Home » About

About

DSC057333

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a 26-year old independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada. He has written for a number of publications, including AlterNet, Truthout, CounterPunch, Roarmag, and Occupy, among others, and has done a number of radio and television interviews, including with Russia Today and CBC Radio. He is Project Manager of The People’s Book Project, head of the Geopolitics Division of the Hampton Institute, research director of Occupy.com’s Global Power Project, and hosts a weekly podcast show at BoilingFrogsPost.

 

Andrew Gavin Marshall

Create Your Badge


View Andrew Marshall's profile on LinkedIn

About these ads

23 Comments

  1. Jasmine says:

    A great place where the claims on themes like globalization and police state have academic foundation. Visit this often. Nice to see that and Andrew whose like my crush after watching his interviews on youtube ;)

  2. Doug Page says:

    I greatly appreciate your most recent article about Libya. People like Juan Cole and even Amy Goodman fail to reveal all of their personal connections.

  3. [...] duped in a similar fashion? Here is some analysis offered by independent researcher and writer Andrew Gavin Marshall: For the Occupy Movement to build up and become a true force for change, it must avoid and reject [...]

  4. Cory says:

    Thank you for dedicating yourself to the important work of exposing the NWO. The so called “educated” public by and large has never come close to knowing the truth. I agree with Alex Jones that they are in a ‘trance’. This will change over time as the hubris of the elite eclipses their long preparations for global control.

  5. jake says:

    Love your podcasts and articles. I knew your brain was lovely and I always suspected you were cute, too. I was right! Keep up the good work.

  6. Hobby Hunter says:

    ps i like what your doing watch your 6

  7. Margret says:

    Many so-called independent researchers may be smart. But independent research really means nothing. It means a non-professional who is usually unemployed and without an education. I question someone who writes for George Soros’ Alternet.

  8. Alex says:

    George Soros owns Alternet? WTH!!!! If that is true then Andrew is a total fake.

    • Believe it or not, a simple search on AlterNet’s website will reveal that George Soros’ Open Society group does not fund AlterNet. And, even if money from Soros did go to AlterNet, I am confused as to how that would somehow – instantaneously – make me “a total fake.” What about my research and writing is made “fake” because I get published on a site that gets funding from some source I have no control over? Tell me, please, as an otherwise unemployed researcher and writer, how am I to make a living? I take work I can get, when I can get it. And please tell me, how are independent media groups or NGOs supposed to survive and do any work at all without outside funding? I have studied the role of foundations in society in quite some detail. They fund NGOs and alternative media for a variety of reasons (namely to attempt to influence, direct, and shape the development), but like anything, situations are far more complex: the ‘intent’ of a foundation’s funding does not necessarily mean it translates into ‘results.’ In short, Soros might ‘use’ groups for a specific purpose, but groups may ‘use’ him and his money for their own. If you actually knew people who worked in NGOs, non-profits, alternative media and think tanks, you would know that it’s not as simple as finding ‘one connection’ and thus, dismissing everything produced by that group/individual. I do research, so I have to base my views off of actual information, not reflexive emotionally-driven dismissal because of some baseless rumour without grounding in reality. It is true that it is important to know your sources, but that doesn’t mean to dismiss them. For example, in doing research, I draw most of my material (depending upon the subject) from the mainstream media. So if I am writing about the economic crisis, most of my sources are the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc. Now, these are heavily indoctrinated media organizations, propaganda outlets for the elite. But, if I were to simply then ‘dismiss’ everything produced or published through these outlets, I would have VERY LITTLE information upon which to study or write about the economic crisis. As with anything, one must acknowledge complexity: the ideology of writers for these publications is not something I adopt, but through these publications, more actual information is reported on these issues than anywhere else. As a researcher, I would be ignorant and wrong to dismiss them and ignore everything they publish… and I would only suffer as a result, in terms of producing shoddy research with less resources and understanding.

      So for you people who hear the name ‘Soros’ and (without investigating) simply dismiss anything and everything (supposedly) related to his money, tell me: how are media groups, think tanks, researchers and writers supposed to survive without funding? If you have the miracle answer, I’d love to hear it. It’s the same nonsense logic of noting that some Egyptian pro-democracy groups got support from the US, and “therefore,” they are a covert-op/US strategy/imperial pawns, etc. Such a perspective takes one of several parts of the story, and bases the entire conclusion upon very little of the existing evidence. Once that link is established, people are able to jump to a conclusion and turn off their brains, fail to continue doing research, discover more, add to their understanding. If people did that with the Egyptian pro-democracy groups, instead of denouncing them as “foreign agents” (like the military dictatorship following Mubarak did), they would realize that the groups were using the US as much as the US was using them. And what’s more, it’s a pretty easy thing to criticize pro-democracy Egyptian groups from the comfort of the Western world, where you currently do not live under a military dictatorship. So tell me, once again, if US funding for a pro-democracy Egyptian group is reason enough to completely dismiss them and everything they do and have done, how are Egyptians supposed to organize and get funding for groups and media outlets to promote democracy while living under a military dictatorship? If the US came by with a check book, you better believe they would accept getting money, access to and training with electronics and Internet technology. Put yourself in their shoes, there is NO funding, NO support, total repression, and you are young, poor, and live in a dictatorship. If someone offers, you accept.

      But then, acknowledging complexity in our world requires actual thought, based upon actual research.

      Clearly, it’s much easier to react reflexively, emotionally, and irrationally to a rumour (which again, is baseless), that I have written for a publication that got some funding from Soros, and therefore, the “only logical” conclusion (never mind the fact that if Soros was funding them, he likely wouldn’t read them, let alone read ME), that I am “a total fake.” My research speaks for itself. My writing is there for you to see and judge, to fact check and disagree with. But to dismiss outright because of a mere suggestion of ‘Soros’ says much more about your standards of research than it does about mine.

      Sincerely,
      Andrew (the “total fake”)

    • See my previous comment. If your blind-sighted, myopic understanding of the media and research leads you to spurious conclusions, I can’t help that. Like I said, if you dismiss so easily based upon small pieces of information with zero context or understanding, good luck on your journey for “truth.” And the news sources you cited above, where do they get their funding? If you dismiss simply due to links between money and media, then – by definition – you have to dismiss ALL media, which means you must dismiss ALL information, and live in some insulated bubble where you produce your own ‘knowledge’ based upon absolutely nothing. So good luck with that. Obviously, anyone so irrationally dismissive is not someone I am keen to keep as a reader.

  9. Alex says:

    I am no research like you Andrew. That is true. You are still a liar dog though. You said it was a rumor that Soros funded Alternet and it ain’t a rumor. The only person in a bubble is you my homie.

    • Here is a list of AlterNet’s foundation funders (which, I might add, I have no control/influence over):
      http://www.alternet.org/alternets-supporting-foundations

      You have failed to mention how – even if they do get funding from Soros – that has any impact upon what I write about for them, or what they publish of mine (which, I might add, is a great deal of my stuff).

      And I have written very critically of Soros and his funding in the past. But again, tell me how I am a “liar” and “a total fake.”

      2+2=5, right? Apparently so.

  10. Alex says:

    Nice touch with the humor homie. Th the Independent Media Institute is Soros. It is at the very top of the link you sent me dog.

    You don’t give a damn do you where the money is from? For you this aint about change. Its probably about yourself. You don’t care where the money comes from do you? Making all these excuses. I bet you would steal and find a way to say it is okay. That is sick shit my dog. May you find your way.

    You stick to Soros (and your lame ass excuse “But I criticize him” !) You sound like a politician. You talk butt you aint walking the talk. Some commitment.

    You don’t know shit about what those people in Egypt are going through. You don’t know shit about the level of commitment!

    I am out!

    • The IMI is AlterNet, not Soros. Show me the evidence. And anyway, even if it were, again, you fail to prove or even suggest how Soros funding of AlterNet has an impact upon what I write about.

      And I imagine it must be relatively easy to sit back as an armchair observer of the world and criticize others. Again, you never mentioned to me how otherwise unemployed researchers and writers should make a living?

      Please, by all means, enlighten me! Should I have refused to write articles for AlterNet because they have gotten Soros funding in the past…? And therefore, deny myself the ability to pay rent, or buy food, to reach a MUCH LARGER audience than anything on my website has ever reached?

      Tell me, if you are the arbiter of “independence,” how does one remain without ANY institutional or financial affiliation in a society built entirely upon those constructs?

      I would really appreciate being absorbed in your unbounded wisdom on this issue….

      Or, you could just dismiss me outright, instead of asking or raising the issue in a less insulting manner, and therefore write off everything I have done and do simply because YOU jumped to a conclusion based upon tenuous information.

      If that’s how you choose to “think,” fine. But if that type of irrationality is directed at me, and you approach it in an insulting self-righteous manner, yes… I will take issue with that. But obviously, I am speaking to paint thinner, so I’ll just stop here.

      If anyone has any actual QUESTIONS, I am happy to answer.

      If people want to make baseless accusations and insulting declarations, feel free to do so, but you will not find a friend in me.

  11. Buz says:

    I may be maligning Alex (above) , but it seems to me that he was deliberately engaged in a fallacious argument with the intention of attempting to discredit you, as though he might be employed to do so. (Nice touch with the “homie” stuff.) If he is sincere ( I could be wrong, he may be), I apologize for suggesting otherwise. But an insult is still an insult. Sincere or not, Alex seems incapable of rational discourse.

    I thought that it was appropriate to counter his comments as thoroughly as you did. If this type of attack occurs again, and I were you ( which I do not have the energy and diligence to be), I’d attempt to let it roll off my back. As you stated, your research speaks for itself ( I would add your analysis and writing as well).

    Thank you for your good heart and good work.

    Cheers Buz

  12. dapper dan says:

    beware of sock puppets………….

    Sock Puppets and Other Tricks
    Other clues as to what ProjectPM-related material may have led the FBI to investigate Michael Hastings can be found in his published work.

    Endgame Systems CEO Nathaniel Fick. Formerly of the Center for a New American Security, Fick took over for Endgame in November 2012.
    In a May 18, 2012, article on propaganda efforts by the State Department, Hastings referred to a “program being developed by the Pentagon [that] would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets.” The HBGary emails are littered with references to this type of “persona management” technology.
    Principal among these was a June 2010 United States Air Force (USAF) contract from the 6thContracting Squadron at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. It sought providers of “persona management software” that would allow 50 users to control up to 500 fictional personae.

    These sock puppets were required to be “replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally, and geographically consistent.” In other words, avatars so convincing they could fool the people with whom they were interacting into believing they were real.
    MacDill Air Force Base is home to the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the section of the military that oversees and coordinates all special-forces activity globally. USSOCOM lists under its “core activities” the employment of psychological operations (PSYOPS) and information operations (IO)—exactly the type of activity this “sockpuppeting” technology would be employed in.

    http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/08/07/connections-between-michael-hastings-edward-snowden-and-barrett-brown-the-war-with-the-security-state/

  13. Ice G says:

    Hi Andrew,
    Thanks for deciding to take the time to publish these many concepts.
    In the video/interview posted on your site regarding technocracy you mention something to the effect that that technocratic leaders are only book smart and myopic. You also mention the leaders who we placed into power in Greece and Italy are technocrats and that they held high positions at World Bank or such high level institutions. Don’t these people contribute more than this stereotypical technocratic example since they bring a wealth if experience to add credibility when asserting their agenda?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,146 other followers

%d bloggers like this: