and, lest we forget, a nauseating narcissist. The Blowhard recently warned us not to read the Russian outlet RT.com, which he decried as a "bullhorn" for Russian propaganda. I have often heard truth coming over bullhorns on street corner rallies, but I have yet to hear an iota of it from a blowhard – most especially this one.
This leads us to a modest proposal for one’s daily regimen, as bracing as an early morning run. Each day quickly peruse RT.com from Russia, China Daily from China and PressTV from Iran. Or at least look at the headlines – and see whether you want to read more.
As an example, let’s look at the main headlines on RT.com on a random day:
Donetsk militia ready for ceasefire to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe
Russian Navy ‘forces US submarine out’ of Arctic boundary waters – report
Ukraine’s violent escalation: From Molotov cocktails to ballistic missiles
ExxonMobil, Rosneft start joint Arctic drilling in defiance of sanctions
That did not take long even if you did not link to them. And any of those is quite interesting to a peace minded Western reader. Are they true? Read, compare to Western accounts and judge, dear reader. Read and judge – for yourself.
These outlets are an attempt to reach Westerners, especially Americans, and to provide facts we may not know of and interpretations not available to us. You may say, why should we substitute one set of lies for another? But, dear reader, does that not assume that the "other" is always deceiving us? And is that not in turn a subtle form of American "exceptionalism"? That is, the US may be no better than the "other" but it can never, ever be worse. The "other" is always as bad or worse. (This view is often found on the ultra-left, where it is disguised as a quest for "real, true democracy" or world socialism or world communism, etc. If the US is imperialist, then China must also be imperialist, for example; China cannot be better than the West.)
And if a major war breaks out because we did not lend an ear to these voices asking for out attention, would that not be a tragedy of enormous proportions?
Unfortunately not only is the Western intelligentsia reluctant to turn to other voices; but when they do, they keep it secret. They rarely quote those sources. Rather they will hunt high and low to find similar reports from Western media if they can be found. But there is a drawback to that strategy. Inevitably in these reports from the West, for example the BBC, Reuters etc, the news is embedded firmly in the matrix of the Western narrative, which among other things treats Western flaws as isolated instances which might need fixing but flaws elsewhere as evidence of a profoundly systemic disorder.
Western radicals, Left and Right, also fear for their credibility should they quote "the other." But if there is merit in what the outlets from the other side say, then part of the job of education is to bestow on these other outlets the respect and credibility they deserve. Failure to cite when citation is merited is a kind of lie in and of itself. It is a very subtle way of saying that the truth can only appear in Western media. In short it is a trap, a sure way to shut out elements of the truth, a dead end.
Let me tell you what this reader has found out about China Daily, RT.com and PressTV over the years.
China Daily. China Daily takes on a dual task. It seeks to provide a look at what daily life is like in China – so there is a lot of coverage of Pandas, scenery and Chinese beauties. But the paper also gives the facts on international issues, commercial and political, and the Chinese take on them, most especially those that involve both the US and China. You will also find discussions of the battle against corruption, pollution and inequality in China, principal concerns of the Chinese people. So it is a "warts and all" sort of presentation. And do not worry if a wart is missed; it will be reported in considerable detail in the NYT and NPR. In fact warts will even be concocted in those outlets where there are none, as for example "the massacre in Tiananmen Square of thousands or even tens of thousands, a fiction rebutted in detail here. I have found the news reporting in China Daily to be quite accurate over the years. One has to scroll down farther to get into opinion pieces, which give a good idea of China policy – "win-win," "peaceful rising" and the rest. (If you prefer to get to them more quickly and in concentrated form, then Peoples Daily might be your cup of tea.)
RT.com. RT.com adopts a different approach. It turns over more often than once a day and is focused on countering anti-Russian reporting coming from the West. Its news is quite accurate and it is quick to combat misinformation that comes out of the Pentagon or State Department. (Hence John Kerry’s peevishness over it.) It is much more combative, although in a defensive way, than China Daily. On the Ukraine no sooner does the US government put out its latest lie, than the Russian government rebuts it; and the rebuttal is presented in detail, clearly and with some dry wit in RT.com. (The weakness of RT.com is that it does not seek to depict daily life in Russia. That is important because part of demonization is to depict the official enemies as different from normal human beings. So in my opinion RT is only doing part of its job.)
PressTV. On to PressTV.com, the Iranian outlet, also reliable for the most part in its news coverage and often insightful about the struggle of the Palestinians against Israeli Apartheid. Here again some devotion to coverage of daily life in Iran would be welcome. This is crucial since the Iranians have the dual burden of being the paramount enemy of the US and also being Muslim.
The comments above take into account only the news reporting. On the opinion articles, China Daily is far and away the best, with high quality pieces coming from China or from China Daily reporters in the US RT.com has some good opinion pieces but also some weak ones. They can do better. The same for PressTV.
But do not take my word for it. Log on, look in and compare to the NYT, NPR, BBC etc. Then decide for yourself. What could possibly be more independent of mind, what more contrary to the herd instinct? And you can also have the satisfaction of defying that blustering blowhard, John Kerry, his boss and his minions.

在美国策划了乌克兰政变之后，西方媒体严正而无情地警告我们，弗拉基米尔·普京是一个邪恶落后的俄罗斯的领导人，他本人就是别尔兹布(Beelzebub)。这种欺骗在极端程度上是鲁莽的，因为它让美国与一个核大国发生了冲突，这个国家远不是一个软弱的国家，一个傲慢和轻慢的奥巴马在最近接受“经济学人”采访时试图在这里揭穿这个国家。当然，这样的谎言并不新鲜。在我们的有生之年里，他们的产生是为了证明美国在朝鲜、伊朗、瓜塔马拉、古巴、越南、巴西、智利、伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚进行的干预是正当的，而且名单还在继续加长。

面对这些谎言，我们该怎么办？当面对的对象是美国帝国精英严重三个至高无上和持久的敌人——中国、俄罗斯和伊朗时，这种欺骗就变得更加严重。
这种情况是不会消失的。我们现在有了一套打击这些谎言的计划，这要归功于美国国务卿约翰·克里(John Kerry)，我们马萨诸塞州非常了解克里，他是一位浮躁、狂妄自大、好战的自我陶醉者——也是一位令人作呕的自恋者。这位自大狂最近在博客警告我们不要看俄罗斯的今日俄罗斯新闻，他谴责今日俄罗斯是俄罗斯宣传的“扩音器”。在街角集会上，我经常听到来各地的人用扩音器宣传真相，但我还没有听到过牛皮大王的声音——尤其是这一次。

这使我们对自己的日常生活方式提出了一个温和的建议，就像在清晨跑步一样让人精神抖擞。每天快速浏览俄罗斯的今日俄罗斯新闻、中国的“中国日报”和伊朗的PressTV。或者至少看看标题，看看你是否想读更多。举个例子，让我们看看今日俄罗斯新闻上的主要标题：
顿涅茨克民兵准备停火，以防止进一步的人道主义灾难
报告：俄罗斯海军“将美国潜艇逐出”北极边界水域

乌克兰暴力升级：从摩洛托夫鸡尾酒到弹道导弹
埃克森美孚公司：俄罗斯Rosneft公司开始反对制裁北极联合钻探
这不需要很长时间，即使你没有找到他们的链接。对于一个心平气和的西方读者来说，任何这些都是非常有趣的。是真的吗？阅读，并与西方媒体的判断相比较，亲爱的读者。阅读和评判——为了你自己。

这些渠道是用来试图接触西方人的，特别是美国人，并提供了我们可能不知道的事实以及我们无法得到的解释。你可能会说，我们为什么要用一套谎言来代替另一套谎言呢？但是，亲爱的读者，这难道不是认为“他人”总是在欺骗我们吗？这难道不是美国“例外论”的一种微妙形式吗？也就是说，美国可能不会比“其他国家”更好，但它永远不会更糟。“他人”总是同样糟糕或更糟。(这种观点经常出现在极左者身上，它伪装成对“真正的名猪”或世界社会主义或世界GC主义等的追求。如果美国是帝国主义，那么中国也必须是帝国主义，例如，中国不能比西方更好。)

如果一场大规模的战争因为我们没有倾听这些要求关注的声音而爆发，那岂不是一场巨大的悲剧吗？
不幸的是，西方知识分子不仅不愿意转向其他声音，而且当他们这样做时，他们会保守秘密。他们很少引用这些消息来源。相反，如果能找到类似的报道，他们会到处搜寻，从西方媒体那里找到类似的报道。但这种策略有一个缺点。不可避免地，在这些来自西方的报道中，例如英国广播公司(BBC)、路透社(Reuters)等，这些新闻牢牢地嵌入了西方叙事的矩阵中，其中包括将西方的缺陷视为孤立的事例，可能需要修正，但其他地方的缺陷则是严重系统性混乱的证据。

左翼和右翼的西方激进分子也担心，如果他们引用“其他人”的话，他们的可信度就会受到影响。但是，如果对方的观点有价值，那么教育的部分职责就是给予这些其他渠道的信息应有的尊重和信任。当引文被引用时，没有标注是引用，本身就是一种谎言。这是一种非常微妙的说法，即真相只能出现在西方媒体上。简而言之，这是一个陷阱，一个排除真理元素的可靠方法，是一条死胡同。
让我来告诉你，这位读者这些年来对“中国日报”、今日俄罗斯和PressTV了解了些什么。

中国日报。“中国日报”肩负着双重任务。它试图提供日常生活中中国是什么样的，所以有很多关于熊猫，风景和中国美女的报道。但该报也给出了有关商业和政治等国际问题的事实，而中国对这些问题的看法最为突出，尤其是涉及美国和中国的问题。你们也会发现，在中国，反腐败、反污染和反不平等的斗争是中国人民关注的主要问题。所以这是一种“缺点和一切”的展现。不要担心是否漏掉了缺点，纽约时报和国家公共广播电台将会详细报道。事实上，在那些没有的地方，甚至会捏造出缺点，例如“数千人甚至数万人被屠杀”，这里详细地反驳了这篇小说。多年来，我发现“中国日报”的新闻报道是相当准确的。我们必须往下看，才能深入了解中国的政策——“双赢”、“和平崛起”等等。(如果你想更快、更集中地接触他们，那么“人民日报”可能是你的菜。)

今日俄罗斯新闻采用了一种不同的方法。它一天比一次更频繁地翻转，并且专注于对抗来自西方的反俄罗斯报道。它的新闻是相当准确的，它总是迅速的反击来自五角大楼或国务院的错误信息。(因此，约翰·克里对此感到恼火。)它比“中国日报”要好斗得多，尽管是防御性的。在乌克兰问题上，美国政府一说出最新的谎言，俄罗斯政府就予以反驳；在今日俄罗斯网站上，反驳的内容详细而清晰，带有一些大智若愚的特点。(今日俄罗斯的弱点在于它并不试图描述俄罗斯的日常生活。这一点很重要，因为妖魔化的一部分是将官方敌人描绘成不同于正常人的敌人。因此，在我看来，今日俄罗斯只是在做自己的工作。)



Guest says:
August 16, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Good article. With the total capitulation of The Economist to the neocons, it is more necessary than ever to read international reports directly.

好文章。随着“经济学人”对新保守主义者的全面投降，现在比以往任何时候都更有必要直接阅读国际报道。

El Tonno says:
August 17, 2014 at 12:20 am
That happened more than 10 years ago though. I remember "A Just And Necessary War" about Afghanistan and "Why War Would Be Justified" about Iraq after titles like "Now Reel Saddam In" and permanent fearmongering about Iran. Course the Putin demonization during the Georgian altercation in 2008 was the last straw.

这发生在10多年前。我记得关于阿富汗的“正义而必要的战争”和“伊拉克战争”之后的“为什么战争是正当的”，以及对伊朗的永久恐惧。当然，普京在2008格鲁吉亚战争中的妖魔化是最后一根稻草。

Ebony says:
August 17, 2014 at 8:31 am
What makes the Economist neocon orientation even worst is that it it is used to indoctrinate future foreign service officers for the U.S. Department of State. It is on the list of suggested sources for studying for the foreign service exam. This test is the first step in becoming a foreign service office. I tried to to read the Economist, but I can't stand the neocon crap, and the comment section is even worst. I find the the knowledge of the Economist magazine to be very shallow. I never met a conflict that it didn't want the U.S to get involved in. Also they never apologize for being wrong on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The moment I realized this about the Economist was in 2007 when I red an Article in that magazine about how great the democracy in the Iraqi parliament in Iraq was. Since I have a background in the middle east, I knew things were actually very bad in Iraq. The people didn't have basic necessities and the violence. The Iraqi parliament was and still is very disfunctional, and actually did very little for the Iraqi people, so it was galling to read a puff piece on it.
I apologize for the rant, but the Economist sticks in my craw.

“经济学人”杂志更糟糕地方的是，它被用来向美国国务院未来的外交官员们灌输错误思想。它被列上了为对外人员的学习建议的来源清单上。这种测试是成为外交服务局人员的第一步。我试着读“经济学人”，但我无法忍受新保守主义的废话，评论区甚至是最糟糕的。我发现“经济学人”杂志的知识非常肤浅。我从来没有遇到过不希望美国卷入的战争冲突的评论读者。他们也从不为在伊拉克和阿富汗问题上的错误道歉。

我意识到“经济学人”的偏颇的那一刻是在2007年，当时我在那本杂志上发表了一篇文章，内容是伊拉克议会的民主有多么伟大。因为我有中东背景，我知道伊拉克的情况非常糟糕。人民没有基本必需品且暴力不断。伊拉克议会过去是，现在仍然是非常混乱的，实际上他们对伊拉克人民没有什么帮助，因此读到一篇吹毛求疵的文章是很令人讨厌的。
我对此篇文章的错误表示很遗憾，但“经济学人”对我的批评不屑一顾。

Guest says:
August 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Yes, for those of us who read it 25 years ago, the loss of even the pretense of evenhandedness is maddening.

是的，对于我们这些25年前读过它的人来说，令人恼火的它甚至连伪装的都不要了。

thomas hussey says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Why do we buy into lie after lie after lie? Because we're an aggressive, warlike culture, always looking for an opportunity to attack other nations, the weaker the better. All of the lessons that Obama should have learned from Bush's follies were tossed by the wayside because Obama wants to appear as macho as Bush.

我们为什么要相信一个又一个谎言？因为我们拥有的是一种咄咄逼人的好战文化，总是在寻找攻击其他国家的机会，对方越弱越好。奥巴马应该从布什的愚蠢行径中吸取的所有教训都被抛在了一边，因为奥巴马想要像布什一样有男子气概。

Element says:
August 17, 2014 at 1:35 am
Whatever verbal excuse one wants to formulate to trumpet Putin's innocence and general saintly beneficence, actions speak infinitely louder – current and former.
And why does everyone who feels they must formulate such love letters, for either Putin or Obama's puss, immediately presume that any critique of their childish guff is another partisan putting a defence for someone else?
Why can it not just be someone pointing out the respective ugly home-truths of all sides?
Are people incapable of taking a neutral position and observing?
Why are we constantly encouraged, or rather being bullied or argues and slanted as 'pressure' to take a single side or view, and then adopt or develop a dismal hardline rhetorical BS pile, to hold the party-line against all observations and actions, and eternally excuse anything at all?
This is not maturity, it is not adult, it is not intelligent, it is not informed and it is not sane.
I reserve the right to reject all sides and to adjust my view as I see fit and to use only my own thinking at all times and to resist any and all authoritarian voices, bullying or pressure tactics, and pay attention and to events, and not jump to conclusions, in fact, to not make any conclusions at all, for conclusions are entirely unnecessary when you don't close your mind.
So, how are you going to make me group-think a particular 'sides' vies now?
Or regard one to be more Holy, or right, than another side? Why would I excuse or praise any side? How is your enervating stupid propaganda going to get a grip on my being, to use my mind like so much abused and hate-filled toilet paper screaming to kill the other side?
I can just laugh at you, I can parody you, I can point out you silliness, but best of all I can completely ignore everything you claim or seek to poison civil discussion with
Partisans are losers, they will always be losers, they cause everyone who goes along with them to lose as well.

无论人们想用何种口头借口来宣扬普京的清白和圣洁的仁慈，行动才是能说得更响亮的——无论是现在的还是从前的。
为什么每个认为他们必须为普京或奥巴马小猫咪写这样的情书的人都会立即认为，对他们那对天真的废话的任何批评都是另一个党派在为别人辩护呢？
为什么不能仅仅是有人指出了各自国家丑陋的——各方面的真相？

人们是否不能采取中立的立场和进行观察？
为什么我们不断地被鼓励，或者更确切地说，被欺负、争论和因为“压力”倾斜，采取片面的立场或单一观点，然后发展出一堆令人沮丧的强硬派言论来坚持党的路线，去反对所有的观察和行动，并且永远原谅任何事情？
这不是成熟，不聪明，不深刻，也不理智的。

我保留权利，拒绝各方调整我的观点，在任何时候都只使用我自己的思想，抵制任何和所有威权主义的声音，欺凌或压力战术，关注和思考事件，事实上，我不作任何结论，因为结论是完全没有必要的，当你不关闭你的头脑的时候。
那么，你要如何让我成为一群人或者认为一个比另一方更神圣，或者更正确呢？我为什么要原谅或赞扬任何一方？你那令人兴奋的愚蠢宣传怎么能控制住我的存在扰乱我的心，滥用仇恨像乱用厕纸一样尖叫着杀死对方？

我可以嘲笑你，我可以模仿你，我可以指出你的愚蠢，但最重要的是，我可以完全无视你声称的一切，或者试图毒害大众的讨论
党派主义者是失败者，他们永远是失败者，他们使所有跟随他们的人也输掉了。



Monster from the Id says:
August 19, 2014 at 3:34 am
Of course the USA is evil.
It's composed of humans, isn't it?

他是由人类组成的，不是吗？

Element says:
August 19, 2014 at 8:31 am
I guess you didn't get the bit where I said Partisans are losers.

我猜你没有看到我说党派是失败者聚集的地方。

paulBass says:
August 18, 2014 at 9:15 am
the problem is not who is good and who is bad.
but one of these leaders has consistently made statements that align very well with the facts,
while the other's seem to be based wholly upon fantasy.

问题不在于谁是好人，谁是坏人。
但其中的一位领导人一直发表声明，与事实很好地吻合着，
而另一个似乎完全基于幻想。

Monster from the Id says:
August 19, 2014 at 3:06 am
What. Element. Said.
Or as Mercutio, in Romeo and Juliet, said more pithily:
"A plague on both your houses!"

正常说来
或者照 Mercutio和 in Romeo and Juliet的说法总结一下
两个房子都有瘟疫

Clover says:
May 24, 2014 at 12:12 am GMT • 100 Words
@James, the point is why does the United States, and it’s “allies” like Saudi Arabia trade with China, enriching it? When the European states had their empires they imposed trade restrictions on their colonies so that they could only trade with the mother country. Today our various “allies” are allowed to trade more or less freely, look at Afghanistan which supposedly has a trillion dollars worth of minerals to be mined. Companies from China and India are developing those resources, why?

关键是为什么美国和沙特阿拉伯这样的“盟友”国与中国进行贸易，使其更加丰富？当欧洲国家拥有自己的帝国时，他们对殖民地实行贸易限制，这样他们只能与母国进行贸易。今天，我们的各种“盟友”或多或少被允许自由地进行贸易，看看阿富汗，那里据称有价值1万亿美元的矿产可供开采。中国和印度的公司正在开发这些资源，为什么？