Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

thanks God it wiped out religion.

Interesting statement. Personally I am atheist, and I believe that without religion the world would have been a much better one.

[/quote]

I cannot agree more. Religion is opium

[suetoniuspaulinus]

thanks God it wiped out religion.

Interesting statement. Personally I am atheist, and I believe that without religion the world would have been a much better one.

I cannot agree more. Religion is opium [/quote]

Mr garbitsch

Someone else agreed with you a long time ago and called religion "the opiate of the masses". His name was Karl Marx

[erolz]

Someone else agreed with you a long time ago and called religion "the opiate of the masses". His name was Karl Marx

Today is not football the opiate of the masses? (that and opium of course!)

[suetoniuspaulinus]

Someone else agreed with you a long time ago and called religion "the opiate of the masses". His name was Karl Marx

Today is not football the opiate of the masses? (that and opium of course!)

Mr erolz

I am prone to agree with you. Desperately trying not to post a "one liner" I need to justify what I say.

If you look at Europe today and Turkey included there are thois committed football "fans" who would happily disembowell you if you insult their team or are seen to be wearing the wrong coloured scarf. This fanaticism is as dangerous, potentially, as any religious fanaticism, in my opinion.

I think Karl Marx was trying to suggest that the "masses" were unintelligent and "needed" a guiding force , like religion.

Please do not misinterpret my iterpretation of KM . I am not suggesting for a moment that the average football fan is unintelligent. BUT I might go so far as to suggest that the average football hooligan is a moron.

While in London I visited Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea and West Ham grounds and admit to being intimidated by the unruly crowds, which for me were quite threatening.

But back to KM.I can also appreciate the idea of "belonging" and being "right" that may be the need for an individual.

Orwell took it kind of a stage further in "1984" with his idea of "Soma", being distributed by the government to literally opiate the masses.

[gabaston]

And on the Sabbath man shall rest.

He awakes in anticipation of worship. He attires himself in ceremonial robe, and travels many miles to give thanks, and pay homage. He pays large sums of money to enter the temples of worship. In unison with other devout followers, he fills his lungs with air and sings the glory of his salvation. He is even prepared at times to partake in crusades or jihads in the name of glorifying the subject of his devotion.

Opium? …………………..naah much more than that.

[erolz]

I am prone to agree with you. Desperately trying not to post a "one liner" I need to justify what I say.

In the same spirit but at the risk of another 'offence' (going off topic) I will also expand.

I come from a more chomskian direction than marxian on this, with the idea that the masses far from being unitelligent are actually the reverse, so the powers that be - that 5% that control 90% - do not want this inteligence turned to asking questions like 'why does 5% control 90%' and thus they need to create distractions for these intelligent masses. Football is one and opium another in this thesis. Chomsky frequently points out the level of intelligence used to analyse and discuss (american) football and the vast and complex range of knowledge that fans often have. He laments that the masses do not seem to apply this same level of intelligence and 'critiquing' to the more serious issues that dominate all our lives.

[suetoniuspaulinus]

I am prone to agree with you. Desperately trying not to post a "one liner" I need to justify what I say.

In the same spirit but at the risk of another 'offence' (going off topic) I will also expand.

I come from a more chomskian direction than marxian on this, with the idea that the masses far from being unitelligent are actually the reverse, so the powers that be - that 5% that control 90% - do not want this inteligence turned to asking questions like 'why does 5% control 90%' and thus they need to create distractions for these intelligent masses. Football is one and opium another in this thesis. Chomsky frequently points out the level of intelligence used to analyse and discuss (american) football and the vast and complex range of knowledge that fans often have. He laments that the masses do not seem to apply this same level of intelligence and 'critiquing' to the more serious issues that dominate all our lives.

Mr erolz

Is this then not a measure of their "non -intelligence". That some of these individuals can spout forth statistics and batting averages that would take you or, dare I say it, me months to memorise, may not be able to offer an opinion on their governments Foreign Policy.

[erolz]

Is this then not a measure of their "non -intelligence". That some of these individuals can spout forth statistics and batting averages that would take you or, dare I say it, me months to memorise, may not be able to offer an opinion on their governments Foreign Policy.

The 'chomskian' view is most certainly not but rather it is a measure of the effectiveness and subtleness of the 'tactic' of the powerful few to distract and bound and limit the scope of debate in our supposedly 'free' democratic states. It is as chomsky terms it the 'manufacturing of consent'. When the 5% who own/control the 90% also own/control 95% of the 'media' in the world the effectivness of both distraction and of 'bounding the limits of debate' are frighteningly effective. Yet despite this the masses often do manage to break out of these subtle controls. So his message as I understand it is that firslty the masses are not 'too ignorant' to determine their own affairs and neither are the means of 'manufacturing their consent' - vast and subtle and effective as they are - totaly effective. Thus the message boils down to 'we (masses) can do it (it being break free of the controling influence of the few on all) - we have the intellectual capcity' but we have to work at it and work at understanding the mechanism and means of the manufacturing of consent.

[suetoniuspaulinus]

Is this then not a measure of their "non -intelligence". That some of these individuals can spout forth statistics and batting averages that would take you or, dare I say it, me months to memorise, may not be able to offer an opinion on their governments Foreign Policy.

The 'chomskian' view is most certainly not but rather it is a measure of the effectiveness and subtleness of the 'tactic' of the powerful few to distract and bound and limit the scope of debate in our supposedly 'free' democratic states. It is as chomsky terms it the 'manufacturing of consent'. When the 5% who own/control the 90% also own/control 95% of the 'media' in the world the effectivness of both distraction and of 'bounding the limits of debate' are frighteningly effective. Yet despite this the masses often do manage to break out of these subtle controls. So his message as I understand it is that firslty the masses are not 'too ignorant' to determine their own affairs and neither are the means of 'manufacturing their consent' - vast and subtle and effective as they are - totaly effective. Thus the message boils down to 'we (masses) can do it (it being break free of the controling influence of the few on all) - we have the intellectual capcity' but we have to work at it and work at understanding the mechanism and means of the manufacturing of consent.

Mr erolz

The written word has always been a powerful tool.

While I agree with Mr Chomsky's contention that "The Masses" are controlled and manipulated by the Media, I would also suggest that this control was effected by the Church in the era before "Mass Media" or Television was born.

I am of the opinion that this "control" became more widespread with the invention of the printing press. Before then, books were hand-written and tended to be Bibles or at leat religious in nature.

There were clearly Intellectuals throughout history who were able to influence the Sciences and Philosophy through their writings but I also believe that these influences were only enjoyed by the "Ruling Classes".

That is to say those who could afford these rather expensive hand-written manuscrpits.

The rest had to be satisfied with the village priest, who read to them on a Sunday from the bible , and then explained what he had read in terms of a Sermon.

The first book to be "printed" was the Goethenburg Bible in Germany.

A little later William Caxton in England came up with a more efficient Printing Press which perhaps allowed more knowledge to be more evenly spread. and this is what may lead to the very few breaking away from the manipulation and questioning the order of things.

We do not really see the influence of the church being eroded in Europe until the end of the Second World War and we also see at this time the emergence of TV and more radio programming. However still relatively expensive items.

I find myself arguing that the Church is in competition with the Media for the minds of men. However both Church and Media are controlled by the Ruling Class.

The minds of men however are improving as a percentage of the population but only relatively slowly. Improvement is due to more education through more books and Internet etc BUT Religion and the Media still manage to influence negatively the vast majority of the worlds population.

Is it something like 7% of the population of the UK attend University?

But only a much smaller percentage go on to higher degrees where they actually have to think. I'm not sure that the masses are too ignorant to think but that they are not motivated to do so in directions that might cause them discomfort.

Enough .Bed Time