What is Digg?117 Comments
- commernie, on 12/21/2007, -3/+35This is a great documentary based on a great book. Most of what it says is already well known by dissident leftists, but it's always nice to hear it in the eloquent words of Dr. Chomsky.
You can watch it from Youtube (in 17 parts), or you can download the whole thing from here: http://www.archive.org/details/NoamChomskyNoamChom ... - phnx0221, on 12/21/2007, -4/+36It is so frustrating to me that there is so much misinformation out there.
It is frustrating to me that the reason why there is so much misinformation out there, is that there are deliberate decisions made to lie to the people. People in power convince themselves that its better to lie to us because we cannot possibly make our own reasonable decisions based on authentic information, or maybe, more rightly, that we will not make the "right" decisions, going along with them.
What pisses me off, is that in order for me to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about politics, I have to first discern what propaganda they are influenced by (unless they can see through it as well), and what indoctrinations they still believe (most recently, about terrorism). This is before I can get into any discussion with them at all.
It is incredibly frustrating, that when I turn on the television to watch the "news", all I hear are fabrications, statements taken out of context, or hell even a fabricated context.
As Albionshores said, the manufacturing of consent is much more difficult now that we have the internet, and open communication. It's still a battle though, there's a lot of sludge in the minds of everyone, myself included, that has to be broken through in order to get somewhere. I see it happening, and I see it working, but it is indeed a slow battle. And it's all because people in power figured out that it's a hell of a lot easier to invent an enemy, and to rally the masses against it, so that they can go forth with their agendas, then to properly inform us so that we can make entirely democratic decisions about our policies. - Albionshores, on 12/21/2007, -7/+39History is not just dotted with authoritarian rule it is wallpapered in it. As culture develops, and people slowly attain more and more equality and individual rights, why should it come as any surprise that there are those who still wish to retain the status quo of oppressive power? And if they can no longer win 'crown-and-kingdom' on the battlefield they will look to manipulate the system and their surroundings to ensure a continuation of rule.
If the leader is now decided in the ballot box - control the ballot box.
If the new media is influential in developing support for policy - control the media.
And so we should expect media and government to be essentially from the same home. That the news media is liberal is a fallacy. One only has to look at who owns the media to understand that the media will always have ears for corporate will. By the same measure a politician will always be in the pocket of corporation and a government will always keep corporate interests close to whatever box they keep their heart in.
That is until the Internet came along...
'Manufacturing Consent' isn't as easy as it used to be. - evilcaptain, on 12/21/2007, -3/+34The very crux of our crisis.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -4/+26To be clear, he isn't calling the masses stupid. He believes they are intelligent, in the description he was speaking from the point of view of power.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -5/+23From Noam Chomsky on Propaganda -
"In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives you the party line. It says, "Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble. What you think is not of great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force." Democratic societies can't work like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says--in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions--and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.
The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan." - spiritditch, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16In terms of the Internet... "Manufacturing Consent" will still occur.
The 60's movement was finally subdued by those in power once the elites discovered how to get into the minds of these "new individualists" and sell their own rebellion back to them, thus giving big business power over the revolution.
http://rebelsell.squarespace.com/
As for the internet...
After Rupert Murdoch's News Corp purchased MySpace, we have seen censorship of political content (notably Ron Paul).
http://informeddissent.com/2007/05/09/myspace-cont ...
In terms of wikipedia and other social sites, corporations mass-edit their own entries.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/20 ...
Add to that corruption in the administration of Wikipedia
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_ ...
I can see the internet being merely temporary in terms of freedom of thought, as the powerful are still think-tanking how to ultimately take it over. Any place mass amounts of people visit will be a place that will eventually be controlled by the powerful.
God I am pessimistic. - lucidguru, on 12/21/2007, -3/+18Like he says, our leaders believe democracy "is a game for elites, and not for the ignorant masses who have to be marginalized, diverted, and controlled, of course, for their own good."
This logic justifies deception, murder, theft, genocide, etc. The ends can NEVER justify the means in a free society. - sherrife, on 12/21/2007, -0/+14I think the crux of the crisis is the alienation of the working-class from each other, as well as their own power.
The video is exploring a TACTIC used by capitalists, one of the many means by which they achieve this alienation, and stay in control. It is not (and does not claim to be) an underlying critique of the whole institution. I think we need to be clear that only mass activity, solidarity and a profound revolution can undermine the rule of the capitalist classes; the media is just one of many things we need to overthrow. - lukifer, on 12/21/2007, -1/+14Think for yourself. Question authority.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12And I think the answer to start is our own media, alternative forms of media, ways to get out a message.
I think for all of our problems, this is the basic first start. Tactically we can have our differences, but this is my understanding of the direction we need to go in. Things like Digg, Zmag, Democracy Now!, The Real News Network, and more.
Building our own. Strengthening them. Etc. - Albionshores, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12Of course you are right that as soon as the Internet became noticed as a threat to the Status-quo people began to try and control it. Due to its huge magnitude they're having a difficult job. Ron Paul case sample. News sites try and hush him up but you can't go far on the Internet without bumping into 'Ron' in some form and now it has spilled over into the real world. Ron's on TV now - blimps too!
I doubt they'll ever gain full control of it but if they do - so what? No biggy. We take what we have already learned and move on. The thing with being an authoritarian is you really on others to give authority to you. Either through apathy, enforced control or lies. It is they that must counter move. The principle of Individual Rights, Libertarianism as opposed to Authoritarianism, stays the same. The same message repeated ad infinitum. It can fail as many times as it needs to, it only has to succeed once.
Don't worry about the pessimism Spiritditch - I got the other end of the see-saw for yer ;) - moensie, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11Awesome video. I love the 17th century historian's criticism of those fighting for democracy, in particular, his observation that popular movements have made the people 'so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule'. It only demonstrates the arrogance of the elite - the historian is clearly one of them!
- sherrife, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12I've seen this clip and agree that it's important viewing... However I have one severe criticism of the description and many of the comments made by those i've agreed with in the past:
Chomsky (and no self-respecting revolutionary) would NEVER describe the masses as ignorant, stupid, or anything else. That's an elitist and seriously horrible view of your fellow human beings. Not to mention that it essentialises and stereotypes humanity into a monogamous bloc of idiots. How can you believe in a society run by the people if you hold that the people are stupid? - notque, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11As I posted in a comment above that he was speaking from the point of view of elites. I used a direct quote of Chomsky's, and I clarified that above.
- phnx0221, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Personally, I don't think that our society is stupid. I think we are all passionate, concerned, hopeful, and intelligent people (among many other things). I do however think, that we are seriously uninformed. I have to work hard to find adequate information that isn't generalized into sound bytes, while mixed in with material that is entirely irrelevant to our current affairs. People who don't take the time to research everything they have a question about, aren't as informed as they could be. That isn't to say that people should have to take the time to do this, as quite frankly, not everyone wants to look up every thing they are curious about.
I don't think we're stupid, I think we've been given wrong information over and over, and by so many people, that we begin to think of it as truth. And this needs to change. I do think though, that if we had that information at our disposal, that our trust in our media was legitimate, we'd all be much better off. I think the internet is helping considerably in that regard. - spiritditch, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Did you even watch the video? Of course not! It's more fun to comment!
- terrordome, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8I find the phrase "national anarchy" a little funny.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -2/+9A lot of people think it's a new concept. The refinement is new, the propaganda is significantly better, but it's been around for a long time. Control of the population so the elites could do whatever they want is really the largest government issue. Always has been.
- bugsy187, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7In the past there were more working class newspapers.However, they don't get the corporate advertising dollars that the mainstream press does. The mainstream sources can sell for less, because of Ads. The worker's papers get undercut, because It's against the interest of business to fund views that don't pander to corporate will.
- HaSatan, on 12/21/2007, -7/+14Can you manufacture consent if she is 17?
- calvinjones, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7Thanks digging this. If you like Chomsky's stuff you should check google video for his videos and sort by date, new ones are added every couple of days!
- spiritditch, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Chomsky has deep respect for the common people and the potential for grassroots organization.
From an interview with Bill Moyers that appears in "Manufacturing Consent"
Bill Moyers
Do you believe in common sense? I mean you're a --
Chomsky
Absolutely, I believe in Cartesian common sense. I think people have the capacities to see through the deceit in which they are ensnared, but they've got to make the effort.
Bill Moyers
Seems a little incongruous to hear a man from the ivory tower of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a scholar, a distinguished linguistics scholar, talk about common people with such appreciation.
Chomsky
I think that scholarship, at least the field that I work in, has the opposite consequences. My own studies in language and human cognition demonstrate to me at least what remarkable creativity ordinary people have. The very fact that people talk to one another is a reflection -- just in a normal way, I don't mean anything particularly fancy -- reflects deep-seated features of human creativity which in fact separate human beings from any other biological system we know. - marc123, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7True. If America was a smarter country there would be a straight fight between Kucinich and Paul for the White House. But it will probably just be Clinton Vs Romney or one of those other clowns.
- sherrife, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Yep, that comment wasn't directed at you mate. More at a worrying trend I've noticed amongst anarchists (and probably revolutionaries more generally) to disdain those who do not come to the same conclusions that they do, be they theological, political, or anything else.
- Chandon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Or, on the other hand, we could try something radical - democracy.
- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7A repulsive tactic used by our entire political structure, our media, and our corporations. But lying to people to control them didn't develop with the printing press, as the video implies; it exists as the root of every religion, every system of rule and control.
It is embodied in the disrespectful shout of "you can't handle the truth!"
The problem today is that a very large sector of the public is well educated, and we will not swallow the unmitigated ***** the politicians and the media attempt to shove down our throats. That's causing problems; and they're quite likely to get much, much worse. - phnx0221, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6I know we've crossed paths here on digg before, although I'm not sure if we'd actually had a discussion. By looking at your profile, I can see that it would be...interesting. ;) I'm surprised we haven't crossed paths in real life, living in the same city and all. Then again, we probably have a different circle of friends. :)
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -4/+9Down with America? The government of America, yes. The population, No. The distinction must be clear. National Anarchy? Not so much. Democracy, the people deciding their own affairs, yes!
- Paulish, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6It is compulsory public education too. The state takes your kids, as if they own them, indoctrinates them and turns them into obedient citizens. That IS public education, educating the masses in such a fashion is always a thin vale to hide propaganda of some sort or another.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -2/+7Chomsky is the preeminent social thinker of our time. And one hell of a critic of "libertarian" policy.
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
Noam Chomsky - rspeed, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. The bottom line is money nobody gives a *****. 4000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation while billions are spent on bombs creating death showers!
Boom, boom, boom! - evilcaptain, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4We get so easily distracted that Its rare that someone spends the time to find out the facts. They come home from work exhausted and just want to switch off in front of the box!
- ChrisLondon, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4Anybody who does not recognise this man's brilliance should not be allowed to leave their house.
- sbluetruck, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6this is like.... 20 years old but still relevant, probably more relevant today than back in the 80's
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I understand clearly that the population is intelligent and lively. You just have to look back at history before the propaganda became too overwhelming. Or talk to people on the street now. They know. They understand in general terms what is happening. You don't have to be a professor to realize the system isn't working when you cannot afford to survive, and the tightening continues while companies make record profits.
- Argle, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7I guess we should all read your books and watch your speeches instead.
- commernie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I do believe you have hit the nail right on its head. Well said, mate.
- Argle, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Sometimes people are wrong about some of the things they say. That doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. His mistakes you describe here have nothing to do with the truths he speaks on other topics.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Very true. Nice to hear from you. Hope you stick around.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4At least you understand the battle. Few do.
- Krlll, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4You can watch the whole thing here,quality is not great but doesnt really matter.
http://www.tvokay.com/documentary/Manufacturing-Co ... - DavidYeah, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4GASP SOCIALIST!!! Who cares what he is if he's making good points? Care to refute anything or are you just going to spout some good old fashioned McCarthyism?
- spiritditch, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5The moment Noam Chomsky espouses anything without evidence that is widely accepted as fact, he will be called a "conspiracy theorist". No more of his views will ever be taken seriously.
Everything he has ever said or ever written about has been documented and is accepted as historic fact. People still TRY to call him a conspiracy theorist, but if they attempt to argue this accusation to any detail, they fail because his evidence is well documented.
I hope he never gives any credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
He even accepts the "official" explanation of the JFK assassination, even though much, if not most, of America believes it was an inside job (and by definition a conspiracy).
His job requires he be utterly credible, and therefore he is not allowed to speculate (even when it makes sense) without well documented and accepted evidence. - marc123, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4is it just me or can anyone else sense a coming clash of ideologies between chomsky-esque left wing libertarianism and right wing ron paul libertarianism? in the words of the kaiser chiefs "i predict a riot!"
- funkytaco, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6"Manufacturing Consent" and "Hegemony or Survival" are two Chomsky books that touch up on current events such as the so called "war on terror" and the latest Iraq war by a President named Bush. "Manufacturing Consent" is about how a government can manufacture the consent of the people to do anything it wants,mainly using fear to do it. Hegemony is about the war on terror.
"Hegemony or Survival" on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7idg2XjTVroC&dq=h ...
Wikipedia for Hegemony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
If you ever get the chance, listen to one of Chomsky's speeches. He is as well-spoken as Ron Paul, as he is an orator. - actorboy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I'll help him, RJuner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism
Of particular note is their stance on racial segregation, which is supported by Rjuner's comment history with such gems as:
RJuner: "I would never let a negro within a thousand yards near my home."
http://digg.com/gaming_news/Two_Teens_Kill_7_Year_ ...
Rjuner: "Blame the colored you know who."
http://digg.com/politics/US_is_1_in_Jailing_Childr ...
Rjuner: "Israel should be demolished."
http://digg.com/world_news/Israeli_Police_Imperson ... - Chandon, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5The problem is that most people still get most of their information from the "mainstream media" that Chomsky's criticism applies to. Hell, even internet websites tend to display the standard biases on every topic that a particular website isn't intentionally radical about.
- justintsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Manufacture of consent, deceiving the stupid masses (women) with "necessary illusions," (pretending to care about what they say) covert operations (cheating) that the women pretend not to see until it all becomes too obvious to be suppressed. We then shift to the phase of damage control to ensure that the woman's attention is diverted to overzealous patriots (her friends and their opinions of you) or to the personality defects (It's my fault he cheats/doesnt love me)
What a formula - phnx0221, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Thanks for the idea! I have some of his books, but it'd be great to have some new stuff to listen to as well. Even the older stuff doesn't really get old, it'd be nice to get some of that too. :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is