Do you belive the media is playing propaganda?
Pretty sure that the things you don't know the government does (in almost every country) would cause revolution.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hear revolution tossed around a lot, but he sided with her.
Comment has been collapsed.
TL:DR
What little I saw didn't encourage me to watch any more... not because it's disturbing, but because it's not relevant.
As an example, early on it says the american people were hoodwinked into believing that iraq was responsible for the attack on the twin towers. Well, I remember those days quite accurately, and at no time do I recall seeing any news or statements linking iraq to that attack. Rather, after that attack, and after the invasion of afghanistan, the US decided to invade iraq as a pre-emptive strike, because of flawed intelligence indicating they had chemical weapons. the flaw wasn't that they had chemical weapons, that was well-documented, the flaw was that "they" had a feeling iraq was trying to orchestrate a strike on the US, and they would misread information, looking for signs that agreed with their feelings, that justified their paranoia, resulting in a compelling interest to invade
On a separate note, it wasn't Obama, but the republicans, which repealed the law against disseminating propaganda in the U.S. and that law has a very interesting history of its own
Comment has been collapsed.
Obama signing the Ndaa that made propaganda legal,whether he wrote it or not it could not pass without his signature,and the point wasn't who wrote or signed the law its more the fact that that law exists and can be used on usa citizens now,they have been using it on foreign country's for years via voice of America news ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Just as an FYI, propaganda has always been legal. During World War II, the government started radio broadcasts in Europe, to counter nazi propaganda. During the "red scare" era, some senators believed that the agency that created those broadcasts was full of communists, so an act was passed specifically prohibiting those radio broadcasts from being broadcast within the US by the government. The State department was similarly restricted.
That's the entire restriction. Propaganda created by other agencies/departments was perfectly fine.
It also meant that the agencies creating the broadcasts were exempt from a Freedom of Information Act request. Basically, overturning the restriction makes sense in the modern age.
and seriously, don't blame Obama for everything. Just because it has his signature doesn't make him responsible. In this country, it's congress's job to create laws. The president can veto, but rarely does, because it's an extreme measure that affects the balance of power between the different branches of government
Comment has been collapsed.
Almost every large organization uses propaganda against their own members.
It's just easier to see as an outsider adult which is why governments & religions target children so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its illegal for the US government to pay for hostage citizens, but evidence shows the president paid $40 million to Iran plus other negotiations.
Comment has been collapsed.
To my knowledge, the amount was $400,000,000 plus $1,300,000,000 in interest ($1,700,000,000 in total) and it was paid by the United States government to the Iranian government because the U.S. government failed to deliver the military equipment (military jets, I think) to Iran after Iran purchased them for $400,000,000. This was covered all the way back in January 2016 and there is zero evidence whatsoever that the payment had anything to do with the hostages Iran released. That narrative is being pushed by the political right and conspiracy theorists to further damage the reputation of the Obama administration and impugn its motives in resolving outstanding issues with a country that the political right wants to treat as an enemy.
The coincidence of the two events is probably due to the outstanding suit finally being settled recently, just as independent hostage negotiations were wrapping up, as well. The only causal connection between the two incident that I could surmise as likely would be that the United States government decided to settle the suit on more favorable terms with Iran on the condition that Iran resolved a hostage case that was also outstanding between the two countries. This wouldn't be an instance of paying for hostages, merely an attempt at resolving two outstanding issues between the countries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course the media engages in propaganda and social engineering. That's the principal function of mainstream media outlets in capitalism, especially in liberal "democracies" wherein consent must be manufactured and the populace must be controlled ideologically rather than physically as in totalitarian states. I did not watch that video, nor am I familiar with the lecturer or the YouTube channel, so it could be conspiracy theory nonsense for all I know. The basic premise of your concerns are true, however, in that propaganda and social engineering are integral components of the media.
EDIT: As for whether I think propaganda should be allowed, that depends on what you define as "propaganda". Whether I think the state should engage in propaganda is, in my opinion, irrelevant because the state will always do so in capitalism and I don't think the state should exist. If you don't want the state to engage in such tactics, you must eliminate the conditions which cause it to occur. That means ending capitalism and, thus, the bourgeois state.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean the media, a tool originally devised thousands of years ago to spread propaganda… is spreading propaganda?
shocked
Comment has been collapsed.
you mean the murdoch empire spreads faslehoods - nooooooo surely not, fox is the bastion of truth !!! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Both large American news channels lie in some form or another. It is another question that seeing through Fox's needs about three working brain cells (then again, the hardcore Republican voters proven a few times that they have about one, or maybe two if they are the educated type).
Comment has been collapsed.
For the past 70 years it was illegal to use it on US citizens not that it stopped them or anything lol.
im not so shocked about the fact that they use propaganda on us more shocked about the fact that they stage these reports using green screens and studios with props using actors etc to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I notice you mention Obama, like if it wasnt him it wouldnt have happened. The thing that people never wake up to is that its all a con. The red and blue, the right and left. Its all garbage to keep the "plebs" fighting amongst themselves. The medias roll is to make sure you keep blaming each other for the things that rich men and governments do. Take the 2008 crisis. We were all there. We all know it was the bankers playing silly buggers that caused all the problems. Fast forward 8 years and no, its the fault of immigrates, of disabled people sucking up benefits, of muslims, of the poor, its anybody elses fault. Just not the bankers fault anymore. Through the trouble times the governemt talks of "being in it together" yet they are all fine and dandy sitting doing nothing and getting paid for it. Mean while the average joe is getting let go left and right and struggling to make ends meet.
If youre in the US and thinking of voting trump or hilary, dont worry theres no right answer. They are two corrupt sides of the same coin and will do nothing for the good of the people. If youo in the UK and cant decide between tory and labour, dont worry theres no difference there either. Again, red and blue working together to make sure everything stays the same with them getting rich and the rest of us getting nothing. Not even the table scrapes.
As for propaganda, pfft. Thats has been 24/7 since the dawn of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
obama was mentioned in the linked video as signing the doc to legally allow propaganda use on us citizens and only reason he was mentioned in the thread:)
Comment has been collapsed.
If by "left" you mean social liberals (who are not leftists) and social democrats (who are bourgeois center-leftists), then maybe you're right. The radical left, which is the only meaningfully leftist position left, is most definitely not merely "garbage to keep the 'plebs' fighting amongst themselves", though. One of the basic premises of radical leftism, which so-called "bourgeois leftists" like social democrats have appropriated for their own rhetorical purposes, is that of solidarity and class consciousness among the working class (proletariat). The radical left is extremely hostile toward dividing the working class and many oppose identity politics for that very reason. To include them among the rest of the political spectrum is, at best, misleading.
The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the natural workings of capitalism as a socioeconomic system and mode of production. The bankers and other high finance capitalists were merely actors playing their parts according to the rules of the system. If Banker A were replaced by Banker B or Banker C, the same would have probably occurred because it doesn't really matter who plays the role so long as they play it according to the rules of the system. To blame any particular capitalist or banker only obscures the material conditions which produced such events and only serves to distract the working class from recognizing those material conditions. Instead of resorting to such scapegoating, it's far more useful to focus on structural and systemic critique. Why did those bankers and capitalists act that way? Perhaps it's because of the system within which they acted and not them as individuals? After all, it's not like those individuals were that much different from any of the others who held their position before them.
Yes, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are threats to the working class and workers lose regardless of which wins. Both represent the continuation of neoliberal policies and will further distract and divide the working class in their own ways. I wouldn't consider them exact equivalents (Hillary Clinton is perhaps marginally better), but I do agree that it's rather pointless to choose between them. There is a marked difference between the Labour that Jeremy Corbyn is developing and both the Conservatives and the Blairite "New Labour" that has been rotting the party from within, though, so I have no idea why you would equate Labour with the Conservatives outside of perhaps maintaining this facile narrative of every side being the same. While the pre-Corbyn Labour did share certain basic goals and interests with the Conservatives, that has since changed significantly with Corbyn's rise in the Labour Party.
I sympathize with the points you're making, but I encourage you to take your analysis a step further and to consider the system as a whole rather than this or that actor within it. Blaming bankers for financial crashes is about as useful as blaming immigrants for taking jobs from workers; they have their roles to play, and that may be true in some ways, but what's important is why those roles exist in the first place and the conditions which produce them. Treating leftists and rightists as equivalent is moreover a facile analysis of contemporary politics that fails to distinguish between the theater of the political establishment and the sincerity of the political base. Doing so might facilitate some apolitical narrative, but it's not good political critique.
Comment has been collapsed.
The fuck are you talking about? Bankers caused the financial crisis because they fucking caused it! It wasn't them playing their part, it was them playing craps with other people's money. Blaming them, isn't like blaming other groups that nothing to do with it.
I'm guessing you've not been paying any attention to the blairites constant challenge to corbyns leadership? He was choose by labour voters. But it's the right wingers in the party that are trying to right the ship by stealing the leadership from him.
Don't be so fucking naive to believe this system is any other than corrupt to its core. The "left" even whole under corbyn have done fuck all for the people. Sitting on their fucking hands while British jobs went to China, while bedroom taxes were imposed, while depper unfair sanctions were placed on the poor and disabled. To call labour an opposition party is a fucking joke. A joke that no longer has power in Scotland. The scots see labour for it is, and have cast them out (all but one).
Look a little deeper? Pfft, don't be so fucking patronising you sycophantif fuck! Go sell your bullshit some place, the daily mail already has the market cornered on bullshit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bankers didn't cause it because they were not the only actors who set the conditions for the financial crash. It's useless to blame bankers, anyway, because they are merely one group of actors playing according to the rules of a system which causes financial crashes to occur. It's more productive to blame that system and its rules than to blame any particular actor within it, since it was ultimately that system which provided the conditions for economic cycles, financialization, capital accumulation, and banks to even exist.
I'm fully aware of the incessant opposition that Corbyn and his supporters have from Blairites, but that doesn't change the fact that Corbyn, his policies, and his supporters denote a substantial and arguably radical difference from the Blairites in the Labour Party, and it's even more stark a difference when compared to the Tories.
Of course this system is corrupt; corruption is, after all, an inevitable consequence of class-based hierarchical systems like capitalism. What I'm disputing is your equation of leftism with rightism, which is ridiculous. If you're talking about the political establishment and the theater it performs with ostensible "leftists" posturing and prevaricating while basically implementing the austerity and neoliberalism supported by the right, then of course that's all for show—even among those who are sincere and intoxicated by the ideological views their parties purportedly represent. You didn't specify that, however, so I can only assume that you're speaking of the left and right in general, in which case you'd be completely incorrect.
The radical left, including less militant radicals like Jeremy Corbyn, haven't been given the opportunity to do anything for the working class in over half a century because they have been suppressed, demonized, criminalized, and marginalized by the political establishment and its neoliberal agenda since the early 20th century, and successfully since the mid-20th century. When the radical left was strong, it did provide massive benefits to the working class.
The New Deal in the United States, social democracy throughout Europe (especially in Scandinavia), policies like the NHS in the UK, and the vast majority of concessions won through worker struggles were achieved in whole or in part by the radical left. If we want to count so-called "socialist experiments" of the USSR, PRC, and others, then they modernized and industrialized those countries, providing hundreds of millions of workers with better living conditions and higher quality of life. The USSR in particular was instrumental in crushing fascism in Europe. Even nowadays, despite the crippled state of the radical left, radical leftists are still participating in strikes, protests, and demonstrations throughout Europe to keep their governments in check and to maintain previous successes; and they are actively combatting the rise in fascism, sometimes with violence. To claim that the radical left has done "fuck all for the people" is not only untrue, it betrays a profound ignorance about the people's history.
There was no way of preventing British jobs going to China. That's a consequence of a globalized late capitalism that no single country or region could have hoped to solve or prevent. Capitalists are now abandoning the previous core of the capitalist world-system—the birthplaces of capitalism of the United States, western Europe, and Japan—and establishing a new core at the periphery, where profit margins are ridiculously larger than they could ever hope to acquire in "mature" economies like the UK. In particular, this new core consists of China, India, and Brazil as the new manufacturing base. This is a global problem, not a national one, and the only way to solve a global problem is with a global solution, namely the ending of capitalism and transitioning to socialism or communism. Expecting the radical left, or any group, in any particular country to prevent the offshoring of production is to expect far too much than they could possibly achieve at a national or regional level.
Yes, look a little deeper—a lot deeper, actually. You are trying to find scapegoats to send out of the village rather than analyzing the problem and understanding its causes. You are blaming bankers, political parties, and the radical left as a whole for the natural consequences of global capital and neoliberalism. That is politically infantile, economically illiterate, and intellectually lazy. Since you don't like me to be "patronizing", then I'll just be rude: you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you need to learn how capitalism works before you start throwing tantrums because shit happens that you don't like. Failing to do so will only guarantee that you continue flailing impotently in your witch hunt for some person or group to blame for all your ills rather than the system within which it all occurs.
If you want to understand what's going on right now and why you (and everyone you know) is getting fucked by a system that doesn't work, then learn political and economic theory. Equating certain groups with each other and blaming them for the problems you notice in an act of disgust and disaffection accomplishes nothing aside from persuading fellow illiterates of a stupid as fuck "analysis" and signalling to people who actually bothered to think about the issue that you are a joke with a negligible understanding of these topics.
Now please, if you aren't interested in this exchange and you don't like my opinions (which is obviously the case, especially since you shadow-blacklisted me), then you're free to fuck right off. In fact, I encourage you to do so!
Comment has been collapsed.
As a Brazilian, you won't get profit margins by exporting things from Brazil - there's way too much taxes in it to make it worth so except in certain industries such as car manufacturing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Brazil has lower standards of living than the United States and other European countries, however, and Brazil's minimum wage is a third or less than the minimum wages in those countries. As a result, any extra taxes that those corporations may have to pay in moving from the United States, western Europe, and Japan to Brazil is usually more than offset by the far larger profit produced by paying their workers less.
This may be less true recently, since manufacturing costs have increased significantly in Brazil such that it's sometimes less expensive to manufacture in the United States due to recent economic stabilization and currency appreciation in Brazil. It was more true during the 1990s than in the 2010s, if I'm not mistaken. Nevertheless, Brazil is still a growing economy, so capitalists are still relocating to Brazil because there are greater economic prospects for them. This might change in the next few decades, if capitalism survives that long, but that appears to be the trend at this time.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, yes.
and no, i don't care... i can think for my own
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not American, but it's obvious that even in my own tiny country there is evidence of media being used for propaganda purposes.
Negative stories about opposition parties always come out at "convenient" times, controversial government actions seem to be hidden by some huge non-story that's plastered all over the papers, things are turned into "us vs them" when it comes to middle and working class people, rather than the blame being centred where it belongs... It's pretty standard imo.
It's up to ourselves to think critically and question the sources of our news and the motivations of those sources. My English teacher (all those years ago) said something that has stayed with me ever since: "Every piece of news you hear or read is there because someone wants you to know about it. And they have decided what they will and won't report."
Comment has been collapsed.
yea i remember having a class were they showed you some news and made you try to distinguish between what was fact and what was opinion..these days it seems most news is 100% opinion and mostly lies lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you don't care about the single most important activity that governs your life, determines the conditions of your life, and affects the quality of your life, and those of your society and everyone living in it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Bump
Honestly I didn't watch the video since I don't follow media nor do I care anymore for what goes on :D
I remember when I was discussing with my boss in January how the world is very close to the next war or next big violent crisis.
He took the side of public science and statistics that we are living in the most peaceful times ever.
Needles to say he's being proved an idiot for the last few months :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Not going to watch that, both because I would understand half of the things and because I' m done with these " counter information" documentaries. I' ve been through the three zeitgeist movies already, a bunch of anarcho communist crap, I just have had enough.
About media spreading politic and ideologic propaganda, of course it' true, and it' s even legit. Those who are at the very top of the pyramid will do everything to stay right where they are, with every tool of deceipt and hypocrisy, through well known and unknown intricate mental processes, shaping the society they dominate as it suits them, the masses will be kept at theyr low position. The world is just a worst place you have imagined. You and I would probably act the same if we were a the top, so no need to ideoligize anything. The ultimate goal of power is just to preserve itself, everything else is just a fairytale. Just look at wild animals... lust for possession, ambition, greediness, controll. The lions fight for territorial control, primates fight for resources. Just look at commie (and feminist) honeybees. An hive is a society within itself. If a weak hive gets assaulted by a more powerfull hive stealing theyr resources, the weakest just dies. We are the same, plane and simple. We just bring this fight to a whole new level. Deal with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The media always portrays whatever shady business is going on in other parts of the world but never what shady business is going on in your own country.
F.e. The leaked Clinton E-mails, the media was angry about the fact that Russia was behind this but didn't care about what was in the E-mails.
FreeAssange
Comment has been collapsed.
I do believe there is huge amounts of propaganda and such in mainstream life, but I have to say, the world is not as scary as many believe. My girlfriend lost her bag in Guatemala that contained everything, passport, phone, purse etc. She was 19, pretty and all that, and within 3 hours she had it all back, nothing stolen at all (She left it on a bus). She asked to use someones phone, he heard what had happened, called his friend who worked with the buses, he was able to find out where the bus was, he drove her to the place and then dropped her back and refused to take any payment. My mum (blonde, blue eyes) also managed to get to Morocco without spending a single penny when she was at university, although she was with another man the whole way.
Don't get me wrong there are definitely bad people, but it's very unlikely you will ever have any problems if you have a genuine problem and need help, despite the hundreds of stories that come out about people going to get some milk and getting abducted, murdered etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Media as it is today is no longer about fair journalism and is all about selling to money and brand building for your paymasters. They can be even called Presstitutes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I skipped to a random point and it was a guy with presenting a WTC conspiracy, lol.
Use your brain and some common sense. The mass, international, and heavily scrutinised media; whose sources you can check out and you can easily find critique when they're wrong vs. some nutters who can't even keep their conspiracies straight who play to a likeminded audience with no critical thinking skills. Worse than a tabloid...
Comment has been collapsed.
So my friend sent me a link to this video and after watching most of it im just floored..if even half of this is true then we live in much scarier times then i had already thought,what are your thoughts on this do you think propaganda should be allowed?
(for those who dont know it was illegal for the government to use propaganda on USA citizens from the 1940s until obama abolished the law in 2013 making it legal for them to use on USA citizens again)
Obligatory Ga
Edit: didnt start this thread to start any political debates, just to see the percentages of who does and does not believe whats in the media.
our current government obviously wants us all divided like one user said and everyone should be able to see that by now so lets try not to add to that and stick to topic:)
Found this video as well, this one is pretty funny it shows that most the stations were on a mass script those days kinda crazy.
Comment has been collapsed.