Saturday, August 15, 2020

Fake not Fact – Who wants reality to disappear, and why?

BY UTE ON OCTOBER 28, 2018I N ALL, ENGLISH ARTICLES



This essay was created for the catalogue of the art-exhibition NEWSFLASH in Nuremberg, organized in cooperation between the Kunsthalle Nürnberg and the Kunsthaus, which misses how digital (dis)information works and what manipulative power it can unfold. What skills do we need to deal with this appropriately and critically? The artists assembled in the exhibition are also looking for answers to this and other questions with their works.

“It’s all fake!” Meanwhile, this English word is being used everywhere to decimate another person’s opinion with a single blow. Even Donald Trump berates reporters from CNN and other media1 as representatives of “fake news”, although he himself is one of those repeatedly spreading false information via Twitter. But to return to the actual meaning: in this context “fake” means incorrect information. That is, the deliberate dissemination of manipulated news and intentionally false reports in order to influence those addressed or to do damage to a group or a single individual. Fake has more than one shape: sometimes it is a completely false, freely invented item of information or pure speculation – as in the case of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. But far more often, fake combines facts that are actually true, e. g. about a terror attack in Europe, with false information – about the perpatrator, the victims, the course of events. Contexts are deconstructed by repeatedly spreading old information as “current” once again, or media reports are placed in an entirely different context of meaning. Among our neighbours, the effects of disinformation campaigns online are even more clearly discernible than they are here: The British “Yes!” to Brexit. The best ever result for the extreme right’s Front National in the first round of the presidency elections in France: 11.5 million of the 47 million French eligible to vote voted for Marine Le Pen.




copyright: shutterstock

Demonstration of the rightis extremist Front National – today the name of the party changed to Rassemblement National; the party is distributing its propaganda and xenophob messages vial digital media

Here, it is possible to see what destructive power digital disinformation may unfold. In the USA every second item on Twitter is already such a manipulative, incorrect news item – in Germany, as yet, it is “only” every fifth tweet. But the creation of opinion in this country is facing the onset of such development3, for which we are unprepared – either as voters or media users, citizens, journalists or artists. A Threat to Democratic Debate: The Echo Chamber Effect A fundamental change in the public sphere of information and the creation of opinion is underway. It entails great opportunities, as knowledge is now available to all via the Net, independent of place and time. But the creation of opinion online also entails great risks, for facts here are being manipulated, challenges we face politically. And so, for example, the parties represented in the Bundestag attempted to keep provocative themes to a minimum in election campaigning. Like the demand for more direct participation by citizens, or the urgent question discussed with such controversy by many people, of whether and how we can achieve the integration of refugees. Complex decisions, which touch upon the framework of values in our society – like “marriage for all” or the “online search regulations” – were enforced in a hurried procedure before the end of the legislation period, without much parliamentary or social discussion. But if there is no discussion in parliament and the media, others will take over – and they do so primarily online. For two years now, I have exposed myself daily to the self-styled “alternative media”, have been a member of public and restricted Facebook groups relating to the AfD and Pegida, following the sources of this digital counterpublic on Twitter, receiving newsletters, and watching – on the “hidden” servers of rightwing extremist and potentially violent nerds – how they produce radically right-wing tweets and memes or construct pro-AfD campaigns for social media. I have conducted research in the echo chambers of media true to Erdogan, and trolls, and I have perused disinformation disseminated by the Russians. Extremist populists find opportunity online to spread their information entirely without filters and without troublesome questioners or presenters. In many places, they use the possibilities of the Net far more purposefully than the classic people’s parties or media. They successfully address the growing number of people in our country who are turning away from the traditional parties and media, and have long been operating in their own informational sphere, which they call “alternative”, “uncensored” and “democratic”. Over the period of my research it has been possible to see clearly: all these actors and sources have increased their scope of influence online. And they make no secret of their digital information strategy; their strategies for digital propaganda and disinformation are published online and are easy to find. Stories from a Country Poised on the Edge The heart of this communication is stories arousing fear and outrage, using artificial and martial concepts. A communication that discredits – using its own language and narratives – our democratic institutions, our model of an open society and diversity of opinion, and also sows doubt in the functioning of our polity as a whole.


copyright: shutterstock

Anti-migrant-demonstration of rightist extremists and critical citizens organised by the activist group “Pro Chemnitz” and some AfD groups – campaigning for the demonstration was mainly distributed on social media

The overall framework, the stage for all these narratives, is the downfall of Germany. Censorship, limitations of citizens’ rights and persecution of those who think differently are, following the current of reports in my right-wing newsfeed, on the order of the day in Germany. It seems that little value is placed on human rights, freedom of the press, or democracy in our country. For they are being wantonly and deliberately restricted – and not by just anyone, but by the government and the liberal establishment. Dramas happen on this stage: there are brutal dictators and an oppressed people. Perpetrators and victims. Foreign hordes. And upstanding saviours of the freedom of opinion. Conspiracies and plotting are on the daily agenda. The roles are attributed quite clearly. This creates excitement and people enjoy sharing it. They are stories that report on catastrophes, so underlining the sense among users that they are being disadvantaged, overrun by foreigners, robbed by the political elite, in short: they have been degraded to second-class citizens. Thereby, these narratives are all about decisive themes: about our daily existence, peace in our country, and identity. “The state is failing, imposing a state of emergency on Germany.” “Martial law rules.” The stories are concerned with the “chancellor dictatorship”, “state terror”, or the “state of emergency”. There is talk of a failing, weak state, in which the “enemies of the people”, “traitors” or “system parties” govern the people in a dictatorial manner. Another badgering narrative is that of civil war being brought to the country by a foreign horde: the story of the “great invasion”, whereby the “rapefugees” and “asylum demanders” are swamping Germany in violence and terror and bringing the “sex-jihad” to the country. Disinformation as a Constitutive Means for Extremists and Populists The narratives of the extremists and populists are all about moods and emotions rather than facts. Fake is a constitutive means for populists and extremists, for they aim at emotional stories to win over and keep their supporters: with victims and perpetrators, obvious enemies and of course with heroes. For some, that is the election victor Trump, who is acclaimed on the media platforms of right-wing populists all over Europe. For others, the jihadist terrorists of Paris, who roamed the French capital murdering people for several hours in November 2015. The violent members of the three teams of IS terrorists armed with Kalashnikovs and explosive belts ignited bombs and fired at street bars. 130 people died, 89 of them in Bataclan concert hall. But the violent participants and murderers are lauded in videos made by the IS and disseminated online. These are stories to share, like, comment on. Stories inviting us to join in. By means of the Net, I can be there “live”, in real time. The result is the development of a space of participation and experience, in which every user can become involved with little effort, in which everyone is important!



Discussion with the german artists Monika Huber and Wiebke Elzel about the effect and impact of Echochambers and digital Desinformation in the Nurnberg Exhibititon in Oktober 2018
This is true of the information and disinformation campaigns of state-directed foreign media, financed by many millions of euros, in Russia and Turkey, as well as the extremists of the IS. Different though their aims may be individually – what they have in common is a declaration of “information war” on the democratic order in our country, on liberal political ideas, a willingness for integration and
the openness of our society, and the fact that they are waging this war primarily digitally in order to assert their interests in Germany or to win over new supporters. And that they ingeniously exploit the functions of the Net – a vast range of influence and frequency – to deliberately address specific users. Radicalization through the Net What does the 17-year-old Islamist terrorist who attacked people on a regional train near
Würzburg4 have in common with the extreme rightwing demonstrators in Bautzen?5 What unites the demonstrating Russian-Germans as they protest about the disappearance of 13-year-old Lisa with
supporters of the extreme right Identitarian Movement, who climbed up the Brandenburg Gate and rolled out a banner there in protest against immigration? Not a lot, at first glance.

But they all source their information on the Net. They plan their actions and form their political attitudes online, even though their political positions and interests are totally different. They have been radicalized via the Net, where they are also connected to operators who are disseminating radical misanthropic messages: extremists – like the terrorist organization Islamic State –, who propagate violence and recruit young men prepared to use violence for acts of terrorism like the one in Würzburg or the attack on the Christmas market in Berlin. Extreme right-wing actors – from the NPD to the “Reichsbürger” to the Identitarian Movement – and right-wing populists in the sphere of Pegida and the AfD, who reject people for their religion or race and do not wish to see human rights being applied equally to all – that is, independent of race, skin colour, and national or social origins. What concerns our society is reflected on and spread online. And there are obvious links between what is being spread in the way of information and disinformation – and what happens, politically and socially, in our country. This explains why so many people with Turkish roots in our country affirm the undemocratic changes to the constitution being made by Erdogan. It explains why young men in the midst of our society are becoming Islamist terrorists. It answers the question why refugee hostels are being set on fire in the very regions where there are only a few refugees.
What begins as a tweet or post online often leads to practical violence: murder threats against MPs in the German Bundestag after the resolution on Armenia, for example. The deliberate cases of aggression in Dresden during the celebrations of the Day of German Unity on 3rd October 2016, Police protection for MPs due to their critical attitude towards Turkey. Massive threats against the liberal Islamic academic Lamya
Kaddor, which led to her withdrawal from active teaching. There is a measurable growth in politically motivated crimes: a fivefold increase in predominantly right-wing motivated attacks on asylum-seekers’ accommodation6 when many refugees came to Germany.

How Language Changes Reality
Does language create reality? Not directly.But language changes our view of reality – and thus our opinions and attitudes.7 “We ought to be allowed to say that,” as we hear regularly from the ranks of the AfD. Provocations and breaches of taboo are an essential part of its communication, key aggressive concepts such as “lying press”, “mob of migrants”, “traitors to the people” are constructed online and then
transferred to political discussion. “Mainstream media”, “Rautenfrau”, “migrant disaster”, “old parties” – all terms that are used with great matter-of-factness when one keeps one’s ears open in the supermarket around the corner or on the underground train, terms that may be used in conversations with neighbours or acquaintances – and they all originate from discourses online. Such terms are representative
of the agenda of the New Right and its groups. They question the functioning and stability of the democratic system, and on Twitter these attitudes turn into hashtags like #stopinvasion, #remigration, #refugeesNotwelcome, #MerkelhatBlutandenHaenden, #KanzlerinderSchande. Successful agenda setting means getting key aggressive terms into people’s heads so that they stick and can be activated easily.

They have an effect on how we think about a subject. They are not neutral terms – they all evaluate. They may add value to something (resistance fighter = member of the AfD or Identitarian Movement) – or reduce the value of something (system parties, synchronized press). By means of this valuation they connect a subject to an interpretation. It is easy to check what images are linked to which terms. It is enough to insert them into Google image search, where “asylum demanders”, “sexjihad”, “refugee invasion” trigger a flood of images of violent migrants. The phrase “Schlepperkönigin” (queen of trafficking)
leads directly and almost exclusively to images of the Chancellor. The term “traitors to the people” leads to images of government members, ranging from the Chancellor to the Minister of Justice, from the Foreign
Secretary to the Minister of Defence. It even leads to an image in which the heads of the aforementioned individuals are depicted in front of a scaffold. The heading reads: “Please don’t push. Everyone will get a turn.” The search reveals which online images are shared frequently. In this way, we can get an indication of which images have become fixed in the minds of the users.

Catalyser Themes
There are two topics with the effect of fire accelerants in the newsfeeds of my research: acts of terror and migrants. The fatal attack at the Christmas market on Breitscheidplatz in Berlin on 19.12.2016 is exploited by many media platforms of the New Right, and the Epoch Times concludes: “And again, they are all involved in the murders. Politics, media, judicial system, police, do-gooders – all those who have caused and approved such conditions.” The extreme right Identitarian Movement tweeted: “It must be said quite clearly: #Breitscheidplatz happened because Merkel and her cronies allowed the perpetrators into the country.”8 In the comment columns one can read, among other things: “[…] The problem and the reason for this is the ruling clique, high treason against the German people […].”9 The “Patriotic Platform”10,a Facebook group close to the AfD, posted a photomontage picturing Angela Merkel sitting beside the Berlin terrorist Amri in the truck. The headline: “Asylum policy was in the cab with him!” A tasteless satire? After
all, it referred to a fatal terror attack in Germany that cost 12 people their lives. Here, expressions of opinion and false assertions are being merged deliberately to the extent that we can scarcely determine what is
still the reporting of facts and where disinformation begins.


copyright: shutterstock

Migrants are a “trigger-issue” for many speculations, sterotypes and fake information distributed in the echochambers of the rightist mobements all over Europe

Analogue Mass Propaganda also Champions Fake

Of course, post-factual narratives and propaganda are not merely a 21st-century phenomenon. And although post-factual was not word of the year until 201611, the phenomenon has
existed across all eras. Hannah Arendt wrote impressively on the subject – in very analogue times. She wrote about German society after the collapse of the National Socialist regime, after travelling to
Germany in 1949 and 195012, and noted in regard to the National Socialist dictatorship that every totalitarian regime is dependent on disinformation as a constitutive means:
“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality
itself”. The ideal subjects of totalitarian rule, according to Arendt, are not ideologically convinced National Socialists or Communists but “people for whom the distinctions between fact and fiction […] true and
false no longer exist.” The flight from reality into interpretation, exaggeration, agitation have always been preconditions to all mass propaganda. And so the National Socialists quite intentionally developed
post-factual narratives in the Weimar Republic in order to respond to the deepseated disappointment of many Germans and the sense of damage to their own identity after defeat in World War 1. In 1931, Adolf
Hitler rejected the simple assertion that the modern political and social world was compicated “as wicked propaganda from democrats.”

Instead, National Socialist propaganda offered simple explanations and denied the facts: Parliamentary system? A deceptive façade by which people were deceived and MPs made themselves rich! Democratic
parties? A corrupt crowd! Liberal press? Among National Socialists, it became the “asphalt press” or “Jewish press”. And the term “system parties” had been used during the economic crisis since 1930, referring
to those parties who were waging “a campaign of destruction against their own people”. It cannot be overlooked that the rightwing populists of today are readopting the linguistic phrases and narratives of that
time. This is true in particular of those narratives regarding the community of the people, cultural superiority through race or religion, discrimination of cetain groups across the board, immense inhumanity, and
of the elitist criticism shaping their narratives. In terms of content and language, these are the old keywords and recipes – which is not to say that all AfD voters represent such exteme attitudes.
But there is a fundamental difference between analogue propaganda and digital disinformation: the mass character and frequency with which manipulated information is disseminated online. Disinformation and propaganda today achieve a much greater scope of influence through the Net than at a time when the post-factual was spread via radio, newsreels or the daily press. The number of actors sowing doubts in our democratic system through disinformation, poisoning democratic debate with their language and narratives – and the number of media platforms, groups and forums they use – have multiplied in number. And as a result, so have propaganda and false information.

It is a mistake to ignore this antidemocratic,hate-filled white noise on the Net along with the disinformation circulating online. For it will remain and grow in Germany as well – and this will have practical
consequences for our lives together, our politics,our political and democratic undersstanding. Our handling of it can change, however. The precondition to finding some orientation in this web of fake and fact, truth
and lies, is that we know how to distinguish one from the other. This also involves knowing who is spreading disinformation online and with what interests – and through what narratives, images and linguistic terms it is happening. It is important to take an energetic stand against the misanthropic phrases and group-related inhumanity on the Net, and to reject hate and violence. And we should not give way to pressure to shift the boundaries of the unspeakable. We must not stop comparing and be aware of the boundaries of our own echo chambers, and continue to break through them – to get the full picture, to know the arguments and fears of others. For democracy and the question of what kind of society we wish to live in is also being negotiated on the Net!

This essay is the outcome of two years of investigative research into the spread of disinformation online. The book Fake statt Fakt. Wie Populisten, Bots und Trolle
unsere Demokratie angreifen was published by dtv in summer 2018: 
POLITICAL EXTREMISM OF THE YOUTH AS AN ETHNO-SOCIAL DEVIATION
IN THE POST-SOVIET ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SOCIETY

Volume 17 Issue 4 2016 CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS
https://www.ca-c.org/online/2016/journal_eng/cac-04/ca-cE-4-2016.pdf
BY IRINA MKRTUMOVA
D.Sc. (Sociol.), Professor, Deputy Director for Scientific-Analytical Work,
Institute of Supplementary Professional Education
(Moscow, Russian Federation)

Irina KARABULATOVA
D.Sc. (Philol.), Professor,
Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,
Chief Research Associate, Head of the Sector of Ethnopolitical and
Sociocultural Security and Communication Technologies,
Institute of Socio-Political Research, Russian Academy of Sciences
(Moscow, Russian Federation)

Anastasiya ZINCHENKO
Ph.D. (Econ.), Lecturer at the Tyumen Military Engineering Officer Academy
(Tyumen, Russian Federation)

ABSTRACT
 We belong to an electronic information society and live in a global  space of information and communication technologies with the following intertwining parameters: (1) the individual and the collective; (2) the objective and the subjective; (3) the material and the ideal. This is
a new type of global integrity that has already challenged those who are learning to
distinguish between the external and the internal and between “mine” and “yours,” while
remaining within the information space. 

This adds special importance to the conditions within which these two spaces can be outlined; the absence of outlines or inability of any country to defend its own lines gives rise
to a new type of danger created by information flows. This is extremely obvious among
young people as the most mobile group susceptible to all sorts of factors that change
stereotypes and create ethnosocial deviations.1

 The religious factor as part of the political process is becoming a catalyst of sta
bilization and/or destabilization of the political space. We need to identify the mechanisms and technologies that draw religion into politics and arrive at methods through
which social and state security can be ensured. This doubles the importance of the
subject of our study. The information threat per se can crop up in a variety of forms: virtual worlds that replace reality in the minds of people; manipulation of human minds and
human behavior, replacement of goals, values, and lifestyle with standards imposed
from the outside, distorted information, etc.2

This means that the problem of interaction between consciousness and being has
been revived in the information society: today, they coexist in the common space of
information flows (knowledge, technologies,2 and programs). They are practically indistinguishable, which creates a negative trend, viz. the replacement of the subjective with a technological milieu, in which the difference between “moral” and “amoral” can hardly be
distinguished. To arrive at a strategy for preventing and opposing the discussed phenomenon, we must undertake as thorough an analysis as possible of the ontogenesis
and phylogenesis of political extremism among young people, as well as its specifics
and non-lineal dynamics in Russia’s sociopolitical conditions, and generalize the results thus obtained. The time has come to admit that today the state is opposing extremism merely to neutralize its most dangerous repercussions. So far nothing has been done to eliminate the fundamental causes of extremism in the younger generation: its social vulnerability, lack of opportunity to move up the social ladder, and glaring property inequality.

See: I.S. Karabulatova, “Sovremenny elektronnoinformatsionny diskurs kak indikator etnopoliticheskoy
bezopasnosti: mezhetnicheskaya tolerantnost v XXI veke,”
Nauchnoe obozrenie. Seria 2: Gumanitarnye nauki, No. 2,
2016, pp. 3-14.

This study has been carried out with the financial support of the Russian Federal Property Fund within the framework of research project No. 16-06-00476.80



THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT MYTHS (PT.I)

WRITTEN BY 
ALAFFCREATOR22.06.2019

With this translation, ALAFF opens the series of publications that make up the chapters of the book «“Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” in questions and answers» by Alexander Dyukov (ISBN 978-5-9990-0005-7). The book was released in 2009 by the “Historical Memory” Foundation. The book was released in edition of only 1000 copies.

Annotation:

The book that you hold in your hands is a popular science work, which gives reasoned answers to key questions related to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and perceptions in Russia and abroad of its consequences.

Is it true that the Soviet-German non-aggression pact was illegal from the point of view of international law? Is it true that the Kremlin deliberately pushed the beginning of the Second World War? Is it true that the Baltic countries lost their independence as a result of the Soviet-German pact? Which countries today enjoy the “fruits of the pact”? The perception of the past and understanding of the reasons for its active politicization in our days depends on the the answers to these and other questions.

The entire book is available for free download. Source (*.pdf file)
IN RUSSIAN





It is argued that the conclusion of the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” was predetermined by the totalitarian essence of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes. How consistently did Moscow and Berlin come to the conclusion of such a pact since the establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany and the strengthening of Stalin’s in the USSR?

The thesis that “the totalitarian regimes of Germany and the USSR inevitably had to agree [among themselves], since both were totalitarian” is quite popular today, first of all in Europe. However, this thesis has absolutely nothing in common with reality. In fact, it was the Soviet Union that in the 1930s was the most consistent opponent of the expansionist and revanchist plans of Nazi Germany.

As early as February 3, 1933, a few days after Adolf Hitler was appointed as German Reich Chancellor, the leader of the Nazi party declared “conquering the new living space in the east and its merciless Germanization” as the goal of its policy [1]. A few weeks later, the Nazis organized the arson attack on the Reichstag building, which the Communists were accused of. The subsequent persecution of the Communists, anti-Jewish actions and bonfires from books in the squares of German cities could not cause sympathy in Moscow; already in June 1933, the USSR declared Germany about the termination of military cooperation. Subsequently, Soviet-German relations continued to deteriorate. When a year and a half later, in December 1934, the Soviet ambassador to London, Ivan Maisky, was asked about the USSR’s attitude towards Germany and Japan, the answer was lapidary. “Our relations with these two countries are characterized… by the presence of strong suspicions that they have aggressive aspirations towards our territory,” — answered the Soviet ambassador [2].





(left) Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky, Soviet diplomat, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USSR to the United Kingdom in 1932 — 1943

(right) USSR People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov in October 1934

The threat of German expansion to the east forced the Soviet leadership to persistently oppose the Nazi plans (of course, diplomatic contacts with Germany were not broken). This course is strongly associated with the name of the USSR Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov.

Initially, the potential German expansion was supposed to be blocked by concluding bilateral agreements with the countries of Eastern Europe. In December 1933, the USSR proposed to Poland to sign a joint declaration of interest in the inviolability of the Baltic states, but this proposal was rejected by Warsaw, which was increasingly oriented towards Berlin. At the same time, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) decided on the readiness of the USSR “to join the League of Nations on certain conditions” and “to conclude a regional agreement on mutual aggression on the part of Germany” [3].

In May 1934, French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou proposed to conclude an agreement on mutual assistance between France and the Soviet Union. In addition, it was supposed to conclude the “Eastern Pact” — a multilateral agreement on the mutual non-aggression of all the countries of Eastern Europe, as well as the USSR and Germany. The Kremlin generally supported these projects because they contributed to the security of the Soviet borders.

However, the “Eastern Pact” was not destined to take place: its signing was blocked by the diplomatic efforts of Berlin and Warsaw, and its initiator, Louis Barthou, together with Alexander, the king of Yugoslavia, was killed by Croatian terrorists (with the assistance of the Nazis) in October 1934. But the Soviet-French mutual aid pact was signed on May 2, 1935; its ratification, however, took place only in February 1936. Following France, Czechoslovakia signed an agreement on mutual assistance with the Soviet Union.

During the Spanish civil war, in which Germany and Italy actively intervened, the Soviet Union openly supported the legitimate republican government. The USSR supplied military equipment to Spain; Soviet military experts fought against the Frankists, their German and Italian allies. Soviet aid to Republican Spain was especially important in the conditions of “non-intervention” of England and France, which turned a blind eye to the active participation of Germany and Italy in the Spanish war.

On March 17, 1938, the Soviet government made another attempt to create a system of “collective security”, proposing to convene an international conference to consider “practical measures against the development of aggression and the danger of a new world war”. However, this proposal was rejected by London as “undermining the prospects for peace in Europe”.



Britain’s refusal to hold an international conference on countering aggression was not accidental. London has consistently taken the path of “appeasing” Germany, pushing Nazi aggression eastward. Western countries loyally reacted to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, to the intervention of Germany in the Spanish civil war, to the Anschluss of Austria. On December 2, 1937, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden informed Berlin that London was not against a border revision in Eastern Europe — provided that this happened without a war [4].

“Germany and England are the two pillars of the European world and the main pillars against communism, and therefore it is necessary to overcome our present difficulties peacefully,” said British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on September 12, 1938. “Probably, it will be possible to find a solution acceptable to everyone except Russia” [5]. A few weeks later, on September 30, a meeting of the heads of government of Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy was held in Munich, at which was approved tearing off of a number of areas from Czechoslovakia. The “Munich collusion” took place behind the backs of the Soviet Union and was perceived in the Kremlin as clear evidence of a rapprochement between Hitler, on the one hand, and Great Britain and France, on the other.



USSR People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Maksimovich Litvinov in 1937



It was a catastrophic failure of the “collective security” strategy. The prospect of remaining alone in front of Germany, which had effectively established dominance over all of Central Europe, was clearly marked before the USSR. The situation was complicated by an acute confrontation with the Japanese Empire on the country’s Far Eastern borders, which in the summer of 1938 resulted in bloody hostilities on Lake Hassan.

Nevertheless, Soviet diplomats continued their attempts to form an anti-Hitler system of “collective security” and clearly draw its contours. On April 17, 1939, the Soviet Union proposed Great Britain and France to conclude an agreement on mutual assistance, which also provides for the provision of support to the countries of Eastern Europe in the event of aggression against them. And It was only after the failure of the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations that a decision was made in the Kremlin to ensure the security of the Soviet borders at the expense of the treaty with Germany.


“I closely followed the Russians in the League of Nations and in the Committee on Non-intervention and without hesitation I would say that Litvinov is the only foreign minister who speaks the language of elementary honesty”

US Ambassador to Spain C. Bowers, November 3, 1938 [6]

As one can see, to say that the Soviet Union consistently went to the conclusion of a pact with Nazi Germany, is impossible. On the contrary, the USSR’s foreign policy was consistently aimed at countering German aggression and revanchism. It was precisely this that made Soviet foreign policy different from the foreign policy of other European states.

If one ask about a state that really worked closely with Germany and for a long time supported the Nazi foreign political actions, then we should pay attention to Poland.

When, in October 1933, Berlin announced the withdrawal of its representatives from the conference on disarmament, there was a threat that the League of Nations would apply sanctions against Germany. Warsaw assured Berlin that it would not join any sanctions against it [7]. In December of the same year, Poland proposed Germany to conclude an anti-Soviet alliance; at that time, such a proposal turned out to be too radical even for the Nazi leadership [8]. Instead, on January 26, 1934, the Polish-German Declaration on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force was signed.

In accordance with the wishes of Berlin and because of territorial contradictions with Lithuania, Warsaw refused to sign the declaration on interest in the inviolability of the Baltic States proposed by the Soviet Union, blocked attempts to create an “Eastern Bloc”. Rejecting the “Eastern Pact” project on September 28, 1934, Warsaw notified Paris of its readiness “to link its fate with the fate of Germany” [9].



When Germany began an audit of European borders, Poland took similar actions. In March 1938, Warsaw organized provocations on the demarcation line with Lithuania, presented it with an ultimatum, demanding to officially recognize the Vilna region occupied by Polish troops in 1920 and annexed in 1922 as Polish territory. Otherwise, Poland threatened Lithuania with war. This initiative was supported by Berlin [10].


“The Germans were not the only predators who tormented the corpse of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after the conclusion of the Munich Agreement on September 30, the Polish government sent an ultimatum to the Czech government, which was to be answered after 24 hours. The Polish government demanded the immediate transfer of the border region of Těšín… While the glow of Germany’s power fell on them, they hurried to seize their share when plundering and ruining Czechoslovakia”

W. Churchill,
“Second World War” [11]

A little later, together with Germany, Poland took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, capturing Těšín region. In fact, Poland acted as a co-aggressor; in a conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938, the Polish ambassador in Berlin pointed out that it was his country’s position that made it possible to paralyze “the possibility of the Soviets intervening in the Czech issue” [12]. In March 1939, Poland again found itself on the same side of the barricades with Germany, actively supporting the idea of occupation Transcarpathian Ukraine by Hungary.





British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and British diplomat Anthony Ideen

Modern Polish historians are trying to convince us that in fact Poland in the 30s only pursued a policy of “balance” between Germany and the USSR. However, this is not true; following the Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov, it should be recognized that at that time “the position of Poland was, as a rule, closer to the position of Germany and sharply diverged from the position of the USSR” [13].

It is not difficult to notice the significant difference between the “German” policy of Moscow and Warsaw in 1933-1938, between the opposition of Nazi aggression and its support. Unfortunately, today for some reason people prefer not to recall this difference.

[1] Top secret! Only for command!: The strategy of fascist Germany in the war against the USSR: Documents and materials. M., 1967. P. 42 — 43.

[2] Maisky I.M. Diplomat diary: London, 1934 — 1943 / Ed. A.O. Chubaryan. M., 2006. Book 1. P. 45.

[3] Ken O., Rupasov A. Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and the relations of the USSR with the western neighboring states. M., 2000. Book 1. P. 104, 406-411.

[4] Meltyukhov M.I. September 17, 1939: Soviet-Polish conflicts, 1918 — 1939. M., 2009. P. 182

[5] The Year of the Crisis, 1938 — 1939. M., 1990. Volume 1. P. 6

[6] World Wars of the twentieth century. M., 2005. Book. 4. P. 29

[7] Meltyukhov M.I. September 17, 1939. P. 168.

[8] ibid. P. 170.

[9] ibid. P. 174.

[10] ibid. P. 179.

[11] Churchill W. World War II. M., 1997. Volume 1. P. 151 — 152.

[12] Meltyukhov M.I. September 17, 1939. P. 195.

[13] ibid. P. 176.
THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT MYTHS (PT.II)
WRITTEN BY ALAFFCREATOR10.02.2020

ALAFF continues to publish a translation of the chapters of the book «“Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” in questions and answers» by Alexander Dyukov (ISBN 978-5-9990-0005-7). The first chapter is here.

The entire book is available for free download. Source (*.pdf file)



Is it true that back in November 1938 the “General Agreement between the NKVD and the Gestapo” was signed, testifying to the close cooperation of the Soviet and Nazi regimes?

The so-called “General Agreement on cooperation, mutual assistance, joint activity between the Main Directorate of State Security of the NKVD of the USSR and the Main Directorate of Security of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (Gestapo)” is a fake well known to historians. It was first published in the anti-Semitic newspaper “Pamyat” (“Memory” — ALAFF), published in Moscow in 1999 [14]. This “document”, which tells about the joint struggle of the NKVD and the Gestapo against the “Jewish threat”, was widely used in Russian ultranationalist circles and after some time was partially reproduced in the book of the writer Vladimir Karpov “Generalissimo”. The “General Agreement” is also presented on numerous resources of the Russian segment of the Internet.


The head of the anti-Semitic movement “Pamyat” Dmitry Vasiliev demonstrates the fake “General Agreement”. Moscow, February 1999.

The content of the “General Agreement” indisputably indicates the falsity of this “document”. According to the notes on the folder in which the “General Agreement” was allegedly “found”, this folder is stored in the fund 13 of the archive of the CPSU Central Committee [15]. However, the fund 13 of this archive (now the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History) stored the documents of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the RSFSR, which operated in 1956-1966, and had nothing to do with the bodies of the NKVD. No “General Agreement” is stored in the fund and has not been stored [previously].

The “document” was signed by “the head of the Fourth Directorate (Gestapo) of the Main Security Directorate of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, SS brigadeführer G. Müller” on November 11, 1938. However, the Gestapo became the Fourth Directorate only on September 27, 1939, when the RSHA, the General Directorate of Imperial Security, was created. Thus, the “General Agreement” was signed on behalf of the department that did not exist at that time.



“General agreement between the NKVD and the Gestapo” — a document falsified in the 90s of the XX century.

The strangeness of the “document” is not limited to this. G. Müller by November 1938 was the rank of SS standartenführer, not the SS brigadeführer, as indicated in the “General Agreement”. And he did not head the Gestapo, but was the head of the referent of the Main Directorate of the Security Police and the SD. Moreover, on November 11, 1938, Müller was not in Moscow, as is clear from the “Agreement”, but in Berlin, summing up the famous Kristallnacht. It turns out that the “General Agreement” on behalf of a non-existent organization was signed by a representative of another organization, who was thousands of kilometers from the place of signing. And besides, he confused his own rank.

However, this is not all. The “General Agreement” states that Müller signed it “on the basis of power of attorney No. I 448 / 12-1 of November 3, 1938, issued by the chief of the General Security Directorate of the SS Reichsführer Reichard Heydrich”. Certified by the “head of the secretariat of the NKVD of the USSR [Stepan Solomonovich] Mamulov”, the translation into Russian of this “power of attorney” was published in the same issue of the “Pamyat” newspaper as the “General Agreement”. However, Mamulov was appointed head of the Secretariat of the NKVD of the USSR only on January 3, 1939 — two months after he allegedly assured the translation of the “power of attorney”.



“General agreement between the NKVD and the Gestapo” — a document falsified in the 90s of the XX century.

As one can see, the fake turned out to be extremely rude. It is not surprising that it was subjected to devastating criticism in the Russian media immediately after a partial reprint in V. Karpov’s book “Generalissimo” [16]. This criticism was conscientiously taken into account by falsifiers in the preparation of the second, revised version of the “General Agreement”.

The second version of the “General Agreement” was put into circulation through the journalist of NTV broadcaster Sergey Kanev, who specialized in criminal chronicle. According to Kanev himself, “the person who brought this folder said that the document was genuine from the personal archive of L. Beria” [17]. The new version of the “General Agreement” differed significantly from the one published in the newspaper “Pamyat”. Müller’s rank was changed — this time it sounded like “a representative of the head of the German Main Security Directorate”. The title of “SS brigadeführer” turned out to be amended to a more adequate “SS standartenführer”. The text of the “General Agreement” has been amended; in addition, wax seals and “personal notes of Beria” appeared. However, some evidence of falsehood remained; for example, in the new version of the “General Agreement” Mamulov was still listed as “the head of the secretariat of the NKVD of the USSR”. The question of how Müller, who was in Berlin on November 11, 1938, was able to sign the “General Agreement” in Moscow on the same day, also remained open.

Sergey Kanev accepted the “General Agreement” as an authentic document; his film “The NKVD and the Gestapo: Marriage of convenience” in 2004 was shown on NTV. Four years later, the shots taken by Kanev of the second version of the “General Agreement” along with a number of other fakes were used by the authors of the Latvian pseudo-documentary film “The Soviet Story” [18]. Objections from official Latvian historians to this film did not follow; moreover, this movie, overflowing with fakes and false statements, was approved by them. This fact, as well as the use of the “Agreement” as a genuine document in the book of Lithuanian historian Petras Stankeras “Lithuanian Police Battalions” [19], testifies to the progressive degradation of Baltic historical science.

[14] Secret conspiracy of the NKVD and the Gestapo // Pamyat. 1999. No. 1 (26). Electronic publication: http://www.pamyat.ru/gestapo.html

[15] It should be noted that a reference to the fund 13 of the Archive of the CPSU Central Committee is contained in other false documents related to the “General Agreement”. For more details see: Kostyrchenko G. “Racial Instructions of Beria”: Regarding the publication of one fake // Lekhaym. 2002. No. 5.

[16] See, for example: Deych M. Stalin, Beria and dad Müller // Moskovsky Komsomolets. 07/31/2002 (Source — ALAFF); Dashevsky V. Lies for a wide circle // Novoe Vremya. 2002. No. 48.

[17] NKVD — Gestapo (1938): In the wake of the sources. Gennady Mesh — Vladimir Fedko // Russian Globe. 2004. No 6. Electronic publication: http://www.russianglobe.com/N28/NKVD_GESTAPO.About.htm

[18] For a detailed analysis of fakes and false statements used in this pseudo-documentary film, see: A.R. Dyukov “The Soviet Story”: The mechanism of lies; Dyukov A. “The Soviet Story”: Forgery Tissue. M., 2008. According to the conclusion of specialists from the Department of Psychology at Moscow State University, the film is directly aimed at inciting ethnic hatred.

[19] Stankeras P. Lithuanian police battalions, 1941-1945. M., 2009. Pp. 23 — 24.

Leviathan Killed Boris Nemtsov
LUKE HARDING
At 11:30 PM on Friday February 27th 2015, Boris
Nemtsov, an outspoken Russian opposition leader,
was shot in the back. The assassin fired off six shots;
four of the bullets struck him, one in the heart; and he
died instantly. The only explanation not being given
in Moscow for Nemtsov’s is the blindingly obvious
one: that Nemtsov was murdered for his opposition
activities and, specifically, for his very public
criticism of Vladimir Putin’s secret war in Ukraine.


Shaun Walker's The Long Hangover

The Long Hangover: Putin's New Russia and the Ghosts of the Past by [Shaun Walker]
PDF BOOK DOWNLOAD

Apr 26, 2018 - The book attempts to comprehend the existential void that the Russian people have experienced since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991.
Missing: GenoType ‎zgrxr.
Feb 25, 2018 - This account of how Putin's new Russia rose from the ruins of the Soviet Union is judicious, humane and highly entertaining.
Missing: GenoType ‎INC ‎zgrxr.
Jul 16, 2018 - The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.Masha Gessen.The Long Hangover: Putin's New Russia and the Ghosts of the ...
Missing: GenoType ‎INC ‎zgrxr.
Russophobia as the new US politically-correct anti-Semitism
FAIR AND BALANCED
AN AMERICAN LEFT CRITIQUE OF RUSSIA-GATE 
AS NEO LIBERAL COLD WAR PART DEUX

It would be wrong to say that Blacks or Jews are “genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor” But you can make similar claims about Russians – no problems. Sociopathic Carthago delenda est (Carthage must be destroyed) is the leitmotiv of US foreign policy toward Russia and is dictated by "Full spectrum Dominance" doctrine: nothing personal only business. In reality, this is gaslighting the US population for pretty nefarious purposes.







"This unconstrained Russian state also has destroyed Western wealth (happily stolen under Yeltsin gang rule-- NNB) and discouraged investment by arbitrarily enforcing environmental regulations against foreign oil investors, shutting out foreign partners in the development of the Shtokman gas field, and denying a visa to the largest portfolio investor in Russia, British citizen William Browder." - M. McFaul, May 17, 2007 House Committee on International Relations, Russia Rebuilding the Iron Curtain

"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those forces opposed to liberty, be they individuals, movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul, The Liberty Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April & May 2002 The Liberty Doctrine Hoover Institution

...clinging to power beyond his second term would make Putin look like a typical autocratic thug. - M. McFaul, May 17, 2007 House Committee on International Relations, Russia Rebuilding the Iron Curtain

What could be worse [for US imperial interests -- NNB] than a thriving Russian capitalist economy helping to advance the foreign policy interests of autocratic nationalists in the Kremlin? – M. McFaul, Why the nationalists surged in the Russian election. - Slate Magazine" Dec. 16, 2003

"Write badly about Jews and you became anti-Semi, Write against blacks - racist, against gays -- homophob, about Russian - honest, brave, liberal journalist."

-- Solzhenitsyn





Introduction
Russophobia as Freudian projection of the behaviour of the US neoliberal elite and the US intelligence services
The hatred of Russia as "a new normal" for the USA political elite as it was for the British elite in the past
The USA and Russian should be strategic partners
Neocons as the owners of the USA foreign policy. Full Spectrum Dominance mantra
The role of skepticism toward neocon propaganda
Russians are coming: War hysteria as classic Adorno
Russophobic views on Russia "There is no life there !"
Very well orchestrated Russophobia of Western MSM
Two types of Russophobes: "Russophobes by conviction" vs. "Russophobes for money"
Russophobes by conviction
Russophobes for money
Cold War II as an attempt to slow down the pace of Russia modernization
Does Russia represent an alternative to the neoliberal economic/social model?
Demonization of Putin as part of Russophobia
Apartheid regime in Baltic countries as part of Russophobia campaign launched after dissolution of the USSR
Coverage of Russia in Western MSMs resembles war propaganda
Background of propaganda attacks against Russia
Anatomy of US sanctions against Russia
Introduction

The current US policy of simultaneously antagonizing both China and Russia
will likely go down as one of the 21st century's more significant strategic miscalculations.
Assuming of course that it is a part of some strategy and not just bumbling incompetence.
Is Russia Being Driven Into the Arms of China

This page is written in hope to help Russian language students to understand the country they are studying despite the level of brainwashing typical for MSM in the West. My own views on the problem were influenced by Professor Stephen F. Cohen whom I really admire and follow.

Russophobia is not actually only about Russia. Actually it is more about American exceptionalism and imperialism (and for of all Full spectrum Dominance doctrine). That's why neocons, who are well paid prostitutes of MIC, are such rabid Russophobes. In more way then one it is a modern politically correct version of anti-Semitism practiced by the USA neoliberal elite. Like anti-Semitism it is a wedge issues, which enhances the level social control of US population and suppression of dissent, which now can be framed as "Russian agents" in best McCarthyism traditions (NeoMcCartyism ).

Amy scapegoating of the particular nations/ethnicity is very similar, almost identical in sprit to anti-Semitism. In the definition below I just replaced terms in Wikipedia definition of Anti-Semitism:

Russophobia is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Russians. A person who holds such positions is called an Russophobe. Russophobia is generally considered to be a form of racism. It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.

Russophobia may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Russians...

Here is another "adapted" definition (from The UK s Labor Party and Its Anti-Semitism Crisis) The definition states:

"Russophobia is a certain perception of Russians, which may be expressed as hatred toward Russians. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Russophobia are directed toward Russian or non-Russian individuals and/or their property, toward Russian community institutions and religious facilities."

The uncontroversial "illustrations" of Russophobia:

Advocating the killing or harming of Russians for ideological or religious reasons;
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Russians as such;
Holding Russians as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Russian person or group;
Using the symbols and images associated with classic McCarthyism (e.g., equating Russians with Soviets and Russians with communists);
Holding Russians collectively responsible for actions of the Russian state or the USSR;

Scapegoating is an important part of the neoliberal Propaganda machine, especially war propaganda. Brainwashing people this way artificially (and temporary) increases social cohesion (as any enemy would) and was evoked as a defensive tool when the neoliberal elite experienced the loss of legitimacy as happened in 2016. As ROB URIE noted in his Russiagate, Nazis, and the CIA (Jul 31, 2020) CIA was Russophobic organization from the very beginning and it infects the USA political establishment with Russophobia more effectively then COVID-19 infects US population:

READ MORE



This site advocates skepticism as an approach to study of both technical and social phenomena. The latter is generally about questioning any preconceived attitudes, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, and critical examination of claims that are taken for granted in corporate MSM. It also can be viewed as a strong allergic reaction to pseudoscience, "fake news" and "bullsh*t" of corporate owned MSMs (see propaganda), and the advocacy of alternative media such as blogs, wikis, web forums and email lists as valuable sources of information.

The site contains resources for university students and the independently minded IT folks interested in self-education. Some pages also serve as useful references. It stresses the value of continuing education, which is actually a life long process of self-discovery. Under neoliberalism the university education has become the way to separating "haves" and "have not" and indoctrinate students: the class fault lines in neoliberal society are increasingly along educational lines. The access to university education in the USA became more and more expensive as, along with their "class segregation" function, neoliberal universities now serve as a profit center for educational sharks.

Most material is related to programming, especially scripting (shell, Perl, pipes, Unix tools) and Unix system administration. But there are also some pages devoted on neoliberalism (aka Casino Capitalism), unemployment (including Over 50 unemployment ) toxic managers (especially female sociopaths), Groupthink, energy and some other more peripheral topics.

The site is mainly oriented on people and organizations with limited resources. It might be useful as a self-education tool, including for those "over 50" IT folk who recently found themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape." (Pope Francis on the danger of neoliberalism).

This site tries to eschew the conventionally favored obfuscations about IT (for example about "cloud computing" or IT outsourcing) and expose the theater of absurd which often both academic and, especially, corporate IT represents (sometimes in the form of humor; it's often the best medicine against conformism, stress, and overload.). I think proliferation of Shadow IT is a clear sign that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", all hype about DevOps notwithstanding. For example, RHEL7 dramatically increased the complexity of the Linux operating system due to the introduction of systemd. That also changes our opinion about how open source ecosystem really works (in no way this is a bazaar) and who controls key elements of open source infrastrcture. In a way, RHEL7 signify emergence of "open source aristocracy" interests of which are detached from interests of rank and file sysadmins and programmers, and which pushes for Windowization of Linux. In other words it confirms the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which clearly now is replayed on the open source arena.

In the neoliberal society, we now live, good jobs are very scarce commodity, and you no longer can be a purely technical specialist, you need to understand the social context of your life as well. Or you will be taken for a ride, squeezed or even mercilessly pushed out of workforce. Students who are brainwashed by neoliberal propaganda (and neoliberal universities are doing just that via neoclassical economics courses) have higher chances to become debt slaves after graduation. In "for profit" education environment the debt peonage is now a "new normal" and universities became basically the real estate hoarders and debtor magnets for the banks. Unless you learn the difference between education and indoctrination, you might miss the fact that what used to be "the lower middle class" of IT professionals turns out to be simply an indebted write collar working class, "disposable IT workers", mercilessly squeezed by outsourcing.

This site also strives to be a part of the "resistance movement" against the neoliberal trend toward atomizing workforce, squashing any human solidarity, converting humans into tradable goods on "labor market". Which means that along with mastering the technology, maintaining your personal and financial health understanding the social system in which you live (Neoliberalism aka Casino Capitalism) is the necessary survival skill. The task which is actually very difficult because to live under neoliberalism and can't escape neoliberal brainwashing. Mush like was the case in the USSR with communist propaganda. Plato's Allegory of the Cave describes this inability of a group of (ideological) prisoners chained in a cave to interpret reality based solely upon the play of shadows projected upon the stone wall in front of them. Still, this is an educational site, not a propaganda site, and unlike propaganda that manipulates people emotions and prejudges to impose propagandist's views; education primary goal is to help to understand the reality of the current technological and/or social situation. Personal critical thinking is also important and you need to take the views expressed here with a grain of salt.

Replacement of classic university educational model with neoliberal model in the US universities has resulted in a very narrowly educated professionals who not only do not know, but also do not want to know anything about the society and politics. Understanding the society and people is typically a weak point of many programmers and system administrators including myself, the part of personality profile that drove us to this specialty. It often is amplified by narcissistic megalomania (as in "I am the greatest programmer; all others are schmucks who just don't get it"). But we can and should work diligently on eliminating this shortcoming, as many of us pay dearly for this "social blindness" (the term "professional idiocy" was coined by a German philosopher to denote someone who may be intelligent and competent in his own profession, but limited in social skills and as a member of society ) It is important to be aware about dangers of the IT workplace, such as psychopathic bosses (micromanagers, bullies, narcissists and authoritarians), as well as health problems due to daily multi-hour sitting behind the display or two and unhealthy diet.

With its relentless squeezing of the workforce neoliberal corporation needs narcissists, micromanagers and sociopaths in management ranks and it looks like the process of displacement of "technical managers" with "bean counters" and Harvard MBA types was finished a while ago. Which leads to situations like Boeing 737 MAX fiasco. In this environment you also need skills to survive a Bad Performance Review -- a standard waterboarding procedure in neoliberal corporation ;-) After all, for neoliberal corporation you are just a consumable resource, a unit of "human capital".

While attending university has its value in itself, as a good university cultural environment can't be replicated elsewhere, for talented people independent study might save some money and, thus, help to avoid excessive feeding of education sharks. In any case, lifelong self-education is important and should be a goal in itself. What gets people to the top is relentless self-education and practice of a particular skill. The minimum for reaching "master" level of a given skill is estimated to be around 10,000 hours, the earlier you start the better. And taking into account complexity of Unix/Linux (hello RHEL 7 with its systemd ;-) and Byzantium tendencies of mainstream programming languages (and those days you need to know several of them), for programming and system administration 30,000 hours is a more reasonable estimate (one year is approximately 3000 working hours). Which means formula 4+6 (four years of college and 5-6 years on the job self-education ) to get to speed.

Internet is a tool that gave us vast new opportunities of information exchange while at the same time tremendous possibilities of degrading of quality of this exchange in all major areas -- social, cultural, political and technical. Internet now serves as a the main advertizing channel, producing waterfalls of textual and visual spam fueled by advertising fees. Also too much information if often as bad as too little. Information overload is a real problem and in this sense filtration of information became much more important. You can use this site as one of such filters as links it provides for each topic are carefully evaluated.

At the same time, it is important to understand that Internet is a giant snooping mechanism and such sites as Facebook are not so much social sites as intelligence collection sites. Snowden revelations proved that like in East Germany with its famous STASI there is a dossier on any Internet user with a lot of meta-data and probably not only meta-data to trace each day of one's life to an hour or better. Governments no longer need informants to get private/compromising information about citizens. Advertisers, search engines and shopping sites like Amazon are pretty much enough. That greatly increases the value of understanding of computer security.

While this site started as a pure computer science knowledgebase (compiled using Perl scripts), gradually the algorithms used were expanded into other areas which actually served as testing areas for some of concepts and scripts). Paradoxically now the fastest growing area is probably Social (information about toxic managers, communication, and bureaucracies). The close second is information about neoliberalism (with the introductory article, as such information remains rare on Internet) despite tremendous social importance of understanding what neoliberalism is about.

The quality of pages vary widely. Generally the site develops as a living tree with pages on topic outside my interests with time becoming stale and then obsolete. Still some of them contain historical information you can't find elsewhere (as of Oct 2019 the site is 23 years old, while the bulletin is 30 years old).