Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw. (click HERE for previous point in thread)   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >> Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Whether 'left' or 'right' or 'center' or 'people who don't compartmentalise fanatically', everyone's talking about people like Johnson and Trump from the point of view of their friend or relative or opponent - making it personal.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: This is what corporate power needs you to do. Some MP was attacking people who try to hold corporations to account, the other day. This Chomsky quote is vital to repeat to her until she grows up. Childish idiots like you, dear MP, should resign. You have NO RIGHT to be an MP. Your intellect is absolutely insufficient and your integrity is therefore faulty - or, if you know exactly what you're doing, your integrity is absolutely disgustingly absent. Here's the Chomsky, you silly fake-public-servant:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the quality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.
Unification: Every reader here should take a look in the mirror, you've been doing it for years - being distracted by personality contests and your own lazy inability to follow through anything other than the easiest and lowest common denominator.

Most companies you work for or buy from are full advocators of this policy of narcissism, decadence, laziness, self-promotion and a complete inability to really do anything properly which should be done properly. I don't doubt you package donuts well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Why is it any different now? When you scream at Boris for being racist (which I suppose he blatantly seems to be and has made statements which are clearly islamophobic and drive up the racism in our country).

The real question has to be not just why the Tory party didn't deal with this racism when asked and never will, ever - but why the entire system governing us is similarly flawed and similarly not going to change, not on its present path (although the election of Corbyn may change that).

Strategically, I mean. Nothing you seem to do seems to help you, even if it starts well. Talking about Boris's racism or whatever, doesn't help - because it's people, not systems, you focus on.

Even when it's good - ie Corbyn - you still, many of you, aren't learning to BE Corbyn - you want only one Corbyn, to run the country, and everyone else can privately behave like Alistair Campbell. What you need to do is ALL be Corbyn. He is Spartacus. Be Spartacus.

When Corbyn arrived on the scene millions started precisely and forensically learning how to debate and cutting their teeth on the key issues they have to defend themselves with reference to - health and medicine, education and jobs, global bank robbery being called 'war' or 'peace keeping' {even more absurdly}.

But then the Corporate Puppet Master in Chief threw something at you which knocked you right out. He/she/it called it 'brexit' and 'a referendum'. And since then you stopped trying to learn any more than you'd already learned about debating and reason, which still wasn't much, and returned to your cult of personality western-word-warfare - your numberwang lives. Living like the people in Numberwang all your lives and any time anyone actually evolved and intelligent tries to interrupt your answer is always: "sorry, that's NOT numberwang".

Which leads to a very interesting comparison - we can, sane people here, see how the use of the word 'anti-semitism' is now disingenuous more often than not and spoken by racists at anti-racists more often than by anti-racists at racists!

But look at 'Remain' and 'Leave' - the same sane people all know, whatever they 'voted for', that the degree to which those two words are used disingenuously is also probably above 50%, ie another case where it's just a way of saying 'numberwang' - the choice is arbitrary and the choice-maker's taste, unconnected to reason.

If you turn the word your 'campaign' pivots on to numberwang, what will happen to 'your cause'? But the truth is most such 'causes' are just personal greed intertwined with peer group decision making led by corporate interests and millions of sales and marketing staff everywhere! And all the staff who keep their brave sales and marketing soldiers on the front line against human survival.

Racism, by the way, will die only through education (so the numberwang approach just makes racism worse). You are looking right now at the only type of solution which defeats racism. Education. Understanding. Science.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open supporting statement


Supporting: 1.27.1

7 versions:

1. Server time: 15:13:29 on 23/6/2019
2. Server time: 15:19:45 on 23/6/2019
3. Server time: 15:26:40 on 23/6/2019
4. Server time: 15:37:17 on 23/6/2019
5. Server time: 15:50:10 on 23/6/2019
6. Server time: 15:52:1 on 23/6/2019
7. Server time: 14:8:23 on 6/7/2019

Related points:

References:

that chomsky quote via google books
are YOU numberwang?

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

Don't be distracted by grotesque pantomime, surgically resolve the systemic flaw.

Chomsky explains: << Despite the frank acknowledgment of the need to deceive the public, it would be an error to suppose that practitioners of the art are typically engaged in conscious deceit; few reach the level of sophistication of the Grand Inquisitor or maintain such insights for long. On the contrary, as the intellectuals pursue their grim and demanding vocation, they readily adopt beliefs that serve institutional needs; those who do not will have to seek employment elsewhere. The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board. It is probable that the most inhuman monsters, even the Himmlers and the Mengeles, convince themselves that they are engaged in noble and courageous acts. The psychology of leaders is a topic of little interest. The institutional factors that constrain their actions and beliefs are what merit attention. >>

Whether 'left' or 'right' or 'center' or 'people who don't compartmentalise fanatically', everyone's talking about people like Johnson and Trump from the point of view of their friend or relative or opponent - making it personal.

This is what corporate power needs you to do. Some MP was attacking people who try to hold corporations to account, the other day. This Chomsky quote is vital to repeat to her until she grows up. Childish idiots like you, dear MP, should resign. You have NO RIGHT to be an MP. Your intellect is absolutely insufficient and your integrity is therefore faulty - or, if you know exactly what you're doing, your integrity is absolutely disgustingly absent. Here's the Chomsky, you silly fake-public-servant:

<<

Let me begin by saying something about liberalism, which is a very complicated concept, I think. It's correct, surely, that liberalism grew up in the intellectual environment of empiricism and the rejection of authority, and trust in the evidence of the senses, and so on. However, liberalism has undergone a very complex evolution as a social philosophy over the years. If we go back to the classics, or at least, what I regard as the classics, say, for example, Humboldt's limits of state action which inspired Mill and is a true libertarian, liberal classic, if you like. The world that Humboldt was considering--which was partially an imaginary world--but the world for which he was developing this political philosophy, was a post-feudal but pre-capitalist world.

That it was a world in which there was no great divergence among individuals in the kind of power that they had, and what they command, let's say. But there was a tremendous disparity between individuals, on one hand, and the state on the other. Consequently, it was the task of a liberalism that was concerned with human rights, and the quality of individuals, and so on. It was the task of that liberalism to dissolve the enormous power of state, which was such an authoritarian threat to individual liberties. And from that, you develop a classical liberal theory in, say, Humboldt's or Mill's sense. Well, of course, that is pre-capitalist. He couldn't conceive of an era in which a corporation would be regarded as an individual, or in which enormous disparities in control over resources and production would distinguish between individuals in a massive fashion. Now, in that kind of society, to take the Humboldtian view is a very superficial liberalism. Because while opposition to state power in an era of such divergence conforms to Humboldt's conclusions, it doesn't do so for his reasons. That is, his reasons lead to very different conclusions in that case.

Namely, I think, his reasons lead to the conclusion that we must dissolve the authoritarian control over production of resources, which leads to such divergence as among individuals. In fact, I think, one might draw a direct line between classical liberalism and a kind of libertarian socialism, which I think, can be regarded as a kind of adapting of the basic reasoning of classical liberalism to a very different social era. Now if we come to the modern period, here liberalism has taken on a very strange sense, if you think of its history. Now liberalism is essentially the theory of state capitalism. Of state intervention in a capitalist economy.

Well, that has very little relation to classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism is what's now called conservatism, I suppose. But this new view, I think, really is, in my view at least, a highly authoritarian position. That is, it's one which accepts a number of centers of authority and control--the state on one hand, agglomerations of private power on the other hand, all interacting with individuals as malleable cogs in this highly constrained machine, which may be called democratic, but given the actual distribution of powers, very far from being meaningfully democratic and cannot be so. So my own feeling has always been that to achieve the classical liberal ideals--for the reasons that led to them being put forth--in a society so different, we must be led in a very different direction. It's superficial and erroneous to accept the conclusions which were reached for different society and not to consider the reasoning that led to those conclusions. The reasoning, I think, is very substantial.

>>

Lazy attempts to sidestep having to read and face up to that, oh 'protectors' of corporate power, like that MP (once I can dig up what it was you said and identify which MP you are I'll edit this post to include your name, and any other examples of people who say what you recently said), will not pass muster. I will put these questions on the lips of 10 million young adults as soon as I can. It's happening day by day, and you cannot stop that, least of all by burying your head in the sand and reverting to your shallow pantomime.

Every reader here should take a look in the mirror, you've been doing it for years - being distracted by personality contests and your own lazy inability to follow through anything other than the easiest and lowest common denominator.

Most companies you work for or buy from are full advocators of this policy of narcissism, decadence, laziness, self-promotion and a complete inability to really do anything properly which should be done properly. I don't doubt you package donuts well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Why is it any different now? When you scream at Boris for being racist (which I suppose he blatantly seems to be and has made statements which are clearly islamophobic and drive up the racism in our country).

The real question has to be not just why the Tory party didn't deal with this racism when asked and never will, ever - but why the entire system governing us is similarly flawed and similarly not going to change, not on its present path (although the election of Corbyn may change that).

Strategically, I mean. Nothing you seem to do seems to help you, even if it starts well. Talking about Boris's racism or whatever, doesn't help - because it's people, not systems, you focus on.

Even when it's good - ie Corbyn - you still, many of you, aren't learning to BE Corbyn - you want only one Corbyn, to run the country, and everyone else can privately behave like Alistair Campbell. What you need to do is ALL be Corbyn. He is Spartacus. Be Spartacus.

When Corbyn arrived on the scene millions started precisely and forensically learning how to debate and cutting their teeth on the key issues they have to defend themselves with reference to - health and medicine, education and jobs, global bank robbery being called 'war' or 'peace keeping' {even more absurdly}.

But then the Corporate Puppet Master in Chief threw something at you which knocked you right out. He/she/it called it 'brexit' and 'a referendum'. And since then you stopped trying to learn any more than you'd already learned about debating and reason, which still wasn't much, and returned to your cult of personality western-word-warfare - your numberwang lives. Living like the people in Numberwang all your lives and any time anyone actually evolved and intelligent tries to interrupt your answer is always: "sorry, that's NOT numberwang".

Which leads to a very interesting comparison - we can, sane people here, see how the use of the word 'anti-semitism' is now disingenuous more often than not and spoken by racists at anti-racists more often than by anti-racists at racists!

But look at 'Remain' and 'Leave' - the same sane people all know, whatever they 'voted for', that the degree to which those two words are used disingenuously is also probably above 50%, ie another case where it's just a way of saying 'numberwang' - the choice is arbitrary and the choice-maker's taste, unconnected to reason.

If you turn the word your 'campaign' pivots on to numberwang, what will happen to 'your cause'? But the truth is most such 'causes' are just personal greed intertwined with peer group decision making led by corporate interests and millions of sales and marketing staff everywhere! And all the staff who keep their brave sales and marketing soldiers on the front line against human survival.

Racism, by the way, will die only through education (so the numberwang approach just makes racism worse). You are looking right now at the only type of solution which defeats racism. Education. Understanding. Science.



that chomsky quote via google books
are YOU numberwang?