WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

...very little of what Alexis Jacobi and Immanuel Can offer qualifies as evidence...

Yep. I knew that would be your tactic. Deny, deny, deny...

I saved a bundle of time by not engaging somebody who simply isn't interested in changing his mind, no matter how clear the facts are. That's good for me.

[Alexiev]

...very little of what Alexis Jacobi and Immanuel Can offer qualifies as evidence...

Yep. I knew that would be your tactic. Deny, deny, deny...

I saved a bundle of time by not engaging somebody who simply isn't interested in changing his mind, no matter how clear the facts are. That's good for me.

Oh, come on, IC. You can practice self reflection even though you are clearly uninterested in changing your mind. no matter how clear the facts are. Give it a try.

Good grief! Who won't change his mind? Those who think morality is "objective" and they know it intimately? Or those of us who are still searching?

[Immanuel Can]

Good grief! Who won't change his mind? Those who think morality is "objective" and they know it intimately? Or those of us who are still searching?

The one who has to change his mind is the one whose beliefs are not consonant with reality. And the present point of discussion is simply who that is.

Searching is not virtuous, in itself. One searches only in order to find. If one does not believe one can find, one will never search at all. So at the end of every "still searching" is the prospect of finding. I accept if you feel you've found nothing so far. That does not mean you won't; but it does mean that if searching is all you ever do, then the searching is in vain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

I think it good that you are devoting time to examining the various ways MSM function in our present. In my last post, directed to you, I provided an outline of what I think the issue to be. My ideas, my view, my interpretations are not at all popular and I doubt that you and most who write on this forum will accept them.

In my view of the Smollett case the real issue is that a popular figure took advantage of a developing mood of anger, resentment and possibly hatred of Whites and White culture (i.e. the culture of the US) and staged his hoax. The MSM in my opinion, and based on impression as I paid attention to the reporting at that time, received the news of this racial attack as another bit of evidence, and evidence as bolstering, the assertions being made that the Trump movement was a dark and dangerous threat to people of color and the nation.

It is true that Smollett's story did not hold up for very long, and especially when the police stated that they did not believe him. But the issue is really that it was set up to be an explosive case to bolster a general mood, and a general editorial policy, and of running with stories that support the DEI agenda and what is being referred to as Wokism, a (so-called) Cultural Marxist agenda, and the alignment of the business and corporate class with the institutionalization of new social policies.

Now the question you might ask me is similar to the sort of question that Gary asks: "Well then, where do you stand in relation to all of that?" That is to say are you opposed to DEI policies? Are you opposed to the on-going transformation of the US from what it was into the *multicultural nation* it is being engineered into? Because if I am not opposed in some way or other why even attempt to explain what is going on in the country from any other angle but that what is going on is good and inevitable?

For me the actual issue (if we are to refer generally to Smollett and the complex of issues there) is that the United States is in a process of being remodeled or refashioned. Certainly from the vision of its original founders but really in contrast to what had been the nations's historical attitude about itself. So the cultural issue that is going on right now is one that developed when the demographics of the nation was deliberately re-engineered. That took place over the last 50-60 years. By any standard, and even in those books and studies by those who write positively and encouragingly on the issue of demographic shifts, this change is referred to as dramatic and consequential.

Here, the notion of *replacement* comes up. That idea, in the MSM, has been utterly suppressed. Indeed it is *unthinkable thought* and must be denied. This is where that Orwellian perspective becomes at least possible to consider. Meaning that what you see happening before your eyes is said to be something false. The idea is pushed out of the discourse, such as it is, allowable in the MSM, and (as I have said) pushed underground. Replacement Theory is described as a vicious conspiracy theory by horrible people with horrible ideas, stances and attitudes.

So it is in this sense that I describe the MSM as complicit. Yes, I did use the word 'mendacious' but I actually think that this word would need to be expanded. Simple terms, reductive terms, are not going to help us much.

The MSM are (to use the correct conjugation) entities owned by vast corporations. These corporations dominate and largely control, or direct, the culture in so many ways. What is their primary interest? It is to make money. In the Postwar era they have certainly been primary in constructing the liberal era we are all beneficiaries of. The restructuring, the remodeling of the United States in the Postwar era should be looked at as a process. And one part of this process has been the construction of the multi-cultural USA -- or as I have said at times a Walmart Nation -- simply because that serves the interests of business.

It does not matter (much) that diversity is not really a strength, nor that it tends to social conflict and a range of different problems that extend from it, the function of business is to dominate these conflicts and the techniques are public relations, advertising, social engineering and propaganda. So what I am trying to point out is that the MSM because they are corporations nestled within other, major and powerful corporations, that one must understand how social and governmental policies are designed and implemented by those powerful institutions that have the power to do so.

And this, in a nutshell, is an outline of how I see the MSM today.

What could or what should the MSM have done with the Smollett hoax and what it represented? That is to say what could a responsible and honest media have done? But here the issue is complex and as I say *knotty*. They cannot do much more than what they are doing now. And the reason is because of *ideological commitments* that are popular, inculcated, represented as *truly moral* as against others that are *immoral*.

Media, government, academia, various institutions and certainly intelligence apparatus act in a form of concert -- and here I can mention The Manufacture of Consent: the term that Chomsky appropriated from Walter Lippmann:

1. A phrase originally coined in 1922 by the American journalist Walter Lippmann (1889–1974) to refer to the management of public opinion, which he felt was necessary for democracy to flourish, since he felt that public opinion was an irrational force.

2. For Herman and Chomsky, the acceptance of government policies by people in the USA on the basis of the partial picture of issues offered by the mass media, denying them access to alternative views which would lead them to oppose such policies. They present this as a propaganda model in which the mass media select material in relation to the values of those in power.

3. The concept found in Gramsci and Althusserian Marxism, in which the dominant class sustains its hegemony through engineering assent: see also ideological state apparatus.

4. (sociology) The notion associated with functionalism that society is dependent upon the engineering of a consensus: see also consensus; legitimation.

5. An allusion to the concept of ‘the engineering of consent’ defined in 1947, by the Austrian-American public relations pioneer Edward Bernays (1891–1995), as the art of manipulating people without them being aware of it. Bernays, a nephew of Freud, argued that people can be enticed to want things that they do not need if these are linked to their unconscious desires, a notion pursued by Dichter, the ‘father of motivation’.

So, and again in my view, the issue is less the specifics of either mendaciousness or misrepresentation, but the issue of hegemony within the field of ideological commitments.

I am fully aware that I have spoken here in entirely problematic terms. By making a reference to demographic shift; to refurbishment of national ideology; to social engineering by business, government, academia and intelligence apparatus. But really this is what is going on. It has to be seen as such. My view is realistic and my orientation to that of realism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: There is an assertion that the US provoked the Russian invasion by deliberately attempting to extend the NATO pact to Ukraine. This sort of thing -- if one reads and accepts the Left and critical sources -- is typical for the US. To create situations of conflict that then become regional wars. True, it is a standard tactic for many nations.

Will wrote: An assertion, eh? If you could give me something specific to investigate, I shall do so.?

If you examine the lead-up to those recent consequential wars in the Middle East -- starting with the Kuwait incident and resulting in the first Gulf War -- you may arrive at the understanding that the war-planning involved the manipulation of public opinion through the stories that were presented in the MSM. You may find information that indicates that there are *embedded* intelligence agents in the US media who act as liaisons and who have an interest in presenting certain information and perspectives. That is, a close relationship between Intelligence and Media. Naturally, that makes great sense from a government perspective.

You could examine the second Iraq War -- a far more consequential war -- in the light that the war plans were *on the table* in outline well before the events of 9/11 became justifiable motive to go after those weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I have no idea if you accept or do not accept these critical analyses that have circulated in the Left-Progressive press. But you must know that now, in a strange reversal, it is a right-tending faction that has taken up the banner of opposing those adventures of the US and there is now developing a mood of anti-war sentiment. Who has benefitted from these 35+ years of near constant wars? These are the right questions to ask.

In the light of what I am suggesting here I suggest that you examine the US's machinations in provoking a conflict with Russia. The information is certainly out there and easily accessible. As with so much these days there are conflicting stories and much murkiness. That could be *by design*.

Douglas Macgregor has a large presence on the Internet and has a critical view which to me makes sense. I would point out that his views are directed to those more on the Right than on the Left. That in itself is quite interesting because traditionally, over the last few decades, the Right has not been critical of itself. Macgregor seems to demonstrate the arrival of a critical-Right perspective. And it is not un-similar to some of the former critical positions of the Left. How things change ...

In this video he talks about most of the major issues. You may find it interesting.

[Will Bouwman]

...very little of what Alexis Jacobi and Immanuel Can offer qualifies as evidence...

Yep. I knew that would be your tactic. Deny, deny, deny...

I saved a bundle of time by not engaging somebody who simply isn't interested in changing his mind, no matter how clear the facts are. That's good for me.

I think if you had invested as much time in reading what I wrote as you spent on that reply, you would have discovered that, in fact, my tactic was to take you and Alexis Jacobi at your word and do the research you have insisted necessary for my edification. If CNN and MSNBC are representative of the media you think flip-flopped and lied, then far from what you assert, all I found is what looks very like sober and measured journalism.
If those two outlets are not typical of the media you have in mind, I am open to examining others you think better make your point. Alternatively, you might draw my attention to articles from those outlets that you believe support your perspective and which I have missed.

[Immanuel Can]

...very little of what Alexis Jacobi and Immanuel Can offer qualifies as evidence...

Yep. I knew that would be your tactic. Deny, deny, deny...

I saved a bundle of time by not engaging somebody who simply isn't interested in changing his mind, no matter how clear the facts are. That's good for me.

I think if you had invested as much time in reading what I wrote as you spent on that reply, you would have discovered that, in fact, my tactic was to take you and Alexis Jacobi at your word and do the research you have insisted necessary for my edification.

You didn't check your own news sources (the Guardian, the Beebs, and whatnot, not MSNBC or CBS, though they would work, too; because you've already said they aren't where you get your news). And that's what I've been telling you to do from the start. And I've also said that if you find them unimpeachably honest, then you have no problem. So your aggitation here is wasted.

Just check to see if they said one thing at one time, such as "the laptop is a Russian plant," and then later admitted, "the laptop is Biden's." That sort of self-reversal requires no further interpretation or confusion. It shows beyond reasonable doubt that either they were wrong before, or they were wrong after: and either they were bad journalists before, or they were lying through their teeth, for some reason other than the joy of getting the truth to the public.

This isn't rocket science, Will. You're quite capable of it...but you don't seem actually to want to face the plain truth of the test, for some reason.

[Alexiev]

Good grief! Who won't change his mind? Those who think morality is "objective" and they know it intimately? Or those of us who are still searching?

The one who has to change his mind is the one whose beliefs are not consonant with reality. And the present point of discussion is simply who that is.

Searching is not virtuous, in itself. One searches only in order to find. If one does not believe one can find, one will never search at all. So at the end of every "still searching" is the prospect of finding. I accept if you feel you've found nothing so far. That does not mean you won't; but it does mean that if searching is all you ever do, then the searching is in vain.

The problem with this is that he who thinks he has "found" will stop searching. The journey is just as important as the destination; the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering. Do you really think the great Saints (Acquinas or Assisi) stopped searching because they thought they had found everything they needed to know? Have you found more than they?

[Will Bouwman]

The MSM in my opinion, and based on impression as I paid attention to the reporting at that time, received the news of this racial attack as another bit of evidence, and evidence as bolstering, the assertions being made that the Trump movement was a dark and dangerous threat to people of color and the nation.

I appreciate that was your impression at the time. Despite an honest search, I haven't found anything in the mainstream media that punches that impression on me. As I made clear to Immanuel Can, that might be my failure, but I am open to persuasion. Could you provide an example of what did it for you?

[Immanuel Can]

Good grief! Who won't change his mind? Those who think morality is "objective" and they know it intimately? Or those of us who are still searching?

The one who has to change his mind is the one whose beliefs are not consonant with reality. And the present point of discussion is simply who that is.

Searching is not virtuous, in itself. One searches only in order to find. If one does not believe one can find, one will never search at all. So at the end of every "still searching" is the prospect of finding. I accept if you feel you've found nothing so far. That does not mean you won't; but it does mean that if searching is all you ever do, then the searching is in vain.

The problem with this is that he who thinks he has "found" will stop searching.

That's not what we call a "problem." It's what we call an "achievement." It means your search was fruitful, and you were rewarded. That's no time to sit down and lament that you're not still on the dusty journey to get there. It's time to build on your achievement.

The journey is just as important as the destination;

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.

...the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering.

Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

[Gary Childress]

The one who has to change his mind is the one whose beliefs are not consonant with reality. And the present point of discussion is simply who that is.

Searching is not virtuous, in itself. One searches only in order to find. If one does not believe one can find, one will never search at all. So at the end of every "still searching" is the prospect of finding. I accept if you feel you've found nothing so far. That does not mean you won't; but it does mean that if searching is all you ever do, then the searching is in vain.

The problem with this is that he who thinks he has "found" will stop searching.

That's not what we call a "problem." It's what we call an "achievement." It means your search was fruitful, and you were rewarded. That's no time to sit down and lament that you're not still on the dusty journey to get there. It's time to build on your achievement.

The journey is just as important as the destination;

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.

...the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering.

Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

The point is, you haven't reached that peak yet. It's painfully obvious to everyone except yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem with this is that he who thinks he has "found" will stop searching.

That's not what we call a "problem." It's what we call an "achievement." It means your search was fruitful, and you were rewarded. That's no time to sit down and lament that you're not still on the dusty journey to get there. It's time to build on your achievement.

The journey is just as important as the destination;

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.

...the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering.

Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

The point is, you haven't reached that peak yet. It's painfully obvious to everyone except yourself.

It depends what you think "the peak" represents. If you think it means "all knowledge of everything," then your criticism is just silly; nobody has, but nobody has claimed to. So I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

[Alexiev]

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.

...the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering.

Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

You obviously know nothing about mountaineering. The peak can be reached by many routes. El Capitan can be climbed by walking up the back side, or by free soloing the nose. Longs Peak has a trail to the top, or one can attempt the Diamond. One can log a "first ascent" if he or she pioneers a new route up a peak that has been climbed thousands of times. If a climber only cared about the destination, the North Face of the Eiger would remain unclimbed, since there are easier ways to the top.

The journey -- not the destination -- is important and enlightening. The flag and the picture are irrelevant, except as documentation.

[Gary Childress]

That's not what we call a "problem." It's what we call an "achievement." It means your search was fruitful, and you were rewarded. That's no time to sit down and lament that you're not still on the dusty journey to get there. It's time to build on your achievement.

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.


Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

The point is, you haven't reached that peak yet. It's painfully obvious to everyone except yourself.

If you think it means "all knowledge of everything," then your criticism is just silly; nobody has,

Then stop acting like you know everything that you don't. This is a philosophy forum, not a theology forum.

[Immanuel Can]

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.

...the climb, not the peak, is the joy of mountaineering.

Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

You obviously know nothing about mountaineering.

Is this always your first tactic? To try to induce some kind of "shame"? It's pretty funny, actually, and really, really feminine. You should stop that. It's not at all disconcerting to a sensible interlocutor, and it's not flattering to you. It makes you look petty.

The peak can be reached by many routes.

According to your own theory, you NEVER reach the peak...and you know you won't, before you even set out. Remember? It's the journey, not the destination?

But the "peak" analogy was yours, not mine. And I find it faulty. For as Gary misconstrued, it makes things look as if we're aiming at a single, perfect point of complete knowledge of everything. But knowledge has many stops and stations along the way -- each, a destination in its own right, and each worth the journey to get there, even if you didn't get beyond.

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

The journey -- not the destination -- is important and enlightening.

You've screwed up your own theory. According to you, it's not "enlightening" at all. You never "arrive" anywhere. You never actually "learn" anything. You just wander, confused, indefinitely, because to come to "know" something would mean you'd arrived at a destination.