Here's an amusing rant

[noahhs]

http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m65575&hd=&size=1&l=e

My favorite part is, "…it doesn't really matter what lie you feed them so long as it's the lie that puts them in a trance."The rest of the article is okay, if you're interested in policy and whatnot. Though I'm disappointed that nobody can articulate a political approach that is both ethical

Comments

[nothing2seehear]

i don't quite understand the logic behind your radicalism/chomsky statement.

[noahhs]

Basically, when I think of radicalism with a realistic assessment of geopolitics, nothing comes to mind except Chomsky. His views are very ethical and uncompromising, and thus very bludgeoning. But the kind of political change he calls for is very unrealistic. Anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism, what-have-you. It's too far out of reach to happen in a century, if ever.

So I have a hard time with Chomsky. I'd much rather have someone articlulate how to get "from here to there", as it were. And still confront existing politics realistically, as Chomsky does. That would require a thinker to be more accepting of, and less condemning toward, the way things are.

[nothing2seehear]

So you have no faith in revolutionary thinking? that's the same line we've been sold by the academy for so long...

i doubt the effectiveness of trying to use the system to correct it's own errors, especially when the people who would be doing so are in the same pocket as the big banks. a calm and rational approach to this issue while judging what is "realistically" possible will get you the same old shit you're complaining about to begin with.

i advocate terrorism.

[nothing2seehear]

thank you for explaining the chomsky line though. you should watch him get eaten alive by foucault sometime.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1634494870703391080#