This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Noam Chomsky: "The Idea Of A Media Which Does Not Repeat US Propaganda Is Intolerable To American Leaders"
Few individuals polarize the public with their opinions, statements and mere presence, like Noam Chomsky. The 86 year old linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate, has strong opinions (and in some cases, entire schools of thought) on everything from philosophy, to sociology, to linguistics, but he is perhaps best known in recent years for his political activism which has led to death threats due to his staunch and far-reaching criticism of US foreign policy (allegedly the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances).
His broader outlook is a peculiar version of libertarianism (he describes himself as an anacrho-syndicalist), in which he asserts that authority is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. He contends that there is little moral difference between chattel slavery and renting one's self to an owner or "wage slavery." He holds that workers should own and control their workplace.
He is has also repeatedly stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT.
In other words, the present, in which ruling elites (whether the BIS and "Troika) and ubiquitous US intervention in every possible foreign affair (courtesy of a State Department which, as it has now been revealed, had until recently worked on behalf of the highest foreign bidder) determine the fate of the entire world, should provide Chomsky with endless material for contemplation.
Conveniently, overnight we got a glimpse into his current thought process, courtesy of the following extended interview conducted by RT with the famed linguist and anti-establishmentarian, in which topics such as the "weaponization" of media and information, America's paradoxical propaganda machine, the immunity of the US from the set of rules it creates for everyone else (but itself), and America's conversion from a democracy into a plutocracy, as well as many more, are touched upon.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Chomsky, he always provides a unique and interesting perspective on current (and future) events.
While the International Criminal Court investigates and sentences African dictators, any of the crimes the US commits like the invasion of Iraq, which has destabilized an entire region, go unpunished, philosopher Noam Chomsky tells RT.
RT: During a congressional hearing [on April 15, officially titled ‘Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information’], House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ed Royce said, “The Russian media is now dividing societies abroad and, in fact, weaponizing information.” Where is that coming from? Is it a genuine fear or fear of alternative opinions?
Noam Chomsky: He’s talking about the Russian media but if there were any imaginable possibility of honesty, he could be talking about the American media, for which that is correct. Take the New York Times -- the greatest newspaper in the world. Take one example, at the first article that appeared today, that the tentative [nuclear] agreement with Iran was reached. It’s a thinkpiece, by Peter Baker, one of their main analysts. He discusses in it the main reasons to distrust Iran, the crimes of Iran. It’s very interesting to look at. The most interesting one is the charge that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East because it’s supporting militias which have killed American soldiers in Iraq. That’s kind of as if, in 1943, the Nazi press had criticized England because it was destabilizing Europe for supporting partisans who were killing German soldiers. In other words, the assumption is, when the United States invades, it kills a couple hundred thousand people, destroys the country, elicits sectarian conflicts that are now tearing Iraq and the region apart, that’s stabilization. If someone resists that tact, that’s destabilization.
That’s characteristic. The Summit of the Americas is meeting now in Panama. Take a look at the commentary on it here [in the US]. The big question is how much credit Obama will get for his move towards helping Cuba escape from its isolation in the hemisphere. It’s exactly the opposite. The United States is isolated in the hemisphere. You look back at the last hemisphere meeting in Colombia, a US ally. The United States was totally isolated. There were two big issues. One was admitting Cuba into the hemisphere. Everyone wanted it. The US refused, along with Canada. The other was the drug war, which the US insists on, and the Latin American countries who are being seriously harmed by it, they want it significantly modified, decriminalized and so on. And, again, the US was totally isolated. Those were the two main issues.
As for the steps towards Cuba, they’re described as noble gestures. The picture is that we’ve -- exactly as Obama said -- we’ve tried for 50 years to bring freedom, justice, and democracy to Cuba, but our methods have failed, so we might try some other methods to achieve these noble goals. The facts are very clear. This is a free and open society, so we have access to internal documents at an extraordinary level. You can’t claim you don’t know. It’s not like a totalitarian state where there are no records. We know what happened. The Kennedy administration launched a very serious terrorist war against Cuba. It was one of the factors that led to the missile crisis. It was a war that was planned to lead to an invasion in October 1962, which Cuba and Russia presumably knew about. It’s now assumed by scholarship that that’s one of the reasons for the placement of the missiles. That war went on for years. No mention of it is permissible. The only thing you can mention is that there were some attempts to assassinate [Fidel] Castro. And those can be written off as ridiculous CIA shenanigans. But the terrorist war itself was very serious. That was a footnote to it.
The other, of course, was a crushing embargo. We also know the reasons, because they’re stated explicitly in the internal documents. Go back to the early ‘60s, as the State Department explained, the problem with Castro was his successful defiance of US policies that go back to the Monroe Doctrine -- 1823. The Doctrine asserted that the United States has the right to control the hemisphere. They couldn’t implement it at the time, but that’s the Doctrine. And Cuba was successfully defying that Doctrine. Therefore, we have to carry out a terrorist war and crushing embargo that have nothing to do with bringing freedom and justice to the Cubans. And there is no noble gesture, just Obama’s recognition that the United States is practically being thrown out of the hemisphere because of its isolation on this topic.
But you can’t discuss that [in the US]. It’s all public information, nothing secret, all available in public documents, but undiscussable. Like the idea -- and you can’t contemplate the idea -- that when the US invades another country and the other resists, it’s not the resistors who are committing the crime, it’s the invaders. And we, of course, understand that very well when, say, Russia invaded Afghanistan. If somebody resisted it, we don’t say they’re criminals, they are destabilizing Afghanistan. Maybe Pravda said that, I doubt it. But here, it’s normal.
So if the House wants to study the weaponization of the media, they can look right at the front pages of the newspapers that they get every day.
RT: Our network has come repeatedly under attack, even from State secretary John Kerry. Recently, he said, “RT’s influence is growing,” while his very own deputy, Victoria Nuland, said that nobody watches RT in America, which is probably not true. Do you think this is about money? Because we know that the BBG -- the Broadcasting Board of Governors -- has a budget of $750 million as opposed to RT’s $250 million, which has never been a secret. Or is it something else?
NC: I think it’s something else. I don’t think they care about the money. The idea that there should be a network reaching people which does not repeat the US propaganda system is intolerable.
RT: To them.
NC: Yes. That’s normal.
RT: As for US-Russia relations, are we really in Cold War version 2.0?
NC: It’s dangerous. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has a famous doomsday clock. It goes back to the late 1940s. The clock is placed several minutes before “midnight.” Midnight means we’re done, finished. They just moved it two minutes closer to midnight -- three minutes from midnight. That’s the closest it’s been since the early 1980s when there was a major war scare. We now know how serious that war scare was. It wasn’t quite understood at the time, but it was very serious. Now it’s moved that close. One of the reasons is the deterioration in Russia-US relations, which is quite threatening. The other is environmental catastrophe, which we weren’t thinking about then. But, yes, that’s serious.
RT: Is it all because of the Ukrainian crisis?
NC: Partly. It’s also because of other domains in which Russia and the United States don’t see eye to eye. Just as there is a US-Iranian crisis. Everyone in the United States -- every leading commentator, every presidential candidate and so on, recently Jeb Bush -- says Iran is the greatest threat to world peace. That’s repeated over and over.
There’s also another opinion on the matter. Namely, the world’s opinion, and we know what that is because there are polls taken by the leading US polling agencies. The Gallup organization has international polls. And they ask the question, “Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?” The United States is way ahead of anyone else. No other country is even close. But Americans are protected from that. The US media simply refused to print it. This major poll, I think it was December 2013, it was reported by BBC. But not a single word in the major American media. So if the world thinks that, so much for the world. We say Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, therefore that is true. We can repeat it over and over.
The major newspapers in the United States -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- have recently published op-eds by prominent figures calling for bombing Iran right now. How would we react if Kayhan, say, or Pravda, or any newspaper, published articles by leading figures saying ‘let’s bomb the United States right now’? I mean, there would be a reaction. There would. But if this happens here, it’s perfectly fine. It’s normal.
If we look closely at the conflicts, we can find plenty of problems with both sides. But the way they’re interpreted here is that we’re necessarily right about everything, and if anyone’s in the way, they are wrong about everything. I wouldn’t say there’s no disagreement on that, there’s some. Take for example Ukraine. The standard position here is that it’s all the fault of the Russians, it’s Russian aggression and so on. However, you can read -- not in the mainstream press, but in prominent journals -- different opinions. So in Foreign Affairs, the leading establishment journal, you can read a lead article on the front, the West is responsible for the Ukraine crisis.
RT: The West or particularly the United States?
NC: Well, the West means the United States and everyone else goes along. What’s called the international community in the United States is the United States and anyone who happens to be going along with it. Take, say, for example, the question of Iran’s right to carry out its current nuclear policies, whatever they are. The standard line is that the international community objects to this. Who is the international community? What the United States determines it to be. The latest meeting of non-aligned countries -- the large majority of the world’s population -- the last meeting happened to be in Tehran, where they once again -- they’d done it before -- vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs in accord with the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty, which allow that. But they’re not part of the international community [to the US]. They may be the majority of the world, but that’s not the international community. Any reader of [George] Orwell would be perfectly familiar with this. But it continues virtually without comment.
RT: If we are to assume that the US is the root of the problem in Ukraine, what is the endgame? What would Washington want out of this? Destroying Russia-Europe ties?
NC: I wouldn’t say it’s just the US. I don’t agree with that. I think it’s more complex. But a large part of the problem is what [John] Mearsheimer [author of the Foreign Affairs piece on Ukraine] described. It goes back to the breakup of the Soviet Union -- roughly 1990. At the time, there were many questions. One question was, what happens to NATO? If you had accepted the propaganda of the past -- since the late 1940s or 1950 -- you would’ve said ‘NATO should disappear.’ NATO was supposed to protect Western Europe from the Russian hordes. Okay, no more Russian hordes, now what happens to NATO? The question of its disappearance didn’t even arise. [Mikhail] Gorbachev made a pretty remarkable proposal. He offered to let Germany be unified and to join NATO, a hostile military alliance. You look at the history of the century, that’s a pretty astonishing move.
There was a quid pro quo, that NATO not expand one inch to the east. That was the phrase that was used in diplomatic interchanges. That meant East Germany. There was no thought of it expanding beyond. Of course, NATO, at once, moved to East Germany. Gorbachev was infuriated, he objected, but he was informed by the United States that this was only a verbal agreement, there was nothing on paper. So, too bad. [President Bill] Clinton came along and expanded NATO to the borders of Russia to, as Mearsheimer points out.
To the current threat to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, it’s a various serious threat that no Russian leader, whoever it is, could easily tolerate. It’s as if Mexico in the 1980s had overthrown the government, and the new government called for joining the Warsaw Pact. It’s inconceivable. So it’s a real problem. Not the whole problem, but part of it.
The Ukrainian parliament, as you know, recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution to move towards joining NATO. That’s pretty serious. Now there is -- I think, anyone who thinks about it, including the negotiators on all sides, knows what a resolution ought to be. Ukraine ought to be neutralized, with a recognition on all sides that it won’t join any hostile military alliance. That’s perfectly feasible, even good for Ukraine. And then steps have to be taken to some kind of devolution of power. You can discuss exactly how much should be done, but the basic outlines are clear. That could be a partial resolution to the crisis, but, unfortunately, there are other voices.
RT: We saw, at the end of last year, without any consent of the United Nations, the US started operations in Syria on ISIS positions. Pretty much the same thing is happening right now in Yemen. Professor, would this mean that international law, as we’ve always known it, is pretty much dead, is pretty much gone, is not used and considered anymore ?
NC: To say that it’s dead implies it was ever alive. Has it ever been alive? Go back to, say, the 1980s. There were two resolutions brought to the UN security council calling on all states to observe international law. They both were vetoed by the United States with the support of Britain and France, its allies. Why? Because the hidden understanding, not expressed, was the intent was to call on the United States to accept the judgment of the world court, which condemned what it called the unlawful use of force by the United States against Nicaragua. It called on the United States to terminate the attack and pay enormous reparations. The US refused. Then came these two UN security council resolutions, which the US vetoed. That tells you what international law is, but we can go much beyond.
International law cannot be enforced against great powers. There’s no enforcement mechanism. Take a look at the International Criminal Court, who has investigated and sentenced African leaders who the US doesn’t like. The major crime of this millennium, certainly, is the US invasion of Iraq. Could that be brought to the international court? I mean, it’s beyond inconceivable. In fact, as you may know, there’s a law in the United States, passed by Congress and accepted by the president, which, in Europe, it’s called the Netherlands Invasion Act. It’s a law that authorizes the president to use force to rescue any American that might be brought to The Hague for trial. Does international law have anything to say about this? Well, it does. Actually international law has something to say about a standard comment made over and over again by Western leaders, by Obama and others, with regard to Iran: ‘All options are open.’ That includes attack, the kind of attack which is called for in the major press. There happens to be a UN charter, which, in Article II, bans the threat or use of force on international affairs. Does anybody care? No. International law is kind of like the United Nations. It can work up to the point where the great powers permit it. Beyond that, unfortunately, it can’t.
RT: Finally, the documentary about you which is about to premiere -- called Requiem for an American Dream. Do you think the American dream is gone?
NC: It’s certainly declined. So the US has close to the lowest social mobility in the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] -- you know, rich countries. If you look at OECD measures of social justice -- accessibility to health care, obvious measures -- the United States ranks near the bottom, I think right next to Turkey. These are serious attacks on what’s called the American dream. It’s still the richest and most powerful country in world, there are extraordinary advantages. In many respects, it’s the most free country in the world, as I’ve already mentioned.
So there’s plenty of positive aspects, but it’s a very serious decline. In fact, even American democracy -- which is presented as a model to the world -- is very remote from democracy. In fact, that’s one of the major topics of academic social-political science, the study of relation between public opinion and public policy, which is pretty easy to study. You see the policy, there’s extensive polling, you know what people’s opinions are. And basically most of the population is disenfranchised. Their representatives pay no attention to their opinion. That’s roughly the lowest three-quarters on the bottom of the income scale. Move up the scale, you get a little more influence. At the top, essentially policy is made. That’s plutocracy, not democracy.
Democracy functions formally: you’re free, I’m free, anyone’s free to express their opinions. I can vote any way I like in the coming election. If I feel like voting Green [Party], I can vote Green. There’s not going to be very much fraud, it’s mostly honest. So the formal trappings of democracy do exist, which is not a small point. But the functioning of democracy has very severely declined.
»
- 50868 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Presstitutes 4 Hillary.
In other words, the assumption is, when the United States invades, it kills a couple hundred thousand people, destroys the country, elicits sectarian conflicts that are now tearing Iraq and the region apart, that’s stabilization. If someone resists that tact, that’s destabilization.
Yup, thats all 2015 speak. Just like if the deficit only goes up 800 billion instead of one trillion, they reduced the deficit. Or if healthcare costs go up 15% under Obamacare, it would have been an increase of 20% AT LEAST if we didn't have Obamacare. "We kept costs contained."..... Thank goodness we have everything under control!!
Its fun also watching "The Elites" trying to find a way around The First Amendment to ban RT, the latest step being the grossly-slanted Congressional hearings during which RT was likened to ISIS (Not created by Russia, incidentally). This interview (The full uncensored version) in which RT's Anissa Naouai literally takes apart CNN's Christiane Amanpour over the Establishment's accusations of RT bias is also fun and instructive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1SUQ1qtdb0
That Marxist in Libertarian clothings needs to just die already.
It's hilarious that Amanpour (An Iranian Brit) starts by asking Anissa about "Your President" Putin. She politely responds that she is an American so he is NOT my President. I think my response would have been slightly less circumspect!!
do like chomski
dont like chomski
You'd think Chomsky would be happy with all the Marxist progaganda spewed by the media.
Almost like he's writing the copy...
They are just words. No reason to be afraid of words. You can ignore them or not. Your choice.
Regardess of his views on Communism, he is correct on the view of journalists.
But the american public has their part in the matter by idolising moronic word readers.
no mention about the destabilization of the middle east, planned and outlined in a document called "A Clean Break", which is closely akin to one authored in the US by such luminaries as Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and the rest of the zionist neo-cons, called "Project for a New American Century". Subject being Full Spectrum Dominance - no doubt this policy path puts these fools in direct opposition to the interests of Americans who want no more than "peaceful commerce and no foreign entanglements" as Washington advised in his Farewell Address.
he'll criticize the plays, but not always the players.
Bleccchh. Noam Chomsky? Really? It's easy to agree with half of everything Chomsky says because he's a random idea generator. He's the philosophical equivalent of an infinite number of monkeys banging away on typewriters. For every good idea he has (the NYT is pure propaganda), he has an equally stupid idea (Cuba's utter failure is somehow the USA's fault because we won't trade with them, despite the fact that they are free to trade with the entire rest of the planet). What on earth is the fucking point of this guy? I come to ZH to get away from clowns like Noam Chomsky. Ugh.
Ok, so what does an anarcho-syndicalist do when the Brits turn up with a warship bought on tick, plant their flag on your beach and claim your country for their Queen?
Which. incidentally has been known to happen.
Same goes for your average anachist, or non tax paying libertarian for that matter...
Who REALLY Controls The Mainstream Media?
A "shit in".
At some point in all of your critical analysis of people, you will come to a place that you realize that "Nobody is perfect", and so if you are looking for that in an imperfect world, well you're in for a soar dissapointment. I believe Noam Chomsky is respected for his intelligence & refusal to go with the "Status quo", and because he sees the answers to the critical questions of "Who, what, where, when, why, and how", which to me is the refreshing part of listening to his analysis, whether he is correct or wrong, being open to other people's opinion will help you expand your context (The size of your glass), rather than fill up your glass with content...
Whoever Controls The Media Controls The World
Cuba was not "free" to trade with the rest of the planet
because the rest of the planet was not "free" to trade with Cuba.
Companies (foreign and domestic businesses) were sanctioned by the US if any part of their business was done with Cuba. Think about that as well as the financial strangulation.
+1
They are just words. No reason to be afraid of words.
words kill. ( 1 exemple, gary webb )
know it.
all shit talk about freedom is just about the ability to tell not necessary what you want, but the truth, and the truth, is just not acceptable sometimes...
Ever notice that Mr.Chomsky is wearing George Washington's hair?
I wonder what Christine Amanpour would say about the Ukrainian Stazi hit squads using a NATO-server-hosted 'Enemies of Ukraine' kill list to liquidate reporters in Kiev?
These are not even rabidly pro-Russian reporters - all of those types had fled Kiev a long time ago. These are simply Ukrainian reporters that question anything about the current Ukrainian government. The kill list is more extensive and includes anyone - politicians, private citizens, etc. - that may prove disloyal to the current Ukrainian government. Eight people in the last couple of months, but the list wasn't as widely known then. After the last two murders in the last week - one a popular journalist - the turkey shoot for Ukrainian critics will be ramping up quickly. I guess that's what they meant by Westernizing Ukraine.
The U.S. not only censors reports of these Ukarainian Stazi-sponsored killings in the U.S. MSM, but is absoloutely green with envy that the Ukrainians can get away with this. Imagine if the DHS Stazi here got to put out a kill list of internal 'Enemies of the U.S.' for target practice.
US people are in perfect position to keep a Crimes Against Humanity List themselves.
Isn't Word and Excel wonderful? True 'killer aps'.
Those murdered, or suicided, have a couple of things in common. The politicians are all from parties opposing the current regime. The journalists, all strong Ukrainians, have also come out criticising the regime. The single idea behind them is opposition to a single party fascist state.
Without a solid history of Ukraine in your knowledge bank, it's probably going to be difficult to surmise a solid analysis of what's going on over there, why, and who's truly behind it all. With that fact on the table, it's also why most people follow the media blindly anyway, because they are too lazy to do the research and learn the answer to the critical questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how for themselves, nevertheless, I'd believe Noam Chomsky is rather accurate in his speech here.
Q: what would Christine Amanpour say?
A: nothing.
More importantly, what would Tyler Durden do?
RT just has not figured out the basic ZH marketplace. Way too long....
What do they think the basic reader is here? Intelectuals? No, eggheads are hated here....
Looks like you truly are on a race to the bottom, don't think you are going to make many friends or earn much respect with comments like that, because for one the statement is highly hypocritical in itself, and it only leaves us with no doubt as to who you are.
(You might want to rethink your position on that.)
He who throws dirt loses ground. - Old Texan Proverb
Evacuar mi terra, Gringo. - Old Mexican Proverb
what you meant to say was anarcho-syndicalist.
Chomsky may call himself an anarcho syndicalist, but Chomsky is not an anarcho syndicalist. It's simply a linguistic manipulation. I have seen no serious desire for devolution in his advocacy.
Chomsky is a Crypto-Statist. He's never found or achieved his ideal State, or Statist-man, it's always the next one. BHO was great as a candidate, but (completely unforeseen to his ""brilliant" mind) started sucking big bathhouse dicks soon as he moved into the White Hut... Whether Chomsky's ideal is more aligned with Socialism or Marxism is debatable, but when local power and authority are transferred to central State(ist) government, regardless of whether the transfer is voluntary or coerced, qualifiers such as "anarcho" should not be used.
The same linguistic manipulations are used by others on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum- with respect to federalism. When local power and authority are transferred to central State(ist) government, free markets and competition cease to exist over time.
Confederation is the only viable model for non-Statist government, on a long enough timeline. It is also the only model which allows anarchy, theocracy, communism, capitalism and any other framework to peacefully co-exist side by side based on the diverse desires of different local populations.
The power of NO, and the right and freedom of constituents and constituent units of government to say NO, is not something Chomsky respects, outside of perhaps some limited discussion of sexual rape among individuals.
A confederation of Israel and Palestine ? I will give that some thought.
Yes.
How is a one-State solution viable on a longer timeline? (absent the annihilation of the other)
They need to find a sustainable equilibrium.
Whether the international community gives "them" 1 vote or 2, is less important to me.
+1 (a bit though on Chomsky, imho. it's the non-statists that have not yet ever actuated any example for their models, imho. Dark Agers?)
The devil is in the details, and no one seems to have made much progress on those details since Bogdanoff called out Lenin.
For the sake of simplicity I can ignore the distinctions in ownership, but "cooperation" is not a mechanism of allocation, it is a vague ideal. In practice, democratic centralism is nothing more than tool of party elite to impose their will undemocratically- first on the membership, and then on the masses.
What is the the actual mechanism of allocation? If price, the syndicalists would be (gasp) free-marketers outside of the ownership issue. If not then price, then what is the "cooperative" bar for the necessary consensus among the parties on allocation - unanimity, majority, plurality? More importantly, in the event "cooperation" is not achievable, what is the fallback - inaction or authoritarianism, in which case - who has the authority, and by what means (e.g. democratic centralism) ? I don't think that the CPC bylaws state that member of the Central Committee or Standing Committee has to be a government official, but the fact is that the CPC is the final authority in China, and no one there has the freedom to disagree with it publicly.
Given that Chomsky cannot plead ignorance or stupidity - what other conclusion is there, other than that he is a closet Statist.
Chomsky the Chosenite Gatekeeper. Yeah Noam keep those anarchists within the controlled narrative for us or is it just that he knows which side his bread is buttered with his tribe, hence "It does,nt matter who killed JFK or why" and "those unbelievable conspiracy theories" ,using the CIA invented perjorative term for anyone doubting the "official" ridiculous government narrative on 9/11
And why is ZH pumping Noam the "Known" Chosenite Gatekeeper ? Is ZeroHedge just another "up market" Gatekeeper site now since it was taken over ? I,m not 100% sure but sometimes you gotta wonder.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.globe-report.com
I'm somebody now, Harry. Everybody likes me. Soon, millions of people will see me and they'll all like me. I'll tell them about you, and your father, how good he was to us. Remember? It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got Harry, hm? Why should I even make the bed, or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone. Your father's gone, you're gone. I got no one to care for. What have I got, Harry? I'm lonely. I'm old.
"allegedly the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances"
This reminds me of that Chappelle show where the blind black klan leader is de-hooded and one of his followers explodes. Don't worry Hedgers, the other Tylers will be back soon with pure-libertarian minded articles, and Chomsky will be portrayed as a Marxist.
All you need to know about Chomsky is that he is a proponent of something called "libertarian socialism." Talk about an oxymoron. He also believes in rainbow turds and unicorns.
In short: He is a very confused man.
You can pick up the chunks of your head at the exit.
He is a thinker, and sees gray vs black and white. Which apparently is a bad thing 'round here. Must. Have. Purity. Of. Thought.
Great. He is a "thinker." FFS. Ben Bernanke is a "thinker" too.
Maybe you can explain how libertarian socialism isn't a contradiction in terms. Please ... By all means ... educate all of us knuckle-draggers out here.
For fuck's sake. Freedom in daily lives for the People, regulation of oligarchs and Kings via collective power of the People. So what did he say in the interview with which you disagreed?
Of course. It's all so simple, isn't it? (rolls eyes) You're worse than Chomsky.
(And FFS was my line -- at least in this thread. Please try to show a bit more originality next time.)
I notice you didn't mention anything with which you disagree in the interview. Was that intentional?
That would be like asking me to comment on the rant of somebody suffering from schizophrenia. What's the point?
You still haven't answered my request: please reconcile libertarianism with socialism. The latter implies some form of control over others on items that socialists deem important for the "greater good."
That response is almost as pathetic as taking credit for the term "for fuck's sake." Almost.
So you can't. Got it. Thanks for playing.
(And I was trying to infuse a little humor into this to keep it light. Apparently, you're too self-absorbed to figure that one out.)
You should read Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, or Necessary Illusions. All of his geopolitical works are based on tremendous amounts of research and factual evidence, which have no explicit connection to his political philosophies, other than the fact that the latter is likely what fueled him to write the books. We should be able to distinguish between the two and recognize them on their own merits.
most americans are waaaay to stoopid to understand chomsky, the few that can are such a small minority that they may as well piss into the wind to get their countrymen to wake the fuck up. unfortunately the most stoopid of all are the whitey's
I have bought multiple Chomsky books and believe he is worthy of anyone's attention. The fanaticism he enjoys irks me, and that he does not criticise it irks me more. As smart as Noam is he is still an academic advocating increased state power, that's objective fact- and that people defend him from this criticism as you attempt to here is pathetic. Chomsky good, criticism of him bad, what happened to the love for the grey area? You even challenge the guy to criticise something Chomsky said, as if a legitmate criticism of Chomsky is like a photo of the loch ness monster, fanboy much?
Chomsky has also identified as an anarchist. Anyone who advocates authoritarian-anarchism needs to be scorned by anyone interested in open discussion, it is dare I say exactly akin to a christian identifying as athiest.
Would you please explain what you mean by "advocating increased state power"? Do you mean internally, say things like spying on citizens / DHS / and he wishes to see more? Or do you mean externally, as in all states have some power and would like to see more balance? It's clear from his remarks on the last question that he feels effective democracy is in decline and it doesn't sound like he's happy about that, nor does he seem too happy that international law is not respected uniformly.
I was pleased to see him mention the Bulletin, and the TWO reasons for moving to "3 minutes to midnight", namely nuclear war threat and environmental catastrophe.
Damn Chomsky always diverting every fucking interview to that spurious hypothesis of conflicted scientists for the tax-seeking state ; )
In brief, and I could rant on if you request, Chomsky although brilliant in criticising the governments of today evinced in this interview, is still an academic saying not that the state is bad, but that this state is bad. Although he might argue his version of utopia is less controlled, he still advocates economic systems with increased control of the state, compared to the democratic capitalism we are supposed to, but clearly don't have now.
So he asks us to accept an economic system (he changes the type of system often, not sure what it is currently, libsoc, anarcsyn?) with, on paper an increased state control, the implementation of which he professes to be freer than what we have now. He is brilliant, a finer critic of this state you will struggle to find, but he, and no ideologue I know, is perfect.
The most fascinating part of the interview from my perspective was hearing him talk of international law and the limits there. I've been promoting the idea that the upcoming climate conference in Paris (UNFCCC CMP11) is shaping up to be the death knell for the UN. Most people I discuss this with are blinded by hatred of the UN on ideological grounds so of course the work of the (imperfect) IPCC gets dismissed out of hand and the potential of Paris is never discussed.
My reasoning is that the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) took six years to complete and the message coming from that is very clear. The time for aggressive action has come. Policy makers need AR5 to base their negotiations on and the message is that waiting for AR6 ~2020 is untenable. The signals I'm getting through all the noise is that the limitations of the UN , as described here by Chomsky, and the breakdown of international law is driving a stake into the UN. The opposition is done with being controlled. It's difficult to see how a solid deal can be reached when you see what's going on these days. This is a huge challenge. I would prefer to see a breakthrough but the US could find itself very isolated, more so than what Chomsky mentioned which would be "destabilization" writ large. The RoW is nailgunninforUSA
Like the Paul Craig Roberts thread the other day, it's confusing to people here to hear someone speak that fits their ideology, says things they like but then be told right from the horses mouth that PCR is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (AGW), and with Chomsky, even more confusing because he's a Marxist/commie/pinko/libtard/lefty/socialist/progressive/statist academic.
The UN is now in it's 70th year. Will Paris be the end of the road for the UN?
Thanks for the reply (I'll have more time on my hands after Paris (December) so I must read some of his books!)
p.s. for some giggles look up juicemedia / Rap News. They did an episode with Chomsky (in person) featured in it. One of the reasons for the rap news project is to shine a light on 'media". I find most of their stuff very funny! (Assange (in person) is featured in #5(?) and the one with Hillary is a scream!
I do like juicemedia and remember watching them some years back. They are aussie or NZ from memory yeah? Will have to catch up on them.
p.s. Chomsky books are good but many are just collections of interviews like this. For the best value you can't beat da interwebs he publishes most talks/interviews for free.
Excuse my interruption to this throwdown but I couldn't help but point out the following assertion:
"The goal of socialism is communism."
Vladimir Lenin
The goal of all governments is more government.
I wanna call him Loam Krudsky for some reason.
Just remember the titanic sunk & every empire eventually became so bloated with big gov. that it was unable to control the gov. from within & eventually it's collapse came, which is to say nothing of the problem of the infiltrating tribesmen who keep popping up in the upper branches of almost every one of those societies... Though what you say is indeed spot on, we have to remember that almost every plan is fallacious because people are fallible.
Just for reference, that was Lenin's goal and statement of his ethos and understanding. How about I say, "The goal of Capitalism is Oligarchy"? Does that make it a fact (beyond the fact that I said it?) Just asking.
the goal of capitalism is not oligarchy. the intent of capitalism is oligarchy. that is a true statement. if allowed to happen it will happen quickly. if prevented from happening it will happen slowly. oligarchy is the end of capitalism, literally.
Obviously, saying something doesn't make it true.
About your point, socialism requires the existence of government, which has a great tendency to grow to oppressive and destructive levels, whereas free-markets only exist without government.
Well if the simple-minded need help reconciling libertarianism with socialism - follow the breadcrumbs - this is part of it.
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
Whether it's socialism, communism, or which ever political belief you wish to talk about, it's indicative to discussing which mask a person chooses to wear or don't , and it all amounts to speculative BS imho, because who here knows the hearts & mind of any particular person or a people? That's right, we can't possibly know, & so it's all a charade truly.
You can't talk Libertarians into uniting and standing up for themselves; it disturbs the "me agains the world" ethos they've spent so much time cultivating and an admission that they might actually need someone else on the planet is an abhorrent non-starter.
Where is it written that oxymorons and contradictions in terms cannot co-exist in a functioning society?
Ying and Yang - and all that,
I would advise reading this, but it sounds as though you don't like being confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Nobody said oxymorons in terms cannot co-exist in a functioning society. Jumbo shrimp, anyone?
The question is: How do they work in practice? In other words, how does "libertarian socialism" work in a world where rainbow turds and unicorns don't exist?
Answer: It doesn't.
Shit ... I'd love to hear Escrava's explanation (he/she worships Chomsky). On second thought, no ... I really wouldn't.
in your defense (which i doubt you really need) nothing i've ever read chomsky say approaches the simple reality that thought experiments and sophisticated political thinking have never seen practical use in doing the fundamental thing - which is restraining the flawed human characteristic which is that power and sociopaths are drawn together as the moth to the flame.
thus, the 2nd amendment.
You do not have to have a purity of though or see things in absolutes of black and white, but you do have to take action at some point. To simply offer critique is not particularly constructive. We really don't need more professors.
If you profess...
Our entire foreign policy is predicated on the idea that America can blunder into any nation on earth, destabilizing any government it doesn't like, provide arms to any group it supports, pick and choose winners and losers while, at the same time, any other nation that conducts foreign policy in even remotely the same way as American is commiting a horrible crime and deserves to be punished.
Well, you've certainly been paying attention.
Question is (in my mind, at least), will the seeds of ruin America has wontonly sown abroad for the past 25 years ever blow back to the U.S. and bear the same fruit on American shores?
The U.S. seems to get away with every last atrocity it commits, no matter how outrageous, without consequence. It seems as if the U.S. can never suffer defeat.
Not saying that's what I like or want, just how it appears...
I think there will be a huge blowback once the hegemony of the dollar as the world's reserve currancy is broken.
Because of our military the rest of the world will then treat us much like we treated the big dumb bully in 8th grade: you tread carefully around him and are wary of his explosive temper but in reality you hate him and have no respect for him so you avoid him and undermine him as much as possible.
it's geography. america's neighbors are mexico and canada, so of course they can shit it other people's people down the block. screw that analogy, america shits in its own yard.
but it is geography. easy to screw with people when you have oceans seperating you while commanding the greatest navy the world has ever seen.
eye bean cheerin chompski for 30 odds year
then eye herd wat ee said about 9 and 11 and eye saws dat he just ee nuver control oposition
a clever old scripted rabbi dat nose nuttin of engineerin and control demonition simetricull freefall speed buildin 7 goin down ways into its own footprints
already
eye saw dat edward said gore vidal and hunter s thompson gun had all suicided and eye thinks how cum day let chumpski lives
Noam Chomsky: One of only a handful of good Jews?
Chomsky FAILS!... just like Jim Quinn
9/11Litmus Testhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6O4LE0eTYc
The idea that he has to believe everything you believe to make a valid point is stupid, and almost everyone would fail that test.
Fuck You!
Chomsky and Quinn are both smart enough to tell the truth about 9/11.
Anything less ... I_call_you_ASShole !
Absolutely. A belief system you can't have a logical arguement with. I deal in facts and logic. My conclusion in 9/11 is nothing like the official story. Which means we are being lied to. Which means anything is possible with an out of control government. Once a liar always a liar.
But then again this will wash over you like oil on water. So you go ahead and enjoy those "beliefs" - sounds a little to much like "faith" to me. Oh and lets not forget my personal favorite: "Hope."
Wow. A mere 8,561 views on a 9/11 truth video posted 3 years ago. I doubt a single mind has been changed.
Why even bother at this point.
He's probally responsible for at least 1/2 of those 8,561 views himself...
Without knowledge of this historical context, our deepest beliefs about our government and our democratic republic will be profoundly challenged when we first encounter evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11.
The same is true when we encounter reports of past governmental treacheries, such as the deception that led to the Pearl Harbor attacks; Operation Northwoods — the 1962 false-flag plot designed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and elsewhere to justify an invasion of Cuba, which was rejected by President Kennedy; Operation Mockingbird, a CIA plot to control the media, instigated after World War II; the atrocities of Project MK-ULTRA experiments on unaware citizens; and the 1933 plot by wealthy businessmen to overthrow the U.S. government and create a fascist state, as Major General Smedley Butler testified to in a 1934 congressional hearing.13
The deep state's secret top-down powers have become a major threat to democracy. With rare exception, our educational system avoids the history of these and other betrayals by our government and/or elite interests, thus creating a naïve and credulous population, willing to accept passively the "reality" portrayed by the CIA-and-corporate-controlled media.The only knowledge I need is that the only time you come out from your rock is to trash Jim Quinn and show us this video again...Hell, you only posted this tripe on The Burning Platform last Saturday in the comments section under the name of Anonymous.
Quit cluttering up the comments section and get your own blog you arrogant POS.
We put people in camps in WWII, but that didn't stop Guantanomo did it?
The point is: once you involve the shadow world, you’re left with whatever interpretation your belief systems translate the data into. You will never know the Absolute Truth here. The real question you should be asking is: the wider the impact, the larger the amount of money, planning and skill it takes to pull off. Measure the impact, not the event itself or Actors involved. Measure the reaction of various belief systems and measure the depth penetration it has.
This is the real lesson of 9/11 unless you missed it; it happened, trying to discern causation isn’t the Game.
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
- Aurora ex MachinaFunny mentioning Actors, don't know if you did it on purpose or not. But, 9/11 was a fucking SHOW, not the 3k in the towers, not the people in the planes, no-fucking-body. The press read an updated version of War of the worlds, mixing live, pre-recorded footage and CGI/Green screen complete with CRISIS ACTORS in the street. That was fucking it and that is the blue-print of every other false flag/drill that followed (Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston etc). Think about it, taking away the deaths, the whole event was just a high profile, over-covered controlled-demolition.
Also there were no planes, it was all CGI. The Leon Panetta bullshit with Dick lashing at the guy in their bunker about "have you hear anything to the contrary" was "leaked" to give validity to planes hitting the towers/pentagon/that field in the middle of nowhere. The hard truth is that there were no planes hitting the towers/pentagon, no deaths, no "jumpers". It was ALL CGI/GREEN SCREEN and ACTORS.
Surprised he didn’t meet a nail gun yet.
he here ho of hebrew histories and royalty init
L'chaim! ;)
The idea of watching anything broadcast by the MSM is intolerable to Americans with IQ's larger than their shoe size.
...fuk da progressive liberal democrap MSM.... fukem all... they all need to have their skins sandpapered off & buried in salt...
If you think the MSM is progressive you are not thinking - period!
that IDIOT actually thinks the media is 'Liberal' -what a sad sack of shit he is
you are stupid beyond belief
Take some more oxy, Rush. The DTs are making your typing terrible.
Perhaps the elephant is so large that to Chomsky it just looks gray.
wat does chumpski got to say about murdoch and jacob rothschild and cheney oil and gas
genie energy drilling for oil in syria
nuttin
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has reportedly granted a U.S. energy firm with heavyweight political connections to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/israeli-licence-to-cheney-linke-energy-fi...
Chomsky's opinions on Israel and Palestine are pretty much on the record at this point, but nice attempted diversion from an article about media and pravda-ganda (another subject on which Noam has, quite literally, written the book).
That is quite the "fuck you" development in the region, and who else but a tried and true PNAC'er like heartless Overlord Cheney would sign on for a deal like that? Do they know something about the potential reserves in that region nobody else does? Or did Dick just get played by Nuts'n'Yahoos?
A jew telling me about mass media propaganda? That's rich.
I like Noam --- I really do.
But wake the fuck up to how the world works buddy!
Here's a little poem I wrote:
WISDOM
- The luckiest, fittest, smartest, with the capability for ruthlessness survive – always have – always will
- Resources are finite and therefore ownership is a zero sum game
- The strong always take from the weak – if they do not then that is a sign of weakness and a competitor will take from the weak and will usurp the formerly strong dropping them into weakling status
- Humans tend to group by clan or on a broader basis by nationality (strength in numbers bonded by culture) and they compete with others for resources
- Competition has always existed (I want it all!) but it becomes fiercer when resources are not sufficient to support competing clans or nations
- Tribal societies understand these dynamics because they cannot go to the grocery store for their food – so they are intimately aware of the daily battle to feed themselves and the competition for scare land and resources
- Modern affluent societies do not recognize this dynamic because for them resources are not scarce – they have more than enough.
- One of the main reasons that resources are not scarce in affluent societies is because they won the battle of the fittest (I would argue that luck is the precursor to all other advantages – affluent societies did not get that way because they started out smarter --- rather they were lucky – and they parlayed that luck into advances in technology… including better war machines)
- As we have observed throughout history the strong always trample the weak. Always. History has always been a battle to take more in the zero sum game. The goal is to take all if possible (if you end up in the gutter eating grass the response has been – better you than me – because I know you’d do the same to me)
- And history demonstrates that the weak – given the opportunity – would turn the tables on the strong in a heartbeat. If they could they would beat the strong into submission and leave them bleeding in the streets and starving. As we see empire after empire after empire gets overthrown and a new power takes over. Was the US happy to share with Russia and vice versa? What about France and England? Nope. They wanted it all.
- Many of us (including me) in the cushy western world appear not to understand what a villager in Somalia does – that our cushy lives are only possible because our leaders have recognized that the world is not a fair place --- Koombaya Syndrome has no place in this world --- Koombaya will get you a bullet in the back --- or a one way trip to the slum.
- Religious movements have attempted to change the course of human nature --- telling us to share and get along --- they have failed 100% - as expected. By rights we should be living in communes --- Jesus was a communist was he not? We all know that this would never work. Because we want more. We want it all.
- But in spite of our hypocrisy, we still have this mythical belief that mankind is capable of good – that we make mistakes along the way (a few genocides here, a few there... in order to steal the resources of an entire content so we can live the lives we live) --- ultimately we believe we are flawed but decent. We are not. Absolutely not.
- But our leaders --- who see through this matrix of bullshit --- realize that our cushy lives are based on us getting as much of the zero sum game as possible. That if they gave in to this wishy washy Koombaya BS we would all be living like Somalians.
- Of course they cannot tell us what I am explaining here --- that we must act ruthlessly because if we don’t someone else will --- and that will be the end of our cushy lives. Because we are ‘moral’ --- we believe we are decent – that if we could all get along and share and sing Koombaya the world would be wonderful. We do not accept their evil premises.
- So they must lie to us. They must use propaganda to get us onside when they commit their acts of ruthlessness.
- They cannot say: we are going to invade Iraq to ensure their oil is available so as to keep BAU operating (BAU which is our platform for global domination). The masses would rise against that making things difficult for the PTB who are only trying their best to ensure the hypocrites have their cushy lives and 3 buck gas (and of course so that the PTB continue to be able to afford their caviar and champagne) …. Because they know if the hypocrites had to pay more or took at lifestyle hit – they’d be seriously pissed off (and nobody wants to be a Somalian)
- Which raises the question --- are we fools for attacking the PTB when they attempt to throw out Putin and put in a stooge who will be willing to screw the Russian people so that we can continue to live large? When we know full well that Putin would do the same to us --- and if not him someone more ruthless would come along and we’d be Somalians.
- Should we be protesting and making it more difficult for our leaders to make sure we get to continue to lead our cushy lives? Or should we be following the example of the Spartans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZeYVIWz99I
- In a nutshell are our interests as part of the western culture not completely in line with those of our leaders – i.e. if they fail we fail – if they succeed we succeed.
- Lee Kuan Yew is famous for saying ‘yes I will eat very well but if I do so will you’ Why bite the hand that whips the weak to make sure you eat well.... If you bite it too hard it cannot whip the weak --- making you the weak --- meaning you get to feel the whip….
- Nation… clan … individual…. The zero sum game plays out amongst nations first … but as resources become more scarce the battle comes closer to home with clans battling for what remains…. Eventually it is brother against brother ….
- As the PTB run out of outsiders to whip and rob…. They turn on their own…. As we are seeing they have no problem with destroying the middle class because it means more for them… and when the weak rise against them they have no problem at all deploying the violent tactics that they have used against the weak across the world who have attempted to resist them
- Eventually of course they will turn against each other…. Henry Kissinger and Maddy Albright bashing each other over the head with hammers fighting over a can of spam – how precious!
1. Tl;dr
2. War and Peace is more concise and entertaining.
3. More repetitious than a broken record.
4. Too many fluff words.
5. Needs major editing.
6. Overwritten, but underdeveloped.
But don't your points 2 to 6 rather invalidate your point 1?
If it were a response to the OP, or one of the comments on the thread, and it were succinct, that would be different. Once one has had a "there's wasted time I won't get back" moment, lesson learned.
This spammer posts a variant of the same verbose tirade on many threads.
Heck, it's even added an "o" to "Magoo", fer pete's sake!
.
Dear Magoo,
Oh, how right you are!
Oh, how wrong you are!
Everything you say is true.
Except what you dont say.
For every competitive act -- there is a cooperative one. Its a dialectic relation, a dynamic if you like: THAT is history.
Humans are greedy, selfish, stupid and criminal. They can also be Just, alturistic scientific and loving: another dynamic. THAT too is history.
Production CAN be a zero sum game...and sometimes not. Sometimes we get such a choice...sometimrs not.
Just because the world SEEMS full of CUNTS doesnt make such the only valid asperation for the rest of humanity
Mr. Magooo, I don't believe that you have much good in your life. If you did you would know what it is like to be a part of a clan that you can trust. That you would never turn against.
You can think I am full of bullshit but it is the truth when I say that I would gladly live an honest life with my clan rather than to ever have to see the phrase "SHARED RESPONSIBILITY" again. What you spout is NOT wisdom it is sell out horseshit. Wisdom is about balance that tries to be equitable when it can and ferocious when it must. What you are peddling is cheat, steal, lie and it is all OK as long as I get mine.
I think the difference is that your life is predicated on what you have; a nice car, a nice house, going out to eat a good steak, people looking at you and thinking "hey he's got it going on". You are like most Americans your self worth is tied up in your belongings instead of who you are and what kind of person you are and if you are raising your children or is the school and day are raising your children. I have seen several people die I never heard a one ask if he could sit in his BMW one last time. Your life is about your ratio ships not this hogshit wisdom of support evil so I can have mine.
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY are you fucking kidding me. That is a Karl Marx wet dream. Do I still live in The USA.
Are you fucking kidding ME...
Why don't you get out your drum and thump it and sing Koombaya? Pass around the loaf of bread and share the peanut butter
This is NOT how it works. This is NOT how it has ever worked.
You are able to spout this bullshit because you are on the winning side. You have plenty of bread and peanut butter --- because your side has pillaged the other side.
And the other side, given the chance, would tear your fucking head off to have what you have.
That is the way the world works. Just be thankful that you get to hide under momma's skirt and don't have to do or even see the dirty work being done
Better yet, be thankful that you have the New York Times, and WSJ, and the Washington Post to hide from you the reality of your pleasant existence --- be glad that they tell you that we are ridding the world of communists/terrorists or some other enemy that threatens our large lifestyles.
Meanwhile we rape and pillage so we can live larger
Well guess what mother fucker. When this goes you won't be behind momma's skirt no more. Those who have been pillaged are angry -- and they will be coming for what you have.
Do you think you have what it takes when the hordes come for you? Think of all those pissed off descendents of the men our great grandfathers put in chains and whipped and strung up. They will be coming for you and you better be ready.
And remember the millions of violent animals in the prison system. They will be on the loose. Are you ready mother fucker?
Clan my ass, You will be screaming for mercy when the knive meets your throat. And your daughters will be passed around by monsters for amusement.
To Magooo: I see there is no place in your philosophy for compassion. This makes it a philosophy for animals. Don't feel too bad, you're hardly the first to craft a very fine philosophy for animals; others such as Ayn Rand and Ragnar Redbeard have also worked that ground.
Get back to us when you can come up with a philosophy big enough to not only include compassion, but that realizes compassion is the one thing that makes a philosophy fit for human consumption. Any philosophy that fails to understand the absolute primacy of compassion is neither human nor humane. He who dies with the most toys only wins a meaningless race crowned with an empty trophy.
Fucking nailed it! Drop mic walk off stage!
Empiricism is bad enough but there truly is nothing lower in human existence than Diplomacy.
No better example than World War I actually.
Nixon didn't get the USA out of Vietnam...Gerald Ford did..."hence the Ford Class." These wounds never heal and we are fools to think they do.
Still...there is always diplomacy too.
"Tact" isn't part of that lexicon either...
This antique said the NY Times is the greatest newspaper - that means he's an idiot!
"Take the New York Times -- the greatest newspaper in the world"
The only thing that the New York Times is good for is for wiping off your ass when there is no toilet paper. They do have the softest paper in the business!
NYT = the greatest propaganda piece of shit in the world. Agreed
Red Arrow = FUCKING CLUELESS IDIOT
For some time the media has not been available for news. They are nothing but propaganda "pushers" for Zion. Unwilling at first, now totally complicit. Look at the false-flags at Sandy Hook and Boston. They were complicit from the script to the green-screens.
However, they are not the problem, but only a symptom of the tyranny that ails us.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
A big turning point for my father was when I had him watch all of the complicit-media outlets over a one week period--He made it 5 days. As a result he saw how all of them pushed the same agendas, often using the very same words and language.
"Competition always exist ..."
No shit!
And it took you 80 fu.king years to figure that out!!
The media that doesn't portray US as a group of foreign and domestic corporations and instead as a nation is propaganda. Mr. Chomsky the world isn't run by nations any longer.
There are no American leaders.
In the US the president is a puppet channeling the will of international bankers. He overplays his influence on policy that is actually completely beyond his control. In Russia it's the exact opposite. The president pretends to be channeling the will of organizations and individuals. He downplays his role, while in reality, he as an individual holds unprecedented power.
In the US the central bank and though it the bank of Israel pull most of the strings with president and the media covering their tracks and obscuring paper trails. In Russia the central bank is a shell corporation of the government. It holds no power and makes no independent decisions.
Chomsky is an apologist for American elites and their destructive hegemonic class of which he is a card carrying member. Without Chomsky the American hegemonic class would quickly invent another academic apologist that they purport to dislike just like Chomsky. Necessary Illusions extend to the monied classless kleptocrats in the Ivy League/Ivory Tower. Chomsky is a multi-millionaire proxy apologist Jew that never said anything about the classless kleptocrats like Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, or Lawrence 'Samuelson' Summers until Occupy Wall Street invited him to speak about their antics. Freud once said that there were no accidents and when Chomsky spoke at Occupy Wall Street that was no accident if one needs a proxy apologist Jew to engage in impression management for the tribe in the 0.01% of Jews that appropriated all the disposable income of the working class serfs that Chomsky lectures to.
Clarification: the Western world isn't run by nations. It is very problematic and dangerous at this time to assign nation status to governments that have been taken over by the NWO.
This Pendejo, he say Mainstream Media en Estados Unidos es Propaganda but he so Fucking Stupid he swallows 9/11 Propaganda Hook, Line and Sinker! Even WTC Building #7! Idiota!
/digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/
So Chomsky is still falling for that line of crapola that the 'Official 911 Committee' published?
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
carlos santana wore a tee shirt that said support the contras...chew on that a while. Of course now he wouldn't admit it. Revolution is cool... dam zionists... "not now mom"!
I find it interesting that I saw this a week ago already. However what I find most disturbing is that an individual with his point of view is on RT.
America as we knew it, is done. Time for a new age of.. whatever is left after the implosion.
I see the old socialist windbag Chomsky is still at it. I applaud him in this case for calling out the NYT. One thing you can say about him is he really believes the socialist utopian crap, like a child believes in Santa Claus.
But he is still incurably naive (stupid?) about the nature of man and how disasterous it has been for mankind to centralize power. These guys never got the memo from the 20th Century that socialism will never work no matter how it is tried.
The air is thin at the top of those Ivory towers.
Chomsky gets it right more often than not. Chomsky sure pisses off those who hate his perspective, they're reduced to childish ad-hominem attacks.
chumpski for linguixticulls
steven speelburgs harvey weinerstein for hollow hoax histry
steven hawkin for higs bosun cern cover bollox
muchio cock koo string theory
we arse soo lucky dese clever fucks gatekeepurrs are still here on der planet of the
apes here now
Hawking should be sent to Mars to man the first outpost like Captain Pike in the very first Star Trek episode.
I helped Carleton University build the ARGUS Microvertex Particle Detector for the CERN Large Hadron Collider experiment back in 1988/89. The detector is part of an array of microvertex detectors that are utilized in that experiment. Hawking, to my mind, is non-sequiter when it comes to CERN, and the LHC. Frankly, the principle investigators are starting to realize that they talk a good game, but don't actually come up with very many results that they ever agree upon. The LHC will go down as the biggest waste of tax dollars known to mankind in the history of civilization, but I actually made money on it, and had FUN doing it too. CERN is a cash cow for Particle Physicists, Mechanical Engineering, and the EU scientific community. Unfortunately, the days of CERN are numbered just like they are for the entirety of the EU.
HACK THE ATM MACHINE AND GET FREE CASH
You can hack and break into a bank's security ATM Machine without carrying
guns or any weapon.
How is this possible? a trusted hacker NEILSTON THE WORM has developed the special blank ATM Card
which you can use in any ATM Machine around the world. this card is been
programmed and can withdraw 2000 USD daily in any currency in any atm machine in the world.The card will make the
security camera malfunction at that particular time until you are done with
the transaction you can never be trace. I got mine and i have got lots of cash from it thanks to neilston contact him via (atmhackgeek@gmail.com)
if this REALLY worked, you would be keeping it a secret, and sucking out all the ATM money you could get your hands on. IDIOT Why DILUTE your market to spread the word-UNLESS your real goal is to make money SELLING this Bullshit info to other suckers-People like you need to be SHOT
i refuse to support any american jew who supports israel! and that includes local businesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN4p9rSfGVs#t=2477
"Take the New York Times -- the greatest newspaper in the world." Oh please, the Zionist crap. A Jew will never straight out call out another Jew because they secretly agree with each other. It's all window dressing.
If I could hack any ATM machine and get endless supplies of cash I wouldn't be here advertising it on ZH.
I'd be in a penthouse suite, somewhere hot, with big lines of charles and a dozen big titted hookers to keep me company.
Therefore you're either a sad twat who doesn't know how to enjoy hiself, or your a PHONY, a big fat PHONY...
I'm guessing both.
Now why don't you and the other sad sack whose Sister-in-law makes 7k a day sat at home on her computer just piss off?
Ha!
Didn't he write "Rules For Radicals"?
Nope. That was another Oligarch sycophant. Saul Alinksy. 12 Rules for Radicals.
The worlds fuked
Fucking morons. The same morons who are unable to piece this together and for 7 fucking years now have been railing on about how the central banks are stupid.
If you took 10 minutes to read this -- and assuming you have an IQ of over 100 --- you'd have an epiphany --- that being that WE ARE FUCKED. And that the Central Banks' money printing is all that is between you and a mouth full of bark and grass
THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)
The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
But no, to your last breath when this collapse hits and you fucking donkeys are dying from cholera or starvation or TB or with a knife in your back when your neighbour steals your last can of beans --- you fucking fools will be moaning 'Bernanke stupid - Bernanke corrupt -- Bernanke is to blame'
I give you a rope of wisdom you fucking bumpkin idiots. Yet you choose to remain drowning in a sea of ignorance.
If I can't suicide with that 'rope of wisdom' what the fuck good is it?
Any tree bark recipies?
Thanks all the same, but The Limits to Growth was shit the first time around too.
So he hasn't said that the planet is like "like a chicken with its head cut off."
But that's exactly where it's at. The markets are being bought and sold. Nations are testing each other's limits. The NWO, EU, NATO, UNSC, POTUS, PUTIN all running around with heir heads cut off.
Dead, but still moving, with no 'drop dead' date to put in print.
90% of US media (news, movie industry, televison, cable) is controlled by only 6 large corporate interests -
1) GE - Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures, Focus Features
2) News Corp - Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post
3) Disney - ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, Marvel Studios
4) Viacom - MTV, Nick Jr, BET, CMT, Paramount Pictures
5) Time Warner - CNN, HBO, Time, Warner Brothers
6) CBS - CBS, Showtime, Smithsonian Channel, NFL.com, Jeopardy, 60 Minutes
The point being that most of the news we encounter on a day-to-day basis is news that is being filtered by business interests and has little interest in 'truth' but rather major advertisers. They wil not release news that would put their corporate interests in jeopardy, either from an advertsing perpsective or from a political perspaective. They hire editors that guarantee a certain business practice and perspective. As an example of the power of these corporations across America, watch this humourous video put out by Conan O'Brien:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dJxiDkcjA
This is essentially what we are subject to day-in-day-out in all classes of media. It is possible because so many news outlets are owned by so few - thus, entirely manageable.
It becomes more obvious when you stop watching it for a while, then look at a TV (on any channel) for 5 minutes. Doesn't matter what 'news channel' or TV program. The messaging is there, always there.
Stuff like gay is good, transsexual is better, whites are racist, NRA are crazy paranoids, we need to send troops to stop Hitputin but nothing to worry about except ISIS camps on the border but we don't need troops there, blah blah, women are better, stronger and faster than men, I could go on but I get nauseated even repeating some of it.
TURN IT OFF. Stop paying, stop watching, and just ignore the lies.
You see, once you start to purge your brain of the programming, you can begin to think for yourself. And once you can do that, I would ask you to look at other people as they watch TV (doesn't matter what they're watching) and see how they stare vacant eyed and unthinking; absorbing the tripe as if it were true. If you try to talk to them about it, most of them only seem capable of repeating various parts of the MSM that appeals to that individual's sense of social justice (R or D etc).
Amazing what our Ministry of Propaganda has been able to accomplish in cahoots with the Ministry of Education and our 'elected' officials. This country is completely fucked because 90+% of
Americans don't believe they're being fucked (or believe that other American peons are responsible) despite every piece of evidence in plain view... rather, they believe the TV no matter what.
The awakening that will come will be too much for many people to comprehend. Many will just go batshit crazy when their cognitive dissonance breaks like an overfillled reservoir shattering its dam.
Stay clear of the hives and you'll live longer. Especially if you eschew American media in all of its forms.
Statements like this is what makes Noam Chomsky a legend. The clarity of thought is unmistakable. The truth of it is undeniable.
And, its amusing to see ZH have as poster a Man as far "lefty" as Chomsky; the epitomy of the American intellectual who is on the opposite aisle to the TEa Party deniers and Libertarian proponents of the Hayek/Von Mises brigade and Ayn Randish horse radish fever mongers.
You can see those "anticommies" frothing around the lips to have Chomsky post here. But as they say : the enemy of my enemy is my ally. So those libertarians who believe in Ron Paul better drink their bitter tea served by a leftie!
Chomsky not only is a lingusit but also a philosopher and a commentator of what Pax Americana has become; and he doesn't pull his punches!