Friday, 20 July 2018

Oh dear, Jonathan Pie ...

Oh dear, Jonathan Pie revealing himself as merely a tool of western propaganda - parroting all the lies of our media about Russia and Putin.

Pie apparently has faith in our intelligence services and press - the very institutions who lie to us industri
ally about Iraq, Libya, Syria, Israel, Venezuela, ... (the list is endless).

Until you gain some real knowledge, Pie, your 'anger', whilst mildly amusing, is just an affectation, simply your *shtick*, not based on any substance.

Sunday, 17 June 2018

Why are people so ignorant and stupid?


A friend of mine (David) has penned some speculations on how future generations will view us.

Here are some of the questions that he suggests will strike them about us.

'How could you have been so unfeeling towards people with mental disorders?', 'How could you have been so blind to the barbarity of the meat industry?' (I've paraphrased that one.), 'How could you have been so indifferent to the financially insecure?'

I have cited just a tiny sample of the issues David raised because it's not tenable to discuss more than one or two questions at a time.

Firstly, there is a thematic question that underlies all the questions (not just the tiny sample I've cited) that he raises.

That question (in the minds of future generations about us) is, How could we (today) be so ignorant and foolish with regard our natural (ecosphere) and social environments?

I think that's quite an easy question to answer because ignorance and stupidity are simply a question of one's sources of (dis)information, which reveals the source of the problem, because most people get their info from the mainstream media, e.g. BBC.

Indifference to the poor is something that is promoted by our media. The propaganda is persistently pushed that rich people are rich, and poor people poor, because that is the consequence of living in a meritocracy. That is: the *lie* is persistently promoted that we live in a *meritocracy*.

The meat industry is a good question but, again, it comes back to the media. If there were more documentaries (or dramas or anything) based on the meat industry, that would quickly kill it. There are plenty of dramas set in workplaces, such as police departments, schools and hospitals. And these even boost recruitment to those areas of work because (young) viewers get a feel for day-to-day life there. But day-to-day life in the meat industry, e.g. abattoirs, is a horror show. That is why there is no such drama on tv, because that would kill recruitment. And that is also why there are hardly any documentaries about the meat industry - because that would kill consumption of the product.

So the underlying thematic question regarding people's lack of enlightenment is simply down to an overall rotten media.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson in conversation. Pure bullshit from both, stemming from narcissism.


I have always felt troubled by Rusell Brand for the years that I've known of him, and by Jordan Peterson for the months that I've known of him.

Brand: the problem to my mind is that his 'personal journey' is so central to his life that he loses the faculty of objectivity and can thus take seriously w*nkers, e.g. Ed Miliband, Jordan Peterson.

Peterson: is a pseudo-intellectual who simply provides fancy packaging for the far-right mantra that 'individual responsibility', not government policy, is what causes people to suffer.

Brand is all about the self, e.g. drugs, addiction, obsession, insecurity, meditation and concomitant 'new age' sh!t. And because, as a 'clinical psychologist', the subject of the 'self' is what Peterson also 'thinks' (masturbates) about, Brand takes him seriously.

Here they both are, w*nking each other off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2c45exQvw



Here's another clip. I haven't watched it but the title itself alludes to Peterson's fakeness:

'The problem with false celebrity'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuHjVvegRs8



No real intellectual would associate himself with such a stupid illogical title.


Celebrity is false in itself. There is no such thing as 'true' or 'genuine' celebrity.

Also, if you characterise something as 'false' in the first place, then there is no problem left to discuss because you have already identified it - falseness. The title should be 'What makes celebrity false'.

The title alludes to Peterson's narcissism and ego. He is himself a celebrity. But, although he is a pseudo intellectual, he nevertheless has sufficient intelligence to recognise that 'intellectual' and 'celebrity' don't really go together. But he likes being a celebrity. So he must find a way to square the circle. He does that by pretending that there are two kinds of celebrity, true and false (or good and bad). And then he can imply that he is a 'true' (good)celebrity, which is his strategy for avoiding discomfort about being a celebrity which, he knows, conflicts with being an intellectual.

Peterson is indeed a true celebrity (in my book), but a fake intellectual.

And that is the quality that he shares with Brand and why the two of them can hand-job each other - a couple of celebrities coming together to behave like intellectuals.

Monday, 26 June 2017

reply to Mark's facebook post


Mark,

You argue that it is unfair on those who don't go to university to pay for those who do.


Well, a favourite canard of the Right can be used in reverse: that's the "politics of envy".


But there is a far more serious problem with your logic, which is very monetarist, narrow-minded and misses the big picture. An obsessive focus on money always renders people incapable of looking at things holistically.

Firstly, you're making the false assumption that only the student benefits from his university education. That's absolutely wrong. The non-student also benefits from it. For example, the non-student benefits from the services provided by a large host of graduates - in medicine, teaching, social work, engineering, architecture, journalism, arts, ... . But conservatives and libertarians focus on the self, not society as a whole, because their ideology is individualism (' everything is about *me* ').

I'm in good health, so I don't really use the NHS at all. Other public services I hardly use include: the police (I've almost never been a victim of crime), the roads (I do very little driving), the rail network, the fire brigade, counsellors, legal aid, prisons, etc. By your logic, I should be bleating about paying taxes to support all those services for others, not myself.

But I don't bleat like that because I take the holistic view. All those services are needed for a civilised society. My taxes are the subscription I pay for membership of a club called 'civilised society'.

You keep bleating about "over-taxing", but that is simply another irrelevance (in addition to Dean Joel's irrelevant speculations about humans colonising other planets).
Over-taxing and colonising other planets are interesting theoretical discussions, but irrelevant because no one is even proposing either in the foreseeable future.

Labour are simply proposing to raise taxes to put us less out of step with others; and even with Labour's proposed increases, we will still be taxed less than most of our competitors.

Tories like to invoke the Laffer curve to support their argument about 'over-taxing'. But the Laffer curve actually supports Labour's proposals because it shows that revenue increases as you raise taxes. (According to Laffer, revenue is only damaged beyond a critical high tax rate, but Labour are not proposing to go anywhere near that region of the curve.)