*quality Chomsky, as always

The question at 44:03 is just as relevant today as it was a quarter of a century ago.

I would argue that a precarious situation with regards to your income is just as effective a pacifier as the usual bread & games are. A zero-hour contract, or a wage that requires you to get a second/third job, effectively prevents you from participating in civil society. You don't have the time nor the energy to become informed, and you sure as hell are not going to become involved, either. And everything's left for the good old boys club to decide...

Maybe they've overcooked it in Greece and Spain, maybe not. But it works like a charm in Germany, where a great number of people are struggling enough to prevent them from getting any funky ideas, yet not enough to have them pick up their pitchforks and torches.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by radx.

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

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.

@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.

You say; "i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him."
Well, my friend, that is precisely because his opinions never change. The west, and everything it has achieved or stands for - especially the USA - is, according to him the great evil. So why would my comments be amended?
Btw, your points; 1,2,3 are exactly what one would expect from a Chomskey devotee.
Of course I watch the videos. Though I must admit it is more for the soporific tone of his voice than his lazy defeatist opinion. Also, I doubt that reading one of his books would better explain his points. Rather, I would imagine they go into even greater unnecessary detail of his already well known views.
Finally; thank you for your concern, but I can assure you, I am far from being confused regarding Chomskey or, in fact, your good self, who derides my repeated criticism yet insists on posting the same anti-establishment videos.
Ps; Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you, and yours.

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade