The End of Hypocrisy
cryptome.org
cryptome.org
[1] The Banality of Systemic Evil, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality...
[2] No free lunch, no free web, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624666
Thank you for calling out this one. I've been harshly criticized in the past for pointing out Google, which is beloved amongst geeks, is ultimately an advertising machine, and the reason they push many positive/geeky initiatives is because they have total consciousness of that ("Don't be Evil") and don't want to lose their talent pool.
There are types of advertising that are evil (that which is extremely manipulative or false/misleading), but suggesting that showing me a picture of a specific brand of hamburger, telling me why it's awesome, and suggesting that I buy one, is somehow morally wrong, doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Only sith deal in absolutes. (How meta.)
Compare such stuff to, say, the description of a table in a catalogue; material, dimensions, a photo of it without a person in it = "kbye, and thx for not wasting my time or trying to push nonsense into my brain". Anything beyond that is evil in my books, and evil being subjective, you don't really get to decide about that either. I can explain why I consider it evil, I just did, and just saying "nope" is not sufficient to convince me otherwise.
Your linked argument that advertising makes things more expensive doesn't work out; ultimately businesses need to create awareness of their products and there's a zero-sum game for attention to be won. These costs will be borne by the purchasers of products no matter what you do. As technological progress makes design, manufacturing and distribution cheaper but advertising no more cost effective, there's a sort of Amdahl's law pushing advertising's share of costs up.
That said, advertising and advertising-supported products sound like an incredibly dreary thing to work on, so I'll continue letting someone else do the "stuff for which users are not willing to pay" thing.
Still, even with my hardcore stance against it, I take advantage of many "free" ad supported products rather than supporting businesses by paying directly. Perhaps you are better than I.
It's the people clicking on the ads that are keeping them alive.
> Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries
> to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role.
> Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United States because
> American ideals are attractive and the U.S.-led international system is fair. Realists
> may be more cynical, yet if they think about Washington’s hypocrisy at all, they
> consider it irrelevant.
This is just astonishingly brilliant. It is exactly the perception of the rest of the world but I never saw it so bluntly articulated in the American media.
It also misses the obvious corollary: other countries' hypocrisy is key to their willingness to accept US soft power when it generally aligns with their interests. (And yes, they're being just as hypocritical when they do selectively draw attention to America's hypocrisy) The article's claims that pre-Snowden "Chinese officials, although well aware that the Americans were acting hypocritically, avoided calling them out directly" are easily falsified by a quick search of Xinhua http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-01/24/c_131... http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_138...
There's nothing remotely novel about other countries' willingness to assert that the US is hypocritical (particularly when on the defensive) and nothing to suggest they won't continue to maintain the relationship despite the "shock revelations" of the last few years, which, if anything, are rather less surprising and compelling than the "shock revelations" of the generations before. If half a century of coup d'etats sponsored by American spooks can't dent the prestige of America's push for "global democracy", it's hardly going to be dented by hard evidence that American spooks also spy.
Just because Snowden woke up some of those so uninterested in politics they find claims of US hypocrisy novel doesn't mean the rest of the world was asleep.
I just watched The Four Horsemen on Youtube. It's pretty interesting, although nothing eye opening, but good to see it in one package (so to speak). The economic model to screw over everyone else to advance itself should have made it more than obvious everything you ever suspected was true. Now that more and more of these suspicions are being confirmed the US is on the back foot.
Gee, all of this sounds pretty good! But as the author acknowledges, this is all "underwritten by U.S. power." I couldn't have put it better myself. If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy, then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.
The article reaches the core issue but has trouble grappling with it. Would any other approach be better than the one the U.S. is currently taking? Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China? Or would it instead be better for the U.S. to stop with the hipocrisy, and be clear about its naked intentions to maintain its power? Would the existing multilateral order survive that revelation? Or is the current, if hypocritical, state of affairs the best: for the U.S. to foster the current international order while acting behind the scenes to maintain the power that "underwrites" that order?
The US is not limiting itself to keeping Russia and China in check, and that is the problem. Hardly anyone would claim that the US should abandon Taiwan to its fate. Yet at the same time, why is the US military being used to expand the reach of US businesses? Why are we in the business of support cruel dictators, and even overthrowing democratic governments in favor of dictatorships? Why continue the embargo on Cuba? Why do we ignore the UN when it suits us, then use the fact that a country ignores the UN as a pretense to attack it?
Except for the UN thing. While I agree that the UN is used (on all sides) as a fig leaf, we haven't waited for countries to disobey the UN as an excuse to attack them, but rather used the UN fig leaf as part of a justification for wars that had already been decided on. In the case of Iraq II, that was a grave mistake on our part, but the mistake has little to do with respect for the UN. The UN is simultaneously important and undeserving of much respect.
"Right" and "wrong" have no place in international politics. Nations exist, among themselves, in the state of nature, and in nature there is only power: the ability to do. It is irrelevant whether it is "right" for a nation to impose itself as hegemon. It is inevitable that some national will. The only topic of discussion is: would you like some other hegemon better than the one we have?
We are not the first generation outside of history. You cannot look at say Western Europe and see the decades of peace and cooperation in that region, after centuries of bloody violence, and conclude that it's because modern Europeans are better and more noble people than the ones that lived just a few generations before. No, the world that exists, where France doesn't bulk up its military in response to Germany doing the same, exists because of American hegemony. That is what justifies the exercise of American power.
I am not so cynical. But neither am I naive. I believe (as possibly you may also) right is right, and it is not defined by winning (but you feel right is pointless unless without wining). Right is not defined as the ultimate outcome of geopolitical darwinism. But I also believe in self-fullfining prophesies. The world ultimately reflects us. We get the world we deserve.
Imagine if the United States unwaveringly played by the same rules internationally as it must domestically, per our Constitution. Rather than gaining power by leveraging the corruption and self-interest of foreign politicians, we'd gain influence by winning hearts and minds, and push the world by example rather than at the end of a bayonet. Idealistic? Perhaps. But it is a fallacy that idealism contradicts realism.
Your point about "playing by rules" suffers from a basic conceptual problem. The very concept of "rules" is meaningless without someone to enforce them. Otherwise, it totally rational to break the rules. In such circumstances, the party that doesn't break the rules usually doesn't win, so the system rapidly degenerates into nobody following the rules.
You also can't look at the facts and conclude that there isn't - you can only conclude that there hasn't yet been such an equilibrium. We have been running more or less democratic systems of governments more or less successfully for some number of years now, but there was a point in time before that where you could have said "you can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that democratic systems of governments can be successful". Making conclusions about the future based on the past doesn't work, all you can do is hypothesize.
I suppose you probably meant that the odds of a stable peaceful equilibrium seem very low based on historical evidence, and I'm just being pedantic.
Not in an absolute sense. Whether it is rational depends entirely on what you value. It may be rational for some people to resort to cannibalism to survive if stranded and starving to death, and absolutely not for others.
> conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so.
> The literal definition of "cynicism" is the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest.
Yes, I'm pretty sure you are cynical. :)
What you call "American hegemony" is about 60 year old, so this is not exactly the history of the world.
This is debatable. Roman hegemony has created 400 years of peace whereas US has been involved in wars since WW2.
I am not a us citizen but I don't have a problem with US trying to improve the life condition of its own citizens first (everybody does it). However, believing that US is completely fair to the rest of the world is too naive. The article actually identify several unfair behaviors: [...] A double standard on torture, a near indifference to casualties among non-American civilians, the gross expansion of the surveillance [...].
> However, believing that US is completely fair to the rest of the world is too naive
Sure, but asserting that the U.S. is the most benevolent hegemony in history does not require believing that the U.S. is "completely fair to the rest of the world."
The realist in me appreciates this point, but the parts of me which are more hopeful think that this idea is the last justification available to people who are unwilling to investigate alternatives. Even if you accept that in nature there is only power: the ability to do, there are many ways to exercise that power. What if that power came from a legitimate belief that the people in the world who aren't US citizens are equally as important? American hegemony does prevent potential worse situations, but that's not its purpose. It's to protect Americans and money.
How exactly do you attribute peace in Europe to American hegemony? How do you at the same time ignore the conflict and oppression that is certainly the result of American hegemony in other parts of the world?
The US isn't looking out for anyone else interests except its own. International order is incidental to its objectives : Any positive outcome cannot be attributed to moral behavior.
Don't be stupid. The cost of maintaining "that power" is not hypocrisy, even though the article implies that it is. The cost is better represented by $700 billion per year in military spending (plus the $50 billion in foreign aid), and the only reason why this is sufficient is that the system is indeed "legitimated by liberal ideas" (if it was say Islamic law that had to be maintained, the costs would be much higher). Hypocrisy detracts from the acceptance of these ideas, and increases the cost of maintaining the system.
> then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.
Well at least you are not hypocritical.
The U.S. "claim[ing] fealty to its core liberal principles" is a necessary part of keeping the world order running smoothly. Thus hypocrisy decreases the cost of maintaining the world order, because the alternative would be to give up on espousing those liberal principles.
All corruption begins with the corruption of language.
The rule of law? The rule of whose law? Democracy? Does that mean the right to vote for politicians who will continuously invent new laws and further restrict your freedom?
But then again, it is "free trade", that is the biggest joke. Does that mean: "free", as long as you don't trade in bitcoins?
"End Hypocrisy with Leaks" is in fact the editorial title of this Cryptome site.
The End of Hypocrisy: American Foreign Policy in the Age of Leaks
You can't discount the context of the subheading in a written/paper published title. IMHO. I don't think this is pedantic, as the linked article made it fit (which is why HN guidelines say you should try not to editorialize).
"Foreign Affairs, November-December 2013 The End of Hypocrisy"
Published: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry-farrell-...
For example - is the US for or against Islamic extremism? Is it for or against a more secular society in the Middle East and Muslim countries? Most people here, or college-educated NPR or Fox News listeners I know think it is against it, and that the US wants to promote a more secular, moderate form of Islam around the world, as do allies like Israel. The problem is that all evidence over the preceding decades is against this. The US and England threw out the secular, democratic Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s, and then the CIA helped the Shah's Savak jail or kill off anyone in the country supporting a return to a secular democracy. Almost unbelievable nowadays, Israel supported, including financially, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah against what it saw as the more existential threats of the PFLP and the PLO.
What has the US been doing in the past few years? Supporting the most theocratic countries such as Saudi Arabia, where as it has been in the news lately, there are crackdowns on women who want to drive cars. The remains of the secular, pan-Arabist, Nasserite parties have been what the US has attacked in recent years - Iraq and Libya. Obama recently made the call for more intervention in the secular, Nasserite government of Syria and , surprisingly, some mainstream opinion noted he would in some fashion be supporting Al-Qaeda - which is true. Which is yet another case - the US supported the overthrow of the secular, socialist Afghanistan in order to put into power the mujahideen forces which later became Al Qaeda.
All of the historical evidence, from World War II until recent months shows the US opposes secular governments in these countries and supports Islamic fundamentalists and radicals. Yet for some reason, not only does US propaganda say the opposite, not only do Fox News watching blue collar Americans believe this, even NPR or Fox News listening college educated Americans believe this. College-educated Arabs know what the truth is, but somehow the reality hasn't penetrated the US.
Usually propaganda is just shading the truth, but for the Arab world, the news just openly lies. I watch talking head shows where they still say that Ahmadinejad said "Israel should be wiped off the map". I've heard this repeated for years over and over and over. It's just not true, a look at his remarks in Persian said he absolutely, certainly never said the word map, and even the rest of the translation is somewhat shaded. It's too good a lie to be bothered going into that, so this lie, which is now widely known to be a lie, is still endlessly repeated on in the US news media.
> is the US for or against Islamic extremism?
USA is neither for or against something , USA has interests. If islamic extremists could be manipulated easily , they would be USA's best friends. The truth is they use to be,during the cold war. USA "won" the cold war in Afghanistan by helping the Mujahideen. USA used to back Saddam Hussein , heck , USA used to sell weapons to Iran too. USA has no problem with dictatorships as long as it serves US interests(south america). And it still supports the Saudi regime , which is not very democratic to say the least.
The issue is , you cant act that way abroad and not damage things at home on the long run. That's happening now, all these NSA programs would have been shut down (officialy) if they were exposed 30 years ago. Now most politicians think it's for USA's own good.
IMHO Ben Laden and his crazy folks, won their war against USA somehow. They did not weaken USA with the attack, USA did weaken itself with its response, and exposed itself as hypocrite and not exceptional.
9/11 should have made core US principles stronger , it weakened them. Remember after 9/11 99% of the nations on the earth were behind USA, even most middle eastern countries. Is it still the case today?
Still i dont believe in USA downfall. As a nation, USA has something no other nation has ,the capacity to re-invent itself over and over. That's what will save them, not it's politicians.
Sure, but his point and the point of the author was that they have been hypocritical about it, and making people believe that they are for certain things, such as democracy, and so on. They were very convenient excuses to start attacking other countries.
Now they say they are "against terror", while causing themselves terror to many others in Middle East, and creating situations that instead of making US safe, they put it in more danger with their actions.
So their points are that the leaking age, is the age where such hypocrisy will have very short lifespan.
> 9/11 should have made core US principles stronger , it weakened them.
I used to walk off the airplane, there to visit my grandmother, and immediately find her there waiting for me at the gate.
Thank god children don't have to go through that anymore.
The last time my little sister (then 8) came to visit me, she had been escorted through the airport by a stewardess. Who made some trouble about relinquishing her to me, despite the fact that I had been greeted with "Michael!" and a big hug, because I hadn't thought to bring photo ID.
What happened in the US after 9/11 was wrong, but to claim it as a victory for bin Laden is incoherent. Bin Laden never cared what conditions in the US were like.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213903/http://www.iribnew...
Furthermore, Ahmidinajad has made other antagonistic remarks towards Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut". - Ayatollah Khamenei
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/90...
Clearly not a propaganda conspiracy. But maybe it makes you feel better thinking that it is?
This has been bouncing around since 2005. The Washington Post did a story two years ago about how it was bogus - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ah...
So they got six years of mileage out of this lie, I guess it was time to kill it after six years, right? Not really. Let me see if any news outlet has drudged it up this month. Yes, Businessweek/AP did...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-10-11/new-iran-governmen...
'When the conference was first held in 2005, Ahmadinejad made his infamous remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map."'
So here it is eight years later and the major news outlets are still printing this lie as factual news. Even after it was authoritatively debunked by the Washington Post two years ago.
Still don't see how this is evidence of propaganda in light of the myriad legitimate quotes are out there that are equal in meaning. Poor journalism, perhaps.
"Death to America" =/= "Death to Americans"
The better translation is "Regime change in America" -- they want a "better" (in their eyes) gov't in America, and an end to the obnoxious (in their eyes) American foreign policy. (Obviously, chanting does not automatically grant such. But whatever.)
And that works the other way around. "We support regime change in Tehran" translates into "Death to Iran". Iranians understand this. Americans do not.
When an Iranian official says "We believe that the unjust Israeli gov't will eventually fall, and only be a memory in the history books", they may mean exactly that. "Somehow" that gets translated into "Kill all the Jews" in certain Western media.
Of course, "kill all the Jews" is provably wrong, because there are tens of thousands of Jews still living in Iran. (The number has been declining, but the rump of a once thriving populous still endures.) If the Iranian gov't actually believed killing Jews was a positive thing in the eyes of Allah, they could rack up tens of thousands of bonus points in short order. They do not. Their quarrel is with the existing governments of Israel and America, not with the people in general.
Except in every theocracy, this isn't how it works. The people who have the right to further restrict your freedom damn well do exist, and will kill you if you say they don't have that right.
The prediction that institutions founded in a limited information environment (and their extant policies specifically) will simply continue in an unlimited information environment by simply changing rhetoric, are exactly that: predictions.
That is to say, if a hypothetical swindler cannot profitably swindle when the veracity of her lies are easily checked. The article proposes that our imaginary trickster need simply start telling the truth to continue prospering.
The main reason that the US is losing face is not because it can't maintain the hypocritical position it had before. The main reason is that most of the revealed behaviour of the NSA is either illegal or entirely unethical. This goes far beyond hypocrisy.
> It may attempt, as the former head of U.S. counterintelligence Joel Brenner has urged, to draw distinctions between China’s allegedly unacceptable hacking, aimed at stealing commercial secrets, and its own perfectly legitimate hacking of military or other security-related targets.
How is hacking another country to steal military or security related secrets ever "perfectly legitimate"? It may appear to be so from the US side, but it is never going to be legitimate from the other side.
And I'm sure that the UN (which has been founded by many countries, not just the US) has something to say about this as well.
If you were an iranian revolutionary that wants democratic change, you could probably go further and craft a foreign policy that plays to equally to the interests of the US, China and Russia, while crafting a democratic domestic policy.
This is not strictly true. There is a big difference between identifying/exploiting bugs in software and defending a network from attack. Within the context of government spending, this is the difference between funding reverse engineering/binary analysis/buying 0days and funding the training of systems administrators.
There is also the big offense/defense hypocrisy, like buying guns and missiles to protect people (instead of armors and bunkers), and mixing offense and defense to make some behavior more publicly acceptable.
"NEVER FORGET" but "NEVER REMEMBER" (that 9/11 was the result of the US (CIA) recruiting and playing Osama bin Laden).
As a non-expert I was/am unsurprised by the content of these leaks whose 'revelations' in the broad sense are mere common sense - but more surprised that they happen at all. Are Americans so discontented? Apparently so...
"Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie."
And lies are basically bad.
Are all forms of deception bad? If so, then okay. If not, then what forms of deception are bad, and what forms are not, and which class does hypocrisy belong in and why?
How can India be said to have _flouted_ this treaty when India had never signed it ??
That sentence is how history will judge 2013.
In the ongoing debate between politically-controlled versus theocratically-controlled law, the majority of the world population finds the "American" ideal (rather French-revolutionary, no?) of politically-controlled law not particularly attractive at all. The system amounts to asking the population to vote every few years for politicians who will invent new laws. The question then becomes: How many new laws do we need before all our needs for new laws are finally and entirely satisfied? The theocratically-controlled alternative on its side says: The only one who can create new laws and further restrict your freedom, may not even exist. So, my question becomes: What exactly would be wrong with that?
I've heard that immigrants immigrate here because of that, and I've heard patriotism justified by this, and I've heard that our culture is seductive, but I've never heard that governments find our ideals attractive or anything remotely like it.