• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Eugenics Gone Wild | Main | Stopping Climate Change (or not) »

October 04, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Isaac

Mark this was such a great post that I just wanted to let you know that I started a blog over at www.ConspiracyFactualists.com that delves into a lot of the Conspiracy facts that surround us. It seems to me that there is a global elite that already know about this technology and do not want the population to be able to have access to it so they create this distraction known as 9/11 which is designed to get everyone forcused on the war on terror instead of on the world changing nanotechnology. 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

Tom Craver

The author of Shock Doctrine is upset that traumatic events are being used to advance "capitalism" - but this is hardly a new trend, and hardly limited to "capitalists".

Shock has long been used as the means to social transformations of the sort which the author heartily approves.

Violent revolution was explicitly a part of the playbook for instituting communism / socialism. Nazis used an economic crisis to gain power, then created fear and chaos to gain total control. Protests and riots were used to create the crisis needed to push through racial integration - followed by wealth transfer programs that created a permanently dependent under-class. Academic intellectuals encouraged student protests and riots against the Vietnam war, because it opposed to communism.

Note that I'm not saying the other side in those cases were saints - but it really seems like the author has suddenly realized that exploiting shock to gain leverage over big government can work just as well for "the other side" - so she finally starts crying "Foul!".

Further, she shows her own bias by falsely conflating two groups she dislikes - the big business "capitalists" (fascists) who seek profits and privileges from government in the wake of a shock; and the Friedman-ites, who are mostly interested in pushing back toward government as Guardian, separated from the social and commercial realms.

She wants to have her big government intervention cake, but keep the "capitalists" from eating it too. It won't work - once you've corrupted the Guardian, it will sell its power to all buyers.

The comments to this entry are closed.