Slashdot Mirror
Domain: chomsky.info
Stories and comments across the archive that link to chomsky.info.
Comments · 102
-
Re:Oh, here we go ...
In the context of this thread, I meant "any US president".
One good enough reason:
-
Re:Corporate Success!
Nvidia downgrades the independent press into a marketing tool.
Nvidia will be the envy of all other companies.
The press has always been an arm of big business, this is nothing new.
Education as ignorance
https://chomsky.info/warfare02...
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufact...
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Testing theories of representative government
-
Re:Race to the bottom
So we have to compete with China in creepiness?
Of course since the average american and person in capitalist society is unaware how extreme wealth inequality is. So all the rulers are at full blown war against their publics. That's why the spying is there, to make sure you have the "correct" free market, corporation worshipping thoughts and not notice the end of the rule of law, endless copyright laws which equals total domination of government by the rich.
See it in this speach by former national security adivisor of the United states:
Elites fear political awakening of the globe
The Citibank memo
US distribution of wealth
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world. Realize that business and the wealthy is hostile to your interests.
Testing theories of representative government
Aka the rich (big business) vs the rest of mankind.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives
Stratfor and social media like reddit to monitor / influence and control public opinion.
Reddit and intelligence agencies
Wikileaks -- Reddit and intelligence agencies
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK
Education as ignorance
Overthrowing other peoples governments
Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
-
Re:Can someone ELI5 for me?
I was under the impression that tampering with telecommunications was illegal in Canada, punishable by imprisionment.
Can someone explain to be how these acts could be legally conducted?
Long story short you don't live in a democracy, what corporations want governments will pass.
Crisis of democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.
Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Education as ignorance
-
Re:Because fuck you, that's why.
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Because that's the way the elites have set it up, education is ignorance and science on human reasoning shows human reasoning is much poorer than thought. These links will take a while to digest.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Education as ignorance
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Rd wolf on economics
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK
Education as ignorance
Overthrowing other peoples governments
Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Testing theories of representative government
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket.
-
Re:Because fuck you, that's why.
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Because that's the way the elites have set it up, education is ignorance and science on human reasoning shows human reasoning is much poorer than thought. These links will take a while to digest.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Education as ignorance
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Rd wolf on economics
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK
Education as ignorance
Overthrowing other peoples governments
Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Testing theories of representative government
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket.
-
Re:Because fuck you, that's why.
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Because that's the way the elites have set it up, education is ignorance and science on human reasoning shows human reasoning is much poorer than thought. These links will take a while to digest.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Education as ignorance
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Rd wolf on economics
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK
Education as ignorance
Overthrowing other peoples governments
Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Testing theories of representative government
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket.
-
Chomsky would agree
https://chomsky.info/200401__/
"CHOMSKY: It's close to a historical universal that the term "terror" is used for their terror against us and our clients, not our terror against them. Heads of states can qualify as "terrorists," when they are official enemies."https://chomsky.info/20011018-...
"Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences."https://chomsky.info/200205__0...
"The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find.
The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "u -
Chomsky would agree
https://chomsky.info/200401__/
"CHOMSKY: It's close to a historical universal that the term "terror" is used for their terror against us and our clients, not our terror against them. Heads of states can qualify as "terrorists," when they are official enemies."https://chomsky.info/20011018-...
"Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences."https://chomsky.info/200205__0...
"The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find.
The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "u -
Chomsky would agree
https://chomsky.info/200401__/
"CHOMSKY: It's close to a historical universal that the term "terror" is used for their terror against us and our clients, not our terror against them. Heads of states can qualify as "terrorists," when they are official enemies."https://chomsky.info/20011018-...
"Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences."https://chomsky.info/200205__0...
"The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find.
The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "u -
Re:Alliance blah,blah,blah
" back before crony-capitalism passed the tipping-point and jumped the shark"
Ahh yes "That's not really real free market capitalism" argument. Sorry to tell you there crony capitalism doesn't exist because that's the way capitalism has always worked, the historical evidence is overwhelming. That rule of law can not exist within capitalism. Everytime copyright came up for review to protect the publics right it was expanded over 200 years long before you were even born.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.
Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Testing theories of representative government
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
-
Re:Enemy of the good
"So instead of repealing the law, how about extending to also apply to Google and Facebook?"
Not going to happen, I'll get to why in a moment... check out the links when you get the time. The brain doesn't see the world as it is, see the science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
This is former national security advisor of the united states Zbigniew Brezinski, worried about the political awakening of the masses, the rich and corporations fear the political awakening of the masses of the globe, so see what they really think behind closed doors here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
On social media -- social media are connected to intelligence agencies... if you think you are going to get privacy it's all bs and optics for the masses.
Reddit and intelligence agencies
Wikileaks -- Reddit and intelligence agencies
These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world.
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK
Education as ignorance
Overthrowing other peoples governments
Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Testing theories of representative government
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil inter
-
Re:I don't think so
See this talk by Former national security advisor, their purpose is to keep the public misinformed and sow distrust so the public can't come together and confront corporate power.
See this talk by national security advisor the upper classes of the world are afraid of the political awakening of the masses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
Education as ignorance
-
USA invading Canada?
They better be better plans than the last two times the USA tried it and got its butt kicked (1175, 1812).
http://mentalfloss.com/article...Of course, if the USA really has to invade Canada, like say, if lots more oil is discovered there and the USA political system need to redirect who gets the profits from it, or if Canada experiments with a "basic income" again and the USA fears "contagion", then everyone will be screaming if there are no plans.
"The Threat of a Good Example"
http://www.chomsky.info/books/...
"No country is exempt from U.S. intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it's the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria.I guess Canada is safe for now because it is not weak and poor?
It's a no win situation making such plans or not if your job is to consider every eventuality.
Still, sometimes the best way to win is not to play. This was written by a Marine Major General and two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Smedley Butler:
http://www.warisaracket.org/ra...
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."Consider, for example, the Strv 103 tank that Sweden designed. They are designed for home defense on Sweden's mountainous terrain, not going abroad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"It was known for its unconventional turretless design, with a fixed gun traversed by engaging the tracks and elevated by adjusting the hull suspension.That design reflects Major General Butler's point.
Although they have since gone more conventional in their designs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...The really laughable thing about all these plans is that, as was said in "Brittle Power" (or maybe "Energy, Vulnerability, and War"), quoting from memory from 1980s books, "a troop of boy scouts could shut down the USA's vital energy infrastructure" given the fragility of oil pipelines where every segment is essentially a single point of fail
-
Re:Yea. So?
Educating our enemies might enlighten them so that they are no longer our enemies. Sure would be a lot cheaper that way than starting another war, you know, like in Iraq, over Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist.
We should better educate ourselves. Too much of what passes for education in the US and the West is indoctrination. Read some Noam Chomsky and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn for a bit of perspective.
It always amazes me how many very narrowly educated people there are. I used to think a Bachelor of Arts degree was a watered down, wimpy sort of college degree and the Bachelor of Science was the way to go. Now, after encountering quite a few people who know technical stuff like how to be a good code monkey but are utterly ignorant of philosophy and the basics of science and rational thought, I wonder if an Arts degree was meant to deal with precisely that problem. Every person with a college degree should be equipped to understand that, for example, Creationism is bunk.
-
The threat of a good example
"The greatest threat to power is not violence but disengagement [from the grid network]."
Interesting point, AC. It relates to this, also by Howard Zinn:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
"However, the unexpected victories-even temporary ones-of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful. In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people-the employed, the somewhat privileged-are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls.
That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attic -- expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us."Or this by Noam Chomsky:
"The Threat of a Good Example"
http://www.chomsky.info/books/unclesam01.htm
"No country is exempt from U.S. intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it's the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria.And by Bucky Fuller:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/165737.Richard_Buckminster_Fuller
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."So yes, withdrawing support is a powerful way of change, as Gandhi used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement
"The Non-Cooperation Movement was a significant phase of the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule. It was led by Mahatma Gandhi and was supported by the Indian National Congress. After the Jallianwala Bagh incident, Gandhi started the Non Cooperation movement. It aimed to resist British occupation in India through non-violent means. Protestors would refuse to buy British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts, picket liquor shops, and try to uphold the Indian values of honor and integrity. The ideals of Ahimsa or non-violence, and Gandhi's ability to rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of Indian independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement through the summer 1920, they feared that the movement might lead to popular violence.
Among the significant causes of this movement were colonial oppression, exemplified by the Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh massacre, economic hardships to the common man due to a large chunk of Indian wealth being exported to Britain, ruin of Indian artisans due to British factory-made goods replacing handmade goods, and popular resentment with the British over Indian soldiers dying in World War I while fighting as part of the British Army, in battles that otherwise had nothing to do with India."Or as a twist, would it really matter if most of India's wealth were exported to Britain or to a 1% of Indians who live in gated communities inside India?
Consider the US
-
Re:America
Genocide denier eh?
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm
did you really think an excerpt from 1980 wouldn't have been answered by now?
-
2 bells 1 curve
parent meant to refer simply to Chomsky's entire theory, outlined by the his publication I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New Class System in 1972.
Yes that's right. He responded directly in 1995 here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm
Also, let's clear up the term 'Bell Curve' a bit.
Most of us encounter factor analysis in action in school, in the form of a weighted grading system based on distribution of scores...'grading on a curve'...
Also known as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_curve_grading">'Bell Curve'...
Grading on a weighted scale is still done, but the way grades are weighted is much more complex and gives better representations than the 'bell curve' used in high schools in the US in the early-mid 20th century.
Another type of usage of 'bell curve' comes from probability theory. Here it is interchanged with the term Normal Distribution.
The book 'Bell Curve' is a pop science book from 1995 that repackaged an archaic statistical reductionist idea that human behavior could be quantified on a single curvolinear datagram. That's the core idea Chomsky criticized in 1972 and re-iterated in 1995.
So there are two common usages of the term 'Bell Curve'...both are essentially the same idea, which is rooted in a flawed understanding of an actual scientific concept in probability theory: the normal distribution.
2 bells 1 curve
-
Self-censorship woven throughout the system
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of corporations. It's true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It's dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on."See also: http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
"The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professionalâ(TM)s lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."And in recent history in relation to the run up to the Iraq war: http://fair.org/press-release/some-critical-media-voices-face-censorship/
How could it be different? Seriously, as a question, can people suggest alternatives? I've suggested some things elsewhere in terms of rethinking security and in my sig. How can things be different while still preserving current security?
The argument that this surveillance apparatus may fall into the hands of "bad people" is still (mostly) an argument about the future, so it has less weight if people can't see how to feel reasonably secure now. I'd like to see a lot more playing around with ideas about potential alternatives to keep the USA secure and healthy in the face of the fact that technology allows individuals and small groups to do ever more damage to the whole.... From a 2007 slashdot post by an AC:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=261555&cid=20127487
"Ben Bova, a major science fiction writer, has a proposed answer to the Fermi Paradox that startw with one of the side-effects of general technological advancement: The average person (of any intelligent species) acquires more and more power to do things. Well, on Earth it is well known that not all persons are emotionally stable, even as adults. Why should an assumption of stability be made for other worlds? Remember that if there is a technological cure for insanity, it is beyond our current technology, and it is -
Because the USA funds their oppressors?
"The hijackers were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi Government either directly or indirectly. The hijackers were outlaws, terrorists, that wanted not only to attack the United States but to overthrow the Saudi government as well."
You do realize that a big part of the reason for most of the hijackers themselves (ignoring Bin Laden's motives as an organizer) attacked the USA is probably because the hijackers felt the USA supported the Saudi government they thought was oppressive to themselves and had blighted their personal futures? There was an article in the New Yorker (I think) discussing this many years ago. That is why most of those specific people were so suggestible as to go along with it. Still, it's a complex topic, and it is hard to know for sure; a longer list of possibilities:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/whatwerethecausesof911/See especially:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
"Research on Suicide Terrorism; Robert Pape identified 315 incidents, all but 14 of which they classified as part of 18 different campaigns. These 18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third:[20] 1) A foreign occupation; 2) by a democracy; 3) of a different religion. Mia Bloom interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions largely support Pape's, suggesting that it is much more difficult to get people to volunteer for a suicide mission without such a foreign occupation.[21]"Or:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/09/09/244452/-What-motivated-the-9-11-hijackers-to-attack-the-US
"The 9-11 Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. On June 16 the Commission heard from several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot. It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission said, "I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents.So, while people often say "they hate us because we are free", but it seems all too often the geopolitical reality is "they hate us because we fund their oppressors".
See also:
"International Terrorism: Image and Reality"
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htmThe USA as a whole also does a lot of good in the world too, of course.
-
Chomsky on the word: "Terrorism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.By that standard, there are a lot more twitter feeds the US government should be shutting down if it wants to shut down any feed that can remotely be construed as supporting "terrorism". That could begin with, if one accepts Chomsky's argument (and he is a professional linguist), some of the feeds put put by the US government. Where does it end? Freedom of speech is an ideal for a reason. How about a parallel twitter feed run by the US State Department that rebuts the Hamas feed point-by-point and tweet-by-tweet?
See also:
http://warprayer.org/ -
Chomsky on the word: "Terrorism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.By that standard, there are a lot more twitter feeds the US government should be shutting down if it wants to shut down any feed that can remotely be construed as supporting "terrorism". That could begin with, if one accepts Chomsky's argument (and he is a professional linguist), some of the feeds put put by the US government. Where does it end? Freedom of speech is an ideal for a reason. How about a parallel twitter feed run by the US State Department that rebuts the Hamas feed point-by-point and tweet-by-tweet?
See also:
http://warprayer.org/ -
Chomsky on the word: "Terrorism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.By that standard, there are a lot more twitter feeds the US government should be shutting down if it wants to shut down any feed that can remotely be construed as supporting "terrorism". That could begin with, if one accepts Chomsky's argument (and he is a professional linguist), some of the feeds put put by the US government. Where does it end? Freedom of speech is an ideal for a reason. How about a parallel twitter feed run by the US State Department that rebuts the Hamas feed point-by-point and tweet-by-tweet?
See also:
http://warprayer.org/ -
Chomsky on the word: "Terrorism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.By that standard, there are a lot more twitter feeds the US government should be shutting down if it wants to shut down any feed that can remotely be construed as supporting "terrorism". That could begin with, if one accepts Chomsky's argument (and he is a professional linguist), some of the feeds put put by the US government. Where does it end? Freedom of speech is an ideal for a reason. How about a parallel twitter feed run by the US State Department that rebuts the Hamas feed point-by-point and tweet-by-tweet?
See also:
http://warprayer.org/ -
Re:That's nice
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
Unfortunately indeed. You fucking bootlicker.
-
Re:Talk about...
Ooops sorry, thanks for pointing it out (I pasted the URL as the title, and, the title as the URL
-
International Terrorism: Image and Reality
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
The message is clear: no one has the right of self-defense against US terrorist attack. The US is a terrorist state by right. That is unchallengeable doctrine.And:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
"The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil." -
International Terrorism: Image and Reality
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
The message is clear: no one has the right of self-defense against US terrorist attack. The US is a terrorist state by right. That is unchallengeable doctrine.And:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
"The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil." -
Why these academics are so blind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds
"Disciplined Minds is a book by physicist Jeff Schmidt published in 2000. The book describes how professionals are made; the methods of professional and graduate schools that turn eager entering students into disciplined managerial and intellectual workers that correctly perceive and apply the employer's doctrine and outlook. Schmidt uses the examples of law, medicine, and physics, and describes methods that students and professional workers can use to preserve their personalities and independent thought."See also:
http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_BrightestThose links explain in part how can such "smart" people totally ignore the potential for "blowback" from the violent actions they endorse (actions which include the slaughter of endless innocents, the violation of national sovereignty and probably international law, the setting of an example of ironic misuse of advanced technology that could otherwise bring material abundance to the entire world, and so on)... These links help show why these academics are willfully blind to the idea that they are endorsing polices that may be creating 100 new terrorist for every one they think they might have killed.
Never forget what one of our greatest Marine Major Generals said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
"War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit from warfare."Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan were *supposed* to be expensive quagmires so somebody's buddies coudl get lucrative "defense" contracts. These conflicts were *supposed* to drive up oil prices so somebody's buddies would see the value of their domestic oil holdings increase. And so on...
See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/killer-drone-attacks-ille_b_1623065.html
"Christof Heyns, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, expressed grave concern about the targeted killings, saying they may constitute war crimes. He called on the Obama administration to explain how its drone strikes comport with international law, specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals, and whether the State in which the killing takes place has given consent. Heyns further asked for specification of the procedural safeguards in place, if any, to ensure in advance of drone killings that they comply with international law. He also wanted to know what measures the U.S. government takes after any such killing to ensure that its legal and factual analysis was accurate and, if not, the remedial measures it would take, including justice and reparations for victims and their families. Although Heyns' predecessor made similar requests, Heyns said the United States has not provided a satisfactory response.
Heyns also called on the U.S. government to make public the number of civilians collaterally killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties. Once again, Heyns said the United States has not satisfactor -
Deeper than that (see Chomsky etc.)
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of corporations. It's true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It's dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on. "And:
http://disciplined-minds.com/
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy." -
Technology and moral choices
AC wrote: "The post-scarcity society is not going to end this, even supposing it does turn from utopian dream to reality. If anything, it will make everything worse, because you'll have more resources with which to bestow your benevolence."
This is just about exactly the point I'm concerned about, as reflected in my sig of: "A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity."
And that is the nightmare we are actually living today! People tend to forget about all the nuclear missiles still ready to launch from a computer glitch in decades old hardware from the 1960s and 1970s.
That is exactly why we need some sort of global mindshift to a newer way of thinking in order to survive having discovered all kinds of new sorts of technological "fire" (like nanotechnology, robotics, biotech, nuclear, networked bureaucracy, etc).
http://www.global-mindshift.org/discover/viewmeme.asp?memeid=239
http://anwot.org/By the way, on "education" which in practice means compulsory state-sponsored mass schooling, see:
http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htmOr also on your theme:
"The NED, NGOs and the Imperial Uses of Philanthropy: Why They Hate Our Kind Hearts, Too"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/05/13/why-they-hate-our-kind-hearts-too/ -
Re:What you meant to say
Here's a great article on imperialism in the USA -- I hope it may open the eyes of some people.
http://chomsky.info/articles/20120214.htm -
Healthy people come from healthy societies
People start off being able to reason, school stomps it out of most of them:
http://www.alisongopnik.com/TheScientistInTheCrib.htmWell-rounded (or rather, healthy, which does not always mean being perfectly rounded) human beings are more likely to come out of healthy communities and healthy families...
Some other links;
"The Underground History of American Education" by 1991 NYS Teacher of
the Year John Taylor Gatto
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm"The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher" also by John Taylor Gatto
http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt"State Controlled Consciousness" also by John Taylor Gatto
http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html"The Big Crunch" by David Goodstein, Vice Provost, Caltech
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html"Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/"What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream" by Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm"University Secrets:Your Guide to Surviving a College Education" by
Robert D. Honigman
http://web.archive.org/web/20060707100524/www.universitysecrets.com/us.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060710145531/www.universitysecrets.com/table.htm"The Kept University"
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm"In Defense of Childhood: Protecting Kids' Inner Wildness " by Chris
Mercogliano, who spent thirty-five years teaching at the Albany Free School
http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm"Teach Your Own" by John Holt (and other books)
http://www.holtgws.com/"The Teenage Liberation Handbook" by Grace Llewellyn (and other books)
http://gracellewellyn.com/"The Emergence of Compulsory Schooling and Anarchist Resistance" By Matt Hern
http://web.archive.org/web/20071014123355/http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031028151034651
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Schooling-AnarchistMar03.htm"Sustainable Education" by Jerry Mintz
http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?articleid=195&newsletterid=1"Federated Learning Communities"
http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-1/learning.html
http://www. -
Re: Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools
As Gatto points out, schooling is segmented, with 1% or so of students receiving an education intended for them to be part of a top elite, and then about 10% or so more receiving a somewhat different education to be part of a managerial/professional class (doctors, lawyers), and then the rest intended for worker class status.
Whatever the level of "interactivity", there is still the issue of who sets the agenda, who tells whom what to learn and when, and so on. Is the situation learner-directed (like a public library) or is it state-directed (or employer-directed) like in a public school or private workplace?
If you think about what most businesses want, whatever they say, it is not "curiosity" but "assignable curiosity", which is a big difference. It is not critical thinking, but it is thinking critically about business problems within business assumptions while not rocking the boat where it matters. See also Jeff Schmidt's "Disciplined Minds" book which goes into that:
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/The primary function of top 50 schools is not really "education" so much as "filtering". See Goodstein or Chomsky:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on."It can take a long time to accept all this, especially after one has been through decades of schooling where the number one thing taught is how much you need schooling... It took me a long time to accept that... It can be especially hard for those who get the best grades in school...
When I was in high school (1970s) and we had just gotten Commodore PETs, I was thinking how this mean everyone could get cheap-to-copy tapes with content and programmed instruction so they could learn all sorts of stuff. I saw the big issue as being the cost of textbooks. I did not see then that such a thing would have violated the basic idea of schooling, that you are learning what the school system wants you to learn when it wants you to learn it, and what it already had was sufficient to that task. Schools were not interested in having their routines disrupted by people learning what they wanted when they wanted in as much depth as they wanted and without much oversight and tracking.
That is why educational computing has gone pretty much nowhere within most schools, except when it has been very narrowly crafted to essentially be just like a text-book (maybe just a bit better) and when it has been linked into a pervasive system of monitoring and evaluation and fine-grained control. Some of that is changing, but it is changing despite what schools are, not because of what schools are. Any change is from some few dedicated educators who often are risking everything to try something that would actually help kids a lot (like Gatto).
Th
-
Re:Don't assume people are stupid
Telling someone they're wrong and calling them stupid doesn't add much value to the discussion.
I'm not surprised that someone would have this view of Adam Smith, and it made me think of this article
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htmThat's a very informative link, there, thanks.
-
Don't assume people are stupidTelling someone they're wrong and calling them stupid doesn't add much value to the discussion.
I'm not surprised that someone would have this view of Adam Smith, and it made me think of this article http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm
Here's one relevant part of it, but I can recommend reading the entire thing.
The version of him that's given today is just ridiculous. But I didn't have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you're literate, you'll find it out. I did do a little research in the way it's treated, and that's interesting. For example, the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition. The scholarly framework was very interesting, including Stigler's introduction. It's likely he never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely false. I went through a bunch of examples in writing about it, in Year 501 and elsewhere.
But even more interesting in some ways was the index. Adam Smith is very well known for his advocacy of division of labor. Take a look at "division of labor" in the index and there are lots and lots of things listed. But there's one missing, namely his denunciation of division of labor, the one I just cited. That's somehow missing from the index. It goes on like this. I wouldn't call this research because it's ten minutes' work, but if you look at the scholarship, then it's interesting.
I want to be clear about this. There is good Smith scholarship. If you look at the serious Smith scholarship, nothing I'm saying is any surprise to anyone. How could it be? You open the book and you read it and it's staring you right in the face. On the other hand if you look at the myth of Adam Smith, which is the only one we get, the discrepancy between that and the reality is enormous.
This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them.
-
A campaign for free software about economics
Thank you too, in return. I just used that point on fish and water writing to someone else today, coincidentally.
I've been trying to get Richard Stallman and the FSF to consider supporting a campaign (suggesting maybe run by me for pay, so I'm biased, but OK if it was someone else) for fostering the cataloging, creation, and discussion of free software that explores conventional and alternative heterodox economics for a 21st century of abundance for all, based on this appeal:
http://www.responsiblefinance.ch/appeal/
"The authors of this appeal are deeply concerned that more than three years since the outbreak of the financial and macroeconomic crisis that highlighted the pitfalls, limitations, dangers and responsibilities of main-stream thought in economics, finance and management, the quasi-monopolistic position of such thought within the academic world nevertheless remains largely unchallenged. This situation reflects the institutional power that the unconditional proponents of main-stream thought continue to exert on university teaching and research. This domination, propagated by the so-called top universities, dates back at least a quarter of a century and is effectively global. However, the very fact that this paradigm persists despite the current crisis, highlights the extent of its power and the dangerousness of its dogmatic character. Teachers and researchers, the signatories of the appeal, assert that this situation restricts the fecundity of research and teaching in economics, finance and management, diverting them as it does from issues critical to society."Also related indirectly:
"RSA Animate - 21st century enlightenment "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yoSo, it is more than a lack of visionaries. The world has no shortage of would-be visionaries, like Paul Hawken documents:
http://www.blessedunrest.com/
"Paul Hawken has spent over a decade researching organizations dedicated to restoring the environment and fostering social justice. From billion-dollar nonprofits to single-person dot.causes, these groups collectively comprise the largest movement on earth, a movement that has no name, leader, or location, and that has gone largely ignored by politicians and the media. Like nature itself, it is organizing from the bottom up, in every city, town, and culture. and is emerging to be an extraordinary and creative expression of people's needs worldwide."The problem is more like visionaries are filtered out or bought off or changed or isolated or starved or turned into wage slaves doing unrelated stuff to survive. Example:
"The murdering of my years: artists & activists making ends meet"
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_murdering_of_my_years.html?id=iBA7vACOwngCRelated articles on how dissent in academia is systematically suppressed:
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.htmlYet, things progres anyway, as a tribute to the better side of human nature. Here are examples of GPL'd software that could serve as a base for moving further into exploring alternative economics:
http://p.seppecher.free.fr/jamel/
http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.ryzom.com/en/There is also a lot of other softwar
-
Re:No
Great points. Somewhat related:
"What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream" by Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htmAnd:
http://disciplinedminds.com/I liked the other reply, too.
Still, it is true that worries about potential crisies can lead to innovation as responses:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/So there is a process going on, even if the media may be driven by more extreme dynamics.
-
More irony about security...
From: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
From there:
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety")
http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton_deutsch/?nid=2430
and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_PowerThere are lots of alternatives I helped organize here for helping transcend an economy based around militarism and artificial scarcity:
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery===
Anyway, so expanding "the war on the different" and the "war on the unexpected" is just more of the same...
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_war_on_the.html
"We've opened up a new front on the war on terror. It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected; it's a war on different. If you act different, you might find yourself investigated, questioned, and even arrested -- even if you did nothing wrong, and had no intention of doing anything wrong. The problem is a combination of citizen informants and a CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats."Of course, that link is from one person on the list in the article about people publishing things being asked to be censored... Even if just "self-censored". In the end, most censorship only works by creating a climate of self-censorship.
From Noam Chomsky on "What makes the mainstream media mainstream":
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of -
Re:Yeah right
Oh come on, we couldn't help but to make it into a PR farce from the start for some reason... How many people even realize the preparations were well under way by the time "the reasons" happened (and nvm slight continuity problems and how the ultimatum was a farce, also how getting in the way of some investigations possibly made those events easier)
Will remain so; despite the supposed "war of words" Pakistan (one of very few of our "allies" to quickly recognize Taliban gov; others being Kuwait and Saudis, IIRC) is safe I'm sure, ISI won't be labelled as a terrorist organisation... Pakistani ISI which fought alongside the Taliban (the largest support going towards the only mujahidin faction eager to fight not only against the Soviets) vs. the Northern Alliance, greatly contributing to them being unable to hold Afghanistan (nvm how, immediately after the "causes", "rumors" began that Iraq could have played a role; or how opium production skyrocketed after the intervention (is it already a pattern? BTW "free market"); how the compromised ISI was again, also, quick to helpfully point out their enemies, for us to deal with; how ideology is branded as an "organization", which can be obviously fought like any organization)
Admittedly such subtleties just confuse people (and the farce of October surprise in 2004 was hilarious, with OBL tape clearly designed to make reelection easier
But don't paint it so into "us" vs. "them" (locally) fashion. Systems of governance are ultimately basically a reflection of society; from where do people forming them come from? It's hard to find somebody who would actually abstain from taking a piece of the cake for themselves, given the chance (not the same as just declaring they wouldn't do it; then you have virtually whole families swearing for one military member amongst them - always somebody honourable and decent; or families of some engineer or blue-collar worker, normally bitching about gov waste, always praising the work of their family member - especially when it's publicly funded, when the product provided is obviously essential and the price fair) -
Re:Where's The Money From?
Yay for Free Speech Cage^H^H^H^HZones! And it's so much easier with export of suffering, also effects of free pursuits of our populations (well, yeah, they need to let some steam after all those worthy pursuits...)
Tell me, how is it that in one important metric of "freedom" (oh how long people fall for this catchphrase...) or "civilian pursuits" - social mobility - the US is at the bottom of developed countries? (together with few others, UK for example; at the top are often derided "nanny states", without much of a military-industrial complex) -
Re:What's the goal of it?
-
Re:This is gonna be very rant like
I can comfortably say that govs are mostly a reflection of their societies... from the perspective of a place formerly behind Iron Curtain. Don't play with smokescreens, no need for "us vs. them" (or myths in the style of "schools were better few decades ago, youth unspoiled")
Like that "inherent rights" - there are none. Each and every one is granted by the society you're part of. If you are comfortable with limits imposed on you by your society, you call it "freedom". "Sharing values" is another way of saying "accepting strict rules of conduct". You didn't actually convinced yourselves it's otherwise, right? (not when readily using benefits of living in comfy modern society & gov - which are also responsible for recently introducing a radical idea of "equal breeding potential to virtually anybody", contrary to what you implied)
BTW, those UN data suggest that you are very much in competition - but it's beside the point really. It was about destabilization, for one (say, places like Columbia; or...take your pick; though strangely little about Operation Condor), which tends to increase breeding. -
Re:Black hat not White
I assume that by "while it lasted" you mean "while the concept had great PR"? (which included also comparative advantage with many more places - but such advantage doesn't mean much in general, especially considering the mode of creation of some lesser places in particular; but places populated with lesser people, so the PR could work well... comparably)
-
Re:There is no anonymous
Oh, the drug war "works" fine - it's just that the real dynamics of social movements rarely turn out to be in line with stated ones / with what participants convince themselves in (likewise with *AA's - it's not about file-sharing (or commons; or, now, streaming), it's about the ascendancy of indies)
-
Re:Joe McCarthy?!(I'll so something useful while trying to pass heavy hangover, after going through notifications in mailbox... apologies for how late and how slightly incoherent this might be)
To be honest, when making the first comment I only had a superficial knowledge of what McCarthysm entailed (I thought it was just mostly anti-communist propaganda, and stricter security clearances)
You possibly hit the key issue here, without realizing. People, societies, have generally quite superficial knowledge about such issues. Not to be unexpected... they just want to carry on with their lives. Don't really want to be bothered (heck, our minds are even simply unable to really track more than few dozen individuals).
breaching due process, and baseless accusations and blacklists
I'm sure that does sound similar to you, from ex-communist Hungary, right?
I'm not sure I would categorize the war crimes in Korea as McCarthysm.
To me it's largely symptomatic, of what society
Because... it's working so-so at this point, for example (and how many people are even aware of this background for one of most just wars in recent history? If we can be upfront even with such one...). Have your pick (strangely, not a lot about Operation Condor - designed not only to get rid of left extremism, but to destroy left... check Sister Dianna Ortiz, that's 89)
McCarthy was a symptom of that, of "we can do no wrong" / "you must be commie sympathizer if you;re against" / "you're either with us or against us" (remember who said the last one?)
Yes, it's also playing Devil's advocate of course... oh well, there's enough of bad stuff on the Russians. -
Re:This is way over the top
Hm, yes, if you put it that way (not like I'm bothering to watch it)... but there's also the only absolutely politically correct word: "the middle ground between mediocre and good, just about perfect if you don't want actual perfection, neither good nor bad, the quantum average that's always approaching above average but never quite there, so-so but pretty good, almost three-quarters awesome"
-
Re:Social Security is non-negotiable
with the complicity of Congress and the Executive and the voters from the "greatest generation"
We are the ones who were too stupid to remove the corrupt and greedy from office, not them. We are the ones that fell for the free lunch promises of our political class, not them. We are the ones that let absolute morons take over our schools. I wouldn't blame the next generations if they just decided to put a bullet in grandpa's head, given our poor stewardship beginning in the 20th century.
So close and never quite saying it... from where do people directly involved in the system of governance come from? Which of the world societies determines the style of governance in a given place?
Govs are largely a reflection of society; the latter needs to be fixed, too (it does generally require a generation or two, unfortunately)
It's often symptomatic, on many levels. Referring a bit to "sacred DoD cow" of grandparent - sure, many people can even realize the "9/11 & Iraq" BS, some might be even aware of grander background of PR machine, or maybe even (gets harder) such heresies. But, if the closest or even extended family has somebody in military, brining income, then this person is of course a honorable man... (same for unit, its actions, et al)
Or, generally, if a family depends on engineer or blue collar worker providing something for public money. They might even complain about pork everywhere... except, of course, in the place of work of said family member. Its services are essential, and the price fair.Most people want either less corruption or more of a chance to participate in it.
-
Re:A bit hypocritical to hold hearings about this
Indeed, a delicate thing...
-
Re:A bit hypocritical to hold hearings about this
Yup, Egypt was just a necessary anomaly in how we deal with "allies" to assure their stability in the face of internal situation, nothing close to the rule.
