Naomi Klein new book: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics

[JGeropoulas]

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and author of the international bestseller, The Shock Doctrine, which is a brilliant expose of how the elite stay dominant by ravaging the clueless and powerless masses--especially during times of disaster (natural or contrived). Here's brief video overview with fantastic production quality: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0revJOnjfXk

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see this liberal streak revealed in her latest book. It's disappointing to realize that such brilliant people can be seduced and programmed by cultural propaganda, especially that of the left today, because it's all based on emotion vs. critical thinking, which was displayed so well in The Shock Doctrine.

Amazon Review

No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need
June 13, 2017
by Naomi Klein

“This is one attempt to uncover how we got to this surreal political moment. It is also an attempt to predict how, under cover of shocks and crises, it could get a lot worse. And it’s a plan for how, if we keep our heads, we might just be able to flip the script and arrive at a radically better future.” –From the Introduction

Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House is a dangerous escalation in a world of cascading crises. His reckless agenda—including a corporate coup in government, aggressive scapegoating and warmongering, and sweeping aside climate science to set off a fossil fuel frenzy—will generate waves of disasters and shocks to the economy, national security, and the environment.

Acclaimed journalist, activist, and bestselling author Naomi Klein has spent two decades studying political shocks, climate change, and “brand bullies.” From this unique perspective, she argues that Trump is not an aberration but a logical extension of the worst, most dangerous trends of the past half-century—the very conditions that have unleashed a rising tide of white nationalism the world over. It is not enough, she tells us, to merely resist, to say “no.” Our historical moment demands more: a credible and inspiring “yes,” a roadmap to reclaiming the populist ground from those who would divide us—one that sets a bold course for winning the fair and caring world we want and need.

This timely, urgent book from one of our most influential thinkers offers a bracing positive shock of its own, helping us understand just how we got here, and how we can, collectively, come together and heal.

 

[Cosmos]

Sadly looks like she really has lost the plot.

 

[latulipenoire]

I've read Klein's The Shock Doctrine and recommended it to several people. I think it's still a must read book, because it explains, in my opinion, much of what happened (and happens) in our world. Dilma Roussef, brazilian ex-president, even said, in an interview after the coup, that Klein's book correctly lays out what ocurred in Brazil recently. But seeing now the description of her new book is indeed sad and disappointing. It looks like she hasn't done any thinking or research about Trump and his govt, but she's only reacting emotionally (and inspiring others to react like this) to it all.

 

[Gawan]

I think she already lost the plot with her book about climate change This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate.

 

[Beau]

Yeah, she's been lost to the liberal idiocy for a while if you've followed her Twitter and articles. It's really unfortunate.

 

[Chu]

Real unfortunate, yes, though not unheard of... It seems that even though she saw a lot and explained it so well in *The Shock Doctrine*, she easily opted for her "activist" label and the propaganda, instead of actually seeing that in doing so, she herself had the potential of being used as a pawn for exactly what is described in her own book. :(

 

[NormaRegula]

Real unfortunate, yes, though not unheard of... It seems that even though she saw a lot and explained it so well in *The Shock Doctrine*, she easily opted for her "activist" label and the propaganda, instead of actually seeing that in doing so, she herself had the potential of being used as a pawn for exactly what is described in her own book. :(

Unfortunate, indeed. Like Beau, I have been following Naomi Klein's Twitter and the one thing that stood out to me is her blind acceptance of man-made greenhouse gases prompting climate change. It's like a religion to many folks. Especially those that consider themselves open-minded and scientifically-inclined.

 

[kenlee]

The thing about Naomi Klein and those like her who fall into hubris is that they may be on the right track in the beginning (almost 'beginners luck') but at some point they go from 'saying what they know and knowing what they say' to 'saying what they believe and believing what they say' because of false ego.

The former is thinking 'top down' where higher reason predominates (less ego based) and the deeper feelings follow the higher reason along with a sincere intent to be objective. The deeper thinking/reasoning, that is, the higher cognitive functions comes first. Then deeper feelings follow along with (if necessary) immediate sensible action.

However, in Naomi Kiein's case she may very well be falling into the the pattern of the later where her thinking is following, or is a function of, her personal feelings based on who she 'believes she is.' When she begins to 'believe in herself' then imo that's where the problem starts. The personal ego thinks that it is 'selfless' rather then becoming an instrument of something higher then itself. There's a hesitancy or refusal to let go of the personal self on behalf of a higher cognition (reasoning) that transcends the personal self and this higher power can 'absorb' the little personal self where all her beliefs and personal emotions revolve around. She can't let go of her little personal self or allow it to blend or be absorbed by this 'higher individuality' (when required) and become a function of it which has a much greater expanded vision then her personal self.

There's a saying which is 'hang on tightly, let go lightly' and I think it might apply here. We are going to believe things, but when we can't let go of our beliefs in favor of some hard earned understanding based on conscious Work/higher reasoning /and objectivity then that's the problem. When we make an 'egoless' or selfless effort to become more objective, we can let go of an old belief because more data and understanding is inputted into the process. We don't really become 'objective' in the truest sense but become 'more objective' and less conditioned by our beliefs. But we'll still believe things but there will always be a part of us (the 'gold') that has the willingness to let go of the belief (hopefully 'lightly'!) in favor of more objective knowledge and input.

A fighter who holds on tightly to only 'believing in himself' may get to a certain point in the fight. The belief in himself can take him to a certain point. That's fine. But if he doesn't let go of it when he reaches a certain kind of escape velocity (so to speak) in favour of something higher, so as to allow a higher quality energy to work through him that transcends his 'belief in himself' then it'll lead to his hubris and eventual defeat.

 

[JGeropoulas]

...she easily opted for her "activist" label and the propaganda, instead of actually seeing that in doing so, she herself had the potential of being used as a pawn for exactly what is described in her own book. :(

Such a good point, that reminds me of Gurdjieff's octave concept of progression. Without a shock to avoid entropy (the general law of organic life?), people go in circles instead of progressing forward.

...There's a saying which is 'hang on tightly, let go lightly' and I think it might apply here. We are going to believe things, but when we can't let go of our beliefs in favor of some hard earned understanding based on conscious Work/higher reasoning /and objectivity then that's the problem. When we make an 'egoless' or selfless effort to become more objective, we can let go of an old belief because more data and understanding is inputted into the process. We don't really become 'objective' in the truest sense but become 'more objective' and less conditioned by our beliefs. But we'll still believe things but there will always be a part of us (the 'gold') that has the willingness to let go of the belief (hopefully 'lightly'!) in favor of more objective knowledge and input...

That sounds like what Aristotle was getting at in the quote featured below: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

[luc]

Fwiw, I wrote the following about Naomi Klein when her climate change book came out, a bit in a similar direction as what kenlee wrote:

Just listened to this - thanks for the very interesting show guys! I just wanted to make two comments here:

First, about the interesting question Niall brought up: Could people who are not on the “truth frequency” tune into this “truth frequency” if, hypothetically, the PTB were broadcasting the truth on all channels? In other words, if truth was “official”, could they tune in?

I think yes, because what makes “truth seekers” different from “sheeps” in our world is the ability to go against authority in their thinking, to go against their “system 1”, or, as Dabrowski would say, take up a higher moral position and let it dominate their primitive impulses. So the question, I think, is not so much whether people can “tune in” the truth per se, but whether they can tune in the truth against the background of programming, against the background of “the easy way of the lie”. And this is precisely what is necessary for growth. In Gurdjieffs words:

"But, at the same time, possibilities of evolution exist, and they may be developed in separate individuals with the help of appropriate knowledge and methods. Such development can take place only in the interests of the man himself against, so to speak, the interests and forces of the planetary world. The man must understand this: his evolution is necessary only to himself. No one else is interested in it. And no one is obliged or intends to help him. On the contrary, the forces which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity also oppose the evolution of individual men. A man must outwit them. And one man can outwit them, humanity cannot. You will understand later on that all these obstacles are very useful to a man; if they did not exist they would have to be created intentionally, because it is by overcoming obstacles that man develops those qualities he needs.

So the question is: Are all or even most people able to grow, against the general law? In here I think Joe was right, that some people may be completely unable to do this, to tune in the “growth frequency”, so to speak. But they probably would accept the truth if it was "officially" proclaimed by their authorities - which wouldn't be "growth" per se of course.


The second comment is about Jonathan’s rant and the discussion about corrupted alternative journalists. I thought about this in connection with Naomi Klein, who wrote these brilliant books, and then completely lost it with her latest promotion of man-made climate change. And I asked myself, why such a skilled researcher can loose it so completely? The only answer I came up with is that unconsciously, she thought about her future, what it should look like, what she would like it to be – maybe she has financial obligations, “likes” certain things like speaking at big events etc. And she was faced with a (unconscious) choice: Does she write the truth about climate change, or for example a book telling the truth about Ukraine and the empire’s game there, which would likely mean she would loose her status as an “icon of the left” and be completely excluded from any mainstream media, and possibly “leftist” conventions, speaking opportunities etc., OR does she go in the opposite direction: writing a book about man-made climate change, which means she becomes fully accepted in the mainstream media, gets funds, can travel the world giving talks etc.? I think what Dabrowski said about courage applies here:

Courage

There is much controversy among thinkers about the conception of courage. One must distinguish very clearly the capacity for action, daring, aggressiveness, and speedy reaction to various stimuli, from true courage. For such traits may be the functions of primitive drives, of the fighting, possessive, or sexual instincts. Therefore we should distinguish various levels in the attitude of dynamism, energy, powerful striving, “strong character,” and so on. The lower levels of courage may be characterized by a lack of thought about the sense of one’s action, a lack of apprehension that one may possibly do wrong to other people, and an improper estimation of danger, or a lack of moderation. We should clearly distinguish, therefore, pseudo coinage from true courage. Many people who fought with courage in the war and who are bold and uncompromising in dealing with people and matters in their everyday life, belong to a category of men aggressive by nature, often displaying a tendency for bursting out in anger, and sometimes even for pronounced cruelty. Their courage is one of the primitive forms of the fighting instinct or may be an indication of sexual perversion. Besides, pseudo courage may indicate an improper estimation of the situation (belief that the other side is weaker).

Only a man who, conscious of the danger threatening him and of the changeability of fortune, of the consequences which his attitude may bring him, such as the loss of esteem, position, influence, decides, being true to his ideal, to take up a given action is truly courageous. True courage, and more so true heroism, have their foundations in experiences gained over a period of many years or even through one’s whole life, during which has taken place a slow process of harmonization of the impulsive forces with personality dynamisms, the latter formed from one’s experiences of life, in which suprapersonal, suprabiological tendencies play an increasingly more important part.

It seems she just doesn’t have the courage, and follows her “primitive urges” rather than a higher morality. And I suspect that this is how it goes for many of those alternative media people. One factor I think also plays a role here is the materialist philosophy/atheism that all those on the left political spectrum “inherited” from communism. There simply is no “higher perspective” which I think traditionally motivated people to work on themselves, develop their conscience and those virtues like courage Dabrowski talks about. But if there is no spiritual perspective, why bother? Even if, say, you are an intelligent observer with a conscience, who feels something is wrong, who feels for other people and starts to figure out some of what’s going on, why continue? If you only do this to “satisfy your conscience” and feel good, why not give it up and instead satisfy your hungers for power, money, admiration, sex, or other egoistic desires, whether consciously or not?

Of course, there is also the possibility of “plants” by the PTB, but that would be conspiracy theory :P

 

[Laura]

I read the other day somewhere a remark that the New York Times made its reputation supposedly reporting the truth and having very good investigative journalists, but that today, though the name remains the same, it no longer serves that purpose.

So many "truth seekers" would be helped enormously by reading "Ponerology", especially the parts about ideologies and how they are infiltrated and taken over, keeping words and slogans on the outside, but changing completely on the inside.

And then, there is this from the Cs:

The forces at work here are far too clever to be
accurately anticipated so easily. You never know what
twists and turns will follow, and they are aware of
prophetic and philosophical patternings and usually shift
course to fool and discourage those who believe in fixed
futures.

And not to forget Gurdjieffs discussion about how an idea or aim can start in one direction and end up going the exact opposite way.

All variations of the same thing.