TCT stands doubly corrected, at least for now:
At the risk of mixing braggadocio with humility, TCT has also consistently argued that not all is hopeless.
As “content marketing” devours the talent and space that once was journalism, its architects include the likes of Sarah Mandato (what a name for an overclass mind-molder!), “director of content solutions at Nativo, a native advertising company.” As shown at Advertising Age, here is how our dear pixie-bot thinks and talks, as she labors to get her victims to “consume” her tricks on her clients’ sites, as “brand content served within publisher editorial streams, matched to the look and feel of each publication”:
How can brands ensure they’re optimizing content?
Optimization opportunities are similar to having a focus group providing real-time feedback about what does and doesn’t appeal to readers. With today’s robust ad tech ecosystem, marketers have expanded tools to apply A/B tests and optimizations on campaigns. It’s no different with content — marketers can test their branded content’s various components, such as headlines and images. By not taking advantage of this, brands are turning down the chance to listen to consumers and gain actionable insights around messaging that best resonates with users.
Yes, “listen to.” That’s “listen to” in the mode of BB and Winston Smith, of course.
Lovely stuff, isn’t it?
As the United States continues to cater to its enemy’s cardinal war aim — perpetual war between reactionary Islam and existing imperial powers, that enemy seems to be winning not only on that ultimate front, but is now also apparently learning to take its fight to the imperial powers’ vital organs. Hence, the reactionary Islamists’ recent announcement of their intent to attack shopping malls.
As the insane half of the U.S. population clamors to speed up the self-defeat and sanctify the war criminals and war criminal abettors (e.g. Bradley Cooper) involved in Clint Eastwood’s
Triumph of the Will American Sniper, the mall owners have this to say:
“There won’t be any mad dash or scramble to improve security because security is constantly evolving and improving,” Jesse Tron, spokesman for the International Council of Shopping Centers, told USA TODAY on Monday. “Security officials are not reactionary because they have been doing this all along.”
Translation: “We won’t be spending any more money on security.”
Verizon, the mega-corporation that told its employee David Strayer to stop telling it about the massively homicidal nature of encouraging people to use cell phones inside automobiles, now has this to say about the simple, long-overdue idea of ruling that internet access is, like snail-mail, broadcast airspace, and transportation, a public utility:
“The FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step,” Michael Glover, senior VP at Verizon Communications Inc., said in an e-mailed statement. “It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment.” [Source: Advertising Age, February 4, 2015]
First off: ROFL about that “investment” trope. Verizon and its partners-in-crime are blatant organized theft on the biggest scale, and, as such, are huge, very active obstacles to the proper, economical investment in and distribution of modern communications infrastructure, activities that are the natural and Constitutionally-mandated endeavors of the United States Postal Service.
O corporate death penalty, where art thou?
This linguistic transition is a major case of C. Wright Mills’ liberal practicality, a.k.a. dunder-headed chickening-out by would-be lefties.
It is also a major vector of conceptual error and misdirection.
Not the least of such errors is the presumption that the word “neoliberalism” is “very common, recognizable.”
Balderdash. The word is certainly rampant in the sphere of what remains of the left, but we all know, or at least ought to know, how isolated and ignored we are. In the wider world, to use the term “neoliberalism” is to speak a foreign tongue, as well as to suggest that one’s ideas and claims are so confusing as to need their own special introductions.
Everybody drawing breath knows what capitalism is. “Neoliberalism,” meanwhile, always requires at least a long, convoluted paragraph of explanation as a preface to its further usage.
So, one has to ask: Are we trying to stay moribund?
And while we’re at it, pray tell: When was it that capitalists ever favored or pursued anything but the package of things that supposedly define “neoliberalism”? There remains the powerful, long-running liberal myth of the post-WWII Golden Age of caipitalist acceptance of equality and welfare state programs. That, however, is simply false history. At the level of overclass motives and policy prescriptions, there was then and is now nothing “neo” going in the boardrooms and the private jets.
The Reagan Restoration was — and remains — a real thing (even though it started under Carter), but redoubling is not invention, and laissez faire/free trade (the liberalism of the concept, as distinct from the newer, wider modern meaning as a tag for those who think capitalism isn’t perfect and needs some public correction) has never been the only, or even the main, practical essence of capitalism. The state, despite the ideology and the fake history, has always been right in there, and massively so.
This whole “neoliberalism” thing is, to lift a phrase from E.P. Thompson, an orrery of errors. The sooner we drop it in favor of simplicity, clarity, and directness, the better. Kind of like “consumer.”
Bad Behavior has blocked 497 access attempts in the last 7 days.