The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Because all you've ever wanted is to know what you're supposed to be doing.
That's the thing with people having no religion, no belief system anymore. That’s the problem with people having access to the internet and having access to views other than that which the government give. They have no-one to tell them what to do. They have no clear conception of right and wrong - there is nothing that they can definitely say is wrong or right. There's always the opposite argument to be considered, the argument that the guy on the message board used.
Because every argument has two sides, and if you are exposed to a well presented version of both you can only conclude that they are both right.
Knowing more is not necseserily a good thing. It's eaisier to be a sheep - if you never question your world then you wil never have to change. The scariest thing in the world is having to accept that you are wrong, that what you have fought and lived and sacrificed for is not worthy. Because when someone knocks your world down from around you, the defensive wall of your beliefs is gone and you are cold and exposed and vunerable.
The thing is, the internet, knowledge - it can expose you to the forces that can break the world down. Fight Club says that violence is not necesserily a bad thing - it either knocks out the brick pacifism that you've had since childhood television, or it chips at it. It places doubt in the things that you take for granted, and the doubt will always be there, festering, undermiming your original belief. Making you question yourself.
Words, said Kipling, are the most powerful drug known to mankind. He's right. Read a well written argument against anything, absolutely anything, and IT WILL AFFECT YOU. You might be able to argue it down, but well made points will chip at that brick in the wall. There will always be that question of - what if they are right? What if I'm wrong?
You see, I'm 15, and I'm much smarter than the average ape. This means that I read.
You see, I read, and I question and wonder why, and I have notions of love and spirit and good and evil. I've learnt already that the people who shout the loudest are not necesserily right, and I've learnt that the most popular ideas are not necesserily the best. This is really not something that should be learnt until you're old. Because if you learn things like this now, and you try to make sense of them and understand them? Your head explodes and you're really sure of nothing at all because you question yourself at every turn you make.
Sometimes, I can't bear to listen to music because I wonder why I like it. I wonder what attracts me to it. I wonder if I just like it because it's obscure. I just keep questioning and trying to make it rational and make adult choices. Because adults are the ones that argue the best. Because being adult is the aim.
The point is, growing up before your time just isolates you.
The point is, any teenagers reading this?
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
You can listen to punk and you can have second-hand opinions on politics, and you can believe yourself above everybody, and you can have these half arsed ideas of life and of sex and of spirituality. But in the end, you're just a kid trying to be like the bigger boys. And when someone in the future actually calls you on the things you rant about, when they actually make an informed argument back? You're going to realize that you are out of your depth. And your world will come crashing down around you because someone will quite innocently take the bottom brick out.
That's the thing with people having no religion, no belief system anymore. That’s the problem with people having access to the internet and having access to views other than that which the government give. They have no-one to tell them what to do. They have no clear conception of right and wrong - there is nothing that they can definitely say is wrong or right. There's always the opposite argument to be considered, the argument that the guy on the message board used.
Because every argument has two sides, and if you are exposed to a well presented version of both you can only conclude that they are both right.
Knowing more is not necseserily a good thing. It's eaisier to be a sheep - if you never question your world then you wil never have to change. The scariest thing in the world is having to accept that you are wrong, that what you have fought and lived and sacrificed for is not worthy. Because when someone knocks your world down from around you, the defensive wall of your beliefs is gone and you are cold and exposed and vunerable.
The thing is, the internet, knowledge - it can expose you to the forces that can break the world down. Fight Club says that violence is not necesserily a bad thing - it either knocks out the brick pacifism that you've had since childhood television, or it chips at it. It places doubt in the things that you take for granted, and the doubt will always be there, festering, undermiming your original belief. Making you question yourself.
Words, said Kipling, are the most powerful drug known to mankind. He's right. Read a well written argument against anything, absolutely anything, and IT WILL AFFECT YOU. You might be able to argue it down, but well made points will chip at that brick in the wall. There will always be that question of - what if they are right? What if I'm wrong?
You see, I'm 15, and I'm much smarter than the average ape. This means that I read.
You see, I read, and I question and wonder why, and I have notions of love and spirit and good and evil. I've learnt already that the people who shout the loudest are not necesserily right, and I've learnt that the most popular ideas are not necesserily the best. This is really not something that should be learnt until you're old. Because if you learn things like this now, and you try to make sense of them and understand them? Your head explodes and you're really sure of nothing at all because you question yourself at every turn you make.
Sometimes, I can't bear to listen to music because I wonder why I like it. I wonder what attracts me to it. I wonder if I just like it because it's obscure. I just keep questioning and trying to make it rational and make adult choices. Because adults are the ones that argue the best. Because being adult is the aim.
The point is, growing up before your time just isolates you.
The point is, any teenagers reading this?
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
You can listen to punk and you can have second-hand opinions on politics, and you can believe yourself above everybody, and you can have these half arsed ideas of life and of sex and of spirituality. But in the end, you're just a kid trying to be like the bigger boys. And when someone in the future actually calls you on the things you rant about, when they actually make an informed argument back? You're going to realize that you are out of your depth. And your world will come crashing down around you because someone will quite innocently take the bottom brick out.
Page:
I posted about Chomsky in reference to Belldandy finding him a "US hating socialist", and of course nobody can possibly say anything that isn't nearly as intelligensia as a Dandy post - and much laboured "Look at my brain" ensued.
I got bored and talked about boobs and cheesecake somewhere else for the rest of the day.
I got bored and talked about boobs and cheesecake somewhere else for the rest of the day.
Heh - when I wrote 'going off on a tangent', I think I was right.
Goatboy wrote:
> If The CIA can work with The Mafia and Cuban Exiles to plot to
> overthrow Castro with The Bay of Pigs, then who's to say what the hell
> they're doing right now?
Whose to say that this was actually wrong in the first place ? The Cuban missile crisis proved Castro was a danger. Che Guevara was also advocating communist ideals in is America's backyard. Walter Rodney also died in questionable circumstances, probably as a result of his socialist ideas. During the 1980's, the CIA worked with the SAS to eliminate terrorist training grounds in North Africa. Whole camps were wiped out and made to never have exist.
None of this is wrong or right, its simply history, but a history thats more easy to question because it is known. Mossad, the KGB, 6, the Republican Guard and so on, are all nearly free from critics because their history is guarded. I don't fear organisations I know about, I fear those who we know nothing about.
~~Belldandy~~
> If The CIA can work with The Mafia and Cuban Exiles to plot to
> overthrow Castro with The Bay of Pigs, then who's to say what the hell
> they're doing right now?
Whose to say that this was actually wrong in the first place ? The Cuban missile crisis proved Castro was a danger. Che Guevara was also advocating communist ideals in is America's backyard. Walter Rodney also died in questionable circumstances, probably as a result of his socialist ideas. During the 1980's, the CIA worked with the SAS to eliminate terrorist training grounds in North Africa. Whole camps were wiped out and made to never have exist.
None of this is wrong or right, its simply history, but a history thats more easy to question because it is known. Mossad, the KGB, 6, the Republican Guard and so on, are all nearly free from critics because their history is guarded. I don't fear organisations I know about, I fear those who we know nothing about.
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> But, Belldandy, help me out here. You're obviously intelligent,
> obviously well read, very good at arguing your case. Your views on
> the firefighters and immigrants (which I happen to agree with) are
> against the grain, so you clearly don't just unquestioningly accept
> the tabloid/government line. You accept that European imperialism did
> terrible damage that still hasn't been repaired. You sound as if you
> believe in free-thinking, rather than letting one obstinately held
> opinion dictate the spin you put on every event. So why do you have
> such a blind spot when it comes to the US?
Because I think that history has reached a point where we can no longer all sit back in our respective countries and watch parts of the world go to hell. The world needs a superpower that, even if it's motives are somewhat questionable occasionaly, is prepared to show those who threaten peace that they will not be allowed to do so undterred. America does much good that goes unmentioned by its detractors - it provides the main support for UN forces in many many countries, it gives piles of foreign aid and humanitarian aid around the world, it supported Europe through the Cold War, it still supports NATO, is working towards partnership with Russia and so on.
What I respect is that when a crisis happens, America is there ready to act, not sit around and talk about it. America takes a lot of bad flak for incidents like the attack on the Afghanistan wedding party earlier in the year, and collateral damage in Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, but the point is that this only happens to America the most because her forces are where it matters, in the firing line. When I see Europe's military forces actually engaged more in war situations around the world then Europe has the right to protest. The UK government always stands by the US line on incidents like this because, unlike our friends in Europe, we ourselves are engaged around the world in operations. Our government understands better the problems that can happen. Events in Black Hawk Down are a perfect example also, though I'd read the Mark Townsend book long before the film came out. The American's drew bad press for this operation, but how many look at the history of Somalia around that time ? With the country still in the grip of Warlords, massive poverty, massive foreign debt, virtually no development projects, and the UN forces from other countries basically penned in to their compounds by the warlords, the American plan to remove one warlord was a great idea and represented a pro active move. You don't scare warlords by issuing UN declarations or pulling up outside their residences in white land rover discoveries. You do it by sending the message that if they persist in blocking peace then you will come for them, and it will not be in the form of khaki clothed diplomats but the some of the best special forces the world has.
Many countries are forgetting that diplomacy is only an option, not the be all of conflict resolution. Europe, Russia and China, are still playing by Cold War rules. The new wars are being fought against state sponsored groups and not states. These new warriors do not follow the Geneva laws or our old ideas of warfare. In many countries those who persist in conflict - in Zimbabwe, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Indonesia e.t.c will not come to the table of diplomacy easily, because the existence of conflit elevates their normal status. In Zimbabwe, if Mugabe were to crack down on the war veterans then all of a sudden they're just one big unemployed group of people. If warlords were to end fighting in Somalia then their soldiers become similar. Commanders become taxi drivers and so on.
I'm not saying rule out diploacy, just that America, and the UK, realise better than diplomacy is worthless if force cannot back it up.
I'm not saying America is perfect, it isn't, but I believe that its intentions are basically good. Criticism of Bush in the mainstream revolves around is father, and the fact he's a Texan. I don't know about anyone else but the fact he's a texan means nothing, this isn't the age of gun toting cowboys no matter what various NGO's would have us believe. Same with his father, who on Iraq critics say Bush is finishing what his father left unfinished. Sorry guys, but the UN resolution prevented America taking the war to Baghdad.
On imperialism; what gets me is it's almost hidden history, yet events in Africa happened less than 100 years ago. It's not taught in schools or even shown much in documentaries e.t.c. Europe acts like it holds a moral high ground on everything, when we don't, not after what we did there. In America similar things happened to native American's, but not on the scale of Africa. America does at least acknowledge widely its part in wiping out many native Americans during that time. Until I read King Leopold's Ghost I knew nothing about it, yet I'd been through GCSE, A Level and one year of University doing subjects related to colonialism and geography, only the lecturer who taught colonialism in year 2 had actually heard of it. That's wrong.
Chomsky; I just find him unreadable because its too one sided and selective in his examples in general. I know the stuff is only his opinion but thats my opinion on him regarding his American related stuff. Too idyllic in his views for me, bit like that "Rogue State" book someone did (forget the author !)
I believe in America and what it stands for. Cheesy I know, but at least I believe in something. Since 9/11 the world has been divided between two camps in my opinion, freedom and terrorism. Once terrorism is defeated we can sit and nitpick over the complexities. In 100 years from now history will judge us, if we act right, at this time, we can change the world forever. If we get it wrong...might not be a history 100 years from now.
~~Belldandy~~
> But, Belldandy, help me out here. You're obviously intelligent,
> obviously well read, very good at arguing your case. Your views on
> the firefighters and immigrants (which I happen to agree with) are
> against the grain, so you clearly don't just unquestioningly accept
> the tabloid/government line. You accept that European imperialism did
> terrible damage that still hasn't been repaired. You sound as if you
> believe in free-thinking, rather than letting one obstinately held
> opinion dictate the spin you put on every event. So why do you have
> such a blind spot when it comes to the US?
Because I think that history has reached a point where we can no longer all sit back in our respective countries and watch parts of the world go to hell. The world needs a superpower that, even if it's motives are somewhat questionable occasionaly, is prepared to show those who threaten peace that they will not be allowed to do so undterred. America does much good that goes unmentioned by its detractors - it provides the main support for UN forces in many many countries, it gives piles of foreign aid and humanitarian aid around the world, it supported Europe through the Cold War, it still supports NATO, is working towards partnership with Russia and so on.
What I respect is that when a crisis happens, America is there ready to act, not sit around and talk about it. America takes a lot of bad flak for incidents like the attack on the Afghanistan wedding party earlier in the year, and collateral damage in Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, but the point is that this only happens to America the most because her forces are where it matters, in the firing line. When I see Europe's military forces actually engaged more in war situations around the world then Europe has the right to protest. The UK government always stands by the US line on incidents like this because, unlike our friends in Europe, we ourselves are engaged around the world in operations. Our government understands better the problems that can happen. Events in Black Hawk Down are a perfect example also, though I'd read the Mark Townsend book long before the film came out. The American's drew bad press for this operation, but how many look at the history of Somalia around that time ? With the country still in the grip of Warlords, massive poverty, massive foreign debt, virtually no development projects, and the UN forces from other countries basically penned in to their compounds by the warlords, the American plan to remove one warlord was a great idea and represented a pro active move. You don't scare warlords by issuing UN declarations or pulling up outside their residences in white land rover discoveries. You do it by sending the message that if they persist in blocking peace then you will come for them, and it will not be in the form of khaki clothed diplomats but the some of the best special forces the world has.
Many countries are forgetting that diplomacy is only an option, not the be all of conflict resolution. Europe, Russia and China, are still playing by Cold War rules. The new wars are being fought against state sponsored groups and not states. These new warriors do not follow the Geneva laws or our old ideas of warfare. In many countries those who persist in conflict - in Zimbabwe, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Indonesia e.t.c will not come to the table of diplomacy easily, because the existence of conflit elevates their normal status. In Zimbabwe, if Mugabe were to crack down on the war veterans then all of a sudden they're just one big unemployed group of people. If warlords were to end fighting in Somalia then their soldiers become similar. Commanders become taxi drivers and so on.
I'm not saying rule out diploacy, just that America, and the UK, realise better than diplomacy is worthless if force cannot back it up.
I'm not saying America is perfect, it isn't, but I believe that its intentions are basically good. Criticism of Bush in the mainstream revolves around is father, and the fact he's a Texan. I don't know about anyone else but the fact he's a texan means nothing, this isn't the age of gun toting cowboys no matter what various NGO's would have us believe. Same with his father, who on Iraq critics say Bush is finishing what his father left unfinished. Sorry guys, but the UN resolution prevented America taking the war to Baghdad.
On imperialism; what gets me is it's almost hidden history, yet events in Africa happened less than 100 years ago. It's not taught in schools or even shown much in documentaries e.t.c. Europe acts like it holds a moral high ground on everything, when we don't, not after what we did there. In America similar things happened to native American's, but not on the scale of Africa. America does at least acknowledge widely its part in wiping out many native Americans during that time. Until I read King Leopold's Ghost I knew nothing about it, yet I'd been through GCSE, A Level and one year of University doing subjects related to colonialism and geography, only the lecturer who taught colonialism in year 2 had actually heard of it. That's wrong.
Chomsky; I just find him unreadable because its too one sided and selective in his examples in general. I know the stuff is only his opinion but thats my opinion on him regarding his American related stuff. Too idyllic in his views for me, bit like that "Rogue State" book someone did (forget the author !)
I believe in America and what it stands for. Cheesy I know, but at least I believe in something. Since 9/11 the world has been divided between two camps in my opinion, freedom and terrorism. Once terrorism is defeated we can sit and nitpick over the complexities. In 100 years from now history will judge us, if we act right, at this time, we can change the world forever. If we get it wrong...might not be a history 100 years from now.
~~Belldandy~~
And I dont blindly cricise the USA.
I also find fault with the UK in their "relaxed" attitude towards assisting dubious governments with arms sales to the likes of East Timoor, Malaysia, Jakarta and numerous other countries with atrocious civil rights records.
Same as I criticise North Korea for suddenly admitting they have nuclear weapons just as I criticise Russia for using Opiate gas resulting in 155 deaths and 400 casualties or, lest we forget, condeming the crew of that submarine to death at the bottom of the ocean rather than let Sweden get there in time and save them to "protect sensitive information"
I have no particular bone to pick with the USA, some of my family are American and I lost an Uncle on Sept 11th as he worked in The Pentagon and unfortunately was one of the victims.
But that does not stop me from voicing my unhappiness with the current situations and behaviour of the USA in case I am seen as anything other than independantly concerned.
However, through people like Chomsky and George Monbiot, I have been made aware of the behaviour of groups like The CIA, who take active participation in helping to overthrow governments they do not approve of using terrorist tactics of bombs, death squads and assasination.
This isn't leftist rhetoric, this is absolute truth that this has gone on and continues.
If The CIA can work with The Mafia and Cuban Exiles to plot to overthrow Castro with The Bay of Pigs, then who's to say what the hell they're doing right now?
I also find fault with the UK in their "relaxed" attitude towards assisting dubious governments with arms sales to the likes of East Timoor, Malaysia, Jakarta and numerous other countries with atrocious civil rights records.
Same as I criticise North Korea for suddenly admitting they have nuclear weapons just as I criticise Russia for using Opiate gas resulting in 155 deaths and 400 casualties or, lest we forget, condeming the crew of that submarine to death at the bottom of the ocean rather than let Sweden get there in time and save them to "protect sensitive information"
I have no particular bone to pick with the USA, some of my family are American and I lost an Uncle on Sept 11th as he worked in The Pentagon and unfortunately was one of the victims.
But that does not stop me from voicing my unhappiness with the current situations and behaviour of the USA in case I am seen as anything other than independantly concerned.
However, through people like Chomsky and George Monbiot, I have been made aware of the behaviour of groups like The CIA, who take active participation in helping to overthrow governments they do not approve of using terrorist tactics of bombs, death squads and assasination.
This isn't leftist rhetoric, this is absolute truth that this has gone on and continues.
If The CIA can work with The Mafia and Cuban Exiles to plot to overthrow Castro with The Bay of Pigs, then who's to say what the hell they're doing right now?
I do sometimes find some of what Chomsky says isn't 100% things I agree with, but the depth and intelligence of his articles/books/essays is such that you have to give him the time to explain his views to you.
It's not mere rhetoric designed to further his own cause at all, it is a studied and faultless criticism of a lot of subjects.
Granted, most of his attacks are based towards US Foreign Policy but it is not a meaningless tirade against the government because he doesn't like them.
It is a necessary questioning of situtations, attitudes and legislative behaviour. Without those that say "Hang on a minute..." and ensure those that do are held accountable, we would be in a Nanny state similar to Politburo style "Here is the news. Everything is fine, except for nasty rebels who are evil and must be destroyed"
Unfortunately, there are a lot of major problems with the US and it's attitudes towards the rest of the world. Chomsky uses the analogy of a massively oversized infant using the "I dont like you anymore and you can't have any cake" approach to dealing with international affairs.
Be it the attitudes towards "terrorism" (when state approved it is "counter-insurgency") or the crippling nature of the free-trade agreement that is suffocating Mexico's attempts at extricating itself from National Debt.
What Chomsky frequently says, and myself often wonder, is why when a person blindly agrees and accepts the status-quo and swallows what we are told without question or concern - we are labelled "patriotic" and "productive consumners".
But as soon as a person stops and says "Actually I dont agree with that" or "I'm not sure that's entirely correct/legal/just" - then that person is labelled as a "lefty" "Liberal" "Communist" "Heretic".
The founding principal of what we like to consider "freedom" also covers the right to disagree and question that which we are told.
I personally believe it is our duty to not merely accept and digest official versions and statements, but to afford them the same amount of investigation and thought as you would any item of news from anywhere.
Abraham Lincoln wrote (and Oliver Stone used in JFK), "It is every citizens duty to expect their government to operate in a just and fair manner, and when the people feel that is no longer the case, it is equally their right and correct action to tear down that which is no longer useful and start again".
Now I am not saying we should tear down the governments, but I am saying that those that dissent in any respect should not automatically be written off as "sympathisers" or "Lefty socialists" because they decide to question what they are told.
It is just as intolerable for a person to blindly accept something than it is to question and refuse out of principal.
And it is also important to realise that just because the Prime Minister/President/King tells you so, doesn't make it truth.
I believe it is our role to, as you state Belldandy, to investigate and make up your own mind as to what you percieve to be truth.
But you must also be willing to accept and listen to differing viewpoints without saying "You're wrong, I'm right. I know more than you therefore my version is the correct one".
Nobody knows the 100% truth about anything as far as politics go, because it is inherently built on allowing the populace to know only that which it is deemed necessary to.
It's not mere rhetoric designed to further his own cause at all, it is a studied and faultless criticism of a lot of subjects.
Granted, most of his attacks are based towards US Foreign Policy but it is not a meaningless tirade against the government because he doesn't like them.
It is a necessary questioning of situtations, attitudes and legislative behaviour. Without those that say "Hang on a minute..." and ensure those that do are held accountable, we would be in a Nanny state similar to Politburo style "Here is the news. Everything is fine, except for nasty rebels who are evil and must be destroyed"
Unfortunately, there are a lot of major problems with the US and it's attitudes towards the rest of the world. Chomsky uses the analogy of a massively oversized infant using the "I dont like you anymore and you can't have any cake" approach to dealing with international affairs.
Be it the attitudes towards "terrorism" (when state approved it is "counter-insurgency") or the crippling nature of the free-trade agreement that is suffocating Mexico's attempts at extricating itself from National Debt.
What Chomsky frequently says, and myself often wonder, is why when a person blindly agrees and accepts the status-quo and swallows what we are told without question or concern - we are labelled "patriotic" and "productive consumners".
But as soon as a person stops and says "Actually I dont agree with that" or "I'm not sure that's entirely correct/legal/just" - then that person is labelled as a "lefty" "Liberal" "Communist" "Heretic".
The founding principal of what we like to consider "freedom" also covers the right to disagree and question that which we are told.
I personally believe it is our duty to not merely accept and digest official versions and statements, but to afford them the same amount of investigation and thought as you would any item of news from anywhere.
Abraham Lincoln wrote (and Oliver Stone used in JFK), "It is every citizens duty to expect their government to operate in a just and fair manner, and when the people feel that is no longer the case, it is equally their right and correct action to tear down that which is no longer useful and start again".
Now I am not saying we should tear down the governments, but I am saying that those that dissent in any respect should not automatically be written off as "sympathisers" or "Lefty socialists" because they decide to question what they are told.
It is just as intolerable for a person to blindly accept something than it is to question and refuse out of principal.
And it is also important to realise that just because the Prime Minister/President/King tells you so, doesn't make it truth.
I believe it is our role to, as you state Belldandy, to investigate and make up your own mind as to what you percieve to be truth.
But you must also be willing to accept and listen to differing viewpoints without saying "You're wrong, I'm right. I know more than you therefore my version is the correct one".
Nobody knows the 100% truth about anything as far as politics go, because it is inherently built on allowing the populace to know only that which it is deemed necessary to.
Goatboy wrote:
> What Chomsky does, first and foremost, is to question.
>
> I appreciate you may not like Chomsky, but he's anything but an
> anti-US socialist.
Absolutely. The thing I love about Chomsky's books is the way his sources are always establishment ones, his quotes always from the powerful. He hoists people by their own petards absolutely brilliantly.
The first time I read one of his books (Deterring Democracy) my thoughts were along the lines of WTF? I knew I didn't like western foreign policy or imperialism, but I couldn't quite believe that things were SO different from the mainstream view; but he's so logical, so clinical, so meticulous with his facts that I was eventually convinced. I read a brilliant transcript of a radio interview he did (on www.zmag.org I think) talking about the media. I can't find it at the moment but the gist of it was "If you heard me talking about these things on network news shows you would think I was crazy, absolutely off-the-wall, because these things are so at odds with perceived wisdom that they need long discussions to properly evaluate them. TV news, with it's thirty second soundbites, only has time for brief confirmations of the official line."
> What Chomsky does, first and foremost, is to question.
>
> I appreciate you may not like Chomsky, but he's anything but an
> anti-US socialist.
Absolutely. The thing I love about Chomsky's books is the way his sources are always establishment ones, his quotes always from the powerful. He hoists people by their own petards absolutely brilliantly.
The first time I read one of his books (Deterring Democracy) my thoughts were along the lines of WTF? I knew I didn't like western foreign policy or imperialism, but I couldn't quite believe that things were SO different from the mainstream view; but he's so logical, so clinical, so meticulous with his facts that I was eventually convinced. I read a brilliant transcript of a radio interview he did (on www.zmag.org I think) talking about the media. I can't find it at the moment but the gist of it was "If you heard me talking about these things on network news shows you would think I was crazy, absolutely off-the-wall, because these things are so at odds with perceived wisdom that they need long discussions to properly evaluate them. TV news, with it's thirty second soundbites, only has time for brief confirmations of the official line."
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> The point is, growing up before your time just isolates you.
That I've learnt myself.
Thing is, isolation, through growing up to quickly mentally and through another thing, has improved me... sort of. It turned me to music and made me really appreciate what I had. It taught me early on how to build and maintain a fort of one. An anti-social but very very useful skill. Meh, makes me sound like a sociopath. Never mind.
"Make a circle in the sound, make a halo with your hand"
> The point is, growing up before your time just isolates you.
That I've learnt myself.
Thing is, isolation, through growing up to quickly mentally and through another thing, has improved me... sort of. It turned me to music and made me really appreciate what I had. It taught me early on how to build and maintain a fort of one. An anti-social but very very useful skill. Meh, makes me sound like a sociopath. Never mind.
"Make a circle in the sound, make a halo with your hand"
Belldandy wrote:
> King Leopold's Ghost should be read by anyone who criticises US
> foreign policy whilst pretending Europe is saintlike. It details how
> Europe, and in particular Belgium, was responsible for around 3
> million deaths in Africa, a european slave trade, a mass robbery of
> land and goods, and dividing Africa in such a way that it would be
> causing conflict a 100 years later.
Agreed, this is an excellent book.
But, Belldandy, help me out here. You're obviously intelligent, obviously well read, very good at arguing your case. Your views on the firefighters and immigrants (which I happen to agree with) are against the grain, so you clearly don't just unquestioningly accept the tabloid/government line. You accept that European imperialism did terrible damage that still hasn't been repaired. You sound as if you believe in free-thinking, rather than letting one obstinately held opinion dictate the spin you put on every event. So why do you have such a blind spot when it comes to the US?
Most critics of US foreign policy are equally opposed to the imperial adventures of Europe, past and present. I don't see it as a competition, nor does criticising one mean I approve of the other. The Congo is a case in point. Yes, Belgium committed terrible crimes when they were the most powerful western nation in the region; but sadly imperialism didn't end with decolonisation. It was the CIA AND the Belgians who had Lumumba shot, who funded the bloody overthrow of his government, and sat back as the country slid into civil war and mass slaughter. I absolutely agree that Europe isn't perfect, but neither is the US; and if they do bad things - and they do - then I'm going to criticise them for it.
> King Leopold's Ghost should be read by anyone who criticises US
> foreign policy whilst pretending Europe is saintlike. It details how
> Europe, and in particular Belgium, was responsible for around 3
> million deaths in Africa, a european slave trade, a mass robbery of
> land and goods, and dividing Africa in such a way that it would be
> causing conflict a 100 years later.
Agreed, this is an excellent book.
But, Belldandy, help me out here. You're obviously intelligent, obviously well read, very good at arguing your case. Your views on the firefighters and immigrants (which I happen to agree with) are against the grain, so you clearly don't just unquestioningly accept the tabloid/government line. You accept that European imperialism did terrible damage that still hasn't been repaired. You sound as if you believe in free-thinking, rather than letting one obstinately held opinion dictate the spin you put on every event. So why do you have such a blind spot when it comes to the US?
Most critics of US foreign policy are equally opposed to the imperial adventures of Europe, past and present. I don't see it as a competition, nor does criticising one mean I approve of the other. The Congo is a case in point. Yes, Belgium committed terrible crimes when they were the most powerful western nation in the region; but sadly imperialism didn't end with decolonisation. It was the CIA AND the Belgians who had Lumumba shot, who funded the bloody overthrow of his government, and sat back as the country slid into civil war and mass slaughter. I absolutely agree that Europe isn't perfect, but neither is the US; and if they do bad things - and they do - then I'm going to criticise them for it.
Belldandy wrote:
> That was a good read, and quite right too. Nothings ever going to
> convince me that Chomsky is anything other than a jumped up socialist
> US hater though....his books read great, but only if you know before
> reading them that what he's going to say in them will be what you
> think. In other words they are the kind of books that someone reads to
> reassure themselves they are right.
--
I'm afraid I'm going to take you to task on this Belldandy, because I'm a huge Chomsky appreciator and have attended several of his lectures both here and in the USA.
He is not a USA hater by any means, nor is he a socialist. The most important thing about Chomsky to remember is what he always prefaces his books and essays with:
"Mine is just opinion based on data. It does not make me right, nor do I seek to convince you of anything. I merely present and discuss ideas and the suggestion that not everything should be taken at face value. That includes what I say"
My favourite book by him is "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of The Mass Media". It's not anti-US at all, it is anti-global media corporation for the simple reason that if you have 3 or 4 megalithic companies controlling the media then you are presented with whatever version is deemed suitable by the political leanings of that company.
It talks about everything from the subtle reporting of events to manipulate public opinion.
And it is meticulously researched and presented. Several of the ideas presented are extremely well put. The one that stuck with me, and you can see it operating with any news corporation, is the terminology of government approved war.
If you are fighting for the side that the media corporation is behind, you are deemed to be "guerilla", and if you are against whatever stand the media takes, then you are a "rebel".
It mentions examples like the 3 nuns raped and murdered in El Salvador by CIA trained death-squads meriting 3 bylines in European and US newspapers, yet the assasination of a Pro-Democracy Priest was front-cover news and Raul Julia stared in a film about him.
What Chomsky does, first and foremost, is to question.
He does not tell you his version is the only correct one, he merely offers a differing viewpoint. And his views are always minutely researched and presented with total accuracy.
He was involved in a debate last year with Dick Chaney and Donal Rumsfeld at Harvard to do with the Western Media's sudden interest in reporting any foreign aggression as "terrorism", where as before Sept 11th it was "civil unrest".
I'll find the link to it, it's fascinating stuff to read. Cheney retires from the debate and Rumsfeld is reduced to continually saying "I am unable to recollect that right now" when Chomsky questions his statements, pre Sept 11th to do with Afghanistan and "why it is not in the interests of the USA to combat civil unrest".
I appreciate you may not like Chomsky, but he's anything but an anti-US socialist.
> That was a good read, and quite right too. Nothings ever going to
> convince me that Chomsky is anything other than a jumped up socialist
> US hater though....his books read great, but only if you know before
> reading them that what he's going to say in them will be what you
> think. In other words they are the kind of books that someone reads to
> reassure themselves they are right.
--
I'm afraid I'm going to take you to task on this Belldandy, because I'm a huge Chomsky appreciator and have attended several of his lectures both here and in the USA.
He is not a USA hater by any means, nor is he a socialist. The most important thing about Chomsky to remember is what he always prefaces his books and essays with:
"Mine is just opinion based on data. It does not make me right, nor do I seek to convince you of anything. I merely present and discuss ideas and the suggestion that not everything should be taken at face value. That includes what I say"
My favourite book by him is "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of The Mass Media". It's not anti-US at all, it is anti-global media corporation for the simple reason that if you have 3 or 4 megalithic companies controlling the media then you are presented with whatever version is deemed suitable by the political leanings of that company.
It talks about everything from the subtle reporting of events to manipulate public opinion.
And it is meticulously researched and presented. Several of the ideas presented are extremely well put. The one that stuck with me, and you can see it operating with any news corporation, is the terminology of government approved war.
If you are fighting for the side that the media corporation is behind, you are deemed to be "guerilla", and if you are against whatever stand the media takes, then you are a "rebel".
It mentions examples like the 3 nuns raped and murdered in El Salvador by CIA trained death-squads meriting 3 bylines in European and US newspapers, yet the assasination of a Pro-Democracy Priest was front-cover news and Raul Julia stared in a film about him.
What Chomsky does, first and foremost, is to question.
He does not tell you his version is the only correct one, he merely offers a differing viewpoint. And his views are always minutely researched and presented with total accuracy.
He was involved in a debate last year with Dick Chaney and Donal Rumsfeld at Harvard to do with the Western Media's sudden interest in reporting any foreign aggression as "terrorism", where as before Sept 11th it was "civil unrest".
I'll find the link to it, it's fascinating stuff to read. Cheney retires from the debate and Rumsfeld is reduced to continually saying "I am unable to recollect that right now" when Chomsky questions his statements, pre Sept 11th to do with Afghanistan and "why it is not in the interests of the USA to combat civil unrest".
I appreciate you may not like Chomsky, but he's anything but an anti-US socialist.
Page: