America: The Farewell Tour

Relegating Chris Hedges to the Russian sub-forum = intellectual embarresment. Not a good look. 

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Ok, just checking--  do you believe Browder's story?    Yes or no?

 oh please don't pollute this thread with Browder.

 Stop before the thread gets wished into the cornfield.

 Dang.  Too late!

jamie said:
Anytime a RT or Sputnik video is used - it will go into the Russia subforum.

nohero said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Ok, just checking--  do you believe Browder's story?    Yes or no?

 oh please don't pollute this thread with Browder.

 Stop before the thread gets wished into the cornfield.

 Dang.  Too late!

jamie said:
Anytime a RT or Sputnik video is used - it will go into the Russia subforum.

 

 Ignorant and closed minded approach.  Are you fine with this?

nan said:
Relegating Chris Hedges to the Russian sub-forum = intellectual embarresment. Not a good look. 

 I'm already past chapter 4 (entitled "Sadism") in "America: The Farewell Tour", and from that I think he should be relegated to the Penthouse Forum or similar environs.  He spends an inordinate amount of time describing the BDSM "classes" he enrolled in (I guess that means he can expense them on his taxes as "research").  I literally just flipped pages without reading since I saw that his descriptions of them (and accompanying filming sessions) just went on and on.

nan said:
Relegating Chris Hedges to the Russian sub-forum = intellectual embarresment. Not a good look. 

 Maybe we can rename the subforum, Paranoid Rantings of the Willfully Malinformed.

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:
Chris exactly the type of personality and rhetoric that RT and you wish to promote - sorry not on my main forum.
You may want to start a forum on RT.

 Make sure you watch this video and then lets have a discussion about propaganda:

 After watching a bit of it - I completely agree that the video is propaganda.  What is there to discuss?

 Yes, when presented with evidence that challenges your views, you watch for a couple of minutes, then stop and furiously Google until you find some negative press on the source. Case closed. Mind also closed. And thread sent to Russian sub-basement, even if it has nothing to do with Russia. 

 I watched the whole thing.  It really goes to the heart of Russian propaganda.  Mind not closed.  It had a few good points, but if you can't see the overall purpose of it - I can see why you're sucked into it - it falls in line with many of your world views.  It's just convenient that your world views and what Russia wants to promote are on the same page.

I love at the end - as the film raps up we get the big line that is constantly pounded by RT - 

"but as the public becomes distrustful of the mainstream media"

Who is pushing the narrative of the distrust of mainstream media?  When was this turning point?

Perhaps it's out President calling them the "Fake news" every 2 minutes.  RT and Sputnik's #1 MO is bashing the mainstream media (and NEVER say anything negative of their dear leader, Vlad).  We have nan on here championing this effort.

My main concern lately has been - beware of those bashing the MSM and look closely at their sources.

I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

nohero said:

nan said:
Relegating Chris Hedges to the Russian sub-forum = intellectual embarresment. Not a good look. 

 I'm already past chapter 4 (entitled "Sadism") in "America: The Farewell Tour", and from that I think he should be relegated to the Penthouse Forum or similar environs.  He spends an inordinate amount of time describing the BDSM "classes" he enrolled in (I guess that means he can expense them on his taxes as "research").  I literally just flipped pages without reading since I saw that his descriptions of them (and accompanying filming sessions) just went on and on.

 I'm impressed that you are reading the book, even if you hate it!   

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:
Chris exactly the type of personality and rhetoric that RT and you wish to promote - sorry not on my main forum.
You may want to start a forum on RT.

 Make sure you watch this video and then lets have a discussion about propaganda:

 After watching a bit of it - I completely agree that the video is propaganda.  What is there to discuss?

 Yes, when presented with evidence that challenges your views, you watch for a couple of minutes, then stop and furiously Google until you find some negative press on the source. Case closed. Mind also closed. And thread sent to Russian sub-basement, even if it has nothing to do with Russia. 

 I watched the whole thing.  It really goes to the heart of Russian propaganda.  Mind not closed.  It had a few good points, but if you can't see the overall purpose of it - I can see why you're sucked into it - it falls in line with many of your world views.  It's just convenient that your world views and what Russia wants to promote are on the same page.
I love at the end - as the film raps up we get the big line that is constantly pounded by RT - 
"but as the public becomes distrustful of the mainstream media"
Who is pushing the narrative of the distrust of mainstream media?  When was this turning point?
Perhaps it's out President calling them the "Fake news" every 2 minutes.  RT and Sputnik's #1 MO is bashing the mainstream media (and NEVER say anything negative of their dear leader, Vlad).  We have nan on here championing this effort.
My main concern lately has been - beware of those bashing the MSM and look closely at their sources.

How does it go to the "heart of Russian propaganda" when it is not even made by the Russians:

The Grayzone Project is an online news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis, edited by Max Blumenthal.

The Grayzone Project is an independent journalistic initiative that takes no money from any government.

The overall purpose of the film is to expose the Hollywood propaganda around Syria which manufactures consent for war.  This is what they say and that is what they do. It's not a secret. You seem to think, as you have been convinced to do, that I am some kind of Russian agent wanabee, but I'm really just anti-CIA manipulated war. And you can't just say it's me and the Max Blumenthals of the world who think like this--Paul Survell posted a video of Jeffery Sachs saying the same thing.  He's generally 180 degrees from my point of view, but it's just so obvious. 

The film is right about distrusting the mainstream media.  They lie and distort the news all the time. They represent the views of the military industrial complex--which means they want you to think the Russians and the Syrians, countries much weaker militarily than we are, are so evil they must be destroyed.  Cause why else would you be OK with the size of our military budget and the crappy US infrastructure and wealth inequality?   Trump should not insighting violence against journalists as he does, but he is right about the media--and it also applies to him as well.  

ridski said:
I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

 Watch the whole thing if you can.  I have not seen the movie either.  However, I found out it is on HBO so I will watch it soon.  

nan said:
How does it go to the "heart of Russian propaganda" when it is not even made by the Russians:

 Sorry, I thought Blumenthal worked at RT.  If RT embraces it - it should be suspect to everyone.  What it RT RUPTLY - I see that throughout the movie?  

nan said:

ridski said:
I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

 Watch the whole thing if you can.  I have not seen the movie either.  However, I found out it is on HBO so I will watch it soon.  

 so you're promoting a film that takes apart a documentary you haven't seen?  OMG  This is getting weird.

jamie said:

nan said:
How does it go to the "heart of Russian propaganda" when it is not even made by the Russians:

 Sorry, I thought Blumenthal worked at RT.  If RT embraces it - it should be suspect to everyone.  What it RT RUPTLY - I see that throughout the movie?  

 They may have used some RT film shots, but it has nothing to do with Russia in terms of funding.  So, what is your objection to the film now?

jamie said:

nan said:

ridski said:
I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

 Watch the whole thing if you can.  I have not seen the movie either.  However, I found out it is on HBO so I will watch it soon.  

 so you're promoting a film that takes apart a documentary you haven't seen?  OMG  This is getting weird.

 It goes over the events that have been in the news--the photo of the child's body on the beach, the The Free Syrian Army, the White Helmets,  The young girl on social media, etc..  All of these highly publicized events were familiar to me and were combined into the movie.  I will watch the movie, however, because I want to see how they are presented.  

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:
How does it go to the "heart of Russian propaganda" when it is not even made by the Russians:

 Sorry, I thought Blumenthal worked at RT.  If RT embraces it - it should be suspect to everyone.  What it RT RUPTLY - I see that throughout the movie?  

 They may have used some RT film shots, but it has nothing to do with Russia in terms of funding.  So, what is your objection to the film now?

 Does he work for RT? 

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:
How does it go to the "heart of Russian propaganda" when it is not even made by the Russians:

 Sorry, I thought Blumenthal worked at RT.  If RT embraces it - it should be suspect to everyone.  What it RT RUPTLY - I see that throughout the movie?  

 They may have used some RT film shots, but it has nothing to do with Russia in terms of funding.  So, what is your objection to the film now?

 Does he work for RT? 

No, this is how his wikipedia bio describes him.  He sort of looks like you a bit:

Max Blumenthal
Blumenthal on RT America on December 8, 2011
Born	December 18, 1977 (age 40) Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Occupation	Journalist Blogger Filmmaker
Nationality	American
Alma mater	University of Pennsylvania(B.A.)
Genre	Non-fiction
Subject	Israeli–Palestinian conflict, politics
Notable works	Goliath Republican Gomorrah The 51 Day War
Years active	2002–present
Relatives	Jacqueline and Sidney Blumenthal (parents)
Website
maxblumenthal.com

Max Blumenthal (born December 18, 1977) is an American author, journalist, and blogger. He is a senior writer for Alternet and a Fellow at the Nation Institute. He was formerly a writer for The Daily Beast, Al Akhbar, and Media Matters for America. He is the author of two books including Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party (2009), which appeared on The New York Times bestsellers list, and Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel(2013).

His loyalty to Putin is pretty intense! 

In a February 2014 piece, Blumenthal faithfully echoed the Kremlin line that the Euromaidan revolution – which, it will be recalled, overthrew a despotic, Russia-friendly oligarch and replaced him with a democratic Western-leaning government – was engineered by fascists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Two months later, in a New York Times op-ed, Polish sociologist Slawomir Sierakowski gave Blumenthal’s vile charges the response they deserved:   

"True, such people were present at the square, but they were marginal figures, and slogans about ethnic purity never gained popularity. Yes, generally speaking, Ukraine has its skinheads and its anti-Semites and even serial killers, pedophiles and Satanists. They are not present in smaller or larger numbers than in any other country, even in the most mature European state. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/sierakowski-putins-useful-idiots.html

Are you a fan of his anti-Israel stances also?

jamie said:
His loyalty to Putin is pretty intense! 
In a February 2014 piece, Blumenthal faithfully echoed the Kremlin line that the Euromaidan revolution – which, it will be recalled, overthrew a despotic, Russia-friendly oligarch and replaced him with a democratic Western-leaning government – was engineered by fascists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Two months later, in a New York Times op-ed, Polish sociologist Slawomir Sierakowski gave Blumenthal’s vile charges the response they deserved:   

"True, such people were present at the square, but they were marginal figures, and slogans about ethnic purity never gained popularity. Yes, generally speaking, Ukraine has its skinheads and its anti-Semites and even serial killers, pedophiles and Satanists. They are not present in smaller or larger numbers than in any other country, even in the most mature European state. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/sierakowski-putins-useful-idiots.html
Are you a fan of his anti-Israel stances also?

 The author of that NYTs piece supports Nazis.  Are you good with that?

The New McCarthyism

 https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/10/13/the-new-mccarthyism/

Another link is to a New York Times piece by Polish writer Slawomir Sierakowski defending Svoboda, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi party, and smearing anyone who points to its ideological origins as a pawn of Moscow. Young also links to a piece by Carl Schreck, a former journalist at the Moscow Times, now a US government employee with Radio Free Europe, the US government propaganda outlet that functions as the American version of “Russia Today.” Schreck’s article is devoted to characterizing Cohen as beyond the pale, “arguably the most divisive American public intellectual commenting on the crisis today”: he links to Sierakowski and also to Julia Ioffe, perhaps the bitterest of all the émigré Russia-haters, whose piece for The New Republic is entitled “Putin’s American Toady at ‘The Nation’ Gets Even Toadier.”

nan said:

ridski said:
I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

 Watch the whole thing if you can.  I have not seen the movie either.  However, I found out it is on HBO so I will watch it soon.  

 Again, in my opinion, there's no point listening to a rebuttal of an argument I haven't heard. If I haven't heard the original argument, everything in that video is just a big strawman. As an example, I've never heard anyone say that all civilian deaths in the Syrian Civil War were caused by the Syrian government and its army. The video tells me a movie I didn't see makes that claim, then tells me it's false. Obviously that's false. There are lizards in the zoo who could tell you that's false. So after seven minutes of similar arguments against something I haven't seen, I switched it off. 

I don't really feel the need to watch the other movie, either, to be honest.

Great piece about Max Blumenthal and the White Helmets:

https://pulsemedia.org/2017/08/22/did-a-kremlin-pilgrimage-cause-alternet-bloggers-damascene-conversion/

Big question is - why do these people become pro-Kremlin - is money the motivating force?  Are they hopping on the anti-MSM train led by Russia?  Putin is pumping a ton money into his news establishments.

jamie said:
Great piece about Max Blumenthal and the White Helmets:
https://pulsemedia.org/2017/08/22/did-a-kremlin-pilgrimage-cause-alternet-bloggers-damascene-conversion/
Big question is - why do these people become pro-Kremlin - is money the motivating force?  Are they hopping on the anti-MSM train led by Russia?  Putin is pumping a ton money into his news establishments.

 So how are you going to discredit Jeffery Sachs who basically says the same thing as Blumenthal?  Is he a Putin puppet too?

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:
I watched the first 7 minutes of it. Clearly it was a heartfelt rebuttal to a movie I haven't seen, so it wasn't very effective to me, really. It's like those "Everything Wrong About Avengers Infinity War Part 1" videos on Youtube. I haven't seen this movie, why should I care?

If there's a GoFundMe page to get Max Blumenthal a decent microphone, I may contribute.

 Watch the whole thing if you can.  I have not seen the movie either.  However, I found out it is on HBO so I will watch it soon.  

 Again, in my opinion, there's no point listening to a rebuttal of an argument I haven't heard. If I haven't heard the original argument, everything in that video is just a big strawman. As an example, I've never heard anyone say that all civilian deaths in the Syrian Civil War were caused by the Syrian government and its army. The video tells me a movie I didn't see makes that claim, then tells me it's false. Obviously that's false. There are lizards in the zoo who could tell you that's false. So after seven minutes of similar arguments against something I haven't seen, I switched it off. 
I don't really feel the need to watch the other movie, either, to be honest.

I don't know how you could not have heard most of these arguments as they were made repeatedly in the MSM, and through celebrities.   The detail you cite might be harder to pinpoint, but the graphic visuals and quotes were everywhere.  The film is quite damning and I have yet to hear the critics on MOL factually and specifically refute what is shown.  And yet they have not changed their rabid anti-Putin/Assad views even a bit.  Like maybe it is not about facts at this point. 

nan said:I don't know how you could not have heard most of these arguments as they were made repeatedly in the MSM, and through celebrities.   The detail you cite might be harder to pinpoint, but the graphic visuals and quotes were everywhere.  The film is quite damning and I have yet to hear the critics on MOL factually and specifically refute what is shown.  And yet they have not changed their rabid anti-Putin/Assad views even a bit.  Like maybe it is not about facts at this point. 

 I don't watch whatever you consider to be MSM or celebrities.

jamie said:
Great piece about Max Blumenthal and the White Helmets:
https://pulsemedia.org/2017/08/22/did-a-kremlin-pilgrimage-cause-alternet-bloggers-damascene-conversion/
Big question is - why do these people become pro-Kremlin - is money the motivating force?  Are they hopping on the anti-MSM train led by Russia?  Putin is pumping a ton money into his news establishments.

 Still waiting to hear about your support of the woman who wrote the anti-Blumenthal piece in the Times.  The one that supports Nazis.  You seem to prefer Nazis and neocons to people whose main principal is anti-war and anti-imperialism.  Are you sure that is the side you want to be on?

Oh and speaking of sources (since I know that is important to you), the guys who wrote that smear piece on Blumenthal are neocons who support regime change. 

https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/887037380313714694

Sam Charles Hamad is an interventionist regime change shill who claims to be on the left yet spews neocon rhetoric

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/online-trolls-syria-alt-left

Oz Katerji: An obsessively pro-war troll who openly supports regime change in Syria, as he did in Libya before that. Katerji has worked for Turkish state media. His attacks on the “alt-left” represent some of the earliest to systematically appear in social media.

ridski said:

 I don't watch whatever you consider to be MSM or celebrities.

No wonder I can never find the movies you recommend. 

nan said:

jamie said:
Great piece about Max Blumenthal and the White Helmets:
https://pulsemedia.org/2017/08/22/did-a-kremlin-pilgrimage-cause-alternet-bloggers-damascene-conversion/
Big question is - why do these people become pro-Kremlin - is money the motivating force?  Are they hopping on the anti-MSM train led by Russia?  Putin is pumping a ton money into his news establishments.

 So how are you going to discredit Jeffery Sachs who basically says the same thing as Blumenthal?  Is he a Putin puppet too?

 Sachs isn't saying "the same thing as Blumenthal".  He's not pushing the smear against the White Helmets or making excuses for Assad.  All he's said is that he supports stopping any U.S. involvement.

You probably have that false impression because of Mr. Surovell's attempts to associate Sachs with the smearing of the White Helmets.  I responded to him about that here and here.

nan said:

Still waiting to hear about your support of the woman who wrote the anti-Blumenthal piece in the Times.  The one that supports Nazis.  

Here is the relevant section from the Nazi supporter’s 2014 essay:

In one particularly egregious passage, Mr. Blumenthal writes about how the “openly pro-Nazi politics” of the Ukrainian political party Svoboda and its leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, “have not deterred Senator John McCain from addressing a Euromaidan rally,” nor did it “prevent Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland from enjoying a friendly meeting with the Svoboda leader this February.”

That distorts how these things work. A whole range of Western political leaders traveled to Euromaidan, and virtually all of them were photographed with Mr. Tyagnibok. For better or worse, Svoboda was part of the coalition of parties behind the Euromaidan movement, and they had agreed to support one another. Americans would behave exactly the same way in a similar situation.

nan said:

 And yet they have not changed their rabid anti-Putin/Assad views even a bit.  Like maybe it is not about facts at this point. 

Even if you think the White Helmets are part of some Zionist conspiracy to draw the US into war or that the anti-Assad forces are nothing more than al Qaeda, I don't see how you can be anything other than "anti-Putin/Assad" if you are *truly* anti-war.

nan said:

Still waiting to hear about your support of the woman who wrote the anti-Blumenthal piece in the Times.  The one that supports Nazis.  

 HE doesn't support Nazis.  You only read an article describing the piece, you didn't read the actual piece.  In the actual piece, he doesn't support Nazis.

One of the problems causing all this disagreement by Nan and paulsurovell may be just simply not perceiving correctly, about who people are, what they wrote, and what the point of an article is.  

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Still waiting to hear about your support of the woman who wrote the anti-Blumenthal piece in the Times.  The one that supports Nazis.  

Here is the relevant section from the Nazi supporter’s 2014 essay:
In one particularly egregious passage, Mr. Blumenthal writes about how the “openly pro-Nazi politics” of the Ukrainian political party Svoboda and its leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, “have not deterred Senator John McCain from addressing a Euromaidan rally,” nor did it “prevent Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland from enjoying a friendly meeting with the Svoboda leader this February.”
That distorts how these things work. A whole range of Western political leaders traveled to Euromaidan, and virtually all of them were photographed with Mr. Tyagnibok. For better or worse, Svoboda was part of the coalition of parties behind the Euromaidan movement, and they had agreed to support one another. Americans would behave exactly the same way in a similar situation.

It's interesting that when Justin Raimondo says Sierakowski defended Svoboda, he didn't link to the actual where he's doing just the opposite, but instead to an article by Michael Kazin in The New Republic which says this about Sierakowski and his group Krytyka Polityczna:

"Their political agenda is remarkably eclectic as well. They have no stated platform, but after a week of long conversations, these young Polish leftists made their main concerns clear enough. As cultural rebels, they oppose the state-sanctioned power of the Catholic Church to restrict abortion, require religious instruction in every public school, and deny legal rights to same-sex couples. As democratic socialists, they call for better wages, health care, and housing—and push back against the fetishism of commodities. (There may be as many Starbucks and McDonalds in Warsaw as in Washington, D.C.) Painfully alert to the brutal history of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, they stress the need to teach about the Holocaust and the complicity of some Poles in mass murder—and are establishing sister clubs in Ukraine, Russia, and elsewhere to transcend the nationalist hostilities that continue to simmer."

https://newrepublic.com/article/103942/polish-new-left

Sierakowski is a Democratic Socialist fighting neo-Nazis and other right-wing organizations. But Raimondo - apparently blinded by the very thought that Russians may be stoking the flames of neo-Nazism in Europe - insists he (Sierakowski) sympathizes with them.