[LINK] the myth of government censorship

[Deus Ex Machina]

Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:

> [supernatural prescience extricated]

> > to really hit the nail on the head, chomsky was not a systems thinker.
> > chomsky is so busy analysing the trees that he never looks at the forest.
> > systems thinking teaches you that the structure of the system as a whole
> > creates certain patterns of outcomes that are manifest by the individual
> > parts relationship to the whole.
> 
> you've obviously either never read chomsky or failed to understand him if you
> have.  systemic problems in global capitalism, electronic and print media, and
> american power are central to his arguments.  it is the right-wing apologists
> who try to dismiss "problems" (ranging from local issues such as corruption,
> censorship & propaganda, and overly "enthusiastic" police, to global issues
> such as terrorism, support of and arms sales to dictators, and worse) as merely
> individual aberrations, while chomsky is pointing out that it is the structure
> of the political and economic systems that are responsible.  these problems are
> not aberrations, they are inherent to the systems.

chomsky is an anarchist, while I can sympathise he offers
no solutions beyond criticism. but dont get me wrong the critic plays a very
important role in society, by a the very least keeping the bastards honest. however
chomsky then eroenously concludes that structure is inherently evil. he is wrong.

chomsky fails to grasp the relativity of all positions.

I have been detained by your overly "enthusiastic police" for participating in a peaceful
protest and while cooling my heels in the back of a police wagon for hours, there wasnt
much to do but listen to them talk.

these guys thought they were doing the right thing. in their world view they are
doing the right thing.


> > chomsky says this is "internalising values", he is wrong. what it means is
> > while you are at uni, without responsiblity you can be free to adopt wild
> > eyed ideologies. and that is the key, different positions in society carry
> > different responsiblities.  chomsky adopts an idealistic position without
> > responsiblity.
> > 
> > running a business has been a challenge and has caused my views to mature.
> > you can not run a business without strict attention to customer service, you
> > can not run a business without looking after your staff, and you can not run
> > a business without providing a return to shareholders. and doing all threee
> > successfully is a delicate and difficult balancing act.
> 
> ironically, here you are providing yourself as a perfect example of how the
> system enforces conformity, acceptance and support of the status quo, and you
> don't even realise it.
> 
> you don't need to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to conform, you
> just have to make it very difficult to not conform - the subject's own guilty
> conscience will provide their own rationalisation to justify themselves selling
> out.

can you tell exactly who is behind the drive to make people conform? and conform to what?

Vic