http://www.ted.com/talks/loretta_napole ... _terrorism
It is definitely odd and wrong that she can make such random non sequitur statements about "how terrorism works" (alleging specifically "7 or 8 people" in a leadership while thousands of others blindly follow) without mentioning that this is precisely how other enormous organizations — States, Religions, nations, etc. — might be comparable.
Uhh, so wait, pardone, scusi Signora, ma ... you're saying how "terrorism" works is there is a small cadre of power that makes all the decisions, while everyone else in the enormous group struggles to make money? Is there anybody who isn't a terrorist under such a definition? Is she unpaid?
What I find probably most hilarious is that the very question of how "terrorism" is "funded" has been the subject of literally decades of alluded stories that never appear in journals, and yet now — just when it's convenient to explain what the fuck "terrorism" is even supposed to be (when it's so improperly defined as war waged by any sort of resistance to State-based terrorism) — this Italian character appears to explain it all ... only ... she doesn't.
The title might more appropriately be called "My adventures in covering up power politics! by Loretta Napoleoni"
Simon, or any other of our Italian or even European members — do you know anything about this 'Loretta Napoleoni'? She is a "Marxist" is she? She "studies" the communist party, hmm? Why do so many self-proclaimed communists seem to perfectly resemble State intelligensia agents using "leftist beliefs" as a cover for why they spew un-fact checked "exclusive" endorsements of typical propaganda? Why does this so-called "Marxist" get air by PBS? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... nance.html)
Does anyone doubt that she is just another paid player? By her own definition, she's a bluddy terrorist! In the end of her speech, inviting us to "enter the dark side", by asking questions, what does she really mean?
I wonder if this creepy person isn't appropriating the message of "research everything for yourself!" by associating it with such uncited "research" vulnerable to such typical "economic" and "terrorism" gobbledygook, keeping people buried in terms deemed perpetually "beyond" them, somewhere in a "dark" place.
Why are people clapping in the end? Did anything she say actually make any sense? I guess it's the polite thing to do. Then, there is this "funny" comment in the TED page:
Juan del Sur wrote:I find it interesting that this presentation - a great one, BTW - is presented by Goldman Sachs - one of the huge banking cartels. Is this how the banks control the speech we hear?