Thread: Century of the Self Documentary

By the way, I downloaded "The Century of the Self" by the BBC which was mentioned in another thread here. I watched one episode and I was gobsmacked!

In a matter-of -factedly manner they are pointing out all the hypocrisy and hype of the manipulation of of peoples perception of the world, backing it with factual evidence which I did not know existed.

That PR and propaganda are the same thing, that the USA is deliberately manipulating its public and doing mind-tricks with its own soldiers... They even had a huge program where they tried to "brainwash" normal citizens, just because they wanted to find out if it was possible; claiming that the USSR might be doing the same thing (which it was not).

They believed that they had to establish techniques to sway the masses so that they voted for the "right" candidates in election, making total shambles of the idea that the US is a democracy. It was almost too much to watch it, so shocked at the info in the film. The operation in Guatemala was an example that you simply cannot trust a word that the US says about other countries. They will make whatever claims they think are in the interests of the financial wellbeing of their multinational corporation.

The theme of the documentary was the connection between these policies and the work of Sigmund Freud and the psychotherapy community, largely some German psychologists who moved to the US in connection with the war.

And the fact that it was by the BBC hugely increases the credibility. BBC is rather meticulous about fact checking and checking sources, and politically it is not against the USA or trying to blackpaint it - they were just reporting facts.

Thanks to whoever recommended this documentary, can't find the post, but I just wanted to say that this is definitely worth watching and you won't feel the same about the world afterwards. I only watched one episode and I don't think I can handle another one for a while!

Downloading it now and will watch but will keep an eye out for left wing propaganda

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as usual.

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Downloading it now and will watch but will keep an eye out for left wing propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC"
as usual.Scott

ROFL -- BBC left wing? Are you kidding, Britain is the closest ally of the USA.. I'd say it's the other way around, although that particular documentary is an exception.
You should worry about all the right wing propaganda you are getting every time you turn on the TV in the USA instead.

Originally Posted by Hanna

ROFL -- BBC left wing? Are you kidding, Britain is the closest ally of the USA.. I'd say it's the other way around, although that particular documentary is an exception.
You should worry about all the right wing propaganda you are getting every time you turn on the TV in the USA instead.

Right wing propaganda from the left wing media? Now that's funny. You really don't know American tv if your saying the media here (USA) is right wing.

Scott

I remember perfectly well when BBC was talking about what a massive threat Iraq was to Britain, and how Britain had to go to war with the US in Iraq. Not only was that a lie but it was also right wing or right in line with the US right wing agenda. Most people in Britain was well aware they were bullshitting, but there was not much anyone could do after Tony Blair and co had made up their minds.
People tend to trust the BBC but every now and then they make terrible misjudgements.

Originally Posted by fortheether

Right wing propaganda from the left wing media? Now that's funny. You really don't know American tv if your saying the media here (USA) is right wing.

Scott

fortheether - I disagree with you. There's a whole, whole lot of right-wing media in the US. And what passes for "left-wing" is largely an attempt by private right-wing bodies, funds and organizations to undermine the current, standing left-wing government. Of course, it might be considerable, that I live in a "red" state, a right-wing, republican/libertarian mecca, if you will, home of such giants of right-wing stoneheadedness as Arpaio, and Jans both Brewer and Napolitano. (NJ: red or blue? IHDK) .....From my view, there's so much right-wingedness, that the only political thought that gets into the view of the public that is NOT right, be it simple news-media or what-not, is that false-flag left-wing malarky that has been so finely crafted since Obama took office, purely to sap the foundation of any left movements before they can establish. (Asking a TP-er for advice on what our country should do is like asking Rage Against the Machine what our country should do: "I don't know man, but I know what they SHOULDN'T do!")

And I do worry about all the right-wing propaganda I get when I turn on the TV. (Part of why i threw my TV out.) I seriously doubt Osama Bin Laden was killed, by us, if he ever existed. In a democratic presidency term, with several wars on and the upper hand ("reportedly") in the middle east situation, why would we care about Bin Laden dying? More importantly, WHO would care? The right-wing bodies that initiated the 'war on turban' in the first place, thereby protecting both their own reputations (increasingly less an issue as people begin to lose the ability to do as hanna says and self-document [remember the old prole in 1984, who couldn't remember what it was like before? case-in-point] ) as well as, and most importantly, their chances to retake control of the country at the next election. What better way to secure the chance of republican redomination then to send back news to the homeland of our "boys," happy as hunters holding dead ducks, saying they "got 'er done"?

Most importantly, in the country that's the home of the phrase "Question authority," why do we (USA) accept what we're told as true without verification? Right and left are just two clever reflections from the same mirror. They're bullies who've been turned against each other, Hatfields and McCoys. And their real purpose is to push against each other, and minimize chance that any effective intellectual property ever make it past them. You would think with all the great minds that have come and gone in this country, someone would've picked up on that.. but, promise someone a tax shelter and my, look at them run..

The fact that there are people who think like KidKBloom means there is still plenty of hope for the USA
Any country in the world can change, as has happened for example in Russia and other places in Europe.
I really want to like the USA as a country and I have always enjoyed the company of American people who are usually fun and positive people.
It's ONLY the foreign policy that I have an issue with: Wars and manipulation of countries outside it's own area - on other continents.
How the USA is run, is not my problem - it can be as right wing as the people there want, as long as it keeps it within it's own borders.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

fortheether - I disagree with you. There's a whole, whole lot of right-wing media in the US. And what passes for "left-wing" is largely an attempt by private right-wing bodies, funds and organizations to undermine the current, standing left-wing government. Of course, it might be considerable, that I live in a "red" state, a right-wing, republican/libertarian mecca, if you will, home of such giants of right-wing stoneheadedness as Arpaio, and Jans both Brewer and Napolitano. (NJ: red or blue? IHDK) .....From my view, there's so much right-wingedness, that the only political thought that gets into the view of the public that is NOT right, be it simple news-media or what-not, is that false-flag left-wing malarky that has been so finely crafted since Obama took office, purely to sap the foundation of any left movements before they can establish. (Asking a TP-er for advice on what our country should do is like asking Rage Against the Machine what our country should do: "I don't know man, but I know what they SHOULDN'T do!")

And I do worry about all the right-wing propaganda I get when I turn on the TV. (Part of why i threw my TV out.) I seriously doubt Osama Bin Laden was killed, by us, if he ever existed. In a democratic presidency term, with several wars on and the upper hand ("reportedly") in the middle east situation, why would we care about Bin Laden dying? More importantly, WHO would care? The right-wing bodies that initiated the 'war on turban' in the first place, thereby protecting both their own reputations (increasingly less an issue as people begin to lose the ability to do as hanna says and self-document [remember the old prole in 1984, who couldn't remember what it was like before? case-in-point] ) as well as, and most importantly, their chances to retake control of the country at the next election. What better way to secure the chance of republican redomination then to send back news to the homeland of our "boys," happy as hunters holding dead ducks, saying they "got 'er done"?

Most importantly, in the country that's the home of the phrase "Question authority," why do we (USA) accept what we're told as true without verification? Right and left are just two clever reflections from the same mirror. They're bullies who've been turned against each other, Hatfields and McCoys. And their real purpose is to push against each other, and minimize chance that any effective intellectual property ever make it past them. You would think with all the great minds that have come and gone in this country, someone would've picked up on that.. but, promise someone a tax shelter and my, look at them run..

Do you mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post are right wing? Can you give me examples of all the right media in the USA (except for Fox of course) you mentioned?

NJ is very liberal. I think the state motto should be "NJ, why am I still here?"

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Right and left are just two clever reflections from the same mirror. They're bullies who've been turned against each other, Hatfields and McCoys. And their real purpose is to push against each other, and minimize chance that any effective intellectual property ever make it past them.

I think you're too harsh on them. Have a look at the other countries. Do you think the two-party system is worst of them all?

Originally Posted by fortheether

Do you mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post are right wing? "

Well I am not familiar with all of those, they are not available where I live. Huffington Post is notoriously right wing though. I'd say all of them apart from PBS are too right wing for my taste.
I don't think PBS does news (probably can't afford it) and that's a real shame for Americans.
I heard that the BBC is widely available in thr US and at least that gives a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps Canada has some good channels.

Fortheether, why don't you try watching BBC, Russia Today, France24 and Al-Jazeera for a while?
Assuming you can get them on your cable/satellite? Neither of these are left wing in the least, but they do offer a somewhat more nuanced view of the world...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think you're too harsh on them. Have a look at the other countries. Do you think the two-party system is worst of them all?

Well I for one (and lots of other people in Europe) are of the opinion that the difference between the parties in the USA is so small that there is effectively no point in voting. Lots of people are of the opinion that there is no democracy there at all, since there are no alternatives.

In Sweden, I can vote for the environmentalist party, Nationalist front, Communists, the Christian democrats etc, and have representation of my views in the parliament, in form of however many representatives from these parties are included. All they need is more than 4% of the total vote.

But in the USA, people with anything other than democrat or republican will not get any representation at all.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I can vote for the environmentalist party, Nationalist front, Communists, the Christian democrats etc, and have representation of my views in the parliament, in form of however many representatives from these parties are included.

Excellent. So, would you be able to spill the beans how the coalitions are formed between so different parties? What is exactly happening when it comes to the important votes and the coalition should work out the solution and not to break apart? How the so-called "interests of the voters" are being "protected" by those who so-called "compromise"? In a nutshell, the most powerful parties in such system are the smallest parties! (That would effectively address the "fair representation" claim.) The small parties' politicians could switch and form coalitions with either of the more influential parties and get the most of it personally. I've seen that happening: a politician dodged contacting on the phone with either of the influential parties' representatives and waited until his aides were working hard to secure a better deal with both parties at the same time. You're saying that way is better?

Yes, I think that system is better. The minorities views are better respected and the larger parties are forced to negotiate with them. Israel, I think is another example of a country with such a system. Anyone from a communist to an ultrareligious person has his views represented and the larger parties are forced to respect the minorities. I think that is more fair.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes, I think that system is better. The minorities views are better respected and the larger parties are forced to negotiate with them. Israel, I think is another example of a country with such a system. Anyone from a communist to an ultrareligious person has his views represented and the larger parties are forced to respect the minorities. I think that is more fair.

Whoa!! Now you're talking. Excuse my French, but you started to acquire a property of a real politician: ignore what other people say, totally ignore their arguments, and go on repeating what you said. If they come up with different arguments, ignore them too, and go on repeating what you said. It worked in our previous conversation about the Socialism and it works now too. Congrats! I stop giving you new arguments.

I am sure you are well aware that 500 million people in the EU have roughly the same views on representative democracy as I have (the UK is the exception). Again, it's a subjective topic. I think I am right and I have explained why. I am not going to write an essay about it - it's simple enough to understand the benefits of letting the smaller parties be better represented. Anyone is entitled to agree with me, or disagree, as they please.

The EU for that matter, is set up in exactly the same way, letting smaller countries like Luxembourg, Cyprus and the Baltic states have a larger number of representatives than what they should have is strict statistics were applied. This is because nobody in the smaller countries wants to live in a union run by Germany France and the UK who would otherwise run the show. Everyone including Germany agrees that this is fairer despite the fact that it doesn't necessarily fit their agenda.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I am sure you are well aware that 500 million people in the EU have roughly the same views on representative democracy as I have (the UK is the exception). Again, it's a subjective topic. I think I am right and I have explained why. I am not going to write an essay about it - it's simple enough to understand the benefits of letting the smaller parties be better represented. Anyone is entitled to agree with me, or disagree, as they please.

Yes, I got that, you mention the same thing the third time already. But, have you addressed what I said? I'm telling you what had happened in reality. Overall, the less specific your small party goals are, the better. And the environmentalist parties are the worst in this respect. The vital decisions for the country are made depending on the current market price of the small parties. But, you still repeat on and on that "fair representation" mantra. Some other cons of that system is that sometimes the presently unpopular parties gain more seats in the parliament than they are normally use to. That brings into the parliament all kinds of "marginal" people who are in the list just because nobody cared that much. Read the following article when you have a chance: NDP candidate Ruth Ellen Brosseau wins Quebec riding despite trip to Las Vegas and weak French | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News

In a nutshell, in 2011 elections in Canada a 27 year old assistant manager at a pub who, by the way, speaks very bad French SUDDENLY won the Quebec riding of Berthier - Maskinongé by virtue of her being on a vacation to Las Vegas during the campaign! She would now participate in making vital decisions for the province. Would you still repeat in a zombie-like way that 500 million people cannot go wrong? Would you care to look at the facts and address my points instead? Some time earlier you insisted you're not brain-washed, so let's see that in action, shall we?

Originally Posted by fortheether

Do you mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post are right wing? Can you give me examples of all the right media in the USA (except for Fox of course) you mentioned?

NJ is very liberal. I think the state motto should be "NJ, why am I still here?"

I mean AP, who provides news releases to all these organizations. I mean ClearChannel, who owns all the portals of news distribution across all of these "networks." There may be 50 different kinds of cereal on the shelf at the store, but they're all "General Mills." It's like that. And trust me, the people who are indentured into the upper perches of this system all went to college. They understand how to construct a system so that the intellectual manifests that run it are pied, not visible to the naked eye (and always subject to debate).

And sometimes it's even easier than that: With the Bin Laden thing, all that had to be done is that the military's press people said This, That and The Other Thing. Since their internal processes are neither transparent nor open to debate, that was the end of that. But still their performance is rife with clues of their dishonesty.. To me, the sheer volume of press releases that day about Bin Laden, coupled with their subjects and the pointlessness of most of the information released, speaks volumes.

You should come to Arizona. It's very Republican, if you like that sort of thing. Of course you'll have to put up with the daily occurrence of seeing the Latino people treated as a second-class race by those in power.. but this is the US, most people have already seen that sort of thing. ;

NPR is a particularly poignant topic.. Recently they "denounced" their Republican sponsorship, apparently over a white-glove incident between two white-collar production executives, if I remember right.. Ironically, as soon as they "shook the yoke" of their REP sponsorship, they started to release en masse articles about militarily sensitive parts of the world, with their information falling right in line with the AP and other major releases out there.

Meanwhile, you have hundreds of publications from other parts of the planet openly conflicting, contradicting and refuting a great portion of the "Western" account of situations, and in some of these discrepancies the subject matter differs so largely it's like two completely different occurrences... Both the powers in the West and the powers in the East have reasons to misinform people about some of these events, so - who do you trust?

Okay, examples.. Well, they're everywhere. (C)NBC staffs a guy named Larry Kudlow to talk about money and politics. He used to work for Bush-Cheney and sees through REP eyes, as well as mad-dogging the undies of the GOPs like a fanboy. Not to mention their ubiquitous NBC-approved adline: "Invest in US Oil and Gas." Gee, that's not pro-REP, is it? For CBS... Romney blasts Obama on jobs as two new GOP polls show him ahead - Political Hotsheet - CBS News Look at this thinly-veiled attempt to promote a REP presidental candidate for the next election.

And dude, the list goes on.. I don't have the time to be a full-time blogger and find all the examples, because you listed like 20 networks. But they're there. If this is about finding out what's going on, go check it out for yourself, you'll see them. But if it's about winning/losing an argument.. I didn't mean to get one of those things going, these are just my own thoughts, notes and observations.

Crocodile, don't you know that it's pointless to try to engage me in an exchange of long arguments and counter arguments....?

I read what people have to say and I think they are entitled to their opinion, and I to mine...
As long as the person is not ignorant or telling lies I respect their viewpoint. Sometimes I read and find out things I did not know before, and change my mind, but it does not happen a lot.

In the case of your views vs mine, it's just a matter of different ways of looking at the world. I am not going to be be able to seduce you with any left leaning idealism and you are not going to be able to turn me into a believer in the greatness of pro-US capitalism.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

I mean AP, who provides news releases to all these organizations. I mean ClearChannel, who owns all the portals of news distribution across all of these "networks." There may be 50 different kinds of cereal on the shelf at the store, but they're all "General Mills." It's like that. And trust me, the people who are indentured into the upper perches of this system all went to college. They understand how to construct a system so that the intellectual manifests that run it are pied, not visible to the naked eye (and always subject to debate).

And sometimes it's even easier than that: With the Bin Laden thing, all that had to be done is that the military's press people said This, That and The Other Thing. Since their internal processes are neither transparent nor open to debate, that was the end of that. But still their performance is rife with clues of their dishonesty.. To me, the sheer volume of press releases that day about Bin Laden, coupled with their subjects and the pointlessness of most of the information released, speaks volumes.

You should come to Arizona. It's very Republican, if you like that sort of thing. Of course you'll have to put up with the daily occurrence of seeing the Latino people treated as a second-class race by those in power.. but this is the US, most people have already seen that sort of thing. ;

NPR is a particularly poignant topic.. Recently they "denounced" their Republican sponsorship, apparently over a white-glove incident between two white-collar production executives, if I remember right.. Ironically, as soon as they "shook the yoke" of their REP sponsorship, they started to release en masse articles about militarily sensitive parts of the world, with their information falling right in line with the AP and other major releases out there.

Meanwhile, you have hundreds of publications from other parts of the planet openly conflicting, contradicting and refuting a great portion of the "Western" account of situations, and in some of these discrepancies the subject matter differs so largely it's like two completely different occurrences... Both the powers in the West and the powers in the East have reasons to misinform people about some of these events, so - who do you trust?

Okay, examples.. Well, they're everywhere. (C)NBC staffs a guy named Larry Kudlow to talk about money and politics. He used to work for Bush-Cheney and sees through REP eyes, as well as mad-dogging the undies of the GOPs like a fanboy. Not to mention their ubiquitous NBC-approved adline: "Invest in US Oil and Gas." Gee, that's not pro-REP, is it? For CBS... Romney blasts Obama on jobs as two new GOP polls show him ahead - Political Hotsheet - CBS News Look at this thinly-veiled attempt to promote a REP presidental candidate for the next election.

And dude, the list goes on.. I don't have the time to be a full-time blogger and find all the examples, because you listed like 20 networks. But they're there. If this is about finding out what's going on, go check it out for yourself, you'll see them. But if it's about winning/losing an argument.. I didn't mean to get one of those things going, these are just my own thoughts, notes and observations.

To each their own - to me those media outlets are cheerleaders for Obama and his progressive policies.

Scott

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well I am not familiar with all of those, they are not available where I live. Huffington Post is notoriously right wing though. I'd say all of them apart from PBS are too right wing for my taste.
I don't think PBS does news (probably can't afford it) and that's a real shame for Americans.
I heard that the BBC is widely available in thr US and at least that gives a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps Canada has some good channels.

Fortheether, why don't you try watching BBC, Russia Today, France24 and Al-Jazeera for a while?
Assuming you can get them on your cable/satellite? Neither of these are left wing in the least, but they do offer a somewhat more nuanced view of the world...


Well I for one (and lots of other people in Europe) are of the opinion that the difference between the parties in the USA is so small that there is effectively no point in voting. Lots of people are of the opinion that there is no democracy there at all, since there are no alternatives.

In Sweden, I can vote for the environmentalist party, Nationalist front, Communists, the Christian democrats etc, and have representation of my views in the parliament, in form of however many representatives from these parties are included. All they need is more than 4% of the total vote.

But in the USA, people with anything other than democrat or republican will not get any representation at all.

Hanna by you saying "Huffington Post is notoriously right wing though." puts you on the spectrum way on the other side from where I sit. Nothing wrong with that. As for other news, I try to watch the news in Russian but they speak way too fast and use too many Russian words

Scott

Scott, the channels I mentioned are all in English. You can watch really different channels and make up your own mind. If you still think that Fox and Huffington are correct, then at least you are informed about the other side of the story. So you have nothing to lose.

If you can't get them on your cable network you can actually watch online, using your PC as a TV.

Basically you just install Zattoo, LiveStation or TVU Player. (they are affected by license restrictions so I am not sure which will work for you in the USA. In the big European countries, Zattoo is the best option.)

For English speaking channels I'd recommend:

Russia Today: Good channel for nuanced news about Europe, but it does not want to say anything very negative about the RU government, despite the fact that there are clearly negative issues that ought to be reported on. Main focus in Russia.

France24, Deutsche Welle, EuroNews --- rather bland news coverage with no very obvious political leaning - focus on respective European country

BBC - no introduction needed.

Al Jazeera - News in English from the United Arab Emirates, not massively different form BBC - all the presenters are British, but better coverage of the Middle East and North Africa.

Press TV - News in English from Iran (interesting different perspective... )

Personally I sometimes listen to a really conservative American radio broadcast because it does news from a Christian perspective - we don't really have such programs in Europe. It's very interesting to hear their views and I sympathise with a lot although not their views on wars in other countries.