I never really listened to Jeff Fillion. Admittedly, I've caught a few snippets it was issued, when raging at CHOI in a taxi, an elevator, a waiting room, even in the office I shared with one of his fans. He was a populist leader, who told his listeners what they wanted to hear while on their side, they believed pull the Truth of his mouth. It followed the same logic as the smoked sausage that more people eat ... The fact that he risks his career, among others, to talk about the bust of a host of TV virtually unknown who had turned down so that they studied together left me cold. That and his other escapades, leaving no one closes a radio. Anyway, the courts would eventually take on Jeff.
I knew so little. I perceived as a supporter of libertarianism, the political ideology based on my uncle rich property that advocates the virtual disappearance of States for not letting up as the market rules and can easily do without democracy. Exit human dignity! It was also groupie of the Montreal Economic Institute, a charity (yes, yes, go check!) That serves as marketing agency to high finance by taking features of a think tank whose objective is to convince people that the order of things can not be changed: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because it is in Nature. In short, Jeff would be a pirate of the establishment rather naive and submissive, a fearsome snake swallower.
On Twitter, there are sometimes quite lively debates, such as last Thursday between Jeff and Antoine Robitaille, journalist Duty and one of my old buddies View in Quebec, about the place and effectiveness of the Quebec state opposed those of private real deus ex machina. I summarize the conclusion of debate, it is online if you want verbatim:
Antoine: Democracy, unlike the private, allows people to choose their leaders.
Jeff: But people really have a choice?
Anthony: In the last municipal election, Quebecers had the choice between Labeaume and you. And
vlan, gums!
Tweet fight!
Jeff has not answered the last replica of Antony. Later in the evening, there will Fillion one of we believe its usual chirping written by the author of the autobiography of Sarah Palin with the same clichés, the same paranoia, the demonization of the left haughty, and more, never accept being wrong and denunciation of the vile media message " mainstream" (sic ). I go in game and tell him he has done awfully close the valve by Anthony during the afternoon. He replied that he did not have time to see all the messages we left him on Twitter. I replied that it is a very weak defense that looks more like an admission of defeat. (Frankly, he would exchange with a reporter of Duty during part of the afternoon and leave before the end! Come on!) The response: "You can think what you want ..... do you think it's going to change anything whatsoever in my life .... seriously?? :-))» ( sic).
Time is confused on Twitter. The messages arrive and depart, intersect, and the chronology is hard to follow. I continue to Jeff and launches it seems more comfortable in repeating shots to his followers that debate, it is basically like Plato with Yesmen following his teaching and do qu'ânonner: "O yes sir, you're right master." Meanwhile, he invited me to accompany him to the radio and to debate him on his show, stating the day. I told him that my job requires that I ask leave to my bosses and I do not refuse outright. Then turn of events: "Ok you, you seem to have a problem. It's sad that twitter accumulates nipples .... we had fun before! "(sic ). As I said above, time is vague on Twitter: our sequences of events that may not be the same ...
However, what did I do it for me désinvitât, I wondered? I had yet compared to one of the greatest philosophers of antiquity! A straight guy too!
Shortly thereafter, Jeff sent me a direct message, that is to say that nobody else could see on Twitter, implored me, with insults, unsubscribe from it. I replied that he had only block me ...
This adventure made me sad. I liked the dialogue between slobbery manly. But the invitation to his show it was a trap to scare me, I close the door? Why this volte-face? I do not want the guy yet, but its lack of critical thinking, his tiny universe demagogue which dissolves the reason, his speech peppered with shots teabaggers . True freedom, which comes with culture and education, overcomes ideology, see their strengths and weaknesses, to choose which way to go, to be sovereign.
bad. I wish he was my friend. I'd invited to dinner. I would have made a hot-chicken .
Small
readings
Philippe van Parijs, What is a just society? , Paris, Seuil, 1991.
Jacques Genereux, The real laws of economics , Paris, Seuil, 2005.
Two titles for Jeff so he arranges them next to works of Hayek, Nozick, Friedman, Rothbard and Rand of which must fill the shelves of his library. In the first, he should read the chapter "The ambiguity of libertarianism" which concludes that libertarianism - as it is known here - was ultimately not chosen to promote a redistribution of income. Then the second is to feed its upcoming interviews with efficient favorites - there are national and Association, there are also economists fundamentalists and obtuse I néologise efficient - followers of the neoliberal version they treat their subject as a religion, whose dogmas, as generous, should be eliminated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment