It's a little frustrating that you seem to ignore everything i wrote about engaging with the content of a piece and just keep doing this "attack the messenger" thing. There's this strange way of thinking that i see most often in liberals where you can never engage with or come into contact with anything that is associated with people who have reactionary views on certain issues, almost like they think that by doing so you somehow become morally tainted by association. As a dialectical materialist i think that this kind of puritanical impulse is not helpful.

To answer your question, no, there is not much out there with this level of quality of analysis on these topics. There just isn't a huge amount of content like this coming from progressive channels, i wish there was.

By the way, this channel isn't even the worst offender as far as reactionary sources of good geopolitical analysis that have been shared here. When we do so we assume a certain level of political maturity from our comrades, such that they can engage with the analysis presented and separate that from whatever other reactionary views that source may have. Are you also going to say we should never post anything from Russian or Middle Eastern sources because they almost certainly hold reactionary views on some issue or other?

If someone is uncomfortable with giving a particular channel views they can use one of the alternative links provided, where the video is embedded on a third party website. I'd recommend doing that anyway for privacy reasons.

The advantage of videos like this is that they use the western media's own reporting and publicly available information to show how, when you actually dissect what they are saying, they frequently slip up and admit the truth even while they try to spin it to fit their narrative. That is helpful when trying to deprogram people who would otherwise not trust any non-western source, or who would refuse to listen to any overtly communist channels.

If you think that sharing videos like this should come with a content warning to caution against listening to these sources on other topics, then that is totally valid and we can absolutely do that.

As for who he used to write for, of course that's fair to point out, but to be consistent you should also take issue with any author who used to write for Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, CNN or any other mainstream media. Genocide apologist, warmongering, imperialist bourgeois establishment mouthpieces are no less reactionary than far right conspiracy theory websites. In fact the latter sometimes stumble onto real conspiracies and have occasional flashes of insight into how the covert and overt machinery of the bourgeois state works in ways that liberals never do. Obviously that's wrapped in utterly deranged, delusional reactionary drivel, but still.

sending clicks and fans

I would advise you to get off facebook and youtube, like yesterday.

What did he write for Infowars? Do they exclusively publish lies or is their barrier to entry just low? I've found Brian Berletic to use sources well, be transparent and make logical conclusions with few or reasonable leaps.