Something I’ve noticed on a regular basis on some indigenous newswires are articles like this, which purport by their titles to be pro-democracy or pro-indigenous, but in the text of the article argue for pro-US positions, and demonize non-compliant actors like the presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia. By targeting leaders or countries determined to conduct their affairs independent of the US for allegedly not living up to the spirit of human rights accords, anti-democratic journalists and right-wing publications like The American Spectator can thus come under the radar of some indigenous news editors, and thereby undermine indigenous solidarity or Fourth World sovereignty. A classic psychological warfare technique.

While there is room for criticism of all states and their leaders — especially under neoliberal austerity programs — the newswire articles I reference often exempt the US from criticism, which is ironic in that US aggression and globalization are the two major factors in global destabilization and indigenous displacement. Casually mentioning notorious states like China or Belarus, while leading with criticism of Venezuela and Bolivia, is clearly in synch with the strategy of globalization’s advocates in the US State Department to marginalize globalization’s opponents under the rubric of human rights.

The strategy reminds me of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s blog Dipnote, where similar public relations tactics exploit women’s issues to attack opponents of US aggression. Maybe they hire the same PR firms.

Whatever the case, we all need to be more discerning about the source of news items, their implied versus actual intent, and the science of coercion. Knowing our enemies are working 24/7 to spread confusion and undermine our morale, we can at least attempt to avoid unwittingly spreading their malicious messages and toxic ideas.

Automated newswires and other tools may be convenient, but that convenience comes with a price. Sometimes that price is too high.