Hyper normalisation & Social Constructionism. Adam Curtis, Foucault or Chomsky? Let History be the judge. #4PAMPHLETEERS @GRUBSTREETJORNO @WIKI_BALLOT @FINANCIALEYES @JOEBLOB20

Update. 3 MAy 2020,
The Bigger the Lie.
Vaccine Propaganda from 2010.

I downloaded a Torrent here it is.




ANTHONY FAUCI, M.D., Dir., Natl. Inst. of Allergy and Infectious Disease: The number of antigens in the 14 vaccines, including their boosters, which brings it up to somewhere in the 20s— it’s literally a drop in the bucket to the antigens that an infant and a child get exposed to naturally, even if they never got vaccinated with anything.

NARRATOR: Officials like Anthony Fauci have struggled with how to convince parents that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks.

Dr. ANTHONY FAUCI: To say that there is no risk in any vaccine would not be truthful. What is the risk of injecting something into someone’s arm? The risk is that a certain proportion of people will get swelling and a little bit of pain, lasting from an hour to a day. That is a very acceptable risk.

A very, very, very small percentage of people will get an allergic reaction. Namely, there’s a component to the vaccine that they didn’t realize that they were allergic to.

And then there’s a subset of a very, very, very, very small percentage of those who actually could get a serious reaction. But if you look at that, the risk of that is so minisculey small as to be completely outweighed by the benefit.

NARRATOR: The CDC’s Web site tries to convey all these risks accurately, even when scientists are not sure the vaccines are, in fact, responsible. Here’s what it says about the measles vaccine.

WEB SITE: “Severe problems very rare. Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, permanent brain damage.”

Dr. PAUL OFFIT: When the CDC communicates risks, they fall into two groups. One is, are those risks that are very rare but, in fact, are real.

The programme was put out again in 2015 and I am analysing the editing cuts and ordering at the moment.

The ‘New Normal’ Is Actually Pretty Old

Everything old is new again, including normality.

I had the pleasure of attending the American Economics Association’s annual conference this weekend, and over the course of many meetings with various brilliant thinkers one theme persisted: Everyone needs to get over the fear of the “new normal.”

Chief among these advocates was David Laibson, an economics professor at Harvard who was recently co-author of a paper on exactly this subject. In the paper, and in person, Professor Laibson argued that the economy will always revert back to its long-term growth trend, but people still tend to freak out about sudden shocks to the system in the short-term and assume they present a permanent diversion from that long-run trend. That is, they interpret the terrible economic conditions resulting from a financial crisis as the “new normal,” and likewise the buoyant economic conditions associated with a bubble.

This obsession with a “new normal” lends some momentum for the current catastrophe or craze, but nonetheless subsides as things eventually return to their long-run trend.

Professor Laibson used as an example a statement from 1929 from the eminent Yale economist Irving Fisher, who declared that stocks had reached a “permanently high plateau” — a week before the markets crashed. (“This Time Is Different,” the financial history opus by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, documents many other such foolish statements.)

Adam Curtis’s new film Hyper-normalisation takes its starting point at 1975, with the New York Bond issue and Austerity imposed by the Wall Street Bankers on that City; this, contrasted with Assad in Syria and his perceived betrayal by Henry Kissinger and US foreign policy in the Middle East. This Interview with Foucault contrasts well with and provides an alternative starting point for Adam Curtis´s argument that Self-referential infotainment is fed on-line to pacify the egotistical narcissistic angst of theBourgeoisiee. The starting point at 1968 perhaps gives the lie that all protest and resistance is futile and neutered.
Curtis’s Film is limited by its isolation of the limited historicity of its time reference, This interview and also Curtis’s other films, Centruy of Self The Mayfair Set and Bitter Lake are essential viewing to give the necessary historical context to Curtis´s latest work.
My short critique of Hyper Normalisation.
I found it all rather bourgoise. Not one of his better efforts. The chattering classes will be outraged and enchanted by it in equal measure an ironic reflection of curtis´s central point that Media content presented through Googles algorithms tailors content to a viewers predelictictions. The Bourgoise bit is Curtis´s condescension that the power of the powerful is all encompassing and all fall before it realising their impotence. Worth watching although with highly skeptical and critical alerts fully operational. The antedote is of course discussion and seeking alternative viewpoints. Curtiss´s genius may be that, he provokes thought in many of us who have perhaps forgotten how that feels.
heres a link for a download for those who do not have i player or can not access it for anty reason.
Transmission or U Torrent are good torrent clients for those who do not use torrents.
Try All our Globalisation Shit.

Mario Savio ‘The Machine Speech’ on The Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1965 from Mathew Vickery on Vimeo.

Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

2 thoughts on “Hyper normalisation & Social Constructionism. Adam Curtis, Foucault or Chomsky? Let History be the judge. #4PAMPHLETEERS @GRUBSTREETJORNO @WIKI_BALLOT @FINANCIALEYES @JOEBLOB20

Leave a Reply