Organized Hatred

[ratbastage]

Organized Hatred

The phrase organized hatred is scary and it should be. Not because of the holocaust or anything specific but because of everything that can be associated with it. And aren't we slightly overdue to show we've learned a little something from our mistakes?

It would be accurate to say that most people love their countries, right? We all know they're plugged up like leaky dams, but if it came down to defending our country there would be a lot more people standing their ground than giving it up. Regardless of where we live. Because we've all been nationalized.

That's not to say nationalism started out as an insidious idea. Different cultures spoke different languauges and each one boasted accomplishments that made us proud. Part of this got ingrained into our identity and showed itself to us as good because it helped us love each other. But what we saw was only the mask. Things soon got out of control.

Skipping over empires because they were all so blunt, we developed Crusades so we could impose our God's will on one another in the name of our king. Or sultan. This led to animosity between religions fighting over the same sacred ground and aggravated relations between Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years. In fact, negative impacts are still being felt today. Mistrust and animosity are everywhere.

Fighting for god and king then got upgraded to colonial expansion in the name of purifying heathens and annexing natural resources around the world. We built navies and amassed armies to protect these expanding kingdoms. We also advanced diseases in the process, devastating some populations by chance and others intentionally - here, borthers, take these blankets if you're cold, and nevermind the fact we only gave them to you because we knew they were infected with small pox. Cheers!

This devolved into acute nationalism, which featured ative espionage and intricate intrigues among the royal members of each monarchy's court as everyone entitled to hold power sought to expand their personal influence. Families like the Hapsburgs had cousins marry cousins to maintain power. The

specifics of these activities usually weren't known to the general public, but there were always rumors. This created an overall atmosphere of discontent and led to many revolutons in both established countries and their oppressed colonies.

A hundred years later, in China, there was the Period of Warlords, a perfect microcosm for what was going on around the world as nations began to use mass media to convince their peoples to fight wars for noble causes when in reality they were more likely to be seving the narrow needs of those who held personal power or could live with building huge fortunes on war profiteering.

The Cold War was a propaganda bonanza waged by two superpowers, which is merely a polite way of saying empires, and now there's only one.

So here we are, a few thousand years later, playing the same silly baby games. Probably because we allow ourselves to be chopped up into more consumable bits by the nations we love but who rarely seem to return the favor.

What do you think we should do about that?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

Organized Hatred

The phrase organized hatred is scary and it should be. Not because of the holocaust or anything specific but because of everything that can be associated with it. And aren't we slightly overdue to show we've learned a little something from our mistakes?

It would be accurate to say that most people love their countries, right? We all know they're plugged up like leaky dams, but if it came down to defending our country there would be a lot more people standing their ground than giving it up. Regardless of where we live. Because we've all been nationalized.

That's not to say nationalism started out as an insidious idea. Different cultures spoke different languauges and each one boasted accomplishments that made us proud. Part of this got ingrained into our identity and showed itself to us as good because it helped us love each other. But what we saw was only the mask. Things soon got out of control.

Skipping over empires because they were all so blunt, we developed Crusades so we could impose our God's will on one another in the name of our king. Or sultan. This led to animosity between religions fighting over the same sacred ground and aggravated relations between Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years. In fact, negative impacts are still being felt today. Mistrust and animosity are everywhere.

Fighting for god and king then got upgraded to colonial expansion in the name of purifying heathens and annexing natural resources around the world. We built navies and amassed armies to protect these expanding kingdoms. We also advanced diseases in the process, devastating some populations by chance and others intentionally - here, borthers, take these blankets if you're cold, and nevermind the fact we only gave them to you because we knew they were infected with small pox. Cheers!

This devolved into acute nationalism, which featured ative espionage and intricate intrigues among the royal members of each monarchy's court as everyone entitled to hold power sought to expand their personal influence. Families like the Hapsburgs had cousins marry cousins to maintain power. The

specifics of these activities usually weren't known to the general public, but there were always rumors. This created an overall atmosphere of discontent and led to many revolutons in both established countries and their oppressed colonies.

A hundred years later, in China, there was the Period of Warlords, a perfect microcosm for what was going on around the world as nations began to use mass media to convince their peoples to fight wars for noble causes when in reality they were more likely to be seving the narrow needs of those who held personal power or could live with building huge fortunes on war profiteering.

The Cold War was a propaganda bonanza waged by two superpowers, which is merely a polite way of saying empires, and now there's only one.

So here we are, a few thousand years later, playing the same silly baby games. Probably because we allow ourselves to be chopped up into more consumable bits by the nations we love but who rarely seem to return the favor.

What do you think we should do about that?

The asian nations Japan and China do pretty good with nationalism or racism economically speaking. They sure are eating our lunch.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

What do you think we should do about that?

Global socialism?
Just a stab in the dark...

[ratbastage]

Originally Posted by 7960

Global socialism?
Just a stab in the dark...

Socialism is an old idea. We need new ones. And the media would prefer to discuss none of them.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

Socialism is an old idea. We need new ones. And the media would prefer to discuss none of them.

Blame the media ........

[ratbastage]

Originally Posted by 7960

Blame the media ........

Always a sly comment, here and elsewhere. And I know how badly information is censored in this country - the frickin' Nazis would be proud of the propaganda machine we've built in their image.

Freedom of speech exists for everyone, at least if they're willing to toe the line and promote the status quo. Otherwise, only the dimwitted extremists get publicity, mostly because they make the conservative positions look so much better by comparison.

Now, if you roll your condescending eyes at me one more time, I'll have to ignore you. No skin off my teeth with that option.

Ciao.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

Always a sly comment, here and elsewhere. And I know how badly information is censored in this country - the frickin' Nazis...........

Now, if you roll your condescending eyes at me one more time, I'll have to ignore you. No skin off my teeth with that option.

Ciao.

read the usertext

[Simius]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

Always a sly comment, here and elsewhere. And I know how badly information is censored in this country - the frickin' Nazis would be proud of the propaganda machine we've built in their image.

Freedom of speech exists for everyone, at least if they're willing to toe the line and promote the status quo. Otherwise, only the dimwitted extremists get publicity, mostly because they make the conservative positions look so much better by comparison.

Now, if you roll your condescending eyes at me one more time, I'll have to ignore you. No skin off my teeth with that option.

Ciao.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I can call Bush a nazi or say he is the next coming of Christ. I can rail on about the Iraq war or shout from my window "support the troops!" I can call blacks thieves or talk about how racism destroys our society. I am perfectly free to do any of those things and I have absolutely no fear of the government putting a stop to it. None. That is freedom of speech.

You are saying moderate dissenters don't have the freedom of speech that government supports have simply because the media uses THEIR freedom of speech in a way you dislike. I call bullshit on that. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about what freedom of speech entails. If you really want the media to focus less on dimwitted extremists and those who toe the party line, you are free to start up your own media outlet to do just that. Be it through a blog, buying a radio company or moving into TV. Nobody is stopping you, especially not the government.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Simius

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I can call Bush a nazi or say he is the next coming of Christ. I can rail on about the Iraq war or shout from my window "support the troops!" I can call blacks thieves or talk about how racism destroys our society. I am perfectly free to do any of those things and I have absolutely no fear of the government putting a stop to it. None. That is freedom of speech.

You are saying moderate dissenters don't have the freedom of speech that government supports have simply because the media uses THEIR freedom of speech in a way you dislike. I call bullshit on that. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about what freedom of speech entails. If you really want the media to focus less on dimwitted extremists and those who toe the party line, you are free to start up your own media outlet to do just that. Be it through a blog, buying a radio company or moving into TV. Nobody is stopping you, especially not the government.

excellent post.

too often people think freedom of speech means that others *MUST* listen to them. no, it means THE GOVT can't keep you from saying what you want to say. it does not mean anyone has to listen.

[ratbastage]

Originally Posted by Simius

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I can call Bush a nazi or say he is the next coming of Christ. I can rail on about the Iraq war or shout from my window "support the troops!" I can call blacks thieves or talk about how racism destroys our society. I am perfectly free to do any of those things and I have absolutely no fear of the government putting a stop to it. None. That is freedom of speech.

You are saying moderate dissenters don't have the freedom of speech that government supports have simply because the media uses THEIR freedom of speech in a way you dislike. I call bullshit on that. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about what freedom of speech entails. If you really want the media to focus less on dimwitted extremists and those who toe the party line, you are free to start up your own media outlet to do just that. Be it through a blog, buying a radio company or moving into TV. Nobody is stopping you, especially not the government.

The media uses their freedom of speech to promote mostly non-issues. Do we really need to know so much about celebrities? Is it really necessary to give ten local minutes to weather and ten to sports when a fair share of the ten minutes of 'news' goes to promoting products under the guise of actual journalism? Must people be shown train wrecks every day just so they'll feel better about the piddly lives they're being allowed to have under the guise of veiled slavery?

Life for most people in America is the same as it was a hundred years ago when we were working for the company store. The difference being that now the compan(ies) control the messages and would apparently prefer to keep people distracted with minutia rather than address anything of substance or value.

Oh, and I'm free to start up my own media company? Really? I did that at the end of 2006. Sold my house and everything. And the media would not let me advertise on cable television. Especially not on The Daily Show, where I could have reached a few thousand like minded people who are sick of all this propaganda.

And before you ask how or why I was shunned, my advertising agent told me the cable companies did not approve of the content of my website, which at the time of their disapproval only contained the first 5 or 10 chapters of a book.

I know censorship firsthand. Corporate America is full of... (Sorry, we interrupt this broadcast to bring you these special messages from our sponsors).

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

The media uses their freedom of speech to promote mostly non-issues. Do we really need to know so much about celebrities?

because it sells advertising and people tune in to listen.

Life for most people in America is the same as it was a hundred years ago when we were working for the company store. The difference being that now the compan(ies) control the messages and would apparently prefer to keep people distracted with minutia rather than address anything of substance or value.

the formula for the news is based on what sells advertising. *WE* tell them how to run their program. They don't tell us.

Oh, and I'm free to start up my own media company? Really? I did that at the end of 2006. Sold my house and everything. And the media would not let me advertise on cable television. Especially not on The Daily Show, where I could have reached a few thousand like minded people who are sick of all this propaganda.

And before you ask how or why I was shunned, my advertising agent told me the cable companies did not approve of the content of my website, which at the time of their disapproval only contained the first 5 or 10 chapters of a book.

I know censorship firsthand.

Nothing you said constitutes censorship.

[ratbastage]

Originally Posted by 7960

because it sells advertising and people tune in to listen.

the formula for the news is based on what sells advertising. *WE* tell them how to run their program. They don't tell us.

Nothing you said constitutes censorship.

You say advertising is responsible for making programming profitable and that WE tell them how to run their ad campaigns.

Really? And how much money did you make last year advising advertisers about their content? Hell, how many times were you asked what you thought?

The point is that advertisers don't want to know what we think, they want to know what we'll buy and how much we'll pay in the process. Which is practically the definition of exploitation and gives us all of the self-determination as a school of fish. And the larger issue is that people without voices in society have little to no chance to build confidence and esteem. It's part of the explanation for why hatred is so rampant.

Also, I don't know how many Europeans you know, but I've met quite a few, and most of them are amazed at how condescending our advertisements tend to be. How does that help anyone except the people who earn five to six figures for treating people like we're stupid?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 7960

Nothing you said constitutes censorship.

So true.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

Hell, how many times were you asked what you thought?

every time I went shopping and chose one product over another.

The point is that advertisers don't want to know what we think, they want to know what we'll buy and how much we'll pay in the process. Which is practically the definition of exploitation....

You can't be exploited without your permission and/or assistance.

And the larger issue is that people without voices in society have little to no chance to build confidence and esteem. It's part of the explanation for why hatred is so rampant.

What? *IF* hatred is rampant then it is because of IGNORANCE. I don't give a shit about your confidence or esteem, that's YOUR worry. If you have hate because of those then, well, go see my "ignorance" comment.

Also, I don't know how many Europeans you know, but I've met quite a few, and most of them are amazed at how condescending our advertisements tend to be. How does that help anyone except the people who earn five to six figures for treating people like we're stupid?

you're comparing our advertising to europe's? A few years ago I spent months/year in europe. I've watched plenty of their advertising. Theirs is exactly the same as ours except they show tits and swear and we can't.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

I know censorship firsthand. Corporate America is full of... (Sorry, we interrupt this broadcast to bring you these special messages from our sponsors).

You are complaining about a network or company not wanting to put your material on their stations.

The 1st involves govt. If the govt said "no you can't do this" then you are correct. If the govt says "No you can't do it Viacom" then you are correct.

If Viacom says they are not putting it on because they don't like it, that is their choice. If they disagree with your agenda that is their right. You can be certain that Viacom would be the first to say "WTF Govt no" if the govt tried to put their thumb on it even if they company and government were on the same page. Reason being is that it establishes precedence...not to mention violating the 1st.

[ratbastage]

There was part of a book, not an agenda, and controlling who gets access to information is a form of censorship. Corporate approved? Move along. Not corporate approved? Stuck in place.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

There was part of a book, not an agenda, and controlling who gets access to information is a form of censorship. Corporate approved? Move along. Not corporate approved? Stuck in place.

Then just start your own corporation and approve it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ratbastage

There was part of a book, not an agenda, and controlling who gets access to information is a form of censorship. Corporate approved? Move along. Not corporate approved? Stuck in place.

did you ever think that maybe the book just sucked?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

read the usertext

spelling, unless thats some deep level of sarcasm

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

spelling, unless thats some deep level of sarcasm

It used to say "ignore list is for pussies."