Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_mamba | Hacker News Reader

>These programs were largely about ensuring that American propaganda can reach people in Iran or similar places.

This. The og point of USAID wasn't AID as per the name would misleadingly let you believe, but spreading pro-US anti-USSR propaganda, and only like 3% of that program was spent on actual AID, like food and medicine for the third world, but most of it went to funding media, news and journalists across LatAm, Asia, Africa dn EE, that would push domestic support in those regions for US policies and be critical of US adversaries.

US doesn't fund "freedom" of anything out of selflessness, it funds policies that are guaranteed to benefit it over its rivals, and use the word "freedom" to legitimize it. Once those benefits no longer materialize, the funding also goes away.

View on HN

The budget for USAID in 2024 was $25.6 billion [0]. $ 9.5 billion were allocated to health programs and $ 1.1 billion to agriculture, education and infrastructure [1]. You can do the math.

[0] https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/usaid-budget-2024-...

[1] https://factually.co/fact-checks/health/usaid-2024-food-medi...

>only like 3% of that program was spent on actual AID, like food and medicine for the third world, but most of it went to funding media, news and journalists across LatAm, Asia, Africa dn EE, that would push domestic support in those regions for US policies and be critical of US adversaries.

3%? There was a lot of waste with the program but surely, please give this at least 30 seconds of thought.

My bad, it was 5-15% of USAID that went towards food aid to countries in need.

  > only like 3% of that program was spent on actual AID, like food and medicine for the third world, but most of it went to funding media, news and journalists across LatAm, Asia, Africa dn EE

Source please. This doesn't pass the smell test, because the largest expenses in international aid programs are usually related to healthcare and agriculture. Propaganda is very cheap compared to producing and distributing malaria drugs or grain to the most remote corners of the world or building water sanitation plants in places that have no roads and no electricity.

Makes the future interestingly unpredictable other than the inevitable fading of the US-isation of the rest of the world.

>US-isation of the rest of the world

Growing up in a post-communist country, Hollywood and the US music and gaming industry had more impact on the "US-isation of our country" than USAID propaganda, back then.

But today most of Hollywood productions and music coming out of the US is pure trash that people abroad now reject it as propaganda garbage.

US destroyed its global soft power, not by defunding USAID, but by forcibly injecting unpopular ideologies into its entertainment industry instead of sticking to tried and true formulas, ideals and values that transcend cultural and language barriers.

> forcibly injecting unpopular ideologies

Oh the right-wing propaganda of decrying "wokeness" in pop culture that "replaces" good old white christian culture is very much an export you fell victim to as well. It promotes far-right "alternative" political parties, useful to the US all the same..

Most of the world is conservative by Hollywood liberal standards. Also injecting ideology is the least of concerns, it is just that they objectively produce shit compared to movies in 1995. All reruns, and remasters and basically living on the rent of old glories. There is a palpable lack of talent due to the political climate as well as reduced risk appetite to bet on young or transgressive directors/writers/actors. Now more innovative and interesting movies are coming from Korea and Turkey for example.

You could produce the most uber-woke movie possible and it would be loved as long as it was good art or had a legitimate good story.

What a strange and arbitrary cutoff date, is that when you turned 30?

Sorry I just remember from a Tweet that it was the year that many cult movies came, but one of my favorite years is 2000 for both Matrix/American Psycho.

As for the age, no, I was born well after 1995.

This is even stranger, in what way do you think those films espouse the values you touted?

That was my point tho, they are not conservative, Titanic is basically the story of a bouregois woman who on her deathbed remembers a one time fling she had when young, despite a whole life spent with another man. It can be categorizd as cheating of sorts, from a conservative POV, yet it is incredibly popular all around the world as a "romantic story". Similarly a lot of the American rom-coms involve some sort of cheating and they are wildly popular in other parts of the world.

Its not wokeism the issue, its the decrease in artistic quality of movies overall, helped partly by the ideology over craft spirit and the laziness from rentier and extractive studios.

Most Hollywood production has always been trash. US shows are still very popular and influential. Many countries are just richer post 2000s, subsidize their movie industry and it's way easier to distribute movies internationally compared to 30 years ago. Barrier to entry in general has gone down. Pretending woke is the main reason ignores many things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com