The Ukrainian Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

There has been a disturbing amount of sentiment expressed regarding Ukraine in the past week. The general line of argument is that Ukraine has the right to self-determination. This is a positive point in many situations but fails utterly to grasp the dynamics at play in the Ukraine. A student of history may note that the U.S. went about proclaiming the sanctity of self-determination in the years in which it annexed large portions of the globe and subsequently controlled them in accordance with American ideals. The main point of this article is to reveal how little historical memory the American people have when it comes to imperialism.

Michael Crichton often talked about the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. This describes a process where an educated reader recognizes that an author (or reporter) of an article has no understanding of the situation or source material – the reader absolutely understands that this particular piece, and from this particular writer, is rubbish. But then, the reader would subsequently believe a story, from the exact same source, because they were unfamiliar with the content.

Per Crichton:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

This same effect is reasserting itself in the narrative concerning Ukraine. People who would normally eschew the content produced by outlets like The New York Times and The Atlantic, will gladly swallow the story that Putin is a neo-fascist and totally bent on world domination. This is especially concerning as it seems to be most prevalent in rightwing circles. So called “White Nationalists,” who have always been considered more hardline to publications like these, are espousing the narrative that Ukraine should be supported.

This author takes the viewpoint that neither side should be supported. Putin has legitimate grievances in wishing back the territories that were taken from Russia and bringing ethnic Russians back into the fold. It should not be forgotten, however, that these same types of grievances were the casus belli for Germany to start annexing large territories and sparking World War Two.

The cautious rightwinger should realize that supporting a full-blown annexation of Ukraine is imprudent, but also that supporting a Ukrainian sovereignty movement is only playing into the plans of the Zionists. The prudent rightwinger should realize that the U.S. was the most reprehensible diplomatic actor in the late 19^th and early 20^th century when it came to “giving” countries the right to self-determination. This same narrative was used when the U.S. made large advances in its own territories, and it shouldn’t be ignored now because they lie in Eastern Europe. The same prudent rightwinger shouldn’t necessarily support Russia, but they should know enough history to not side with the Global American Empire.

Deo Vindice

-By Dixie Anon