Can we offer this Ukranian solider a scholarship?

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

It's already here. US and its cronies run the world. Better to live here than say...Russia

That's why the cronies were desperate to get rid of Trump or any American president that puts America first

That was the campaign - elect Biden so the world respects us again!!!!

Fuck that. Better to be feared

Trump was still throwing around money at things like Afghanistan. He wasnt exactly an isolationist.

He was first and right on China, now even the Dems are on his page there.

He was also first and right on NATO needing to pull their weight.

Also first, right and impeached asking questions about that shit hole we just dropped $100B into.


War against Russia was always the plan. If not in Syria, then in Ukraine.

Not now, not then was there a good reason for it. Hence why the West, errr NWO, had to provoke it into being.

Then they sold you the idea Putin is literally Hitler. They didn't expect you to ask questions, and they were right.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.[3]

Background
Origins
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book.[4] The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. Since Herman's contribution to the book was so important, Chomsky insisted on putting Herman's name in front of his name, contrary to the pair’s habit of alphabetic listing. Herman and Chomsky were close friends for fifty years.[5]
.....

Propaganda model of communication
Main article: Propaganda model
The book introduced the propaganda model of communication, which is still developing today.

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to impact reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]

Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]

The Propaganda model of communication and its influence over major media organizations

The propaganda model describes the major pillars of society (the public domain, business firms, media organizations, governments etc.) as first and foremost, profit-seekers.[14] To fully consider the effects of the propaganda model, a tiered diagram can be drawn. Due to the impressionable and exploitative nature of major media organizations including broadcast media, print media, and 21st century social media, media organizations are placed at the bottom. As the model scales upward, it pans to the larger organizations who are financially capable of controlling advertising licenses, lawsuits, or selling environments.

The first level displays the public domain in which prominent ideologies within the masses can influence the intentions of mass media. The second level pertaining to the business firms accounts for the media’s source of information[15] as business firms are wealthy enough to supply information to media organizations while maintaining control over where advertisers can sell their advertisements and stories. The final layer, the governments of the major global powers, are the wealthiest subgroup of the pillars of society. Having the most financial wealth and organizational power, media organizations are most dependent on government structures for financial stability and political direction.

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

It's already here. US and its cronies run the world. Better to live here than say...Russia

That's why the cronies were desperate to get rid of Trump or any American president that puts America first

That was the campaign - elect Biden so the world respects us again!!!!

Fuck that. Better to be feared

Trump was still throwing around money at things like Afghanistan. He wasnt exactly an isolationist.

He was first and right on China, now even the Dems are on his page there.

He was also first and right on NATO needing to pull their weight.

Also first, right and impeached asking questions about that shit hole we just dropped $100B into.


War against Russia was always the plan. If not in Syria, then in Ukraine.

Not now, not then was there a good reason for it. Hence why the West, errr NWO, had to provoke it into being.

Then they sold you the idea Putin is literally Hitler. They didn't expect you to ask questions, and they were right.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.[3]

Background
Origins
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book.[4] The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. Since Herman's contribution to the book was so important, Chomsky insisted on putting Herman's name in front of his name, contrary to the pair’s habit of alphabetic listing. Herman and Chomsky were close friends for fifty years.[5]
.....

Propaganda model of communication
Main article: Propaganda model
The book introduced the propaganda model of communication, which is still developing today.

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to impact reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]

Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]

The Propaganda model of communication and its influence over major media organizations

The propaganda model describes the major pillars of society (the public domain, business firms, media organizations, governments etc.) as first and foremost, profit-seekers.[14] To fully consider the effects of the propaganda model, a tiered diagram can be drawn. Due to the impressionable and exploitative nature of major media organizations including broadcast media, print media, and 21st century social media, media organizations are placed at the bottom. As the model scales upward, it pans to the larger organizations who are financially capable of controlling advertising licenses, lawsuits, or selling environments.

The first level displays the public domain in which prominent ideologies within the masses can influence the intentions of mass media. The second level pertaining to the business firms accounts for the media’s source of information[15] as business firms are wealthy enough to supply information to media organizations while maintaining control over where advertisers can sell their advertisements and stories. The final layer, the governments of the major global powers, are the wealthiest subgroup of the pillars of society. Having the most financial wealth and organizational power, media organizations are most dependent on government structures for financial stability and political direction.

Stop apologizing for Putin.

Calling people idiots and using this argument is why you had such a rough start

Not that there is anything wrong with calling people idiots, it just sets the tone for the wave of replies

The Putin card is just embarrassing

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

It's already here. US and its cronies run the world. Better to live here than say...Russia

That's why the cronies were desperate to get rid of Trump or any American president that puts America first

That was the campaign - elect Biden so the world respects us again!!!!

Fuck that. Better to be feared

Trump was still throwing around money at things like Afghanistan. He wasnt exactly an isolationist.

He was first and right on China, now even the Dems are on his page there.

He was also first and right on NATO needing to pull their weight.

Also first, right and impeached asking questions about that shit hole we just dropped $100B into.


War against Russia was always the plan. If not in Syria, then in Ukraine.

Not now, not then was there a good reason for it. Hence why the West, errr NWO, had to provoke it into being.

Then they sold you the idea Putin is literally Hitler. They didn't expect you to ask questions, and they were right.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.[3]

Background
Origins
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book.[4] The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. Since Herman's contribution to the book was so important, Chomsky insisted on putting Herman's name in front of his name, contrary to the pair’s habit of alphabetic listing. Herman and Chomsky were close friends for fifty years.[5]
.....

Propaganda model of communication
Main article: Propaganda model
The book introduced the propaganda model of communication, which is still developing today.

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to impact reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]

Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]

The Propaganda model of communication and its influence over major media organizations

The propaganda model describes the major pillars of society (the public domain, business firms, media organizations, governments etc.) as first and foremost, profit-seekers.[14] To fully consider the effects of the propaganda model, a tiered diagram can be drawn. Due to the impressionable and exploitative nature of major media organizations including broadcast media, print media, and 21st century social media, media organizations are placed at the bottom. As the model scales upward, it pans to the larger organizations who are financially capable of controlling advertising licenses, lawsuits, or selling environments.

The first level displays the public domain in which prominent ideologies within the masses can influence the intentions of mass media. The second level pertaining to the business firms accounts for the media’s source of information[15] as business firms are wealthy enough to supply information to media organizations while maintaining control over where advertisers can sell their advertisements and stories. The final layer, the governments of the major global powers, are the wealthiest subgroup of the pillars of society. Having the most financial wealth and organizational power, media organizations are most dependent on government structures for financial stability and political direction.

Stop apologizing for Putin.

Calling people idiots and using this argument is why you had such a rough start

Not that there is anything wrong with calling people idiots, it just sets the tone for the wave of replies

The Putin card is just embarrassing

Putin is a murderer that came up violently and will throw you out of a window if you cross him.

He was heavily involved in the Grozny clusterfuck, and also invaded Georgia in 2008 to take two provinces.

He has been probing for years to see with what he can get away with. He thinks the world works the way it did in the past where you can take land from your neighbors. It doesn't.

No one forced him to do this. It's not a good or accurate take. He wants to play Risk.

As mello would say - OK

I don't believe that I have supported Putin. XI in China is a real piece of shit too. Quite common really

So what

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

It's already here. US and its cronies run the world. Better to live here than say...Russia

That's why the cronies were desperate to get rid of Trump or any American president that puts America first

That was the campaign - elect Biden so the world respects us again!!!!

Fuck that. Better to be feared

Trump was still throwing around money at things like Afghanistan. He wasnt exactly an isolationist.

He was first and right on China, now even the Dems are on his page there.

He was also first and right on NATO needing to pull their weight.

Also first, right and impeached asking questions about that shit hole we just dropped $100B into.


War against Russia was always the plan. If not in Syria, then in Ukraine.

Not now, not then was there a good reason for it. Hence why the West, errr NWO, had to provoke it into being.

Then they sold you the idea Putin is literally Hitler. They didn't expect you to ask questions, and they were right.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.[3]

Background
Origins
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book.[4] The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. Since Herman's contribution to the book was so important, Chomsky insisted on putting Herman's name in front of his name, contrary to the pair’s habit of alphabetic listing. Herman and Chomsky were close friends for fifty years.[5]
.....

Propaganda model of communication
Main article: Propaganda model
The book introduced the propaganda model of communication, which is still developing today.

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to impact reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]

Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]

The Propaganda model of communication and its influence over major media organizations

The propaganda model describes the major pillars of society (the public domain, business firms, media organizations, governments etc.) as first and foremost, profit-seekers.[14] To fully consider the effects of the propaganda model, a tiered diagram can be drawn. Due to the impressionable and exploitative nature of major media organizations including broadcast media, print media, and 21st century social media, media organizations are placed at the bottom. As the model scales upward, it pans to the larger organizations who are financially capable of controlling advertising licenses, lawsuits, or selling environments.

The first level displays the public domain in which prominent ideologies within the masses can influence the intentions of mass media. The second level pertaining to the business firms accounts for the media’s source of information[15] as business firms are wealthy enough to supply information to media organizations while maintaining control over where advertisers can sell their advertisements and stories. The final layer, the governments of the major global powers, are the wealthiest subgroup of the pillars of society. Having the most financial wealth and organizational power, media organizations are most dependent on government structures for financial stability and political direction.

Stop apologizing for Putin.

It's not about Putin, you dumb motherfucker. No matter how many times you say it, it's not.

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

pawz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

PurpleThrobber said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RoadTrip said:

PGOS, I think your head and intentions are in the right place regarding this conflict and I understand your distrust of Russia. I can't speak for the others here but I don't believe anyone supports Russia or their war with Ukraine. I don't trust our? own government or any European member of NATO either. If they were so concerned about Russian advancement beyond Ukraine, then they should be all in against Russia instead of relying upon our? tax dollars. We? seem to care a whole lot more about Ukrainian borders than our own. We? are ignoring our own people and the problems at home at the expense of a criminally corrupt Zelensky and his government.

The discussion on this topic has definitely been better the longer the thread has gone on.

Like I said earlier, show me a non corrupt country...it just doesnt exist. I get your guy's distrust of Nato, the US, and especially Biden.

The being said, I do think the powers that be are making an example out of Russia, and at the same time sending a clear message to China. That message is that wars over territory are a thing of the past, this is the New World Order, fuck around and find out.

At the same time, Russia has and is still committing horrific war crimes. And its not just one offs here and there like Tiger Force in Vietnam, it's systemic and everywhere they touch tortured and killed civilians pay the price.

If Ukraine wants to fight and die, I say let them. You guys seem to agree, its the specifics of US backing we disagree on

Fuck the New World Order.

That's the point of all this. Fuck NWO, fuck global corporatism. Fuck Davos. Fuck fuck fuck. And fuck anyone who supports that bullshit.

We don't want any fucking New World Order.

It's already here. US and its cronies run the world. Better to live here than say...Russia

That's why the cronies were desperate to get rid of Trump or any American president that puts America first

That was the campaign - elect Biden so the world respects us again!!!!

Fuck that. Better to be feared

Trump was still throwing around money at things like Afghanistan. He wasnt exactly an isolationist.

He was first and right on China, now even the Dems are on his page there.

He was also first and right on NATO needing to pull their weight.

Also first, right and impeached asking questions about that shit hole we just dropped $100B into.


War against Russia was always the plan. If not in Syria, then in Ukraine.

Not now, not then was there a good reason for it. Hence why the West, errr NWO, had to provoke it into being.

Then they sold you the idea Putin is literally Hitler. They didn't expect you to ask questions, and they were right.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.[3]

Background
Origins
Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom Herman and Chomsky dedicated the book.[4] The book was greatly inspired by Herman's earlier financial research. Since Herman's contribution to the book was so important, Chomsky insisted on putting Herman's name in front of his name, contrary to the pair’s habit of alphabetic listing. Herman and Chomsky were close friends for fifty years.[5]
.....

Propaganda model of communication
Main article: Propaganda model
The book introduced the propaganda model of communication, which is still developing today.

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to impact reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]

Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]

The Propaganda model of communication and its influence over major media organizations

The propaganda model describes the major pillars of society (the public domain, business firms, media organizations, governments etc.) as first and foremost, profit-seekers.[14] To fully consider the effects of the propaganda model, a tiered diagram can be drawn. Due to the impressionable and exploitative nature of major media organizations including broadcast media, print media, and 21st century social media, media organizations are placed at the bottom. As the model scales upward, it pans to the larger organizations who are financially capable of controlling advertising licenses, lawsuits, or selling environments.

The first level displays the public domain in which prominent ideologies within the masses can influence the intentions of mass media. The second level pertaining to the business firms accounts for the media’s source of information[15] as business firms are wealthy enough to supply information to media organizations while maintaining control over where advertisers can sell their advertisements and stories. The final layer, the governments of the major global powers, are the wealthiest subgroup of the pillars of society. Having the most financial wealth and organizational power, media organizations are most dependent on government structures for financial stability and political direction.

Stop apologizing for Putin.

It's not about Putin, you dumb motherfucker. No matter how many times you say it, it's not.

Yes, it is. He invaded. He has invaded other countries in the past. His ill disciplined troops routinely rape and torture civilians.

The excuse making for Putin is unbelievable

Didn't you makes some claim about the moral high road earlier in this thread?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria think your moral authority is saintly. Or something.