Thursday, September 21, 2006

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!

52 Comments:

At 21 September, 2006 12:14, Blogger Jujigatami said...

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???

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:15, Blogger CHF said...

Noam's right.

The way these CT drama queens act like they're rebels hiding out in the jungles of Bolivia just makes me sick.

IF YOU MORONS WERE FIGHTING A FASCIST REGIME YOU WOULDN'T BE PARADING AROUND GROUND ZERO WITH FRIGGIN' SIGNS!

YOU'D BE TURNING UP IN MASS GRAVES.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:29, Blogger Yatesey said...

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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:58, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:24, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

The loser Tin Foil Hatters SNUBED YET AGAIN!!!!!

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!

One of our resident Douchebags will be along any second to somehow spin this.

 
At 21 September, 2006 14:04, Blogger CHF said...

Twoofers:

when the great Noam Chomsky refuses to endorse an anti-US government position, take a fuckin' hint.

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:00, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:25, Blogger Kent said...

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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:41, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

I think the more that politics is kept out of this, the better. It's about fact vs. fiction, not left vs. right.
If I want to get involved in political flamewars there are plenty of other forums on the internet. What's more, by turning it into an issue of political affiliation you give the CT'ers an easy get out - if you're a self proclaimed Republican then of course you'd defend Bushitler/the NWO/Zionist Space Monkeys of Doom.

 
At 21 September, 2006 16:37, Blogger Rob said...

The link doesn't work for me ("Sorry, an error occurred. ... The error returned was: You do not have permission to view this topic")

Apparently, Chomsky is (wait for it....) a zionist shill:

"Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss [The Scholars] as "lacking credibility"? ... he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? ... Does [Chomsky] know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? ... Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America?"

 
At 21 September, 2006 16:54, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:29, Blogger guff said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:30, Blogger guff said...

Damn it! I've been banned from the Loosers forum so I can't read their lunatic ramblings anymore. They are a very tolerant bunch over there - call them stupid once and your banned

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:40, Blogger default.xbe said...

Damn it! I've been banned from the Loosers forum so I can't read their lunatic ramblings anymore.

www.megaproxy.com
www.ninjaproxy.com
www.unipeak.com

if you still feel like reading their ramblings

 
At 21 September, 2006 22:58, Blogger JoanBasil said...

ha! 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.

 
At 21 September, 2006 23:38, Blogger Pat said...

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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 01:21, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Specifically Shawn, which history did Chomsky "invent". Since you're somewhat libertarian if I remember correctly, you should get along well.

 
At 22 September, 2006 03:18, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 05:08, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I have yet to see Chomsky claim that the Soviet Union fostered freedom in Eastern Europe- unless you want to count that whole LIBERATING EASTERN EUROPE FROM THE NAZIS "favor" they did. It is a fact that the USSR wanted a unified, neutral Germany however.

More importantly, I have never seen Chomsky DENY the Cambodian genocide, nor did he write it off as "propaganda". Chomsky used the Cambodia issue as a CASE STUDY on the American media.

In other words, while two similar events were going on almost simultaneously...

ONE event was getting tons of media coverage(he gave exact figures) while the other got almost nothing.

In ONE of these events every atrocity was reported, and SOME atrocities were even invented. In the OTHER case atrocities were ignored.

In ONE case the perpetrator was a US ally spending wads of cash on American/Western weapons and ammo. In the other the perpetrator was a whackjob guerilla who wanted to take his country back to an almost ancient existence.

Care to guess which one was Kampuchea and which was East Timor?

THAT WAS THE POINT Chomsky was trying to make- not that the Cambodian genocide "didn't happen".

Furthermore I am sick of people with "conservative" slants complaining about people saying things that are "anti-American". These are the same people that talk about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. 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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 05:11, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Pat,
I've wished you guys good luck quite a few times in these comments because I always feel, "Let a thousand flowers bloom." But how many of us are commenting here? Like less than 20? Look at this thread from 911blogger.com - over 200 comments.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3085


Honestly, I don't see how you can think that YOU are winning when the real "Loose Change" has millions of viewers and has been translated in different languages and seen by millions around the world. Skepticism of the official version is 36 - 42% in this country already. Look at some of the places around the world where the skepticism is coming from - where there have been editorials or studies or where people are doing videos and putting them on YouTube - Switzerland, Finland, Holland. Its a worldwide movement against our government's official story.

 
At 22 September, 2006 05:21, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Joan. Arugment to popularity. Look it up.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:08, Blogger CHF said...

joan,

your movement is entirely internet based.

When it comes to mustering support in the streets or at the ballot box you fail miserably.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:43, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

Joan - I hate to burst your bubble, but I'd suggest that about 95% of the fans of Loose Change will have thought 'Woah, dude! Cool!' and then got back to Xbox/pot smoking/homework. There isn't some giant snowballing political movement ready to march on Washington. The echo-chamber of the net just makes it seem that way. The die-hards of the CT crowd will always be there, but the vast majority of the LC fans will have forgotten all about it in a few years time. Sure, it won't ever go away: look at the Kennedy assassination or the moon landings. People will continue to publish books and give speaking tours, but it is and will always be largely irrelevant. The rest of the world will get on with dealing with reality and you and your little club will remain on the fringes congratulating yourselves at your clear headedness and contrariness.
The sad thing is that you'll have devoted all of your energies on a totally worthless endeavour. Local politics or charity work isn't half as much fun as a world of sinister conspiracies, but ultimately one has a purpose to the greater good - the other is a worthless excercise in self congratulation and fairy tales.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:20, Blogger Thomas said...

It is a fact that the USSR wanted a unified, neutral Germany however.

Well, I am glad they didn't succeed.

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:53, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:35, Blogger CHF said...

JPSlovjanski,

My opinion, for what it's worth.

Chomsky is right on the money when it comes to a lot of thing.

- the hyporcacy of US policy (good dictators vs bad ones)

- overthrowing democratic governments they don't like

- backing ruthless regimes in Latin America

etc etc.

Where he starts to lose me is when he insists on blaming the US for EVERYTHING while downplaying the atrocities of communist/marxist regimes.

In the case of Cambodia, he didn't outright deny the Khamer Rouge killings but he did go out of his way to question and downplay the sources (including refugees) who claimed massive human rights abuses were occuring. When he eventually did acknowledge the killings he ended up settling on the low end of the death toll estimates (700,000) rather than the high end (1.6-2 million).

I especially dislike how Chomsky will use any logic in order to pin the blame on the USA.

He blames the USA for the Khamer Rouge killings because US bombing played a big part in radicalizing the KR and swelling their ranks.

True enough.

But then he turns around and blames America for the Afghan war because they backed the Mujahedin against the USSR - even though it was the 1973 coup and brutal Soviet invasion that radicalized the Muj!

If America is to blame for arming the Muj then the Vietnamese/USSR are to blame for arming the Khamer Rouge.

If the USA is to blame for all that's happened in Iran because of the 1952 coup then the USSR takes the blame for Afghanistan because of 1973.

If the USA gets blamed (rightly so) for arming regimes in Nicaragua and Guatemala then the USSR should get the most blame for supplying Saddam Hussein with the bulk of his weapons. But instead he ignores the Soviet weapons and zeroes in on the tiny bit of weapons that came from the USA in order to claim that the USA was the big player who armed and supported Saddam. It's nonsense.

Chomsky is a valuable source for some topics, but a hypocrite when it comes to others.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:54, Blogger Triterope said...

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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:05, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 22 September, 2006 16:55, Blogger Thomas said...

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/

 
At 22 September, 2006 19:37, Blogger shawn said...

There's also the Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite (but oh no it's written by a Zionist Israeli).

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:48, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Actually Alex you are the one that is confused because there is no evidence that "Communism killed over 100 million people". You wasted your money on Black Deeds of the Kremlin.

As for the one that speculated about a unified NEUTRAL GERMANY, it would have been no different from Austria. Stalin offered Germany the exact same deal. Did Austria become a Communist puppet state? No.

CHF's comments are far more accurate but I would just like to point out that the real backing for the Khmer Rouge(particularly during the time they became successful and after the revolution) came from China, not Russia or Vietnam(who they later fought against). The constitution of Democratic Kampuchea never mentioned the words "Marxist-Leninism" among other key terms. Saloth Sar and his clique had clearly gone off the deep end some time before the success of the revolution.

It is true that Chomsky over inflates the military support(but not necessarily the political support) given to Saddam Hussein. The vast majority of his conventional forces was Soviet supplied. He also repeats a lot of Kurdish propaganda because he has a hard on for the Kurds. However, at least he does point out the fact that Turkey has killed and oppressed far more Kurds than the Baathist Iraqi regime yet totally gets away with it.

I believe what Chomsky is trying to point out is just how in any conflict(including WWII), there is the tendency to pretend that only the enemy commits atrocities. War is ugly, EVERY time. Civilians ALWAYS get killed, soldiers ALWAYS misbehave, and many times don't get punished. It doesn't matter if they were Americans, British, Japanese, Russian, German, or whatever.

 
At 22 September, 2006 22:03, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 23 September, 2006 02:57, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

70, 100 Million, hell it's only a 30 MILLION PERSON DIFFERENCE!!

Actually NEITHER numbers are anywhere near correct. Furthermore they don't take into account the context of what was happening at the time e.g. civil war, etc. Sure we could pin the British/Tory deaths on those evil American revolutionaries too, but that would be just plain stupid. 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.

Yes, Kurds WERE oppressed. What Chomsky points out is that Kurds were FAR more oppressed in Turkey than in Iraq. Yet the only Kurdish oppression we usually hear about 99% of the time is that which happened in Iraq, not what happened in Turkey. That's what Chomsky does- he points out how one side gets hammered by the media incessantly while another side gets a free pass.

For example, KLA fighters were referred to as "rebels" instead of "terrorists" while Hamas is always referred to as a terrorist organization. Both organizations resort to terrorism, both have done so frequently.

 
At 23 September, 2006 03:09, Blogger Thomas said...

As for the one that speculated about a unified NEUTRAL GERMANY, it would have been no different from Austria. Stalin offered Germany the exact same deal. Did Austria become a Communist puppet state? No.

First off, I didn't 'speculate'. I said I was grateful, because I am German and I am old enough to have witnessed that other Germany which cherished Stalin's love for 'neutrality' as much as you obviously do. Needless to say, I am glad I was not born in THAT very neutral part of the country but in the other one, you know, the 'capitalist and imperialist' part, against which an 'anti-fascist protection wall' had to be built in Berlin and smack through the middle of the country. Guess they were protecting their 'neutrality'.

As for Austria, are you saying it is what is today because of a generous offer by Stalin?

 
At 23 September, 2006 03:20, Blogger shawn said...

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)?

 
At 23 September, 2006 04:35, Blogger Thomas said...

Yes, Kurds WERE oppressed. What Chomsky points out is that Kurds were FAR more oppressed in Turkey than in Iraq. Yet the only Kurdish oppression we usually hear about 99% of the time is that which happened in Iraq, not what happened in Turkey. That's what Chomsky does- he points out how one side gets hammered by the media incessantly while another side gets a free pass.

So correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are criticizing 'our' media for not aptly covering a purported oppression, but you are not actually criticizing the actual oppression, or are you?

 
At 23 September, 2006 04:53, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Both your figures are wrong Shawn. Both are WAY off. And YES I know you are talking about AFTER the Nazi Holocaust. I am talking about how Cold War intellectuals wanted to make Stalin worse than Hitler. They did so by inventing ridiculous numbers like those you quoted and coming up with equally hilarious methods of tabulating deaths.

IIRC Stalin wanted to offset the growing popularity of Zionism by creating a Jewish Republic within the Soviet Union(I believe it still exists). Stalin did not persecute them for being Jewish any more than he persecuted UPA thugs for being Ukrainian.


By the way the KLA I was referring to was the Kosovo Liberation Army, sorry for not clarifying.

 
At 23 September, 2006 04:57, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Thomas I don't think you're getting the point here. Do you remember that state called Austria? Did Austria have a wall across it? Was Austria divided? Was Austria a miserable place? No. Stalin advanced the EXACT same deal to Germany that he GAVE Austria. Neutral Germany- no need for division or occupation. It was the Allies that wanted a divided Germany.

Also as for that "oppression" I was talking about regarding the Kurds, I am saying that Chomsky's point(on most of these issues) is that:

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.

It's no different from Iraqis saying that Americans are using chemical weapons against them now- it is untrue. 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.

 
At 23 September, 2006 08:17, Blogger Alex said...

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).

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:35, Blogger Pepik said...

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.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:47, Blogger CHF said...

jp,

Granted the USA has comitted atrocities, but I think there is a big difference between civilians killed in the crossfire and those lined up against a wall and shot.

Chomsky constantly tries to pretend that they're the same.

BTW, Saddam killed 100,000+ Kurds in the late 80s alone.

I think the 1980s-90s toll in Turkey is 30,000 or so.

But I see your point: 'good' Kurds vs 'bad' Kurds when they're really the same Kurds fighting the same war.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:52, Blogger Thomas said...

Thomas I don't think you're getting the point here. Do you remember that state called Austria? Did Austria have a wall across it? Was Austria divided? Was Austria a miserable place? No. Stalin advanced the EXACT same deal to Germany that he GAVE Austria. Neutral Germany- no need for division or occupation. It was the Allies that wanted a divided Germany.

J, Stalin had isolated

Adenauer made free elections and rearmament a condition of the proposal – both were rejected by the Soviets.

Austria, which was initially also divided into 4 occupation zones, is economically, strategically and geographically in a totally different league. Besides, as far as I remember the foundation was based on a mutual agreement of all former Allies.

Make no mistake: Stalin deserves eternal gratitude for having defeated Hitler and we should never forget the 20 Million victims this cost the Soviet Union alone. Whether I would have liked to live under his (or a similar) system is an altogether different question.

I repeat myself, I am grateful Stalins 'generous' offer was turned down and West Germany became a democratic state with free elections and a liberal constitution. A country in which I could grow up developing a free opinion of choice and rely on solid civic rights. I only feel bad for those on the other side who had to become once more guinea pigs for yet another totalitarian movement disguised as savior of mankind.

Note: Preview doesn't seem to work anymore.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:55, Blogger Thomas said...

First paragraph should read:
Stalin had isolated Berlin and tried to starve her population into an entirely Soviet controlled city in 1948 – I think I'd consider twice accepting a generous offer – let alone one involving 'neutrality' – by someone with such pedigree.

 
At 23 September, 2006 14:21, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:51, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Clearly this conversation is out of Alex' league today so I'll address the other points.

NOTICE Thomas, that AUSTRIA was occupied by the Soviets and then ABANDONED and allowed to be a neutral, but unoccupied state? THAT is what Stalin WANTED to do with Germany. The Allies wanted it divided. That means that the Allies PREFERRED a Communist East Germany rather than a neutral unoccupied and UNIFIED Germany.

Give the Soviets a break, SOMEONE invaded their country and killed over 20 million people.


Now let's move on to Shawn. Sorry pal but there is no proof of anything NEAR 20 million. The information in the Soviet archives is what DISPROVED those idiotic claims.

Now let's dicuss the DIFFERENCE between Holocaust revisionism and the truth about socialism:

Demographic proof for the Holocaust(the Jewish part of it): We take an accurate estimate of Jews living in Europe, say...the Nazi estimate of 11 million(Wannsee conference estimate). Now in 1945...PRESTO, the population has DROPPED by about 6-7 million. Now adjust for those who escaped, emmigrated, died of natural causes, etc... and you get a final figure of about 4.8-6 million killed during a period of about 4 years(I'm starting from the Einsatzgruppen killings in '41 here).

SUMMARY: Population 11 million, population DROPS in that period of time.

Now let's look at how "scholars" at places like Harvard university calculated the death toll for the "Ukrainian famine genocide". This is alleged to be Stalin's biggest crime. Proposed death tolls run from about 5 to 10+ million, the latter presenting somewhere around 60% of Ukraine's population at the time.

Start in 1926(several years before collectivization even began). Take the birth rate in 1926, DO NOT adjust that birthrate for any reason. Now look at the birthrate in 1939(five years after the famine ended). The population of Ukraine is HIGHER! Using the birth rate from 1926, claim that the difference between the actual population and the growth PROJECTED using the 1926 birthrate(without adjustments) represents "Ukrainians killed in the famine".

Are you still with me here? This is the ridiculous method used to "prove" Stalin's greatest crime. Some people have actually stretched the range from 1926 to 1948- IGNORING THIS LITTLE THING CALLED WORLD WAR II!


REALITY: The Ukrainian population GREW under Stalin. The life-expectancies of people in Ukraine DOUBLED because of the measures introduced by socialism. As a Ukrainian I can state without the slightest inhibition that Ukraine attained its BEST standard of living since Kievian Rus under the USSR.

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:54, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Summary: There is no evidence to suggest that Stalin has "more blood on his hands" than Hitler. He is the reason why Hitler's hands aren't more bloodstained than they are now. Information from the Russian archives disproved these fairytales back in the 1990s.

On Human Shields: The point is Shawn, that if the Russians level a neighborhood in Chechnya, it gets condemned and nobody talks about "human shields". If the US levels a neighborhood or a city like Fallujah, the civilians become "human shields" in the media. It's that double standard that Chomsky points out.

Again, ALL he is saying is that a "free press" is just as capable of becoming a propaganda mill.

 
At 24 September, 2006 05:58, Blogger shawn said...

Wow he spouts propaganda, says it's supported in the archives, when the exact opposite is true.

 
At 24 September, 2006 14:16, Blogger CHF said...

jp,

The US did not hit Fallujah with nearly the same firepower as the Russians used on Grozny.

Not even close.

The US does take meansures to avoid civilian casualties. Their enemies know it better than anyone.

 
At 24 September, 2006 23:01, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Actually Shawn, the archives support me. Lot's of pseudointellectuals came out of the woodwork claiming that they have "information from the archives". The thing is that the Russian archives have TONS of information that prove absolutely nothing. The only archival information that matters in any given case is that which actually SUPPORTS the claim being made.

What archival evidence shows us is that claims made regarding the Great Purges were laughably untrue. They showed that the ENTIRE population of the GULAG system(all of it, which included the far less restricted labor colonies) contained FEWER people in any given year than the amount of people in the US correction system right now. That is throughout the entire Stalin era.

Furthermore, the archives show that the overwhelming number of prisoners were common law prisoners. Political prisoners were a far smaller group and nearly all had sentences of less than five years. The archives also contain the hundreds of thousands of successful appeals and releases(many of these appeals were actually ordered by Stalin after sacking Yezhov).

The death rate in the GULAG system was also highly exagerrated and the only time when deaths became common was during the war, due to food and medicine shortages.

See J. Arch Getty's: The Great Purges Reconsidered

Getty was one of the VERY FEW anti-Communist intellectuals who actually REPORTED what he found in the archives. Others looked and came away in silence.

 
At 24 September, 2006 23:08, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

One last thing, what I mentioned on the Ukrainian famine is not "propaganda". That idiotic method of tabulating the deaths was(and still is) the method used to "prove" millions of deaths in the "deliberate famine". That same method has been used to "prove" that the Canadian government liquidated several hundred thousand farmers in Saskatchewan.

 
At 25 September, 2006 01:42, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

CHF, you are correct but I am not necessarily comparing Fallujah to Grozny. There are of course more analagous cases. Especially if you use Serbia in Kosovo as the other case instead of Russia.

All factions involved have taken precautions to avoid civilian casulties at various times- when fighting insurgencies it's common sense that you want to kill the insurgents above all.

The problem is that when the US does this, the human shield argument is trotted out. Whereas if someone like Milosevic had said the same thing(and KLA often operated using the same tactics), it would not have saved his ass from the Hague.

Since I am against both the war in Iraq and Chechnya, I think the same standard applies that both nations had a CHOICE to initiate these wars, and they both made the wrong choice.

 
At 25 September, 2006 21:14, Blogger Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu said...

"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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home