Wednesday, May 18, 2005
“Manufacturing” Consent For Infinite Variety In The Post-Modern Pop-Info Free-For-All
Allow me one of those more fervent and less professional rants.
Excuse this honest but course appraisal; Noam Chomsky is an _ _ _ (appropriately, rhymes with “gas”) – hole. As an exercise in “hate speech” let me clearly state that I despise Chomsky and his pampered band of anti-U.S. socialist intellectual con-artists.
There are certainly information sources that state the same in more diplomatic terms and back their appraisals with facts if one is offended by my more blunt observations.
If one chooses to brand this anti-Chomsky stance as "broad generalizations," they’d be absolutely right, and I might add that broad generalizations are often absolutely right, regardless of coarseness in description or lack of footnotes.
One of Noam Chomsky’s big issues is how wealth and the capitalist media ultimately help to sustain the perceived evil of the market system. Supposedly, if rich guys (like socialist, Ted Turner?) didn’t own media outlets, we’d all “see through the lies” and jump at the opportunity for self-enslavement under socialist bureau-monopoly.
The Chomsky media critique’ of course isn’t some new idea. It’s been said in so many words before by other socialists like Antonio Gramsci, and of course, Marx (every Chomskyite’s real hero). Chomsky supporters often recite lines from their master to bolster their anti-capitalist case. One such introductory con-line is to acknowledge that America is, “the freest society in the world…that said…” Of course, everyone knows the weak debate strategy of first conceding a point before arguing its opposite (such cunning skill in the art of manipulation and evasion must be one of the reasons Chomsky is often described as a “genius” among his cult followers).
I just spent a few days in Tokyo, one of the world’s great cities. Some book stores in Tokyo are huge but not unlike those I‘ve seen in Korea, or the U.S. for that matter. The variety and accessibility of information, views, and ideals is a historical miracle, and none of it is the product of social planning, or phony “we care” leftist mock-altruism. It’s all the end result of free-market capitalism or, what the left calls, “greed” – the “greed” to write, publish, market, and sell ideas and beliefs (what could be more “selfish?").
In one massive bookstore by Tokyo station there’s a huge section of English books. As an aside I must note something that caught my eye when there. Among the many varieties of fact and opinion within the store’s selection (plenty of Chomsky’s own works I might add) was Natan Scharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. Oddly, above it was not one of those favorable reviews one often sees posted to help sell a book but, instead, a yellowed two month old UN-favorable review from one of Japan’s English newspapers, erected on a metal stand above the books. Apparently, the store’s leftist demagogue in residence had also taken the time to underline parts of the review that scolded G.W. Bush and the book’s author for their “arrogance” in thinking they could spread freedom (the nerve of them!). It should probably be noted that Scharansky is now an Israeli, and anti-Semitism has of late become a staple of socialist thought (in the guise of exaggerated concern for Palestinians).
I doubt if posting the blatant political commentary above the book in question was the act of a Japanese employee of the store. I certainly doubt it was usual store policy to deliberately discourage people from purchasing certain books. I attribute the phenomena to the likelihood that another one of Japan’s resident Jacobin Westerners, working in the store, was busy spreading the party line on the negative value of freedom – a leftist standard. No matter. What annoyed me most was how anyone can be so fervently against the dignity of individual human liberty. This is an issue which has become an all too regular feature of leftist philosophy of late, and certainly isn’t helping them in their cause to win over the less committed. It would have been pathetic enough if such a biased posting had been put up next to a book by New Gingrich, but the leftist rant accompanying this book, and criticizing its writer, was blatantly absurd. Scharansky’s celebration of freedom and hopes that others will share in it is hardly the work of an un-“compassionate conservative.”
It may be seen as hyperbole for me to say so, and I’ve said it before many times; The left does not like freedom! If they dare utter the word at all it is only in context to their bizarre notion that it defines a condition where individual citizens and families are under the firm control of social planners, bureaucrats, or tyrants. Not only do they not like freedom, they don’t even necessarily like “the poor,” whose cause they typically claim to champion. Their sole driving motivation is a hatred of wealth, success, and achievement and the fact that it is others – not themselves -- responsible for the success of modern capitalist, free, and open society. They will tell us they’re “anarchists,” (with a strait face) and at other times stretch the limits of credulity, defending the “need’ for a strong powerful, centralized state. They’ll tell us that they are "not communists" but in all their writings defend the ideology and it’s “leaders” to no end, consistently telling us, or implying, that such systems are better than what we have now in multi-party democratic societies.
We in the advanced and free capitalist societies have access to an incredible variety of information, entertainment, products, services, and even “spiritual” values, (if we choose to glean that non-material market as well).
Noam Chomsky and the left in general are certainly correct to notice that most people will “consent” to such a miracle in human circumstance. The fact that writers, publishers, musicians, movie directors, and car salespersons (as well as that oppressive kid with the lemonade stand) want to make a profit is also correct. I personally don’t care; I hope they all become filthy rich! I’m certainly not convinced that deriding their enterprise and initiative or stealing their wealth will somehow “help the poor.” It may feed the egos of a few intellectual pseudo-rebels for a time and certainly put the breaks on any successful momentum toward future prosperity.
At issue in the “manufactured consent” hypothesis of the left is actually not, that many will be “duped” into supporting free-market open society (e.g. capitalism), but that the leftist worldview will not be freely chosen by most citizens. Free society does not consent to bureau-slavery. Socialism is either violently imposed or sneaked in over time (as has been occurring to various degrees in much of the developed world). Do the Jacobin clowns of left-land actually believe that media and culture planned and directed by politicians and bureaucrats affords a fairer, “better” society? Most of their writings seem to imply this very absurd fantasy. And yet they call those of us who see through such obvious obedience to tyranny, “ill-informed, and ignorant.”
More basic “generalities;” Socialists want power redirected away from an infinite variety of corporations, businesses, religions, unions, media, entertainment, education, families, and individuals (especially individuals) and into the hands of politicians and the state. They sometimes call this attempted power grab a “revolution,” but it’s nothing more than what most of history has found to be the mere act of raw force and coercion. Socialists are little more than thugs with bigger vocabularies.
The “philosophy” (“I want power” isn’t really a “philosophy”) manufactured in the heads of leftists is something no sane person would freely consent to, which is why bookstores and lifestyles of unlimited variety are such a threat to the dogmatic self-absorbed clowns of left-land.
One of the greatest charlatans in the phony cause to manufacture a society of un-consented bondage to socialist ideology is Noam Chomsky – a “genius,” who also happens to be an _ _ _ hole.
Allow me one of those more fervent and less professional rants.
Excuse this honest but course appraisal; Noam Chomsky is an _ _ _ (appropriately, rhymes with “gas”) – hole. As an exercise in “hate speech” let me clearly state that I despise Chomsky and his pampered band of anti-U.S. socialist intellectual con-artists.
There are certainly information sources that state the same in more diplomatic terms and back their appraisals with facts if one is offended by my more blunt observations.
If one chooses to brand this anti-Chomsky stance as "broad generalizations," they’d be absolutely right, and I might add that broad generalizations are often absolutely right, regardless of coarseness in description or lack of footnotes.
One of Noam Chomsky’s big issues is how wealth and the capitalist media ultimately help to sustain the perceived evil of the market system. Supposedly, if rich guys (like socialist, Ted Turner?) didn’t own media outlets, we’d all “see through the lies” and jump at the opportunity for self-enslavement under socialist bureau-monopoly.
The Chomsky media critique’ of course isn’t some new idea. It’s been said in so many words before by other socialists like Antonio Gramsci, and of course, Marx (every Chomskyite’s real hero). Chomsky supporters often recite lines from their master to bolster their anti-capitalist case. One such introductory con-line is to acknowledge that America is, “the freest society in the world…that said…” Of course, everyone knows the weak debate strategy of first conceding a point before arguing its opposite (such cunning skill in the art of manipulation and evasion must be one of the reasons Chomsky is often described as a “genius” among his cult followers).
I just spent a few days in Tokyo, one of the world’s great cities. Some book stores in Tokyo are huge but not unlike those I‘ve seen in Korea, or the U.S. for that matter. The variety and accessibility of information, views, and ideals is a historical miracle, and none of it is the product of social planning, or phony “we care” leftist mock-altruism. It’s all the end result of free-market capitalism or, what the left calls, “greed” – the “greed” to write, publish, market, and sell ideas and beliefs (what could be more “selfish?").
In one massive bookstore by Tokyo station there’s a huge section of English books. As an aside I must note something that caught my eye when there. Among the many varieties of fact and opinion within the store’s selection (plenty of Chomsky’s own works I might add) was Natan Scharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. Oddly, above it was not one of those favorable reviews one often sees posted to help sell a book but, instead, a yellowed two month old UN-favorable review from one of Japan’s English newspapers, erected on a metal stand above the books. Apparently, the store’s leftist demagogue in residence had also taken the time to underline parts of the review that scolded G.W. Bush and the book’s author for their “arrogance” in thinking they could spread freedom (the nerve of them!). It should probably be noted that Scharansky is now an Israeli, and anti-Semitism has of late become a staple of socialist thought (in the guise of exaggerated concern for Palestinians).
I doubt if posting the blatant political commentary above the book in question was the act of a Japanese employee of the store. I certainly doubt it was usual store policy to deliberately discourage people from purchasing certain books. I attribute the phenomena to the likelihood that another one of Japan’s resident Jacobin Westerners, working in the store, was busy spreading the party line on the negative value of freedom – a leftist standard. No matter. What annoyed me most was how anyone can be so fervently against the dignity of individual human liberty. This is an issue which has become an all too regular feature of leftist philosophy of late, and certainly isn’t helping them in their cause to win over the less committed. It would have been pathetic enough if such a biased posting had been put up next to a book by New Gingrich, but the leftist rant accompanying this book, and criticizing its writer, was blatantly absurd. Scharansky’s celebration of freedom and hopes that others will share in it is hardly the work of an un-“compassionate conservative.”
It may be seen as hyperbole for me to say so, and I’ve said it before many times; The left does not like freedom! If they dare utter the word at all it is only in context to their bizarre notion that it defines a condition where individual citizens and families are under the firm control of social planners, bureaucrats, or tyrants. Not only do they not like freedom, they don’t even necessarily like “the poor,” whose cause they typically claim to champion. Their sole driving motivation is a hatred of wealth, success, and achievement and the fact that it is others – not themselves -- responsible for the success of modern capitalist, free, and open society. They will tell us they’re “anarchists,” (with a strait face) and at other times stretch the limits of credulity, defending the “need’ for a strong powerful, centralized state. They’ll tell us that they are "not communists" but in all their writings defend the ideology and it’s “leaders” to no end, consistently telling us, or implying, that such systems are better than what we have now in multi-party democratic societies.
We in the advanced and free capitalist societies have access to an incredible variety of information, entertainment, products, services, and even “spiritual” values, (if we choose to glean that non-material market as well).
Noam Chomsky and the left in general are certainly correct to notice that most people will “consent” to such a miracle in human circumstance. The fact that writers, publishers, musicians, movie directors, and car salespersons (as well as that oppressive kid with the lemonade stand) want to make a profit is also correct. I personally don’t care; I hope they all become filthy rich! I’m certainly not convinced that deriding their enterprise and initiative or stealing their wealth will somehow “help the poor.” It may feed the egos of a few intellectual pseudo-rebels for a time and certainly put the breaks on any successful momentum toward future prosperity.
At issue in the “manufactured consent” hypothesis of the left is actually not, that many will be “duped” into supporting free-market open society (e.g. capitalism), but that the leftist worldview will not be freely chosen by most citizens. Free society does not consent to bureau-slavery. Socialism is either violently imposed or sneaked in over time (as has been occurring to various degrees in much of the developed world). Do the Jacobin clowns of left-land actually believe that media and culture planned and directed by politicians and bureaucrats affords a fairer, “better” society? Most of their writings seem to imply this very absurd fantasy. And yet they call those of us who see through such obvious obedience to tyranny, “ill-informed, and ignorant.”
More basic “generalities;” Socialists want power redirected away from an infinite variety of corporations, businesses, religions, unions, media, entertainment, education, families, and individuals (especially individuals) and into the hands of politicians and the state. They sometimes call this attempted power grab a “revolution,” but it’s nothing more than what most of history has found to be the mere act of raw force and coercion. Socialists are little more than thugs with bigger vocabularies.
The “philosophy” (“I want power” isn’t really a “philosophy”) manufactured in the heads of leftists is something no sane person would freely consent to, which is why bookstores and lifestyles of unlimited variety are such a threat to the dogmatic self-absorbed clowns of left-land.
One of the greatest charlatans in the phony cause to manufacture a society of un-consented bondage to socialist ideology is Noam Chomsky – a “genius,” who also happens to be an _ _ _ hole.
