Socieites have been indoctrinated with certain beleifs and values, and despite their falsities you cannot change these in one day, or even one week. Media(s) have fed citizens ideas, which the citizens (generally) follow, and it is at the media level the ideas must be changed. People have been following these 'rules' for decades, and if the rules are changed at a social level (first), then there will inevitably be chaos! Films (amongst other mediums) must flood society to change these ideas, and they must flood society for years! For example you cannot expect a person of thirty, forty, or fifty years of age, to suddenly go back on what they have been taught. Thus if we take a person who (in their life) has been following these rules for decades, then it will probably take years (if not decades) to reverse these rules. Future generations will therefore have to continue the legacy, and it may even take that long! It will be less of a problem for them however, because they will have been raised on the ideas in question, and not on the backwards ideas present today. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Incidentally I strongly disagree with falsities that are paraded and propounded by the media/press. All these do is discourage socialism, and encourage individuality, by creating a fear of the stranger and/or a fear of the unknown. Many of these dangers are created from nothing too, so I would like to see them stop. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If I had the time I would like to look into films from the fifties, because I suspect this is where the alienation of individuals from society began, and I may even do it one day anyway. If we take a step back to look at things we will see that cauc asians ('white people') are a minority in the world, but it is through the everyday work the citizens (almost all grudgingly) do, that they hold the power they do. They have developed (technology and thus) the power to indoctrinate large areas of the world with their ideas, despite the ideas' shortcomings. First there was radio, now there is television, and the list continues (with the advent of the internet). So I would be most interested to see the ideas that were given to populations at the time of the spread of television. No doubt they were individualistic, just as television itself is individualistic (and was no doubt born through individualism). Thus the anti-socialism we see now (through the media, and which has leaked into society) has probably been present since the advent of technology itself.
"Caucasians" do not hold an ideological grip on the rest of the world; this is what the media would like Americans to believe. Most of the rest of the world does not give a rat's ass about the US until they start bombing. As long as you are looking into the media, you should consider the degree to which it is being maintained openly by religious groups, and the implications that may have for US ideology. For instance, why did the supposedly UberChristian Bush, who does everything in the name of God, permit teeny tiny supposedly friendly Israel to blow up the Church of the Nazarene? Isn't this an affront to 1) Christianity in general, and 2) The concept of sanctuary in particular? If there is a God in charge, it doesn't seem to be the one that Bush keeps talking about.
Quote Mucker Incidentally I strongly disagree with falsities that are paraded and propounded by the media/press. All these do is discourage socialism, and encourage individuality, by creating a fear of the stranger and/or a fear of the unknown. Many of these dangers are created from nothing too, so I would like to see them stop --- GREAT POINT! although... i dont think i like your racist undertones suggesting that white people as you call them are the cause of all the problems of this current society try and remeber that you are thinking from within your own box (as an expresion) what do you think some tribal person living off the land in some remote corner of the earth would think of your definition of white people? they would say "who the fuck are they" they dont have any influence here!" the whole white and black issue of racism is another tool to create, ... as you put it indevidualism-(nothing wrong with that in my opinion because that is where personality and character dwells{maybe you mean a different word}) however the fear and stranger danger thing is the main issue of issolation the great black and white issues are pushed by the media from the usa and the uk as "ALL BAD NEWS is good money" if you are treated and defined by your own community and or society as an outcast then you will always have issues that translate to the lowest common denominator gender Vs gender age Vs age city Vs rural/farming rich Vs poor area Vs area country Vs country Collective Vs Collective these are traits attributed to the suvival instincts of the human animal basicly people are hypocrites because of the way they are forced to interact in society survival of the fittest is the basic format when you have people taking ownership of natural resources, can you blame others for following their example when they are expected to live by those hypocritical rules not realy its just a side effect like a mental illness the benefits of an exclusive community are advertised by those very same people and then they get surprised when someone makes a community that does not support their own selfish chosen path of greed and control/power-mental-illnesses like pearls to swine that covert bad food so shall Democratic-socialism/mixed-economy be to those who are selfish and greedy groove on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fireguy: That McCluhanism is not particularly correct... media are culturally loaded, but within their context they can still be empty. He only identified that there is a larger context than the message, that's all. People love to quote Marshall McCluhan out of context, and I'm not sure why; I guess people love to quote the Bible out of context too.
I know what you are saying is true, but caucasians do seem to hold the power (and gold) of the world. One should question how this gold can give power! If no one recognises gold's worth then it shouldn't matter, however the fact that these caucasians know gold's value, means that they have a psychological advantage; i.e. the advantage is confidence! And consider this: the starving countries of the world are 'offered' help by wealthy nations. What price do you think this help will come with? In exchange for 'help' the debtors must adopt the 'loaners' ideology. To explain further (if further explanation is needed) one should keep this in mind: I know what you mean. If we have a company (any company) then we also have rulers, i.e. managers and directors etc. Aside from the psycholigical 'identification with the aggressor', we have people (workers) with no choice but to follow the rules set out for them. Thus if we have a director who owns fifty-one percent of a company, while another only owns forty-nine percent, then the former director gets his way, i.e. his values/ideology must be adpoted under Law! What do you suggest? One cannot put to death people who do not agree with an ideology, thus one of the only ways an ideology can be supported is by offereing benefits to supporters. But then we have the situation that is present in the world today, whereby the outcasts (because they had freedom) formed countries that now hold significant power, despite their evil natures, and they attempt to flood the world with their satanic ideologies. It is for this reason I beleive the world would be a much better place if these evildoers had been locked up, and if they were kept there unless they could truly accept the way of the world and the way of the soul. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are correct, but I think you mean simply the lowest denominator. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mucker: Didja ever take a look at the UAE? That place is like a frickin' palace... makes the US look like a bunch of mud huts. Need I mention that no one there is white? The "caucasian" power is not quite what you think it is...
The medium is the message - and the product. Christians support Israel for reasons that you will understand if you have read the Bible.
The Bible is so dissipated that even the Christians have a hard time defending it these days... Jewish people dealt with this problem by ever writing another book (Torah, &c)... and the US is not allied with Israel for religious reasons. The medium is not the frickin' message. This was a statement intended to support the idea that context represented a form of content along with the forms that we more traditionally recognize. People throw that out-of-context quote around as if it means something, when in fact there was a whole entire book that went around it. Admittedly, yeah, you've changed the message by discarding that entire book which I guess could be considered a medium, but I would be willing to wager that the content also meant something.
What are you trying to say here? You disagree with me in the first paragraph, but where I expect supporting data to your arguments, I find a narrative whose goal is unclear. Perhaps you can help.
So wa-wait. Mucky says that, generally, non-white people are starving and under the thumb of white people, hence the white ideological control. I say that some non-white people are not starving and are doing well for themselves. You say that - what? Not all non-white people have money so my argument isn't fair? Look, I'm telling you that the US does not own the hearts and minds of the rest of the world, they can't even get along with France, who if I remember correctly are also white. Mucky's assertion that the rest of the world are poor does not fly, and so since the whities are neither unified nor the sole owners of wealth, I believe that his assertion is incorrect and probably comes from a US-based limited world view.
You will have to take the first point up with Mucky, but I was pointing out that any population sitting on the UAE would become wealthy. It's like being born next to a mountain of gold. For your second point, I believe you are also arguing against Mucky and not me, but I will say that US media penetration worldwide is vast. Whether or not US media is owned by white people is another story.
I don't need to explain the first paragraph... if you think that the US, or more generally white people, are in control of Israel, then you should look a little harder. The US has maintained Israel for a long time with vast amounts of foreign aid, but Israel calls its own shots, which was my point with the earlier post about the Church of the Nazarene. The point of the rest of the post, I thought, was pretty clear, but I shall explain. Marshall McLuhan was a media theorist who wrote many many books until his death in 1980. Presumably, he also wrote some books after his death, most authors do. People tend to sum up the entire study of his life in the five-word sentence "the medium is the message", which is not only rather insulting to the second half of his career which occurred after he wrote this statement, but also is a relatively meaningless statement to throw out in general conversation. When someone sells you a television, the medium is already established. Whereas it is true that the information that comes out of the television is somewhat shaped by its format, simply to say "the medium is the message", just like that, disregards content as having no meaning and also fixes context at a certain point, which is a disaster for the analysis of information. Context is fluid and multivariate; however, if you are stupid enough, your TV can make you kill people, it can make you buy things, it can make you believe in God. The information that comes thereout is of vast importance compared to the context that it is couched in, which is actually rather unimportant if you are willing to believe what you see/hear without question. When you do pay attention to content, it pays to pay attention to context as well, but just to say "the medium is the message" doesn't do any favours for anyone. It's also a non-sequitur and does not reflect the depth of McLuhan's contribution.
I think you're replying to someone else. I said the reason that Christians support Jews/Israel is in the Bible. The rest of your post seems to lack a topic.
He only identified that there is a larger context than the message, that's all. Exactly! Read the original post and tell me it's not an unconcious depiction of a larger context delivered through a medium. Does that not qualify as a component of McCluhans "far reaching" statement? BTW- No one "Loves" to misquote anyone - it's done for prudential reasons.......
I am planning to fully read the Bible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wasn't aware the U.S has any religious foundation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Okay but in terms of power I would say military might has the final say, because it is military might that can wipe out an entire population. I would also say 'the west' (and particularly the U.S) has the greatest military power in the world. No 'allied' soldiers are lost during missile strikes, which are possible because of digital technology and satellites etc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree actually, you are correct, but I didn't mean 'white' people, I meant 'white western ideology'. French people are white too, but they (along with other Europeans as I understand it) possess a different ideoogy to 'the west'. Thus the United Kingdom and the United States are unbalanced to the rest of the world. If we look at the war history of the West we see 'communism' as it's greatest enemy. The relatively recent cuban missile crisis of South America ('communist), the Korean ('commuist') war, the Gulf wars, etc.. However 'the west' does seem to control world media and communications, so any information is easily biased. This is only a general view, so I hope no one thinks I am small minded in any way. I beleive certain places (like Africa) struggle for food, but I am very dubious of the H.I.V virus. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was propaganda to subjugate a country and it's people. If there is truly only one life then no nation would want to be recorded as western countries portray that nation! 'The west' offers financial and medical aid etc, but this comes at a price, thus with the correct 'powers' in place (i.e. people who possess values desired by 'the west', and who dole out this financial and medical aid) food shortages and diseases will 'disappear'! Only because oil is needed! If it wasn't needed then it wouldn't be so 'valuable'. I would like to read this mans work, but for now a brief overview gives me this statement 'the electronic universe, " [is] an unholy impostor,...'a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ'" (p. 125), and I couldn't agree more!
The key words in your first sentence are "wasn't aware." 81% of Americans identify themselves as being of Christian or Jewish belief. The United Kingdom and the United States are the most liberal republics in the west, partially because they lack a native, single ethnicity. Being composed of immigrants, these countries must find a common denominator between citizens with nothing in common, thus settle on humanism and economics.
nothing in common so they gotta settle for humanism and economics? why do you think this is an option? what if they have stuff in common? is humanism and economics out of the picture? what do you think humanism is? why do you think this is an option? lots of questions. i hope you have answers thankee kindlee
I do. But I'm very selective about what I answer, especially if a little googling can save me the time you should be spending on it.
