Manufacturing Dissent: The Truth About Syria

Produced by Lizzie Phelan and Mostafa Azfalzadeh

Manufacturing Dissent (2012) is a documentary posthumously dedicated to Syrian Palestinian actor Mohamad Rafea, who was kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered on Sunday November 4th 2012 by paramilitary groups that have been unleashed in Syria since the US, UK and their western and Gulf State allies launched a covert war there in early 2011. This clandestine campaign of terror is presented by the mainstream corporate media as a “revolution”.

The film examines the psychological-warfare tactics of the western political establishment that are aimed at eliminating the current Syrian government.

Manufacturing Dissent includes evidence of fake reports broadcasted/published by the likes of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and others, and features interviews with a cross section of the Syrian population: an actor, a craftsman, a journalist, a resident from Homs and an activist who have all been affected by the crisis.

The documentary demonstrates how through their misleading reportage such media have directly contributed to the bloodshed in Syria while obscuring its true causes.

Additional information about the film and filmmakers is available here.

15 thoughts on “Manufacturing Dissent: The Truth About Syria”

  1. Thanks for sharing James. You are a constant inspiration to always look more deeply into all the subject matters that catch your attention. The documentary is a sad truth but exceptional in that it does not suffocate you as it is watched.

    R.I.P Mohamad Rafea, he was surely footprints on the road to a warless world.

    Lizzie Phelan and Mostafa Azfalzadeh would more than likely fit into this statement by Glenn Ruga and his thoughts on Documentaries and walking on the razor’s edge….

    The landscape documentary photographers face is both a culture that avoids facing difficult issues and a marketplace that rewards obfuscation. But luckily we have artists who demand truth, explore far beyond the measure of normality and the pedestrian, and who grapple with complex issues. But they want—and need—some measure of success in the marketplace, as we all do in contemporary society. They therefore must walk a razor’s edge fraught with these contradictions.

  2. I guess nothing directly. I should have put it up on the most recent Sandy Hook thread. It shocked me that I could finally hear a media report and sense possible fraudulence so instinctively so I posted sort of rashly hoping others would investigate.

    1. I wouldn’t take this very seriously. is a Murdoch/News Corp-owned outlet, the same parties who brought us the Port Arthur Massacre fraud, for those who recall.

      A fairly detailed examination if that event is available here.

  3. When you advise that, are you suggesting that news outlet is faking it completely?

    One issue I do believe may be related to the Syria campaign (it’s all sort of related – gun rights, domestic and foreign imperialism, etc.) is that the narrative this story presents bolsters the one being propagated about why we should intervene in Syria. A very white (and even out of control redhead) man wantonly shoots an innocent, beautiful vulnerable young asiatic woman. On the domestic front we, and implicitly Syria, need to intervene, and beware of threats from within. We need to go into the interior of the country, where many US citizens are running to evade the elitists’ depredations and dangers on the coasts, and control and strong-arm the heathens. Syria’s situation parallels the message of this I guess possibly fake story.

    The fact is, the alleged perp represents the demographic that is the most staunchly anti the imperialism of Obama’s administration (and his predecessor’s). They are also the very same group who champion the Second Amendment the most fervently and, if necessary, militantly.

    Take their guns, away, convince the undecideds to invade Syria. It’s related in my view.

    1. The media needn’t have to manufacture anything if an incident has already been manufactured, as Edward Bernays observed. They only have to refrain from “digging” and asking pertinent questions.

      Cannot really understand the rest of the comment, which appears conflicted.

  4. Who besides the media might have manufactured it? If a media outlet picked it up I guess they’re guilty if there’s obvious fabrications being presented.

    I don’t get how a comment could be conflicted. I certainly didn’t feel conflicted when I wrote it, but I’ve noticed that metaphors can be tough for people sometimes, especially when they involved the anti-white narrative that our elitist government promulgates.

Comments are closed.