I've no doubt they would've been using some portion of "we don't need no education / we don't need no thought control" to go along with whatever pro-Instagram visuals were being displayed. Implying Insta will help you free yourself or something. That song is a depressing examination of how the mid-20th century school system, and society in general, tended to destroy free thought and keep the poor docile and accepting of their lot. I don't see any positive way for a corporate behemoth bent on keeping you focused on tripe and bullshit to use that song.

I hope by now people know me well enough to know I am far from a Trump supporter.

But we would be missing out on a huge opportunity here if we didn't highlight that 99% of what politicians say is different looking, but equally foul bullshit.

I'm not joking. If you actually look into the 'facts' and 'statistics' that are used to push and promote the different policies, they are all based in falsehood or manipulation of meaning, a few off the very top of my head:
- Austerity - based on a study that was discredited not long after it was used to strip assets and cut funding for those who need it most
- Immigration caps - Theresa May talks big about reducing immigration now, saying what a problem it has become but she was *home secretary*, responsible for handling immigration policy
- Benefit caps - for years they have painted benefits cheats as the great drain on the British welfare system with TV shows and press releases, but the majority of the benefits bills go towards subsidising low pay (working tax credits, people in full time work that doesn't pay enough to live on) and paying rent to private landlords (rents which are unregulated, landlords who are already privately rich).
- Greater autonomy for local government - sounds great, we get a better say about things that affect us locally, except when we say that we don't want fracking in Lancashire, they over rule us and say we WILL have fracking in Lancashire. Greater autonomy only meant "we're not giving you any more money."

I'm barely getting started. You can go on and on - tax policy when it comes to big multi nationals who don't pay their fair share, but we let them haggle and pay a tokenistic amount - but the reason we don't have enough money is because of the burden of benefits cheats and immigrants??? We paid for the damage done by the financial crash, but the same people are still in charge and now they're taking billions in bonuses too - why don't we get any of it back!??

I can turn on the news at any time and within 30 seconds find something that is skirting with the truth or outright pulling the wool over our eyes.

The entire political system is fucked up in America and in the UK, it's not just Donald Trump. Donald Trump is like a huge fist sized bubble in a strip of freshly laid wallpaper. We don't just need to fix the big obvious bubble; we need to change the way we put wallpaper up because when you look at the rest of the wall, there are thousands of smaller bubbles that amount to the exact same problem of a fucked up wall.

Donald Trump is the dead canary in the coal mine. He's the clear and obvious indicator that something is horribly, horribly wrong. Getting rid of the canary's corpse does not solve the fucking problem.

The blowback from the alt-right, these vicious people spouting nationalism and racism and sexism. AND the constantly bickering and clamouring SJW lefties who want to dominate free thought and free speech. Both these sets of people have been pitted against each other intentionally so that they don't turn on the people at the top. It is the oldest trick in the book - don't blame the guys in charge, blame each other, it gives us longer to get away with it. Divide and conquer. Spread hate, spread war, spread fear, spread anger and people gravitate to the extremes... they are easier to control at the extremes.

...rant over i guess

TLDR
If you found this boring, if you didn't want to look into it, you're part of the problem. You're contributing to the environment in which Trump can flourish.

There is no scrutiny, there is no being held to account. There is only the court of Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers.

@A10anis
i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him.

his premise is fairly consistent and self evident:he is critical of power.

while i do not disagree with your assertions on personal responsibility and i suspect most people would agree with you on that point.i do not see chomsky making an argument against personal responsibility.so your point in that regard is moot.but to ignore massive monied and powerfully influential political and corporate institutions and their affects on society is naive' at best and venal at worst.

you appear to be made uncomfortable by the criticizing of the power structure and institutions of the west (i do not know where "here" is for you).which suggests to me that you have confused ideology with reality,made clearer by your suggestions:
1.taking advantage of an education system that more and more translates to debt peonage and a high percentage of not even working in the field utilizing that education.
2.free thought.
ok i have to admit this one made me giggle.
everybody has free thought but the irony here is relevant to the very video on how that thought is manipulated and your comment reveals in ironic delicousness.
3.certain rights.
yes we do have certain rights.rights that have been systematically chipped away at due to abstract wars on:terror,drugs,immigrants etc etc.rights are becoming more a suggestion than actual rights.

your conclusion has the suggested flavor that since chomsky benefited in this society that he should just shut up,sit down and behave like a good little boy,and that those who admire his courage to criticize the most powerful country on the planet are "followers".

since you do watch the videos of chomsky( you do watch them dont you?),yet have the exact same criticism every time,maybe it is time you actually read one of his books?
just an idea...
you may find much of your confusion in regards to chomsky will be clarified.

Another rant from the harbinger of doom. I believe his followers gain succour from his dystopian views because it gives them an excuse for the shortcomings in their own lives. OK, that's a bit strong, but the fact is, no matter what figures you want to analyze, never in history have humans been so fortunate both in health and general well being. Generally, each generation lives longer, is better cared for and enjoys a better quality of life than the last. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. Do we care enough about our third world cousins? Again, probably not.
I never quite "get" what Chomsky's real problem is. Is it Multinationals? Media? Government? Corporations? It seems to be all of these, and a whole lot more. North Korea would be a good place for him to rail against evidential control, injustice and a true dystopian existence. Here we are allowed to take advantage of education, free thought and certain rights. In short, to make the best of things. I suggest he, and his followers, do the same. Moaning on, and on, and on about this awful, oppressive existence we suffer in the west, really gains no sympathy from people who live in places where they would love the chances Chomsky seems to take for granted.

The Faith of my father, is not my faith. He allowed me to make my own mind up about Gods and creation by drawing on education, observation, free thought and my own experiences. In fact, he was adamant that the indoctrination of children into ANY religion or belief system was tantamount to child abuse. I often wonder how I would have turned out if he had not been so enlightened. I owe him my independence, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Freud was more of a lunatic than most of his patients...very little of what he claimed has panned out, and even less offered any value. I'm not sure how his evidence-free thought experiments bring any benefit to this subject. Maybe his opinion on the relative recreational value of various doses of cocaine would have some merit, but not much else.

He must then have an excellent teacher who encourages free thought and expression.

Why hello there @shinnyblurry, we meet again (sort of). You know, it's kind of funny that while I was watching this video I was suddenly struck by the memory of our last encounter and expected that I'd see your responses to this video (and other people). Either way, no hard feelings about our previous encounters or anything.

If you can believe it, you've inspired me in a way. Not in the way that I imagine you might hope though. I don't really get into debates/arguments with died-in-the-wool believers anymore. Especially those who claim person divine revelation. There isn't a whole lot to be said at that point because most people aren't interested in attempting to falsify their own experiences. They especially aren't interested in attempting to falsify experiences that they deems profoundly meaningful to them personally, giving them new meaning to their life which I can understand. That kind of debate/argument cannot bear fruit unless something like education standards or public policies are at stake.

I'm sure you remember my whole standpoint on the god(s) thing, so I wont repeat myself, I mostly wanted to say Hi

I will say this though; personal revelations aside, "I don't know" followed up by skeptical inquiry is a far better answer and process to interacting with questions that we simply cannot, or haven't yet, verify objectively. I just can't accept that personal revelation is good enough to determine whether or not something is true. The probability of being incorrect about an experience is astounding. Humans are pattern seeking and creating machines. The answer "I don't know" is extremely hard to rest on for most humans because there is a biological need to fill in the blanks of our knowledge, and we do that by looking for patterns which may or may not be there. It was far better to believe that a predator is in the bushes when they rustle than to employ investigative powers thus taking the risk of being eaten. The studies on these phenomenon are amazing and it's amazing to see how easily humans will accept an an answer that doesn't make logical or empirical sense in order to avoid being in the position of "I don't know". It requires a lot of mental rigor to maintain "I don't know" as a placeholder. It goes against human biology. There is also less cognitive dissonance felt if investigation can be halted. When a belief is strongly held, it's fascinating how many self justification techniques are used to maintain that belief. There is a lot of literature and research that strongly suggest that superstitions follow from the urge to provide an answer rather than resting at "I don't know".

Anyone can say that they "know" because of some personal revelation, but does that mean that what they believe is actually true? Is personal revelation actually good enough?

Either way, it's all very fascinating stuff and there are a lot of books out there which cover all of the techniques that humans use in fooling themselves, to self justify beliefs, and in preventing cognitive dissonance.
>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.
It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?
Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?
Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.
That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.


That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.

It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?

Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?

Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

Excellent tribute, thanks for posting. I used to enjoy, every day, searching for new pearls of wisdom from Hitch. There will, sadly, be no more. But his legacy is strong, and I hope all those remotely interested in free thought will read his work.

Christopher Hitchens, still working his magic even though he's gone. Free thought, logic, independence, common sense, intellect, education, and freedom from the theocratic imposition of ALL faiths. Keep it going people, he would be proud of you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.
Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
&
gt;> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.



You say; "Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?"
Yes, all of them.
As for your assertion that Hitch "folded," and was "unsure of himself." What are you talking about? He was perfectly concise and logical. He, quite understandably, becomes terse in the face of "white noise" being presented as fact. As you say; "there it is on video."

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8


Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.