Is this redpilled?

**left of center, as in the speaker is.

Apropos David Harvey, he's been making an excellent chain of videos for Democracy at Work during the past five months. I can recommend watching 'em, in case any one of you hasn't.

Attached: 4880FF0B-CEC6-4A33-A227-505072715A12.jpg (800x1230, 100K)

> another thread full of burgers arguing about which variant of their folk tales is right

read this instead

Attached: 9780231060820.jpg (350x525, 38K)

Yo, no sensible person cares what supposed ideology the system's entrenched powers use to justify their ruthless pursuit goals that arise from undiluted self-interest. Any principles are a projection of the common fok who do have values, humanistic impulses and things they care about, on the compromised sociopaths instrumentalised by the system.

So how about an answer to the question about whether this book helps you understand how the system, as a sufficiently coordinated machine of money, information and law, subverts the will of the people to make them think they want what the system prefers them to want, at least far enough that inquiring minds starting to smell the bullshit still get caught up in the notion that arguing about definitions of centrism and authoritarianism is a good use of time?

Neoliberalism is center left retard

Liberalism in all its forms is left

The preface and introduction was good. The case studies drag on and on and on, the authors repeat themselves and cite so many sources I actually begin to become suspicious.

Yes, I get it. Mainstream media lies, Chomsky and Herman don't, they provide the FACTS, they don't just offer some loose theory of media bias they show it in ACTION... but it gets so granular you lose the big picture. And then you start to see Chosmky and Herman's political biases in these offhanded comments and it's like ... wait a second... aren't you using half the same tactics?

I started reading it like 6 months ago and I'm still plodding through the excessive Indochina wars chapter where everything ever said by any US journalist on Vietnam is quoted, mocked, and refuted against the same five principles of media bias they've been rambling on with for 300 pages preceding.

It's a good book, but it's crushed me beneath its weight.

Capitalism is liberal. Liberalism is left

It's not entirely relevant because the most powerful media outlets, esp in the Anglosphere, are pretty unashamedly right wing (and also trash). As an example, the main British newspapers are under significant control from the Daily Mail (they are insanely well funded and have ended up owning most of the important newspaper infrastructure, it's not so prevalent in TV but ITV also own quite a bit of infrastructure too and the BBC is populated with a number of right wing cronies in a number of places). So if you read this you have to imagine things are worse/more exaggerated now.

>Apropos
wow this is the first time I've seen this word used outside of notes from underground

it's almost like you can't describe all political characteristics on a single axis

Are there any other Chomsky texts that are worth reading as well?

>Chomsky
>obvious political bias
Oh it wasnt obvious?

Good idea. However, these fucking retards believe that the State and media are manufacturing conservative/reactionary consent. Which is laughable. The State and media are decidedly liberal capitalist.

More it's almost like you don't know what you're talking about.

Attached: file.png (875x845, 342K)

You totally miss the point in the across the spectrum formation of what is considered news. It's not so much support as framing.

Not exactly... Carter was the first real "neoliberal" president broadly speaking since he embraced monetarism followed by Reagan, very different.

Yes absolutely

read this instead

Attached: 274826.jpg (234x400, 11K)

CHOMSKY IS NOT WORTH READING.

THE ONLY THING HE'S GOOD AT WAS THE BALKAN WARS.

Good comment. Thanks.

Attached: DrhpO9vUUAArehi.jpg (800x1200, 268K)

>buttigieg
He failed his son and raised a fucking lib

Nobody believes you.
Chomsky knows more than linguistics. Get over it.

It's a good book. If you don't feel like reading it, digest it's central thesis, which is simple and as follows:

Capitalist media is better at doing state propaganda than state media because the public does not think of it as state propaganda but as a private commodity. It is digested like any other product and it is not regarded with the same repulsion that state media is regarded with. Furthermore, the perverse incentives of the private sector creates a feedback loop in the revolving door between the private sector and public sector whereby the state becomes loaded with bad faith actors from the private sector who both wish to undermine the state and use it to their private ends. Therefore not only is private sector media better at performing state propaganda, the state propaganda matches the private sector special-interest needs. Private Media is state propaganda, tailored to target demographics, and a reflection of the needs of the bourgeoisie in any given nation with a large private sector in media.

Anywhere politics is mentioned Americans should be banned from. I'm sick of seeing their stupid blathering about topics they don't understand and their stupid thoughts on their fascist, capitalist shithole.

That book is extremely redpilled, though. Not in the bastardised "(((THEY))) did it!!!!" way retards parrot. Jews really are a scapegoat. Goddamn.

t. jew

Okay. Let's say I'm Jewish. Add something else to your comment to make a point. A good one, maybe. I'd like it to be worth my time to read.

Anyone have a favorite quote from this? I've heard a lot of people I admire recommend this book, but they never said what they liked about it (probably never read it).

Welcome to the real world. There are no rules, no good guys and bad guys. There is no magical book which contains all of life's answers. You will need to work things out in a way with which you can be satisfied. Enjoy your stay

quality post, any answers?

Having started then given up on reading a few Chomsky books, I recommend Understanding Power. Another user mentioned being "crushed" under the weight of the endless stream of anecdotes in Manufacturing Consent. Understanding Power---to my knowledge, uniquely among books with Chomsky's name on them---avoids that problem for the most part since the whole thing is arranged as a series of questions fielded at various of his speaking engagement along with Chomsky's lightly-edited responses. The book is arranged by topic, and a team of editors collaborated with Chomsky to produce endnotes that are maintained as a four hundred some page PDF at the book's website. Again, I much prefer the results of this arrangement to what happens when Chomsky gets ahold of a pen.

I'm op. This is what I wanted to know as well. I'm not even a burger.

You can have my copy OP, I never finished it.

Yes. Based

>they are [new fad title]
They are jews. The old squirmy worms.

This.
His videos about the Chinese economy are particularly important. Also, humming along with the pseudo-Soviet anthem opening bumper is funzies.

Bull. The BBC is far left.

HAhahahaahahahahahahahaha go back to watching Sargon videos you absolute pleb.

All of his linguistic stuff is good. From a phil. of language/science perspective Cartesian Linguistics is good.

Funny. The only non establishment presidential candidate running for 2020 is a Jew, the rest of them are corporatist cock gobblers.

It is time for bed Mr Shapiro.

This is what the "fake news" retardation has done to people's minds. Now we have a group of people who mistrust the media despite never having watched it or read it. Obviously it's good to be critical of what you hear and obviously the media has its biases, but this right wing attack on the media as being "far left" is just totally embarrassing and shows you get your news from independent YouTube personalities.