coffin_dodger » Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:59 am wrote:Cognitive dissonance strikes me as pretty important, when factored with the continued localized alienation of urban sprawl communities.
It's difficult, time consuming and oftentimes unpleasant thinking about exactly what is being done by government, in your name. Ally this with nodding-acquaintance communities - most of whom are far too busy spending time with family and trying to make ends meet to discuss the intricacies of Deep State - ensures a great recipe for suppression of dissent in recent years.
The dissent / breakdown of CD does seem to be growing slowly, though. Which worries me (I'm a worrier) because there's nothing new to replace the old in terms of societal direction. The 'strong leader' scenario seems likely as the ultimate outcome of increasingly confused people looking for direction in their lives.
The real problem with the breakdown of authoritarian social structures is that you end up, as you have with the internet, with all manner of bizarre alternative belief systems, some of which have existed for centuries, like antisemitism, and some of which have been newly minted. Just take a look at some of the characters at Project Camelot and you will understand how far over the edge people are capable of climbing.
And against this you have newly created authority structures like Wikipedia that refuse to link to the Fletcher Prouty Reference Site when discussing Fletcher Prouty, and then beg for your hard earned money. Wikipedia remains the major purveyor of cognitive dissonance-proof "information" on the internet.
The two concepts of "cognitive dissonance" and "consensus reality" are closely linked, in that anything that violates consensus reality produces dissonance. Keep in mind that the majority doesn't necessarily rule here. While 70-80% of the American population believe there was a conspiracy in the murder of John Kennedy, the consensus reality, reinforced by the media and by Wikipedia, is still that Lee Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor at the same time that he was eating his lunch on the 2nd floor.
He says people cannot keep 'secrets' and the 'conspirators' would not risk the firing squad..
I still can't believe that someone as smart as Chomsky would truly believe something as unfounded as this opinion.
Risk the firing squad? WHAT risk? WHO exactly would enforce this?
This is an idiotic argument and I have a perfect corollary:
Today, it is known without a doubt that the Bush administration deliberately lied to get us into war, a war that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
Why would they "risk" such bold-faced lies, lies that could later be traced DIRECTLY back to them?
Obviously, it is because they knew there was no risk. As reality has clearly shown, they will never have to face the consequences of their actions.
The ruling class can act with impunity because the citizens have no lawful means of holding them accountable. All means of law enforcement - police, FBI, etc - as well as all major media outlets - are firmly in the hands of the ruling class.
Chomsky's argument is akin to saying that a rich man who owns a mercenary security firm, and uses them to protect his building, would never risk burning the building down for insurance money - because it is surrounded by a bunch of dangerous armed security guards.
This argument makes sense on only the most shallow level, and so it seems specifically tailored for people who are desperately seeking any reason to avoid shattering their patriotic dreams.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
The risk could be said to be that sometimes the State gets caught in a bind and fall guys have to be found. The term 'firing squad' is a little extreme if this were to be done publicly, but it's bang on the button if other ways were to be found of disposal.
The real mistake comes in suggesting that rationality (eg the assessment of risk factors) is the prime motivation in such matters.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
jakell » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:02 am wrote:The risk could be said to be that sometimes the State gets caught in a bind and fall guys have to be found. The term 'firing squad' is a little extreme if this were to be done publicly, but it's bang on the button if other ways were to be found of disposal.
The real mistake comes in suggesting that rationality (eg the assessment of risk factors) is the prime motivation in such matters.
The state can only get caught in a bind when the decent citizens have the means to hold their ruling class accountable. If they cannot, then there is no need to perpetuate the illusion that the leaders are subject to the rule of law.
Look at the example I gave earlier - we all know they lied, we all know that thousands upon thousands are dead because of those lies, and yet at the same time we all know they will never face punishment.
If there existed any legitimate centers of power with the means and righteousness to hold those men accountable, then don't you think that would have occurred? It's been over a decade now.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
jakell » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:02 am wrote:The risk could be said to be that sometimes the State gets caught in a bind and fall guys have to be found. The term 'firing squad' is a little extreme if this were to be done publicly, but it's bang on the button if other ways were to be found of disposal.
The real mistake comes in suggesting that rationality (eg the assessment of risk factors) is the prime motivation in such matters.
The state can only get caught in a bind when the decent citizens have the means to hold their ruling class accountable. If they cannot, then there is no need to perpetuate the illusion that the leaders are subject to the rule of law.
Look at the example I gave earlier - we all know they lied, we all know that thousands upon thousands are dead because of those lies, and yet at the same time we all know they will never face punishment.
If there existed any legitimate centers of power with the means and righteousness to hold those men accountable, then don't you think that would have occurred? It's been over a decade now.
Yes, but I wasn't talking of the rule of law above, people get away with stuff all the time, all over the world.
I was speaking of potential risk, and that risk is more likely to come from competing power interests screwing each other over, not from the law. The law may be used as an instrument of this though.
ETA: actually 'The Law' could be said to mainly consist of competing power interests screwing each other over, but in a legitimised way.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
He says people cannot keep 'secrets' and the 'conspirators' would not risk the firing squad..
I still can't believe that someone as smart as Chomsky would truly believe something as unfounded as this opinion.
What he said was that our government is a pretty porous and it is unlikely that such a plot could have been kept secret. I happen to disagree. The methodology for keeping such secrets is fairly well known and it works. I think he's wrong.
I think he's also wrong to assert that the neocons really give a shit about the republican party. but he is responding to specific question about whether the bush administration was behind the attacks or not (lihop or mihop), so keep that in mind.
I understand his reasoning. He's working with probabilities, based on his own experiences, research and judgement. I think he has a blind spot. Possibly even suffers from cognitive dissonance of his own. He won't be joining our board anytime soon.
He admits he's fairly isolated on the left wrt jfk/911 conspiracies. That's just not how Chomsky operates. He only says what he has an absolute right to say. He's not really interested in such conspiracy theories and believes they are a huge distraction and drain of attention and resources on the left that could be better spent fighting known enemies of the people, sort of how I feel about the Illuminati. I go one level deeper into the rabbit hole than he does.
I am somewhat mystified when he says, ~"even if they did do it, so what?" He does go on to say that such a high level conspiracy would be important, but I would like to hear him elaborate. Remember, he's speaking briefly and extemporaneously.
Risk the firing squad? WHAT risk? WHO exactly would enforce this?
Agreed. I don't think he is willing to admit that there would be no risk, that we are that far gone. He's a human being, like you and me. He too is probably capable of fooling himself. Like all of us. Right? Does this mean he's been compromised or is now to be considered an asset of the intel agencies or the ruling elite? Really? Chomsky?
This is an idiotic argument and I have a perfect corollary:
Today, it is known without a doubt that the Bush administration deliberately lied to get us into war, a war that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
Why would they "risk" such bold-faced lies, lies that could later be traced DIRECTLY back to them?
Obviously, it is because they knew there was no risk. As reality has clearly shown, they will never have to face the consequences of their actions.
The ruling class can act with impunity because the citizens have no lawful means of holding them accountable. All means of law enforcement - police, FBI, etc - as well as all major media outlets - are firmly in the hands of the ruling class.
Chomsky's argument is akin to saying that a rich man who owns a mercenary security firm, and uses them to protect his building, would never risk burning the building down for insurance money - because it is surrounded by a bunch of dangerous armed security guards.
This argument makes sense on only the most shallow level, and so it seems specifically tailored for people who are desperately seeking any reason to avoid shattering their patriotic dreams.
I don't think anyone that has read Chomsky extensively and carefully assessed the evidence he has compiled could possibly harbor any patriotic dreams towards the US (but of course it happens) and it's not as though Chomsky denies false flag attacks have occurred, the Gulf of Tonkin being one example.
My best guess is that Chomsky saw 911 ct as a drain on the energy, attention and resources of the left that could have no fruitful outcome. He's a pragmatist. Maybe he was right.
I like to ask what would have happened differently if Chomsky had signed on to the bush administration did it 911 ct? Would anything be different? for the good?
In any event, Chomsky is not your enemy, even if he has blind spots/a lack of imagination and has become something of a curmudgeon.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
brainpanhandler » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:49 pm wrote:I like to ask what would have happened differently if Chomsky had signed on to the bush administration did it 911 ct? Would anything be different? for the good?
For the, uh, Truth Movement? Nothing, zilch, zero difference.
For Noam himself, though? He would have lost his tenure at MIT.
brainpanhandler » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:49 pm wrote:I like to ask what would have happened differently if Chomsky had signed on to the bush administration did it 911 ct? Would anything be different? for the good?
For the, uh, Truth Movement? Nothing, zilch, zero difference.
For Noam himself, though? He would have lost his tenure at MIT.
Almost certainly, although maybe 13 years on things might be different.
I also wonder how the perception of the body of his life's work might change were he to embrace 911 ct.
I'd just as soon he insulate himself. That would have been my advice to him.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
brainpanhandler » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:49 pm wrote:I like to ask what would have happened differently if Chomsky had signed on to the bush administration did it 911 ct? Would anything be different? for the good?
For the, uh, Truth Movement? Nothing, zilch, zero difference.
For Noam himself, though? He would have lost his tenure at MIT.
Almost certainly, although maybe 13 years on things might be different.
I also wonder how the perception of the body of his life's work might change were he to embrace 911 ct.
I'd just as soon he insulate himself. That would have been my advice to him.
Agreed. I can't see any real positives about him throwing his hat in with the truthers et al, and I think it was wise of him to not enter that pointless fray.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
. So we prefer that he instead infers generally that such conspiracies are outlandish? (the above-cited Chomsky comments that speak to the inability of those in power to keep secrets, or risk facing the "firing squad"; the quote referenced by BPH above, "even if they did do it, so what?" etc. -- regardless of how 'brief' or 'extemporaneous' such comments may be.)
I don't disagree with the general assessment that it may likely have been futile for Chomsky to have opined and/or 'thrown his hat into the ring' of the Truth Movement (sadly now a cringe-worthy phrase, a catch-all that covers various agendas and/or iterations of the 'truth', which not so ironically renders the "truth" ever more muddled/elusive), but if the implication is that he made a 'tactical' decision to avoid a strong stance because of how it may impact his career, then that certainly paints Chomsky in a certain -- negative -- light, no?
Of course, he's a mere human, after all. Why look to him to say something that can be said by any other human?
Human as he may be, however, Chomsky is an influential representative of sorts, so one can argue that more is expected of him.
Regardless, we can only speculate on the impact it may have had: a figure of the clout and influence of Chomsky circa 2002 or thereabouts, voicing an opinion that SOMETHING WAS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT with the "official" narrative. Perhaps even a HINT of something amiss may have inspired raised eyebrows among those who otherwise wouldn't have ruminated on the subject, or it may have motivated other public figures to say something they wouldn't otherwise have said. A Butterfly Effect waiting to be initiated...
I'm a pretty liberal, even radical, guy. And I have never read Chomsky. And I do not intend to read Chomsky. I have plenty to read that deals with real facts. The idea that one reads some particular academic pistachio to find out what's acceptable to believe is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous.
Lord Balto » Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:45 pm wrote:I'm a pretty liberal, even radical, guy. And I have never read Chomsky. And I do not intend to read Chomsky. I have plenty to read that deals with real facts. The idea that one reads some particular academic pistachio to find out what's acceptable to believe is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous.
It is ridiculous, and is one product of the sort of obsessive fruitbatery that became a visible part of the 9/11 (truth) movement. They decided that anyone of note just had to weigh in on what they perceived as vitally important, and they weren't going to take no for an answer. He actually did quite a good job of staying on the periphery of this, but one cannot control what others do with even a watered-down output.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
Lord Balto » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:45 pm wrote:I'm a pretty liberal, even radical, guy. And I have never read Chomsky. And I do not intend to read Chomsky.
Neanch'io -- I have however read snippets/synopses of his work over the years, or have otherwise come across some of his commentary while reading other stuff.
Lord Balto » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:45 pm wrote:The idea that one reads some particular academic pistachio to find out what's acceptable to believe is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous.
Agreed. Yet other humans may not think similarly, or in fact, DO look to others to find out what's acceptable.
Indeed, it seems to be at the core of any marketing/political initiative: appropriating a mouthpiece that can best influence a given demographic or swath of humans.
Given the amount of money funneled into such efforts over the years -- and the results tallied so far -- it's been quite effective.
