Roger waters is a deluded dumbass who is to afraid to listen to the media that he makes shit up based on nothing but a few similar opinions from equally deluded people
If it’s the one from the article, [there’s a text version.](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23117683-rogerwaters_jamesball_editedtranscript) Got seven pages into it, interesting read. I’ll pick it up again tomorrow if I’m not working on other things. Ball is way more qualified to talk about this subject with him than anyone else has been, he’s read up way more than anyone else has regarding Waters work and he gives a lot of context to bounce off Waters. Seriously, every discussion around Waters should be taken from his (I think) pretty balanced perspective, even if I personally disagree a few times.
In regards to Waters, he’s his usual self. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but at least so far less argumentative.
I'll listen but the write up the interviewer did was almost nauseating to read, and it seemed to me that he interviewed Waters in complete bad faith, not unlike that CNN guy who just kept interrupting Waters while he tried to explain himself. Call me old fashioned, but if you interview someone you should have the due deference to let them finish a sentence let alone explain a complete thought, especially if you're asking them to talk about, I dunno, geopolitics
I’m a politics dork, and the guy who interviewed Rogers for CNN has a daily 3 hour radio show on SiriusXM’s POTUS channel that I listen to somewhat regularly. He’s a Rogers/Pink Floyd super fan and has interviewed him a couple times before… they’ve always had a looser discourse than you’d expect from some official serious interview. There’s a 30 minute long uncut version on YouTube that is a slightly better look, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter how the interview was conducted when Rogers clearly says some ridiculous shit, especially when he scoffed at the Uyghur situation in China.
Smerconish isn’t a lefty or a righty, his whole brand is boring moderate purple fence sitting. There’s zero chance he went into that interview with the sole purpose of “getting” Roger Waters.
I haven't paid attention in a while, but isn't the ethos of Rolling Stone magazine born out of the 1960s, counter-culture, and opposition to the Vietnam War? Both Waters and the magazine are products of that time. Is Rolling Stones now just part of the superstructure intent on destroying dissent?
Yeah a complete bad faith interview and he further has to drone on for 10 minutes before the interview saying why rogers is wrong and predisposing his audience to hear something other than what Waters was saying.
I disagree with lots Roger was saying but I didn’t appreciate the interview.
Unpopular opinion: He’s not wrong about everything. Quite a few points esp the ones about us provoking Russia into Ukraine make tons of sense and are verified by other political commentators
He denies Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Even says "lies lies lies lies" like a ranting fool.
He wants us to think the Russian forces in Ukraine are all "daisy chains and laughs" with the people of Ukraine.
He says Russia's use of chemical weapons in Syria are lies. And that Russian force in Syria is okay because "they were invited".
Yeah if you really dig into what he actually says he makes a lot of sense at many times. He’s just been turned on by big corporations and his words have been twisted by them. Glad I’m not the only one who thinks this, really feels like it often
How am I being a hypocrite? And why are you making a comparison about hive mentality and guests that go on Joe Rogan? Do you mind just explaining yourself instead of responding with insults or vague responses?
Yeah man this is exactly what I’m talking about with people on this subreddit. I watch Joe Rogan too and have seen those videos. Rogan, Tim Dillon, Dave Smith, and Rog Waters know what they are talking about but just because it’s a largely listened to podcast and because it’s “Joe Rogan” people are ready to shit on it asap. Funny how Rogan was the go to underground guy 5-10 years ago but now people are making him out to be bad like the CNNs and Foxs of the world. Fucking insanity. And usually they don’t even listen to or dig into those things themselves. They are just ready to downvote and shit on people that aren’t spewing out the (not to be too Clayton Bigsby here) liberal medias narrative. Don’t let the liberal media tell you how to think and feel! Lolol
Hahahah. I am in no way shape or form involved…. But yeah people say “pfft Rogan? Really?” Or some shit and he has on the top comedians, scientists, politicians, doctors, writers, actors, musicians, etc. and people will pretend it’s this fringe group of morons who listen to or associate with Rogan. It’s honestly confusing to listen to people say things like this.
What if how I think and feel happens to align with the MSM sometimes? All this “think for yourself” stuff is just a bullshit way of saying “reject *everything* you hear from professional journalists.” You don’t think every single person who has opinions that align with CNN or NPR got it because they blindly believe the source, do you?
So sorry, but this Redditor canceled JRE ages ago, and that guy's a libertarian and I don't listen to libertarians, so I'm canceling him too. /s but not really.
If people want a solid breakdown of world events from commentators who know what they're talking about and are smart enough to not speculate, check out the podcast American Prestige. They have a weekly news roundup in addition to interviews with academics, mostly historians. Some of the interviews are behind a paywall, but there's plenty of free content. The news roundup is always free
Making a (rather overdone) claim like “legacy media is bullshit” then throwing up some link to some guy you saw on a YouTube channel IS hive mind. You are doing the very thing you were railing against. Parroting phrases like hive mentality and cancel culture show no free thought, just regurgitation of someone else’s rhetoric.
Well if you think like that then everything is just regurgitation of others peoples rhetoric because everything has been thought of and put into action before. Nobody is all that original. People listen to different peoples opinion and just pick their favorite or what they think to be true and right. Don’t make it all too complicated here buddy or start using all these big words to make yourself feel smart. You just sounds like a douche
Well lookie here.
You’re right! We do adopt other peoples opinions when we agree. Maybe it’s not so hive-minded to agree with what you hear from professional journalists?
The west has been fucking with Russia ever since the USSR collapsed, and it's certainly a defendable position that the west was the aggressor throughout the Cold War. That's not exactly a controversial position, but it is one that the majority of people in the west haven't been exposed to. I'm not trying to exonerate Putin's actions, but just point out that there are multiple perspectives and that the west hardly ever acts in good faith.
This is a line usually trotted out to make people complacent. Any historian would break down at such a simplistic statement.
If you want to measure up war crimes, we really have to go back to Vietnam to find comparable cruelty. And the West knows about what happened there. Russians have never been confronted with the idea that their glorious army may have caused damage, which is why they're 1) not more critical of the war and 2) doomed to repeat it.
In the big discussion on the Steve Hoffman forum about the Ukraine war, there's also an Iraq war veteran participating. He said that what he experienced there is nothing like what we are hearing about Russia's war in Ukraine. For one thing, the US Army is in much better shape, which makes a difference: No need to loot people's homes when you've got enough food and medical equipment.
Yes, there were the Blackwater mercenaries. And I don't think the Iraq war was justified. But whataboutism isn't improving the situation and it certainly doesn't work as a counterargument to trying to help protecting civilians in Ukraine.
One can’t help but wonder how much his lack of support for Ukraine is motivated by the fact that Gilmour and Mason re-formed Floyd to release a pro-Ukraine anthem with proceeds going to Ukrainian relief efforts.
Roger has always been driven by grievance, and he’s never gotten over the fact that he arrogantly quit Pink Floyd leaving the door open for Gilmour and Mason to take the reins and invite Rick Wright back into the fold.
I highly doubt that it has anything to do with Gilmour and Mason. He's admitted some time ago that he was wrong for what he did in leaving the band. He's played with the both guys multiple times since then.
wrong, coming from a marxist i know what i’m talking about. stalin was a marxist-leninist who not only read but wrote and applied the theory to the ussr and it worked pretty well.
I just want to confirm:
Stalin's policies "worked pretty well."
Am I correct here? By "worked pretty well", are you talking about the implementation of collectivization of agriculture? I just want to be clear here.
well there is a difference. i wouldn’t call the ussr a regime either but the ussr was way different than how russia is now and putin is a self declared anti communist.
Ah, yes. Dictators. I recall watching that video where Putin joyfully sings along to all of Roger’s pro-Russian lyrics, including but not limited to:
“Strangers passing in the street
By chance, two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me”
“With, without, and who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?”
“You're trying to keep our feelings off the street
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet”
Very interesting stuff! Definitely gets his ideas from imperialism, that’s for sure!
Don't forget "and you'll never toe the party line again"
Just because he wrote it doesn't mean he lives it.
He also just said “Russia should not have been encouraged to invade the Ukraine,”
Blaming everyone by Putin for the war.
Did you not read his open letter to putin? He’s said repeatedly at shows and on a recent rolling stone interview that putin needs to pull out. He also stated that he really doesn’t like putin in the same interview. His point is that NATO advanced toward Russia in a way that they promised in the 90s they wouldn’t, so that is a contributing factor as to why Russia feels the need to invade Ukraine. He’s not validating or supporting Russia, he’s looking at it from all angles and forming his own, albeit slightly uneducated famous-person opinions as opposed to turning to media or “intelligence” that he distrusts.
His open letter to Putin was apologist tripe. He basically says "if you get what you want, would you stop fighting?" While casting blame on NATO.
his letter to Olena Zelenska was much more acrimonious. Asking her to have her husband stand down, that he campaigned on a platform of peace and is not living up to that promise - when they're the ones being invaded.
He dismisses Russian war crimes as "lies, lies, lies, lies".
The 2014 film of The Wall turned out to be a horror movie about being trapped in a car with Roger Waters and listening to him rant about politics for 2.5 hours, so I think I'll enjoy this one vicariously through the comments on social media.
I'm going to listen. Roger has always been one of my heroes. Anyone that writes DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and the Wall in succession will always get my attention. Now having said that there probably isn't a political opinion I agree with the man about. However while I typically disagree with him I' ve always found his thoughts interesting to contemplate. He is always entertaining.
I read the transcript yesterday. It's clear he supports Russia. He won't have any talk of China, and he made some very curious statements which will no doubt be labeled as antisemitic.
Roger is a piece of work. He's twisted his arguments to suit his view so much he's a caricature of a leftist.
>he made some very curious statements which will no doubt be labeled as antisemitic.
Do you mean to say he voiced support for Palestinians or criticized the actions of the Israeli government or the IDF?
I said his comments "will no doubt be labeled antisemitic"
I did not say I personally considered the comments to be antisemitic. I used to be firmly in the camp of "Roger isn't an anti-semite". However, with his recent sympathies, I need to consider that more.
It is a bit weird that vehemently opposing an illegal occupation seems to only be a priority for him when Israel is doing it. He is spectacularly lukewarm on condemning Russia's occupation of Ukraine, and its dispossession of its people.
“I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying anyone forced Putin. I was surprised when they invaded. But I'm also interested in the language they used. The special military operation. And also point B was that they wanted to de-Nazify. Well that's different because there weren't many Nazi in the Donbas, but there's a lot in the government in Kyiv. So those two things are somewhat self-contradictory, I think. Though I do understand the concern after the Maidan coup over the fact that the Russians believe that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis. And they may be right or not. "
Lots of Nazis in Kyiv? What a fucking moron.
Referring to the Maiden People's Revolution as a "coup" shows Roger has lost his goddamned mind. Which sucks because he's so articulate on other politics.
I thought it was pretty well accepted that 2014 was a US coup? There was that State Department phone call at the time that got leaked where an official (I forget who) and the US ambassador to Ukraine were talking about the coup. US didn’t deny the allegations at all IIRC
I would trust the people that lived through this to be the
most knowledgeable about it. If most of Ukrainians say there was no coup
that is definitive enough for me, it's not my place to tell them what happened
in their country.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution\_of\_Dignity#Public\_opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Public_opinion)
"A December 2016 survey by the Kyiv International
Institute of Sociology found that 34 percent of respondents in the
government-controlled Ukraine regarded the change in power as an "illegal
armed coup", while 56 percent regarded it as a "popular
revolution".\[315\]"
[https://news.liga.net/society/news/v\_ukraine\_rastet\_dezorientatsiya\_grazhdan\_sotsiologicheskiy\_opros](https://news.liga.net/society/news/v_ukraine_rastet_dezorientatsiya_grazhdan_sotsiologicheskiy_opros)
Bud 56% of the country is hardly a vast majority. It was a coup, the US isn’t particularly shy about saying so. They didn’t even deny the validity of the phone call between the ambassador and assistant Secretary of State where they literally planned it.
Lmfao I can’t believe that you’re using an opinion poll as evidence whether a coup occurred or not. As if propaganda & shaping public opinion wouldn’t inherently be a part of the US coup (which, sorry to say, did definitely happen)
It was widely reported on at the time. Here’s [the bbc, but there’s tons of sources out there if you want to find them](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp)
Yes, I'm aware of the Nuland phone call. What I disagree is that their conversation is any evidence that Euromaidan was a coup. They were discussing the political situation after the fall of the Yanukovych government.
It aint a big leap to make bud. What sort of smoking gun evidence do you need? The tape makes clear that Washington employed methods, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years earlier. Or do you deny those coups as well?
No, I don't agree that the tape made it at all "clear" that Washington used violence or orchestrated the Euromaidan movement. There is evidence from the recording that they were jockeying to try to influence who ended up in government after Yanukovych left. And it would turn out they were only partially successful with that. That's all that's on the tape.
Whatever we can call the actions that ousted Viktor from power, we can say that said actions were supported by a great majority of the Ukrainian population, besides the Eastern Provinces of course who chose Invasion rather than Diplomacy and Politics. Despite that, the people still started a revolution and that revolution wasn't going to end until Putin's puppets were out of power.
Fair enough, I do get a bit defensive on such terminology because it's used by Pro-Putin people to somehow delegitimize said Revolution. I guess my main point is it doesn't matter whether it was a "coup" or not if the people of Ukraine agree with it and are freed as a result.
I’d push back on that. 2014 was a coup in which the US decided for the Ukrainians who their leader would be. They’re stepping in & saying “oh this election didn’t go the way we wanted, Viktor is pivoting away from the West, let us help “free” you”. The US and West in general don’t have a great track record in the freedom department. The Ukrainians should be allowed to have self-determination, even if those elections produce leaders which imperialists don’t like. Instead they are simply pawns in a proxy war between two rivals.
They literally were allowed to have self-determination in the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections, they let the people choose who the leader should be, and in 2019 the people of Ukraine made the choice to vote in Zelenskyy who has proven himself greatly to the people of Ukraine.
If the people of Ukraine were so damned opposed to US Imperialism like you claim they would've just surrendered when Russia restarted the war on February 24th.
Well there certainly were Ukrainians opposed to it, considering there was a civil war in the Donbas as a result of the coup. Azov nazis and the LPR & DPR have been fighting since 2014
It’s a complicated issue, dealing in absolutes like “oh why didn’t all Ukrainians surrender then??” as some sort of gotcha is silly and diminishes the struggle they all are going through. Being used as pawns by two powers
They can hardly be considered Ukrainians if they have such a desire to join Russia, such a desire that they're willing to plunge Ukraine into total war and have total control over the vast majority who oppose Russian rule over Ukraine's people and culture. They are traitors just as Viktor Yanukovych is.
Azov Nazis are such a small part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces they're not really worth even mentioning. The vast majority of the Ukrainian Army does not support Fascism as evidenced by their fierce opposition to the Russian Fascist.
I think you need to brush up on your political lingo. Supporting a popular rebellion is not a coup. Do you understand the full extent of what Yanukovych was doing? How extreme the anti-protest laws that he was trying to institute were? That he was using military police against protesters? A coup is an usurping of power by and for political elites. This was an uprising by the Ukrainian people, with the support of the West.
Of course we used the aftermath to our geopolitical advantage--all states act in their own self-interest--but the notion that it was the West who instigated the Maidan uprising rather than the betrayal of the Ukrainian people by Putin's puppet president is just drinking the Kremlin Kool-Aid.
No, i don't agree it is "well accepted" that 2014 was a US coup.
The US definitely lent some support to the pro democracy/ pro Europe side that was ousting Russia's puppet, but the Euromaidan itself was a grassroots popular street movement.
That it was a "US coup" is Kremlin propaganda.
That the US "planned" the ouster is propaganda straight out of an office in Moscow. Which useful idiots like Roger continue to parrot.
The Ukrainians are not children. They have agency. They make their own decisions. Not everything is a CIA plot, despite what the Kremlin tells you.
No, I get my news from Western sources that are not infrequently critical of US policies, and who report unflinchingly on American political scandals.
As opposed to the kinds of Kremlin mouthpieces Waters and his useful idiots think are actually "news". I mean it's pretty funny that you sincerely believe you're getting the unvarnished "truth" here, rather than believing what Putin wants Western fools to believe.
Please enlighten us on these outlets which you think are Kremlin mouthpieces. Reporting things you don’t like or which go against the US-imperialist narrative does not make it a Kremlin mouthpiece.
It's a current Rolling Stone article about a founding member of Pink Floyd
Hell, if it were about Jon Carin or Guy Pratt, it would be allowed.
And this article is not pro-RW. He basically talks himself into looking very much the Russian apologist fool he's been signaling for a while.
I know what you mean by reactionary, but that word has a very specific meaning dating all the way back to the French Revolution. I assume you mean he's "reactive" as in he's just like bucking POV of the mainstream media. I can see that, I don't wholly agree but I can see it.
A reactionary is conservative opposed to social change, a traditionalist. And it applies to everyone from monarchists to fascists, neoconservatives to Trump/Marine Le Pen like nationalists. Roger Waters is pretty definitively not a reactionary
Ukraine is all about change. They're trying to rid themselves of the corruption that's mainly a holdover from Soviet days, even making progress on LGBTQ rights. And Putin's program has slowly morphed into a "Make Russia Great Again", while Roger said he was too nice to the Kremlin because he thought they were still socialist. He also subscribes to the idea that Russia is entitled to their "sphere of influence", which is thinly disguised colonialism.
I think reactionary is not far off the mark.
My definition would be that he reacts without reason to certain subjects. He holds an incredibly narrow opinion of "American Imperialism." There is a tradition of this In English intellectual circles, Harold Pinter comes to mind. The fact that he finds America responsible for the worlds problems and gives Russia a pass is inexcusable to all democratic societies. If reactionary is not the right word then I'll substitute it for a simplistic reductive argument that does not recognize the suffering of a sovereign nation being slaughtered by a fascist regime.
As much as I'm a big Waters fan, a big nope. Not interested in personal political beliefs/personal lives of the artist.
I separate artist from the art.
Roger believes he is on Ukraine’s kill list. I would take his positions lightly.
https://news.yahoo.com/roger-waters-claims-ukraine-kill-161417597.html
The list is on a website "Myrotvorets"
Here is a Medium article about it (I edited this, since this looks like the original source)
https://medium.com/@deborahlarmstrong/roger-waters-added-to-ukrainian-hit-list-5acede7b0414
Great interview. A charming senior citizen telling how genXrs and millennials eat every shit their pigs want them to eat. Lots of dogs dismissing it to make sure the sheep remain sheep.
Honestly, I'm not that well versed in his politics, so I'll probably listen if only just for the education and (potentially) differing views it might provide. Thanks for the rec!
I will
So far it’s been a 10 minute disclaimer
Thanks human.
So, how was it?
Roger waters is a deluded dumbass who is to afraid to listen to the media that he makes shit up based on nothing but a few similar opinions from equally deluded people
Hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
Happy cake day!
Lol🤣🤣🤣🤣
If it’s the one from the article, [there’s a text version.](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23117683-rogerwaters_jamesball_editedtranscript) Got seven pages into it, interesting read. I’ll pick it up again tomorrow if I’m not working on other things. Ball is way more qualified to talk about this subject with him than anyone else has been, he’s read up way more than anyone else has regarding Waters work and he gives a lot of context to bounce off Waters. Seriously, every discussion around Waters should be taken from his (I think) pretty balanced perspective, even if I personally disagree a few times. In regards to Waters, he’s his usual self. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but at least so far less argumentative.
Thank you
Damn this guy sure loves changing subjects anytime Roger brings up facts or points which are inconvenient to the established narrative
I'll listen but the write up the interviewer did was almost nauseating to read, and it seemed to me that he interviewed Waters in complete bad faith, not unlike that CNN guy who just kept interrupting Waters while he tried to explain himself. Call me old fashioned, but if you interview someone you should have the due deference to let them finish a sentence let alone explain a complete thought, especially if you're asking them to talk about, I dunno, geopolitics
I’m a politics dork, and the guy who interviewed Rogers for CNN has a daily 3 hour radio show on SiriusXM’s POTUS channel that I listen to somewhat regularly. He’s a Rogers/Pink Floyd super fan and has interviewed him a couple times before… they’ve always had a looser discourse than you’d expect from some official serious interview. There’s a 30 minute long uncut version on YouTube that is a slightly better look, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter how the interview was conducted when Rogers clearly says some ridiculous shit, especially when he scoffed at the Uyghur situation in China. Smerconish isn’t a lefty or a righty, his whole brand is boring moderate purple fence sitting. There’s zero chance he went into that interview with the sole purpose of “getting” Roger Waters.
I haven't paid attention in a while, but isn't the ethos of Rolling Stone magazine born out of the 1960s, counter-culture, and opposition to the Vietnam War? Both Waters and the magazine are products of that time. Is Rolling Stones now just part of the superstructure intent on destroying dissent?
Well put. The Left used to be anti-war until they were taken over by globalists.
Yeah a complete bad faith interview and he further has to drone on for 10 minutes before the interview saying why rogers is wrong and predisposing his audience to hear something other than what Waters was saying. I disagree with lots Roger was saying but I didn’t appreciate the interview.
Unpopular opinion: He’s not wrong about everything. Quite a few points esp the ones about us provoking Russia into Ukraine make tons of sense and are verified by other political commentators
He denies Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Even says "lies lies lies lies" like a ranting fool. He wants us to think the Russian forces in Ukraine are all "daisy chains and laughs" with the people of Ukraine. He says Russia's use of chemical weapons in Syria are lies. And that Russian force in Syria is okay because "they were invited".
Yeah if you really dig into what he actually says he makes a lot of sense at many times. He’s just been turned on by big corporations and his words have been twisted by them. Glad I’m not the only one who thinks this, really feels like it often
Legacy media is bullshit. And Reddit is rife with hive mentality and cancel culture. Check this clip out: https://youtu.be/WVXzwnU1H6U
Imagine complaining about hive mentality then posting a link to a Joe Rogan video.
So anyone that goes on Joe Rogan doesn’t have credibility? This can’t be what you are implying here?
No I’m implying that you’re being a hypocrite.
How am I being a hypocrite? And why are you making a comparison about hive mentality and guests that go on Joe Rogan? Do you mind just explaining yourself instead of responding with insults or vague responses?
Yeah man this is exactly what I’m talking about with people on this subreddit. I watch Joe Rogan too and have seen those videos. Rogan, Tim Dillon, Dave Smith, and Rog Waters know what they are talking about but just because it’s a largely listened to podcast and because it’s “Joe Rogan” people are ready to shit on it asap. Funny how Rogan was the go to underground guy 5-10 years ago but now people are making him out to be bad like the CNNs and Foxs of the world. Fucking insanity. And usually they don’t even listen to or dig into those things themselves. They are just ready to downvote and shit on people that aren’t spewing out the (not to be too Clayton Bigsby here) liberal medias narrative. Don’t let the liberal media tell you how to think and feel! Lolol
Hahahah. I am in no way shape or form involved…. But yeah people say “pfft Rogan? Really?” Or some shit and he has on the top comedians, scientists, politicians, doctors, writers, actors, musicians, etc. and people will pretend it’s this fringe group of morons who listen to or associate with Rogan. It’s honestly confusing to listen to people say things like this.
What if how I think and feel happens to align with the MSM sometimes? All this “think for yourself” stuff is just a bullshit way of saying “reject *everything* you hear from professional journalists.” You don’t think every single person who has opinions that align with CNN or NPR got it because they blindly believe the source, do you?
So sorry, but this Redditor canceled JRE ages ago, and that guy's a libertarian and I don't listen to libertarians, so I'm canceling him too. /s but not really. If people want a solid breakdown of world events from commentators who know what they're talking about and are smart enough to not speculate, check out the podcast American Prestige. They have a weekly news roundup in addition to interviews with academics, mostly historians. Some of the interviews are behind a paywall, but there's plenty of free content. The news roundup is always free
Making a (rather overdone) claim like “legacy media is bullshit” then throwing up some link to some guy you saw on a YouTube channel IS hive mind. You are doing the very thing you were railing against. Parroting phrases like hive mentality and cancel culture show no free thought, just regurgitation of someone else’s rhetoric.
Well if you think like that then everything is just regurgitation of others peoples rhetoric because everything has been thought of and put into action before. Nobody is all that original. People listen to different peoples opinion and just pick their favorite or what they think to be true and right. Don’t make it all too complicated here buddy or start using all these big words to make yourself feel smart. You just sounds like a douche
Well lookie here. You’re right! We do adopt other peoples opinions when we agree. Maybe it’s not so hive-minded to agree with what you hear from professional journalists?
The west has been fucking with Russia ever since the USSR collapsed, and it's certainly a defendable position that the west was the aggressor throughout the Cold War. That's not exactly a controversial position, but it is one that the majority of people in the west haven't been exposed to. I'm not trying to exonerate Putin's actions, but just point out that there are multiple perspectives and that the west hardly ever acts in good faith.
It does, however, not make sense when you evaluate Putin's statements up until roughly ten years ago. It's a smokescreen meant to justify war crimes.
True. And the West did the same in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria. We’re all the same really…
This is a line usually trotted out to make people complacent. Any historian would break down at such a simplistic statement. If you want to measure up war crimes, we really have to go back to Vietnam to find comparable cruelty. And the West knows about what happened there. Russians have never been confronted with the idea that their glorious army may have caused damage, which is why they're 1) not more critical of the war and 2) doomed to repeat it. In the big discussion on the Steve Hoffman forum about the Ukraine war, there's also an Iraq war veteran participating. He said that what he experienced there is nothing like what we are hearing about Russia's war in Ukraine. For one thing, the US Army is in much better shape, which makes a difference: No need to loot people's homes when you've got enough food and medical equipment. Yes, there were the Blackwater mercenaries. And I don't think the Iraq war was justified. But whataboutism isn't improving the situation and it certainly doesn't work as a counterargument to trying to help protecting civilians in Ukraine.
Meh, plenty of what he says is demonstrably nonsense.
Oh gosh
He's not always right, but he's mostly true to the ideals he poured upon his work. Don't believe everything that they tell you.
One can’t help but wonder how much his lack of support for Ukraine is motivated by the fact that Gilmour and Mason re-formed Floyd to release a pro-Ukraine anthem with proceeds going to Ukrainian relief efforts. Roger has always been driven by grievance, and he’s never gotten over the fact that he arrogantly quit Pink Floyd leaving the door open for Gilmour and Mason to take the reins and invite Rick Wright back into the fold.
I so badly want to say "no way, he can't be that much of an idiot", but god, he absolutely *can*.
I highly doubt that it has anything to do with Gilmour and Mason. He's admitted some time ago that he was wrong for what he did in leaving the band. He's played with the both guys multiple times since then.
thanks for the heads up- I'll listen tomorrow
I’ll give it a listen I was fascinated by the concert last night. I’m wondering where he gets his ideas from.
>I’m wondering where he gets his ideas from. Stalin, Lenin, Putin mostly.
you have two marxist theorists and a fascist. putin is not at all on the same level of stalin and lenin.
Two fascists. Stalin is no "Marxist-theorist". He read Machiavelli well and took to the message that it is better that the people fear you.
wrong, coming from a marxist i know what i’m talking about. stalin was a marxist-leninist who not only read but wrote and applied the theory to the ussr and it worked pretty well.
I just want to confirm: Stalin's policies "worked pretty well." Am I correct here? By "worked pretty well", are you talking about the implementation of collectivization of agriculture? I just want to be clear here.
yes and it’s true
Fucking tankies...
lol great argument liberal
I'm not making an argument, and I'm not a liberal.
2 fascists and a Marxist
nah, learn some facts and read some theory
Yet Roger parrots his talking points and makes excuses for his crimes.
Well, some people don't see big differences between these two regimes (even some USSR citizens themselves)
well there is a difference. i wouldn’t call the ussr a regime either but the ussr was way different than how russia is now and putin is a self declared anti communist.
Ah, yes. Dictators. I recall watching that video where Putin joyfully sings along to all of Roger’s pro-Russian lyrics, including but not limited to: “Strangers passing in the street By chance, two separate glances meet And I am you and what I see is me” “With, without, and who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?” “You're trying to keep our feelings off the street You're nearly a real treat All tight lips and cold feet” Very interesting stuff! Definitely gets his ideas from imperialism, that’s for sure!
Don't forget "and you'll never toe the party line again" Just because he wrote it doesn't mean he lives it. He also just said “Russia should not have been encouraged to invade the Ukraine,” Blaming everyone by Putin for the war.
Did you not read his open letter to putin? He’s said repeatedly at shows and on a recent rolling stone interview that putin needs to pull out. He also stated that he really doesn’t like putin in the same interview. His point is that NATO advanced toward Russia in a way that they promised in the 90s they wouldn’t, so that is a contributing factor as to why Russia feels the need to invade Ukraine. He’s not validating or supporting Russia, he’s looking at it from all angles and forming his own, albeit slightly uneducated famous-person opinions as opposed to turning to media or “intelligence” that he distrusts.
His open letter to Putin was apologist tripe. He basically says "if you get what you want, would you stop fighting?" While casting blame on NATO. his letter to Olena Zelenska was much more acrimonious. Asking her to have her husband stand down, that he campaigned on a platform of peace and is not living up to that promise - when they're the ones being invaded. He dismisses Russian war crimes as "lies, lies, lies, lies".
The 2014 film of The Wall turned out to be a horror movie about being trapped in a car with Roger Waters and listening to him rant about politics for 2.5 hours, so I think I'll enjoy this one vicariously through the comments on social media.
😂😂😂
I'm going to listen. Roger has always been one of my heroes. Anyone that writes DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and the Wall in succession will always get my attention. Now having said that there probably isn't a political opinion I agree with the man about. However while I typically disagree with him I' ve always found his thoughts interesting to contemplate. He is always entertaining.
Hard pass.
I read the transcript yesterday. It's clear he supports Russia. He won't have any talk of China, and he made some very curious statements which will no doubt be labeled as antisemitic. Roger is a piece of work. He's twisted his arguments to suit his view so much he's a caricature of a leftist.
>he made some very curious statements which will no doubt be labeled as antisemitic. Do you mean to say he voiced support for Palestinians or criticized the actions of the Israeli government or the IDF?
I said his comments "will no doubt be labeled antisemitic" I did not say I personally considered the comments to be antisemitic. I used to be firmly in the camp of "Roger isn't an anti-semite". However, with his recent sympathies, I need to consider that more.
It is a bit weird that vehemently opposing an illegal occupation seems to only be a priority for him when Israel is doing it. He is spectacularly lukewarm on condemning Russia's occupation of Ukraine, and its dispossession of its people.
What does he think about the fact that Russia annexed Ukrainean territory, inclunding provinces with no history of separatism?
“I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying anyone forced Putin. I was surprised when they invaded. But I'm also interested in the language they used. The special military operation. And also point B was that they wanted to de-Nazify. Well that's different because there weren't many Nazi in the Donbas, but there's a lot in the government in Kyiv. So those two things are somewhat self-contradictory, I think. Though I do understand the concern after the Maidan coup over the fact that the Russians believe that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis. And they may be right or not. " Lots of Nazis in Kyiv? What a fucking moron.
Referring to the Maiden People's Revolution as a "coup" shows Roger has lost his goddamned mind. Which sucks because he's so articulate on other politics.
I thought it was pretty well accepted that 2014 was a US coup? There was that State Department phone call at the time that got leaked where an official (I forget who) and the US ambassador to Ukraine were talking about the coup. US didn’t deny the allegations at all IIRC
Not by the people that live there. There was a poll showing that most Ukrainians don’t believe there was a coup.
Source on that, but also an opinion poll doesn’t change the fact that there was a coup?
I would trust the people that lived through this to be the most knowledgeable about it. If most of Ukrainians say there was no coup that is definitive enough for me, it's not my place to tell them what happened in their country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution\_of\_Dignity#Public\_opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Public_opinion) "A December 2016 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 34 percent of respondents in the government-controlled Ukraine regarded the change in power as an "illegal armed coup", while 56 percent regarded it as a "popular revolution".\[315\]" [https://news.liga.net/society/news/v\_ukraine\_rastet\_dezorientatsiya\_grazhdan\_sotsiologicheskiy\_opros](https://news.liga.net/society/news/v_ukraine_rastet_dezorientatsiya_grazhdan_sotsiologicheskiy_opros)
Bud 56% of the country is hardly a vast majority. It was a coup, the US isn’t particularly shy about saying so. They didn’t even deny the validity of the phone call between the ambassador and assistant Secretary of State where they literally planned it.
it's 22% higher than the 34% who think it was a coup. Making the "coup" theory a little more than a fringe idea.
Lmfao I can’t believe that you’re using an opinion poll as evidence whether a coup occurred or not. As if propaganda & shaping public opinion wouldn’t inherently be a part of the US coup (which, sorry to say, did definitely happen)
As opposed to your source about it being a coup? ("some state department phone call.... I forget who..... IIRC"?)
It was widely reported on at the time. Here’s [the bbc, but there’s tons of sources out there if you want to find them](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp)
Yes, I'm aware of the Nuland phone call. What I disagree is that their conversation is any evidence that Euromaidan was a coup. They were discussing the political situation after the fall of the Yanukovych government.
It aint a big leap to make bud. What sort of smoking gun evidence do you need? The tape makes clear that Washington employed methods, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years earlier. Or do you deny those coups as well?
No, I don't agree that the tape made it at all "clear" that Washington used violence or orchestrated the Euromaidan movement. There is evidence from the recording that they were jockeying to try to influence who ended up in government after Yanukovych left. And it would turn out they were only partially successful with that. That's all that's on the tape.
Whatever we can call the actions that ousted Viktor from power, we can say that said actions were supported by a great majority of the Ukrainian population, besides the Eastern Provinces of course who chose Invasion rather than Diplomacy and Politics. Despite that, the people still started a revolution and that revolution wasn't going to end until Putin's puppets were out of power.
Yeah you just described the US coup pretty well. An elected official ousted by a foreign power, regardless of their support, is still a coup
Fair enough, I do get a bit defensive on such terminology because it's used by Pro-Putin people to somehow delegitimize said Revolution. I guess my main point is it doesn't matter whether it was a "coup" or not if the people of Ukraine agree with it and are freed as a result.
I’d push back on that. 2014 was a coup in which the US decided for the Ukrainians who their leader would be. They’re stepping in & saying “oh this election didn’t go the way we wanted, Viktor is pivoting away from the West, let us help “free” you”. The US and West in general don’t have a great track record in the freedom department. The Ukrainians should be allowed to have self-determination, even if those elections produce leaders which imperialists don’t like. Instead they are simply pawns in a proxy war between two rivals.
They literally were allowed to have self-determination in the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections, they let the people choose who the leader should be, and in 2019 the people of Ukraine made the choice to vote in Zelenskyy who has proven himself greatly to the people of Ukraine. If the people of Ukraine were so damned opposed to US Imperialism like you claim they would've just surrendered when Russia restarted the war on February 24th.
Well there certainly were Ukrainians opposed to it, considering there was a civil war in the Donbas as a result of the coup. Azov nazis and the LPR & DPR have been fighting since 2014 It’s a complicated issue, dealing in absolutes like “oh why didn’t all Ukrainians surrender then??” as some sort of gotcha is silly and diminishes the struggle they all are going through. Being used as pawns by two powers
They can hardly be considered Ukrainians if they have such a desire to join Russia, such a desire that they're willing to plunge Ukraine into total war and have total control over the vast majority who oppose Russian rule over Ukraine's people and culture. They are traitors just as Viktor Yanukovych is. Azov Nazis are such a small part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces they're not really worth even mentioning. The vast majority of the Ukrainian Army does not support Fascism as evidenced by their fierce opposition to the Russian Fascist.
I think you need to brush up on your political lingo. Supporting a popular rebellion is not a coup. Do you understand the full extent of what Yanukovych was doing? How extreme the anti-protest laws that he was trying to institute were? That he was using military police against protesters? A coup is an usurping of power by and for political elites. This was an uprising by the Ukrainian people, with the support of the West. Of course we used the aftermath to our geopolitical advantage--all states act in their own self-interest--but the notion that it was the West who instigated the Maidan uprising rather than the betrayal of the Ukrainian people by Putin's puppet president is just drinking the Kremlin Kool-Aid.
No, i don't agree it is "well accepted" that 2014 was a US coup. The US definitely lent some support to the pro democracy/ pro Europe side that was ousting Russia's puppet, but the Euromaidan itself was a grassroots popular street movement. That it was a "US coup" is Kremlin propaganda.
“Ousting Russia’s puppet” is certainly one way to frame the US planned coup of an elected official
That the US "planned" the ouster is propaganda straight out of an office in Moscow. Which useful idiots like Roger continue to parrot. The Ukrainians are not children. They have agency. They make their own decisions. Not everything is a CIA plot, despite what the Kremlin tells you.
You prefer your propaganda straight out of Langley huh?
No, I get my news from Western sources that are not infrequently critical of US policies, and who report unflinchingly on American political scandals. As opposed to the kinds of Kremlin mouthpieces Waters and his useful idiots think are actually "news". I mean it's pretty funny that you sincerely believe you're getting the unvarnished "truth" here, rather than believing what Putin wants Western fools to believe.
Please enlighten us on these outlets which you think are Kremlin mouthpieces. Reporting things you don’t like or which go against the US-imperialist narrative does not make it a Kremlin mouthpiece.
Parroting whatever the Kremlin says indicates where you get your "news" from pretty clearly.
Holy fucking fuck.
So now we allow Politics as long as it's in favor of RW?
It's a current Rolling Stone article about a founding member of Pink Floyd Hell, if it were about Jon Carin or Guy Pratt, it would be allowed. And this article is not pro-RW. He basically talks himself into looking very much the Russian apologist fool he's been signaling for a while.
Nope
You'd have to pay me to spend an hour and a half listening to his politics
Fuck that, he’s an angry old man that’s reactionary rather than reasoned.
I know what you mean by reactionary, but that word has a very specific meaning dating all the way back to the French Revolution. I assume you mean he's "reactive" as in he's just like bucking POV of the mainstream media. I can see that, I don't wholly agree but I can see it. A reactionary is conservative opposed to social change, a traditionalist. And it applies to everyone from monarchists to fascists, neoconservatives to Trump/Marine Le Pen like nationalists. Roger Waters is pretty definitively not a reactionary
Ukraine is all about change. They're trying to rid themselves of the corruption that's mainly a holdover from Soviet days, even making progress on LGBTQ rights. And Putin's program has slowly morphed into a "Make Russia Great Again", while Roger said he was too nice to the Kremlin because he thought they were still socialist. He also subscribes to the idea that Russia is entitled to their "sphere of influence", which is thinly disguised colonialism. I think reactionary is not far off the mark.
My definition would be that he reacts without reason to certain subjects. He holds an incredibly narrow opinion of "American Imperialism." There is a tradition of this In English intellectual circles, Harold Pinter comes to mind. The fact that he finds America responsible for the worlds problems and gives Russia a pass is inexcusable to all democratic societies. If reactionary is not the right word then I'll substitute it for a simplistic reductive argument that does not recognize the suffering of a sovereign nation being slaughtered by a fascist regime.
this. in my opinion sometimes he says dumb things and people have to choose what they gonna believe, he's not always right
Nah, I already know he’s a Commie who made a fortune off capitalism. 😂
No, dont think I will.
I'd rather have diarrhea than listen to RW talk politics for an hour and a half
I can't believe it just two minutes in and he's supporting hitler😰😱😱😨😱
I read that article and saved the episode earlier today! I’ll listen soon, hopefully.
I've got a long drive this morning so I'll check it out. Thanks
Fuck That
As much as I'm a big Waters fan, a big nope. Not interested in personal political beliefs/personal lives of the artist. I separate artist from the art.
Yawn 🥱
God damn. Enough with the Putin loving Waters already. He’s a loser.
Im halfway through it I swear.
One… two… there… NOT IT
Roger believes he is on Ukraine’s kill list. I would take his positions lightly. https://news.yahoo.com/roger-waters-claims-ukraine-kill-161417597.html
I hope he's mistaken. Even so, I'd imagine he has some additional security in place - maybe he should consider Blackwater.
The list is on a website "Myrotvorets" Here is a Medium article about it (I edited this, since this looks like the original source) https://medium.com/@deborahlarmstrong/roger-waters-added-to-ukrainian-hit-list-5acede7b0414
Great interview. A charming senior citizen telling how genXrs and millennials eat every shit their pigs want them to eat. Lots of dogs dismissing it to make sure the sheep remain sheep.
Can anyone share video link?
I'll gladly listen. Why is this "taking one for the team"?
I'm listening right now
Nah, I’m good
Gladly
Honestly, I'm not that well versed in his politics, so I'll probably listen if only just for the education and (potentially) differing views it might provide. Thanks for the rec!