Ask Chomsky:

[uscitizen]

I am not familiar with Chomskys Kymer rouge comments, nor have i commented on them.
Nor do I intend to research them.
I only commented on his views on Iraq and journalism.
Which he was spot on.

Neither do I know his views on Sarah Palin or Nick Nolte.

 

[daveman]

I am not familiar with Chomskys Kymer rouge comments, nor have i commented on them.
Nor do I intend to research them.
I only commented on his views on Iraq and journalism.
Which he was spot on.

Neither do I know his views on Sarah Palin or Nick Nolte.

Yeah, well, I wasn't talking to you, was I, genius?

 

[lizzie]

When you say capitalism is an outgrowth of evolutionary principles and nature's law says that what doesn't succeed, dies off, why are Goldman Sachs, GM, and Bank of America still in existence?

Government intervention, not natural consequences of corruption and greed.

I would add capitalism rewards the negative predatory instincts each human being possess in order to perpetuate a Financial Survival of the Fittest based on a perversion of human nature.

Predatory human instincts are not negative- they are necessary. They may become somewhat perverted depending on the individual’s propensities, but predatory instincts are not negative and do contribute to survival in the most basic of ways.

The coalition that elected General Hindenburg in 1925 was not very different from the mass base that swept Hitler into office 8 years later, compelling the aristocratic Hindenburg to select as Chancellor the “little corporal” he despised. As late as 1928 the Nazis had less than 3% of the vote. Two years later the most respectable Berlin press was lamenting the sight of the many millions in this “highly civilized country” who had “given their vote to the commonest, hollowest and crudest charlatanism.”

Yes, people do tend to do pretty unreasonable things when they are feeling threatened, and when they think they can see the answer to their problems in an elevated individual rather than in themselves. We see this same story repeatedly in American politics, particularly those since WWII up until our most recent presidential election. When individuals are willing to hand over their freedom and independence of spirit to a “savior” figure, this is the result.

Finally, your observation about the only free man "is one who depends on no one for his own survival" seems exactly right to me. It's a little beyond scary that virtually all humans require oppression in one form or another for their security, but it has the feel of truth.

It’s not scary to me, it’s just the reality that we live in. Most inhabitants of the planet think (reason) little, and feel much. A balance of the two, heavier on the reasoning end of the human propensities, would create a better society, but people are limited by their own capabilities. We have willingly created a world in which we are increasingly dependent on the whims of others, sometimes beneficent people, and more commonly people of poor character and integrity. When one hands over his future to others, it’s a chance he takes. In my observation, a very small minority of humans have the capability of living a free, honest, purposeful life, and these seem to often be those who society as a whole demonizes and despises. We have become so group-minded that we hate individuality.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

 

[lizzie]

Not sure why people give credence to his views?

Because he is a utopian in philosophy, and people want to hear what feels good rather than face what is.

 

[lizzie]

Of course one of the reasons our companies are so innovative, so predatory in going after market share, and were so nimble was due to the democratization of credit thanks to the central banks et al. We had companies getting easy credit selling to consumers who could

I tend to believe it's because we have so many freaking Germans over here (spoken by one of those freaking Germans)

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is the most efficient system at socializing cost and privatizing profit, as events from the Gulf of Mexico to Gaza prove daily. How much profit would western corporations earn if they were required to clean up all their environmental damage and compensate all the victims of war crimes at fair market value?

The Mad Men might understand human greed better than Chomsky; however, they're clueless about morality. But then, Henry Ford found out how much use capitalism has for treating others as you would want them to treat you.

Just curious...how does Chomsky's "morality" come into play in his whitewash of the Khmer Rouge atrocities?

Daveman:

" . . . he [Chomsky] has gushed over genocidal maniacs like the Khmer Rouge, predicted that the United States would visit a holocaust on Afghanistan, and imagined a postwar alliance [WWII] between Uncle Sam and Nazi brownshirts.

"Chomsky provided accurate historical information on U.S. contributions to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, corrected hysterical anti-Communist propaganda based on faked photographs and hugely inflated numbers, cited information from the New York Times demonstrating that U.S. war planners were anticipating that their 2001 bombing campaign in Afghanistan would increase the number of Afghans at risk of starvation by millions in a matter of weeks, and correctly documented Washington hiring Nazis for post-WWII counterinsurgency work in the USSR, appropriating Nazi counterinsurgency doctrine for its own uses in the process."

Is Noam Chomsky...

Pol Pot served as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea from '76-79 during which time an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million of his subjects died. As I understand it, Chomsky was initially skeptical of reports coming from Cambodia about the scale of atrocities.

Some of the original charges against Chomsky come from David Horowitz and Peter Collier who alleged that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice."

Christopher Hitchens, someone who was a fellow traveler with Noam until the US invasion of Iraq, looked into

"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide

"David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways.

"The Richard West-William Shawcross fork also proves, on investigation, to be blunt in both prongs. Chomsky and Shawcross have this much in common: that they both argue for and demonstrate the connection between the Nixon-Kissinger bombing and derangement of Cambodian society and the nascence of the Khmer Rouge. It is not the case that Chomsky borrowed this idea from Shawcross, however. He first went to press on the point in 1972, seven years before Sideshow was published, with an account supplied by the American correspondent Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dudman is one of the few people to have been both a prisoner of the Khmer Rouge and a chronicler of his own detention. His testimony indicated a strong connection between American tactics in the countryside of Cambodia and the recruitment of peasants to the guerrilla side. (Imagine the strain of composing an account that denied such a connection.)"

That 1973 carpet-bombing campaign was our contribution to Cambodia's killing fields, and part of Chomsky's "whitewash of Khmer Rouge atrocities" is to call attention to that historical fact.

 

[georgephillip]

Not sure why people give credence to his views?

Because he is a utopian in philosophy, and people want to hear what feels good rather than face what is.

lizzie:

" For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown.[2]

One might ask what value there is in studying a "definite trend in the historic development of mankind'' that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to---rather than alleviate---material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that "human nature'' or "the demands of efficiency'' or "the complexity of modern life'' requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule."

I think it's possible we are at a stage of history where wage slavery will have to be abolished or we sacrifice the viability of this specie.

"The problem of 'freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement' remains the problem of our time."

Notes on Anarchism

 

[lizzie]

I think it's possible we are at a stage of history where wage slavery will have to be abolished or we sacrifice the viability of this specie.

"The problem of 'freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement' remains the problem of our time."

Notes on Anarchism

Wage slavery and oppression will not end until it's not needed by the human race anymore. Iow, when people can live their lives in a manner that is conducive to their betterment, they will have it. Until the collective human race can be content and peaceful, it will not happen. We have what we need based on our current level of evolution.

 

[Liability]

It is worth noting that no rational, reasonable, honest, intelligent person would bother asking a pantload-of-shit like Chomsky anything.

That kind of imbecility comes solely from other America hating scumbag uber-liberoidal pieces of crap. Idiots like georgiegull actually place "value" on the dreadful drek spewed by that shit-stain, Chomsky.

 

[georgephillip]

I think it's possible we are at a stage of history where wage slavery will have to be abolished or we sacrifice the viability of this specie.

"The problem of 'freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement' remains the problem of our time."

Notes on Anarchism

Wage slavery and oppression will not end until it's not needed by the human race anymore. Iow, when people can live their lives in a manner that is conducive to their betterment, they will have it. Until the collective human race can be content and peaceful, it will not happen. We have what we need based on our current level of evolution.

When did 99.99% of humanity "need" slavery and oppression?

That isn't evolution it's capitalism which will destroy the specie if it isn't taxed into extinction first.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%. This is your idea of fair? Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

* Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
* Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
* Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
* Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with.

What are the chances of someone from the lower tables winning enough money to compete at table 1? First of all, the only way to advance is to take money away from other players, that should be obvious. Second of all, even if someone from table 2 accumulates the wealth of 1,000 people (who are knocked down to table 4 or out of the tournament entirely), they are still at a huge disadvantage once they have to move up to table 1 and, of course, what effectively happens is the person from the lower table who accumulates the wealth of his neighbors and takes his winning up to Table One - if often swatted back down to nothing as the more experienced, better funded players at the big table make short work of him.

What’s the net effect? The money that our lucky/skillful player from the lower tables takes from his fellow players in the lower ranks is either left on Table One and added to their very exclusive wealth or, failing to wipe out the new guy, they may reluctantly make room for another seat at the table and chant "One of us" at the initiation ceremony but, what they WON’T do, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, is put that money back into circulation in the lower tables - the tournament just isn’t designed to work that way is it?"

America is 234 Years Old...

 

[georgephillip]

It is worth noting that no rational, reasonable, honest, intelligent person would bother asking a pantload-of-shit like Chomsky anything.

That kind of imbecility comes solely from other America hating scumbag uber-liberoidal pieces of crap. Idiots like georgiegull actually place "value" on the dreadful drek spewed by that shit-stain, Chomsky.

Your Rabid Rabbi called.

Kindly return his copy of Torat Ha'Melech

"As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has inner or has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

How to Kill Goyim...

 

[lizzie]

When did 99.99% of humanity "need" slavery and oppression?
　Ever since humans started “cooperating”. Like it or not, humans aren’t

exempt from laws of nature. In nature, whatever is on top has earned the right to be there. It owes no explanations or apologies. It’s just the law governing what survives.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool…
What are the chances of someone from the lower tables winning enough money to compete at table 1? First of all, the only way to advance is to take money away from other players, that should be obvious.

Taking money from other players does not advance anyone else in reality. Wealth is not something that gets distributed to others by any moral means. It’s something that is earned in one way or another, by the efforts, wit, or luck of someone. No one is owed a guaranteed existence just by birthright.

 

[Liability]

It is worth noting that no rational, reasonable, honest, intelligent person would bother asking a pantload-of-shit like Chomsky anything.

That kind of imbecility comes solely from other America hating scumbag uber-liberoidal pieces of crap. Idiots like georgiegull actually place "value" on the dreadful drek spewed by that shit-stain, Chomsky.

Your Rabid Rabbi called.

Kindly return his copy of Torat Ha'Melech

"As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has inner or has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

How to Kill Goyim...

Again we see evidence of how severely brain damaged georgiegull is.

Because I constantly call bullshit on his endless flood of bullshit, the moron assumes that I am Jewish. Maybe that's because in addition to being a rabidly anti-American scumbag uber-lieberoidal piece of shit, georgiegull is also an anti-Semitic muthafuckah.

Even putting his asshole-assumptions aside, can anybody WITH a living brain cell (this obviously excludes shit like georgiegull) explain what possible relevance that alleged tome has to do with anything that had been under discussion?

Georgiegull is a fucking weird-ass bat-shit crazy fully LIEberal-indoctrinated and brainwashed imbecile. And the shithead isn't even amusing.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you paid by the mindless obscenity for your childish posts?

 

[georgephillip]

When did 99.99% of humanity "need" slavery and oppression?
　Ever since humans started “cooperating”. Like it or not, humans aren’t

exempt from laws of nature. In nature, whatever is on top has earned the right to be there. It owes no explanations or apologies. It’s just the law governing what survives.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool…
What are the chances of someone from the lower tables winning enough money to compete at table 1? First of all, the only way to advance is to take money away from other players, that should be obvious.

Taking money from other players does not advance anyone else in reality. Wealth is not something that gets distributed to others by any moral means. It’s something that is earned in one way or another, by the efforts, wit, or luck of someone. No one is owed a guaranteed existence just by birthright.

Is money nature's creation?

Is money a commodity that can be possessed only by one person or another?

When you say "(w)ealth is not something that gets distributed to others by any moral means", it begs the question what about immoral means?

If someone beats me like a rented mule and transfers all the wealth in my pockets into his, is this an example of "whatever is on top (having) earned the right to be there?"

In what "reality" does taking money from others not economically advance those doing the taking?

 

[Wicked Jester]

It is worth noting that no rational, reasonable, honest, intelligent person would bother asking a pantload-of-shit like Chomsky anything.

That kind of imbecility comes solely from other America hating scumbag uber-liberoidal pieces of crap. Idiots like georgiegull actually place "value" on the dreadful drek spewed by that shit-stain, Chomsky.

Your Rabid Rabbi called.

Kindly return his copy of Torat Ha'Melech

"As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has inner or has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

How to Kill Goyim...

Again we see evidence of how severely brain damaged georgiegull is.

Because I constantly call bullshit on his endless flood of bullshit, the moron assumes that I am Jewish. Maybe that's because in addition to being a rabidly anti-American scumbag uber-lieroidal piece of georgiegull is also an anti-Semitic muthafuckah.

Even putting his asshole-assumptions aside, can anybody WITH a living brain cell (this obviously excludes shit like georgiegull) explain what possible relevance that alleged tome has to do with anything that had been under discussion?

Georgiegull is a fucking weird-ass bat-shit crazy fully LIEberal-indoctrinated and brainwashed imbecile. And the shithead isn't even amusing.

The moron obviously gets his ignorant talking points from LINK TV. He's fully parroted what they have been saying about Chomsky for the last week or so.

REMEMBER THE BULLDOZER!

 

[lizzie]

Is money nature's creation?

Not per se, but it is the creation of humans that parallels territory, dominance, or other superior traits in the natural world. It’s not nearly so simple, but it serves the same purpose.

Is money a commodity that can be possessed only by one person or another?

No.

When you say "(w)ealth is not something that gets distributed to others by any moral means", it begs the question what about immoral means?

I should have qualified by my statement with “forcefully distributed, I suppose. Yes, forced redistribution is immoral imo, because it’s theft of someone’s labor for the benefit of someone else.

If someone beats me like a rented mule and transfers all the wealth in my pockets into his, is this an example of "whatever is on top (having) earned the right to be there?"

In the world of nature, yes it is. In the social construct of humans, it’s not.

In what "reality" does taking money from others not economically advance those doing the taking?

I didn’t say “economically advance” if I remember correctly. What I am referring to is advancement of the higher human qualities, not monetary advancement. Example: if I give you money because I feel sorry for you, I haven’t really helped you except in the light that I make you dependent and helpless. If I teach you how to help yourself, and you do it, then yes, you have advanced. Otherwise, you remain a helpless child.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

 

[Liability]

Are you paid by the mindless obscenity for your childish posts?

It's mindful obscenity. I am mindful of what a piece of crap you are, georgiegull.

Now, go fuck yourself again, idiot.

 

[georgephillip]

Why WikiLeaks Won't Stop the War?

In the spirit of the OP, what are we not being told by the corporate press regarding the US occupation of Afghanistan?

As usual our for-profit press generally fails to supply relevant historical context between our for-profit occupation of Afghanistan with our earlier for-profit failure in Vietnam.

Fortunately, Chomsky connects the dots:

"The CIA estimates that 50 to 100 al-Qaeda activists may now be in Afghanistan, and there is no indication that the Taliban want to repeat the mistake of offering sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

"By contrast, the Taliban appear to be well-established in their vast forbidding landscape, a large part of the Pashtun territories.

"In February, in the first exercise of Obama’s new strategy, U.S. Marines conquered Marja, a minor district in Helmand province, the main center of the insurgency.

"There, reported The New York Times’ Richard A. Oppel Jr., 'The Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more akin to the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone.'

“‘We’ve got to re-evaluate our definition of the word `enemy,’ said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. `Most people here identify themselves as Taliban. We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out.’”

"The Marines are facing a problem that has always bedeviled conquerors, one that is very familiar to the U.S. from Vietnam. In 1969, Douglas Pike, the leading U.S. government scholar on Vietnam, lamented that the enemy—the National Liberation Front—was the only 'truly mass-based political party in South Vietnam.'

"Any effort to compete with that enemy politically would be like a conflict between a minnow and a whale, Pike recognized. We therefore had to overcome the NLF’s political force by using our comparative advantage, violence—with horrifying results."

Superior application of organized violence...what capitalism does best in occupied states from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Gaza has an evil domestic twin:

"Democratic societies rely not on force but on propaganda, engineering consent by 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally potent oversimplification,' to quote Obama's favorite philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr."

More Change to Believe in.

 

[georgephillip]

Your Rabid Rabbi called.

Kindly return his copy of Torat Ha'Melech

"As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has inner or has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

How to Kill Goyim...

Again we see evidence of how severely brain damaged georgiegull is.

Because I constantly call bullshit on his endless flood of bullshit, the moron assumes that I am Jewish. Maybe that's because in addition to being a rabidly anti-American scumbag uber-lieroidal piece of georgiegull is also an anti-Semitic muthafuckah.

Even putting his asshole-assumptions aside, can anybody WITH a living brain cell (this obviously excludes shit like georgiegull) explain what possible relevance that alleged tome has to do with anything that had been under discussion?

Georgiegull is a fucking weird-ass bat-shit crazy fully LIEberal-indoctrinated and brainwashed imbecile. And the shithead isn't even amusing.

The moron obviously gets his ignorant talking points from LINK TV. He's fully parroted what they have been saying about Chomsky for the last week or so.

REMEMBER THE BULLDOZER!

Do you never tire of getting it wrong, Bitch?

I haven't owned a TV in over two years and I've watched Link exactly one time in my life last Thanksgiving.

Maybe you should stick to doing what you do best?

Killing children and jumping through hoops in rhymes-with-rich Malibu.