Thread: Western Propaganda aka клюква lol

Originally Posted by shackleford

I think "evil Communists" is more accurate. The Russian people aren't their government. Of course, some Russians were/are Communists, though. I'll be glad when authoritarianism works its way of Russia, any country for that matter, and the people are freer as individuals.

What support do you have for your assumption that Russians need to be "freer as individuals"? Do the people on this forum seem oppressed to you? As far as I am concerned, Americans with their lack of knowledge about other countries and prejudice from biaised media are just as much in need of liberation.

And as for "evil communists" well, in case you did not know: Communists around the world have volunteered their time to teach illiterate people to read, made cities out of wilderness, built housing for people who lived in shacks, provided free medical care to people who would otherwise have died, and helped defeat Nazism, just to mention a few things. Sure, many bad things have been done in the name of Communism, and some of its ideals may be offputting but I still think you need to inform yourself a bit better.

Originally Posted by Hanna

What support do you have for your assumption that Russians need to be "freer as individuals"? Do the people on this forum seem oppressed to you? As far as I am concerned, Americans with their lack of knowledge about other countries and prejudice from biaised media are just as much in need of liberation.

And as for "evil communists" well, in case you did not know: Communists around the world have volunteered their time to teach illiterate people to read, made cities out of wilderness, built housing for people who lived in shacks, provided free medical care to people who would otherwise have died, and helped defeat Nazism, just to mention a few things. Sure, many bad things have been done in the name of Communism, and some of its ideals may be offputting but I still think you need to inform yourself a bit better.

See? What could be better evidence of effectiveness of the communist propaganda? Even after 20 years since the utopia was revealed there are still affected minds. But I agree with shackleford, it was certainly not the fault of those poor people that they were treated that bad. In fact, many of them were strong enough not to buy that propaganda while they were virtually forced to listen to it.

American propaganda is the most effective in the world. Anyone who disagrees with that should just open their eyes and LOOK at other countries, which have thrown away their own cultures in favor of the 'COOL' image we showed them.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot that is "cool" about America, but it is not cooler than anyone else's culture. It certainly is not worth trading in traditional values such as caring for your fellow human beings, sharing when times are tough, and working together to build something great. Those USED TO BE American values too, not so very long ago.

The reason American propaganda is so effective is because it based on ADVERTISING strategies. Those "Mad Men" did countless focus groups and studies to show what advertising strategies work best... and our government also uses them. Ask anyone in the world, and they will tell you that American propaganda is by FAR the most effective. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Deborski

The reason American propaganda is so effective is because it based on ADVERTISING strategies.

...whcih in turn are based on Goebbels's (Nazi propaganda minister) theories

You're confusing two separate issues. Communism as a political philosophy is abhorrent and dangerous. It violates the fundamentals of individualism, freedom, and private property rights. The movies and otherwise may have generalized every Russian as an "evil Communist." That's silly. Of course, they weren't, just like not every German was a Nazi. However, their vilification of the tyrannical government is certainly more accurate and warranted. Again, the Russian people are not their government, just like the American people are not their government. Much of the U.S. government is corrupt and incompetent. People can never be too free, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The Russian people can be more free and they should be more free, just like all people. I'm a conservative-libertarian if you can't tell already.

Originally Posted by shackleford

You're confusing two separate issues. Communism as a political philosophy is abhorrent and dangerous. It violates the fundamentals of individualism, freedom, and private property rights.

You sound as if there was something bad about it.

(See how a libertarian mind works - it assumes that individualism, freedom and private property rights are UNIVERSAL values and marks 'abhorrent and dangerous' anything that disagrees with that).

Originally Posted by Ramil

You sound as if there was something bad about it.

(See how a libertarian mind works - it assumes that individualism, freedom and private property rights are UNIVERSAL values universally valuable ...

Fixed that for you!

...and marks 'abhorrent and dangerous' anything that disagrees with that).

"Individualism" is a complex topic and I would agree that it's not inherently "abhorrent and dangerous" to challenge it or to argue that "individualism" must be balanced by socially-oriented, "communitarian" values. But history suggests to me that broad attacks on personal freedom or private-property rights have generally had abhorrent and dangerous consequences.

Communism as a political philosophy is abhorrent and dangerous. It violates the fundamentals of individualism, freedom, and private property rights.

This sounds like you just regurgitated something that you have been told over and over, your entire life.

Communism was not the problem. Corruption was. And is.

This all-or-nothing, either/or, black/white thinking is what gets us into trouble. Not everything about communism is BAD, and not everything about democracy is GOOD. We need to think outside of our respective ideologies and look for what simply WORKS best. And corruption should be our common enemy which unites us instead of dividing us.

Главное - надо было обеспечить невовлечённость США в новую войну в Европе. На это и работала пропаганда. Всякие ранообразные движения за мир, разные сорта "yankee go home", и т.д. Типа, это вообще США создаёт напряжённость в Европе, без США было бы всё зашибись. Чтобы офицеры США это чувствовали и не особенно хотели воевать за Европу

Борьба за мир велась, для того, чтобы имевшие принципиальное превосходство США не напали на СССР.
Иначе бы не считались успехом сов. дипломатии Хельсинкские соглашения. Америка была инициатором раздела Германии и главным препятствием для ее объединения на нейтральной основе, по австрийскому сценарию. При этом очень долго не признавали ГДР, при том что СССР признал ФРГ еще в 1954 г.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Борьба за мир велась, для того, чтобы имевшие принципиальное превосходство США не напали на СССР.

Интересно, а в чём заключалось принципиальное превосходство США?
Но главный вопрос даже не в этом. Почему ты считаешь, что если какое-то мирное соглашение заключено, то это является гарантией мира? Если две страны хотят жить мирно, им не нужны никакие мирные соглашения, вполне достаточно торговых. (В идеале, военных.) Вот, безо всякой пропаганды, просто подумай сам. Какова суть любых мирных соглашений? Обе стороны соглашаются о взаимном ненападении если только одна сторона не посчитает, что вторая сторона собирается напасть, провоцирует первую сторону к нападению, или грубо нарушает национальные интересы в какой-либо области, что само по себе является достаточным поводом для войны. Ведь это же, по сути, фиговый листок! Его ещё иногда называют "рамочные соглашения". Типа, повесь в рамку, на большее не годится. Войны между СССР и США никак не могло произойти, как минимум, по тому, что был ядерный партитет, красиво называемый "концепцией ядерного сдерживания". Так что, никакие планы войны между СССР и США не могли получить ход ни при каких условиях. Ни при договоре ни без него. Однако, армия СССР была самой мощной в мире по любым стандартам. Вот, ты мне ответь на простой вопрос - зачем? Чтобы обеспечить себя от нападения достаточно ядерного паритета. Смысл нападать теряется по-любому. Правильно? Но, за одним маленьким исключением. Армии должно быть достаточно для обеспечения ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ ЗАПУСКА ядерного оружия. А вот нападающая сторона должна обеспечить себе ПОДАВЛЯЮЩИЙ ПЕРЕВЕС, чтобы завалить противника с такой скоростью и с такой тактикой, чтобы он не УСПЕЛ воспользоваться своим ЯО. Самой действенной тактикой против ЯО в те времена считалось внезапное и повсеместное использование больших количеств мобильных войск. Недаром в СССР их было столько и так вооружённых, что их выделили в отдельный род войск - ВДВ. За то отдельное спасибо энтузиасту сего дела товарищу Маргелову. Короче говоря, у Европы не было ни одного шанса. Стопудово. Весь вопрос был лишь в вовлечённости США в дела Европы. Встрянет или не встрянет? Скорее всего, если сильно озадачить, то не встрянет. Вот подумай сам: допустим в США резко меняются руководители на всех ключевых постах. Как быстро они смогут принять решение о начале боевых действий против СССР? День-два, не меньше. Теперь добавь потенциальные многотысячные антивоенные демонстрации под лозунгом "Мы ещё хотим пожить" слева и под лозунгом "Да пошли они там в своей Европе нафиг, пусть сами разбираются" справа и ты получишь правильный ответ. Чтобы окончательно прояснить миролюбивое отношении СССР к США во время начала подготовки СССР к войне при Андропове дали ход пиар-проекту под кодовым названием "Саманта Смит".

is-this-tomorrow.jpg

commiecomic.jpg

supercomrade.jpg

Америка была инициатором раздела Германии и главным препятствием для ее объединения на нейтральной основе

This statement makes literally no sense to me -- really, America unilaterally chose to divide the German pie?

As we say in English, it "takes two to tango."

You can say "universal values" or "universally valuable" - both are correct.

"Individualism" is a complex topic and I would agree that it's not inherently "abhorrent and dangerous" to challenge it or to argue that "individualism" must be balanced by socially-oriented, "communitarian" values. But history suggests to me that broad attacks on personal freedom or private-property rights have generally had abhorrent and dangerous consequences.

The problem is when PROPERTY is valued more than PEOPLE.

Originally Posted by Deborski

You can say "universal values" or "universally valuable" - both are correct.

They're both grammatical, but the emphases are different. "Universal values" implies (to me) that everyone everywhere accepts these values; "universally valuable" implies (to me) that the values have some inherent positive worth, and that everyone everywhere OUGHT to accept them. In other words, North Korean ideology does not accept private property as something good, but the libertarian assumption is that the North Koreans would be vastly better off if their society DID recognize private-property rights, at least to some degree.

The problem is when PROPERTY is valued more than PEOPLE.

That's a fair point. But (except among radical libertarians), saying that private-property rights ought to be regulated and restricted to some degree by the government is different from claiming that private-property as a concept has no inherent positive value for human well-being. (The radicals claim that restricting private-property rights to ANY degree is tantamount to denying them -- thus the cliche "Taxation is theft".) On the other hand, it's a general assumption of libertarians (not just the radicals) that such rights as freedom of religion, speech, and the press can all be logically derived from and protected by an underlying respect for private property.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

That's a fair point. But (except among radical libertarians), saying that private-property rights ought to be regulated and restricted to some degree by the government is different from claiming that private-property as a concept has no inherent positive value for human well-being. (The radicals claim that restricting private-property rights to ANY degree is tantamount to denying them -- thus the cliche "Taxation is theft".) On the other hand, it's a general assumption of libertarians (not just the radicals) that such rights as freedom of religion, speech, and the press can all be logically derived from and protected by an underlying respect for private property.

The problem we make in the West I think, is that we assume CAPITALISM is flawless, and we think of it as a political system. There is something wrong when a minority of about 400 people control 99% of the wealth. There is a problem when it takes thousands of Americans giving what little they can, to support a political candidate - and they still cannot match the petty change a dozen corporations can throw in to influence the race.

Property is supposed to be used, and people are supposed to be loved. But instead, people are used and property is loved.

By the way, the "G.I. Joe" comic posted by BarraBa -- with the American soldier literally kicking ChiCom butt -- brings to my mind another very significant point about Hollywood (sometimes) demonizing Russians. Namely:

You guys (meaning ethnic Russians, not all Soviets) are WHITE*!!

And that made Russians highly desirable villains, especially in the second half of the 20th century, as social changes in America made Hollywood increasingly eager to show off its "progressive values", and to move away from the incredibly blatant racism of so many pre-WWII films. (See also: the evil kraut German person Hans Gruber in the original Die Hard, and the evil "Seth Effrikaan" in the second Lethal Weapon movie.)

* Well, of course, not counting space-Russians, who often have very dark complexions:



Гхапла!

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

And that made Russians highly desirable villains, especially in the second half of the 20th century, as social changes in America made Hollywood increasingly eager to show off its "progressive values", and to move away from the incredibly blatant racism of so many pre-WWII films.

Т.е. например, если режиссер Lethal weapon не хотел снимать напарником негра, то что могло произойти? Меняли режиссера, или его убеждали? И кто вообще следил, чтобы в голливуде и на ТВ стало поменьше плохих цветных?

P.S. Strictly speaking, Worf (on the right) wasn't an actual space-Russian, but rather a normal American of space-Russian ancestry.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

They're both grammatical, but the emphases are different. "Universal values" implies (to me) that everyone everywhere accepts these values; "universally valuable" implies (to me) that the values have some inherent positive worth, and that everyone everywhere OUGHT to accept them. In other words, North Korean ideology does not accept private property as something good, but the libertarian assumption is that the North Koreans would be vastly better off if their society DID recognize private-property rights, at least to some degree.

That's a fair point. But (except among radical libertarians), saying that private-property rights ought to be regulated and restricted to some degree by the government is different from claiming that private-property as a concept has no inherent positive value for human well-being. (The radicals claim that restricting private-property rights to ANY degree is tantamount to denying them -- thus the cliche "Taxation is theft".) On the other hand, it's a general assumption of libertarians (not just the radicals) that such rights as freedom of religion, speech, and the press can all be logically derived from and protected by an underlying respect for private property.

Look, the majority of people in the West (I do not know how in the US, but certainly in the western Europe) DO NOT have private property in the same meaning as it was understood in the USSR. What they have is what the USSR would call "personal property". The majority of the people are employed in any country, not the business owners, and as such they have no private property. That means that only a minority of population in any country enjoys the private property rights, even in the west.