Adolf Hitler wrote in his book "Mein Kampf":
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
Another interesting quote:
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate"
-Noam Chomsky
I didn't know this person before and the little reading done so far allows me to conclude that I don't agree much with Mr. Chomsky position on many things but still, I find this quote very relevant. As Thomas Woods jr said rightly: you are an extremist if your position is outside the thinking of Mitt Romney to Joe Biden. I found this quote fitting it well. Tom wrote this to this effect:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-great-american-political-spectrum-all-2-7-inches/
Nearly all Americans are capable of entertaining the idea of a cover up or a plot by private corporations
that might be taking advantage of them, but this same perspective is never applied to the government in general. Perhaps on a few "bad apple" elected officials, but they are viewed as isolated. A widespread group of elected officials, white house staff as well as some directors of the FDA, TSA or any other 3 letter acronyms conspiring together with perhaps a few corporation on some sort of spending plan or fake news that will benefit them all is usually rejected. That the FDA - who happens to have its directors coming from corporations they are supposed to regulate - might be working in favor of those corporations instead of the people would be another good example.
What is required for something like Hitler's or Chomsky's quote to be valid is a media that filters, directs and controls the popular opinion. If there was no media other than the Internet and it was a leveled playing field between say, all journalistic bloggers, such spectrum would be as wide as the number of opinions that could emerge from the population. For sure, there would still be biased views but they would be dealing with unbiased opinion without enjoying the current edge they have right now with the mainstream media. Just a very few corporations own nearly all major newspapers and television stations, how far is that from the USSR's controlled Pravda-like media? Not far, but I would say it's actually a major improvement for a government who wants to follow Chomsky's principle where it gives people "the sense that there's free thinking going on". Such government who would be in bed with such corporations to move further away from free market capitalism and closer to corporatism (a softer word for fascism).
I remember seeing an episode of Deep Space Nine called Past Tense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
The action happens in 2024 San Francisco where it looks more like a modern Nazi like fascist state. In the story, one of the key factor in helping a revolution that will liberate the oppressed is the Internet.
Although this episode wasn't one of their best, could they have been somewhat right in their vision, at least about the medium... What I'm afraid of is about the laundry list of laws that are being considered in Washington in regards to the Internet, one of the last place where a large spectrum of ideas can still roam free.
No comments:
Post a Comment