• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Putin's complaint

Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
20,632
Location
Ivory Tower
Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com takes a look at the cause of the whiny response of US pre$$titutes to V.V. Putin's Valdai speech.

Justin Raimondo said:
[...] The editorialists and the neocon pundits are up in arms over the Valdai speech precisely because Putin is absolutely right about what he calls the "legal nihilism" of the US and its satellites. And of course they weren’t exactly pleased to hear the Russian leader’s denunciation of America’s "total control of the global mass media" which "has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white."

Our Western "democrats" are bound to choke at this point, yelping about the alleged near-total control of the Russian media by Putin & Co. Yet this only underscores Putin’s point: the source of their anger is that anyone, anywhere on earth, deviates from the party line as dictated by Washington and its captive media, which speak with one voice when it comes to foreign affairs.

If we look at the international competition between nations in terms of ecology, it’s clear what is the problem. Like a population of rats that has suddenly been allowed to reproduce beyond its natural boundaries due to a lack of predators – say, bears – to balance them out, the Americans have gone swarming across the globe, undermining the natural ecological balance and taking out everything and everyone in their path. This is where our "victory" in the cold war has led us – into a position very much like that of the old Soviet Union before Stalin reduced Soviet ideology to a strictly defensive posture of "socialism in one country." We have switched roles with the Russians, who are now the status quo power, in opposition to our own role as a revisionist revolutionary power seeking to destroy what little stability the world has left.

Ah, irony – thy name is history.
 
Last edited:
Justin is an uber-conservative libertarian whacktard. I know it's hard for you to pass on anyone who says something nice about Vladi, but he's a nutbar.


Even if this were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't change the fact that Justin is right about Putin being right and you are engaging in tired and unworthy ad hominem nonsense.
 
Even if this were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't change the fact that Justin is right about Putin being right and you are engaging in tired and unworthy ad hominem nonsense.

No. We abuse the term ad hom around here. An ad hom would be "Justin doesn't like vanilla pudding so he's obviously incapable of making a political judgement." Pointing out that someone who fancies himself a political pundit is consistently wrong-headed is not an ad hom unless you successfully limit the conversation to a true/false scenario.

It makes no difference whether I agree with Putin or disagree with him. I still would not cite David Duke to support my position. You effectively muddy your own waters, if not poison your own well.
 
No. We abuse the term ad hom around here. An ad hom would be "Justin doesn't like vanilla pudding so he's obviously incapable of making a political judgement." Pointing out that someone who fancies himself a political pundit is consistently wrong-headed is not an ad hom unless you successfully limit the conversation to a true/false scenario.

It makes no difference whether I agree with Putin or disagree with him. I still would not cite David Duke to support my position. You effectively muddy your own waters, if not poison your own well.


A "libertarian whacktard" is as good as "not liking vanilla pudding". I actually don't care for vanilla pudding very much myself. Which leads us to the fact that you try to use your own "good-bad" political compass, which you falsely think I share, to discredit a person making an argument. Which is behaviour savely covered by what we critical thinkers call ad hominem.
 
A "libertarian whacktard" is as good as "not liking vanilla pudding". I actually don't care for vanilla pudding very much myself. Which leads us to the fact that you try to use your own "good-bad" political compass, which you falsely think I share, to discredit a person making an argument. Which is behaviour savely covered by what we critical thinkers call ad hominem.

We'll just leave it at that, then. You're right.
 
Wow, now the weekend can come. I've been right on the internet! :yahoo

I'll use the opportunity to plug the Scott Horton Show, formerly known as "Anti-War Radio". Scott is very self-aware of his libertarian ideology in his ads about promoting "great state hate" on bumper stickers and being good at "blaming everything on Woodrow Wilson", but (and I should have used a qualifier while writing that you "falsely" belief that I share your political compass) provides excellent conversations with very knowledgeable people about geopolitics.

As to Raimondo being right about what he says about Putin being right in the first two paragraphs I quoted (and added after your first response), the book by the following guy about how "transatlantic" lobbyists control/influence the German media has been bestseller Nr.1 on Amazon books, which is huge, a couple of days ago and is still in the Top 20 right now.

 
Freedom and not-freedom are not two equally arbitrary, and therefore equally valid, states for humanity to live in.

Putin is free to yabber all he wants in the west; the opposite is not true. The only reason his nation-dominating memeplex is doing so in Russia is because he violently shut down opposition.

There are many funky idiocies and twists with western freedom, but a need to violently shut down opposition is not one of them, for it to become the dominant memeplex.

That's all anyone really needs to know. Sans violence and threats and government control, he would not, in fact, be dominating Russia.

Therefore Putin's point is in error.
 
Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com takes a look at the cause of the whiny response of US pre$$titutes to V.V. Putin's Valdai speech.

This is all the opposite of the truth. He accuses the US of "legal nihilism" when Russia is the one breaking its treaty obligations to Ukraine. The US has "total control of the global mass media", except it does not. One can watch RT in the US, or Al-Jazeera or anything really, but Russia maintains much tighter control.
 
The US has "total control of the global mass media", except it does not. One can watch RT in the US, or Al-Jazeera or anything really, but Russia maintains much tighter control.
Justin Raimondo said:
Our Western "democrats" are bound to choke at this point, yelping about the alleged near-total control of the Russian media by Putin & Co. Yet this only underscores Putin’s point: the source of their anger is that anyone, anywhere on earth, deviates from the party line as dictated by Washington and its captive media, which speak with one voice when it comes to foreign affairs.


:cool:
 
Calling Western Media controlled by the government is just about the most wacky lunatic opinion out there.

I've had many friends and family that have worked for national media in both print in broadcast and they rightly laugh at the idea.
 
Calling Western Media controlled by the government is just about the most wacky lunatic opinion out there.

I've had many friends and family that have worked for national media in both print in broadcast and they rightly laugh at the idea.

Co-opted in their hilarity.
 

Back
Top Bottom