The Leftist Video Project

[Q]

This thread on the latest crap by Glenn Beck (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sigh-t127370/index.html) caused some discussion, but mostly whining. If you want to whine on how bad it all really is, please continue in that thread. From that discussion though some people responded positively to my call that perhaps it was time to start up a counteroffensive with high quality video's featuring leftist content.

For this purpose I created the Leftist Video Project usergroup (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=354). Anyone who wants to help out on camera shooting, montage/editing, script writing, voice overs and distribution is more than welcome to join it.

This thread serves more to discuss possible topics that could be featured. I'm separating that from the usergroup for two reasons:
1. I want such a discussion among as wide a public as possible to see what is needed and wanted.
2. I don't want to cludge up the usergroup with such discussions, diverting attention from production related discussions.

Now, I see a few "subgenres" for these political video's:
1) Refutations of anti-communist propaganda and "general knowledge"
2) Explain tendencies and more advanced theories
3) Answer basic questions for learners
4) Explain the problems of capitalism and what the socialist/anarchist alternative entails

If you have more ideas for "subgenres", concrete topics that should be addressed, ideas on the content of a topic and related issues, please discuss them :)

[Patchd]

Don't ever get the guy who did the vocals for that animated 'Manifestoon' (Communist Manifesto on youtube), his voice sends you to sleep.

[Q]

Don't ever get the guy who did the vocals for that animated 'Manifestoon' (Communist Manifesto on youtube), his voice sends you to sleep.
You mean this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znMkqEnO6d4

I totally agree :rolleyes:

[Patchd]

Yeah that one :thumbdown::lol: ... and no one with as much a boring voice as him as well.

[Imposter Marxist]

I'd love to help out! Great idea.

[Tyrlop]

Very great idea! I'm in! I can make a logo if needed! I can help with writing(as assistent) i'm good at finding footage clips! i can draw cartoons! I can find background music or anything like that.

[Lyev]

I would like to focus less on socialist/Marxist theory just to start with, and focus more on how capitalist injustices affect people in their day to lives. It's the best way of engaging people. I constantly get the piss taken out of me by friends for talking "Marxist bullshit" as they call it. It's like whenever I open my mouth now to talk about something serious or political it's like: "Oh no, here he goes again..." Using specialist terms tends to push people rather than interest them, I find. It would be good to do maybe a bit about how the capitalist system always fails and how this affects the ordinary, every-day workers right at the bottom. :) Or maybe starting with some statistics or facts. Short, easily digestible facts like: "World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers" and "According to HM Revenue and Customs, in 2003, 71% of all financial wealth in the UK was owned by just 10% of the population. To go on property ownership, the least wealthy 50% of the population only own about 7% of all wealth in the UK in 2003.". It would be cool if we could start every video with a little quote or thought-provoking fact. Just my two cents :)

[Chambered Word]

I would like to focus less on socialist/Marxist theory just to start with, and focus more on how capitalist injustices affect people in their day to lives. It's the best way of engaging people. I constantly get the piss taken out of me by friends for talking "Marxist bullshit" as they call it. It's like whenever I open my mouth now to talk about something serious or political it's like: "Oh no, here he goes again..." Using specialist terms tends to push people rather than interest them, I find. It would be good to do maybe a bit about how the capitalist system always fails and how this affects the ordinary, every-day workers right at the bottom. :) Or maybe starting with some statistics or facts. Short, easily digestible facts like: "World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers" and "According to HM Revenue and Customs, in 2003, 71% of all financial wealth in the UK was owned by just 10% of the population. To go on property ownership, the least wealthy 50% of the population only own about 7% of all wealth in the UK in 2003.". It would be cool if we could start every video with a little quote or thought-provoking fact. Just my two cents :)

Excellent. :) For the comrades who have anti-commie friends, videos might be a great help. Instead of going through every little detail about communism, why capitalism fails etc you could just link them to the videos perhaps.

Anyway, sign me up Q. :D

[Q]

I agree with Expropriate. I liked Zeitgeist Addendum for the fact it uses down to Earth language people can understand to explain difficult problems.

[KurtFF8]

As I posted in the group: I think we should focus on a sort of Q and A about Capitalism and perhaps go from there.

I also think we should start approaching certain organizations about this to see if they'd be interested in helping out in some capacity.

[Robocommie]

I'm interested in contributing to this, though I'm not sure how much help I could be. I used to study Communications and am a practiced public speaker, perhaps some voice over work?

[Q]

I'm interested in contributing to this, though I'm not sure how much help I could be. I used to study Communications and am a practiced public speaker, perhaps some voice over work?
Join the contest (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3174) :)

[cb9's_unity]

Is this meant to directly oppose video's by Glen Beck? I've seen his show a few times and he never stops about his supposed use of "facts".

I think it might be useful to push the "factual" validity of the arguments in the communist video's. This means making video's that are very specific to Beck's anti-communist claims and whenever possible using bourgeois sources in order to dissuade capitalists from challenging the validity of our sources.

[Rusty Shackleford]

that was the inspiration but i think this can turn into a community project for us to possibly produce more than just videos to "refute Beck" which if that is the sole purpose, is somewhat childish(if it is the only thing this ends up doing).

[NecroCommie]

Is this meant to directly oppose video's by Glen Beck? I've seen his show a few times and he never stops about his supposed use of "facts".

I think it might be useful to push the "factual" validity of the arguments in the communist video's. This means making video's that are very specific to Beck's anti-communist claims and whenever possible using bourgeois sources in order to dissuade capitalists from challenging the validity of our sources.
This idea is awsome, and not at all difficult. It really isn't that hard to take down capitalist arguments point by point. This goes especially when one has a lot of conflicting bourgeois sources.

Issues I deem fundamental to all left would be:
a) Class war. It does exist, but why.
b) Abolishing private ownership of the means of production. Why is it necessary.

[Tablo]

I would like to make sure this video(s) does not focus entirely on a Marxist perspective and provide that as the only valid alternative. I think we should give voice to both the Marxist and Anarchist Communist trends.

[cb9's_unity]

This idea is awsome, and not at all difficult. It really isn't that hard to take down capitalist arguments point by point. This goes especially when one has a lot of conflicting bourgeois sources.

Issues I deem fundamental to all left would be:
a) Class war. It does exist, but why.
b) Abolishing private ownership of the means of production. Why is it necessary.

In regards to B I think it would best to first frame the question as "what is the communist belief about property". We should explain the differences between personal property and private property and explain that communists have no problem with the former but reject the latter. From there we could go on to explain in depth our belief about the abolition of private property.

[RedSonRising]

I think your list of subgenres is good, and while this may be part of refuting, I think that using concrete visual examples of successes in socialist government policies throughout the world in its history, and even partial attempts. Some would say socialism has never been realized, others would say that nearly all Marxist-Leninist States in history were largely successful socialist societies. Regardless of the two general sides from which examples of socialism would spring, there are easier and less controversial examples, past and present, that are able to be used (such as the generally humane and successful autonomous Zapatista regions, worker-run Spain during the Civil War, different versions of the Kibbutz-Israeli society). On the other side, we may use some key nearly universally recognized positive aspects of more controversial Countries, such as Cuba, Yugoslavia, and the USSR, regardless of their rigid definition in nature as a mode of production.

Theory is vital to the understanding of the socialist cause and political process as a movement, and this is surely a part of refutation, but I think a focus on the visible material attempts and successes of the proletariat would greatly educate viewers and empirically solidify the socialist argument. If presented in a compact way, this addition could cement an understanding and irrevocable truth that would do wonders for the cause anywhere and everywhere this production might reach.

[Tatarin]

A very good incentive. For narration, you could take a look on this demo:

http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html

Well, maybe not, but anyway... :) (i.e., have fun)

In any case, I think that what most people are interested in hearing is an easily explained solution. I don't know about you, but pure logic and sound arguments "turns me on". I mean, instead of starting with Marx and Lenin, perhaps the "first part" of the video is to lay out the problems on the table. What is wrong with the world? Why do people hate each other, I thought violence never solved anything? Why don't everyone have a job? Are they lazy? Did they have bad parents? And so on.

Let's use some sources. I'll bet that not one ordinary person is completely satisfied in today's situation. What about stress and psychological problems? Are we becoming rich or poor?

In short, start with the questions about what is bad. Then one could continue with the current solutions: open markets, are they helping? Thus, first making the viewer question the world. Secondly, focus could be directed at countries that is considered "not good", and pointing out, for example Russia, why people support say Putin or Medvedev. Why is the west opposing him? What was good with Jeltsin?

I think the biggest obstacle is that when Marx's face is shown, it is "game over". "Aha, another communist video!" This obstacle could be overcome if the video is directed in the way of making the human life better, not trying to make people 'come over' to Marxism. To show that it is not about capitalism or democracy or healthcare, but who has the power and how it is used.

Anyway, a good informative video is "Capitalism and other kids stuff":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sji093Q-9Qc

He basically sums it up pretty good. Maybe someone could contact him and make a second edition? :)

[GPDP]

I think the biggest obstacle is that when Marx's face is shown, it is "game over". "Aha, another communist video!" This obstacle could be overcome if the video is directed in the way of making the human life better, not trying to make people 'come over' to Marxism. To show that it is not about capitalism or democracy or healthcare, but who has the power and how it is used.

I agree with this part. If we're going to bring up famous socialists, I think it'd be best to bring up the less controversial figures, such as Eugene V. Debs.

[cop an Attitude]

I have a documentary that I just recently finished about the Pittsburgh G20 that may be of some use. I went down there for the 2 days and taped everything I could see and everyone that was willing to voice their opinions. I'm just trying to get it around and hopefully it will be YouTube ready soon. Some of the footage is pretty heavy and the sheer number of police officers was staggering, not to mention their attack on the U-Pitt. I'll put it up or link it on the group's page once its uploaded if anyone's interested.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I agree with this part. If we're going to bring up famous socialists, I think it'd be best to bring up the less controversial figures, such as Eugene V. Debs.
i agree with this. using more recent and relevant socialists would be best.

[APathToTake]

Expropriate is right. I think it would be best to try to ease people into it, before we dive into the deep end.

I'm also willing to help in any way I can, even if it's only spreading the word of the videos.
I really like this idea:)

[Tablo]

I have a documentary that I just recently finished about the Pittsburgh G20 that may be of some use. I went down there for the 2 days and taped everything I could see and everyone that was willing to voice their opinions. I'm just trying to get it around and hopefully it will be YouTube ready soon. Some of the footage is pretty heavy and the sheer number of police officers was staggering, not to mention their attack on the U-Pitt. I'll put it up or link it on the group's page once its uploaded if anyone's interested.
I would be interested. I followed all the stuff going on at the event and it would be nice to see some decent footage.

[Robocommie]

i agree with this. using more recent and relevant socialists would be best.

And I further support this, for what it's worth.

[Q]

I'm not against featuring people per se, but agree that we should start out with "what is wrong with society?". Also, when featuring people like Marx or Debs, we might want to think the issue through of ethnocentrism. Related to this, on a later stage, we might want to think about internationalisation of the content (ideally we only minimally have to edit image content and do new voice overs, less ideally we have to rethink on our actual content we depict and if it isn't too relient on American/European culture).

[Q]

Anyway, a good informative video is "Capitalism and other kids stuff":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sji093Q-9Qc

He basically sums it up pretty good. Maybe someone could contact him and make a second edition? :)
Ah yes, saw that video a few years ago and I agree it is a great example of what we could do :)

[cop an Attitude]

I think that our internationality could play a major factor. It can give a global voice to a global issue in way that the average joe could watch on his laptop. Maybe if we all had projects, footage, local activism and professorial history panels it could actually turn out quite impressive.

I'm a student so I know I could get some Ph.Ds on camera talking about, corporate domination, media manipulation, white privilege, dialectical theory, what have you. We could go in deeper and get some real solid topic testimonials too from different individuals and use it as a narrative. Then have footage from whatever public domain, personal or free video we can find. I have some from G20, i'm sure if we post a thread "footage wanted for mass revleft documentary" comrades would respond. We could get music from leftist bands, because they won't sue for copyright infringement (although contacting them before finalizing would be need). We can compile Greece, the Olympics, G20/8s, R/DNCs, Iran, or really anything into a project that could really visualize our world through a clear lenses. Maybe even touch on current issues and explain the IMF's role in Haiti's demise, but thats still a bit hot.

It sounds big, and thats because it very well has the potential to be. A project with a hundred different contributors is already large, not to mention the viral capabilities of the revleft community and beyond. It might seem like a pipe dream but it seems all fairly easy to do with enough cooperation, communication and coordination.

If anyone likes this idea then lets start by getting a library of good, legitimate footage or audio together. Once we come across enough goodies then we can all map out the rest. Go out and find any sort of usable, non-copywriten media.
Happy hunting :cool:

[Tablo]

I agree. This has some serious potential with such a large revolutionary community. We are the largest gathering of English speaking leftists online so if anyone could do it then it is certainly us. :)

[Tatarin]

On another hand, the approach could be to at first release some "demos", one where Marx through Guevara is featured, another without any mentions of the left, and some in-between, and see what people react to the most. Also, could it be useful to start at the local level, connect to the national, and then international?

[Tablo]

On another hand, the approach could be to at first release some "demos", one where Marx through Guevara is featured, another without any mentions of the left, and some in-between, and see what people react to the most. Also, could it be useful to start at the local level, connect to the national, and then international?
I think it would be better to do the real deal first as a rough draft, then show it to all the people we can find like conservatives and apolitical individuals. That way we can gage how effective the film is and make changes before the final release to ensure the best impact on the average person. We could make a viewer response form to have people fill out after watching the film so we can get some good feed-back from people who do not already have a class conscious perspective.

[KurtFF8]

It would also be nice to get something as high quality as "The Corporation" with the level of people interviewed, etc. but make it a more general critique of Capitalism

[Robocommie]

I think it would be better to do the real deal first as a rough draft, then show it to all the people we can find like conservatives and apolitical individuals. That way we can gage how effective the film is and make changes before the final release to ensure the best impact on the average person. We could make a viewer response form to have people fill out after watching the film so we can get some good feed-back from people who do not already have a class conscious perspective.

This is an excellent idea, I think.

[cop an Attitude]

Maybe we should start writing a basic history and fact summary. Have it scripted out so we can plan around it. Also I liked the idea of demos too, its a good way to gage our progress and get some material out there. I might start working on some things here and there as well. Is there a site or a place we could all converge our materials and share them with one another (file sharing?).

[Lyev]

Some fronts to attack capitalism on:

- Unemployment
- Imperialism
- Economic Instability
- War
- Ineffiency and wastage
- Exploitation and greed
- Colonialism
- Undemocratic
- Globalization
(with all the above, it helps our case a lot when we can coherently correlate these points with contemporary examples (sorry there's a lot of C's there :lol:))

Also, I like the metaphor I heard somewhere (maybe on here) that capitalism is a half-dead patient that the doctor (bail-outs and politicians etc.) is always struggling to keep on the brink of life. Ie. capitalism can't just keep trying to re-invent itself from within the system when stuff gets bad and affects the people who prop it up (workers) the most. That's just some ideas for some topics/script ideas to begin with.

[Nolan]

When we finally get around to discussing the Marxist/Anarchist alternative, it would help to debunk some of the common arguments. For example should take that vid "Milton Friedman - Socialism vs. Capitalism" and dub it over. It would be more...personal to the propertarians. :)

[RedSonRising]

Another idea that sprung up- including little "outings" of well known and celebrated figures that are simultaneously unknown self-described socialists and Marxists, such as Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, even MLK, with strikingly red quotations as a fire-starter. Once people start doubting their conceptions of "good" or "smart" or "important" individuals, they will start questioning why such information is hidden and by what apparatus such social thoughts are precipitated (enter rest of film.) This will allow people to see other humans being leftists who are known and recognized for other aspects of their life, and realize that normal people can have an opinion that differs so much from the generally accepted modern reality.

I agree, as posted before, that starting such a film off with the direct mention of major leftist terms for theories and models may be dangerous, and that human progress should be a way to introduce any proposed concepts...however the answers should be called what they are and hiding from the public behind friendly labels beating around the bush won't get us far. If there is a fear of immediate disgust and eye-rolling by mainstream viewers, then I think an opening with general questions and statements concerning the ills of modern society, with some history, will allow the reader to agree on a base level and stick around. After the sob story of humanity today, a narrowing down and link of those negative aspects made to the capitalist system would work perfectly, with appropriate and accurate explanations of the system. Solutions can than be vaguely described, maybe some small examples, and then "wait a minute- this idea sounds like RED TYRANNY." Then the more acute explorations of theories and tendencies of the revolutionary left, and a nice debunking session, leading into some modern/recent examples to examine the diverse incarnations but concretely similar goals and aspirations found within the left.

Didn't mean to pompously try and pan out the movie progression, but it came to mind as I remembered other posts with such concerns and suggestions.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's a joy to read this thread! It's about time we counter the idiocy of the anti-capitalists. You guys rock!

I suggest we seek the help of Brendan McCoone, the guy who does the Kapitalism 101 blog. He has a bunch of excellent videos on youtube.

Also, what really helped me understand a lot of the basics was Anarchist FAQs section entitled Myths of the Capitalist Economy.

[Tablo]

It's a joy to read this thread! It's about time we counter the idiocy of the anti-capitalists. You guys rock!

I suggest we seek the help of Brendan McCoone, the guy who does the Kapitalism 101 blog. He has a bunch of excellent videos on youtube.

Also, what really helped me understand a lot of the basics was Anarchist FAQs section entitled Myths of the Capitalist Economy.
I agree. He is one of my favorite subs on youtube.

I can't believe this isn't something we decided to do sooner! This is the stuff we should have been focusing on all along, but I guess no one ever bothered posting the suggestion. We have such a large community(for a revolutionary leftist site) that we should be able to get this all done quite effectively. Many here are well educated on the various Communist ideologies and critiques of the failure we know as Capitalism. I do not think any gathering of individuals would be more worthy of approaching such a project than RevLeft, despite the sectarian conflict we have.

[cop an Attitude]

I do not think any gathering of individuals would be more worthy of approaching such a project than RevLeft, despite the sectarian conflict we have.

I think that's where the individual demos come into play. Whether it be Maoist to Anarchism to just plain old hating on the system, I think there's room for every opinion. Offering multiple solutions to all the problems could let the viewer make up their mind on what seems best for their ideology. It's opens a much more pragmatic scope on things, almost passively radicalizing. This all sounds like it has real capabilities.

[Robocommie]

Having seen Glenn Beck's little propaganda show last night, it occurs to me that it'd also be a good idea to discuss the methods of distribution of anything this project produces. Naturally it might do well to put off such concerns until we have something to distribute, but I don't think just putting it up on Youtube will really suffice anymore.

Also, comrades, would anyone have any objections to me going elsewhere to find Leftists who might be interested in contributing? A close friend of mine is an Anarcho-syndicalist with a lot of interest in video production, and friends in that business in LA.

[Chambered Word]

Having seen Glenn Beck's little propaganda show last night, it occurs to me that it'd also be a good idea to discuss the methods of distribution of anything this project produces. Naturally it might do well to put off such concerns until we have something to distribute, but I don't think just putting it up on Youtube will really suffice anymore.


We'll torrent it on a few sites as well. Anywhere we can find to put our videos, we'll distribute them to. We will however need a few dedicated torrenters to seed it now and then.

[leninpuncher]

I'd be happy helping to research material, providing ideas and so on, but I think I can see a conflict in the making.

There are parts of Glenn Beck's propaganda that we can all tackle together; the assertion that Hitler was a socialist for example. But how are we going to collectively tackle subjects like Stalin's purges? A part of us would argue that Stalin had nothing to do with socialism, but another part would want to defend and justify the purges, as well as Stalin.

Maybe we'd take a poll to decide which position to argue?

[Nolan]

I'd be happy helping to research material, providing ideas and so on, but I think I can see a conflict in the making.

There are parts of Glenn Beck's propaganda that we can all tackle together; the assertion that Hitler was a socialist for example. But how are we going to collectively tackle subjects like Stalin's purges? A part of us would argue that Stalin had nothing to do with socialism, but another part would want to defend and justify the purges, as well as Stalin.

Maybe we'd take a poll to decide which position to argue?

Perhaps we should find a way to show both positions.

[Robocommie]

Perhaps we should find a way to show both positions.

In fact I think this is the best way to do it. Not only will it be a way to air our views, it will also go a long way to promoting the reality that socialism is a very complex, wide ranging ideology in which its adherents have many opinions on things. We are both authoritarian and libertarian, both statist and anti-statist. That is in many ways both our strength and our weakness. We should show that.

Beck wants to cast this as being about Conservativism versus Secret Nazis, which is horseshit.

[Tablo]

I agree. On the major things we all agree on we should work as a whole, but when focusing on smaller things we should keep things divided up. It would be awful to have the Marxist-Leninists do a video on Anarchism or the Anarchists doing a video on Stalin.

[cop an Attitude]

Also, comrades, would anyone have any objections to me going elsewhere to find Leftists who might be interested in contributing? A close friend of mine is an Anarcho-syndicalist with a lot of interest in video production, and friends in that business in LA.


Perhaps we should find a way to show both positions.


both are great ideas. If we really want to do something with this then we will have to reach past revleft. Any other local help, all the indy-medias, infoshop.org maybe? Also I would not recommend having "one solution" to capitalism. We need to offer multiple answers to multiple issues. Maybe we can make a consensus on particular ideologies (the belief of a democratic society post-capitalism, the idea that communities need to be self sustaining, renewable energies, ect.)

Expanding, planning, networking, writing and finding footage is the first of our concerns but don't underestimate the power of a global Leftist Thinktank.

[Chambered Word]

In fact I think this is the best way to do it. Not only will it be a way to air our views, it will also go a long way to promoting the reality that socialism is a very complex, wide ranging ideology in which its adherents have many opinions on things. We are both authoritarian and libertarian, both statist and anti-statist. That is in many ways both our strength and our weakness. We should show that.

Beck wants to cast this as being about Conservativism versus Secret Nazis, which is horseshit.

Robocommie pretty much hit the nail on the head.


I'd be happy helping to research material, providing ideas and so on, but I think I can see a conflict in the making.

There are parts of Glenn Beck's propaganda that we can all tackle together; the assertion that Hitler was a socialist for example. But how are we going to collectively tackle subjects like Stalin's purges? A part of us would argue that Stalin had nothing to do with socialism, but another part would want to defend and justify the purges, as well as Stalin.

Maybe we'd take a poll to decide which position to argue?

I did start a thread on this at the RevLeft group. Q seems to want to avoid the issue (for now at least) but inevitably we're going to run into Stalin, Mao and Castro.

[Lyev]

Robocommie pretty much hit the nail on the head.



I did start a thread on this at the RevLeft group. Q seems to want to avoid the issue (for now at least) but inevitably we're going to run into Stalin, Mao and Castro.

We don't wanna confront "Stalin, Mao and Castro" head-on right at the beginning, because it's not going to introduce people into leftism. But, agreed, they should be at least mentioned some way down the line.

[FSL]

I would like to focus less on socialist/Marxist theory just to start with, and focus more on how capitalist injustices affect people in their day to lives. It's the best way of engaging people. I constantly get the piss taken out of me by friends for talking "Marxist bullshit" as they call it. It's like whenever I open my mouth now to talk about something serious or political it's like: "Oh no, here he goes again..." Using specialist terms tends to push people rather than interest them, I find. It would be good to do maybe a bit about how the capitalist system always fails and how this affects the ordinary, every-day workers right at the bottom. :) Or maybe starting with some statistics or facts. Short, easily digestible facts like: "World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers" and "According to HM Revenue and Customs, in 2003, 71% of all financial wealth in the UK was owned by just 10% of the population. To go on property ownership, the least wealthy 50% of the population only own about 7% of all wealth in the UK in 2003.". It would be cool if we could start every video with a little quote or thought-provoking fact. Just my two cents :)


Using numbers can help you prove your point but just saying that "these people own that much" is not soooo much Marxism as it is generally social politics. Which would be a step up if people realized the injustice around them but wouldn't necessarily push them in the right direction.

Instead of presenting a rich/poor dichotomy there could be presented a workers/owners dichotomy. By mentioning for example that in the US and EU workers are payed with 60% of the GDP (a percentage that is on decline), which means roughly 12 trillion dollars end up to shareholders and owners anually, only in these two areas.

[Chambered Word]

We don't wanna confront "Stalin, Mao and Castro" head-on right at the beginning, because it's not going to introduce people into leftism. But, agreed, they should be at least mentioned some way down the line.

We run into that shit all the time. Most of the criticism given to communists has something to do with Stalin, Mao or Castro. I'm trying to deconstruct Beck's latest bit of bullshit and I'm running into these kinds of arguments alot.

[Pirate Utopian]

I think we should make a video that tells people we have differing views on in this case "Stalin, Mao and Castro" and then the different sides (detractors and supporters) have their own video to tell their point of view.

[Chambered Word]

I think we should make a video that tells people we have differing views on in this case "Stalin, Mao and Castro" and then the different sides (detractors and supporters) have their own video to tell their point of view.

I'm leaning towards doing this. It's the only fair way to represent the left, really.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm in. I have a lot of experience countering capitalist arguments - in fact I spend most of my Revleft time in OI, doing precisely that - so I think I could be a good script writer.

I think we need to begin with a direct, point-by-point response to Glenn Beck. All your other ideas are good too, and we definitely need to pursue them, but the most urgent task is to respond to Glenn Beck.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So, having said that, I have posted my proposal for a response video to Glenn Beck (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=3200) in the Leftist Video Project usergroup. We still need video editors, sound artists, and possibly someone to do the voiceover. Please join!

[Rusty Shackleford]

sicne youtube is not allowed in groups i posted this here incase is has not been seen by members of the group or anyone else. this should be the full thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWAAqsoRG3g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSPXhIXa4Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1tptHYz2Ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rN5AyK438w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBparzKKlxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxMx0rYk290

Pick it apart, comrades!


:star2::che::reda::castro::star::trotski::hammersi ckle:

[Chambered Word]

Here's a transcript of the entire show. If you want to download the videos from YouTube try installing the FlashGot plugin for Firefox, then you should be able to download it from the Tools menu.


Update:

This is a rush transcript from “Glenn Beck,” January 22, 2010. This copy may

not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to a special edition of “The Glenn Beck Program.”

The story of America is really one of self-reliance and optimism, and

profound faith. Not only in the context of religious freedom, but also in the

unprecedented faith in the ability of human beings to control their own

destiny.

And while the spirit of personal responsibility was extraordinarily strong

with our founders, great patriots like Thomas Paine, he argued for

redistribution of wealth right off the bat. Alexander Hamilton, he wanted a

central bank. Well, they wound up losing those battles but there were plenty

who kept can on fighting.

The Constitution kept those dogs at bay for better part of 200 years. But,

eventually, those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled

on realized the only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people

to stop reading it. Progressives realized victory required changing history.

To defeat them, we have to correct that.

//

Progressives know how powerful history is. When these truths get told and the

lies get corrected, the game is going to be on. It’s pulling the mask off the

monster.

Next week, we’ll dive deeper in to the progressive script. But today, we

dismantle the first act.

We’ve always been told that genocidal dictators of the world — oh, they’re

just manifestations of the hateful right, that the left wing icons like Che

and Mao and Stalin need to be understood in context.

Tonight, we set the record straight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

BECK (voice-over): We live in a time that seems to move faster than time — a

place that seems to have no place for the truth, a reality that seems to have

no connection to reality. So to get our feet on solid ground in the future,

we must first walk through the past with our eyes wide open.

RONALD REAGAN, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: Government is not the solution to our

problem. Government is the problem.

BECK: That’s modern conservatism in a nutshell. Yet, we’re always told that

Nazi Germany, who controlled every aspect of its citizens’ lives, was somehow

right-wing. Is that true? Or is it an attempt to distract from other much

more inconvenient similarities?

JONAH GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, “LIBERAL FASCISM”: To say, you know, Hitler was a

right-winger because of X, Y, Z, I say, what was Stalin’s position on X, Y,

and Z?

The common assumption is that the Nazis were a right-wing phenomena. They a

right-wing party, that Hitler was a man of the right and all of the rest. And

there are a lot of problems with this. His social agenda was for expanding

universal access to health care, for expanding access to education. It was

for cradle to grave welfare estate. It was for attacking big business and

high finance.

People say, “Well, Hitler abolished labor unions, he was a right-wing then.”

Well, how did labor unions do under Stalin? How are labor unions doing under

Fidel Castro? Almost anything you can find on a checklist that allegedly

proves Hitler was a right-winger, you can apply to almost any one of the

communist dictators of the 20th century and the similarities are almost

identical.

BECK: Today, this idea may seem controversial. But as the Nazis were rising

to power, it wasn’t controversial. It was common knowledge. November 28,

1925, a tiny article printed in the “New York Times” describing the early

internal struggle for the identity of the Nazis. A riot broke out after a

Nazi speaker claimed that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler.

And the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.

It wasn’t just some nobody in the Nazi party who believed this. It was this

man: Hitler’s closest ally to the very end and his hand-pick successor as

chancellor, Joseph Goebbels.

Because it was so controversial, Goebbels, a master of propaganda, stopped

talking about it in public. But his private writings revealed his change in

approach wasn’t a change of heart.

EDVINS SNORE, DIRECTOR, “THE SOVIET STORY”: The Nazi Germany attacked the

Soviet Union in 1941. Just a week before that, he wrote in his diary that the

goal of the Nazi Germany would be to destroy this Jewish Bolshevism and the

Soviet Union as they described it and instead of that, build the true

socialism. That’s what he wrote in his diary. And, of course, Goebbels was a

liar, but — well, he lied to his own diary.

GOLDBERG: The red shirts and the brown shirts in Germany had all sorts of

members who were members of one group joining the other group and vice versa.

They saw themselves as equally revolutionary organizations fighting each

other for control. The Nazi versus Bolsheviks in Germany was really a case of

Coke versus Pepsi.

BECK: Even as the Nazis were taken control of France, the French communist

newspaper found reason to celebrate. “In these sad times, it is exceptionally

comforting to see many Parisian workers talk to German soldiers as friend, in

the street, or at the corner cafe. Well done, comrades. And keep it up, even

if it displeases some of the middle classes as stupid as they are

mischievous.”

GOLDBERG: The communists in the Reichstag voted almost uniformly with the

Nazis. They voted in lock step. And the slogan for the communists in the

Reichstag was: First, brown, then, red. The general understanding among the

communists, among socialists back then was that Nazism was a steppingstone

towards the ultimate victory of socialism and communism.

BECK: While Hitler certainly to opposed communism outwardly, he did so mainly

because he disagreed with its internationalism.

GOLDBERG: He was a proud German, a German nationalist, a German jingoist, not

a patriot but a nationalist. And he rejected that element of Marxism, but he

embraced socialism entirely. He embraced the idea of racial solidarity,

socialism for one race.

BECK: Even in “Mein Kampf” he acknowledged the movements were so close that

if not the focus on race, his national socialist movement would really do

nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. But Nazi Germany

had no corner on the market of racism, and anti-Semitism.

SNORE: We can find many Nazi-like passages in the writing of Marx and Engels

were they both scorned (ph) on the Czechs and Hungarians and Poles. Marx

didn’t like Spanish, for example. He said that Spanish are degenerate and

that Mexican are degenerated Spanish.

GOLDBERG: Marx, you need to remember, was Jewish. He was a self- hating Jew.

He rejected Judaism and all of the rest, but he was Jewish.
And Hitler hated — you know, hated Jews. I mean, this is not a news flash.

Hitler was a passionate anti-Semite. And he saw Marxism as corrupted with a

deep-seated Jewish nature.

The irony here is that so did Marx. Marx was a real anti-Semite. He wrote

about the Jewish problem a generation before the Nazis started talking about

the Jewish problem. He said how we had to purge the Jewish spirit from

western civilization or from the global civilization. He had horrible racist

things to say about Jews and the blacks.

And Hitler very much inherited that Marxist analyst when it came to things

like Jews and other races.

BECK: Sometimes, it’s hard to tell Hitler and Marx apart. Who wrote that

Germany’s neighbors should accept “the physical and intellectual power of the

German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern

neighbors”? That’s Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, author of “The Communist

Manifesto” almost a century before the Holocaust.

Hitler’s underlying admiration for Marxism was obvious.

SNORE: When I made the film, I was expecting actually that there would be

similarities between the Nazis and Soviet communism, but I was actually

amazed to discover how similar where these posters, and the posters were so

similar that as if for one artist had drawn them. Of course, I think it is

because — it is because they were both, the ideologies were very similar and

their expression, therefore, was very similar as well.

GOLDBERG: In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler writes about the Nazi party flag, which is

this big red flag with a white disk in the middle and the swastika in the

center. Hitler explains it quite clearly in “Mein Kampf” that the red, the

big sea of red that the swastika was in was intended to attract socialists to

his movement. The red flag was the emblem of the communists, the reason why

we call them the reds.

BECK: But it went deeper than similar ideology and imagery. Until Germany

launched a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, the Nazis and the

Soviets worked together. They even put it in writing, signing what was

originally sold as a non-aggression pact. But just weeks later, they would

invade Poland from opposite sides.

It wasn’t until much late they’re we would learn the full scope of the

agreement.

SNORE: They signed an agreement in 1939 that was called the

Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which had the secret protocol attached to it. And

according to that secret protocol, they agreed on the division of the

neighboring countries between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

TARAS HUNCZAK, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Then there was a

secret protocol which essentially divided Europe into two spheres of

influence between Hitler and Stalin. After all, it was not so difficult for

them. Both of them were totalitarian regimes. They understood each other. The

Soviets were delivering all kinds of raw materials to the Germans. It was not

just theoretical friendship.

SNORE: An aspect of their collaboration was mutual exchange of prisoners.

Basically German communists and Jews, they fled to the Soviet Union in order

to be safe. The Soviet Union sent them back to Gestapo.
And many of them, of course, were killed there and perished in the Nazi

concentration camps.

BECK: But is this just a story of brutal iron-fisted dictators, or something

inherent in the philosophy? The fathers of communism, Marx, and Engels,

believed that societies would evolve from capitalism to socialism. But they

acknowledged that there were still what they called primitive societies that

hadn’t even evolved into capitalists yet. They called them racial trash.

As the revolution happens, the classes and the races, too weak to master the

new conditions of life, must give way. There was only one thing left for

those too far behind in the process of societal evolution. “The chief mission

of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the

revolutionary holocaust.”

Up until the horrors of Hitler, prominent socialist supporters discuss these

ideas out in the open. Nobel Prize winner, Fabian socialist and prominent

Soviet supporter, George Bernard Shaw.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don’t want to punish anybody.

(INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it

would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed

board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say

every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, “Sir,

or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”

If you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more,

then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the

purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it

can’t be of very much use to yourself.

BECK: And this was actually somewhat subtle for Shaw. He’d also foreshadow

some of the worst atrocities in our planet’s history. He wrote, “I appeal to

the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and

painlessly. In short, a gentlemanly gas — deadly by all means, but humane not

cruel.”

GOLDBERG: People like George Bernard Shaw were convinced that overpopulation

was this terrible, terrible problem; particularly, because the unfit, the

genetically less desirable, were swamping the good genetic types. In the late

19th century, there are almost a cream of British intelligentsia embracing

eugenics. Well into the 20th century. Saying that thousands, millions had to

be marched off into gas chambers and liquidated.

George Bernard Shaw has this great line where he says, you know, we should do

it while playing lovely classical music as we march them into the gas

chambers. The idea — and a lot of people seem to think that this concept of

the gas chamber as a tool of social policy was invented by the Nazis. It

wasn’t. It was — and I mean this in the most disgusting evil way, it was

perfected by the Nazis.

But this idea of using things like gas chambers to kill off millions of

people so that the rest of the good guys could prosper and move to the sunny

uplands of history was immensely popular.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: All of these systems are based on the idea that we know better. That

the little people get in the way of our plan — well, first, we’ll go around

them and then we’ll destroy them. This arrogance always ends exactly the same

way.

One of history’s worst examples: The genocide you’ve never heard of. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: The atrocities of Hitler are rightfully recognized as beyond abhorrent,

but we must continue to be vigilant to make sure they never happen again. We

must never forget. But we also must never stop learning.

Here’s another story of genocide that for some reason history has erased.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECK (voice-over): Growing deep within the roots of socialism is a brutal and

dismissive view of human life.

GOLDBERG: The essence of Marx is simply that the universe is run by this cold

material, impersonal forces and that over time, we are going to see it move

from the futile, through the capitalist to the socialist to the communist

stage. Along the way, a lot of people are going to get killed. And Marx was

completely fine with it.

SNORE: The Nazi Germany, these groups were also defined by ethnicity, the

Jews, for example, and so with union, they defined them by social origin. But

the idea was the same.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Communist (INAUDIBLE), dictator of 160 million Nazis (ph).

BECK: Today, most have forgotten the scale of the Soviet atrocities,

particularly, what may have been their most horrific. It began long before

Hitler’s horror was revealed. Popular uprising had become a problem in the

Ukraine. Their spirit of individualism threatened the grand design of Moscow.

Stalin decided to take steps and correct the problem.

HUNCZAK: The objective was to keep Ukrainians on their knees.

BECK: Stalin forced peasants to give up their farms under the banner of

collectivization.

HUNCZAK: The peasants are the army of nationalism. So, what do you do? You

got to crush them.

VICTOR YUSHCHENKO, PRESIDENT, UKRAINE: My wife’s grandfather died in 1933. He

was arrested, for refusal to join the collective farm. While he was in

prison, his wife was forced to divorce him. When he returned from prison, he

saw that he had no wife. He could not see his children. He had no house, he

had no land. He had nothing. There are millions of such stories.

BECK: Stalin took everything — their independence, their livelihood, and even

their food, plunging the Ukraine into famine. And while the people were

starving, it wasn’t because the food wasn’t growing. Grain production was

skyrocketing. Instead of giving the grain to starving people, the Soviets

exported it to fund their centrally-planned industrialization. How the

Soviets dealt with the hunger was inhumane.

NIKOLAY MELNIK, SURVIVOR, FROM “THE SOVIET STORY”: They entered a house and

asked, “Where are your dead?” There was only a half-dead woman laying in the

bed. They said, “Let’s take her. She will die anyway. Why come after her

tomorrow?” She begged them. “Do not take me. I am still alive. I want to

live.”

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was horrible. They were all dumped into the grave.

The ground was moving.

BECK: The forced famine that resulted was so horrific, the situation so

desperate that there were even widespread reports of cannibalism.

HUNCZAK: I was once with a group of people going to one part of Ukraine, and

I said, “Is there some older lady that could tell me something about what

happened?”

BECK: What the woman told him next, he would never forget.

HUNCZAK: And she said, “Oh, my God, I really don’t like to talk about that.”

She said, “You see, there is this house on the top of the hill there? A

mother ate her daughter. She was already insane, because the people had

reached the level of insanity. And then she committed suicide.”

BECK: How did the Soviets deal with this? They printed posters that said, “To

eat your own children is a barbarian act.” This period is known as, “the

Holodomor,” roughly translated as “murder by hunger.”

YUSHCHENKO: Death from hunger was not unusual in the 20th century. But there

is a difference between death from hunger and murder by hunger.

BECK: These intentional policies resulted in murder as efficient as has ever

been seen in human history.

HUNCZAK: You find that whole families actually die out like eight members in

the family.

SNORE: Many millions of people are killed. And given the fact that it was

done within one year, I believe it is certainly comparable to the great

genocides of the 20th century.

BECK: Most know that the horrors of the Holocaust resulted in the deaths of

approximately six million Jews. But what many don’t know is that the

government-designed starvation in the Ukraine caused the deaths of between 7

million and 10 million in just one year. None of this is meant to diminish

the horrors of the Holocaust. The pure evil that inspired it is above

question and must be remembered vividly and at all costs.

Though, in addition, the other victims of vicious governments who have

treated human life as nothing but a speed bump to their grand design must

also be remembered.

HUNCZAK: It is not just the number of people. It’s the national culture also.

Imagine how many writers, artists, all of them perished.

GOLDBERG: One of the most disgusting things about the way we talk about

communism is you have people talk about it as if it was this well-

intentioned social experiment. But even at the level of first principles of

the sort of planning session, it was planned and premeditated mass murder on

a massive scale.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the newest devices of destruction.

BECK: All the while supported by prominent media members — “The New York

Times” now acknowledges their role in the propping up of Stalin’s regime by

their reporter Walter Durante. He called the forced famine in the Ukraine

mostly bunk and viciously justified the millions dead by saying, “You can’t

make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

SNORE: Because of this information, many people in the West reacted quite

passively to what happened in the Ukraine. Durante was there and his position

was pro-Soviet. I think he did a lot of harm to the truth at that time.

HUNCZAK: He reported, no, there is no famine in Ukraine. But there is

widespread mortality due to diseases of malnutrition.

BECK: Yet still, even in August of last year, “The Times” wrote in a book

review that despite the fact that Fredrick Engels, one of the founders of

communism, was an advocate of ethnic cleansing, he would have been a fine man

to drink with.

And it is surely true that Engels’ larger critique of capitalism resonates

down the ages.

YUSHCHENKO: Recognizing this as a tragedy means not only to recognize the

genocide of the Ukrainian people. We should also speak about the crimes — not

only of the Stalin regime — but about the criminality of communism itself. In

my opinion, it is a very difficult discussion for a large number of people,

including people from Europe, unfortunately.

BECK: And apparently, here in America as well. It is up to us to know the

truth so our children don’t face the same threat ever again. Each year,

Ukrainians gather to remember the Holodomor by lighting 25,000 candles. Why

25,000? Because during this intentional famine, they lost 25,000 people every

single day.

Allowing this to happen one more time would be unforgivable.

HUNCZAK: The totalitarian system established by Stalin was responsible for

murdering millions of innocent people in a most horrendous way. And nobody

was interested in knowing about it. The question is what kind of people are

we?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: In case you’re still not convinced that the famine was intentional,

during our exclusive interview for this documentary with President Viktor

Yushchenko of the Ukraine, he said during the famine of the Ukrainian people,

they needed 10 million tons of grain to avoid hunger. They produced 12.2

million tons.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Now, you’ve seen his face everywhere, maybe on your son or daughter’s

t-shirts. But hopefully you will soon realize why that has got to stop.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): I guess we have to make a choice. Giselle in a bikini. This is

how to learn about history. You see, this is the hottest supermodel in the

world. What is this? This is Che. And this, too, is Che. And so is this.

He’s a fashion icon among his revolutionary peers. And he is everywhere. In

fact, all of this is Che. Ernesto Che Guevara.

NICK GILLESPIE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “REASON.COM”: There is the famous t- shirt.

It is so famous in fact that you can even buy t-shirts that have images of

the t-shirt on it. Che’s image sells beers. It sells lighters. It sells belt

buckles. It sells baby onesies.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Why are you risking your life to fight for us?

BECK: Nowhere is Che seemingly loved more than in Hollywood, USA.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: You’ll see. When Fidel is running things, everybody will

read and have food on the table.

BECK: But is that who Che really was?

GILLESPIE: One of the things that is fascinating about the cult of Che is

that it effectively thrives in the absence of any kind of historical

understanding.

BECK: For example, look around at an anti-war rally and you’ll probably see

Che.

GILLESPIE: Che was a self-taught revolutionary who was instrumental in

Castro’s takeover of Cuba. He became known as the butcher of La Cabana prison

in revolutionary Cuba where he personally oversaw the execution of anywhere

from 175 to several hundred people. He’s implicated in thousands of deaths

that come after that.

HUMBERTO FONTOVA, AUTHOR, “EXPOSING THE REAL CHE GUEVARA”: 14,000 men and

boys were executed in Cuba during the 1960s.

GILLESPIE: He said his dream was to become a killing machine. He said to his

revolutionary comrades if they weren’t sure of someone’s loyalty, if in

doubt, kill him. These are the realities that we need to understand about

Che. You can probably call him clinically a sadist.

FONTOVA: When you read his diaries, he goes into particular detail about when

he, himself, shoots people in the head.

BECK: But it goes beyond war. Go to a rock concert and you’re sure to see

Che.

GILLESPIE: This is a man who tried to ban free expression; particularly,

musical expression such as rock music and jazz music, because he thought it

was imperialist. He was the Caribbean equivalent of the Taliban. He enforced

a single moralistic viewpoint. And if you didn’t agree with him, you would be

killed.

FONTOVA: One of my favorite is Carlos Santana. At the 2005 Oscars, naturally,

“The Motorcycle Diaries” won an Oscar and Carlos Santana went there to play

the theme song for it. Well, he was wearing a Che Guevara t- shirt.

Carlos Santana was showing off an emblem of a regime that made it a criminal

offense to listen to Carlos Santana music.

BECK: But surely Che was a progressive and uniting force on race, right?

FONTOVA: He says, “The Negro is lazy and indolent and spends all of his money

on frivolities and booze, whereas the European is intelligent and

forward-looking.” This was from his own diaries.

Yet we’ve got Jesse Jackson down there — Viva Che! We’ve got Jay-Z with songs

and the lyrics, “I’m just like Che Guevara with a bling on.”

JAY-Z, RAPPER: I am like Che Guevara with bling on. I’m complex

BECK: Maybe he is complex. Either that or this guy doesn’t know that this guy

would have thought that this guy was nothing but a frivolous lazy drunk just

because of the color of his skin.

So what is wrong with wearing the t-shirt of a warmongering, blood-thirsty

racist? Well, what if he was also a terrorist, too?

FONTOVA: “To his home, to places of work, to his places of recreation. We

will attack the enemy wherever he lives.” Folks, this was written in 1966. He

preempted al-Qaeda by 30, 40 years.

BECK: Let’s see you can tell the difference. Which quote is from Che and

which is from Osama Bin Laden? Who said that if he had nuclear weapons, he

would use them against the very heart of America, including New York City?

And who said, “The U.S. is a great enemy of mankind? Against those hyenas,

there is no option but extermination”? Yes, it’s kind of unfair. It was a

trick question. Both of those quotes are from Che.

Luckily, his attempts at killing Americans on our soil were about as

effective as his attempts to ignite revolution around the world.

GILLESPIE: we look 50 years into the future and there are only two

unapologetic communist regimes, North Korea and Cuba. If they had enough

nutrition in order to run out of North Korea, they would do that. They’re

starving there.

In Cuba, we see time and again people who are so desperate to get off that

island hell-hole they will swim through shark-infested waters. Che was the

vanguard of the revolution. He was going to bring communism everywhere around

the world.

In this sense, Che was an absolute abject failure and it’s a damn good thing

that he was.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, Che wasn’t successful in his bid for world revolution. There are

plenty of people trying to pick up right where he left off. So what was it

like to live in the one place that Che was successful? Find out, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You have heard the infamous quote that, “One death is a tragedy; a

million is a statistic.” We’ve examined these events from a big-picture

perspective. But now, let’s move away from the statistics and look at the

personal tragedy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Che Guevara — his image is a global fashion phenomenon.

Hopefully, by now, you know that’s so offensive to so many. But giving you

the number of executions he ordered is one thing. Seeing the effect is

another.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA RANGEL, BORN IN CUBA: They portray him in the movies as a hero and as

a humanitarian. He was a cold killer.

BECK: This is Barbara Rangel’s grandfather, Col. Cornelio Rojas.

RANGEL: He was a freedom fighter way before (UNINTELLIGIBLE) came into power.

He was a descendant of patriots. His father was a general and his grandfather

was also general brigadier of that fought for Cuba’s war of independence

against Spain.

BECK: One day, her grandfather was just gone.

RANGEL: When Fidel Castro and Che Guevara arrived in Havana, it was January

‘59 and that’s precisely when my grandfather disappeared. My family had no

idea where he was. All of a sudden, my family was in the living room watching

television and they see my grandfather walking. They were extremely happy to

see him.

And then, they realized that he was walking towards the wall. They started

screaming and my grandmother collapsed. They realized that he’s going to be

executed.

When they asked him if he wanted to be blindfolded, and he said no. And he

said, “There you have the revolution. Take care of it.” He asked if he could

give the firing orders and he said, “Aim. Fire.” He died like a hero.

BECK: And he was executed by cowards.

RANGEL: There was no trial whatsoever. Che Guevara did not allow a trial. He

was taken prisoner in beginning of January and executed January 7. That is

something that I will never forget. There is not one day in my life that I

don’t think about him.

BECK: Barbara’s pregnant mother was so traumatized she went into labor three

months early.

RANGEL: What is a person supposed to do? Rejoice for the birth of your son or

cry for the death of your father?

BECK: Meet Barbara’s mother, Blanca.

BLANCA, BARBARA RANGEL’S MOTHER (TRANSLATION): Che Guevara took away the

greatest thing in my life because my father was the greatest. He was a good

father. Che Guevara took that away from me and that is why I have been

suffering for 50 years. I will never forget what he did to me.

BECK: For those who lived with the real Che, it is impossible to understand

in America, of all places, how anyone would want him on a t- shirt.

RANGEL: Please do a lot of research before you make a fool of yourself

wearing a t-shirt of a cold killing machine.

BECK: throughout the interview with Barbara and Blanca, they were incredibly

strong. But you can see how deeply these events have shaken them, even to

this day.

BLANCA: I am not the woman I was before.

BECK: This is the real legacy of Che. It’s murder, destruction and broken

families. So what can we do to correct the lies? Maybe it’s time to make the

truth a bit more fashionable.

Maybe it’s time to remember what these governments were really responsible

for. Maybe it’s time to ignore the revisionist rehab of these figures and

recognize who they really were.

Maybe telling the truth about socialism and communism now can help us avoid

all of these things again. Just maybe speaking up and bluntly telling the

truth can stop the next generation from looking at things the same way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Marx defined socialism as a pit stop between capitalism and communism.

It isn’t an end point. While sometimes this change happens slowly, it always

ends badly, but perhaps never worse than with Chairman Mao.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great leader, great commander, and great helmsman,

Chairman Mao.

BECK (voice-over): Of all the horror that communism has brought to the world,

perhaps the worst was brought to us by Mao Zedong.

JUNG CHANG, FATHER SUFFERED UNDER MAO ZEDONG’S COMMUNIST REGIME: When I was

if in China, we were told Mao was like our god. When we wanted to say, “What

I say is absolutely true,” we would say, “I swear to Chairman Mao.”

BECK: Mao used his power to crush the Chinese people. The majority of his

crimes came in two distinct ways.

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to

1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic

leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five

million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the

second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.”

He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died.

And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever

had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation,

Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can

fertilize the land.”

BECK: Mao’s approach turned from brutal indifference to revenge. With the

Cultural Revolution, his mission was to destroy both enemies and

intellectuals.

EDWARDS: Professors, teachers sat in the corner with the dunce cap on them.

They were made to get down on all fours and bark like a dog.

BECK: Jung Chang and her family also found themselves in Mao’s crosshairs.

CHANG: My father was one of the few who stood up to Mao and protested the

Cultural Revolution. My mother was under tremendous pressure to denounce my

father. She refused. So as a result, my mother was made to kneel on broken

glass. She was paraded in the streets where children spat at her face and

threw stones at her. She was exiled to a camp.

BECK: When her father wrote to protest the Cultural Revolution, he paid the

ultimate price.

CHANG: My mother tried to stop him. My mother said, “Do you want to ruin the

lives of our children?” So he said, you know, “What about the children of the

victims?” As a result, “He was imprisoned, tortured, driven insane. He was

exiled to a camp and died prematurely, very tragically.

BECK: As a victim of Mao’s crushing rule, Jung Chang’s father was not alone.

EDWARDS: Some 65 million Chinese died under Maoist communism.

CHANG: Mao just didn’t care. He said for all his projects to take off, half

of China may well have to die.

EDWARDS: By a ratio of three or four to one, you certainly can say that Mao

is the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.

ANITA DUNN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Two of my favorite

political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa.

BECK: Dunn’s comments, once again, highlight the odd treatment that leftist

totalitarianism receives by too many in our society. Communism is something

looked at as something we can borrow from liberally even today. But the truth

is it’s among history’s most proficient killers.

EDWARDS: According to the black book of communism published by Harvard

University Press, nearly 100 million people died under communism in the 20th

century. It all flows out of this idea that the communists think that they

can create a new society.

And anybody who gets in their way, they will cut down, they will kill, they

will imprison, and they will eliminate in pursuit of that goal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: With 100 million killed, communism exists in a very exclusive club,

alongside with the planet’s worst communicable diseases like smallpox and

bubonic plague. But it’s not just communism; it is the truth of any

government with too much power.

Some government is necessary. Too much is suicidal. Every all- powerful

government has elements of what Marx called the “revolutionary holocaust.”

The relentless pursuit of nirvana and the price it’s worth paying to get

there in human life.

It is only understanding history that we can stop this from happening again

and again and again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: America, this is the only beginning of rediscovering the things that

have been lost. We have developed a whole page on this special at

“GlennBeck.com.” For more information, check it out. From New York, good

night, America.

[Tablo]

Good job! I also recommend that when you guys view the videos that you give them all 1 one star ratings.

[Chambered Word]

Good job! I also recommend that when you guys view the videos that you give them all 1 one star ratings.

This.

[Tyrlop]

Good job! I also recommend that when you guys view the videos that you give them all 1 one star ratings.
why? i gave the first one 5 vi stars because it was hillarious. :laugh:
the script is very well done we can use it and quote it! we can also use it as a base for our own documentary. Now lets get to work.

[Chambered Word]

Maybe we should do a progress check.

I've done pretty much all of the Marx-Engels (mis)quotes and the first part of the documentary. I'm going to do my best to get some serious work done in the next few days (keeping in mind I'm doing alot of reading and a bit of stuff with the family, school is starting etc). What is everyone else up to so far? :)

[cop an Attitude]

Here is the documentary I made about the G20 Pittsburgh. I already posted it in the group page but I'll put it on here too. I went down for the 2 days and just videotaped what I saw and heard into a 1:15 movie. We can use it for our first hard video.

Does anyone know a online video player that can upload quicktime .mov files, it would clear up the video quality. Its 8 parts so watch it and tell me what you think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Nyu0Y1LE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql1zGgD7KL4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2tFz3wx38I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBSd3xprjrw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeHIFjLVvgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSOZliNNjRM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-s-Gn5G6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84H16JQJ2eQ

[Rusty Shackleford]

Bump for good video!

[Nolan]

Looks good.

[Tablo]

Yeah, I really enjoyed it. It has some great footage.

[Chambered Word]

I'm gonna watch when I get these fucking speakers working again. :sneaky:

[Tyrlop]

Maybe we should do a progress check.

I've done pretty much all of the Marx-Engels (mis)quotes and the first part of the documentary. I'm going to do my best to get some serious work done in the next few days (keeping in mind I'm doing alot of reading and a bit of stuff with the family, school is starting etc). What is everyone else up to so far? :)
post your script hen its much easier for us to work on it and expand it.

[mosfeld]

For material, The Red Phoenix (http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/) is writing a critique against the documentary.

[Chambered Word]

post your script hen its much easier for us to work on it and expand it.

Alright, I'll put it in the project group soon.

[Nolan]

I can't shake it. I have this strange feeling that this project is dead.

[Q]

I can't shake it. I have this strange feeling that this project is dead.

Nope. Its probably just that many people who knew very little about video making joined the group and expected something to happen (by me?). Let me put it clear: I only started the group because there was a feeling that something needed to be done on the terrain of leftwing video's. So, I played a facilitatory role as long as I could carry it. But I know shit about making video's and never stated otherwise. So, it really is up to people that know stuff and have their respective qualities to continue organising. I'm of course still willing to help along.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Nope. Its probably just that many people who knew very little about video making joined the group and expected something to happen (by me?). Let me put it clear: I only started the group because there was a feeling that something needed to be done on the terrain of leftwing video's. So, I played a facilitatory role as long as I could carry it. But I know shit about making video's and never stated otherwise. So, it really is up to people that know stuff and have their respective qualities to continue organising. I'm of course still willing to help along.


i am one of those people who know almost nothing about video making who joined the group. i was thinking of asking for outside help from Brendan McCooney to posssibly assist in production but i have not asked the group. maybe instead of videogames and internet surfing i could actually give editing a shot. maybe i could find some old or even new clips of things relating to what we are trying to talk about and put them together.

[Q]

i am one of those people who know almost nothing about video making who joined the group. i was thinking of asking for outside help from Brendan McCooney to posssibly assist in production but i have not asked the group. maybe instead of videogames and internet surfing i could actually give editing a shot. maybe i could find some old or even new clips of things relating to what we are trying to talk about and put them together.

Do spread the word and invite people. That's very good and important.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Do spread the word and invite people. That's very good and important.
well, i just sent a message. i also realized i put an extra c in his name:laugh:

tomorrow or later tonight ill start getting some video capturing and editing softare. i have fraps but that only takes 30 second clips.

[Chambered Word]

It's not dead. I haven't been posting alot as school has started and I have homework to keep under control as well. I'm still working on the project. :)