"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well" - Socrates (from The Crito - 48 b)
A little history and the topic of this dialogue:
From the "Introduction", Huntington Cairns...
Nearly a month elapsed between Socrates's condemnation and execution, a delay not at all in accordance with Athenian custom. The day before the trial, however, a state galley had been sent on a sacred annual mission and until it returned no one could be to death. For various reasons the mission took longer than usual, and Socrates' friends used the time to make a plan for getting him out of prison and away from Athens.
The evening before the Crito opens the galley has been sighted, and very early on the following morning Socrates' old and devoted friend, Crito, comes to the prison to lay the plan before him and beseech him to let his friends save him. It will be easy to bribe his jailers. He himself has far more money than will be needed, and there are many others who are eager to contribute. Athens is not the only place where Socrates can live happily. He will find friends wherever he goes.
To this Socrates answers by asking him if it can ever be right to defend oneself against evil by doing evil. Granted that it was unjust to condemn him to death, can it be right for him to escape by breaking the law? What will happen to a state if individual men are able to set aside laws? A man must always do what his country orders him unless he can change her view of what the law should be.
" If you leave the city, Socrates, ' the laws argue, 'you shall return wrong for wrong and evil, breaking your agreements and covenants with us, and injuring those whom you least ought to injure - yourself, your friends, your country, and us."
That my dear friend Crito, I do assure you, is what I seem to hear then saying ... and the sound of thier arguments rings so loudly in my head that i cannot hear the other side. However, if you think you will do any good by it, say what you like."
"Socrates, I have nothing to say."
"Then, Crito, let us follow this course, since God points out the way."
[All extracts of The Crito are from: The Collected Dialogues of Plato - Including The Letters, Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns with Introduction and Prefatory Notes - Bollingen Series LXXI ]
This was the question that Socrates was dealing with in the month before he drank his hemlock...
To this Socrates answers by asking him if it can ever be right to defend oneself against evil by doing evil. Granted that it was unjust to comdemn him to death, can it be right for him to escape by breaking the law? What will happen to a state if individual men are able to set aside laws? A man must always do what his country orders him unless he can change her view of what the law should be.
Note that Socrates spent a whole month talking to his 'followers' (not dumb and cultlike such as Fox News plumbers/followers but rich, educated & intelligent).
From the "Introduction", Huntington Cairns...
Nearly a month elapsed between Socrates's condemnation and execution, a delay not at all in accordance with Athenian custom. The day before the trial, however, a state galley had been sent on a sacred annual mission and until it returned no one could be to death. For various reasons the mission took longer than usual, and Socrates' friends used the time to make a plan for getting him out of prison and away from Athens.
The evening before the Crito opens the galley has been sighted, and very early on the following morning Socrates' old and devoted friend, Crito, comes to the prison to lay the plan before him and beseech him to let his friends save him. It will be easy to bribe his jailers. He himself has far more money than will be needed, and there are many others who are eager to contribute. Athens is not the only place where Socrates can live happily. He will find friends wherever he goes.
To this Socrates answers by asking him if it can ever be right to defend oneself against evil by doing evil. Granted that it was unjust to condemn him to death, can it be right for him to escape by breaking the law? What will happen to a state if individual men are able to set aside laws? A man must always do what his country orders him unless he can change her view of what the law should be.
" If you leave the city, Socrates, ' the laws argue, 'you shall return wrong for wrong and evil, breaking your agreements and covenants with us, and injuring those whom you least ought to injure - yourself, your friends, your country, and us."
That my dear friend Crito, I do assure you, is what I seem to hear then saying ... and the sound of thier arguments rings so loudly in my head that i cannot hear the other side. However, if you think you will do any good by it, say what you like."
"Socrates, I have nothing to say."
"Then, Crito, let us follow this course, since God points out the way."
[All extracts of The Crito are from: The Collected Dialogues of Plato - Including The Letters, Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns with Introduction and Prefatory Notes - Bollingen Series LXXI ]
This was the question that Socrates was dealing with in the month before he drank his hemlock...
To this Socrates answers by asking him if it can ever be right to defend oneself against evil by doing evil. Granted that it was unjust to comdemn him to death, can it be right for him to escape by breaking the law? What will happen to a state if individual men are able to set aside laws? A man must always do what his country orders him unless he can change her view of what the law should be.
Note that Socrates spent a whole month talking to his 'followers' (not dumb and cultlike such as Fox News plumbers/followers but rich, educated & intelligent).
[51 b] Socrates: Do you not realize that you are even more bound to respect and placate the anger of your country than your father's anger?
This is actually normal to a degree. Throughout history, integrated tribes, have used a transition method to help boys move into adulthood/manhood. breaking them away from dependency on thier mother and transferring this attachment to the group. A remnant of this still exists in the Jewish culture though it has little psychological effect (a woman gets her period and is thus brought into adulthood by nature itself. Men have to do more work). This knowledge has been mostly lost but it is used in the armies to consolidate thier group and focus them into a unit. Problem is they are not transitioned into civilian life. Living in the army isn't living the same as a living as a civilian. Any expert that says otherwise needs to be put on lie detectors.
The transition from the human group to the State is what bothers me most. In the group there is still human contact. But when your faith moves into an abstract concept then you fight over land, money and women. The way bulls fight during mating season. Anyways, having a State itself is necessary for Self-Government & Liberty. As long as it's a functioning of Democracy that is understood and not just paid lip service to.
In Ancient Greece people were still connected to each other through human energy AND their whole philosophy on life involved being as good as you can be at EVERYTHING in your life. Now we have divided life into categories like the ancient caste system of India (which was initially flexible and became rigid only over time). Dividing our lives into categories and being overly attached to abstract ideas and institutions, detached from normal human empathy, can't possibly be good. Can it?
This is actually normal to a degree. Throughout history, integrated tribes, have used a transition method to help boys move into adulthood/manhood. breaking them away from dependency on thier mother and transferring this attachment to the group. A remnant of this still exists in the Jewish culture though it has little psychological effect (a woman gets her period and is thus brought into adulthood by nature itself. Men have to do more work). This knowledge has been mostly lost but it is used in the armies to consolidate thier group and focus them into a unit. Problem is they are not transitioned into civilian life. Living in the army isn't living the same as a living as a civilian. Any expert that says otherwise needs to be put on lie detectors.
The transition from the human group to the State is what bothers me most. In the group there is still human contact. But when your faith moves into an abstract concept then you fight over land, money and women. The way bulls fight during mating season. Anyways, having a State itself is necessary for Self-Government & Liberty. As long as it's a functioning of Democracy that is understood and not just paid lip service to.
In Ancient Greece people were still connected to each other through human energy AND their whole philosophy on life involved being as good as you can be at EVERYTHING in your life. Now we have divided life into categories like the ancient caste system of India (which was initially flexible and became rigid only over time). Dividing our lives into categories and being overly attached to abstract ideas and institutions, detached from normal human empathy, can't possibly be good. Can it?
[52 b] Socrates (speaking rhetorically) : They would say, Socrates, we have substantial evidence that you are satisfied with us and with the state. You would not have been so exceptionally reluctant to cross the borders of your country if you had not been exceptionally attached to it. You have never left the city to attend any festival or for any other purpose, except on some military expedition. You have never travelled abroad as other people do, and you have never felt the impulse to acquaint yourself with another country or constitution. You have been content with us and with our city. You have definitely chosen us and undertaken to observe us in all your activities as a citizen, and as crowning proof that you are satisfied with our city, you have begotten children in it. Furthermore, even at the time of your trial you could have proposed the penalty of banishment, if you had chosen to do so - that is, you could have done then with the sanction of the state what you are now trying to do without it. But whereas at that time you made a noble show of indifference if you had to die, and in fact preferred death, as you said, to banishment, now you show no respect for your earlier professions, and regard for us, the laws, whom you are trying to destroy. You are behaving like the lowest type of menial, trying to run away in spite of contracts and undertakings by which you agreed to live as a member of our state.
I think Socrates may have been overcompensating with his loyalty to his City State (back then, in ancient Greece, every city was it's own State and had it's own government). It could be that Socrates was originally an immigrant as immigrant are the most likely to overcompensate by being loyal like a dog (i.e. loyalty no matter how mean you are to them, how much you beat them or how much you torture them. A pet dog will remain loyal through ALL of this).
If your State is violating it's own Constitution and morality then it becomes your moral duty to fight it. Either overtly (public debate) or covertly (private discussion). If Socrates had left Athens and established himself elsewhere then, in time, he could have possibly changed that law and mob justice may have been less powerful than it is today as ALL of western thought is founded on Plato (The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 39 [Free Press, 1979]).
Anyways, it was in his Apology that we first hear about Socrates's solo fight against his own 'enemies of the constitution'. Another example of history repeating itself.
"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung
For example, study this case study on the 'enemies of the constitution' , i.e. covert actions of the US that is not only Un-Constitutional but also puts thier own citizens and world peace at risk. Then ask yourself, if you are loyal to your group/country laws to the point of betraying future generations to a life of murder and mayhem... are you truly being loyal to your country? In any case, it may be given the cultural situation of that time Socrates made the right choice that led to stabilization of his culture. We will never know. But we do know that when his city's Constitution was threatened by tyrants he was the ONLY one to stand against mass opinion. So overly submissive loyalty to the "State" may not have been his real problem. It may have been that he was just too hurt by his fellow Athenians prejudice to leave and decided that dying by thier hands would be best to teach them that mob justice isn't justice at all.
Tools To Understand Democracy & Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica.
I think Socrates may have been overcompensating with his loyalty to his City State (back then, in ancient Greece, every city was it's own State and had it's own government). It could be that Socrates was originally an immigrant as immigrant are the most likely to overcompensate by being loyal like a dog (i.e. loyalty no matter how mean you are to them, how much you beat them or how much you torture them. A pet dog will remain loyal through ALL of this).
If your State is violating it's own Constitution and morality then it becomes your moral duty to fight it. Either overtly (public debate) or covertly (private discussion). If Socrates had left Athens and established himself elsewhere then, in time, he could have possibly changed that law and mob justice may have been less powerful than it is today as ALL of western thought is founded on Plato (The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 39 [Free Press, 1979]).
Anyways, it was in his Apology that we first hear about Socrates's solo fight against his own 'enemies of the constitution'. Another example of history repeating itself.
"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung
For example, study this case study on the 'enemies of the constitution' , i.e. covert actions of the US that is not only Un-Constitutional but also puts thier own citizens and world peace at risk. Then ask yourself, if you are loyal to your group/country laws to the point of betraying future generations to a life of murder and mayhem... are you truly being loyal to your country? In any case, it may be given the cultural situation of that time Socrates made the right choice that led to stabilization of his culture. We will never know. But we do know that when his city's Constitution was threatened by tyrants he was the ONLY one to stand against mass opinion. So overly submissive loyalty to the "State" may not have been his real problem. It may have been that he was just too hurt by his fellow Athenians prejudice to leave and decided that dying by thier hands would be best to teach them that mob justice isn't justice at all.
Tools To Understand Democracy & Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica.
"... a great many people who don't know you and me very well will be sure to think that I let you down, because I could have saved you if I had been willing to spend the money. And what could be more contemptible than to get a name for thinking more of money than your friends? Most people will never believe that it was you who refused to leave this place although we tried our hardet to persuade you.
Socrates: But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what 'most people' think? The really reasonable people, who have more claim to be considered, will believe that the facts are exactly as they are.
Crito: You can see for yourself, Socrates, that one has to think of popular opinion as well. Your present position is quite enough to show that the capacity of ordinary people for causing trouble is not confined to petty annoyances, but has hardly any limits if you once get a bad name with them." 44 c & d
True. Just see how Rush Limbaugh is so effective. Summary...
Socrates: But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what 'most people' think? The really reasonable people, who have more claim to be considered, will believe that the facts are exactly as they are.
Crito: You can see for yourself, Socrates, that one has to think of popular opinion as well. Your present position is quite enough to show that the capacity of ordinary people for causing trouble is not confined to petty annoyances, but has hardly any limits if you once get a bad name with them." 44 c & d
True. Just see how Rush Limbaugh is so effective. Summary...
The above Rush Limbaugh example shows that there is literally a market for stereotypes and bigotry with an angry tone (a 'self-righteousness') and that he is either still on drugs or he is in need of psychiatric care. Rush Limbaugh is living proof that one of the gravest threats to Democracy and Peace are idiots with microphones funded by multi-billion dollar corporations/people. Related: [Bot Bites] Do You Support The Newt-Cain-Limbaugh Slut Train?
The following extract represents, what I think, is the source of what Jesus meant when said 'Turn Thy Cheek':
{Plato's dialogues have obviously been a part of the global marketplace conversation since they were written, in the middle-east as well as in the west through merchants as they did all the travelling and would converse with each other. When the merchants returned to thier homelands they took thier new found knowledge/experience with them and told others. It's how the United States became half Native. Conflict and Alexander's conquest and the subsequent spreading of Greek Institutions/Lyceums thought the Ancient World was also a big factor.}
So, in a sense, ALL of modern thought... all over the world, is rooted in ancient ideas outlined in Plato's works!
[49 a] Socrates: Do we say that one must never willingly do wrong, or does it depend upon circumstances? Is it true, as we have often agreed before, that there is no sense in which wrongdoing is good or honourable Or have we jettisoned all our former convictions in these last few days? Can you and I at our age, Crito, have spent all these years in serious discussions without realizing that we were no better than a pair of children? Surely the truth is just what we have always said. Whatever the popular view is, and whether the alternative is pleasanter than the present one or even harder to bear, the fact remains that to do wrong is in every sense bad and dishonourable for the person who does it. Is that our view, or not?
Crito: Yes, it is.
Socrates: Then in no circumstances must one do wrong.
Crito: No.
Socrates: In that case one must not even do wrong when one is wrong, which most people regard as the natural course.
Crito: Apparently not.
Notice that in this paragraph Socrates is arguing for COMPLETE morality (Karen Armstrong called this the "axis" age because this is when the whole Ancient World became the crux of a revolution away from superstitious magick and towards personal responsibility and morality. Siddhartha talked about the same morality in his 8 fold path as the rest of the moral philosophers of that age). By this logic, 'An eye for an eye' was just meant to minimize revenge attacks/killings by telling people that if you are attacked... NOT seeking revenge beyond what was done to you. For example; In the Old Testament you see that tribes of that time - i.e. 2000-500 BC - used to kill everyone in the village/town that they didn't like or as revenge, a problem Israel may have inherited, (so this may have been an ancient moral method to limit blood lust):.
Deuteronomy 20:16: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
Psalm 137:8-9: "O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us. O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!"
Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Numbers 31: 17-18" "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Related: Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Todd Atkin Of "The Party Of Rape & War"
The problem is people make decisions emotionally and not only does anger cloud judgement it also destroysthe ability to think.
There is an ancient story of "the Black Knight". When Ali, nephew of the Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.), was fighting he reached a point where he was about to kill an enemy in black armor. Just when he was about to strike the black knight spit on him. Ali stopped and walked away. Why? Because he didn't want to strike while angry... and being spit on made him angry. [Source: Rumi's Mathnawi]
{Plato's dialogues have obviously been a part of the global marketplace conversation since they were written, in the middle-east as well as in the west through merchants as they did all the travelling and would converse with each other. When the merchants returned to thier homelands they took thier new found knowledge/experience with them and told others. It's how the United States became half Native. Conflict and Alexander's conquest and the subsequent spreading of Greek Institutions/Lyceums thought the Ancient World was also a big factor.}
So, in a sense, ALL of modern thought... all over the world, is rooted in ancient ideas outlined in Plato's works!
[49 a] Socrates: Do we say that one must never willingly do wrong, or does it depend upon circumstances? Is it true, as we have often agreed before, that there is no sense in which wrongdoing is good or honourable Or have we jettisoned all our former convictions in these last few days? Can you and I at our age, Crito, have spent all these years in serious discussions without realizing that we were no better than a pair of children? Surely the truth is just what we have always said. Whatever the popular view is, and whether the alternative is pleasanter than the present one or even harder to bear, the fact remains that to do wrong is in every sense bad and dishonourable for the person who does it. Is that our view, or not?
Crito: Yes, it is.
Socrates: Then in no circumstances must one do wrong.
Crito: No.
Socrates: In that case one must not even do wrong when one is wrong, which most people regard as the natural course.
Crito: Apparently not.
Notice that in this paragraph Socrates is arguing for COMPLETE morality (Karen Armstrong called this the "axis" age because this is when the whole Ancient World became the crux of a revolution away from superstitious magick and towards personal responsibility and morality. Siddhartha talked about the same morality in his 8 fold path as the rest of the moral philosophers of that age). By this logic, 'An eye for an eye' was just meant to minimize revenge attacks/killings by telling people that if you are attacked... NOT seeking revenge beyond what was done to you. For example; In the Old Testament you see that tribes of that time - i.e. 2000-500 BC - used to kill everyone in the village/town that they didn't like or as revenge, a problem Israel may have inherited, (so this may have been an ancient moral method to limit blood lust):.
Deuteronomy 20:16: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
Psalm 137:8-9: "O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us. O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!"
Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Numbers 31: 17-18" "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Related: Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Todd Atkin Of "The Party Of Rape & War"
The problem is people make decisions emotionally and not only does anger cloud judgement it also destroysthe ability to think.
There is an ancient story of "the Black Knight". When Ali, nephew of the Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.), was fighting he reached a point where he was about to kill an enemy in black armor. Just when he was about to strike the black knight spit on him. Ali stopped and walked away. Why? Because he didn't want to strike while angry... and being spit on made him angry. [Source: Rumi's Mathnawi]
The following paragraph explains why you must listen to experts.
Socrates: Was it always right to argue that some opinions should be taken seriously but not others? (46 d)
Some thinkers, I believe have always held some view as the one which I mentioned just now, that some of the opinions which people entertain should be respected, and others should not. Now I ask you, Crito, don't you think that this is a sound principle? You are safe from the prospect of dying tomorrow, in all human probability, and you are not likely to have your judgement upset by this impending calamity. Consider, then, don't you think that this is a sound enough principle, that one should not regard all the opinions that people hold, but only some and not others? What do you say? Isn't that a fair statement?
Crito: Yes it is.
Socrates: In other words, one should regard the good ones and not the bad?
Crito: Yes.
Socrates: The opinions of the wise being good, and the opinions of the foolish bad?
Crito: Naturally.
Socrates: To pass on, then, what do you think of the sort of illustration that I used to employ? When a man is in training, and taking it seriously, does he pay attention to all praise and criticism and opinion indiscriminately, or only when it comes from the one qualified person, the actual doctor or trainer?
Crito: Only when it comes from the one qualified person.
Socrates: Then he should be afraid of the criticism and welcome the praise of the one qualified person, but not those of the general public?
Crito: Obviously.
The logic is simple and self-explanatory. for example; If you visit a farm you have to learn from an expert (the farmer) how to milk a cow. If you have car trouble you need someone with mechanical expertise. When testing water or your backyard for pollutants/toxins you need the expertise of a biologist/lab-expert to test the water and soil. To think you know something simply because you can think it, is dumb but has always been a problem of civilization.
If you want the truth about media manipulation/lies/propaganda, to discover whether there is "hypnosis" going on in US Media... you have to ask an expert on communication, hypnosis & NLP. (BTW, the answer to that one is YES! - for the USA - as it'smedia is controlled by a tiny group that supports a minority while calling themselves the 49%). i.e. 49% of people voted GOP even though ALL GOP policies are bad for everyone EXCEPT millionaires and billionairs. For such a party platform to even exist you need a large following of people who will listen without question and do your bidding... even when they think they are opposing you, i.e. they are in a deep trance state (hypnosis).
Fox News has a cult following of people who won't even listen to ANY other news source if they don't like the title or topic. But even if they did, the GOP controls almost all of the News Media directly or indirectly. For example; A confirmed ally of Bush-Cheney sits on the Time-Warner board. Also, since all news media have consolidated into a tiny number of corporations, whose owners all know each other and seem to be friends, it's possible to create an echo chamber of misinformation either all the time OR some of the time, since sometimes it's more useful to create two opposing views and have each group fight each other. {example 1 of echo chambers and example 2}.
Socrates: Was it always right to argue that some opinions should be taken seriously but not others? (46 d)
Some thinkers, I believe have always held some view as the one which I mentioned just now, that some of the opinions which people entertain should be respected, and others should not. Now I ask you, Crito, don't you think that this is a sound principle? You are safe from the prospect of dying tomorrow, in all human probability, and you are not likely to have your judgement upset by this impending calamity. Consider, then, don't you think that this is a sound enough principle, that one should not regard all the opinions that people hold, but only some and not others? What do you say? Isn't that a fair statement?
Crito: Yes it is.
Socrates: In other words, one should regard the good ones and not the bad?
Crito: Yes.
Socrates: The opinions of the wise being good, and the opinions of the foolish bad?
Crito: Naturally.
Socrates: To pass on, then, what do you think of the sort of illustration that I used to employ? When a man is in training, and taking it seriously, does he pay attention to all praise and criticism and opinion indiscriminately, or only when it comes from the one qualified person, the actual doctor or trainer?
Crito: Only when it comes from the one qualified person.
Socrates: Then he should be afraid of the criticism and welcome the praise of the one qualified person, but not those of the general public?
Crito: Obviously.
The logic is simple and self-explanatory. for example; If you visit a farm you have to learn from an expert (the farmer) how to milk a cow. If you have car trouble you need someone with mechanical expertise. When testing water or your backyard for pollutants/toxins you need the expertise of a biologist/lab-expert to test the water and soil. To think you know something simply because you can think it, is dumb but has always been a problem of civilization.
If you want the truth about media manipulation/lies/propaganda, to discover whether there is "hypnosis" going on in US Media... you have to ask an expert on communication, hypnosis & NLP. (BTW, the answer to that one is YES! - for the USA - as it'smedia is controlled by a tiny group that supports a minority while calling themselves the 49%). i.e. 49% of people voted GOP even though ALL GOP policies are bad for everyone EXCEPT millionaires and billionairs. For such a party platform to even exist you need a large following of people who will listen without question and do your bidding... even when they think they are opposing you, i.e. they are in a deep trance state (hypnosis).
Fox News has a cult following of people who won't even listen to ANY other news source if they don't like the title or topic. But even if they did, the GOP controls almost all of the News Media directly or indirectly. For example; A confirmed ally of Bush-Cheney sits on the Time-Warner board. Also, since all news media have consolidated into a tiny number of corporations, whose owners all know each other and seem to be friends, it's possible to create an echo chamber of misinformation either all the time OR some of the time, since sometimes it's more useful to create two opposing views and have each group fight each other. {example 1 of echo chambers and example 2}.
"Republican's and thier revenue sources own 90% of media." Senator Bernie Sanders
CHART from Mother Jones: Americans didn’t intend to elect a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. But thanks to GOP-engineered redistricting, they did.
Related: Tools To Understand Democracy & Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Related: Tools To Understand Democracy & Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica.
The most notable problem in US media is that the GOP just used money to take over Congress with a minority vote... and NO ONE but a magazine labelled 'left leaning', is talking about it. How is stealing the House a left leaning issue? Such madness is only possible when a small group of people control AND direct media conversation which in turn shapes public opinion. Hitler & his Nazis were experts at this method. The GOP is following in thier footsteps... and not just because all of Hitler's scientists ended up in the new Neo-Nazi homeland (Texas) but they are using the actual methods! (especially the one where if you repeat a lie often enough people come to believe it). The simply reality is that if the News Media has shaped US Mass Opinion, then it can also be used to dismantle it. We should restart by dismantling US Corporate Media... beginning with Fox "News".
RSS Feed
