|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
At the beginning of the movie it details how the US (along with Britain) overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government and installed a puppet dictator who brutalized his own people with US assistance. So the situation they found themselves in was the result of US interventionism.
Yet, this film is supposed to be propaganda for a new war against Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
So you are refusing to paraphrase then? Just giving a link to an article is kind of lazy. Especially when you are saying that it is propaganda. |
Sure!
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/why-argo-won-best-picture/
| Quote: |
Zero Dark Thirty is not propaganda. Argo is. Zero Dark Thirty lost the Oscar for Best Picture. Argo won.
Argo is not one of the flag waving, guns and glory cinematic tributes to God and Country of yesteryear. As the American Imperium grows more distant from the real American nation that gave it shape, its justifications have become more sophisticated. Argo is propaganda for America 2.0, Obama�s America, the Empire that will fulfill the founding destiny of the United States by eradicating all authentic nations and traditions from around the world, even if this means destroying itself.
xxx
Of course, the movie is CIA propaganda, but of a very specific type. The anti-imperialist Left (what remains of it in the age of Obama) never quite understands that the ruling powers of the United States generally support their values. It is a dispute over means and not ends, and ultimately the existence of �antifa� are dependent on a System designed to support Goldman Sachs. The Establishment vision of American foreign policy is defined by aggressively using the hard fist of American power to support post-American ends of global democracy, international finance, and state enforced liberalism. Both old fashioned American nationalists and reflexive anti-Americans miss the point.
Argo is important because whatever its inaccuracies, it is telling us what the System wants us to think about American foreign policy. Even as a superpower, America remains exceptionally innocent. The reality that Empire means killing is safely hidden away, as Last Men don�t like to think about anything to kill or die for. There are still enough conservative useful idiots who will die for the honor of a long dead Republic, but we don�t want to show those people as heroes or their values as positive.
Instead, Argo is about guilt-plagued Americans using roguish (but nonviolent) derring-do to save other regular Americans for humanitarian reasons. The enemies are Muslims who have unfortunately responded to their oppression through the false consciousness of traditional religion. This is the kind of patriotism Hollywood can get beyond, and it�s no wonder � in this film, Hollywood itself is the hero. This is the kind of cultural propaganda that can support an interventionist foreign policy of drones, bombs, and universally applicable values. Best of all, this is the kind of foreign policy that can avoid having to call upon shared sacrifices in the name of national identity, history, or (worst of all) kinship. |
Argo is propaganda for the liberal, internationalist, anti-traditional society foreign policy. The Rivkin Project, as it were. Argo is a longer version of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wtUCPWmeI
The propaganda clip above is designed to gain new recruts from the liberal set. Argo's goal is to gain the approval of the liberal classes for American adventurism. Mind, body, and spirit, as the saying goes. |
Gregory Hood appears to be a truther.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/the-hollow-empire-zero-dark-thirty/
| Quote: |
| For the sake of argument, let�s accept the official narratives about September 11, 2001, the Long War, and the execution of Osama Bin Laden. |
He can't be trusted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
At the beginning of the movie it details how the US (along with Britain) overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government and installed a puppet dictator who brutalized his own people with US assistance. So the situation they found themselves in was the result of US interventionism.
|
That's the point:
| Quote: |
| What Argo gives us is a friendly face of American Imperium. Americans may have done some things we are not proud of in the Bad Old Days, but relax, that was decades ago! Our military is a humanitarian force and our government means well � it�s just that sometimes we make mistakes. Those mistakes either occur beyond our vision or through a video screen, the death and suffering far removed. Americans are still the forces of enlightenment surrounded by foreign mobs tied down by ancient prejudices like religion, national pride, or the need to avenge the deaths of loved ones. The outraged sense of Iranian honor isn�t something we should take too seriously, any more than we take our own honor too seriously. It�s simply a problem to be managed. |
| Quote: |
| He can't be trusted. |
Oh Kuros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Titus"]
| catman wrote: |
At the beginning of the movie it details how the US (along with Britain) overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government and installed a puppet dictator who brutalized his own people with US assistance. So the situation they found themselves in was the result of US interventionism.
|
That's the point:
| Quote: |
| What Argo gives us is a friendly face of American Imperium. Americans may have done some things we are not proud of in the Bad Old Days, but relax, that was decades ago! |
No. The movie did not say "relax, that was decades ago". That is conjecture from the author.
Now if this was an HBO documentary then he may have a point. But it isn't. It is a two hour movie. If it was "propagnda" it was a poorly done job.
So you really think this movie meets the definition of "propagnda"? If so that means someone must be behind it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately, the Joker cares nothing for his people and culture: he is the epitome of radical and even pathological individualism. But a cadre of people who are committed to Western survival, who are unafraid of death, uninterested in the easily available decadent pleasures of the contemporary world, and without the moral scruples of egalitarian universalism would be dangerous indeed to the current Zeitgeist. |
He uses the word Zeitgeist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Now if this was an HBO documentary then he may have a point. But it isn't. It is a two hour movie. If it was "propagnda" it was a poorly done job.
So you really think this movie meets the definition of "propagnda"? If so that means someone must be behind it. |
Yes. It is propaganda. There is relentless *propaganda* from all print and broadcast media about a nuclear weapons program that doesn't exist in Iran and this film comes along depicting the Iranians as halfwits and half-savages. The purpose is to soften up the minds of liberal people to a conflict. The conservatives just have to be shown a flag.
They were not faithful to the facts of the story and took major license in the film. The depiction of the Iranians is deliberate and with purpose.
| Quote: |
| He uses the word Zeitgeist! |
Appropriately.
| Quote: |
| I would totally read this. |
I don't believe you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
Now if this was an HBO documentary then he may have a point. But it isn't. It is a two hour movie. If it was "propagnda" it was a poorly done job.
So you really think this movie meets the definition of "propagnda"? If so that means someone must be behind it. |
Yes. It is propaganda. There is relentless *propaganda* from all print and broadcast media about a nuclear weapons program that doesn't exist in Iran and this film comes along depicting the Iranians as halfwits and half-savages. The purpose is to soften up the minds of liberal people to a conflict. The conservatives just have to be shown a flag. |
So you have evidence that Ben Affleck and George Clooney made this movie to "soften up" American liberals for a war against Iran?
| Quote: |
They were not faithful to the facts of the story and took major license in the film. The depiction of the Iranians is deliberate and with purpose. |
Mainly about Canada's role in the rescue. Not about the Iranians who took over the embassy.
| Quote: |
| I would totally read this. |
| Quote: |
| I don't believe you. |
I absolutely would! Of course I wouldn't pay for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So you have evidence that Ben Affleck and George Clooney made this movie to "soften up" American liberals for a war against Iran? |
You have evidence they don't? What a stupid question. Argo is a film about Hollywood and the national security state working together for national security goals. Yet we need evidence that Hollywood and the national security state work together to further national security goals?
| Quote: |
| Mainly about Canada's role in the rescue. Not about the Iranians who took over the embassy. |
You have evidence?
| Quote: |
| I absolutely would! Of course I wouldn't pay for it. |
I don't believe you. I don't think white liberals read anything that is not airport bookstore approved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So you have evidence that Ben Affleck and George Clooney made this movie to "soften up" American liberals for a war against Iran? |
You have evidence they don't? What a stupid question.
|
You want me to prove a negative? What a stupid request.
| Quote: |
| Argo is a film about Hollywood and the national security state working together for national security goals. Yet we need evidence that Hollywood and the national security state work together to further national security goals? |
The movie wasn't about national security. It was about rescuing their citizens taken hostage from their embassy. Now if they made a movie about Iran threatening to nuke Israel and Americans thwarting the plot you may have a point. But Hollywood doesn't make pro-Israel movies for some reason.
| Quote: |
| Mainly about Canada's role in the rescue. Not about the Iranians who took over the embassy. |
| Quote: |
You have evidence? |
Of what? Canada's real role or about the Iranians who took over the embassy?
| Quote: |
| I absolutely would! Of course I wouldn't pay for it. |
| Quote: |
| I don't believe you. I don't think white liberals read anything that is not airport bookstore approved. |
Oh of course, the reason white liberals aren't white nationalists is because we haven't read your literature. I've read plenty of literature from the extreme right and the extreme left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| i watched argo last night. While it is a propaganda film it clearly does outline the cause of the mess was the Americans in the beginning. The only real problem is that the viewer is swayed more by emotions of anxiety and fear seen by the American side. The movie pearl harbor had similar problems. Nobody remembers the beginning of the film where it is clearly explained what the American side did to the Japanese to provoke their attack. |
I have not seen Argo yet, and that is not what this post is about. Getting to the point, I would agree that Americans are very much at fault for origins of the mess in Iran. However, if you think that the US is at fault for the cause of Pearl Harbor, then I think you have been reading too much online propaganda. Certainly, it is true that the US put an oil embargo on Japan due to its concerns about Japan's war activities. But who chose to start a war and empire building exercise along with an alliance with Hitler? Japan did. Modern day revisionism of blaming the US for somehow forcing Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, is simply propaganda allowing Japan to avoid acknowledging its historical responsibility in one of many incidents where it was clearly wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh of course, the reason white liberals aren't white nationalists is because we haven't read your literature. I've read plenty of literature from the extreme right and the extreme left. |
I'm not a White Nationalist, though I am white and a nationalist.
I do not believe mainstream liberal people read anything that is not in an airport bookstore. Neither mainstream conservatives. Malcom Gladwell is as edgy as a liberal person will get. Glenn Beck is as edgy as a conservative will get. Pre-Obama liberal people may have bought a Chomsky book that they put on their coffee table when friends are over, but never actually read. Post-Obama, I suspect that's gone too. That's why both are such good evangelists for the RNC & DNC (or whatever from wherever). Instead of burning books, make people feel shame for reading dangerous books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| i watched argo last night. While it is a propaganda film it clearly does outline the cause of the mess was the Americans in the beginning. The only real problem is that the viewer is swayed more by emotions of anxiety and fear seen by the American side. The movie pearl harbor had similar problems. Nobody remembers the beginning of the film where it is clearly explained what the American side did to the Japanese to provoke their attack. |
I have not seen Argo yet, and that is not what this post is about. Getting to the point, I would agree that Americans are very much at fault for origins of the mess in Iran. However, if you think that the US is at fault for the cause of Pearl Harbor, then I think you have been reading too much online propaganda. Certainly, it is true that the US put an oil embargo on Japan due to its concerns about Japan's war activities. But who chose to start a war and empire building exercise along with an alliance with Hitler? Japan did. Modern day revisionism of blaming the US for somehow forcing Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, is simply propaganda allowing Japan to avoid acknowledging its historical responsibility in one of many incidents where it was clearly wrong. |
So you admit that there was an oil embargo.
Now admit that doing so is an act of war in itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| i watched argo last night. While it is a propaganda film it clearly does outline the cause of the mess was the Americans in the beginning. The only real problem is that the viewer is swayed more by emotions of anxiety and fear seen by the American side. The movie pearl harbor had similar problems. Nobody remembers the beginning of the film where it is clearly explained what the American side did to the Japanese to provoke their attack. |
I have not seen Argo yet, and that is not what this post is about. Getting to the point, I would agree that Americans are very much at fault for origins of the mess in Iran. However, if you think that the US is at fault for the cause of Pearl Harbor, then I think you have been reading too much online propaganda. Certainly, it is true that the US put an oil embargo on Japan due to its concerns about Japan's war activities. But who chose to start a war and empire building exercise along with an alliance with Hitler? Japan did. Modern day revisionism of blaming the US for somehow forcing Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, is simply propaganda allowing Japan to avoid acknowledging its historical responsibility in one of many incidents where it was clearly wrong. |
So you admit that there was an oil embargo.
Now admit that doing so is an act of war in itself. |
No, I will not submit to your hyperbole. Japan could have limited its empire building or stopped altogether not to mention other atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking, and then entered negotiations over the oil issue with the US. It was Japan's choice to make it into a war. Needless to say, General Yamamoto warned that doing so would be like waking a sleeping giant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
From wikipedia: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes."
An essential piece of "propaganda" is intention, as in trying to sway opinion by presenting a favorable (or unfavorable) view of a certain site of an issue.
Argo is no doubt a highly dramatized take on a real life event. This same description also applies to countless other Hollywood movies that are not labeled as paranoia. What we do not see in Argo is intentional warping of information in order to change people's thinking; we simply see a highly dramatized story in a Hollywood style .
So is Argo historically accurate? Somewhat. Is it a true-to-life depiction of historic events? Obviously no. Is it biased towards sensationalism in order to become more exciting and/or appeal to an audience? Of course, it's a Hollywood movie. Is it trying to alter the opinions of the American population about the Iranian people? Only Ben Affleck knows for sure, but I certainly didn't see any examples of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
