The MSNBC Liberals aren't getting a crash course in how Hasbara works

I was thinking more like the well-meaning libs who oppose war or want to see military aid to Israel being stopped.

Being called a Hamas-sympathiser is going to be a slap in the face and I think it's going to make them realise how often Hasbara trolls resort to claiming everything is Hamas. It would be hard to go back to believing the narratives coming out of Israel after a wake-up call like that.

The link to the quote or something else?

Here's the excerpt from the book:

Show

It's all good. I quite enjoy digging through archives and it's useful work because it contributes to the body of knowledge that is available.

"I know you are here to @ me. Ping, mod, you are only going to fill my inbox."

— Che Guevara's last words, probably

I haven't actually read it, I just got the book and searched for the quote so you'd know better than I do.

It's there in chapter 37, about a page or two in but it doesn't cite a source.

I'm talking about trusting him and his work, not the tweet.

The strategic blunders from the Democrats on all levels is incredible. They're throwing the progressive anti-war libs to the left, they're giving well-meaning libs an experiential crash course in how Hasbara propaganda works.

The way they have been peeling people off of liberalism recently is just remarkable.

Likely paraphrased from this speech in 1959:

And this confidence we have in the Cuban people, which we have always had, is that we had when we reached the coasts of Cuba with 82 men, which we had when those men were reduced to a handful of 10 or 12, which we had in the most difficult moments, such as that defeat which was for us the first revolutionary battle, the faith we had when we were in prison and in exile, the faith which allowed us to be confident that if indeed we said as we did on that occasion that with a continuation of the campaigns against the revolutionary courts, we could rally a million Cubans in front of the presidential palace, we would be proven correct, that faith which led us to say that if we continued the campaigns against the agrarian reform, saying that the peasants did not want it, we could rally a half a million peasants with their machetes in the capital of the republic.

Given that this quote is often mentioned as coming from a speech in 1959 and the similarities in the wording.

The only other close match I could get from Castro speeches from this year is from this one, which is less of a match:

No one can allege that I am speaking as a demagogue. No one can charge that I am seeking to assuage the people. I have given ample proof of my faith in the people because when I landed with 82 men on the beaches of Cuba and people said we were mad, and asked us why we thought we could win the war, we replied, "Because we have the people behind us!" And when we were defeated for the first time, and only a handful of men were left and yet we persisted in the struggle, we knew that this would be the outcome because we had faith in the people. When they dispersed us five times in forty-five days and we met up together again and renewed the struggle, it was because we had faith in the people. Today is the most palpable demonstration of the fact that our faith was justified. I have the greatest satisfaction in the knowledge that I believed so deeply in the people of Cuba and in having inspired my companions with this same faith. This faith is more than faith. It is complete security. This same faith that we have in you is the faith we wish you to have in us always.

Some speculation:

This could have come from an early translation or a newspaper report in English where the translation was rushed or poorly-done but due to it appearing in a major newspaper it could have entered "canon" and since that point has become part of the circular-referencing that occurs in the media, unless it comes from a speech that I do not have access to.

This quote could also have been a conscious distortion of what Fidel said by being overly liberal with how his words were paraphrased - note how the quote in the image plays to this idea of some authoritarian dictator who seized power for himself in a coup whereas in his actual speeches he talks about having the support of the masses.

I'm not saying that he does bad journalism or there's no value in his work, I just don't trust him.

His coverage can be skewed and there's a difference between being strategic about your coverage and consciously sidling up to the agents of imperialism and acting as their stenographer. Take this podcast episode of his on the Uyghur issue. Set aside the editorial position that he takes on the Uyghur issue itself and listen to the way he never attempts to question how his guest arrives at any of his claims, no matter how outrageous and impossible to verify, and note how he never pushes back on a single issue. Watch to see how long it takes before he mentions his guest's employer and affiliation - you wouldn't know throughout the entire episode, perhaps at all if you (like most people) skip the end credits of a podcast episode. Even if you figure out who he is and who he works for, the damage is largely done because the audience's skepticism is not primed throughout the episode where Hanrahan does his best Joe Rogan impression of naively swallowing his guest's every claim without an ounce of skepticism.

Nathan Ruser works for the ASPI, an Australian non-government organisation which receives most of its funding from the Australian government but which also receives a good deal of funding from military contractors. They are a far right organisation that directly influences Australian military and foreign policy, much like how the RAND Corporation does for the US.

Ruser manufactures consent for the war machine. He works hand in glove with the military-industrial complex. Hanrahan positions himself as being on the left and of being "anti-authoritarian". He's more slick than the crass NAFO bros who position themselves as libertarian leftists or anarcho-somethings but he is of the same ilk. The anti-authoritarian acting like a dupe swallowing a war hawk's agenda to instigate war with China? Come on.

To me, he's like a Robert Evans figure - I give them too much credit to say that they are fools. I think it's quite obvious that they are intelligent, thoughtful, and very capable of being critical. What interests me is how they both seem to flip a switch in their brains and suddenly, strategically, they turn all of that off. Evans is anarchist-adjacent yet he works for Bellingcat and collaborates with intelligence and the feds, and he pushes interventionism. Hanrahan, while not being as directly connected to these things, is very close to them and he seems to be perfectly comfortable with them.

Like I said, I don't trust him. There's nothing about someone who presents themselves as being radical-ish who is pro-NATO, pro-interventionist, and is completely at ease with the MI-Complex and government cutouts that I trust.

It's all good.

I'm glad to hear that your therapist has a measured approach to this stuff, I genuinely hate being in a position of criticising a therapist or a clinician as an outsider based on second-hand info because there's a lot of layers of complexity within that and I think it's kinda wrecker shit to go and mess with what's going on within the consultation room, except where there's a clear example of something being really wrong. Hence why you hear me talking in generalities and encouraging caution or speaking about trends without making any direct statements about someone's therapist except where they've really fucked up.

The subjectivity of it kinda sucks honestly. I wish I could just take a blood test or something and know 100% what's up with me

Indeed. It would make things so much easier.

Those who do not stand for something will fall for anything

The person who tweeted this, Jake Hanrahan, isn't someone I trust and I'd encourage other people to be cautious about him and his work. He's too cosy with the agents of imperialism, he doesn't strike me as a person who is anything more than aligned with the left (mostly) due to opportunism, and personally I'm kinda waiting on his Tim Pool arc.

I think 12/1 Mbps runs around $60 a month in Australia. It's possible to get it a bit cheaper but those are usually plans that have a data allocation.

Wasn't NBN supposed to be a National Broadband Network

Yeah. Apparently it was killed by lobbying to ensure dependence on cable TV and traditional news media. It's not entirely different to what happened in the US that one time.

Internal stimuli is not given nearly the amount of attention it deserves however it is absolutely one of the ways that we sense things. In fact, the name we give it is interception.

Our brains do not distinguish between an stimuli from an external source, like hearing a sound, and an internal source, like tinnitus. Sure, there's probably some subtle distinction somewhere along the way but in the most direct sense, your brain is stimulated by the experience regardless of the source itself.

Being emotionally overwhelmed can cause meltdowns and shutdowns just as easily as being overwhelmed by external stimuli.

Talked with my therapist and she said this is extremely OCD pilled

Without further information it isn't possible to determine what the cause of this is however I'd urge caution about jumping to either conclusion as autistic perseveration and stimming can look extremely close to OCD behaviours and most therapists are far more fluent in working with people who have OCD than they are with autistic people.

I've never polled therapists on this but if you asked most therapists to list the modes of sensory perception I'd guess that you're gonna get 5, maybe 6. The chances of them getting proprioception, vestibular, and interception are slim. Especially interception. (I'd be genuinely interested to know how a typical occupational therapist performs in this regard too and if they would manage to include interception.)

Therapists can be really good at what they do but they tend to suffer from the curse of the engineer and they are likely to presume that their expertise exceeds the bounds of their knowledge. Not making a call either way on this one but I'd do more exploring before I'd settle on a conclusion and I'd also be weighing the therapist's opinion against how thoroughly they investigated this with you - did they listen and give an opinion? Did they ask you pointed questions that made it seem as if they were weighing your responses against different models? Did they ask you things like "What would/what does happen if you forced yourself to stop this behaviour"? etc. etc.

"We're experts on politics!!"

Check out what comparable internet speeds cost in Australia

Show

Honestly it would be great to make a best-of post if you ever felt inclined to do it. Compiling everything into one masterpost with links would make it a great resource for others.

I can't speak for anyone else but if there's any effortposts that I've made that you think would fit into that the by all means add them in as well.

I was there last Saturday for a couple hours, it was super nice and I would totally join again. I just have a different Steam name... I was the one talking about making close relationships with ND people and emotional intensity, going by swtich.

It was great having you there and I'm really glad that you enjoyed being in the server.

Would you like me to add you to the ping list so you get notified of future announcements about Drop-Ins and when they go live?

I've added you to the ping list. You'll get notified of the upcoming announcements and when the server goes live :)

But not anything I have ever put time into, or am good at, or am knowledgeable enough to hold a conversation.

I agree that it sounds a lot like you're describing dysthymia but a hobby doesn't need to be something that you are good at or an expert in; you can be a terrible artist or a cook who barely knows how to make a single dish and that's completely fine because a hobby is something you do because you are passionate about it and you find it personally interesting or rewarding on some level. Some hobbyists are extremely knowledgeable and skillful in their interest but many - I'd argue most - are not, and that's completely fine.

If you bounce between hobbies, that's completely fine. Maybe you haven't found a consuming passion yet or maybe bouncing between hobbies is what suits you best. Or maybe life is particularly demanding or your mental health isn't great and so you can't dedicate much time towards hobbies right now, if you can dedicate any time towards them, and that's pretty common too.