(untitled)

Our current culture is extremely hedonistic and the media clearly encourages said hedonism. As I see it there are two possible explanations and I'm unsure which is true or whether it is a mix and if it is a mix in what proportion is the blame shared A) As a result of better material conditions, hedonism for the masses has for the first time in history become possible. The hedonism was delayed by religion but as conditions improved and hedonism became easier, religiosity declined and hedonism was able to strengthen. The media's encouragement of this hedonism is simply due to the fact that it's what the people want and therefore what makes the most profits. B) The media's encouragement of hedonism the result of an insidious plot to subvert the masses and make them docile, hedonistic cash-cows for the ruling elite to exploit.

B https://truthout.org/articles/john-taylor-gatto-challenged-the-ideas-inherent-in-us-mass-schooling/

“…the mass of the public are just too stupid to be able to understand things. If they try to participate in managing their own affairs, they’re just going to cause trouble. Therefore, it would be immoral and improper to permit them to do this. We have to tame the bewildered herd, not allow the bewildered herd to rage and trample and destroy things.” Noam Chomsky, Media Control

Why not both? 1. profit seeking equals maximizing product addiction and modern tools are fundamental in understanding addiction which enables using same research for products. Once one company finds an exploit in human psyche the rest are in compulsory move to follow or they would put themself into handicap and risk losing market share. There are of course niche markets supplying people smart enough to escape the exploits but they are niche because the majority is unable to do so. 2. gov has studies that show its profitable. Ive read one study that showed fat people are net positive on taxes because they die early and dont take pension money like healthy people making it to 90s. And you also know gov got corrupted by lobby money from food pyramid as an example - the recommendation was written by industry people rehired for ministry that advertised their company products. So it goes hand in hand - business and gov both profit turning people into pigs. All in all interests align to pull in same direction.

>>58745 Full context of that quote, since you make it sound like he endorses this idea: > Lippmann backed this up by a pretty elaborated theory of progressive democracy. He argued that in a properly functioning democracy there are classes of citizens. There is first of all the class of citizens who have to take some active role in running general affairs. That’s the specialized class. They are the people who analyze, execute, make decisions, and run things in the political, economic, and ideological systems. That’s a small percentage of the population. Naturally, anyone who puts these ideas forth is always part of that small group, and they’re talking about what to do about those others. Those others, who are out of the small group, the big majority of the population, they are what Lippmann called "the bewildered herd." We have to protect ourselves from "the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd". Now there are two "functions" in a democracy: The specialized class, the responsible men, carry out the executive function, which means they do the thinking and planning and understand the common interests. Then, there is the bewildered herd, and they have a function in democracy too. Their function in a democracy, he said, is to be "spectators," not participants in action. But they have more of a function r than that, because it’s a democracy. Occasionally they are allowed to lend their weight to one or another member of the specialized class. In other words, they’re allowed to say, "We want you to be our leader" or "We want you to be our leader." That’s because it’s a democracy and not a totalitarian state. That’s called an election. But once they’ve lent their weight to one or another member of the specialized class they’re supposed to sink back and become spectators of action, but not participants. That’s in a properly functioning democracy. >And there’s a logic behind it. There’s even a kind of compelling moral principle behind it. The compelling moral principle is that the mass of the public are just too stupid to be able to understand things. If they try to participate in managing their own affairs, they’re just going to cause trouble. Therefore, it would be immoral and improper to permit them to do this. We have to tame the bewildered herd, not allow the bewildered herd to rage and trample and destroy things. It’s pretty much the same logic that says that it would be improper to let a three-year-old run across the street. You don’t give a three-year-old that kind of freedom because the three-year-old doesn’t know how to handle that freedom. Correspondingly, you don’t allow the bewildered herd to become participants in action. They’ll just cause trouble. >So we need something to tame the bewildered herd, and that something is this new revolution in the art of democracy: the manufacture of consent. The media, the schools, and popular culture have to be divided. For the political class and the decision makers they have to provide them some tolerable sense of reality, although they also have to instill the proper beliefs. Just remember, there is an unstated premise here. The unstated premise-and even the responsible men have to disguise this from themselves-has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they’ll be part of the executive group. You’ve got to keep that quiet. That means they have to have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill, they’re not part of the specialized class. So we have one kind of educational system directed to the responsible men, the specialized class. They have to be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the state-corporate nexus that represents it. If they can achieve that, then they can be part of the specialized class. The rest of the bewildered herd basically just have to be distracted. Turn their attention to something else. Keep them out of trouble. Make sure that they remain at most spectators of action, occasionally lending their weight to one or another of the real leaders, who they may select among.

>>58743 The abandonment of moral codes and dogma is all well and good, but the average, mundane examples of humanity simply aren't ready for that. They see the freedom. not the results of pursuing it. Whatever the case, the current way of doing things will not be without consequence, and we're into very early days of Brave New World. The old techno subculture (for want of a better term) tended to be left leaning, hated conservatism and wanted to change the world through information. At the top, are truly insidious elements, at the bottom are the useful idiots with noble ideas. Now the Internet is a feature of day to day lives, rather than influencing human nature for the better, as predicted, it has created a generation of scatter brained, isolated porn addicts under constant establishment influence.

>Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

If consider ssitting alone with headphones on staring into a screen to be "hedonism" then you may have a case. Actual participatory hedonism is way lower now than it has been in decades.

>>58750 Do you approve of the system of state described in this post? Do you think all societies should be like that?

>>58765 No, obviously not. I think it is an accurate description of how most modern "democracies" work.

>>58762 >The tendency to take life lightly and mock morality deepened for me it's this. so many people who know how fuarrrked things are simply make a joke out of it, or even pretend that the bad things taking place are actually good to troll/get a rise out of others. you see this type of thing everywhere on imageboards these days. "hey, i can't change anything so i may as well get (you)s while laughing at the people who care". it's depressing.

>>58770 "Rape Culture" is actually the only useful thing to come out of the latest wave of feminism. It perfectly describes every facet of the modern world, you're just so used to being raped you don't even realize it. The whole is nearly identical to the dynamics of families with abuse. Try to challenge those in power or change anything, see how they all respond.

>>58770 I'd say it's a defense mechanism. We can't care about everything all the time, and the Internet and the mass media demand the impossible. All the brutality which would be hushed down back in the day is now easily accessible for you to see, and the displays of excess, which the wealthy were never stranger to, only got worse as our manufacturing capacities increased. I may be wrong, but I also think that human life, just like most things, loses its value in direct proportion to its quantity. If you've got a hundred people living in your little village and no way to survive without them you're going to cherish them and try to avoid conflict. If you live in a megapolis where you get your ready-made clothes and food from retail chains, and the millions of people around you are unwanted competition and unnecessary nuisance, and you are but an expendable worker yourself you perceive humanity in a different, cynical light. Obviously it's not healthy but who cares really. Better not think about it too hard.

>Our current culture is extremely hedonistic No it's not. Please read a bit about the drinking culture/opium use/brothels/gambling in the 19th century before making such ridiculous statements.

>>58743 She is fat, disgusting, and I hate it. I do not approve. I do not accept. I do not condone. If I was ever overweight or even flabby the shame and self disgust would destroy me from within. I would not be able to justify my continued existence. This is the way it should be. She is in a bad way and there is absolutely nothing in this world to stand in her way or tell her no. All she would need to do is get a bit of momentum up and she would become an unstoppable killing machine, crushing, killing, and destroying anything which finds itself in the shadow of her immense weight.

>>58780 Or America and Europe in the 60s... besides the hippies and pot and free love everyone remembers, there were other examples going on then too. Social conservatives wailed about the end of western civilization back then, it didn't happen. The ones wailing about it now will ignore me and you pointing these historical examples out.

>>58785 >nothing ever ends Okay then.

>>58778 I'll take the tiny village of 100 villagers please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

>>58786 Brilliant contribution. It's true, there was far more flesh and blood "hedonism" in much of recorded history than there is now. I'm far more concerned that a whole generation exists now that was raised by the internet. If it wasn't so much porn and whatever else you people consider degenerate, they'd be watching Disney sitcoms and family dramas and STILL sitting in front of a screen 12 hours a day. Some real world decadence and trouble would actually do these kids some good.

>>58791 all forms of addicted consumption go into the degenerate category, doesnt matter if you watch porn or facebook 10h / day. You either way checked out of life.

>>58794 Ok so we agree in principle and are arguing over definitions. When I see "degenerate" being thrown around on imageboards I'll admit I jump to certain conclusions about the online origins of the person using it as well as their agenda.

>>58791 It's too complicated to bother talking about. The fact that your perspective presupposes a lack of community, peers, or parental involvement, says it all. Television, tablet iMother streaming Jewish propaganda into the piece of meat's subconscious from infancy, whatever, you presuppose a primarily non-local; and external locus of control.

>>58832 Oh of course it's the Jews! If they were watching wholesome programming with european values alone in their rooms with the blinds down, everything would be so much better.