More Noam
Chomsky's rapidly becoming one of my heroes. A Looser decided to try to "recruit" Noam via email. It's a hilarious exchange, notable for the lack of evidence provided by the Looser and the quite forceful put-down in response:
I can only repeat what I wrote. I am, first of all, amazed at the extraordinary arrogance and fervor of the self-described "truth movement," which insists that I shift my priorities to theirs, something I can not imagine doing; and second, at the complete absence of argument, exemplified again in your letter, which gives not one single bit of evidence nor any argument. I'm surprised that you do not see that.
I am also surprised by your willingness to accept the pathetic wailing about the persecution of supporters of the "truth movement." Even if we were to accept what they report as correct -- for which they provide no evidence -- it would not amount to a row of pins as compared with what is standard, and expected, among those who devote themselves to combatting crimes of state. And what has happened to Griffin, Falk, or anyone else who has taken a stand on these matters?
If you want to engage in these quite riskless efforts, rather than other issues that are, in my judgment, far more important (for reasons I've explained in detail in print), and do indeed carry risks, then by all means do so. I cannot dream of having the extraordinary arrogance and self-righteousness to suggest that you change course and adopt my priorities.
You tell 'em, Noam!
posted by Pat @ 11:07 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
Maybe there is a conspiracy happening...
If I EVER were to agree with Chomsky, it would have to be because of a conspiracy... right?
I mean, are pigs flying? has hell frozen over?
Whats going on man???
I read on past the email post. It's amazing how deeply into their own lie they've descended.
I'm pretty sure if God himself(or whatever being anyone puts their faith into) came down from the Heavens and proclaimed the official story to be true, they would still somehow spin it so God looked like he was afraid of career suicide or on the take.
"My final appeal, my final argument that you change your priorities is also my first. You run the risk of your writing becoming largely irrelevant. The evidence is my bank statement. I read for approximately 2 hours every night and I buy one nonfiction book per week. Formerly, that money would have been spent on your books, your writing. Currently, it is not. Formerly my time would have been spent reading your essays and books. Currently it is not."
Yeah, that's persuasion.
Formerly, that money would have been spent on your books, your writing.
Noam's books aren't his writing. They're his lectures and talks transcribed.
And after Chavez gave him an endorsement, I hate Noam even more than I did before.
He's a sickly, angry old man who doesn't have the first clue about history, geopolitics, or honesty. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
I'm with you, Shawn. I find little comfort in the knowledge that Chomsky is intelligent enough to recognize a nonviable cause, and would rather devote his efforts to more effective anti-American causes.
It's about fact vs. fiction
I hate Chomsky's politics, but I hate him more for inventing history. My real problem with him is his denail of atrocities while inventing ones that never happened.
Shawn, I'm flummoxed at being a Chomsky supporter over here, but we're winning this 9-11 CT war, not others. It just shows how marginalized these Deniers are that they can't even catch on with the far Left.
Specifically Shawn, which history did Chomsky "invent".
That the Soviet Union fostered freedom in Eastern Europe. He pretty much inverts the status of the Cold War powers. Not only that but he denied the genocide in Cambodia (at the time he wrote it off as propaganda), but also worried of a massive genocide in Afghanistan (a "silent" one) with the American invasion.
More specifically on the honesty front, he's said that maybe two percent of the population of American colleges suffer from left-wing groupthink, which makes him either a liar or naive. He also "wrote" a book about how the media marginalizes views such as his and how he is blacked out, but he's one of the ten most quoted sources on the planet.
He's also an anarcho-syndicalist, which is a fusion of anarchy and communism. Even if he were libertarian (I'm technically a classical liberal, but they're similar enough), he'll take the slant against America at every chance.
If you don't like people pointing out America's past crimes, and ESPECIALLY if you don't like terrorism, put your "democracy" to the test and prevent further crimes from happening rather than babbling about "human shields" or "collatoral damage" and other cowardly cop-outs.
Wow, are you ever confused. Mr. "the USSR and communism were soooo much better than the US even though they killed off some 100 million people". You've got ZERO right to be talking about "US crimes". You may as well be Chomskey's twin.
Damn it! I've been banned from the Loosers forum so I can't read their lunatic ramblings anymore.
You can read the email exchange on the JREF CT forum. Search for the word "Noam". Should be on the first or second page.
Furthermore I am sick of people with "conservative" slants complaining about people saying things that are "anti-American".
I am not a conservative and Chomsky is anti-American. There's really no argument about it.
Somehow you'll twist Chomsky visiting Hizbollah and praising them around, too.
There's also the Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite (but oh no it's written by a Zionist Israeli).
Communism killed over 100 million people
I'd say it's more like 70 million, but 100 is such a round number.
Stalin offered Germany the exact same deal.
Odd, I just read an in-depth biography of Stalin (not by a conservative American, don't worry) that says before he died he had plans to ship away Jews and start his own conquest war.
He also repeats a lot of Kurdish propaganda because he has a hard on for the Kurds
Chomsky has a hard-on for all minority and/or oppressed (I'd normally put that in quotes, but the Kurds were actually oppressed) groups.
Actually NEITHER numbers are anywhere near correct.
20-30 million for Stalin, 30-50 million for Mao. Those alone account for upwards of 70 million.
The thing about deporting Jews(simply for being Jewish) is just ridiculous. It's just as stupid as authors that pin some of the blame for the Holocaust on America for not letting in masses of Jews on several occasions.
Uh this is after Hitler's defeat. I'm talking RIGHT before Stalin died. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust.
For example, KLA fighters were referred to as "rebels" instead of "terrorists" while Hamas is always referred to as a terrorist organization.
Do you mean the Kashmir Liberation Army? Or the PPK (which is considered a terrorist group)?
You wasted your money on Black Deeds of the Kremlin.
Why would I pay for the Kremlin's bad deeds? I'm pretty sure they financed themselves on the backs of the workers, I had nothing to do with it.
70, 100 Million, hell it's only a 30 MILLION PERSON DIFFERENCE!!
Now why does this remind me of holocaust revisionism. "6 million, 2 million, hell, it's ONLY A 4 MILLION PERSON DIFFERENCE!!!"
If it were anywhere between 70 and 100 million, the actual number would be pretty much irrelevant. The human mind simply can't grasp the concept of the much death. You want to call it 50 million instead? Fine with me. Still a hell of a number to compare to anything you might try to accuse the US of.
For example, KLA fighters were referred to as "rebels" instead of "terrorists" while Hamas is always referred to as a terrorist organization.
Blame Clinton for that. Personally I wanted to strangle his admin at the time. The KLA certainly were terrorists.
They did so by inventing ridiculous numbers like those you quoted and coming up with equally hilarious methods of tabulating deaths.
Hilarious methods of tabulating deaths.
Right.
Was Austria a miserable place?
Yes.
1. Atrocities committed by the US or its allies are either ignored or rationalized(e.g. human shields), WHILE...
2. Atrocities committed by others receive far more attention, and are sometimes invented.
Are you retarded? Have you been watching the coverage of Iraq? Have you read any history of Vietnam? Hell, EVEN US CONDUCT OF FUCKING WW2 is being questioned by "academics", although the media have generally been smart enough to stay away from THAT particular bucket of worms. Generally speaking though, US "atrocities" like abu-gharib receive an inordinately disproportionate amount of attention and coverage, while the true atrocities perpetuated by our enemies receive almost no mention. This despite the fact that most civilian deaths caused by allied forces are a regrettable necessity, while those caused by our enemies are usually one of their goals.
What Chomsky is pointing out is that we cannot think that are "free press" is objective or that it cannot act as a propaganda megaphone for the ruling elite/government.
Well, yes, Chomsky is pointing that out, and he's right out of 'er as usual. And easy with the "ruling elite" comments there buds, you're starting to sound like you might go on a rant about the Illuminati at any point in time. Either that or join Chavez and Castro on TV ranting about the evils of the Bush regime's Plan To Take Over The World (tm).
What I think is interesting is that this shows that Chomsky fans are now LC facs. Is LC just more fun? Less reading, more videos? Less complicated? Who knows.
But it is great to see Chomsky logic turned on him -
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
Well anyone can take that logic to validate practically any view. And now they have. Poor Chomsky, the chickens are coming home to roost.
I am talking about how Cold War intellectuals wanted to make Stalin worse than Hitler.
Stalin has more blood on his hands. The West focuses much more on Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union, and thus we have as our archdemon Hitler. 20 million is the absolute minimum for deaths under Stalin. They are not invented figures (I read them time and time again in books written by Russians, using information in the Party archives).
(e.g. human shields),
The reality of a situation is not rationalization. If you don't believe that human shields are a tactic that is used, then consult the United Nations - because they consider it a war crime.
Wow he spouts propaganda, says it's supported in the archives, when the exact opposite is true.
"I really don't care what Noam Chomsky thinks about 9/11 truth. I've heard of him but can't think of any influence he's had on the world."
I realize this is off-topic, but I would like to respond to this ad-hominem. Chomsky has played a vital role in the study of linguistics. When it was discovered that formal languages and automata were essentially the same, much of the research he had carried out almost immediately transferred over to computer science. We learn about the Chomsky Hierarchy of Grammars and Chomsky Normal Form in school for a reason...
Post a Comment
<< Home