this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
153 points (98.7% liked)

Slop.

356 readers
625 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] red_stapler@hexbear.net 78 points 1 month ago (2 children)

parenti-hands During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you for saving me the time it would take to post this

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is this from Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing consent?

[–] red_stapler@hexbear.net 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Presuming this isn’t a bit, it’s from Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Ah, okay. That's one I haven't gotten around to yet. I know Noam is pretty libby nowadays but manufacturing consent is a good introduction to how the western media apparatus functions.

Edit: apparently I did listen to it on audible before, but it's been a while and it takes me a few listens before I start downloading it into my brain because I normally listen to communist audiobooks in the background at work

[–] nohaybanda@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Dw, we tend to spam this so much you’ll memorise it before you know it

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

I recognized the quote, probably because it's spammed so much

Just didn't know where I remembered it from, everything blends together for me.

[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While the quote is from Blackshirts and Reds, Parenti made another work very similar to Manufacturing Consent called Inventing Reality.

[–] HelluvaBottomCarter@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago

Parenti's came out first and is much better than Noam "Little Saint James" Chomsky's