February 2016 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 5, 2016

    “My original comment pointed out that the system Jeff clearly despises did indeed facilitate his education.”

    And your original comment is irrelevant, since it had no causal relationship to the scenario, since communist countries have professors too.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 5, 2016

    “No one claims that there are not way too many people in abject poverty in the world.”

    Lionel never complained that anyone was claiming there were not way too many people in abject poverty in the world.

    He was complaining about the asinine and blinkered claims that poverty was getting better because of capitalism, when it’s getting WORSE.

  3. #3 Stu 2
    March 6, 2016

    Wow.
    You and Lionel are missing the point.
    Craig’s earlier comments were pointing out that the systems you are claiming are the WORST or getting WORSE are actually the ones with the better track records?
    I’m reposting a link from earlier.
    It is a comical set of slides but 2 of them, “Venture Capitalism” and “Bureaucratism” as well as being funny are quite clever.
    Perhaps it isn’t actually democracy or capitalism that’s the real issue here, but rather the Venture Capitalism concept that theorises we can and should make a market and value add and tax absolutely everything, which bureaucracies actually love to do too?
    https://www.facebook.com/MikeHoskingBreakfast/photos/pcb.1008425705857657/1008425072524387/?type=3&theater
    I also note that other than Jeff’s highly dismissive comment @ # 84, everyone here is baulking from the elephant in the room that Craig raised re population and how that is contributing to those inequity equations.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    March 6, 2016

    Lionel,
    perhaps you could reread Craig’s comments above?>/blockquote>

    To what end for as seen here:

    You and Lionel are missing the point.
    Craig’s earlier comments were pointing out that the systems you are claiming are the WORST or getting WORSE are actually the ones with the better track records?

    It is clear that you are misrepresenting the argument we are making, which is that Capitalism under so called democracy is a destructive system. Now I really suggest you try reading some of the many sources that Jeff and I have cited because without your doing that it is pointless having further discussion because you are arguing from incredulity.

    If you don’t believe me then perhaps you should read‘ the whole damned thread again.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    March 6, 2016

    What the under-informed seem to not understand is that any truly egalitarian socialist state in the world has been the target of destabilising operations, using military and economic weapons, with Latin America (Iran-Contra, Chile and latterly Venezuela and Argentina) providing many examples of interference from the US of A. The US of A will not allow such regimes to flourish because it may give the populace of the USA ideas, this besides the need for resource grabs and for a geographic buffer around the US.

    In this world of covert ops nothing is what it seems, or portrayed by the Western media as Greg Palast has demonstrated:

    Venezuela is Occupy Wall Street on its head: the 1% are out in the street, violently hoping to overthrow the government elected by working people. Are the Kochs involved?

    See Chavez, Maduro and Venezuela the story they don’t want you to read

    Now do follow those links in blue near the foot of the page and in particular ‘Big Oil, Big Ketchup and The Assassination of Hugo Chavez’ which has been updated as Vaya con Dios, Hugo Chàvez, mi Amigo where we find this:

    As a purgative for the crappola fed to Americans about Chavez, my foundation, The Palast Investigative Fund, is offering the film, The Assassination of Hugo Chavez, as a FREE download. Based on my several meetings with Chavez, his kidnappers and his would-be assassins, filmed for BBC Television. DVDs also available.

    Venezuelan President Chavez once asked me why the US elite wanted to kill him. My dear Hugo: It’s the oil. And it’s the Koch Brothers – and it’s the ketchup.

    which should lead you on to reading ‘The Koch Brothers, Hugo Chavez and the XL Pipeline‘ which explains the dirt.

    Stu, you are in serious need of corrective education.

  6. #6 Wow
    March 6, 2016

    And Cuba.

    Just because there’s votes from the people who wanted to rule others were told no and therefore left for the USA where they were allowed to do so, as long as it wasn’t actually CALLED slavery.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 6, 2016

    Heck watch Newmann’s “A history of Oil” and find out why Saddam was given a public beating by the USA and why Venezeula (of all fucking places!) was put on the “Axis o Evil” with NK, China and Iraq under Saddam.

    USA losing power to own foreign countries. Can’t have that.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2016

    “the system Jeff clearly despises”

    This is why I am sick to the teeth of willfully ignorant people like Stu2. This kind of comment comes straight out of a comic book. It does not address my serious misgvings about a political economic system that drives social injustice, inequality, environmental destruction and poverty. A system that is pushing natural systems towards the brink. None of the capitalism defenders here seem to be able to separate the different types of capitalism, including the dominant form (e.g. neoliberalism and free market absolutism) that currently dominates. Why not? Let’s get to the heart of the matter, as I have said; its not capitalism per se but unregulated capitalism that is taking us and the planet to hell in a handbasket. None of those on here defending the current, predatory form of capitalism is therefore intellectually equipped to discuss the topic. None. Stu2 for sure has shown time and time again how dumbed down he is by the corporate media, as evidenced not only by his wafer-thin comments (aimed to suggest my views are ‘radical’ and fall outside the mainstream) but when he put up thay absurd Sky News interview a few weeks ago with a ‘reformed’ jihadist. No suggestion from our intellectually challenged Aussie when we are going to see similar confessions from our own political and corporate leaders whose killing rate (using different technology) far exceeds those of the jihadists Stu2 was referring to in that embarrassing interview. Instead, what Stu2 is trying to intimate is that we are ‘civilized” whereas our opponents are all the barbarians. Good grief, the level of debate Stu2 and the other idiots on here like GSW stoop to has to be seen to be believed.

    I have been busy with research the last few days and stayed away from here because I am fed up with the deep level of myopia evident in the comments of GSW, Stu2, Craig and one or two others. Its frustrating as hell reading such dumbed down rhetoric arguing that if one is opposed to the current type of political system they are commuinists by default. To the good people here, I simply do not have the time for this puerile kindergarten level discourse.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2016

    What was a Isaying in my last post?

    Here’s Stu2 whining away:

    “I believe that Jeff Harvey did gain his education via western democratic style systems? Where did you gain yours? Apparently you think you would’ve had better education opportunities in Stalinist Russia”

    This kind of absolute stupidity makes me cringe as well as laugh. Its like saying that, no matter what damage we do to the environment, no dissent is allowed because communism was worse. No wonder people like Stu2 are anonymous entities on blogs. In the real world they’d be intellectually skewered for spewing this type of bullshit.

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2016

    More hilarity from brainless Stu2:

    “I actually agree that the populace care way too much about stuff like the Superbowl and the results of X-factor.
    It is one of the downsides of western style democracies”.

    Need to say any more? This is one of the doensides of western style ‘democracy’? Please. My side is hurting from laughter. I cannot take much more of this piffle.

  11. #11 Wow
    March 8, 2016

    “… .Apparently you think you would’ve had better education opportunities in Stalinist Russia”

    This kind of absolute stupidity makes me cringe as well as laugh. Its like saying that, no matter what damage we do to the environment, no dissent is allowed because communism was worse.

    It’s also complete fabrication..

    I say “Russia HAS an education system” and Stupid “hears” “Russia has a better education system.

    I say “In one facet, Russia is doing better than the USA” and Stupid “hears” “Russia has a better education system”.

    Because anything other than complete agreement means whatever the moron thinks is least supportable or most objectionable to their idiotic indoctrinated vision.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2016

    Great points, Wow. Some great scientists were born in Russia during its time as a communist regime. Politics has nix to do with it.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2016

    Seems like Karl Marx was right all along. By Chris Hedges:

    Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called “the bourgeois mode of production.” He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies—think neoliberalism—were created to serve the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production” and “the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships … the relationships which make one class the ruling one.” He saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse. He did not know when that day would come. Marx, as Meghnad Desai (http://www.voxeu.org/person/lord-meghnad-desai ) wrote, was “an astronomer of history, not an astrologer.” Marx was keenly aware of capitalism’s ability to innovate and adapt. But he also knew that capitalist expansion was not eternally sustainable. And as we witness the denouement of capitalism and the disintegration of globalism, Karl Marx is vindicated as capitalism’s most prescient and important critic.

    In a preface to “The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” Marx wrote:

    No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.

    Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, we always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist, or are at least in the process of formation.

    Socialism, in other words, would not be possible until capitalism had exhausted its potential for further development. That the end is coming is hard now to dispute, although one would be foolish to predict when. We are called to study Marx to be ready.

    The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class—the bulwark of a capitalist system—that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.

    But as Marx warned, there is a limit to an economy built on scaffolding of debt expansion. There comes a moment, Marx knew, when there would be no new markets available and no new pools of people who could take on more debt. This is what happened with the subprime mortgage crisis. Once the banks cannot conjure up new subprime borrowers, the scheme falls apart and the system crashes.

    Capitalist oligarchs, meanwhile, hoard huge sums of wealth—$18 trillion stashed in overseas tax havens—exacted as tribute from those they dominate, indebt and impoverish. Capitalism would, in the end, Marx said, turn on the so-called free market, along with the values and traditions it claims to defend. It would in its final stages pillage the systems and structures that made capitalism possible. It would resort, as it caused widespread suffering, to harsher forms of repression. It would attempt in a frantic last stand to maintain its profits by looting and pillaging state institutions, contradicting its stated nature.

    Marx warned that in the later stages of capitalism huge corporations would exercise a monopoly on global markets. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,” he wrote. “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” These corporations, whether in the banking sector, the agricultural and food industries, the arms industries or the communications industries, would use their power, usually by seizing the mechanisms of state, to prevent anyone from challenging their monopoly. They would fix prices to maximize profit. They would, as they [have been doing], push through trade deals such as the TPP (http://www.citizen.org/TPP ) and CAFTA (https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta ) to further weaken the nation-state’s ability to impede exploitation by imposing environmental regulations or monitoring working conditions. And in the end these corporate monopolies would obliterate free market competition.

    Talk about being correct.

  14. #14 Stu 2
    March 10, 2016

    Jeff Harvey.
    You are seriously losing the plot and the point of the discussion.
    I am starting to feel sorry for you.
    I would suggest, of course with respect, that you could try and engage with the content of the discussion rather than defaulting to sneering and pointless personal attacks and accusations.
    No one here, including me, has defended what you call ‘predatory capitalism’.
    Up thread I criticised ‘venture capitalism’ which is pretty much the same thing.
    I also pointed out that this mindset is overly favoured by modern bureaucratic organisations.
    Your assumptions about why I linked that interview are highly amusing along with your seemingly wilful misinterpretation of the very clear and simple message from the ‘reformed’ jihadist.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2016

    OMG, another loony feeling sorry for me. Thanks Stu2, from you thats a compliment as well as the similar remarks from GSW. If I am offending people like you, I must be doing something RIGHT.

    I responded to your vacuous and idiotic comment based on my education, suggesting that I might have preferred to live in Stalinist Russia. Now when you have to stoop to this level of discourse, you have seriously run out of ideas. You are intellectually bankrupt. Because I argue – with plenty of evidence – that the current dominant political ideology under the guise of the Washington Consensus is driving poverty, inequality, and environmental destruction on a mass scale, the deeply thought our ripostes I have had from GSW, Craig, and now you, is that be default I must be a communist. Then you all wander off into monologues about the evils of communism, and how much better off we are to be living in the current system.

    Yup, this is the level of debate I encounter on Deltoid. To says it is basal is a understatement. When I bring up the aspect of steady-state economics and economic systems that are accountable for their actions, as well as the important component of regulation in limiting excessive profits and wealth concentration, its back to the communist/Marxist jibes. You are just the latest.

    As fort that interview on Sky News, Murdoch’s channel, with the reformed jihadist, it was comedy gold. The kind of puerile journalism that dumbs down the masses and propagandizes them into believing that the world is simply down to ‘we are the good guys’ and ‘they are the bad guys’. The reasons why young people become disaffected with the way the world is heading and are increasingly driven towards what we perceive as radicalism are rarely aired. Hence why I could take apart that interviewer in 5 minutes.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 10, 2016

    One reason for the “radicalisation” of the youth is the inability of the current generation of old white guys who espouse conservatism and libertarian ideologies without the slightest idea what they’re talking about (they’ve merely been programmed with this information, not understanding of it) have thrown out all attempt to realise a polyglot of ideas.

    IOW Shrub’s doctrine of “You’re either with us or against us”.

    When ANY disagreement is immediately harped on as the extreme caricature of whatever diseased imagination of the old fart who hates to be wrong, doubly so when they are, why the hell bother to meet in a compromise?

  17. #17 Lionel A
    March 10, 2016

    The problem with arguing with Stu & co. is that they have the gall to accuse us of losing the plot or missing the point whilst never having understood the plot and the points raised by it in the first instance.

    Instead of engaging with the material at sources which Jeff, Wow and myself cite in order to fill in their lack of knowledge and understanding they come back with these accusations. All this whilst accusing us of throwing out insults and personal attacks which accusation betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of such.

    If a person comes across as an ignoramus from showing ignorance on a topic then stating that fact is not an insult.

    It is that old continuum:

    data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom

    where Stu & co. are still stuck in the early stages of knowledge. Why? Because information is a tricky stage where ones cognitive framework can be skewed by propaganda (bad information). It is also the stage where,because of the propaganda, cognitive dissonance can arise by valid information being overcome by lies because the lies fit that cognitive framework with less discomfort.

    Poor, or restricted, education can lay the foundations for such as we see with Mary Lou Bruner and Lamar Smith. Also, how else can we explain the Trump phenomenon?

  18. #18 Lionel A
    March 10, 2016

    Oh dear, it turns out even OA has been overblown,

    Wrote GSW at #24 page 2.

    Scientist Accuses The Times Newspaper of “Cherry Picking” on Ocean Acidification Story.

    Gitterbug struck a bum note again.

  19. #19 Stu 2
    March 10, 2016

    Jeff Harvey.
    I can only try to reword what I said at @#11.
    You are claiming that people here support what you call ‘predatory capitalism’ and thereby via some wild stretch of logic that also means they don’t care about the environment.
    You also apparently failed to comprehend the very simple message from that ‘reformed jihadist’ or my reasons for posting that interview, despite your amazing education?
    Along with Craig I questioned your penchant for directing people to sites that preach violence, revolution and the dismantling of modern governance systems. The questions and discussion were about the alternatives, they weren’t about you or accusing you personally of being a communist or a socialist or whatever.
    I also now seriously question your interpretation of ‘mainstream’.
    It appears that you think ‘mainstream’ science is not the same as the other ‘mainstream’ stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?
    Maybe or maybe not?
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4422975.htm
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/10/study-finds-researchers-britain-and-australia-skip-truth-get-research-grants
    As I commented upthread, I suggest you could be a little more careful about what you’re wishing for, as you might just get it?

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2016

    Stu2, you exasperate me with your very, very shallow comments. I am amazed that you are able to get dressed in the morning and feed yourself.

    To bury your arguments: mainstream science is independent because it is primarily government funded. There are no penalties for coming to conclusions that support both the public and private sectors.

    The mainstream media is primarily owned by a few large for-profit corporations that are pursuing agendas that aim at maximizing the bottom line. If you had read one page of the classic text, “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, you’d realize right away the massive difference between publicly and privately funded media. ver hear of the propaganda model? I thought not. Herman and Chomsky define it as, “The mainstream media inculcates and supports the social, economic and political agendas of the rich and privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state”. They then go on to define the 5 main tenets of the model, and provide volumes of evidence to support it. Later works along the same line reinforce the model. Try reading a few of these some time. You may finally learn something.

    As for my ‘penchant’, that amounts to N = 1. And I admire Derrick Jensen whether you like it or not, because he clearly sees the abyss towards which we are heading based on the bankrupt nature of the current dominant political and economic system of predatory capitalism and free market absolutism. I also am a great supporter of Chris Hedges, who advocates non-violent resistance. Either way, the current system needs to be taken down. If we don’t, we are committed to a long, slow road to catastrophe.

    The problem with debating people like you is that we are debating on very different intellectual levels. My partner tells me this all the time, and she says that it must be very frustrating responding to people with a layman’s view of the world but who nevertheless think that they are informed.

    She is right.

  21. #21 Wow
    March 11, 2016

    “You are claiming that people here support what you call ‘predatory capitalism’ ”

    And yes.

    “and thereby via some wild stretch of logic that also means they don’t care about the environment.”

    And how do you get that “thereby”? That is YOUR manufacture.

    “Along with Craig I questioned your penchant for directing people to sites that preach violence”

    Which doesn’t exist. That’s another of your manufactures.

    Look up “poisoning the well”.

    “The questions and discussion were about the alternatives”

    Nope, they were about something else.

    What YOU and the other retards were doing was asserting that there was only communism as an alternative and that everyone who complained about capitalism’s failure must want communism.

    You know, more manufacture of your own ego.

    “they weren’t about you or accusing you personally of being a communist or a socialist or whatever.”

    Yes they were. Were you not reading your own drivel, or are you just lying and don’t care?

    “I also now seriously question your interpretation of ‘mainstream’.”

    Do so. If it’s like any of your other questions, it’ll be based on what you think you can argue rather than what was actually there.

    “It appears that you think ‘mainstream’ science is not the same as the other ‘mainstream’ stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?”

    Yup, called it.

    “study-finds-researchers-britain-and-australia-skip-truth-get-research-grants”

    So did this study skip truth to get research grants?

    And given that UK, Aus, Can, USA all had or have regimes that quash any investigation or talk about AGW, mitigation or problems and have cut off science funding and instituted government press channels that are required to be used or face disciplinary action, it would be rather odd that AGW be lied about in its favour rather than the much more lucrative lying about it’s nonexistence.

  22. #22 Wow
    March 11, 2016

    Mainstream science != Mainstream media

    because

    Mainstream = Mainstream

    but

    science != media

    It’s really rather odd that you should be so dense on the subject. Nah, I totally know why.

  23. #23 Stu 2
    March 12, 2016

    Jeff.
    Juxtapose your second paragraph with your last sentence in paragraph 4.
    I still suggest you could be a little more careful about what you wish for.
    Wow.
    Mainstream is Mainstream.
    According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it’s funded by govt yet govt needs to be dismantled because it’s beholden to mainstream??????

  24. #24 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2016

    Stu2, sometimes even I am shocked by your level of stupidity. You really are a simple guy with a very simple view of the world. Well done.

    Mainstream science does not support an agenda. It seeks to determine the truth, as elusive as that often is, when testing hypothesis and conducting experiments. Results can go in any number of directions.

    The corporate owned mainstream media, by complete contrast, has a very clear agenda. Profit maximization. I explained the propaganda model above, which is the last nail in the coffin. The profit motive means that the corporate media will twist, distort, lie and manipulate facts in order to bolster the interests of corporate advertisers or owners of the media outlets. They do this in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The ultimate aim is to manufacture consent, as the book title by Herman and Chomsky says, a term originally coined by PR guru Walter Lippmann. This means the manufacturing of consent amongst the public for policies that certainly do not benefit the vast majority of people but for a tiny number of very wealthy members of the ruling and corporate elites.

    I won’t spend any more time on this because your head is apparently made of brick and does not allow for the entry of new information that shatters your myopic world view. Read a little bit and learn something and stop making stupid comments suggesting that government funded science and the privately controlled media are on the same page.

    They aren’t, and it isn’t even close.

  25. #25 Wow
    March 12, 2016

    “Mainstream is Mainstream.
    According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it’s funded by govt ”

    According to YOU you mean. Jeff never said that or anything like that. YOU made that up and just ascribed it to Jeff because you MUST attack him but reality doesn’t give you anything to do that with.

    And you missed out

    science != media.

    2a!=2b

    does NOT indicate that they are different 2s.

    Even eleven year olds get it.

  26. #26 Stu 2
    March 13, 2016

    Here you go…I’ve copy pasted the comments for you.

    Mainstream science does not support an agenda.
    Mainstream science is independent because it is primarily government funded.
    “The mainstream media inculcates and supports the social, economic and political agendas of the rich and privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state”.
    Either way, the current system needs to be taken down. If we don’t, we are committed to a long, slow road to catastrophe.

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2016

    Thanks for copy-pasting my comments for me Stu2, although it shows how utterly bored you must be to do that. I promise you I won’t do it with any of your ridiculously simple comments.

    I do not understand the reason you did it, either. It is not like anything said in the copy-paste is wrong. You should read ‘Trust Us: We’re Experts’ by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Its an expose of the public relations industries and the corporations that employ them. It illustrates, in part, the gulf between privately funded science and publicly funded science. In particular, as Edward Herman also showed in some of his work, its shows that scientific results of studies carried out by corporations on their own products are almost always favorable, or produce a positive outcome, whereas studies carried out by government-funded labs such as universities are much more critical. So whose science is more truthful and rigidly performed? I thin the answer to that question is obvious – or should be.

    If you think that the corporate-state mainstream media is a reliable source of truthful information, then I think that you are seriously in need of medical attention. Once again, that wafer-thin Sky interview is manna from heaven for those criticizing objectivity and balance in mainstream media. As I said, the idea that ‘our’ policies are extreme, violent, and selfish, and they drive young people to become radicalized, is never mentioned. The Sky interviewer, to be fair, looked as dumb as a sack of potatoes. I am sure were I to challenge him on the myths of the basic benevolence of the industrialized nations, I would get a blank stare. One does not make it to become a journalist or a presenter/interviewer in the corporate-state media if their views conflict with the underlying myths that are perpetrated endlessly about out inherent goodness, and belief in freedom and democracy and human rights, which, if the truth were told, is utter bullshit.

    Noam Chomsky was once interviewed by political correspondent Andrew Marr of the BBC. Marr, a fervent supporter of Tony Blair and a defender of the Iraq War, asked Chomsky of he thought that he was self-censoring or if he didn’t believe what he wrote and said. Chomsky, in his inimitable style, said to Marr, “I am not saying that you are self-censoring or that you don’t believe what you say. What I am saying is that if your believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you are”. Jonathan Cook, another journalist who is highly critical of Israel’s abhorrent treatment of Palestinians and who is now independent, said the same thing. His career in journalism and rise in the mainstream media was quickly cut off when he started challenging the basic assumptions of western benevolence I discussed above. Our media stinks. Its a simple as that. The propaganda model, which you so kindly repeated above, is undeniable.

    What threatens your little myopic world, Stu2, is when you are confronted with and challenged by new information. You’ve rarely if ever read any media critiques, and your posts reek of establishment bias. You are unable to think outside of the box that you have constructed for yourself. As a result, any notion that the arguments presented in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ may be true is clearly something your mind cannot ponder.

    Its this reason that I might as well be debating a brick wall. You just don’t know much about the field.

  28. #28 Wow
    March 13, 2016

    “Here you go…I’ve copy pasted the comments for you.”

    So which of them supports your claim (and which of them):

    “According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it’s funded by govt yet govt needs to be dismantled because it’s beholden to mainstream”

    “It appears that you think ‘mainstream’ science is not the same as the other ‘mainstream’ stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?”

    Which one and why are the words you’re gong to use to “justify” that decision nowhere in the text you quoted?

  29. #29 Stu 2
    March 13, 2016

    Jeff Harvey.
    “What threatens your little myopic world, Stu2, is when you are confronted with and challenged by new information. You’ve rarely if ever read any media critiques, and your posts reek of establishment bias. You are unable to think outside of the box that you have constructed for yourself. As a result, any notion that the arguments presented in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ may be true is clearly something your mind cannot ponder. ”

    Says the bloke who lives and works in the holier than thou, publish or perish world of academia and who preached ‘mainstream’ science but ‘underground’ just about everything else you can possibly think of.
    🙂
    🙂
    LOL!

  30. #30 Wow
    March 13, 2016

    What did you think when you fabricated that load of gobshite, stupid?

  31. #31 Lionel A
    March 14, 2016

    These idiots cannot resist that LOL can they. Maybe we should identify them as Lollers.

  32. #32 Wow
    March 17, 2016

    ~lol~ <— a denier drowning in their own bullshit.

    And still insists it's a leftwing conspiracy. because they miss the "reds under the bed" scares.

  33. #33 Stu
    March 17, 2016

    As far as “predatory capitalism” and “red scare” goes… ask the good people of Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia (oh, and East Timor), South Korea, Spain, Haiti, Cuba, Iceland, Colombia, and dozens of others.

    Better yet, read this, then come back
    http://www.amazon.com/Family-Jeff-Sharlet-ebook/dp/B000SFZK3Y/

    (And if you wonder why liberals hate Hilary, note that she’s in a prayer cell with Sam Brownback. She’s bought and paid for, like Obama.)

  34. #34 Rednose
    March 18, 2016

    Lol
    You should follow that one by Sharlet, professor of creative non fiction, with the emphasis on creative, by reading something by Dan Brown or Eric Von Daniken perhaps.

  35. #35 Wow
    March 19, 2016

    Ask Iraq, Syria, Honduras, Somalia, Niger, Cameroon (hell, all bar three of the African states), Venezuela, Cuba, Grenada, Iran (remember, Western Captialism overthrew the democratic leader for a puppet and the Ayotollah’s resulted from the reaction to THAT), Saidi Arabia, China (their problems are their increasing capitalism,the smogs were never as bad under communism), Vietnam, Antigua, Dominican Republic about how capitalism keeps trying to kill democracy and self rule.

    Hell, ask the 27% of USians below or dangerously close to the poverty line how well capitalism has worked and how they don’t feel predated on…

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.