Chomsky: Part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
At least, according to this post.
Chomsky systematically ignores the role of the fiat currency system which drives down wages, inflates prices, and puts the American economy under the iron claw of a few elite families. Since the dollar is the base currency for worldwide trade and the current economic house of cards, shouldn’t these topics be discussed?
Perhaps Chomsky stays mute because a central bank fits into his ideology. After all, one of the key planks in the Marxist and Fabian socialist agenda is a managed central bank in order to control the economy. Or perhaps he fears discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that secretly manages the world economy. For him it is easier to blast the front corporations and low-level grocery boys.
I can't tell you how good it is to have him on our side.
posted by Pat @ 4:19 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
Wow.
Roger sq, you always have to parse whatever Chomsky had with your secret decoder ring. In a sense he's right, in that if LIHOP were established to my satisfaction I would be calling for the impeachment and capital murder trial of Bush and Cheney and anybody else involved. I called for the death penalty for Moussaoui, the one person we so far know is guilty of LIHOP.
But obviously I cannot call for more than that if MIHOP were proven to my satisfaction. Yes, MIHOP is far more evil, but LIHOP would be plenty evil enough.
Of course, you can never tell with Chomsky what he's really saying when you have his words in front of you; it's probably a fruitless task to try to follow him from somebody else's synopsis.
Of course, you can never tell with Chomsky what he's really saying when you have his words in front of you; it's probably a fruitless task to try to follow him from somebody else's synopsis.
Chomsky purposely peppers anything he says with maybes and perhapses etc so that he never has to say he's sorry.
Did you guys ever think maybe Iran Contra was a conspiracy of some sort?
There's a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.
That's why we use the phraseology.
Boggle, do you just say the same thing over and over again?
Boggle, Iran Contra was discovered, and anyway, the focus was on the wrong side of the equation. Was I shocked that Reagan funded the Contras? Nope. Whas I shocked that Reagan sold arms to Iran? Yeah, but the Democrats only cared about Nicaragua.
Conspiracy Smasher, no, don't worry about liking Chom. It really does show how marginal this 9-11 stuff is despite its apparent recent popularity, that they can't get Chomsky or Amy Goodman (who's also criticized in that post) to go along with it.
From the Prison Planet: "If they did not have prior knowledge, why were Cheney and NORAD running drills that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC and Virginia?"
Was this even confirmed? I don't think so, other than that there were drills during the 90s.
Another quote from Alex Jones' distortion field: "But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD."
Apart from the fact that "first day on the job" means you have very little experience in handling these cases, this gives you a good account of all the confusion that went on at the early hours of 9/11:
http://911review.org/brad.com/archives/FAA_clear-skies.html
Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?
As someone who made her day job by tutoring economics, that has to be the stupidest line I have ever heard.
Good lord, just do a google search for inflation in any era and shit will pop up, Jack.
Jimminey. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.
Don't like the Fed? Want it shut down? Well I hope you saw It's a Wonderful Life, because you'll have to learn to enjoy runs on banks.
Because it's a truism by now that these people are criminals?
Tell me: who won when elections were actually held?
But no less tragic than the bombing of Serbian or Iraqi civilians
Well in the case of Serbia - guess we should've just allowed that genocide to go on. How about bringing up the bombing of Germany and Japan while you're at it.
I fucking hate moral equivalence. It's absolute nonsense.
"They hate us for our FREEDOM!"
While Bush isn't the brighest bulb in the circuit, I've never understood everyone guffawing over this. Technically speaking, they do hate us for that. The ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is a global caliphate, under which there would be submission of all to Islam.
You guys act like a bunch of brain washed idiots repeating the same shit you learned from year of being indoctrinated by government training centers.
Oh no, the evil public schools...where we weren't even taught about Iran-Contra, genius. I guess we somehow magically came across that information. Oh right SOME OF US ARE AUTODIDACTS.
Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?
I guess the government indoctrination centers didn't teach you that after the Civil War about half of all money in circulation was counterfeit. That causes inflation.
"BoggleHead said...
As for the actual topic of this post, although they're all fairly arbitrary, unlike on the forum where anyone can create their own topic....
I've met Noam Chomsky. I'm glad he's not taking a CT position because he's doing important work grounded in solid research that should continue without the taint of conspiracy theorism, because that taint is so unreasonable and excessive."
Bogglehead,
WHAT!
"Abby Scott said...
Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?
As someone who made her day job by tutoring economics, that has to be the stupidest line I have ever heard.
Good lord, just do a google search for inflation in any era and shit will pop up, Jack.
Jimminey. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.
Don't like the Fed? Want it shut down? Well I hope you saw It's a Wonderful Life, because you'll have to learn to enjoy runs on banks. "
Abby,
First of all, I'm not one that likes to mix discussing banking public policy with what really happened with 9/11.
However, if this were the appropriate to discuss the Fed., I'd have to point out that you are conflating concepts, theories and facts (and movie plots) about banking in the US, thereby making a gooey mess of nonsense.
I have to agree with you, however, that Jack's comment to which you were responding is historically incorrect with regard to the FED and inflation.
JPSlovjanski said...
....
Scheuer is part of the cover - up.
Analysis of any bin Laden statement as a way to get to truth is fruitless due to the layers of deception.
How does this line of thought explain the daily bombings in Iraq? If "western interference causes terrorism" the way JP claims, why are most terrorist incidents happening in non-western states, against non-western civilians?
Keep in mind also that the horrible, horrible US has in the past been fairly impartial when it comes to the muslim faith. In both Bosnia and Kosovo NATO fought to PROTECT Muslims, while fighting mainly against Christians.
Also, while there may not neccesarily have been a genocide in Kosovo, there certainly was one in Croatia/Bosnia. Past actions do count no matter how much you may want them not to. It's the same idea why Iraq was attacked on some fairly shoddy evidence. Once you've done something bad, and we had to kick your ass to stop you from doing it, people tend to be much more suspicious of you in the future and will act against you much more readily. If I go out for a coffee with you, and the moment I turn my back you clobber me with a chair, how often do you think I'll be turning my back on you in the future? Hell, the next time I see you carrying a chair I'll probably kick your ass before you have a chance to use it, regaurdless of whether you were planning to attack me or not.
while is was no genocide (the extermination of a people) in Kosovo, or Bosnia for that matter, there was plenty of ethnic cleansing.
Err you do know ethnic cleansing is just a prettier term for genocide, right?
Sorry to say, but Al Qaeda does not have any nonsensical "world domination" goal, nor does it believe in a global Caliphate- there is no rightful Caliph left.
Yes, they only have the sensible goal of attacking the strongest country the world has ever known. Hmm I wonder who they'd have as caliphate if their goals were met? I'm gonna leave you one guess.
Never seen those maps you can buy? "Islam today" with northern Africa and the Middle East in green and "Islam tomorrow" with the entire world green.
I highly suggest you pick up a book at Borders called What Al Qaeda Wants, which contains the text of many Al Qaeda communiques. Imperial Hubris would also be another good start.
I work at Barnes and Noble, so I won't go to Borders. But I own and have read both of those books.
If Muslims hate "freedom", "democracy", or the "Western lifestlye", why don't you see them bombing the Swiss?
How about you collect those few brain cells you have left and think it through. Which country is the most visibile, which is the strongest, which has any kind of power to stop them? If Switzerland (a country that stayed neutral in a period where neutrality was a grevious sin) were attacked, it wouldn't cause a big uproar. And what the hell are the Swiss gonna do?
Sorry pal, but a rant against the US doens't equate to the specific lists of grievances
Do you ever notice how his grievances fluctuate? Early on, he cared nothing for the Palestinians. Later, he made his demands about Palestine more prominent in order to not only win them over to him. It also gives people who support Palestine (a disgusting proposition for any moral person) at least a moment's "hmmm maybe this guy has the right idea, if not the right course of action."
I agree with you to a point. US policy does create hatred of America that is solidly rooted in actual events - not some blind arrational hatred.
Disagree. I feel the blaming the US is like a killer blaming his abusive childhood.
America is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. When we were isolationist, world wars occured. When we intervene we either royally screw up, or get all the negatives put on us while positives are ignored.
No Shawn, ethnic cleansing is not another term for "genocide". Ethnic cleansing means the forced removal of populations. Genocide is the widescale killing of a population.
Wrong. Folks let's go to the tape:
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:
"Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The emphasized portions include forced evacuation.
"[E]thnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law." - Drazen Petrovic
Ethnic cleansing is cleaned up language for genocide.
Second, I seriously doubt that you could have read both of those books and still believe that Bin Laden would have the idiotic idea of somehow taking over the United States.
All of his ideas are idiotic, it's at the level of each. There are political leaders in the United States who think Jesus Christ is going to descend from the sky someday, but do they bring it up in their policy decisions (well, maybe with Israel)? I doubt you've read the Koran, as it says the goal of Islam is to remove Dar al-Harb. As these guys are fundamentalists (key word here), they want the world to be Dar al-Islam.
Furthermore, Bin Laden has always cared about Palestinians; that has been a central issue of most Islamic fundamentalists regardless of whether they are Shiite or Sunni.
No he hasn't always cared, it was a tiny little bit he had on his list early on, and as it became a bigger issue he made it a bigger deal.
Were you not aware that America was not even much of a world power until AFTER WW2?
Since I'm far more well read on the subject then you, yes I am aware America did not become a superpower till after WW2.
America gets the "negatives" it deserves, for the Banana-Republic wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Learn to take responsibility.
You list the negatives and put Korea in there? Wow, you're an absolute moron and I'm sad you're on our side in the CT debate. Anyone who thinks it's a bad idea Kim Jong Il isn't the sole ruler of the entirety of Korea needs a fucking reality check pronto. Of course a socialist is pissed we fought against Communism so South Korea could become capitalist and prosper. Then again, you think the Soviets were the good guys in the Cold War.
Well anyone who describes him/her self as a socialist isn't going to be all that rational in the first place. The difference between the CT's and JP is that he knows how to think, and how to logicaly analyze information. I have a feeling that he understand just why soviet or NK style socialism isn't viable. He just managed to fall into the european habit of blaming most of the worlds problems on the US. That's not entirely his fault, it's mainly due to the environment he grew up. I was similarily brainwashed untill I had the opportunity to work with American civilians and soldiers. That's about the time I started questioning the anti-American nonsense which I'd been immersed in since birth. Sure enough, after a bit of learning and research, things started to make much more sense. Education, and an open mind, are the key to defeating all sorts of bigotry. Unfortiunately, an open mind is a pretty rare thing.
shawn,
"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"
The "in part" thing is absurd. Anything is "in part." Technically killing, say, 5 civilians is "in part." Does that therefor equal genocide?
Under your guys' definition Armenia and the Native American actions weren't genocide. They were both instances of forced relocation in which many died.
No, he's right, the "in part" bit is stupid. That technicaly means that if tomorrow I were to shoot a person of any religion or race, I would not only be guilty of murder, but also of genocide. That's the only part of the definition that stinks. Nobody was disagreeing your assesment of forced relocation falling under genocide.
JP...wow....I really thought you were a rational human being up untill now. But your interpretation of Korea is so fucked up that I really don't know what to say to you. I think you spent way too much time inside the Warsaw Pact borders buddy. It's too bad, you'd be really cool otherwise. As it is, you rather remind me of my nutty uncle.
Anyway, I'll deal with one part of your diatribe:
Countries like Russia or Serbia have the unfortunate position of not being able to abstain from Muslim/non-Muslim issues(that is not to say they handle these problems correctly at present). America DOES have the ability to do this.
Having the ability to abstain from something doesn't mean we SHOULD abstain from it. How many German countries did the US border in WW1 and WW2? What about Canada and England? All of them bordered exactly ZERO German countries. By your logic, none of them should have interfered untill the Germans were right next door. That's faulty soviet-style logic my friend. It's the same as that used by the whackos who claim that a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified because they're so close, but the US has no business being there because they live on a different continent. It's utter nonsense.
All the while critics of these policies were supressed and persecuted for "xenophobia".
Although I disagreed with pretty much everything else in your posts (because it was completely wrong), you're right on the money here. We're now being suppressed with cries of "Islamophobia" whenever bring up that it might be bad for Europe to descend into a sharia society.
All the while critics of these policies were supressed and persecuted for "xenophobia". Only when it has become too apparent that these immigrants will not embrace Western-bankrupt culture would the liberal leaders of these nations allow, yes ALLOW, the rightists to have a free hand in speaking out against the influx of immigrants.
Boy have you ever got things backwards. The last time I tried to give a speach on immigration reform, it certainly wasn't a "rightist" who started shouting "RACIST!" untill her and her friends drowned me out. At least, I'm assuming that her wearing a Che Guevera shirt and a peace sign (oh the irony) meant she wasnt a "rightist". I somehow got the feeling that most of her friends who were busy shouting me down also weren't big supporters of the Republican party.
But hey, what do I know eh. It's clearly the "rightists" who control our freedom of speach, while the lefties are more than happy to let us say whatever we want. Must be why I keep getting banned from Democratic Underground and Loose Change. It's that famous lefty support for free speech.
At least, I'm assuming that her wearing a Che Guevera shirt and a peace sign (oh the irony)
I own a shirt with a skull wearing a beret that says "Che's dead, get over it".
The great summary executing revolutionary - a force for peace everywhere.
Hrm, it seems I misread JP's post. Whoops. Sorry man. You're absolutely right, it's the "liberal leaders" (or liberals in general) who control speach in most western nations.
Shawn, where can I get a shirt like that? :)
Che is dead - get over it!
Post a Comment
<< Home