The Century Of The Self

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM


Paraphrasing Freud; individuals were not driven by rational thoughts, but by primitive unconscious desires and feelings. The Century of the Self is a profoundly horrifying masterpiece, showing us through well documented and meticulous evidences - how we as human being are selfish, brutal, indifferent, irrational and instinct driven individuals. I nearly vomited watching this excellent documentary as it strip me naked of how ugly my darkest heart is. In my sorrow I cried; will there be any chances for democracy, egalitarianism, universal welfare, free and peaceful world - if we ourselves are the most wretched animals mother earth had ever gave birth to?
 

Zero Phoenix

The Second Coming of Hazama
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
908
Likes
6
Points
18
#2
Paraphrasing Freud; individuals were not driven by rational thoughts, but by primitive unconscious desires and feelings. The Century of the Self is a profoundly horrifying masterpiece, showing us through well documented and meticulous evidences - how we as human being are selfish, brutal, indifferent, irrational and instinct driven individuals. I nearly vomited watching this excellent documentary as it strip me naked of how ugly my darkest heart is. In my sorrow I cried; will there be any chances for democracy, egalitarianism, universal welfare, free and peaceful world - if we ourselves are the most wretched animals mother earth had ever gave birth to?
All right, sorry if I come at you hard Kaze-dono but this thread actually sort of pisses me off. Last time I checked this was confirmed through Biblical doctrines and Christian dogma yet you didn't believe it. So a group of rich white men (most likely) come up with this documentary where they're really not doing anything but reviewing what was already said in scripture and it hits you like some profound revelation? I'm sorry but did I miss something?

In any case it's true. Human beings in our original state of nature were pure and holy creations of God. After the Fall however we became less than what our Creator intended for us to be. While human beings are not born entirely evil, evil is part of our nature. It is human nature to do wrong. Why do you think that babies and children always seek conflict resolution through violence unless you teach them otherwise. If a child wants a toy they will take it from another child because they want it. Want is a form of selfishness which is a form of evil. And of course when one child is offended or the other child can't get what he wants someone throws a punch and they start fighting. Human beings, once wired to be pure and good, have effectively changed their hard-wiring and typically seek a selfish end to acquire a selfish gain. It is human arrogance to believe that a person can be good without being Christian, without knowing God. No one is good because it is not in our nature to be good, not anymore. For that reason, no one can be altruistic without the guidance of the Father. Mark my words for everything I say is true.

"War is proof that human beings are the sum of their sins and the only thing worse than human beings are the problems they create," (ZERO PHOENIX).
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#3
I didn't expect this thread to have a religious undertone in it, lol. Nevertheless, Edward Bernays argue that real democracy is impossible because human being is inherently irrational (as pointed out by Sigmund Freud). Bernays then goes on to create the foundation for a form of "Democracy" called Consumerism where individuals selfish desires triumph their rationality and empathy. The documentary painfully shows that EVEN in their selfishness (acting for their own self-interests), the mass is actually still controlled and brainwashed via propaganda by the small amount of selected elites. This is done in order to make them submit to the norm of society, for according to Freudian analysis, if they were to achieve true liberty, they will unleash their animal instinct and this will bring utter destruction on earth. Therefore, humanity must always be shackled one way or the other, and this will cause discontent in them, but discontent imply acknowledgement that they must conform to the structure in society (in this instance, as a good consumer - one must always be discontent).
 

Zero Phoenix

The Second Coming of Hazama
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
908
Likes
6
Points
18
#4
I didn't expect this thread to have a religious undertone in it, lol.
You should know me by now my rival.



Nevertheless, Edward Bernays argue that real democracy is impossible because human being is inherently irrational (as pointed out by Sigmund Freud).
And again I am confused. o_O Setting aside strictly political terms, did the Apostle Paul not already address these facts? Did John the Baptist not hint at these problems? Forging ahead for our secular friends, did Aristotle, Machiavelli, Rousessau and many others not already address these truths? Yet once again it is Freud who is credited for merely regurgitating what someone else already said before him. I'll ignore that but for the moment seeing as how this proves as usual that individuals in the field of science give Freud far more credit than what is due to him.



Bernays then goes on to create the foundation for a form of "Democracy" called Consumerism where individuals selfish desires triumph their rationality and empathy. The documentary painfully shows that EVEN in their selfishness (acting for their own self-interests), the mass is actually still controlled and brainwashed via propaganda by the small amount of selected elites.
As Machiavelli hinted at long ago. Human beings are dumb, destructive sheep. Whether you tell them to do anything or not they'll only end up destroying each other. People know this instinctively and seek out someone to lead them. Humans look for leaders for two reasons: 1) They need a power superior to their own that can prevent them from destroying themselves. 2) They seek a power superior to their own to take the brunt of their responsibilities and thus increase their relative level of safety. People don't want freedom they want to be told what to do. Thinking is not the strong point of the masses. Being told what to think is preferable. With that in mind even when guided by a superior power, human beings cannot curve their destructive tendencies because the power that leads them is often times just as human as they are and because of that, prone to corrupting itself as well as the people it aims to control.



This is done in order to make them submit to the norm of society, for according to Freudian analysis, if they were to achieve true liberty, they will unleash their animal instinct and this will bring utter destruction on earth. Therefore, humanity must always be shackled one way or the other, and this will cause discontent in them, but discontent imply acknowledgement that they must conform to the structure in society (in this instance, as a good consumer - one must always be discontent).
You do realize that these conclusions were reached by Aristotle long before Freud yes? In part anyway. Human beings aren't discontent with the fact that they're in chains my dear rival. A dog that is fed does not worry about his will. Civilization is happy so long as it is guaranteed one meal a day and for the most part, it is. People are fully aware that they are enslaved by the very same civilization they helped build. People work, they work awful jobs in some cases, they go to school, work towards worthless goals, eat shit all their lives and do what they have to do while in chains. They know this and they lower their heads to their superiors as a dog does with his master. Why? Because as long as a person's safety is guaranteed the question of who rules them and how really doesn't matter. It's freedom that makes humans discontent not restrictions. People know that if they are free they have to be responsible for themselves and that thought terrifies them. It is not freedom in and of itself that scares people it is the responsibility that comes from it. People cannot control their instincts or provide for themselves and that is why we have the social contract. That is why people sacrifice their natural freedoms to live in a society of concrete walls.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#5
So tell me Zero, was it a lie when Marx and Engels wrote:

The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
(Communist Manifesto, 1848)



Now that I looked back at this phrase, I realized that it appeals more to the irrationality of the mob (via exploitation of mass desires) rather than any kind of rational discourse. Indeed, the mass is a collection of selfish desires, they bond together because they desires the same selfishness. If a man is unjustly beaten to death on the street by the Police, and he shouted for help in his dying breath, no one will come and rescue him. But if thousand men are killed in the same manner, then we will have a form of mass discontent where one selfish desire for revenge coincide with others.


Justice, equality, common welfare, all these are actually also driven from our very own selfish desire.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#6
You know, you really shouldnt put that much faith into documentaries you know. They tend to be made with a specific goal in mind, something they want the viewer to be convinced of by the end of it. A good documentary maker can just as easily make a documentary about how smart, rational and good human beings are. And especially when they start quoting Freud as a source, remember that Freud was someone who was utterly convinced of his own ideas and he pretty much discarded every other idea if it didnt rhyme with his own ideas. And its only Freud that had such a bleak view on humanity.

Anyways, I think the real human lies in between being good and rational and irrational and selfish. A human is both rational and irrational at times. And he can be selfish but also selfless. And well, everyone acts different once they are in a large crowd. Then again, large crowds generally dont decide whats gonna happen. Individuals do.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#7
The fundamental tenet of propaganda/public relation/corporate advertisement lies in the irrationality of the masses (founded and implemented by Bernays). The documentary as example - pointed out at Roosevelt's media war with big corporations of which the latter wins, because unlike Roosevelt's rational approach towards the masses (treating them as individuals capable of producing rational thoughts), big corporations exploits their unconscious minds using the irrationality of their desires. This irrationality is now even more prevalent in current American society, for those who knows the name Frank Luntz would understand how public opinions can easily be exploited and engineered as such that they are literally worthless. Bottom line is, all these opinions stems out from their selfish desires, not for the common good, but for their own personal benefits.


I would like readers to pause for a moment and ponder these questions;
How many percentage of voters do you think that would go to the ballot boxes with presidential candidates in their mind that they decided to vote for using their rational thoughts?
If Freud was wrong, why is it that most if not all the advertisements on the media exploits the irrationality of our desires in order for them to make money (Bernays brand of Consumerism Democracy)?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#8
The fundamental tenet of propaganda/public relation/corporate advertisement lies in the irrationality of the masses (founded and implemented by Bernays). The documentary as example - pointed out at Roosevelt's media war with big corporations of which the latter wins, because unlike Roosevelt's rational approach towards the masses (treating them as individuals capable of producing rational thoughts), big corporations exploits their unconscious minds using the irrationality of their desires. This irrationality is now even more prevalent in current American society, for those who knows the name Frank Luntz would understand how public opinions can easily be exploited and engineered as such that they are literally worthless. Bottom line is, all these opinions stems out from their selfish desires, not for the common good, but for their own personal benefits.


I would like readers to pause for a moment and ponder these questions;
How many percentage of voters do you think that would go to the ballot boxes with presidential candidates in their mind that they decided to vote for using their rational thoughts?
If Freud was wrong, why is it that most if not all the advertisements on the media exploits the irrationality of our desires in order for them to make money (Bernays brand of Consumerism Democracy)?
Of course, people can be selfish and irrational and that makes them open for methods using those traits to get something done. Especially if these traits are far more common and easier to reach then rationality and selflessness. Still, that doesnt mean those two are the ONLY traits a human being has, unlike what Freud claims. Humans can actually be altruistic, just as they can be rational. If disaster strikes, there are always plenty of human beings that send money, without gaining anything from it, or who volunteer to donate blood or actually go there and provide help. Just as when the average human being goes to a school or an environment where rationality is required, humans will end up rationally.

Both these examples already betray the reasons why that is though namely environment. We, in the west at least, have changed our environments in such a way that they can easily be manipulated so it reaches or brings out or selfish and irrational impulses. But, if you change the environment you can also change peoples behavior. We arent any more inherently selfish, destructive and irrational as we are selfless, peaceful and rational.

And thats why documentaries like these are to be mistrusted. They have an agenda, a purpose and they will twist reality into a picture that suits them the best. They only show one side of the story.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#10
Even I didn't know that Freud ever made such claim.
Isnt that the core of what Freud claims about sources of behavior? Two basic urges, destruction and sex? At first it was just sex, but when he saw the sheer amount of butchery of WW1 he added destruction to it as well. And everything a human does either comes from the desire to have sex or the desire to destroy. Since neither are appropriate in society, humans are always busy repressing it, thus causing neuroses.

As far as Im aware, he only ever acknowledged sex and destruction as the things that drive humans.
 

Denuo Prince

The Forsaken
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
720
Likes
2
Points
18
#11
:wtf:
Isnt that the core of what Freud claims about sources of behavior? Two basic urges, destruction and sex? At first it was just sex, but when he saw the sheer amount of butchery of WW1 he added destruction to it as well. And everything a human does either comes from the desire to have sex or the desire to destroy. Since neither are appropriate in society, humans are always busy repressing it, thus causing neuroses.

As far as Im aware, he only ever acknowledged sex and destruction as the things that drive humans.
Also the desire to follow ones way to death , but I guess you can call that self-destruction.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#12
If selfishness and irrationality are the ONLY traits a human being has, as claimed by Freud, oh sorry, I meant -lexus-, it certainly does not corresponds with reality. Leaving aside fantasy land, what did Freud actually was arguing about? Answer: Freud's argument lies in the primitive instincts [and death drive] of the unconscious mind.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#13
If selfishness and irrationality are the ONLY traits a human being has, as claimed by Freud, oh sorry, I meant -lexus-, it certainly does not corresponds with reality. Leaving aside fantasy land, what did Freud actually was arguing about? Answer: Freud's argument lies in the primitive instincts [and death drive] of the unconscious mind.
Hmm, it seems I made a mistake in one of my previous posts. Good job spotting it. To bad you failed to notice I corrected myself in the post following it.

Still, Im glad you agree with my original point, namely that humans arent just selfish and irrational beings.
 

Denuo Prince

The Forsaken
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
720
Likes
2
Points
18
#14
If selfishness and irrationality are the ONLY traits a human being has, as claimed by Freud, oh sorry, I meant -lexus-, it certainly does not corresponds with reality. Leaving aside fantasy land, what did Freud actually was arguing about? Answer: Freud's argument lies in the primitive instincts [and death drive] of the unconscious mind.
Well both the desires of the libido and death drive do indicate were selfish by nature but hats not all we are.


And I Thought that was obvious what he was arguing about.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#15
Oh, I do notice that you're trying to sweep your mistake under the carpet by shifting the goal post.
What I do is merely forcing you to admit it openly.
Coincidentally, isn't that [unconscious?] selfish attitude of yours very Freudian?
Oh, and don't worry - I'm not claiming that I am somewhat excluded from such primitive instinct.


PS: Your original post is a rhetorical no-brainer. It's not even the point of which I argued about.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#16
Oh, I do notice that you're trying to sweep your mistake under the carpet by shifting the goal post.
What I do is merely forcing you to admit it openly.
Coincidentally, isn't that [unconscious?] selfish attitude of yours very Freudian?
Oh, and don't worry - I'm not claiming that I am somewhat excluded from such primitive instinct.
That I made a mistake? Sure, I make mistakes. It is disappointing however, that you insist on making a point out of the fact that I made a mistake, instead of going on with an actual discussion. Meh, no fun in going against someone who isnt willing to actually have a discussion but who is always stuck on technicalities and such.

Also, how exactly do you figure is my attitude selfish? Just curious.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#17
My argument is very clear and you even admitted it yourself ("Especially if these traits are far more common and easier to reach then rationality and selflessness.)", the instinct and drive of the unconscious mind are both real and also dominant. This mean that "a rational" Democracy is almost impossible, at least until this day - there's not a single evidence to support its plausibility even exist.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#18
My argument is very clear and you even admitted it yourself ("Especially if these traits are far more common and easier to reach then rationality and selflessness.)", the instinct and drive of the unconscious mind are both real and also dominant. This mean that "a rational" Democracy is almost impossible, at least until this day - there's not a single evidence to support its plausibility even exist.
Well then why are we discussing this? We agree with each other.
 

Denuo Prince

The Forsaken
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
720
Likes
2
Points
18
#19
My argument is very clear and you even admitted it yourself ("Especially if these traits are far more common and easier to reach then rationality and selflessness.)", the instinct and drive of the unconscious mind are both real and also dominant. This mean that "a rational" Democracy is almost impossible, at least until this day - there's not a single evidence to support its plausibility even exist.
How about a Republic?