Third Meditation

Other than Ron Paul, another person who in my opinion would make an excellent Prime Minister of these United States is Noam Chomsky.  I was listening to him have a discussion with Alex Jones and he would roll over agreeing with everything Alex had to say just so that he could get the chance at inserting some wisdom.

One of the points he tried making was how it has been a rather long established and casual tendency of  tyranny to manipulate the majority through the "manufacturing of consent." In other words, the concept of fooling the people for their consent has existed probably forever and certainly before the time of our Founding Fathers.  As there has always existed media corporations and intelligence agencies working to propagate the king's press, such entities still work for tyranny in the same fashion today.

Therefore, the media corporations speak more than just lies today as they are willfully allowing themselves to be utilized by tyranny for the purpose of manufacturing consent.  Or, as they are expert at making it appear to us, because we wish for it, we get what we deserve.

Again, as the mandate of the tyrant will always be towards the reconstituting of young women and boys into secret harems for his enjoyment, the true unchanging mandate of the disadvantaged people will always be a limitation put on the size of his government.  And I think that is one of my main challenges to the norm today.  Our Founders married the disadvantaged majority to a more perfect Union.  When the wife loses her authority as the people, she slowly sinks to becoming a whore - just as the people of the United States treated no better by their government than any other people of the world.  When, as a prostitute on the street, she sees how terrible the people are being neglected by tyranny, and that she herself is the one who represents the American people, she will then become envisioned and empowered to stand and walk in faith out of her darkness.

Along with Noam Chomsky, William F. Buckley too would have made a great Prime Minister of these United States.

I find it very interesting listening to the recorded discussions of the great late William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky because they were more likely during that time to reduce towards saying something that might offend the audience.  Indeed, that is a subtle point concerning any discussion as elaborations made upon a preset political platform, a ploy of the sophists, will always tend to sell more cookies than would the more rational and philosophical approach of both involve in the discussion reducing towards a mutual common ground, or towards a bipartisan platform.

For those of you who think William F. Buckley lost in his discussions with Noam Chomsky, understand, he was at a severe disadvantage to his guest in that, as the interviewer, he always had to play the part of the submissive Socrates.  In contrast, Noam Chomsky already had a preset platform in which to elaborate upon.

This relationship between great American thinkers, between both the liberal Chomsky and the conservative Buckley, is an important point to focus on.  Supposedly, when Socrates himself was instructing his students, utilizing a whole new teaching method in the process, he would rarely ever elaborate.  Instead, he would constantly reduce by inductive questioning keeping his own elaborated theories a secret so that he could reveal them eventually as a prize for his student's good work.  When he did elaborate, it caused much marveling among his students as he would be demonstrating to them that he actually knew the best-principled answer all along.

A subtle point is how the legal world has come to appear to accept the virtues of ancient Greece.  But, causing a shadow in our conscience, the use of our serpent eye should reveal to us that that is not how tyranny works.  Neither Socrates, Plato, nor Aristotle were ever accepted officially by the all-knowers of their time.  Likewise, the all-knowers in power today still live in the same legal world as the all-knowers of ancient time.  In actuality, as their lives depended on it, the ancient philosophers had to work from a position of subversiveness or else!

Again, an all-knower is someone who is born knowing all things.  He or she knows all things because of their birth name.  They are not qualified because of any grade given to them, but because of born empowerment.  Simply put, if you happen to disagree with them, they have the power to beat you down.  

In the end, concerning the New World political spectrum, virtue only becomes meaningful to the prostitute, to the disadvantaged majority she represents, and to those subversive ones within society who have decided to convert over to her side.  Concerning tyranny, virtue is only important as a tool for manufacturing consent as Noam Chomsky quoted another as saying.  In other words, as manipulation of the people by tyranny has become a problem today, so it was the same exact problem during the times of ancient Greece.

If I were a tyrant with absolute power, the best way for me to manufacture consent of the public would be to limit their state indoctrination to that of the defining of individual terms.  After all, true virtue needs more than just definition, as terms have to be put in perspective in how each relates to the other.  In other words, while there does exist a true lawful definition for each term, to retain their validness, there also exists a true orderly way in which the many lawful virtues have to follow after the other in a sentence.  As the people are taught now, speech writers can so easily deceive them by the "manufacturing of consent," by the muddling up of the message by twisting it up into an improper reorganization of virtues.  Using this deceitful process, my message would seem valid to the public as the string of virtues I would be speaking to them would be in correct complete sentences while constructed in proper and so undeniable grammatical context.

In the end, a more proper education isn't going to alter the deceit in my messages.  Again, the best-principled way to limit my tyranny is going to be limiting the size of government.

So, I applaud Noam Chomsky in the way he constantly and mutually agreed with Alex Jones so that he could convey for those of us smaller people out here his understanding on the "manufacturing of consent."

Again, what we are beginning to realize in this world is how what is in the best interest of the people and their Civil Purpose will always be a constant mandate written in stone.  As the mandates of tyranny are for the enjoyment of a leisure life that is wholly downhill, for the reconstituting of young women and boys into the harems, and for the acquiring of ample amounts of free time so as to enjoy them, the unchanging mandate of the homeless prostitute and those who have converted over to her side will always be for limitations to be put on government.