Television

The Media's Role in Concealing Stalin's Evils Exposed in Mr. Jones

Walter Duranty and The New York Times have blood on their hands in this historical re-enactment.

|

Mr. Jones. Available now from Amazon Prime.

The scene is Moscow, the year is 1932, and two reporters are in a venomous argument. One has just admitted to filing false stories attributing miraculous economic achievements to Joseph Stalin while ignoring the fact that he's systematically starving peasants by the millions. Hitler, she declares, is on the march in Germany and, soon, the rest of the world, and without Stalin's help, he'll never be stopped.

"You sound like you work for Stalin!" the other reporter declares in horror.

"I don't work for Stalin," the first reporter haughtily insists. "I believe in a movement that's bigger than any one person."

Shuffle some names, faces and insert the phrase "moral clarity" in there somewhere, and this could be a right-this-minute conversation between American journalists. And as the remarkable and riveting Mr. Jones makes appallingly clear, the first one didn't end well.

Mr. Jones is a 2019 Polish-Ukrainian-British film that's been kicking around European film festivals for the past year but is getting its first real exposure this month on Amazon Prime. Directed by Polish filmmaker Agnieszka Holland (known for a series of movies about the Holocaust, including the Oscar-nominated Angry Harvest) from a first-time script by Ukrainan-American journalist Andrea Chalupa, it resurrects two little-remembered tales of the 1930s. One is Stalin's deliberate infliction of a famine on the peasants of the Ukraine that killed between four million and seven million of them. The other is how Western journalists, particularly those of The New York Times, deliberately covered up the mass murder.

At the forefront of Mr. Jones are two reporters. One, Gareth Jones (British television actor James Norton), an ambitious rookie freelancer for what was then called the Manchester Guardian, is so inexperienced he forgot to bring his typewriter on the trip. The other, Walter Duranty (Peter Sarsgaard, Wormwood), The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief, is fresh off a Pulitzer prize for his fawning coverage of Stalin's command-and-control economic policies.

Jones has been told Duranty is the man to see to arrange an interview with Stalin. He explains what he wants to ask: "So how are the Soviets suddenly on a spending spree? Who's providing the finance?" Duranty is noncommittal about the interview, but does have an answer about where the money is coming from: agricultural exports. "Grain is Stalin's gold." He also offers some bad news—a German reporter who's a friend of Jones and had promised to show him around Moscow has been murdered, apparently during a mugging—almost unknown in the stringently locked-down Moscow of the 1930s, particularly in the area where journalists and other necessary foreign evils lived.

Nosing around while he waits to see what will happen with his Stalin interview, Jones learns that his German friend thought something fishy was going on in the Ukraine, the Soviet Union's breadbasket region, which had recently been placed off-limits to foreigners, and was planning to sneak in. Jones decides to do the same, arranging a tour of a German-built factory on the other side of the Ukraine from Moscow, then ditching his Soviet minder to spend a couple of days wandering alone on foot.

Even before he leaves the train, Jones has clues that something has gone deeply wrong. When he offers to buy an overcoat from a Ukrainian passenger, the man begs to be paid in bread rather than currency. When Jones pitches a gnawed apple core into a wastebasket, another man dives into the trash to retrieve it.

But nothing can prepare him for what he sees when he gets off: Stiffened corpses scattered around the train station. Corpses in empty, deserted farmhouses. Corpses stacked on carts moving along village streets. Corpses being chewed on by starving children, who afterward trill a mournful ballad: "Hunger and cold are in our house, nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep and our neighbor has lost his mind and eaten his children… ."

Jones is eventually picked up by Soviet security forces and returned to Moscow, where he's warned never to tell anybody what he's seen. The "or else" will be the life imprisonment of half-a-dozen British phone company engineers who've been arrested on trumped-up spying charges. As he prepares to leave, he's ostracized by other reporters, including the sneering Duranty. "There comes a time in every man's life when he must choose a cause greater than himself," Duranty lectures him with, yes, moral clarity.

Back in London, Jones discovers Duranty has filed a New York Times story dismissing him as a credulous amateur. There may be a bit of hunger in the Ukraine, Duranty writes, but absolutely no famine. And anyway, what if there was? "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."

Director Holland tells this story in masterful style, playing tricks with light and shading to give Moscow a haunted and threatening look. It's most noticeable when the scene shifts to the Ukraine and the film fades to pure black and white, painting the desiccated landscape as if she were Ansel Adams in Hell. Watching reporters hold conversations in their rooms and offices on typewriters lower their voices when a stranger approaches and flinch at any sign of interest from their omnipresent minders gives a grim and dreadfully accurate depiction of what it's like trying to practice journalism under totalitarian rule.

Chalupa's script is effective—she frames the issues efficiently and her characters are compelling—but less accurate. She tells a story that is absolutely true in its essentials but much less so in its more-cinematic-than-life detail. The OGPU, as the KGB was called in the early 1930s, didn't murder reporters who got off their leashes; it simply expelled them, forcing them to leave their posh Moscow habitat for the mean streets of the Depression back home. (The name of the murdered-reporter character, Paul Kleb, suggests he was intended as an homage to Russian-American journalist Paul Klebnikov, a Forbes staffer who was gunned down in Moscow in 2004).

Jones didn't pull any James Bond razzmatazz to reach the Ukraine; he simply bought a ticket to Kharkov, a city much further down the line, and got off early. He wasn't arrested and he wasn't threatened; he finished his reporting trip and didn't say anything about what he'd seen until he got back to London. None of this contradicts Mr. Jones' central thesis—that the mainstream pack of foreign correspondents in Moscow in the 1930s were a pack of mewling Stalinist whores, and that the novice Jones was a better journalist and a braver man than any of them—but it's an unnecessary distraction.

If anything, though, Mr. Jones' depiction of the vicious way he was treated by his colleagues is understated. The first person to reveal the mainstream journalism cabal against Jones was Eugene Lyons, the Moscow correspondent for the United Press wire service at the time Jones was there. In his 1937 book Assignment in Utopia, Lyons recounts how after Jones began writing and giving speeches about the famine, all the foreign correspondents went to a meeting with the chief Soviet censor, who ordered them to denounce the young reporter as a liar.

Lyons admits that all the correspondents knew that Jones' stories were absolutely accurate, even though none of them had reported the famine in their own newspapers, due to "the compelling need to remain on friendly terms with the censors." (Some of them had even discussed the details of the famine with Jones before he went on his reporting trip.) Nonetheless, Lyons wrote, they all complied, "unanimously and in almost identical formulations of equivocation. … Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human being alive when the facts he so painstaking garnered from our mouths were snowed under by our denials." After the deal was done, they broke out the vodka and partied well into the night.

Lyons may have been hyping his report a bit (though it scarcely did him any credit, either as a reporter or a human being) but the deliberate slander of Jones and his stories has subsequently been investigated and verified by several historians (including S.J. Taylor in Stalin's Apologist, her scathing biography of Duranty; Anne Applebaum in her history of Ukrainian starvation, Red Famine; and Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin).

And Duranty (who is played with a stunningly lustrous menace by Sarsgaard) was indeed the most bloodthirsty of the bunch. The line in his story about breaking eggs to make utopian socialist omelettes is dead accurate. And it apparently became a guide post for future generations of Times reporters. Herbert Matthews, whose mistaken or mendacious—take your pick—stories on Fidel Castro helped plunge Cuba into seven decades (and counting!) of miserable tyranny, would later blithely observe of Castro's sanguinary appetite for executions, "A revolution is not a tea party."

Whether Duranty's affection for Stalin was the result of ideological leanings, as Mr. Jones suggests, or just personal convenience (he had a son by a Russian mistress who would not have been allowed to accompany him if he were expelled) is impossible to say. But it was devastatingly effective. His coverage of Stalin in general and his categorical denial of any famine in the Ukraine played a key role in Franklin Roosevelt's decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933. Duranty accompanied the first batch of Soviet diplomats to Washington and got a standing ovation from the crowd at a dinner honoring them.

While Duranty lived, the Times continued to support him professionally and personally. As late as 1957, just a few months before Duranty's death, Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger wrote him a personal check for $2,500 when he complained his funds were low. In recent years, the paper has been increasingly uneasy about its old reporter, even hiring a historian to evaluate his Soviet coverage. But when the historian suggested Duranty's Pulitzer be revoked, the Times turned self-righteous. "The notion of airbrushing history kind of gives me the creeps," said Bill Keller, the executive editor at the time.

I thought of that last week when the Times editorialized in favor of pulling down Confederate statues. The editorial approvingly quoted Nancy Pelosi: "There is no room in the hallowed halls of Congress or in any place of honor for memorializing men who embody the violent bigotry and grotesque racism of the Confederacy." Honoring lies in support of the violence and grotesquerie of Joseph Stalin is apparently another matter.

NEXT: Drugs and Ammo

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stalin was every bit the monster Hitler was. He helped start WW 2, grabbed a bunch of territory then bitched the allies weren’t helping him enough. There’s evidence he was going to attack The NAZI’s sooner or later and had his eye on all of Germany. He did end up with half of Europe of course .

    1. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone……………… http://www.Topcitypay.com

      1. Is that a cross between bucks and ducats?

        1. I think it’s literal buckets. Depending on their size and quality, they could be quite valuable.

          1. I would imagine an excavator bucket is worth a lot.

            1. Keith Powell Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.RFv every person easily do this job by just open this link and follow details on this page to get started…. Home Profit System

    2. He was far worse than Hitler. It has always puzzled me how differently the two are treated. I don’t think it’s just Duranty and his ilk at the root of the disparity.

      Regardless of the Kaiser and his war and rape of Belgium, German was still recognized as a civlilized and sophisticated country, while Russia was a primitive, crude, backwards backwater that the world had long despaired of every growing up, so Hitler’s transformation was negative and Lenin and Stalin’s transformation was at worst still an improvement.

      I think even if Duranty et al had reported the truth, it would not have overcome the long czarist history of oppression. Lenin and Stalin would have been seen as just the latest in a long line of rude crude czars.

      1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week.YCd i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

        This is what do►,,,,,,,,,,► Click here

      2. We were allied with him after the Hitler/Stalin pact broke down, and this led to the extent of his evil being downplayed even by people who weren’t communists. Then after the war it was hard to turn on a dime.

        I wonder what the world would look like today if Patton had gotten is way on continuing WWII a few months longer to roll up the USSR, too? The West was pretty tired of war at that point, but the break came at a high cost.

    3. ” There’s evidence he was going to attack The NAZI’s sooner or later and had his eye on all of Germany.”

      There’s no evidence that Stalin was going to attack Germany sooner. The purpose of the non-aggression pact was to buy time to allow the Soviet Union to arm itself for the coming conflict. Stalin was hoping that another year would be enough time and that by 1942 the USSR would be sufficiently strong. The idea that Stalin was going to attack Germany sooner than 1941 is ridiculous. And, of course, without evidence.

      1. Yes there is such evidence. You practically give it away yourself: “The purpose of the non-aggression pact was to buy time to allow the Soviet Union to arm itself for the coming conflict.”

        There are real reasons to believe Stalin did plan to attack Hitler. Real plans, not just theories or desires, but real military plans. That you choose to think otherwise shows why Duranty and the NYT got away with their crap so easily for so long.

        1. “There are real reasons to believe Stalin did plan to attack Hitler.”

          But not sooner. The USSR was simply not ready. Stalin knew a conflict was brewing and it was his idea to postpone it until he thought the timing was advantageous.

          I seem to remember Stalin favoring an attack on Germany when the Nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, (1938) but it came to nothing without British or French support.

          1. You’re a blithering imbecile and totally wrong. Shut the fuck up and stop embarassing yourself.

            1. Either learn to actually engage arguments, or go away please.

              1. Please learn to not white knight. People can stand up for themselves.

                1. Waaahhhhh!

                  1. Jesse is right. No White Knighting. Now go drink some Drano.

                    1. Waahhh! Stop being so mean! And don’t ever criticize Reason either. Waaahhh!

                      (sniffle)

              2. “Either learn to actually engage arguments, or go away please.”

                You’ve been here long enough to know that a collection of lefty ignoramuses do not offer “arguments”; turd, Tony, commie kid and trueman among them.
                I do, from time to time rebut the imbecilic claims of several of them, but, by now, you should know there’s really no advantage to doing so.
                Not a one of them (and others like the asshole bigot) are here to accomplish other than some lefty trolling by dishonesty or sophistry.
                “Fuck off and die, slaver” is the actual height of response due any one of them; beyond that, they are being graced with far more than they are worth.

          2. A. No shit Sherlock, not sooner, because he didn’t attack sooner, because Hitler attacked first. Your strawman isn’t even made of straw, just innuendos of straw.

            B. You left out the “or later” from your quote, which changes the phrase “sooner or later” from its normal meaning into some kind of nonsense.

            What teh fuck is wrong with you?

            1. A. I agree. Germany attacked the USSR. Not the other way around.

              B. I agree. Not sooner. Stalin wanted to postpone the conflict until later.

              1. The USSR attacked finland. The USSR attacked Poland.

                The commies were/are tyrants.

                1. The Russians attacked Germany and Japan too. They seized four islands in the north which they occupy to this day!

                  1. Which episode of History Channel told you this?

                2. They were almost defeated in Finland, too!

          3. Wow, you’re really being pedantic about the meaning of “sooner or later”, aren’t you? Spoiler: It’s “or”, not “and”, you’ve conceded it’s true, not proven it false.

        2. Well someone had to end the Holocaust being carried out by Hitler and his racist and reactionary goons. Stalin and the Red Army did. At least someone did that. The Western Allies, presented with evidence on numerous occasions, sat on their butts while Hitler turned 6 million Jews into gas. Let’s be more honest than Walter Durranty here, ok?

          1. Stalin was as negligent as the west and was also anti semetic. He only went after germany after they were attacked dummy.

            https://m.jpost.com/Christian-News/Today-in-History-Stalins-anti-Semitic-Doctors-Plot-441375

            1. You’re disparaging his hero.

          2. Yes, Stalin took timeout from his own Holodomor to end the Holocaust in the countries he was seizing. What a peach.
            You do know that the Germans were initially greeted as liberators by the Ukrainians, right?

            1. Yes, the ones that were carrying out Anti-Jewish pogroms in 1918 as part of the White Army We’re awfully glad to see the Nazis. You have a point.

              1. the ones that were carrying out Anti-Jewish pogroms in 1918

                The Wermacht got to Ukraine in 1941. Ukrainians who had not starved during the intervening 23 years were probably a bit more fearful of the Bolshevik occupiers than Tsarist leftovers defeated a generation earlier.

                Again, you must rist to the level of idiot before you can become a truly useful idiot.

              2. “Yes, the ones that were carrying out Anti-Jewish pogroms in 1918 as part of the White Army We’re awfully glad to see the Nazis. You have a point.”

                And the ones carrying out the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the early ’50’s were scumbag lefties like you:

                “On 13 January 1953 the Soviet government declared in Pravda that nine of the Kremlin’s most prestigious doctors had, several years earlier, murdered two of Stalin’s closest aides.4 (An English translation of the article has recently been posted on the internet.5) Moreover, as Rapoport relates, these practitioners were accused of taking part in a “vast plot conducted by Western imperialists and Zionists to kill the top Soviet political and military leadership . . . [Until Stalin’s death] the Soviet media pounded away at the supposed single ‘fifth column’ in the USSR, with constant references to Jews who were being arrested, dismissed from their jobs, or executed.”
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139050/

                So we can add anti-semetic bigotry to your list of ‘qualities’?
                Thanks, you fucking scumbag.

              3. The only good commies I’ve ever seen were dead.

          3. Well someone had to end the Holocaust being carried out by Hitler and his racist and reactionary goons.

            Tell me about it. Just look at what those racist and reactionary goons did at Katyn. The Swedes are still looking for Raoul Wallenberg.

            You do understand to be a useful idiot you have to first rise to the level of idiot , don’t you?

          4. “Well someone had to end the Holocaust being carried out by Hitler and his racist and reactionary goons. Stalin and the Red Army did.”

            Maybe, maybe not. Most of the death camps were to the east of Germany and naturally in the path of the advancing Red Army. Few were in the west in the path of the Allies advancing Armies. That said, the Soviets faced the bulk of Hitlers armies. But on the other hand the US supplied 400,000 vehicles, 14000 aircraft and 13000 tanks to the USSR for free. Without that material support, the Soviets would not have defeated the German armies they faced.

            And yes, the Allies were aware of the death camps, but there was nothing they could do about them without seriously jeopardizing the total military defeat of Germany. And the Soviets did nothing to liberate them either, they where simply in the path of their armies.

            1. And let’s not forget that those areas were then taken over by the Soviet Union which continued to oppress and murder and had their own systems of camps. They didn’t do anyone any favors.

              1. Any reading of the Red Army stalling before taking Krakow makes it quite obvious that Stalin was willing to let the Nazis ‘clean out’ the city of Poles who wished to remain in control of Poland.
                I’d have to look for the cite where is was documented in USSR history, but it was no mystery to the allies at the time.

          5. It’s almost as if there’s no honor among thieves.

          6. The Soviets taught the Nazis how to build concentration camps. Go watch “The Soviet Story”.

            -jcr

            1. They taught the Nazis many things, including how to build and run a political police.

        3. UK Chamberlain’s “appeasement” of Hitler was to stall for time to modernize the Royal Navy and get Spitfires and Hurricanes built in numbers to hold off the Luftwaffe.

          1. I see your cite got lost.
            Pretty sure even Chamberlain couldn’t make that claim after his ‘…Peace in our time…’ speech.

          2. Then why was Neville finally booted out of office?

        4. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Click For Full Details.

      2. I see you missed this:

        “…sooner or later…”

      3. Here’s a thought experiment for you. One fo the constant’s of US foreign policy is that we have such a big military, why not use it? Politicians of every stripe have muttered comments about why pay for such a big military to just sit on its butt?

        Do you really think Stalin would build up a huge army to just sit on its butt, when it was already spending precious cold hard currency on exporting Communism right from the start, before Hitler had even tried his little beer hall putsch? Why do you think Stalin wanted to build up his military, to just sit around and wait for Hitler to make the first move? Why did Stalin have so many tanks and armies in the forward areas? Oh, you say, Hitler did? But Hitler’s explanation to Stalin was to keep his military safe from the British and French; do you really think your beloved Stalin was that stupid?

        Haaackk you collectivists are always such idiots, and you just make yourself look even worse by thinking your naiveté fools anyone. You are like little kids pulling a blanket over your head and thinking no one knows where you are.

        Grow up. Take some responsibility for yourself.

        1. “Why do you think Stalin wanted to build up his military, to just sit around and wait for Hitler to make the first move?”

          No. Hitler was only one of the problems the USSR faced.

          In 1937 a war was fought with Japan. A modern military was instrumental in the USSR’s success. The USSR was also involved with the Spanish civil war, which was important in the modernization of its forces.

          But you are correct that Stalin did ‘sit around and wait for Hitler to make the first move,’ which came in June 1941 when Hitler ordered the attack on USSR. Until then, Stalin was reluctant to believe the many reports that the attack was imminent.

          1. You have done nothing to advance your thesis that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler.

            In spite of defeating Japan, Stalin still kept much of his army in the east. He was so relieved by the attack on Pearl Harbor that he relocated most of them back west to fight Hitler. No doubt that was part of the factor in delaying his own attack on Hitler.

            1. “You have done nothing to advance your thesis that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler.”

              Stalin’s catastrophic Finnish adventure taught him to leave the planning to the military. The military undoubtedly had plans to attack Germany, much like the Pentagon has plans to attack Canada and Mexico. But plans are not serious policy. Stalin’s serious policy was forestalling the conflict he saw coming. He did this diplomatically, first trying unsuccessfully with Britain, then successfully with the pact with Hitler.

              1. “Stalin’s catastrophic Finnish adventure taught him to leave the planning to the military….”

                Yeah, that’s the reason he credited the intel from his military regarding the Nazi offensive and stopped the Nazi attack right at the border, right?
                You really do not know what you’re posting about. Stalin did not trust his military to handle military affairs until he nearly lost Moscow. Only then did he start allowing the generals to general.

                1. The intel about Hitler’s plans to attack was spotty. It was based on rumors and there was no documentary evidence.

                  1. Right.
                    It came from his field officers.
                    It came from his agents in Switzerland.
                    It came from both the US and England, independently.
                    All of it documented.
                    You.
                    Are.
                    Full.
                    Of.
                    Shit.

                    1. “All of it documented”

                      You are misinformed. Stalin had no access to Hitler’s plans and was wary of stumbling into a Nazi provocation which would cut short the needed pipeline to German technology he relied on.

                    2. “Absolute War – Soviet Russia in the Second World war”, Chris Bellamy:
                      Turns out I was wrong; he got intel on the attack from even more sources than I remembered. In fact there were so many *documented* sources that Bellamy devotes 28 pages (the entire 6th chapter) to cover all of them, the chapter entitled “The War’s Worst-Kept Secret”.
                      You.
                      Are.
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.
                      And seemingly proud of it.

                    3. I figure that Stalin mistakenly thought Hitler was not insane, and had learned from the Kaiser’s mistake of starting a two-front war.

                  2. Shouldn’t we as Leftists and anti-fascists be glad of anyone planning on destroying Nazi Germany. People still celebrate May 7th as a holiday in most parts of Russia and Eastern Europe— to their credit. Why even debate this point? Yeah, ok, Stalin was drafting up contingencies to invade Nazi Germany because they were a belligerent and antagonistic towards the Soviet Union. So what? What point is made by making this argument other than to justify Hitler’s militarism and Operation Barbarossa in particular. I say, have at it, Hitler apologist. Let the Hitler Youth here have their talking point.

                    1. American Socialist
                      June.27.2020 at 2:48 pm
                      “Shouldn’t we as Leftists…”

                      Fuck off and die. Make your family proud and the world a much better place.

                    2. I for one am glad the Nazis didn’t win WW2.

                      Do I have to like Stalin now?

                    3. Fascists are leftists. It’s all about government control. The primary difference in Germany between the nazis and the communists was who was going to be in charge. Not how things were going to work.

                    4. mtrueman
                      June.27.2020 at 5:56 pm
                      You misunderstand Stalin’s psychology.

                      I don’t misunderstand him at all as I take no position on his decisions. I only reject the standard you based your assertion on which you have not addressed at all. Return to he original assertion which was that Stalin was preparing for war to come “sooner or later” which you absurdly interpreted to mean “sooner than the Nazis attacked”. This is a strawman.

                    5. “…The primary difference in Germany between the nazis and the communists was who was going to be in charge…”

                      Pipes’ “Russian Revolution” and Tooze’s “Wages of Destruction” make it quite clear that both had nearly identical aims. The difference was merely the time available to accomplish them.
                      Lenin and Stalin had 20+ years to get to where they were by 1940, but the early years of the USSR were remarkably similar to the Nazi Germany in the late ’30s.
                      Hitler claimed no desire to export his socialism, merely to export the Germans who lived under the system, while Stalin had no desire to export Russians, merely the system under which they lived.
                      Lefties call the first “right wing”, for reasons beyond the ken of thoughtful people.

                  3. It was based on rumors

                    Intelligence reports are not “rumors”. It’s revealing to watch someone misstate reality to make their point.

                    Stalin had no access to Hitler’s plans

                    The implied standard being that we must believe someone’s public statements unless we have recordings of them planning otherwise. How ridiculous.

                    1. “Intelligence reports are not “rumors”. ”

                      You misunderstand Stalin’s psychology. He believed what he wanted to believe and his intelligence never provided him with irrefutable physical documents from authentic sources that could have changed his mind. He was obsessed with notions that Hitler was trying to provoke him into abrogating the pact. He figured that he needed at least another year and anything less was a crimp in his communistic plans. He had to dismantle the industrial plant in the west and rebuild it in the east. It was a huge task, and accomplished successfully despite constant communist bungling. We have the doughty Soviet people to thank for this.

                      Stalin’s belief in what he wanted to believe is also evident in his fear of Trotsky and denying the horrible consequences of the grain confiscation in the Ukraine.

                    2. “…Stalin’s belief in what he wanted to believe is also evident in his fear of Trotsky and denying the horrible consequences of the grain confiscation in the Ukraine.”

                      So you’ve dropped your bullshit that he had no intel, and now claim it made no difference.
                      That makes your argument non-falsifiable; more bullshit.

              2. “successfully” for about 18 mos. !

            2. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Click For Full Details.

      4. mtrueman
        June.27.2020 at 10:46 am
        ” There’s evidence he was going to attack The NAZI’s sooner or later and had his eye on all of Germany.”

        There’s no evidence that Stalin was going to attack Germany sooner.

        “Sooner or later” does not mean sooner than any particular other event. It means at an indeterminate time. So either mtrueman is stupidest man alive or he intentionally mis-interpreted the statement in order to find something to disagree with. Doing this is an implicit admission they agree with the actual statement, otherwise an objection would be supportable without the misinterpretation.

        1. ” It means at an indeterminate time.”

          Stalin would only have launched an attack on Germany at a time determined by him according to his advantageous estimation of the situation. He was banking on Germany hold off breaking the treaty for another year. In the end it didn’t matter. When the fighting started Germany’s reserves were almost empty while Russia had millions also vastly outnumbering in superior tanks. Had the German’s followed Hitler’s instinct to concentrate on the south, the outcome would have been the same if only more prolonged. The army instead broke into three, including a whole lot of men and equipment in pursuit of a prestigious but worthless trophy, Moscow.

          1. So as a supposed reply, we get a non-squitur?

            1. I for one enjoy mtrueman’s summary of documentaries I have seen on the history channel.

              1. Oh.
                Em.
                Gee!
                That’s where he gets those piles of shit!

              2. Which also explains why trueman refuses to provide cites; he might just as well cite Parade magazine.

        2. The lefties on this site are an amazing combination of both stupidity and dishonesty.

          1. It isn’t hard to be amazing on this site, believe me.

            1. Oh, how…….
              pathetic.

          2. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone. Click For Full Details.

      5. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone…… Click For Full Details.

      6. I don’t have anywhere near that clout as these ppl but I’m even getting flack from Google games for spreading Infowars links on their stupid games world chat lines… whatever…???? I’m trying as best I can givin my current situation. Click For Full Details.

      7. Why did Stalin have his forces at the border? He thought and the author John Moser presents evidence in a book that Stalin thought the battle between Hitler and France/UK would be a stalemate like the first war and after a few years he could run right through to the channel. Why do liberal western media types always defend stalin? NY Times I sort of get..they have a grudge agains the Czar and the waves of antisemitism..(this shows up today via Putin) and as many Bolsheviks leaders were Jewish the Times kind of gave Stalin a pass for while…but man how anyone thinks Stalin was misunderstood is beyond belief..

    4. Both regimes were the embodiment of altruism. But one was slightly more religious.

    5. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read more

    6. …after he caused the virtual ruination of his own country in 1941.

    7. I didn’t mean to hit the flag icon. Please don’t flag his comment. I accidentally clicked on the flag. Sorry about that.

  2. Great review.

    I dont think most critics would go the extra mile to bash the Times but they deserve it!

    1. And Monday morning ENB will be linking to more of their bullshit.

  3. Modern times repeats the mistakes of Duranty and the NYT and does so loudly and openly.

    1. You can criticize the New York Times for its scanty coverage of famine in Yemen today. I don’t think you will, but you can.

      1. The New York Times is a Progressive Left provincial news rag of no particular importance other than its lingering and largely undeserved reputation. That it is botching reporting on events in Yemen is hardly surprising since it is an Arab State with no open bar.

        1. I think it’s a mistake to underestimate the influence of the front page of the NYT on the rest of the nation’s media outlets. Especially for national stories.

          Perhaps it’s fair to blame the NYT scant coverage of Yemen for the neglect the story suffers from the rest of the nation’s media. ie if the NYT gave it more prominence, the rest of the media would follow suit.

          1. And that is a tragedy..the Times has been and will be a den of cultural marxism and anti-Americanism. Their absolutely despicable editorial after the largest lynching in American history where they blamed the victims as “scum” was evidence of their true nature.

      2. I’m more referring to the narrative over facts widely present. Especially at the NYT.

  4. Thank God today is so vastly different.
    Why bother with secret police when you can openly use twitter?

  5. Moral Clarity, the new Foxnews watchword no doubt

    so it is the NY Times alone denying the story? Where is the rest of the world press?

    convenient dumping on the present day Times when right wing sources wouldn’t know truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads

    1. Pissed because of the honest portrayal that your lefty boos at the Times have been comm-symp pieces of shit for decades?

      1. And when it was convenient Churchill defended and empowered Stalin.

        1. Yeah, look over there!

        2. I have never understood Churchill’s sudden and complete embrace of Stalin. Britain and France declared war on Germany for its invasion of Poland; why not extend that to Russia after their own invasion just two weeks later? Or at least a sternly worded letter?

          Only guess I can make is that Stalin’s invasion could be seen as a pre-emptive defensive maneuver to keep Hitler at bay. After all, the details of the Aug 22 treaty and its division of Poland were unknown to Churchill. But it’s not a satisfying answer. Maybe it goes back to the thrust of this show, that the West simply did not know how evil Stalin was; and to my other comment, that Russia was seen as so primitive and backwards that Stalin’s changes were accepted as progress, not regress, whereas Hitler’s change were seen for the disaster they were for a modern civilized society. This was also before the Nazis began their mass exterminations, and of course Stalin’s own exterminations were unknown.

          But the extent to which Churchill aided Stalin at Britain’s expense still is a puzzle.

          1. Churchill never liked Stalin, but thought they needed Russia to deal with Germany.
            Stalin manipulated the hell out of both Churchill and FDR, but Churchill thought FDR had his back. Churchill even proposed his “naughty list” of how to divvy up territories with Stalin.
            But Churchill definitely saw the threat. Problem was, as the war wound down, FDR stabbed Churchill in the back to suck up to Stalin.

            1. Churchill fucked up on many levels with Stalin but at least stood up to Stalin after WWII in Greece. Without British support Greece might have been under the Iron curtain for decades like Eastern Europe that FDR sold out to the Commies.

            2. There is also the question of FDR’s health and competency after about the time of the ’44 elections.

          2. “I have never understood Churchill’s sudden and complete embrace of Stalin.”

            They both took an early and accurate measure of Hilter. British politicians and royalty had a positive view of him. So did the Canadian PM and Americans like Roosevelt and Ford.

            “Britain and France declared war on Germany for its invasion of Poland”

            Chamberlain was Britain’s PM at the time. Churchill didn’t assume the office until later. And remember, the war was declared. The fighting didn’t begin until later. There was a period called ‘the phony war’ (or Sitzkrieg) when Britain was trying to forestall conflict which lasted until May 1940 when Churchill assumed office.

            1. Yes, I had forgotten Churchill was not PM during the Soviet invasion.

              The phony war was not so phony. France sat in the Maginot Line and did nothing to help Poland, and Britain followed France’s lead, seeing as how any action would have had to begin in France. But there was an air war, and the U-boats were busy right from the start.

              1. France and ItLy fought some embarrassin skirmishes along the Mediterranean. Hitler had idolized Mussolini, and wound up castigating him for being worthless

              2. The ‘happy time’ when German U-boats were very successful in hunting down and sinking allied shipping started in summer 1940. The Battle of Britain also dates back to the same period. The ‘phony war’ ended in May 1940 when Churchill assumed office.

                1. “The ‘happy time’ when German U-boats were very successful in hunting down and sinking allied shipping started in summer 1940…”

                  Once more full of shit.
                  That was the term for the spring and early summer of ’42, when the US (now at war with the Nazis) had not instituted convoys nor blackouts on the Atlantic coast.

                  1. 1942 was the U-boat commanders’ _second_ happy time. The first Happy Time began in June 1940 when U-boats could use bases on the French Atlantic coast to attack inadequately-protected British shipping rather than having to travel from the Baltic Sea, and ended gradually as the Brits built more and more escort vessels, equipped long-range patrol aircraft with radar to hunt submarines day and night, and learned to use their assets better. The second was when the USA entered the war – and was inexplicably even less prepared to defend its shipping than the Brits had been 2-1/2 years earlier.

                2. BTW, shitstain, I’ll be pleased to offer a cite.
                  Right after you do for your claim.

          3. I have never seen evidence that Churchill “embraced” Stalin, out of necessity he allied with him. In my opinion he dealt with him more to appease Roosevelt than anything else. For some reason FDR seemed captivated with Stalin, never spoke out about the oppression and killings that were as bad or worse than the Nazi’s. I read a great interview with Hoover he did after the war in which he opines that we got into the war in Europe way to soon, that we should have let the Nazi’s and the Commies go at it for another few years and we would not have had the cold war.
            It has always struck me as ironic that two generals at the end of two wars pressed to continue on or we would be fighting a much worse war later and were called crazy. They were Pershing and Patton and they were both proved right.

            1. FDR thought he could out smart Stalin. That and American Progressivism and Communism share many traits, so FDR and Stalin were some of the same person.

              FDR could not swing American support for fighting the Commies as most wanted the war in Europe over. Stalins spies in the state dept relayed this fact. Stalin would have pulled pout from eastern Europe if the USA pushed, but we never did. Stalin knew about the A bomb before Truman told him. The A bomb was a massive threat the Russian massed armies, so of course they would have withdrawn back to the USSR.

              1. “FDR thought he could out smart Stalin. That and American Progressivism and Communism share many traits, so FDR and Stalin were some of the same person.”
                Beyond which, but the time FDR was dealing directly with Stalin, he was a pathetic, demented human who had no business in his position, and further, did NOT take Truman to Yalta for briefing.
                He and his ‘doctor’ should have been charged and convicted of criminal negligence, even after FDR’s death. I would be happy to piss on his grave.

                “FDR could not swing American support for fighting the Commies as most wanted the war in Europe over. Stalins spies in the state dept relayed this fact. Stalin would have pulled pout from eastern Europe if the USA pushed, but we never did. Stalin knew about the A bomb before Truman told him. The A bomb was a massive threat the Russian massed armies, so of course they would have withdrawn back to the USSR.”
                OK, but!
                The US never did use nukes in aggression.
                The people of Eastern Europe allowed their leaders to take over as Commies, hoping that free shit was better than those nasty businesses! And got exactly what they deserved.
                Not my problem.

                1. The people of Eastern Europe had a hard time not accepting communism, with their armies wiped out and the Soviet occupation troops very much present. When they tried to wriggle free of the “free shit” ideology, they were squashed by the Soviet troops on their territories (see Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68). When the Soviets got bogged down in Afghanistan, and it was clear their military had no fight left for Eastern Europe, all the communist regimes fell like dominoes. Communism was a foreign occupation, not the choice of Eastern European Bernie Bros, as you describe them.

    2. This is what we call denial.

      You know… I’ve never actually seen someone defend Duranty. I’ve seen them ignore it… yet here you are.

    3. Lies, misdirection and bullshit. The left hasn’t changed one in a century.

    4. “convenient dumping on the present day Times when right wing sources ”

      Hi whiny cunt bitch sock, this story is about yaboi the Times.

      I realize you are a snowflake and can’t handle criticism, but grow a pair socko, yaboi fellated Stalin.

    5. convenient dumping on the present day Times when right wing sources wouldn’t blah, blah, blah

      Oh fuck.
      Duranty was Stalin’s Goebbels and the NYT his Der Stürmer in the West. I can’t believe you’re calling legitimate criticism “convenient dumping”. That’s so disgusting.

      And playing Stalin’s mouthpiece wasn’t their only evil. They have consistently pandered to the upper-middle classes worst instincts. They advocated scientific racism, for instance, for as long as it was popular with progressives.

      When in 1906 the Bronx Zoo bought a Mbuti pygmy man and kept him in a cage in the monkey house, the NYT defended it in an editorial saying;
      It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale, and the suggestion that Benga should be in a school instead of a cage ignores the high probability that school would be a place … from which he could draw no advantage whatever. The idea that men are all much alike except as they have had or lacked opportunities for getting an education out of books is now far out of date.
      https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-new-york-times-defended-putting-a-black-man-in-the-bronx-zoo

      This stuff is rife throughout their history. No other major paper in North America has ever been so evil.

    6. “Moral Clarity, the new Foxnews watchword no doubt”

      Or it’s a phrase used in…The New York Times. The article about it from a couple days ago is even linked to in this very article! Where do you morons come from, and why are you here?

      https://reason.com/2020/06/24/journalists-abandoning-objectivity-for-moral-clarity-really-just-want-to-call-people-immoral/

  6. I don’t have anywhere near that clout as these ppl but I’m even getting flack from Google games for spreading Infowars links on their stupid games world chat lines… whatever…? I’m trying as best I can givin my current situation …?????…http://Www.Topcitypay.com?

  7. It’s not like the peasants were “making it” before Stalin showed up. A catastrophe like this doesn’t happen overnight. Stalin took the bread out of their mouths but who is responsible for putting them in a predicament where they were depending upon bread for their very survival. There’s way more to the story than Stalin.

    1. “…There’s way more to the story than Stalin.”

      Are you hoping your irrelevant comment will direct attention away from the NYT, Duranty and that pathological shitbag Stalin?

      1. No, I don’t like things wrapped up in neat boxes because the problem we’re confronting is more insidious and pervasive.

        1. “No, I don’t like things wrapped up in neat boxes because the problem we’re confronting is more insidious and pervasive.”

          Yes, how big of you. It’s just convenient that you wish to examine those issues rather than the one at hand, right?
          Besides which, evolution was responsible for their dependence on bread for survival.
          The last Czar was no angel, but he did not mount mass murder campaigns, nor cause mass starvation as did both Lenin and Stalin.
          Russia had a chance at a decent government before Stalin, by strictly illegal means, high-jacked an attempt at a democratic government.

          1. Correction:
            …before *Lenin*, by strictly illegal means…

          2. “had a chance at a decent government”

            Is that the St Petersburg Soviet? Because, yes, it was Lenin who outmaneuvered them. Lenin was the only politician at the time promising and end to the war. Kerensky actually launched disastrous offensives against the Germans. Lenin was able to take advantage of the arms of disaffected soldiers, and the rest of the army (and the rest of Russia) wasn’t taking him seriously and was certain that the Bolsheviks wouldn’t last more than a few weeks. The saying goes the Soviet had all the authority but no power, and it’s the opposite with the Bolsheviks.

            1. He did what lefty thugs do: He called elections when only his allies were available, he packed committees, he had his thugs deny access by his opponents.
              Briefly, he acted like the thug his was and took any measure, up to and including killing opponents to win.
              You *would* call that ‘outmaneuvering’.

              1. “You *would* call that ‘outmaneuvering’.”

                Yes, this seems to be a moment where you understand me. He was better at maneuvering than his opponents, and offered, and briefly delivered on a compelling slogan: Land, Peace and Bread. There wasn’t another party in Russia offering that combo.

                1. “Yes, this seems to be a moment where you understand me.”

                  I see.
                  You accept outright murder and thuggery as “manueuver”; on top of being stupid and a sophist, you are a scumbag bereft of principle.

                  1. “You accept outright murder and thuggery as “manueuver”

                    Of course. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were playing for keeps. You seem intent on underestimating the man and the seriousness of his intentions.

                    1. “You seem intent on underestimating the man and the seriousness of his intentions.”

                      You are obviously intent on being an apologist for every bit of thuggery Lenin, Stalin and the lot used to gain their ends.
                      ‘The ends justify the means’, right? What a pathetic piece of shit you are, and thank you for admitting it.

                  2. The takeaway here is that marxists are all murderous totalitarian thugs at heart and should be identified and disposed of at the earliest possible opportunity.

                    No one has a right to be a Marxist. They are enemies of humanity. An existential threat.

                    1. The further takeaway is truman’s celebration of those tactics. I thought he was stupid; he’s a scumbag thug.

    2. I have read reports that Lenin and Stalin did not actually improve Russia’s industrial capacity any more than the last Czar’s plans would have done; but czarist policies had been so bad for so long, and Russia had been considered so backwards, crude, and primitive for so long, that Lenin and Stalin had a pretty easy job of working the propaganda to make themselves look like a breath of fresh air. Also, socialism had not yet been tried, had all the promise of the new engineering miracles applied to scientific governance, and there were still so many absolute monarchies in Europe and around the world, that all it took was a few fools like Duranty to lead the rest of the fools around by the nose.

      1. Can you expand on why you think starving people to feed industrial production is socialism? It’s seems like the opposite of socialism.

        1. “Can you expand on why you think starving people to feed industrial production is socialism? It’s seems like the opposite of socialism.”

          Your mask is slipping…

          1. Starving peasants to feed armies isn’t socialism.

            1. The self-proclaimed socialists doing it disagree. They were lying right? But you’re not? LOL

              Face it your ideology = murder and you’re literally defending it lololol

            2. But socialism IS starving the masses. One is a subset of the other. Socialism ALWAYS starves the masses.

            3. Yes, it is. It is the General Will determining what resources are needed where. The fact that they were stealing all the food from people who had little interest in their ideology was just a happy coincidence.

            4. Starving peasants to feed armies isn’t socialism

              Unless you’re Pol Pot and his Killing Fields… oh, and Mao… and Hoxha, and Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev… oh mustn’t forget Uncle Ho’s raids on Lào Cai farmers to supply the People’s Army of Vietnam when president of North Vietnam… Whups, almost forgot what the Kim clam has been doing in the DPRK for the last 30 years.

              In practice, starving peasants to feed armies IS socialism.

              1. “Unless you’re Pol Pot and his Killing Fields”

                You are misinformed about Pol Pot and his appeal. They started to gain strength especially in the jungles of Eastern Cambodia, along the border with Vietnam where the US was bombing very intensively. (The notorious Ho Chi Mink Trail.) Families would hand their children over to the KR, and they would be fed while they were inducted into the party. They started out as a way Cambodian peasants could save their children.

                1. You’re a fucking idiot. I said nothing about how Pol Pot initially gained support. My comment was that “Starving peasants to feed armies” was the impetus for the genocide of the Cambodian people.

                  I know even the Nazis started out feigning concern for the workers and preaching socialism. Nobody starts out by immediately killing a quarter of Cambodia’s 1975 population. You work up to that.

                  The “Maha Lout Ploh”, a plan to feed the army through an entirely self-sufficient agrarian society free of foreign influence, depopulated cities and kicked off the massacres. One out of every four Cambodians were put to death. If it happened in the US today instead, that would be 82 million people butchered and starved.

                  That was the point I was making to Jeff’s sock, and I said nothing about Pol Pot’s appeal.

                  1. Trueman is worse than that; check up-thread. He’s more than happy to endorse murder as ‘political maneuvering’.

                    1. Another example of the case for free speech. Let them keep talking, they’ll eventually expose themselves as the violent totalitarians they are.

                    2. I could not agree more.
                      The “Life is strange” sock down-thread took all of three posts before admitting that s/he is an apologist for mass-murderers. Our shitstain trueman took longer, but there it is: Murder is ‘political maneuvering’, which is the end point of ‘the ends justify the means’ argument.
                      I’m sure the shitstain considers himself ‘clever’ in such admiration.

                  2. I agree with your comment except for the fucking idiot part. I believe I’m smarter and better informed than you are. More importantly, I’m not blinkered by the ‘narrative.’

                    1. Wow, are you seriously calling the Killing Fields a “narrative”?
                      Even the Khmer Rouge themselves freely admit it. You’re something special to be denying the Cambodian genocide.
                      I see above your calling the Holodomor a hoax too.

                      You and Holocaust denier Misek can hang out and compare notes on your Jewish/Ukrainian/Cambodian “conspiracies”.

                      I guess you are more of an evil fucking idiot instead of just a mere fucking idiot.

                    2. “I agree with your comment except for the fucking idiot part.”

                      Well, it really should be “fucking lefty ignoramus”, so we’ll accept it.

                2. “You are misinformed about Pol Pot and his appeal. They started to gain strength especially in the jungles of Eastern Cambodia, along the border with Vietnam where the US was bombing very intensively…”

                  Shitstain’s claims that Stalin never had intel regarding the Nazi invasion, the U-boat ‘happy-times’, make it obvious that trueman is a half-educated ignoramus, probably largely informed by Wiki.
                  This claim, on the weight of evidence, can and should be considered bullshit, like nearly every other ever claim posted here.

            5. Do you know what a no true scotsman fallacy is?

            6. “Starving peasants to feed armies isn’t socialism.”

              Yet every Socialist state does this. Weird.

              1. It’s not weird at all once you understand the extent of the disruption forced collectivisation has on agriculture.

                1. Nor is it strange the sarcasm flew right over your head. But then, you’re stupid that way.

            7. Life is strange
              June.27.2020 at 11:10 am
              Starving peasants to feed armies isn’t socialism.

              Right, it’s the result of socialism. Thanks for the distinction.

              1. What socialists do “isn’t socialism” according to their propagandists.

        2. Union of Soviet “Socialist” Republics.

          That everyone at the time thought Socialism’s time had finally come.

          That socialists around the world defended Communism for decades.

          Useful idiots like you defend socialism until it runs out of other people’s money and falls apart, then you blame capitalism for interfering with it by withholding their own money.

          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. And the mafia fascists who control North Korea describe their project as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. From where I’m sitting Stalin looks more like a medieval King than a Bernie Sanders.

            1. well yeah that’s because you’re a fucking retard

            2. “…From where I’m sitting Stalin looks more like a medieval King than a Bernie Sanders.”

              You should move; your vision is badly impaired. Or, you’re just full of shit.

            3. From where you’re sitting is called hindsight long after there’s any need to pretend Stalin was an angel.

            4. What do you think Bernie Sanders would be like given enough power?

              I can guarantee you that he would be every bit the thug his Marxist heroes were. Given a little time. So it’s probably a very good thing he will die sooner than later. Given his advanced age.

        3. Do you know a damn thing about what you’re commenting on?

          The initial victims were of course ‘enemies of the proletariat’, and therefore sanctioned for murder by the state. The bourgeoisie, aristocrats, and capitalists were all acceptable victims. And then the proletariat *couldn’t or wouldn’t make the farms productive* (lack of institutional knowledge after removing the kulaks, central planners forcing farmers to plant unfamiliar crops, lack of investment because they had no ownership interest in farm productivity). Collectivization of farms always fails. And then Stalin swooped in and stole most of what food there was.

          1. ” Collectivization of farms always fails. And then Stalin swooped in and stole most of what food there was.”

            Stalin’s plan was to mechanize farm labor by introducing tractors and such things. He was following an American model of large scale industrialized agriculture. Stalin had been swooping in and confiscating food from the farmers since he came to power in the 20s.

            1. “Stalin’s plan was to mechanize farm labor by introducing tractors and such things. He was following an American model of large scale industrialized agriculture.”
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.

        4. Because Lenin, Stalin, Mao, The Kim’s, and Chavez/Maduro all took the same path.

          Can you explain why cutting marginal tax rates and boosting defense spending is Republicanism?
          Can you explain why exponentially adding regulations and funneling trillions in social spending thru DC bureaucracies and treating races differently and destabilizing or overthrowing regimes in shithole countries is Progressivism?
          Can you explain why nominating unelectable candidates and losing elections in Libertarianism?

      2. ” improve Russia’s industrial capacity any more than the last Czar’s plans would have done”

        It’s easy to plan. I’m sure the Czar planned to be on the winning side of WWI, but look how that turned out.

        1. “It’s easy to plan…”
          This from the shitbag apologist for Stalin

          1. Stalin is my favorite Soviet leader and I hate to see him slandered by muddle headed red baiters.

            1. This from the shitbag apologist for Stalin

    3. “There’s way more to the story than Stalin.”

      Yeah like Lenin and Trotsky.

      Oh shit, that actually makes it worse for you.

    4. “who is responsible for putting them in a predicament where they were depending upon bread for their very survival”

      The Communist Party you malevolent fuck.
      They exterminated the Kulaks like the Nazis did Jews. And do you know what made you a Kulak? Owning a couple of milk cows or a horse, which 80% of the peasantry did.

      So your precious party killed all the ‘rich’ Kulaks and confiscated all the livestock, and now you slimely insinuate, like the dirtbag you are, that the peasants were the agents of their own destruction.

      Fuck you.

    5. Stalin took the bread out of their mouths but who is responsible for putting them in a predicament where they were depending upon bread for their very survival.

      Yup! Let them depend upon cake.

  8. “I believe in a movement that’s bigger than any one person.”
    Run from anyone spouting such bullshit.

    1. AMEN!

    2. Especially when their “one person,” is actually “the millions of people starving to death because of broken economic policies.”

  9. “Trump administration asks Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/trump-supreme-court-overturn-obamacare-340851

    Take it out behind the barn and kill it with a pitchfork.

    1. if he can get this done.. that will seal it for me. best president of my lifetime.

      1. Roberts will be the wrench in the works.

  10. The other is how Western journalists, particularly those of The New York Times, deliberately covered up the mass murder.

    Give them a break. Most of their staff was busy working on current endeavors like The 1619 Project. Think about it. 1932 was only…carry the 1…88 years ago. 1619 is literally Groundhog Day.

    Between Walter Durant and Nikole Hannah-Jones the NYT has almost single-handedly destroyed the Pulitzer. Or maybe it is vice-versa.

    1. Damn it! Walter Duranty.

    2. I won’t believe Progressivism is dead until the NYT is no longer perceived as the first draft of history.

      There is something unseemly about treating anything from the NYT as reliable. They lie so much, fake so much, and coverup so much, that nothing they say can be trusted, yet we see them quoted all the time, including here at Reason, on “unrelated” matters like police malfeasance, coronavirus responses, and other matters.

      If someone lies on the big things, and has been doing so for at least a century, it is long past time to stop trusting them on anything. You can’t cherry pick what they say; it is all tainted.

      If some shop had done crap work on my friends’ and neighbors’ cars, and you heard nothing but horror stories for major work, would you take your car to them for oil changes or brake jobs? Why do people still trust them, the WaPo, and others of their sort, when they have lied their asses off, intentionally lied, covered up, and pushed propaganda, for so long?

      1. Because the people who read it really like the message. The lies are comfortable so they don’t think about them, it’s just easier to accept them.

      2. For the confirmation of their biases?

    3. Pulitzer himself makes one wonder if the Pulitzer is worth jack shit.

      Remember that his paper was a shameless yellow journalism outlet, right along with Hurst, and this is actually the very reason the award exists.

    4. “Between Walter Durant and Nikole Hannah-Jones the NYT”
      It seems the NYT hasn’t changed much.

  11. I think the New York Times has improved its coverage of orchestrated famines. The on going famine in Yemen, probably the worst example today, receives some coverage. When was the last time Reason magazine or FOX news gave us anything as comprehensive and recent as NYT’s admittedly scant offerings?

    1. Yeah, they assigned a top-level reporter to the beat, and he’s been filing stories filled with lies about it, right?

      1. The last NYT story I came across from Google was written by a reported based in Lebanon at the beginning of this month. The last FOX coverage seems to have been an opinion piece by some neo-cons based in Washington. That was more than two years ago.

        It’s likely that Reason sheds more ink on the Ukraine famine than the one in Yemen. Here is Reason magazine’s last mention of the Yemen famine, from October 2019:

        “When Congress passed a bipartisan resolution that would have cut off American aid to Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war in Yemen—a conflict that has triggered a famine, killing an estimated 50,000 civilians—Trump vetoed it. “

        1. Oooh, an elephant! A shiny one at that! Piloting a zeppelin!

        2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Death_toll

          By the end of 1933 millions of people had starved to death or otherwise died unnaturally in the Soviet republics. Total population loss (including stillbirth) across the union is estimated at 6–7 million.[64] The Soviet Union long denied that the famine had taken place.

          conflict that has triggered a famine, killing an estimated 50,000

          You look incredibly stupid comparing the two.

          1. Add to that, the NYT’s agent purposely lied to support that muderous regime, while not a single US news organization has even attempted to do the same regarding Yemen.
            Trueman is again shoveling shit; his posts are uniformly dishonest or sophistry.
            Stupid and smug about it.

          2. “You look incredibly stupid comparing the two.”

            I understand. But the famine in Ukraine was over 70 years ago. The famine in Yemen is current and on going. A daily newspaper focuses on current affairs.

            1. And discussing the issue of news organizations being dishonest because they’re blinded by ideology is definitely not current. That sort of crass behavior simply doesn’t happen anymore.

              1. “because they’re blinded by ideology is definitely not current.”

                I disagree. It’s happening again today with the tendency to gloss over the rape of Yemen. Self delusion prevents you from recognizing this. You’re a modern day Duranty. Or a stoooge of one.

                1. “I disagree.”
                  That’s because
                  You.
                  Are.
                  Full.
                  Of.
                  Shit.

            2. “I understand. But the famine in Ukraine was over 70 years ago. The famine in Yemen is current and on going. A daily newspaper focuses on current affairs.”

              Do you understand that the issue under discussion is the NYT mendacity in publishing Duranty’s lies?
              And your criticism of the NYT coverage of other issues is irrelevant to the discussion?
              Just asking, since your ignorance seems more obvious than it normally is.

              1. “Do you understand that the issue under discussion is the NYT mendacity in publishing Duranty’s lies?”

                I do. I also understand that the story is not news. Nothing has changed since the last Duranty story appeared on FOX more than 3 years ago.

                1. “…I also understand that the story is not news…”

                  Given that you admitted up-thread to be an unprincipled lefty shit, we’ll accept this as the standard lefty claim of ‘old news’ and ignore it.

    2. How many reporters does the NYT have? Funny that with all that budget, it’s a minor Muslim spat they focus on. And you too: do you think something shiny will distract people from the Duranty and 1619 lies?

      1. “How many reporters does the NYT have?”

        I don’t know. They can also use wire services and stringers (part timers) if they have no reporter in the field.

        ” it’s a minor Muslim spat they focus on.”

        If New York Times, has a focus, it’s New York City. I’m not sure what minor Muslim spat they are supposedly focused on.

        ” And you too: do you think something shiny will distract people from the Duranty and 1619 lies?”

        Duranty is history. There is no need to ‘distract people’ from a story they ignore anyway. Last mention of Duranty in FOX news: 3 years ago.

        The famine in Yemen is current and on going. I think the NYT coverage, scanty as it is, is an improvement over their efforts on the Ukraine famine.

        1. “Duranty is history. There is no need to ‘distract people’ from a story they ignore anyway. Last mention of Duranty in FOX news: 3 years ago.”

          I have to admit, you are a master of piling on the bullshit.
          We start with false equivalence; when you get busted for that, you move to misdirection.
          You.
          ARE.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

        2. Any coverage of such a puny famine as a side effect of war is a vast improvement on lying about millions intentionally murdered.

          1. This was my original point. I wrote:

            “I think the New York Times has improved its coverage of orchestrated famines. ”

            Not to say its coverage couldn’t be improved or that the rest of the media is any better.

            1. So your “point” is not worthy of your postings or anyone’s attention?

              1. You get what you pay for.

                1. Oh, how……
                  pathetic.

                2. Lol, you just admitted your comments have no value.

                  1. That’s ‘clever repartee’ to trueman.

        3. “Duranty is history.”

          1. Lie.
          2. Cover up lies.
          3. When the lies and cover-up are exposed, dismiss this as “history”.
          4. Go back to #1.

  12. The lesson here is that it’s unnecessary to be willfully dishonest in coverage. All you need to do is choose your conclusions first, ignore the importance of respecting people’s rights, and your supporters will find the rationale to justify whatever you do–up to and including starving millions of people to death.

    We’d like to think such things couldn’t happen here, but it’s the same story cross culturally and throughout history. We saw more or less the same kind of thing over the past few weeks in Americans cities all over the country–with the press actively refusing to use the word “riot” to describe looting and arson and using the word “protest” instead.

    Make no mistake about what that means, which is that they’ll rationalize anything so long as they think it’s being done for a good cause. If they thought forcing average Americans to suffer physical and economic depredations were the unfortunate but necessary means to address the problems of racism, poverty, and global warming, they’d paper over our destruction like it wasn’t really happening and didn’t really matter.

  13. “Whether Duranty’s affection for Stalin was the result of ideological leanings, as Mr. Jones suggests, or just personal convenience (he had a son by a Russian mistress who would not have been allowed to accompany him if he were expelled) is impossible to say.”

    I’ve read elsewhere that Stalin played both sides of this with western intellectuals and media people. They would send Russian women home with the men who would play ball. Those women could be withdrawn at any moment. When a beautiful Russian woman ostensibly falls in love with you because you’re so smart about Stalin and communism, you may not need much more impetus than that to rationalize the deaths of millions of Ukrainians away. I bet I’m not the only guy in the thread who’s listened to a woman spout the stupidest political shit in the world—because, . . . it didn’t seem like stupid shit when someone that attractive was saying it. Why accentuate the negative? The people against Stalin are all a bunch of racist fascists anyway!

    1. Have you seen some of those antifa goddeses in their designer black uniforms? And the way they hold those spraycans.

      1. When Stalin invited his guests for a conference and supplied you with someone interesting to talk to, I doubt she looked like the typical Occupy Wall Street drum circle dancer after she’s been sleeping on the sidewalk for two weeks.

        1. Have you heard about Guy Burgess? Nowhere near as big a name as Duranty in today’s red baiting circles, but he was one of a handful of ‘Cambridge Spies’ who worked for USSR 30s – 50s. He was as drunken, shabby, filthy, disheveled and smelly as they come, but a brilliant conversationalist. He struck up a close relationship with Churchill in the 30s while at the BBC. He also boasted that he could talk any man into his bed. Later, while in MI5, about to be transferred to Washington, a superior pulled him aside and warned him about strange American life ways: The locals don’t take kindly to blacks, commies or queers. Burgess said when he got to Washington he’d have an affair with Paul Robeson. (A vocalist who was notorious black commie queer.)

          1. mtrueman
            June.27.2020 at 8:49 pm
            “Have you heard about Guy Burgess? (followed by irrelevant bullshit)”
            Yes, Fuck off and die.

          2. One of Kim Philby’s clique of queers.

  14. Just knock it off with the Red Scare shit. You guys are starting to sound like Birchers. We’ll let you know when the omelette is done. Since when are Libertarians anti communist anyway?

    1. Lol, WTF.

    2. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a prima facie example of stupid.

    3. Speaking of John Birch, isn’t it odd how Reason doesn’t mention how Gareth Jones died, in a somewhat similar manner? There are monuments to him also.

      1. And you want to pull them down, don’t you?

    4. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. Click For Full Details.

  15. The phrase “moral clarity” was first used by the right, specifically by Bill Bennett, who used it to promote the War on Drugs during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. It reflected just as much moral confusion then as it does now when used by people on the left.

    1. Holy shit you’re fucking ignorant. It was a common phrase as far back as the 1950s.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/magazine/what-could-be-wrong-with-a-little-moral-clarity.html

      “Moral clarity” was literally forged in war. The phrase first became popular in the early 1950s, soon after the onset of the Cold War, then subsided slightly during the 1960s and 1970s.

      And the use of moralistic arguments date back to the beginnings of philosophy.

    2. and even then it was merely a bromide for those who spouted their blather to cover up for a lack of true principles. such terms are nebulous by design, like hope and change, and are used to manipulate those perfectly willing to be led by the nose. it’s so much easier than thinking for ones self

      1. Samefagging your own post doesn’t make you any less obvious, Jeff.

  16. Tell us more, Mr. Garvin, about a clinger’s affection for statues of racists, traitors, and losers.

    1. Tell us more, asshole bigot, about your love for mass-murderers and their apologists.

    2. statues of racists, traitors, and losers.

      Like Lincoln, Abigail Adams, 54th Regiment memorial and Matthias Baldwin?

      Poor Kirkland, so ignorant but so self-righteous. The perfect recipe for stupidity.

  17. It is true The New York Times (Pravda on the Hudson) was Stalin’s whore, but that is all changed now.
    Now Pravda on the Hudson is the People’s Republic of China’s whore.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/china-behind-beside-leading-liberal-media-efforts-destroy-president-trump-america/
    The more things change, the more the stay the same.

    1. Very true. They are proudly anti-Russian now. Now that the USSR is dissolved and Russia is a shell of its former self, there are suddenly evil Russians behind every tree

  18. “Well someone had to end the Holocaust being carried out by Hitler and his racist and reactionary goons. Stalin and the Red Army did.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Most of the death camps were to the east of Germany and naturally in the path of the advancing Red Army. Few were in the west in the path of the Allies advancing Armies. That said, the Soviets faced the bulk of Hitlers armies. But on the other hand the US supplied 400,000 vehicles, 14000 aircraft and 13000 tanks to the USSR for free. Without that material support, the Soviets would not have defeated the German armies they faced.

    And yes, the Allies were aware of the death camps, but there was nothing they could do about them without seriously jeopardizing the total military defeat of Germany. And the Soviets did nothing to liberate them either, they where simply in the path of their armies.

    1. ” But on the other hand the US supplied 400,000 vehicles, 14000 aircraft and 13000 tanks to the USSR for free. ”

      True, but a vehicle, an airplane or a tank is useless without someone to operate it. This US supplied equipment was operated by Soviet men and women, who fought like hellcats. They would have fought even harder without it. And don’t forget, Russia’s most important military asset, ‘General Winter,’ the German soldier’s worst nightmare.

      1. “This US supplied equipment was operated by Soviet men and women, who fought like hellcats.”
        Yes, they did, shitbag, courtesy of Stalin’s famous Order #270.
        As you admitted, up-thread, you are a pathetic piece of lefty shit, bereft of principles and more than willing to countenance thuggery for the ends you desire.

        “And don’t forget, Russia’s most important military asset, ‘General Winter,’ the German soldier’s worst nightmare.”
        Most apologists for Stalin’s thuggery would have attempted to hide their bias a bit more effectively; that General Winter, strangely enough, affected both sides. Lefty scumbags tend to ignore that.
        Fuck off and die; your family will thank you.

        1. General Winter is the humorous nickname Russians have for her harsh winter and the havoc it wreaks on invading armies.

          1. “General Winter is the humorous nickname Russians have for her harsh winter and the havoc it wreaks on invading armies.”

            Most apologists for Stalin’s thuggery would have attempted to hide their bias a bit more effectively; that General Winter, strangely enough, affected both sides. Lefty scumbags tend to ignore that.
            Fuck off and die; your family will thank you.

            1. The harsh winter devastated the German arm because, unlike the Red army, they weren’t prepared. They found the cold, leftish temperatures particularly bothersome.

              1. Nonetheless they were close enough to Red Square that the spires of the Kremlin were visible, and the Wehrmacht could have gone the rest of their way by streetcar had they still been running.

    2. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. Click For Full Details.

    3. IIRC, once the Warsaw Uprising broke out, the Red Army stopped its advance so that the German’s could crush the uprising.

  19. ” The first person to reveal the mainstream journalism cabal against Jones was Eugene Lyons, the Moscow correspondent for the United Press wire service at the time Jones was there. In his 1937 book Assignment in Utopia,”

    This is an interesting book. Mr. Lyons went to Moscow in 1928 and stayed as the UPI correspondent until 1934. He grew up in the slums of the lower east side of Manhattan, and was a fervent communist/socialist/whatever and looked at the assignment to Moscow as going to the promised land. In those 6 years, his views reversed and this book recounts that change with the details of what he saw in the USSR of the foreign journalists as well as the plight of the people. He did not report these observations in his UPI dispatches as he didn’t want to loose his job (he was there with his wife and daughter), but as time went on in his stay in Moscow, his fervent prose for the revolution diminished somewhat and all of his friends and acquaintances in his Manhattan circles disowned him. He recounts that as well.

  20. Lyons admits that all the correspondents knew that Jones’ stories were absolutely accurate, even though none of them had reported the famine in their own newspapers, due to “the compelling need to remain on friendly terms with the censors.” (Some of them had even discussed the details of the famine with Jones before he went on his reporting trip.) Nonetheless, Lyons wrote, they all complied, “unanimously and in almost identical formulations of equivocation.

    Do you suppose this was the specific inspiration for Journolist? Or do authoritarian supporters reach the same conclusions independently because their ideological principles lead them to the same place?

  21. I’m a numbers guy and dislike all this emoting and crying about how terrible Josef Stalin was. I want the facts!

    In that spirit does anyone know if the percentage of population residing in Soviet Gulags, let’s say during the worst years of communist tyranny in 1933-1938, is greater or less than the percentage of African-Americans residing in American jails today? Does anyone have those numbers?

    1. American Socialist
      June.27.2020 at 3:09 pm
      “I’m a numbers guy..”

      You’re a lying piece of lefty shit.

    2. Does anyone have those numbers?

      Google does you lazy and dishonest piece of shit. So does Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity

      But you’re not going to clink on the link I gave you because you don’t actually care. You just wanted to imply.

      And I can’t believe your comparing the gulags and the Holodomor with jail. You’re so disgusting.

    3. Yeah, because it’s just a matter of numbers. If you’re in jail for knocking over a liquor store, it’s 100% exactly the same as rotting in a forced labor camp in northern Sibera for crimes against the Party.

  22. There’s always some journalist out there willing to lie and misrepresent for their own position and power I guess is the lesson.

    #Sean Hannity
    #Tucker Carlson
    #Fox News

    1. You’re a lying piece of lefty shit.

    2. More like FAUX NEWS!!!!

      Personally I stick with credible sources like Rachel Maddow.

      #LibertariansForMSNBC

    3. “The NYT’s lied to the world about the Holodomor and embarked on a cover-up at Stalin’s request? B-b-but Faux news said mean things about intersectionality and champagne socialism”

      Your equivalency arguments are actually evil, you repugnant fuck.

    4. There’s always some journalist out there willing to lie and misrepresent for their own position and power I guess is the lesson.

      #Everyone at CNN

  23. Don’t forget CNN was sucking Saddam Hussein’s dick for press access in Iraq. Also most of the press failing to notice the failures of Castro’s 4+ decade misrule in Cuba or Chavez in Venezuela. Remember Karl Marx was a journalist and pretty much the model for all those that took up that profession. .

    1. There’s a book called “Skunk Works” that details the development of the SR-71 and F-117, and tells the story of an F-117 strike on a communications tower in Baghdad during Gulf War 1.

      CNN’s Peter Arnett was transmitting from this tower, and a group of F-117 pilots were in their squad room in Saudi, watching him and counting down. The bombs hit right on time, and took him off the air.

      1. I just can’t see how you can’t come away with the impression they’re all anti-American.

        1. Agreed.
          They were anti-Bush, but that in no way makes them anti-American.

  24. I’m glad a man like Gareth Jones is finally getting his due. I came across him in the 90s reading about WWII and then again in the book ‘Bloodlands’.

    Stalin and Hitler were ruthless serial killers and the left in the Western media either fawned over them or covered their crimes against humanity.

    I came to view prizes like the Pulitzer with great cynicism and to this day the morally bankrupted degenerates who inhabit the middle-earth known as the decrepit NYT still hand each these shitty awards. The NYT got one for their, get this, work (ie LIES) about Russian collusion or whatever those clowns called it.

    Enemies of the people for true and real.

    1. covered up

      1. I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody Click For Full Details.

    2. “I came to view prizes like the Pulitzer with great cynicism ”

      How do you feel about the Stalin Prize? It seems to have aged better than the Pulitzer you have so much disdain for. Dmitri Shostakovitch won the Stalin Prize 4 times, at least, despite his ‘formalist’ music. Stalin thought so highly of him that he personally phoned Shostakovitch to ask him to represent USSR at an international music gathering in New York. (This was at the time when the hotel visiting artists were staying at were surrounded by netting and demonstrators on the streets called up to the rooms inviting them to defect by jumping to safety. They’d be shocked and humiliated by reporters shouting out ‘Hey Shosty! You prefer blondes or brunettes?’) Shostakovitch first told Stalin he couldn’t possibly attend because of his poor health. Stalin said he’d send doctors. Then Shostakovitch said he didn’t have the proper attire, so Stalin had a posh over coat and dinner jacket made for him. Then Shostakovitch complained that the Soviet Musicians Union was censoring his works, and Stalin interceded on his behalf again, at least for a time. Disillusioned with American prizes? Broaden your horizons to appreciate the lasting value that Stalin recognized. Dmitri Shostakovitch’s will certainly live while lesser prize winners are forgotten.

      1. What are we looking at here? A tu quoque or false equivalence?

        1. You think that Stalin Prize winners like Dmitri are also morally bankrupt degenerates? I disagree.

          1. You.
            Are.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.
            As you admitted up-threat, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

          2. Do you eat crayons? You’re drawing incoherent casual analogies.

            1. I was relating an actual anecdote about the recipient of four Stalin prizes. I wasn’t sure you’d appreciate it but my devoted followers here are sure to get a laugh from it.

              1. Pathetic…

              2. Whoosh for me!

                1. You might prefer this anecdote from the same book: Shostakovitch came under suspicion from the NKVD because he had the patronage of a high ranking general, Tukhachevsky (nicknamed ‘the Red Napoleon) who had been swept up in the purges. Shostakovitch spent a long Friday under interrogation at the NKVD offices in Moscow, and at the end of the day, the interrogator told him to return on Monday for further talks. Shostakovitch spent the weekend in dread and on Monday he went to the offices taking a small suitcase of necessaries in anticipation of a spell in prison. At the reception he said he had an appointment with Comrade so and so, and, after some confusion, he was told that the officer in question had himself been purged over the weekend and he was free to go home. True story. Can any of your Pulitzer prize winning degenerate moral bankrupts top that one for horror and absurdity?

  25. Please change “Pulitzer price” to “Pulitzer prize.”

    1. Freudian slip?

  26. Now if we could get an updated documentary that talks about how the media covers for modern Marxists.

    1. It would be longer than War & Peace.

      Know what I’ve come to realize? They don’t even realize they’re doing it. That’s how illiterate and illiberal they are.

      Bunch of useful idiots is all they are.

  27. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour on………See this site………www.drfin2.com

  28. This same scenario was in Ayn Rand’s “We The Living.” Ancapistani anarchists will again say it “wasn’t really” socialism and blank it out

  29. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone.Click Here For More Detail.

  30. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here.Click Here For More Detail.

  31. Broad sympathies, among some, for socialism and, among very many, for statism have lead to the burying and dismissal of democide as the greatest of crimes. Our own governments are always the most dangerous thing out there.

    1. “Our own governments…”?? How can you say these political parasite criminals are “ours”? They are for themselves. But I admit they are kept in power by their victims, so they are “their govt.”. But I live among them, resisting (not voting), sovereign in mind.

  32. Media reports what government says in every country.

  33. This is all very similar to the way journalists covered China in the Seventies, and Cuba since the Sixties.

  34. How is it that Reason did a quite LONG article on this movie – written by Andrea Chalupa – and not mention ONCE that she is in neck-deep in the Ukrainian corruption scandal involving Joe and Hunter Biden?!?

    She also pushed the fake Black Ledger hoax that was used to help convict Paul Manafort.

    Do some REAL REPORTING, Reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.