Comments
mrchaddy t1_jcbo4fk wrote
You will enjoy this article on Adam by Jon Ronson. It contains one of the most profound statements i ever read “ I found a man in the archives who spends his time recording the bits in between the programs. He believes television is really one long construction of a giant story out of fragments of recorded reality from all over the world that is constantly added to every day, and has been going on for 70 years.”
33hamsters t1_jcfw0r5 wrote
Oh this is beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing it!
fouoifjefoijvnioviow t1_jcbnbzl wrote
His last one on USSR seemed pro-Putin to me
TheNewestHaven t1_jcbzlsd wrote
i didnt get that impression at all.
fouoifjefoijvnioviow t1_jcc279q wrote
He called Putin an anonymous bureaucrat picked by oligarchs, and completely omitted he was in fact KGB
TheNewestHaven t1_jcc7w3v wrote
As far as I know he was not officially involved in the KGB after 1990, so when he was brought in, he was indeed a random bureaucrat. I also don't see how this omission as you see it creates a pro-putin narrative. The narrative was the oligarch's needed someone they could trust who would 'play ball' and he was the stooge they picked. He could have mentioned Putin worked at FSB (like the russian FBI post Soviet Union).
fouoifjefoijvnioviow t1_jcc95yz wrote
I mean it's quite the omission, and the KGB ended just around that time. It's just a too-simple narrative that Putin is not some well-trenched apparatchik, but just another poor nobody stuck in the role.
Orngog t1_jccncn2 wrote
IIRC he gets three sentences at most, or at least his life before the Kremlin does. Is that the last part of this? It's been years.
Also, I'm no expert but I seem to recall the KGB connection didn't come into play during his very rapid ascent to power? I thought it was more "being close to Yeltsin at the right time".
Edit: forgot to say, Putin is an utter waste of life. I hope he is soon removed from this earth, Slava Ukraïni!
urbanfirestrike t1_jcbs84n wrote
Reality has that bias
Relevant_Monstrosity t1_jcafi7z wrote
> Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? … because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved …
— The Prince, Machiavelli
KofOaks t1_jcalptf wrote
When I was a kid my dad told me "There are 2 things that control the world, fear and love, and it's not hard to find which one I chose.
He wasn't very nice and still isn't very nice...
Relevant_Monstrosity t1_jcanm94 wrote
Every person is capable of self-realization and change. This is the learning experience that defines subjective humanity. If we never choose the path of fear in our naiveté, we will never understand the transformative power of love.
platoprime t1_jcckqqm wrote
Even though love sounds nice and fear sounds mean it is equally naïve to think fear has no place.
Spideris t1_jcb1zcu wrote
I'm sorry to hear that, friend. You deserved better.
KofOaks t1_jcbnn9w wrote
Thanks.
Well thanks to him being a shitty dad I decided not to have kids to not take the chance of one day mimicking his behaviour.
I'll never tell my child that "You know, I didn't want kids your mom made me do it". I'll never scare them with my fits of rage nor insult them when I'm not-so-secretly drunk. I'll never tell them that the problem in society are artists, intellectuals and insert different races and religions. I won't teach them to hate, rage and smash when they are annoyed or mad.
It's hard to emancipate yourself from a shitty narcissistic parent and I won't risk putting anyone through this.
CHROME-THE-F-UP t1_jcc9u33 wrote
I know this is shitty but idk why this is kind of metal lol
Dripdry42 t1_jcbe2gh wrote
He was writing a parody of the Italian nobility at the time. That book was what NOT to do.
Damascinos OP t1_jc9u4fx wrote
Wikipedia article of documentary
Relevant in that the residue of these two movements are still felt today in both cultures American (Western Europe to a certain extent) and Islamic cultures
aspearin t1_jcaay35 wrote
Our history teacher showed us this in high school and it has made a lasting impression on how to view the world over the last two decades.
rudedogg1304 t1_jc9tvya wrote
Up there with his best
DJOldskool t1_jc9xo1q wrote
Great documentary, really opened my eyes back in the day.
mab2t t1_jcagqpu wrote
This is an awesome documentary. Adam Curtis does some spectacular work. My favourite of his works is "The century of the self"
dentbox t1_jccspzp wrote
Century of the self is his best, for sure
HoggyDarn t1_jcag2jb wrote
One of his more engaging documentaries. Cant help being reminded of the parody doc with the phrase "but that was a fantasy" repeated for fun.
AbelardLuvsHeloise t1_jcbxq9m wrote
What’s the parody
HoggyDarn t1_jcby73x wrote
Had a quick search. It's "The loving trap"
AbelardLuvsHeloise t1_jcc3iao wrote
Much obliged, mate. I’ve watched about 12 hours of Adam Curtis documentaries, and this hits the nail right on the head.
mandingosixsix t1_jcey28j wrote
As a massive Curtis's fan for many many years, this is HILARIOUS. It got him down absolutely spot on without being too offensive to Adam Curtis and his work..
"...and thanks to Adam Curtis, Brian Eno never had to work another day in his life" 🤣
McGauth925 t1_jcbj51c wrote
I've been reading a Jane Goodall book - you know, the chimpanzee lady. She talks about PSEUDOSPECIATION, which she prefers to call Cultural Speciation.
So, this chimpanzee group split up, with a smaller group kind of taking over a smaller part of the territory the whole group had previously inhabited. After a while, the larger group pretty much declared war on the smaller group and killed almost all of them.
The idea of pseudospeciation is, once a group of humans (and chimpanzees) becomes different enough culturally - by which is intended the things that individuals learn and pass down to offspring, such that, after a while, the whole group is different enough from another group of humans, the groups can stop seeing each other as some kind of kindred, and can kill and harm each other with no inhibitions.
Thus with people. Along almost any line of cultural division, humans can come to see the other side as different enough, and hateful enough that it becomes ok to kill them and war on them. That bodes very poorly for the divisiveness that's become so prevalent in the US, in the past 10 years, or so.
It's almost like a cultural evolution/survival of the fittest group.
It looks to explain racism, war, and all kinds of other group enmities and hatreds. And, we may not be as evil as we think, because it looks like something humans and chimpanzees fall into it fairly readily. And, it's part of why we're always battling it out between morality - the care of other humans, and war.
civver3 t1_jcangv0 wrote
This is the reason the song "Baby, It's Cold Outside" has been indelibly associated in my head with the concept of Islamic fundamentalism.
Turdmonkey2 t1_jce3o3d wrote
Yes! About 2008 I saw this doc for the first time and every Christmas I'm reminded of it when that song plays!
Sugarplague t1_jca857p wrote
To this day this is still one of my favorite documentaries of all time. Everyone in the US should watch this.
mrchaddy t1_jcbner9 wrote
How bizarre, i watched these last night on the Iplayer after going through my old reddit saves. Adams HyperNormalisation answers many questions about todays politics.
turbo_dude t1_jcclged wrote
There’s a new one out. Pretty stark and grim for a lot of it: TraumaZone Russia 1985-1999
Worth watching
DuhLibrarian t1_jcaszw0 wrote
Watched in community college poly sci, amazing series indeed.
Commie_EntSniper t1_jcb2yns wrote
All someone needs to do is paint a rosy picture of America and people will line up at the polls. Worked for Raegan. Worked for Obama. Worked for Trump.
​
If only Democrats really wanted to win, but I honestly feel at the top they're like the Washington Generals - staged opposition; both sides play for the oligarchs who make money from the exhibition
gw2master t1_jccl7bf wrote
What a load of bullshit. There is no equivalence here: both parties kowtow to corporate interests, but Republicans are FAR, FAR worse in all their policies.
Commie_EntSniper t1_jcfa5jh wrote
who's to blame for the death of the queen? - the assassin that pours the poison or the accomplice who opens the door for the assassin?
Is one "worse?" for the part they play?
In the end the queen (Liberty) is dead.
vigtel t1_jcb2zcl wrote
Adam Curtis is the best! It always saddens me that not everyone has seen everything he has done.
1ndomitablespirit t1_jcbekul wrote
Ah, yes, using fear to get people afraid of other people who’s fears are also exploited.
Gamera971 t1_jccva5r wrote
I have never heard Trump say one good thing about America. He obviously despises it. Prove me wrong.
BelAirGhetto t1_jcaa2aq wrote
Must watch video!
EternalSophism t1_jca9o4y wrote
In for later
TOTALTA t1_jcaid1d wrote
Fantastic film.
obiwan_canoli t1_jcaq2eo wrote
The only thing we have to fear is... EVERYTHING!
Just be glad there are many wonderful products available to protect ourselves.
millennialmonster755 t1_jcbted7 wrote
This is a good doc. There is also a great podcast with Ira Glass that digs into the movement when Trump was in office and specifically looks at Bannon and his connections to groups in Europe.
p314159i t1_jccrl7z wrote
Man I hate trotskyists.
DeadPoster t1_jcd42ab wrote
You have to watch Adam Curtis. No one else documents the encroaching Darkness upon human civilization in his documentaries. Like David Cronenberg, Adam Curtis examines the deterioration of the Human Being in real world settings.
[deleted] t1_jca9dec wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jcb8rag wrote
[deleted]
Knjaz136 t1_jcbhe81 wrote
"2004"
"rise of the radical islamist movement"
...I wonder if events of 2003 had something to do with it.
Dravous t1_jccovof wrote
or 2001?
[deleted] t1_jcc30k1 wrote
[removed]
speakhyroglyphically t1_jccqavy wrote
Why didnt you link it so it feeds through reddit?
dghammer t1_jcd2hmp wrote
Ha….garbage.
[deleted] t1_jcf544z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jccf9aa wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jccj59a wrote
[deleted]
PS3user74 t1_jck0yr3 wrote
Take my upvote.
enigmaticalso t1_jccvxxm wrote
Well I did not watch the documentary yet but I can tell you already it is not fear they are tapping in to. It's ignorance and hate and a need to put other people down. These people are not scared they are just hateful.
BeeBee_ThatsMe t1_jcd7ehv wrote
This is great. I know a lot of Israeliphobes who would benefit from learning.
PermissiveActionLnk t1_jcai9gn wrote
I remember it as a very nicely assembled story but it really does not have staying power. Even in the US, neocons are confused and on the run, as they try to figure out how to deal with the "know nothings" like Trump and Co.
Damascinos OP t1_jcaty3i wrote
I’m sorry I disagree. The fear aspect of the neoconservative movement is prevalent throughout American society. One needs to only turn on the news, irrespective of the channel, national or local.
If you knew how the US was between 1990 and 2001 you would realize how much the neoconservative movement influence has had since 2001 and still has on American society.
And if fear isn’t as prevalent as you want to admit, the American exceptionalism as touted by the neoconservatives is very much prevalent in all manners of society.
These two are proof of the staying power of the neoconservative movement.
As for Trump et al, they are the next step in the neoconservative evolution. They haven’t become popular in a vacuum.
Dripdry42 t1_jcbo9a7 wrote
1990-2001 FELT so... Reasonable. Things got done. Not perfectly but they were. The obvious rush to destroy democracy starting in 2000 was horrifying. Like, why ruin a reasonably good thing we had going? Oh right! Money.
Beat-the-heat t1_jca84fy wrote
This one is okay but pretty inaccurate when it comes to "Islamists", the use of such an orientalist term should be a giveaway anyhow.
Damascinos OP t1_jcaaxpq wrote
I disagree, as someone who grew up in both a Muslim and western culture.
Islamist, as defined, are individuals advocating Islamic fundamentalism in society and laws. Islamic fundamentalists describe themselves as such, as this documentary shows. However, you can still be a Muslim and not prescribe to Islamist beliefs in my opinion, and as history has proven within Muslim countries throughout the Levant and North Africa and even more recently during the Algerian civil war in the 90s and Afghanistan between 1990 and 2001. This documentary explores this and the failings of, during both.
There’s nothing orientalist about using their own words. They only received the extra push and spotlight by the boogeyman the neoconservatives created post 2001.
Beat-the-heat t1_jcahkt9 wrote
"Islamists" largely don't call themselves that and this documentary kind of just hashes out the familiar tropes that inflate the relevance of Arab conservatives to the Islamic resurgence when it is largely just an ethno-religious response to foreign intervention more than anything else, after all many of the conflicts that the US got involved in after 2001 were far older than the Muslim brotherhood, some in fact were older than America itself.
This simply just presents the same oversimplified orientalist view of conflicts without really delving deeper into the roots of them; the single highest predictor of Islamic militancy has always been moral outrage and not philosophical or religious disposition (you can see research by Scott Atran to confirm this).
Now i myself am agnostic but raised Muslim, if you ask me who i would rather see in power; a secular government allied with the west or a conservative Islamic government that advocates indigenous interests then i would definitely say the latter, this is essentially why there is a growth of "Islamism" across the world, as Bin Laden himself said even his "pagan ancestors" would have fought against the West.
Damascinos OP t1_jcas31c wrote
No, of course they don’t call themselves Islamists, the word doesn’t exist. However they do call themselves adherents of certain schools of Islamic thought led by certain sheiks’ interpretations of the Koran. And that, when you look into their interpretations, is Islamist in nature.
One shouldn’t dismiss the Arab conservatives influence on Islamic resurgence otherwise you wouldn’t be able to explain away the Saudi and Qatari influence throughout the Muslim world post 1990, ie Balkans, Levant and Central Asia (to be fair Iran’s influence has been just as damaging).
As for moral outrage, it’s subjective and not universal. And because of that, manipulation is a lot easier, as has been proven. And that is the real reason why Muslims become militant.
As for your last paragraph, those aren’t the only two options available and your view of either black or white is not fair to those that don’t live in a homogeneous Muslim country, ie Syrians, Palestinians Lebanese, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese etc etc. A secular led government can still have the indigenous interests in mind while still being a productive and independent member on the world stage; Indonesia or Malaysia comes to mind.
33hamsters t1_jcb506f wrote
I don't think u/beat-the-heat is dismissing the influence of conservative Islam, I think he's pointing out that there's a lot of ethnographic and cultural factors that get brushed over in Adam Curtis' work. I think that's a mild and valid criticism, one that is understandable in light of the limitations of the BBC archives Curtis is working with.
Beat-the-heat t1_jcdc0xb wrote
>One shouldn’t dismiss the Arab conservatives influence on Islamic resurgence otherwise you wouldn’t be able to explain away the Saudi and Qatari influence
Arabs simply provided money, ideologically they aren't behind the Islamic resurgence; Most Muslims are Asians and have their own distinct ideological movements e.g. despite what most westerners claim the Taliban are neither Wahhabi nor Salafi, they are Deobandi and the influence of Salafism is highly overstated. This misunderstanding is also why the West heavily funded Sufi movements post 9/11 in countries like Pakistan and they are now even more problematic (with most of the recent attacks on minorities being initiated by Sufi groups like Barelvis)
>As for moral outrage, it’s subjective and not universal.
Maybe not to you because you live in the west and think like they do, most of us really hate these people though for what they have done to our countries and the region at large; As Malcom X would say, there are two types of Negroes.
​
>As for your last paragraph, those aren’t the only two options available
Largely does seem to be the case presently
​
>A secular led government can still have the indigenous interests in mind while still being a productive and independent member on the world stage; Indonesia or Malaysia comes to mind.
So what exactly is the distinction between an "Islamist" government in your mind and a supposedly secular government like Indonesia which imposes conservative laws (e.g. banning sex outside of marriage, blasphemy provisions etc) ; Indonesia is one of the countries leading the Islamic resurgence but it is never outright called an "Islamist" country by Westerners.
Damascinos OP t1_jce7ode wrote
Despite having a rebuttal, I think with your Malcolm X insult this conversation has run it’s course. Thanks though.
33hamsters t1_jcb3a2u wrote
Adam Curtis is such a talented documentarian, and the didacticism of his projects is well served by his tangible concern with topical issues, but if you watch a lot of his work its clear that he doesn't handle Asia or Africa in the same way he handles Europe or North America. Just something to watch for. A lot of this is simply the fact that he is working with BBC archive access, if someone wanted to be the next Adam Curtis they could really expand on his methods by collaborating internationally with other networks.