all 26 comments

[–]GST893 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

The world is worse off without George in it.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

I think the context is very important for much of his work.

He said that in 1992, and earlier, specifically in reference to abusive administrations of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan (especially, Reagan), which had screwed the 99% out of social programs, part of their Social Security (to pay for loans from China and tax breaks for the wealthy), taxes for massive military projects, regulations that would have protected their water and voting options, and many other things.

[–]Optimus85 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Mistrust in the government isn't a partisan issue. Don't spin this into a "Democrat=Good/Republican=Bad" debate. Both parties are as equally bad and do not represent the people's interests in the least.

The habits of liberals, their automatic language, their knee-jerk responses to certain issues, deserved the epithets the right wing stuck them with. I'd see how true they often were. Here they were, banding together in packs, so I could predict what they were going to say about some event or conflict and it wasn't even out of their mouths yet. I was very uncomfortable with that. Liberal orthodoxy was as repugnant to me as conservative orthodoxy. -Carlin

[–]HugodeCrevellier 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Also, 'liberals' is a misnomer, as it's meant to define those that defend (certainly not attack) liberty, the consent of the governed and equality before the law.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Liberalism isn't about liberty and NEVER HAS BEEN. It's always been about big government spending big money to "do things that the people could never achieve without government". i.e. get fucked.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I think you mean "progressivism".

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Nope. Liberalism literally means "do what you want". And this applies to whom? The population? No sir. THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore big spending.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

http://world-history-education-resources.com/age-of-enlightenment/liberalism-enlightenment-age.html

Both the Age of Enlightenment and the birth of liberalism can be viewed as starting with the father of liberalism John Locke (1632 - 1704), although he was informed by thinkers like the Greeks, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the events of the English Civil War.(More...). The political version of enlightenment is liberalism, the idea that all men are created equal, and have a right to life and liberty, and that this should be reflected in government.

Do you have any sources for your position?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Maybe my position is specific to economic theories of government. I haven't studied that part of history that well, or the history of politics for that matter.

There are so many intersections in these topics where a term can confuse when it is used without sufficient context. So, my apologies for confusing "history of politics" liberalism with "economic theory of government" liberalism.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No prob.

The roots of the progressive movement stem from the idea that govt can be used to fix people's problems.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely not. Stop chewing your Fox News pills and look around at your fellow Americans.

[–]mahavishnunj 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mistrust in the government isn't a partisan issue. Don't spin this into a "Democrat=Good/Republican=Bad" debate. Both parties are as equally bad and do not represent the people's interests in the least.

yet several morons respond to this legit post completely oblivious to reality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes - good quote. When I refer to the administrations of two Republicans, I am also referring to the Democrats who voted for their bills. Neoliberalism was serious problem in the 1980s and 1990s. Carlin's reference to "Liberal orthodoxy" was a reference to Neoliberalism, which was an 'orthodoxy' of making deals with orthodox conservatives. His concern in this case - with the orthodox ideologies - was with the traditional/orthodox (ie. 1950s) approaches of conservatives and neoliberals who believed in cold war funding for the military industrial complex, Isenhower-esque reversals of the New Deal investments in the 99% &c. The Democrats Carlin (and his generation) hated most were the "yellow dog Democrats" of the 1960s and 1970s, who came to power with the help of corrupt union practices (not that unions are bad, however) and other empty promises for the 99%, big coal, big auto, &c. It didn't work, and led to puppet conservative presidencies like Regan, Bush Sr, and thereafter. I am not excluding Democrats from Carlin's criticisms.

Carlin and those addressing political problems thoughtfuly would NOT however consider both parties equal in their approaches. Carlin would not want anyone to follow the right-wing propaganda that both parties are the same, as this obviously leads to support for authoritarian, right-wing candidates, or 3rd party candidates who waste votes for electable candidates. Carlin would never want anyone to oversimplify the political process. He grew up in a New Deal US and had seen the political corruption develop during the Korean war.

When Richard Nixon, who Carlin described as a member of a sub-species of humanity, overwhelmingly defeated McGovern, the comedian gave up on the political process.

But America’s most consistently savage social commentator for the best part of a half century, who has died at age 71, did not give up on politics.

In recent years, in front of audiences that were not always liberal, he tore apart the neo-conservative assault on liberty with a clarity rarely evidenced in the popular culture.

Recalling George Bush’s ranting about how the endless “war on terror” is a battle for freedom, Carlin echoed James Madison’s thinking with a simple question: “Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?”

Carlin gave the Christian right – and the Christian left – no quarter. “I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State,” Carlin said. “My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.”

Carlin’s take on the Ronald Reagan administration is the best antidote to the counterfactual romanticization of the former president – in which even Barack Obama has engaged – remains the single finest assessment of Reagan and his inner circle. While Carlin did not complain much about politicians, he made an exception with regard to the great communicator. Recorded in 1988 at the Park Theater in Union City, New Jersey, and later released as an album — What Am I Doing in New Jersey? – his savage recollection of the then-concluding Reagan-Bush years opened with the line: “I really haven’t seen this many people in one place since they took the group photograph of all the criminals and lawbreakers in the Ronald Reagan administration.”

“But I’ll tell you what they don’t want,” Carlin continued. “They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. You know what they want? Obedient workers – people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they’re coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club.“

“I understand the marketplace, but government is supposed to be here to redress the inequities of the marketplace,” Carlin continued. “That’s one of its functions. Not just to protect the nation, secure our security and all that shit. And not just to take care of great problems that are trans-state problems, that are national, but also to make sure that the inequalities of the marketplace are redressed by the acts of government. That’s what welfare was about. There are people who really just don’t have the tools, for whatever reason. Yes, there are lazy people. Yes, there are slackers. Yes, there’s all of that. But there are also people who can’t cut it, for any given reason, whether it’s racism, or an educational opportunity, or poverty, or a fuckin’ horrible home life, or a history of a horrible family life going back three generations, or whatever it is. They’re crippled and they can’t make it, and they deserve to rest at the commonweal. That’s where my fuckin’ passion lies.”

Like the radicals of the early years of the 20th century, whose politics he knew and respected,

Source

Right-wing propagandists are using Carlin's quotes out of context to push the idea of 'political nihilism', to make gullible people think that their 3rd party votes will not be wasted, and better still: that they should not vote.

If one is to truly learn from Carlin, critically think about politics and the bills proposed by each party, voting out the old people and voting in the prople who will propose and pass bills that help the 99%. Do the opposite of what the Nixon & Reagan Administrations would want you to do.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How much are you paid to post here?

[–]Node 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I knew it was that troll before opening the page. Just unblocked yesterday to see replies to it, but I'm going to reblock. That's just pure trolling.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I dont block them because i call them out. They are probably getting paid per reply to each post but my concern isnt ms sock puppets wallet.

[–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Carlin's reference to "Liberal orthodoxy" was a reference to Neoliberalism

So we agree he was antisemitic.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No

[–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Then stop using his dog whistles.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

'No' was the polite response to your comment.

The normal response to your comment is: there is no correlation between Carlin's references and antisemitism. There are also no dog whistles here. Sometimes I wonder about potential schizophrenia among users at Saidit, and these assumptions about my comments remind me again of potential schizophrenic reactions to what would otherwise be a normal political discussion à la Carlin's comments.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Guys the government can be trusted now because the right people are in charge! Our local deep state shill told me so.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Whatever you say sock puppet.

    [–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    'Trust but Verify'

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Trust perpetual liars, time after time after time?

    [–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No, the original quote was in the context of good-faith interactions with peers with bad reputations.

    The dynamic between citizen-subject and overlord is different.