Lately when people react with shock and indignation that I would dare to dispute a claim made by the western political/media class about an empire-targeted government, I've taken to simply asking them what reading they've done on the other side of the issue. What are some articles they've read arguing against the official western narrative about that government?

It's a question that can be applied to any disputed western narrative about any government the US-centralized empire doesn't like. Russia is engaging in aggressive provocations. Assad is using chemical weapons. There's a genocide in Xinjiang. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Maduro is deliberately starving his people. Whatever's the Official Imperial Line of the Day about the Official Bad Guy of the Day.

What I've found interesting about this exercise is that while I would've correctly predicted that those questioned had done zero research into the opposing viewpoints of the issue they're commenting on, I would probably not have predicted the brazenness with which they'll admit it. Very often they'll come right out and express incredulity at the very idea that any such counter-arguments could even exist, skipping right past any pretense that they may have read them or even made any effort to find them.

When they do this, even before I provide them with links to counter-arguments against whatever issue we're discussing, they have already lost the argument. They have already admitted that they've done no real research into whether or not the western narrative they just swallowed is actually true; they just believed what they were told because someone told them to believe it. They swallowed an imperial narrative about an empire-targeted government with zero gag reflex, just as people did in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

Reading by Tim Foley.