The Lemon Fool

I've been a fan of Adam Curtis since watching, "All watched over by machines of loving grace".

I now realise that I have missed a few others of his films which I will catch up on.

His ability to bring together disparate threads to tell a compelling story together with his original juxtaposing of images is truly excellent.

John

redsturgeon wrote:I've been a fan of Adam Curtis since…

I have just watched 'Oh Dear". Amusing. You could learn a lot!

For example, AC says "we live in a state of confusion" and "we as individuals become ever more powerless" but to those statements of his opinion, (opinion presented as fact) I'd say that's only if you do not understand what confusion is and why it arises.

I won't bore you with s tome on the subject: suffice it to say that those of us that do not live in a state of confusion are not suffering from powerless.

I won't bore you with s tome on the subject: suffice it to say that those of us that do not live in a state of confusion are not suffering from powerless.

I am pleased to hear that...whatever it might mean.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

I won't bore you with s tome on the subject: suffice it to say that those of us that do not live in a state of confusion are not suffering from powerless. I am pleased to hear that...whatever it might mean. John

Facetiousness does you disservice.

I won't bore you with s tome on the subject: suffice it to say that those of us that do not live in a state of confusion are not suffering from powerless.

I am pleased to hear that...whatever it might mean.

I think that what BnC is probably telling us is that life can be perfectly blissful if you can filter out any remaining trace of self-doubt. Questioning one's own sentiments or arguments is a monumental waste of time. I had a mother in law like that once.

BJ

I think that what BnC is probably telling us is that life can be perfectly blissful if you can filter out any remaining trace of self-doubt. Questioning one's own sentiments or arguments is a monumental waste of time. I had a mother in law like that once.

BJ

Thanks BJ I think that might be it.

John

bungeejumper wrote: I think that what BnC is probably telling us is that life can be perfectly blissful if you can filter out any remaining trace of self-doubt. Questioning one's own sentiments or arguments is a monumental waste of time. BJ

Almost. I don't have time to go into considerable detail, except to say that it's not self-doubt in a literal sense. Doubt stems from not trusting intuitions at all times, and not as do most people only in crisis/emergency.

Distrust of intuition is caused by adverse influence in social conditioning during upbringing and peer pressure. Instead of being brought up to be ourselves, and how to think for ourselves, we learn to behave as others want and what is expected of us. To an extent we have to comply, for law, order and harmony in community, but human beings are not social animals: social behaviour has to be instilled into us. The process of social conditioning can create conflict between 'self' and what others want of us. Parents are very good at prolonging the agony by persuasively advocating both a need for compromise and that what the parent(s) want is more important. Hardly unconditional love! Classic example is the parental statement of wanting the child to be happy, yet refusing support because what the child wants is something the parent doesn't approve of.

Applied to the wider world, we either become involved and do something about whatever it is, or remain aware, or indifferent. When we are told it's important to have knowledge of what is happening, we can become bombarded with information, including tons of influence. Brought up to be accommodating, we take on all manner of stuff and end up becoming confused.

I said 'almost' because it's okay to question one's own sentiments or arguments to make sure that whatever we're feeling or reasoning does in fact deep down honestly and truly make sense to our 'self. If we don't maintain a running check on our attitude, updating whenever necessary, we can become stuck in our ways, and inflexible. Such states are reflected in physical pains and aches (shoulder blades or back-ache typically) and by friction and cryptic comments, such as facetiousness, in relationships.

1nv35t wrote:S
..Globalisation has been a burden to the larger majority, massive benefit to the 1%. Increasingly there are demands to reverse out of that. Barriers and protectionism. But to secure such requires extremism. At one point it did look like globalisation and the technological revolution was starting to serve all. Fewer working hours for the same/more pay, better social care ... etc. But greed by the 1% has squashed that. .

I think it's important to note that the three developed world countries with the highest wealth inequality are;

(Allianz report, Forbes 2015)
1] U.S.A. — 80.56
2] Sweden — 79.90
3] U.K. — 75.72
No surprise 1 and 3, but I always assumed that the high tax, welfare state, low inequality Scandi model would have seen Sweden well outside the Top 10

Swexit next ? There's a fair bit of social unrest over there if you believe some of the (biased) commentators on the Right

brightncheerful wrote:

bungeejumper wrote: I think that what BnC is probably telling us is that life can be perfectly blissful if you can filter out any remaining trace of self-doubt. Questioning one's own sentiments or arguments is a monumental waste of time. BJ

Distrust of intuition is caused by adverse influence in social conditioning during upbringing and peer pressure. Instead of being brought up to be ourselves, and how to think for ourselves, we learn to behave as others want and what is expected of us. To an extent we have to comply, for law, order and harmony in community, but human beings are not social animals: social behaviour has to be instilled into us. The process of social conditioning can create conflict between 'self' and what others want of us.

That's almost a Crowleyian* outlook BnC.
He lived by "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
This has been misinterpreted as an excuse to behave 'badly - what it actually means is one should follow one's 'inner voice'/calling/destiny rather than submit to the demands and controls of society and one's own base desires

*the original Aleister Crowley

These tweets should help clarify what's happening!

"Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

"Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!"

First one by Donald Trump 9 hours ago, second one... also by Donald Trump, an hour ago. (Or maybe they've taken his Twitter account away again).

I think this could well be the theme of Trump's presidency. He makes an announcement, his media people scurry around and then "clarify" what he really meant.

This has been misinterpreted as an excuse to behave 'badly - what it actually means is one should follow one's 'inner voice'/calling/destiny rather than submit to the demands and controls of society and one's own base desires

Misinterpretation can either be a deliberate slant or a misunderstanding.

No point on behaving badly if the effect is worse off.

Personally, I subscribe to principles of interdependency.

I think this could well be the theme of Trump's presidency. He makes an announcement, his media people scurry around and then "clarify" what he really meant.

Don't worry, he'll have Breitbart editors handling all that messy day-to-day stuff. From now on, Trump will be on-message. Okay, so it's Putin's message ("useful idiot" stuff), but who cares?

Things might get interesting on 28th November when the Trump University case comes to court. In front of the very same judge who Mr T wanted to be dismissed because he was a filthy biased Mexican (or was it a filthy biased Spaniard? No, sorry Donald, he's American and was born in Indiana.) Keep trying, and never let the facts get in the way of a good bluster.

BJ

brightncheerful wrote:

Slarti wrote:It would be an inspiration to us if it were not for the way that he did it, with lie piled upon lie, with insults to disabled reporters, with insults to women, with insults to people of religions other than Christian, with insults to people of other races.

Insulting to whom? Outsiders such as yourself or the actual voters?

Generally, people ate inhibited by a desire to be popular. Rather than speak their mind.

In a democracy where the right of free speech is upheld, it is open to some people to impose their opinions - advocates of political correctness?, fairness and equal rights - and for others not to take any notice.

Essentially,, it is the difference between one's persona in public and in private. You and others like-minded are wanting congruence, which is all very nobel, but it's not going to happen until each and every individual is and equally is allowed to always be themselves. And for that to happen any imposition on individual attitudes would have to cease.

Didn't insult me as I am an old, white, straight male.


But a friend of mine feels pretty insulted about the way he talked about Mexicans, especially as his Granda was in the US forces in WWI, his Dad in WWII and he was in Gulf War One.

Or other American acquaintances who are not straight.

Or the disabled American reporter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

And the "Gold Star" families feel pretty insulted http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/gold-star-families-of-fallen-veterans-tell-donald-trump-he-is-ch/

And he insulted all American voters by lying. I wish I could find the clip where he criticises Obama for "screaming at a protester", interspersed with what actually happened, but my Googling isn't up to it today.

insult etymology is the noun use of past participle of the Latin insilire, literally "to leap at or upon".

I've lived here in the US for 16 years now and couldn't get interested in any of their politics. It just wasn't very interesting or exciting. Their system of 'checks and balances' might be quite effective, but it also means hardly anything ever happens.

I gave Obama credit for basically not doing anything silly and that was maybe needed after the financial crisis, but eventually he just didn't do anything.

The last 18 months have been absolutely fascinating and I now know way more about US politics and demographics, etc because it got my attention. And its been fun as well.

A lot of what DT said was pretty cringe worthy, but I never really thought he would do more than about 10% of what he said (what politician ever does), but even if they (US voters) also realize that, the point was he said what they (a lot of them) thought. And I never bought the arguments about him being unfit, or temperamentally unsound, etc. No-one gets to where he had before this last escapade without being smart. I think he played the media to perfection. They didn't like him, so he fed them every day and lo and behold he was all they talked about. What's the old saying about there's no such thing as bad publicity!

So during the primaries, I kept saying that it wasn't impossible he would win. He seemed to have all the momentum and the 'establishment' politicians clearly didn't have a clue how to deal with him. How he managed to keep having his pack-out events going, must have thoroughly confused the tradition politicians.

Having said that, I really didn't think he would win, just keep it close enough to be interesting. The reality is/was that he was way more in touch with the 'ordinary' people and he knew he had something going. I kept wondering why his core polling numbers never really seemed to go down (or up) much. He had a lot of very loyal support and he was lucky the dems picked Hillary instead of Bernie.

So personalities aside, I think he's an awful lot smarter than he sometimes looks. If he can pick the right people, and pick the right levers to pull, he just might be a very good thing for a few years. I can guarantee, he's got way more stamina than I expect to have at 70.

Like him or loath him, what he has managed to achieve in Business, TV and Politics, is just staggering.

Arran

Like him or loath him, what he has managed to achieve in Business, TV and Politics, is just staggering.

Didn't he manage to bankrupt 3 or 4 casinos that he was running? Isn't that the reason he pays no taxes?

Doesn't sound that brilliant to me.

Didn't he manage to bankrupt 3 or 4 casinos that he was running? Isn't that the reason he pays no taxes?[/quote]

Offsetting losses, what's the problem?

And what about New Zealand!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37932921

Loir

DiamondEcho wrote:'Hates/obviously hates', really? How did you arrive at that; unless you're suggesting locker-room banter is 'hateful' as in disrespectful? But if that's the case how would you categorise a sitting president having his gong polished by a female intern in the White House. Loving, respectful?

I probably should have put a winky face or something with my post. The narrative in the US media is that Trump hates women. Odd then he hires a woman to be his third campaign manager, and oh, help him get the White House.

I would categorize what happened under Bill Clinton as an example of how low our standards in the US have become. It used to be that our Presidents would have affairs with some of the most glamorous and beautiful women...ever. We used to think quality over quantity.

Wild Bill changed that. Sad day.



RR

"Honesty is incompatible with amassing a large fortune"

M Gandi