This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
**A quick poll.. do we have a poll mechanism ? ** We should.
**Were you aware **that Woodward of Watergate fame was, before his journalistic career an officer in the Navy, one trusted enough to handle nuclear codes?
Were you aware 'Deep Throat' of Watergate was deputy director of FBI, someone who had many reasons to hate Nixon ?
I was aware of the latter, but not of the former. I thought he was just a young journalist, not a young journalist fresh off from fed-land with a top secret clearance.
There's this incredible segment by Tucker Carlson that basically lays out a theory Nixon was not as big a crook as we think, and that he was set up because he tried to keep the government subordinate to its notional head.
To sum it up, the claim is that Watergate was a palace coup, where the secret services overthrew the US government, and have kept it under control ever since through influence operations.
It does look persuasive to me. Too persuasive, if you were pulling a coup of this sort, would you make one of the protagonists a retired naval officer with that kind of background ? Ok, I'm done expressing my confusion and astonishment with what I've learned today. If this isn't content fit for themotte, please let me know!
Supplementary viewing: Interview with 'Kay Griggs' , talking about deep state influence ops and what the military gets up to in secret. Was allegedly filmed during her divorce as a 'dead man' measure. Her husband was involved with it and drank / talked too much to her.
It's eight hours, I mean, anyone wants a rabbit hole to fall down through. I feel like I should watch it at some point, though there's probably an analysis somewhere.
It seems to be fairly tame conspiracy stuff: some classic secret societies, homosexuals, political murder, drug running, saudis, etc. However, the nice lady talking about is, if she says who she is, in a position where she may have actually learned something. If she made it up, it's a great performance, if she hasn't, it's not very surprising.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4fdS5cdtPOA
Using "was trusted enough to handle nuclear codes!" as evidence that someone was some sort of deeply embedded apparatchnik is not the only thing that discredits your narrative, in my eyes, but it's a huge tell.
Top Secret security clearances are... actually not that uncommon. Many thousands of people have them. Many more thousands of people had one while they were in the military or federal service (they become inactive as soon as you leave). This includes basically anyone assigned to a nuclear vessel; not just the officers but the lower enlisted. Having a clearance is not some special badge of extraordinary fealty that proves you are absolutely loyal to the state; it means you've been thoroughly investigated and, so far as could be determined, have no criminal background, no drug habits, no shady financial dealings, and no suspicious foreign contacts. That's it.
Even "trusted enough to handle nuclear codes" is gilding it a bit, since you're trying to make it sound like he was so high up that he actually had button-pushing authority, when in fact, he was just an officer stationed on an aircraft carrier that was part of the US's Continuity of Operations Plan. He had authority to transfer codes in an emergency (he'd basically be the guy taking them off the wire and handing them to the captain), but wouldn't have actually had a whole lot of authority, since he was only a Lieutenant.
So, Woodward was a trusted Naval officer who reached a significant level of responsibility, but hardly the big deal you are making of it. In any other context this would lead most people to say "He was probably pretty patriotic (even if he did go on to become a journalist)" but since we're spinning fables about how Nixon was framed, now it's just evidence that he was some kind of anti-democratic agent of the Deep State?
None of this disproves your theory that Bob Woodward was some sort of operative doing a hit job on Nixon at the behest of his Deep State puppet masters, but "OMG he had a Top Secret security clearance!" is not any kind of evidence for it.
Trusted enough to handle comms for an admiral is something else from 'trusted enough to maintain aircraft and read top secret manuals'.
That's just a function of his rank. "Delivering messages to admirals" is about the job you'd expect to be assigned to a Lieutenant. You're saying "He was a mid-level officer doing mid-level officer things, with a security clearance. This is evidence that he was a minion of the Deep State even after leaving the military."
He wasn't a delivery boy.
He apparently worked not just for the navy, but more specifically, for naval intelligence. He first served as a comms officer at sea, and later directly
under "Chief of Naval Operations" which meant the boss of the entire navy. Where he was giving briefings at the White house to top officials on navy matters.
Yeah, absolutely typical junior navy officer. A dime a dozen of such.
During Watergate, Moorer served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 until 1974.
So, at the time of Watergate, the journalist involved with Watergate was a former aide of the then Chairman of JCS. Is Chairman of the JCS a purely ceremonial role with zero importance?
Interesting bit:
So, Navy was spying on the White House. @HlynkaCG .. this Watergate thing is getting better and better, really.
They're not even really trying.
Apparently Woodward on himself getting hired by the Post - he makes it look like fate:
Yeah. Maybe he should have mentioned he'd just left military service at the White House. Then it'd make sense, you want a reporter with good relationships with officials!
I get that you're playing Devil's Advocate, but you're not being very convincing tbh.
Devil's Advocate implies I am advocating a position I don't really believe for the sake of argument. This is false. I am stating things I know to be correct because while you apparently know no more about military service and security clearances than what you've skimmed off Wikipedia, I actually know what I am talking about.
I'm not trying to convince you, because you didn't actually arrive at your conclusion by evidentiary means. You are not the target audience.
You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience, who previously worked as an aide to the chief of naval operations and then went on to help bring down the president.
And yeah, the same president who had just then been targeted by DoD spies.
Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.
Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?
I'm honestly fascinated to hear what your theory is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what? Please tell me it's something more interesting than "Or you're just too stupid to grasp the truth of my arguments."
Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.
He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.
And yeah, again, the whole thing. Not just 'a naval officer'. Someone in naval intelligence, who just finished working for the CNO.
Sorry - it was late'.
Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link