Global update with Chomsky

ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Global update with Chomsky

Every time I listen to this man speak, I am ashamed of being unable to read and compile the amount of information in a year that he seems to routinely do daily. For those of you who don't know him, here's a taste:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/3/noam_chomsky_on_crisis_and_hope

There's nearly an hour of it, but it can be downloaded as an MP3 from the site directly, so MP3 walkman is an option. Comments are optional, I will most likely respond.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote: so MP3 walkman

ZuS wrote:

 

so MP3 walkman is an option.

... is that even possible? o_O

 

how can a cassette player, play MP3's? ... no, no... i dont want to know, the very answer could tear a hole in space time itself!

What Would Kharn Do?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:ZuS

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ZuS wrote:

 

 

so MP3 walkman is an option.

 

... is that even possible? o_O

 

how can a cassette player, play MP3's? ... no, no... i dont want to know, the very answer could tear a hole in space time itself!

It's a general term abreviating all the possible flash memory devices with a MP3 player installed - so the phone I use for the purpose can be called a phone-walkman. It's useful because the original device is absolete. Please get with the times and listen to the recording or view the video directly from the website.

Also where is that image you use as avatar from?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:It's a

ZuS wrote:

It's a general term abreviating all the possible flash memory devices with a MP3 player installed - so the phone I use for the purpose can be called a phone-walkman.

The hell? stupid culture making up stuff behind my back...

why, back in my day, "Walkmans" were cassette only... and they took 4 A batteries!

 

ZuS wrote:

Also where is that image you use as avatar from?

 

 

Which is just a photoshop of another picture which is not present

What Would Kharn Do?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I thought I saw the chaos

I thought I saw the chaos symbol behind the dude, don't know how I missed the rune on his helm.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:I thought I saw

ZuS wrote:

I thought I saw the chaos symbol behind the dude, don't know how I missed the rune on his helm.

ya... i thought the fact that the rune was his helmet would be a dead give-away...

 

 

edit; Oooooh, that symbol >.<

Stupid Chaos Undivided follower...

 

 

BOW BEFORE KHORNE!

What Would Kharn Do?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:ya...

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ya... i thought the fact that the rune was his helmet would be a dead give-away...

I look at it now and I am sure its because I get captured by the choice of drawing the sword in profile, even though the gauntlet would suggest anface. Should have known, its the signature iconic posing as seen in on-purpose rigid drawings.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Global update with Chomsky

    I don't know where to begin,when it comes to Noam Chomsky.Let me begin with the fact that I'm a Chomsky junkie, I've been reading his work for over 20 yrs.,So when I got a letter from SSI to be evaluated for a claim,the doctor that they sent me to was Dr.David Chomsky ( I live in Philly,close to where the Chomsky family lived)but when I received the SSI notice,I thought to myself "what are the chances that this Dr. is related to Noam,at the most, I reasoned that he might be a cousin or a distant relative,but when I got to his office and saw him,I knew that he was a very close relative,but I still had to know how close,so when I asked him if he was related to Noam ,and he replied " I'm his brother", I almost fell over ( I use a cane ).We talked about Noam's writing,and then I asked him if he knew Howard Zinn,and he said that Howard is a good friend of the family.Then I told him how mush I regret not going to Noam's lecture the last time that he was here.Any way if you don't already now where he has a blog (www.zcommunications.org and www.chomsky.info/&nbspEye-wink and he's been on www.democracynow.org a lot, probably the only show on the TV that airs his speeches.    PS,I didn't realize that your link went to Democracy Now !,sorry about reposting it again before I went to the link that you put up on your post. 

Signature ? How ?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:BOW

The Doomed Soul wrote:

BOW BEFORE KHORNE!



Ah-hahahaha!



Seriously? A big scary creature named "corn", only spelled poorly? Does he have other scary creature friends named "Tsoya" and "Bharlee"?



Do his friends nail him in the Khorne Hole? I think they do. I think Khorne gets Tsoya sauce in his eye every night.



*Ahem*



Noam Chomsky is a brilliant linguist and an entertaining and thoughtful thinker. Even if you disagree with him, it's obvious he considers what he says carefully, and his opinions are at least informed. There aren't that many people who would be able to match that description.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

 

Ah-hahahaha!



 

Seriously? A big scary creature named "corn", only spelled poorly? Does he have other scary creature friends named "Tsoya" and "Bharlee"?



 

Do his friends nail him in the Khorne Hole? I think they do. I think Khorne gets Tsoya sauce in his eye every night.

 

*sniffle*

Oh... i've heard it all before, go on, there must be more... there always is...

 

Yes, My gods name is Khorne, sure you can pronounce it like the vegitable, or even as "Corn-ee" as is so stupid its funny Corny...

Alas... it is something the Khornate followers must endure, it is our lot in life i suppose...

In fact, its quite possibly why Khorne wishes everything to die! maybe in highschool he was just some shlummy little nothing, that had his name made fun of 1 to many times... Aaah... something to think about over a nice big box of...

 

 

 

... wait a minute...

 

 

oh god damn it >.<

 

-----

Edit; Anything else you would like to mock about my belief, my god, and my religion... Will? im open to your intolerance, heresy and blasphemy 

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I now understand. If the USA

I now understand. If the USA did not exist, the rest of the world would no longer have poverty, war and injustice. Every family in Haiti would have no more than 2 children, so they would never have an overpopulation/poverty problem. US capitalists are causing people to fuck and have large families.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: Do his

HisWillness wrote:
Do his friends nail him in the Khorne Hole?

One of his "friends" surely do. Slaanesh calls him all sorts of things: The dreary deamon. The Baron of Buzzkill. Pointdexter.

 

Come on Doomy. Get over to worshipping Slaanesh. All the cool kids are doing it! Eye-wink

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You know, about the only

You know, about the only thing I like about Chomsky is his work in linguistics.  Not that all of it is all that good, either (ex. universal grammar).  Great ideas sometimes, though.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You know,

Thomathy wrote:

You know, about the only thing I like about Chomsky is his work in linguistics.  Not that all of it is all that good, either (ex. universal grammar).  Great ideas sometimes, though.

I like his ability to see the premises of arguments and deconstruct them on the spot by using what seems to be a library of a brain. He almost always references to main stream statements and documents as basis for his rationale, which really is a strong propagandist strategy since it keeps his arguments product of deductive reasoning and very convincing. Even though I am aware of this and even after following up on his references, I usually find his arguments hold.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Thomathy wrote:You

ZuS wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

You know, about the only thing I like about Chomsky is his work in linguistics.  Not that all of it is all that good, either (ex. universal grammar).  Great ideas sometimes, though.

I like his ability to see the premises of arguments and deconstruct them on the spot by using what seems to be a library of a brain. He almost always references to main stream statements and documents as basis for his rationale, which really is a strong propagandist strategy since it keeps his arguments product of deductive reasoning and very convincing. Even though I am aware of this and even after following up on his references, I usually find his arguments hold.

Well, as I said, I don't really care for his 'work' outside of linguistics.  I know him mostly from that.  I'm aware of his outspoken political and economic and social views, but from my perspective his best work is his work in linguistics.  Which isn't to say that I disagree much with his other views -I happen to agree with many of them- I am just more concerned with his impact in a field which I study closely and in which he has applied a great deal of expertise.  He's certainly an intellectual but, like anybody, his opinions on matters (and when it comes to politics and the like, they are opinion, however well founded) I take with careful consideration.  When I do disagree with him it seems to be on rather substantial issues.  I doubt very much if he actually has a better insight than any other people (of his calibre) into those areas in which he is outspoken.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:I doubt very much if he actually has a better --

-- insight than other people ( of his caliber ) into those  areas in which he is out spoken. Not to disagree with you personally,but do you honestly think that the New York Times would name him as the most important intellectual alive and The most quoted author since Shakespeare and the Bible. And why would the United Nations ask him to speak a few times ,and one that really surprised me was when West Point asked him to give a speech about "Just War Theory" 

Signature ? How ?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I never doubted (or

I never doubted (or questioned) the man's intellecutalism or the fact that he is a sought after speaker or that he is a person of great insight.  I know very well that he is.  He's a very popular man.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You know,

Thomathy wrote:

You know, about the only thing I like about Chomsky is his work in linguistics.  Not that all of it is all that good, either (ex. universal grammar).  Great ideas sometimes, though.

You didn't like universal grammar? I mean, I know it's a bit ambitious to put "universal" in front of things, but I thought it was a neat idea. I've even used it to parse Latin literature.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, it's not strictly

Well, it's not strictly falsifiable, it is?  I accept the basic premise: that language is an innate capacity and that we must have some kind of built in system from which to generate it; that much has to be true or at least we'll find it to be.  But other parts are plainly wrong.  It's a brilliant idea.  It's still being worked over and dealt with.  In itself, however, I don't think it explains much.  It's more of a realization.  Humans learn language and there's a mechanism (or mechanisms) for this.  Now we have to look for answers.  They're not found in the 'theory', are they?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Well, it's

Thomathy wrote:

Well, it's not strictly falsifiable, it is?  I accept the basic premise: that language is an innate capacity and that we must have some kind of built in system from which to generate it; that much has to be true or at least we'll find it to be.  But other parts are plainly wrong.  It's a brilliant idea.  It's still being worked over and dealt with.  In itself, however, I don't think it explains much.  It's more of a realization.  Humans learn language and there's a mechanism (or mechanisms) for this.  Now we have to look for answers.  They're not found in the 'theory', are they?


Oh, I see. Yeah, we're on the same page.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Oh, I see.

HisWillness wrote:
Oh, I see. Yeah, we're on the same page.
:D I've always liked you, Will.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:HisWillness

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Oh, I see. Yeah, we're on the same page.
:D I've always liked you, Will.

Haha! Well it's true! It is more of a realization, rather than a fleshed-out capital-T Theory. But I'm so used to social sciences being completely imprecise that it strikes me as kind of "good enough" as a theory within that context.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Thomathy

HisWillness wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Oh, I see. Yeah, we're on the same page.
:D I've always liked you, Will.

Haha! Well it's true! It is more of a realization, rather than a fleshed-out capital-T Theory. But I'm so used to social sciences being completely imprecise that it strikes me as kind of "good enough" as a theory within that context.

Well, normally I wouldn't fuss over it either, but just recently I developed a HUGE loathing for the humanities and social sciences, their methodologies and what's acceptable in practice and research.  It's that imprecision, that lack of scientific rigour, the acceptance of pretty sounding words strung together that have no real meaning and the bandying around of things like post-modernism and anarchism and post-structuralism and feminism that have managed to piss me off so much.  Trying to do work in a field where people accept pretty opinion has really worn down on me.  To even try to do anything constructive in terms of doing science is next to impossible and naturally you'd be laughed away by a bunch of post-modernist feminists who can't even understand their own jargon.

Edit: Please, excuse that impromptu rant.  Something broke. 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
No one need apologize for a

No one need apologize for a pomo rant. Post-modernism is the fanciest way to be confused ever.

Speaking of pomo, Chomsky seems to have moved from his regular anarcho-Marxism to "markets don't really work". I would, of course, have to add "... if you want anything other than a price", but that's me.

* For those who don't know, putting "Marxist" in a pomo paper increases the grade by 5 points. "Feminist" gets you about the same. The phrase "Anarcho-Marxist feminist sensibility" would probably get you at least a B.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 I hate Noam Chomsky. I

 I hate Noam Chomsky. I don't know of, nor care about, his contributions to linguism. I'm sure they're wonderful.

 

I hate him because I'm right there with him, in the back of his car, when he goes and drives it off of the cliff. 

"We need massive change in the way we do things, people need to be better informed, and we need to put our collective feet down right now and stop a variety of juggernauts from rendering the Earth uninhabitable in a scant few generations."

"Hot damn! I'm right there with you, dude."

"Yeah! Now let's stamp-out the Imperialist Americans, liberate the middle east, craft animate chocolate bunnies from our sense of righteousness's precipitate and dance with them across the globe!' 

"...Uh..."

 

We have major poins of agreement, but the chasm between his perception (or apparent perception) and reality is way, way too enormous for me to respect.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: I hate

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 I hate Noam Chomsky. I don't know of, nor care about, his contributions to linguism. I'm sure they're wonderful.

 

I hate him because I'm right there with him, in the back of his car, when he goes and drives it off of the cliff. 

"We need massive change in the way we do things, people need to be better informed, and we need to put our collective feet down right now and stop a variety of juggernauts from rendering the Earth uninhabitable in a scant few generations."

"Hot damn! I'm right there with you, dude."

"Yeah! Now let's stamp-out the Imperialist Americans, liberate the middle east, craft animate chocolate bunnies from our sense of righteousness's precipitate and dance with them across the globe!' 

"...Uh..."

 

We have major poins of agreement, but the chasm between his perception (or apparent perception) and reality is way, way too enormous for me to respect.

Chomsky is extremely careful not to say stuff like what you just wrote. He references and frames his arguments in such a way that you must be a complete fool not to agree with most of them. Through this process of frame, reference and deduction he puts flesh on both his argument and reality as we see it.

For example, if you try to present an opinion that letting terrorists out of Guantanamo on grounds of legal technicalities is dangerous, you will end up debating invasion of Cuba and it's roots, policy of torture, definition of terrorism and it's applicability to US policy, the roots of "danger" for the US and ultimately conclude just the opposite of your claim. All the while he will draw simple but accurate analogies to clarify the context in which this debate is taking place. For instance, he will mention that the invasion of Cuba is euphamistically called "liberation" of Cuba, which in turn is a liberation from Spain's earlier "liberation" of Cuba.

To dispute an argument like that you basically have to differentiate USA form the rest of the world and not apply same standards to judging US actions. Chomsky says this is fine, but then he is really not talking to you.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I now understand.

EXC wrote:

I now understand. If the USA did not exist, the rest of the world would no longer have poverty, war and injustice. Every family in Haiti would have no more than 2 children, so they would never have an overpopulation/poverty problem. US capitalists are causing people to fuck and have large families.

That is not exactly what follows from the argument. Rather the world would probably be pretty much the same at this point, except that we would be facing some other powerful, violent and terrorist global regime. This fact, of course, is no reason not to fight the one we have in this reality.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:That is not

ZuS wrote:

That is not exactly what follows from the argument. Rather the world would probably be pretty much the same at this point, except that we would be facing some other powerful, violent and terrorist global regime. This fact, of course, is no reason not to fight the one we have in this reality.

Which is why Chomsky as brilliant as he may be is irrelevant and out dated. The USA went into isolationist mode after WWI, so Germany, Japan and Italy become the imperialist swine that enslaved, waged war, raped and pillaged. Then we were blamed for letting things get out of control that these empires could only be stopped with a massive war. That is the history of humanity, waging war works. If the USA is not an imperialist power someone else will be.

So the problem is not the USA imperialism, it's human nature. The problems that USA intervention causes are symptom of what's wrong with the human race. It would be easy to make the case that thing would be just as bad or worse without USA capitalism and intervention. If the woman in Haiti make $2/day to feed her family didn't get paid by the US corporation, her family would starve. Is this what Chomsky thinks is better? Does he think there wouldn't be overpopulation without imperialists?

So I think any intellectual worth his salt would be discussing the issue of transhumanism and not trying to blame one country for all of the world's problems.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So the problem is

EXC wrote:

So the problem is not the USA imperialism, it's human nature.

Not at all, human nature is very diverse and vast majority of people get along just fine. This "human nature" argument together with the "overpopulation", "communism", "terrorism" and other slogans, while they are very real phenomena and deserve careful investigation and deliberation, are not treated as such, but are packaged as a part of the scare campaign that makes us accept the brutal rule of a particular power-hungry minority. This breeds cynicism and anti-politicalism in the general public, which is exactly the point.

EXC wrote:

The problems that USA intervention causes are symptom of what's wrong with the human race.

If that was a valid argument, I would be able to defend murderers in court by saying: "well, your honor, you know how it is with the human race..." No, problems USA intervention causes are not symptoms of what's wrong with the human race, they are symptoms of what's wrong with USA intervention.

EXC wrote:

It would be easy to make the case that thing would be just as bad or worse without USA capitalism and intervention.

We can have a debate, as indeed we did in other threads, about what would be best, but that is not the point. The point is, as you rightly say, that the USA intervenes and jams a certain system down people's throats and denies independance. It has done so consistently since it's inception and continues to do so, overtly and covertly, but always with the powerful interest of the very few at heart.

EXC wrote:

If the woman in Haiti make $2/day to feed her family didn't get paid by the US corporation, her family would starve. Is this what Chomsky thinks is better? Does he think there wouldn't be overpopulation without imperialists?

Completely besides the point. The point, again, is that people will never get to make decisions based on any kind of rationale other than the interest of the few exploiters, as long as the imperialism is as present as it is today. This is as obvious as 2+2=4, the few don't decide in the favor of the many, therefore autonomous interests, independance and self-determination of people are tossed out the window. We will never try any other kind of decision making, as long as imperial decisionmaking prevails.

EXC wrote:

So I think any intellectual worth his salt would be discussing the issue of transhumanism and not trying to blame one country for all of the world's problems.

Chomsky certainly does not blame the one country. In fact, he sees most of the country as the victim of the interests of the very few power-hungry. Further more, he does not say this only about the USA, but all the countries out there. There are two sides to the issue, but they are not based on geographical borders. They are however based on the few denying rights, resources, self determination and independance to the many, often through violent, brutal and genocidal means.

As for transhumanism, the field is not new at all and indeed it has been discussed in all shapes and forms since man came to existance it seems. Take a look at Dr. Mengele's work in the field.

There is nothing wrong with the human race. There is something wrong with the self-interest in our current instances of power. We have to fight against these tendencies, that is just the way life is.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote: So the problem is ...

    Thank You,ZuS for explaining to EXC his wacky logic. EXC stated that the USA went into an isolationist's mode after WWII,an it was Germany,Japan and Italy that became the imperialist swine that enslaved,waged war,raped and pillaged and we were to blame for letting things get out of control of these empires could only be stopped with a massive war.What Kind Of F<>King logic is that ? first he states that we went into an isolationist mode after WWII and how we let things to get out of control that could only be stopped by a massive war.What massive war was that ? As a matter of FACT the USA didn't go into an isolationist mode after WWII,just check the Center for Defense record,after WWII we went into high gear to become the biggest and meanest Empire in all of human history.EXC can check that out at www.johnperkins.org/     This man has written the most explosive memoir "Confession of an Economic Hit Man " and his other book " The Secret History of the American Empire " then there's John Stockwell (a former CIA agent )  www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html    EXC really should read the real history of our nation,from the people who worked theses fields,if he thinks that Chomsky is just blaming America because he has some Axe to grind .

Signature ? How ?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:    Thank

Ken G. wrote:

    Thank You,ZuS for explaining to EXC his wacky logic. EXC stated that the USA went into an isolationist's mode after WWII,an it was Germany,Japan and Italy that became the imperialist swine that enslaved,waged war,raped and pillaged and we were to blame for letting things get out of control of these empires could only be stopped with a massive war.What Kind Of F<>King logic is that ? first he states that we went into an isolationist mode after WWII and how we let things to get out of control that could only be stopped by a massive war.What massive war was that ? As a matter of FACT the USA didn't go into an isolationist mode after WWII,just check the Center for Defense record,after WWII we went into high gear to become the biggest and meanest Empire in all of human history.EXC can check that out at www.johnperkins.org/     This man has written the most explosive memoir "Confession of an Economic Hit Man " and his other book " The Secret History of the American Empire " then there's John Stockwell (a former CIA agent )  www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html    EXC really should read the real history of our nation,from the people who worked theses fields,if he thinks that Chomsky is just blaming America because he has some Axe to grind .

I can't imagine a more confused misreading of EXC's simple statements. For starters: EXC claimed that the US was isolationist after WWI and that we became warlike and agressive in response to WWII because we were partially to blame for WWII since we were isolationists and refused to act like a hegemon. WWI =! WWII. You went apeshit over a gross misreading of his post. Take a deep breath, actually read other peoples' posts and then write up a response.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: I can't imagine a more misreading of EXCs --

-- simple statement. So sorry,my bad ,I was reading it as WWII.But that does not exclude him of making such a statement that the USA was an isolationist nation prior to WWII. Just read General Smedley Butler "War is a Racket"  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler  and then you got Howard Zinn's book " The People's History of the United States 1492 - Present  howardzinn.org/default/  The USA has always been a hegemony state power,from the genocide of the American Indians ( back then it was called culturcide,I think ) kill off their culture and soon they would die off.Then you got the invasion of the Philippines back when Wilson was President. We were never a true Democratic nation . Every nation that has become a Empire has always portrayed themselves as being a paternal state that knows what's best for you,never looking into the mirror to see what's wrong with themselves. 

Signature ? How ?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:If that was a

ZuS wrote:

If that was a valid argument, I would be able to defend murderers in court by saying: "well, your honor, you know how it is with the human race..."

Science has concluded that we don't have free will. There are issues with our genetics and social order that sometimes cause people to commit criminal acts. So in reality, no is really guilty and this whole notion of a morally wrong act needs to be dropped from our justice system.

I'm not saying don't punish criminals, we don't have a better alternative as a deterrent at this point. But we need to rethink our whole method of prevention. The current system is broken, we can never build enough prisons, the recidivism rate is too high.

ZuS wrote:

No, problems USA intervention causes are not symptoms of what's wrong with the human race, they are symptoms of what's wrong with USA intervention.

So Latin America would be better off without all the jobs USA corporations have provided? If we didn't have trade, all these people would be better off without a job? Most of the problems were caused by corruption and people breaking the law. Fix those problems. But you seem to want a system that would cause millions to loose their jobs and not have any trade.

 

ZuS wrote:

The point is, as you rightly say, that the USA intervenes and jams a certain system down people's throats and denies independance. It has done so consistently since it's inception and continues to do so, overtly and covertly, but always with the powerful interest of the very few at heart.

But this was a problem with corruption and lack of law enforcement in these countries. There were laws on the books against the abusive practices US corporations and government did. They were not enforced. But this is a problem under any system. If we had a socialist or communist government, some people will try and bribe politicians and line their own pockets. This is human nature, it not inherent to the USA or a capitalist system. The left wing dictatorships in Latin America were just as corrupt as the right wing dictatorships.

ZuS wrote:

Completely besides the point. The point, again, is that people will never get to make decisions based on any kind of rationale other than the interest of the few exploiters, as long as the imperialism is as present as it is today.  imperial decisionmaking prevails.

The 'imperialists' just took advantage of a bad situation. The fact that people were willing to work for $2/day existed before they came their, so that's why they came. The corruption in the political system of these countries existed before the 'imperialists' came. It's like if a disease wipes out all your cattle, then you want to blame the vultures for coming in taking advantage of the situation.

The USA and it's corporations didn't force anyone to work for them. Previous 'imperialists' forcible enslaved people.

 

ZuS wrote:

[As for transhumanism, the field is not new at all and indeed it has been discussed in all shapes and forms since man came to existance it seems. Take a look at Dr. Mengele's work in the field.

Dr. Mengele wasn't a real scientists. He didn't follow scientific methods nor did he have the goal of solving the problems of humanity(just the master race).

ZuS wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the human race. There is something wrong with the self-interest in our current instances of power. We have to fight against these tendencies, that is just the way life is.

OK, so suppose Chomsky is made dictator of earth. How does his system stop people from fucking and making lots of babies? How does his form of government stop people from trying to make themselves rich by bribing politicians and breaking the laws? How does he stop the demand for goods from consumers? How does his government meet all the consumer demands without environmental damage? How does he stop crime and prevent conflicts that lead to war? How do the workers in capitalist operations oversees feed their families when they loose their jobs after the USA corporations pull out?

He just rails on USA imperialists. The USA may be the best imperialist ever. The history is that most 'imperialists' pillaged, murdered, raped and forcible enslaved. We're probably the first 'imperialists' that didn't do that. It's not perfect but it an improvement.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:-- simple

Ken G. wrote:

-- simple statement. So sorry,my bad ,I was reading it as WWII.But that does not exclude him of making such a statement that the USA was an isolationist nation prior to WWII.

 

After WWI, the USA didn't join the League of Nations. People and politicians listened to the Chomskys of the that era, that said we shouldn't be the worlds policeman and that we caused a lot of problems with our intervention. So other countries became the 'imperialists'.

After WWII, much of the USA's interventionism was a reaction to the interventionism of Communist Russia and China. If the USA had not been an interventionist in the affairs of small nations, these Communists nations would just take over instead.

  

Ken G. wrote:

 Then you got the invasion of the Philippines back when Wilson was President. 

But you also had imperial Japan and now the Muslim Jihadists trying to take over the Philippines. So it would seem the USA is just one of many badly behaving 'imperialists'.

 

Ken G. wrote:

Every nation that has become a Empire has always portrayed themselves as being a paternal state that knows what's best for you,never looking into the mirror to see what's wrong with themselves. 

OK, I'll give Chomsky credit for doing that, making us look a what we may be doing wrong. But he should see the USA as just one nation in a long history of abusive practices of one group of people over another. And that this behavior is inherent in all societies, this is what humans do, it is not unique to America. It doesn't do Latin America any good to follow Hugo Chavez and blame Yankee imperialist for all their problems. They need to look at their own problems that allowed some 'imperialists' to take advantage, and some foriegn capitalist to break the law by stealing, bribing and polluting.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Post #800

 

 

 

          Frankly what I know about Chomsky is what I have read on this (RRS) site and I really do not have an opinion one way or another.  

         I  am posting to correct something  Ken G. wrote and EXC let slide about the Phillippines.  The U.S. invasion was by Admiral Dewey during the Spanish-American war under President McKinley, the insurgency was  handled under  Pres. T. Roosevelt and Taft.  By the time  Wilson becomes President the  Phillippines is down right peaceful.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:it doesn't do Latin America any good to follow Hugo --

 --Chavez and blame Yankee imperialist for all their problems. I'm not into disagreeing with you,but,that's exactly what they needed to do,Chavez has taken back his country,the poor people there for the first time has a say in their government,before,the poor had absolutely nothing,but now for the first time many of them has seen a doctor and a dentist. I'm sorry to see that you buy into the American propaganda. Anyway check out www.venezuelanalysis.com/  And then you got Haiti,which you also talked about,How Chomsky would ( I guess ) think that it's better to let the family starve ,instead of paying 2$ a day to the mother. I would have to say NO, I don't believe that he thinks that,that would be a better idea,but what I believe would be a better deal for all Haitians would be for them,is that they should put into office some one that they choose,( like Aristide ) without the USA being behind his overthrow  www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/Haiti_Coup_Made_US.html  and if you go back and check out the history of Haiti,you will see that America has used up the resources on the Island,by cutting down it's trees and enslaving the inhabitants.You can see by an aerial view of the Island,just how we have de-forested Haiti's side,The Dominican Republic on the other side which was ruled by the French,didn't suffer as much,they still have a lot of trees.And by the way,sure there has been other imperialist powers through out human history,but none has been nearly as dominating as the good old USA,We currently have over 750 military bases around the globe,we not only dominate by military force,no,we have to dominate the economies too.We have pushed the Japanese around for over 60 yrs. putting 37 bases on such a small Island is really a waste of US tax payers monies,and getting the Japanese pissed off at us for using land that they need for their own population. NO my friend,we are not a nicer imperialist nation,but we are the biggest and the nastiest,we're the No.1 arms exporter.No.1 in placing sanctions on those that don't do as Uncle Sam tells them to do. 

Signature ? How ?


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:I'm posting to correct something Ken G. wrote and

EXC let slide,about the Philippines. Thank you for pointing out my mistake about which US president brought the might of USA imperialist ways to the Philippine people. 

Signature ? How ?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Science has

EXC wrote:

Science has concluded that we don't have free will.

Science has nothing to say on this point, simply because you can not define will in any scientific terms. Philosophers are divided with many existential thinkers standing against your point of view with what I think are very valid arguments. Also it has nothing to do with the post, so please make a new thread on this one.

EXC wrote:

There are issues with our genetics and social order that sometimes cause people to commit criminal acts. So in reality, no is really guilty and this whole notion of a morally wrong act needs to be dropped from our justice system.

This is an academic discussion with no consequence to this thread.

EXC wrote:

I'm not saying don't punish criminals, we don't have a better alternative as a deterrent at this point. But we need to rethink our whole method of prevention. The current system is broken, we can never build enough prisons, the recidivism rate is too high.

What is this doing in this thread I don't know, but I will answer it. You make several assumptions here. 1) we build prisons to punish criminals 2) it's a method of prevention (deterrent) 3) the current system, assumed points 1) and 2), is broken - i.e. works badly in accomplishing stated purpose.

You are absolutely right that prisons are basically sink holes into crime. If you enter the prison system in the US, the chances of you becoming a criminal after release are increased dramatically, as are chances that the nature of your criminal activity will shift to the harder side of the spectrum. Whenever I run into a system that grows despite utterly failing in it's purpose, I imediately go back and look at the assumed purpose to see if I missed something.

Well, there is an alternative and academically supported view of this issue:

1) it is not a method of punishment, but a method of control through division of population and a huge industry, basically a new form of slave labor 2) prisons are not meant to prevent people from commiting crimes, but like any other industry, they want growth 3) the system is not broken, it functions perfectly - anyone entering a prison is effectively outside of the "normal" population for life (control through division) and industrial growth is achieved (more crime, more prisons, more slave labor).

I will not discuss the social and legal mechanics of this, but I will direct you to more information if you need any. Try to ignore the setting, I know people here don't like churches much. I also recomend watching both parts in full, but if you are short in time just go to 0:45:30 of Part I to hear about prisons specifically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD64nmYZM04&feature=channel

Here's the report she mentions: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=49694

Here's some more explanation: http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/karyl.prison.pdf  <---- do read that Smiling

If you want to talk more about this and since it really is an important issue, you should start a thread.

EXC wrote:

So Latin America would be better off without all the jobs USA corporations have provided? If we didn't have trade, all these people would be better off without a job? Most of the problems were caused by corruption and people breaking the law. Fix those problems. But you seem to want a system that would cause millions to loose their jobs and not have any trade.

When you say providing jobs to Latin America, I suppose you mean the US corporate/state "free trade" escapades and support of brutal dictatorships during the sucking dry of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, etc.

If you want to discuss this further, you should really read the book Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It's not the perfect source, but it will introduce you to the rich history of US involvement in Latin America, among other places. After you are done with that, you will have access to many sources that support and expand the described history of purposeful violence, exploitation, descent into dictatorial terror and downright destruction of every and any country in development that USA foreign policy set it's sights on.

EXC wrote:

But this was a problem with corruption and lack of law enforcement in these countries. There were laws on the books against the abusive practices US corporations and government did. They were not enforced. But this is a problem under any system. If we had a socialist or communist government, some people will try and bribe politicians and line their own pockets. This is human nature, it not inherent to the USA or a capitalist system. The left wing dictatorships in Latin America were just as corrupt as the right wing dictatorships.

Almost all of the dictatorships in Latin America since 1950es were instantiated and supported by US foreign policy actors, this including corporate interest, even long before they took power by force and after they were deposed by popular revolt. If you look into the recent lawsuits against Chiquita corporation for their "good work" in Ecuador, principle should be obvious. Read the book I mentioned above to get just the basic knowledge of the history and principle, then we can talk more about this. Here's just a brief look at an actual current coup executed by military and corporate interest against the current Honduran president just a few weeks ago: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/despite_pledge_to_cut_military_ties

Here's the article by Nikolas Kozloff: http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07172009.html

EXC wrote:

The 'imperialists' just took advantage of a bad situation. The fact that people were willing to work for $2/day existed before they came their, so that's why they came. The corruption in the political system of these countries existed before the 'imperialists' came. It's like if a disease wipes out all your cattle, then you want to blame the vultures for coming in taking advantage of the situation.

The USA and it's corporations didn't force anyone to work for them. Previous 'imperialists' forcible enslaved people.

You should really read more about this to prevent talking nonsense.

Of course corruption existed, just like it exists in the US political system. However, imposition and enrichment of US client dictators in exchange for natural, human and monetary resources of their respective enslaved countries did not exist before US got there. Both directly and indirectly US foreign policy has provided so much violence, misery and destruction that it rivals and indeed is responsible for some of the most violent and opressive regimes in history.

If you believe otherwise based on your Milton Friedman Bible and your little isolated bubble of bullshit, then I have a cloud for sele you might be interested in.

EXC wrote:

Dr. Mengele wasn't a real scientists. He didn't follow scientific methods nor did he have the goal of solving the problems of humanity(just the master race).

Which is what you are proposing - something is wrong with humans, so we need to make new humans. Whatever method you use, the basic anti-human notion of this sentiment is unmistakeable. Other than that, it is completely ridiculous, since there is no way to know where science will lead us tomorrow, so it's like believing Harry Potter will come and wave the magic wand and make everything ok. Get a grip.

EXC wrote:

OK, so suppose Chomsky is made dictator of earth.

How does his system stop people from fucking and making lots of babies?

Ok, here we go with a discussion that should have been cleared up by the time you reached highschool.

If Chomsky or Mother Theresa were made the dictator of earth, there is no reason to believe they would act any differently than a full blooded Pinochet-like figure (murderous dictator from Chile, supported monetarily by US and tactically by CIA before, during and after the coup in 1970es, supported well beyond his deposition and even after his death: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB212/index.htm). The transformation our elected leaders undergo from campaign promises of peace and prosperity to international terror by f.ex. sanctions and invasion of Iraq, is obvious to anyone. You have to be thoroughly educated not to see this reality. This is fairly obvious in Chomsky's own defense of his position at MIT and the institution itself, when accused of supporting a major subsidiary to the Pentagon.

As to stoping people in fucking and making babies, which I hereby lower myself to answering despite the retardedness of the question - even if it was a problem, there is no reason to believe any empire or dictator will try to solve it. To the contrary - if they can keep people busy with lack of resources, they can more easily cling to power. This includes the USA empire, incidently.

EXC wrote:

How does his form of government stop people from trying to make themselves rich by bribing politicians and breaking the laws? How does he stop the demand for goods from consumers? How does his government meet all the consumer demands without environmental damage? How does he stop crime and prevent conflicts that lead to war? How do the workers in capitalist operations oversees feed their families when they loose their jobs after the USA corporations pull out?

It doesn't. There is nothing stopping the hypothetical "Chomsky" empire in developing the kind of corruption present in the imperialistic structure of US today. Just like the US empire, the "Chomsky" empire would have interest in promoting crime, instigating conflict, promoting ludicrous demand to keep a population of collectors rather than political opponents, and of course subjugating foreign nations to "capitalist operations" in such a way that their very lives depend on supporting the regime.

Nothing would be different than it is today. No reason not to fight what we have today.

EXC wrote:

He just rails on USA imperialists. The USA may be the best imperialist ever ... We're probably the first 'imperialists' that didn't do that. It's not perfect but it an improvement.

I think I answered this one somewhere above.

EXC wrote:

The history is that most 'imperialists' pillaged, murdered, raped and forcible enslaved.

Yup, most did. So does USA. Welcome to reality.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:This is an

ZuS wrote:

This is an academic discussion with no consequence to this thread.

Beacause the problem with Chomsky is that he sees this one evil in the world (American Imperialism). He seems to be blaming it for all the world's problems. He doesn't see us as just one of many bad actors in the world and through history. He doesn't look at the big picture of what's wrong in the world. We sent the military into places like Panama, Grenada, etc... because the Governments there were just as corrupt and murderous as anything we ever put in place.

I talked to people in Panama about the 89 invasion. Sure they didn't like having a foriegn army invade. But it was the lesser of two evils.

ZuS wrote:

When you say providing jobs to Latin America, I suppose you mean the US corporate/state "free trade" escapades and support of brutal dictatorships during the sucking dry of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, etc.

There's always corruption when you've big money. These countries let some corporations get away with theft and murder. But capitalism did provide jobs to people. If you had had socialism/communism you would have corruption and criminal activity as well. There are thieves and criminals everywhere, it is not unique to the USA and capitalism.

ZuS wrote:

Which is what you are proposing - something is wrong with humans, so we need to make new humans.

Well the USA 'imperialists' are human, aren't they? They share something like 99.99% of your DNA? There must be something wrong with them to be so evil. Perhaps something in their genetics makes them so evil. You probably share some of this in your own genetics. How can such evil be stopped without a radical transformation of humanity? 

ZuS wrote:

As to stoping people in fucking and making babies, which I hereby lower myself to answering despite the retardedness of the question - even if it was a problem, there is no reason to believe any empire or dictator will try to solve it. To the contrary - if they can keep people busy with lack of resources, they can more easily cling to power. This includes the USA empire, incidently.

Seems to me that people like to fuck and have lots of babies whether they have resourses or not. Whether they live under a right-wing or left-wing dictatorship, capitalism or socialism. Am I wrong?

ZuS wrote:

It doesn't. There is nothing stopping the hypothetical "Chomsky" empire in developing the kind of corruption present in the imperialistic structure of US today. Just like the US empire, the "Chomsky" empire would have interest in promoting crime, instigating conflict, promoting ludicrous demand to keep a population of collectors rather than political opponents, and of course subjugating foreign nations to "capitalist operations" in such a way that their very lives depend on supporting the regime.

Nothing would be different than it is today. No reason not to fight what we have today.

Wow, I actually totally agree with you on this.

So Chomsky wouldn't do any better than USA imperialists at ruling the world. So what's the point of railing against the imperialists?

But, if humanity's condition was just as bad under both types of rule, doesn't this indicate there is something fundamentally wrong with the current state of the human condition? That we need a radical transformation of how humans operate? To reboot with a new operating system.

ZuS wrote:

Yup, most did. So does USA. Welcome to reality.

OK, why doesn't the World Court put the USA imperialist criminals on trial then?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beacause the

EXC wrote:

Beacause the problem with Chomsky is that he sees this one evil in the world (American Imperialism). He seems to be blaming it for all the world's problems. He doesn't see us as just one of many bad actors in the world and through history. He doesn't look at the big picture of what's wrong in the world.

Have you ever heard the man speak? Everything you said above is exactly opposite in reality. Of course, his primary responsibility and civic duty is working on his own country. The "just another empire, so who cares" lethargic attitude you are sporting here is just silly. Don't raise your kids that way, the world does not need any more pricks.

EXC wrote:

We sent the military into places like Panama, Grenada, etc... because the Governments there were just as corrupt and murderous as anything we ever put in place.

Are you listening to yourself here? "We sent the military...". Who sent the military to Panama? Sure as shit wasn't you. Why was the military sent? What did they do? What was the effect? What is the effect to this day? You don't have answers to these questions and you don't know what's going on around you. You just repeat what you hear this or that congressman, senator, press secretary, president or "expert" spew out on some corporate media channel.

Did your parents or grandparents have influence on the decisions made about Panama? Did you? Was it an open discussion and a democratic decision? If a similar situation was to come up today, do you know what to do to get influence on decisions about what the military paid by your tax money should do? The answers to these questions are negative. You practice no influence on any meaningful decsions in your life. Sure, you can choose your spouse, your car or the channel on your tv, but people in dictatorships can mostly do all that too. As long as you don't try to influence anything of significance, you can do pretty much whatever you want. Meanwhile your public schools, hospitals and libraries will crumble while brand new billion dollar football stadions and corporate buildings pop up like weed, families will go bancrupt and homeless becouse of a single medical bill, your population will be incarsorated and used as slave labor and your kids will kill and die for executives in Halliburton.

Choosing the color of your tie is not freedom. Participation in power is freedom and you don't have it. You don't have freedom. Primarily because your brain is closed for business when it comes to civic duty.

EXC wrote:

There's always corruption when you've big money. These countries let some corporations get away with theft and murder. But capitalism did provide jobs to people. If you had had socialism/communism you would have corruption and criminal activity as well. There are thieves and criminals everywhere, it is not unique to the USA and capitalism.

Please read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

EXC wrote:

Well the USA 'imperialists' are human, aren't they? They share something like 99.99% of your DNA? There must be something wrong with them to be so evil. Perhaps something in their genetics makes them so evil. You probably share some of this in your own genetics. How can such evil be stopped without a radical transformation of humanity? 

Organise and get your country to become an actual democracy. Public opinion and state policy right now have nothing to do with one another, your leadership is anti-american according to all major polls. Majority of people in the US would stop all current military engagement abroad, close down foreign military bases, engage in open political debate internally and externally, reform regulatory and employement laws and most importantly enforcement of said laws, start solving problems of poverty in America and abroad in cooperation with neighbours.

There is nothing wrong with people, other than that they are disorganised, while their exploiters are extremely well organised. Organise, make civic freedom your business and take charge of your community. This is the ticket to meaningful and sufficient jobs, beneficial national and international projects and actual freedom for you, your children and your children's children. Without civic freedom (read: participation in power), you've got  n o t h i n g.

EXC wrote:

Wow, I actually totally agree with you on this.

So Chomsky wouldn't do any better than USA imperialists at ruling the world. So what's the point of railing against the imperialists?

This should be obvious. If you are against imperial rule, you don't want to be an emperor. No reason not to fight the current empire.

EXC wrote:

But, if humanity's condition was just as bad under both types of rule, doesn't this indicate there is something fundamentally wrong with the current state of the human condition? That we need a radical transformation of how humans operate? To reboot with a new operating system.

You are talking about the same type of rule - empire. There is nothing wrong with the "state of human condition", there is something wrong with your civic education.

EXC wrote:

OK, why doesn't the World Court put the USA imperialist criminals on trial then?

I am not a legal expert, but I find this question interesting. I will look into it and get back to you.

In the meantime you can scroll through some interesting reading regarding US opposition to international legal and political action: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

Check out 1986: US delegation vetos UN call "on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law". Can't let the criminals laugh in our face and abuse us and our property, not if you want to be able to tell your children that you led a life. Anything else is just being allowed to exist.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Please read Shock

ZuS wrote:

Please read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.



Oooh, good book. I second that.

Seriously, EXC, put down the libertarian stuff. We're all in this together, so pretending like we're not is silly. Chomsky goes after the US because he lives there, and there's something there worth fighting for. The founding fathers were able to take cutting-edge French political philosophy and apply it to a country, thus creating a unique and excellent system of governance that has influenced the way the rest of the world works. Now, the US is the most powerful nation on earth, so it might irk Dr. Chomsky that its inhabitants are unaware of its government's brutal policies, in spite of its blow-hard rhetoric regarding "stability".

Saints preserve you if Americans ever look at your country with stability on their minds.

It's supposed to be a democracy (well, republic -- whatever), so you can write your senator and congressman. If you think that does nothing, you're wrong, because one person doing something makes other people brave enough to do it, too.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote: The "just

ZuS wrote:

 The "just another empire, so who cares" lethargic attitude you are sporting here is just silly. Don't raise your kids that way, the world does not need any more pricks.

The US(pardon the pun) vs. Them mentality and scapegoating one county that Chomsky promotes is just silly. Don't raise your kids that way, the world does not need any more pricks.

ZuS wrote:

Are you listening to yourself here? "We sent the military...". Who sent the military to Panama? Sure as shit wasn't you.

I voted for Bush in '88 so I guess I was partly responsible.

ZuS wrote:

 Why was the military sent? What did they do? What was the effect? What is the effect to this day? You don't have answers to these questions and you don't know what's going on around you. 

Because Noriega and a criminal gang was running Panama as it's own little corrupt empire. They knowingly broke our laws by exporting drugs into our country. This was proven in court.

 

ZuS wrote:

Choosing the color of your tie is not freedom. Participation in power is freedom and you don't have it. You don't have freedom. Primarily because your brain is closed for business when it comes to civic duty.

Sure there is huge problems with our democracy. But this is no reason to believe all these left-wing conspiracy theories without evidence as you do.

ZuS wrote:

 Majority of people in the US would stop all current military engagement abroad, close down foreign military bases,

 

So then we all just become slaves to the Islam 'imperialists'. Just like we did after WWI, the Germans and Japs were so much nicer imperialists that than the USA. And the Russians such kind imperialists to eastern Europe as well. Is that why people ran from them and to the USA?

ZuS wrote:

There is nothing wrong with people, other than that they are disorganised, while their exploiters are extremely well organised. Organise, make civic freedom your business and take charge of your community.

  

And this will get people to stop fucking and having lots of babies? So there won't be a continuous quest for wealth and resources that leads to war, imperialism and poverty?

ZuS wrote:

I am not a legal expert, but I find this question interesting. I will look into it and get back to you.

  

Perhaps you'll find that a lot of what you are reading is left wing propaganda that is without any real evidence. No doubt there were Americans that committed criminals acts. Punish them for this, but was no grand conspiracy to fuck over the rest of the world.

Latin Americas problem is that they've had a culture that tolerated corruption. So some US government and corporations committed bribery and other such acts. Put em in jail if you have evidence. But there were also companies that did not violate the law and provide jobs and promoted trade.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I voted for Bush

EXC wrote:

I voted for Bush in '88 so I guess I was partly responsible.

Sure you are responsible, but not because you voted for this or that ruler of the two party kingdom. You are responsible because you do nothing about it on daily basis.

EXC wrote:

Because Noriega and a criminal gang was running Panama as it's own little corrupt empire. They knowingly broke our laws by exporting drugs into our country. This was proven in court.

You mean the guy who killed people and ran drugs and weapons trafficking for CIA for more than 30 years since 1950? The guy they turned on in an operation that killed thousands of civilians and crashed Panama into smitherins once Noriega became "unreliable"? He basically did most of his killing on US taxpayer payrole.

EXC wrote:

Sure there is huge problems with our democracy. But this is no reason to believe all these left-wing conspiracy theories without evidence as you do.

Surely the 44+ million uninsured, 5000 Americans dead in Iraq, 2 million dead Iraqis, 5 million refugees and displaced Iraqis, destruction of Afghanistan and support for the military coup in Honduras, support for genocide of the Palestinian population, just a fraction of criminal and unethical activity US is engaging at this moment, are reason enough to think twice about the the ground premises of the system?

EXC wrote:

So then we all just become slaves to the Islam 'imperialists'. Just like we did after WWI, the Germans and Japs were so much nicer imperialists that than the USA. And the Russians such kind imperialists to eastern Europe as well. Is that why people ran from them and to the USA?

Just like all those dictatorships and attempted empires you mention, the US imperialism must be fought tooth and nail for every inch of the teritory. Fear of imaginary threats must not stop us for a second.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:You mean the guy

ZuS wrote:

You mean the guy who killed people and ran drugs and weapons trafficking for CIA for more than 30 years since 1950? The guy they turned on in an operation that killed thousands of civilians and crashed Panama into smitherins once Noriega became "unreliable"? He basically did most of his killing on US taxpayer payrole.

OK then where's the evidence of a vast criminal conspriacy? Sure they may have been some corrupt CIA and government officials, put em jail. This is just conpriaciy theory crap, that's why you can't get a convition in court.

ZuS wrote:

Surely the 44+ million uninsured, 5000 Americans dead in Iraq, 2 million dead Iraqis, 5 million refugees and displaced Iraqis, destruction of Afghanistan and support for the military coup in Honduras, support for genocide of the Palestinian population, just a fraction of criminal and unethical activity US is engaging at this moment, are reason enough to think twice about the the ground premises of the system?

Yes of course because we have a large population we must be more evil. Only nations with small populations are good because they have fewer people. What sound statistical reasoning you have! I live in the most evil state in the USA because we have the most number of unisured people, it's not important that we have way more people than any other state. We the most evil just because we have the most people.

And of course if Saddam had stayed in power there would have been no killings, poverty or violence in Iraq. The Sunis and Shia would have ended their 1000+ year religious war if the US had not invaded.

ZuS wrote:

Just like all those dictatorships and attempted empires you mention, the US imperialism must be fought tooth and nail for every inch of the teritory. Fear of imaginary threats must not stop us for a second.

Hope you enjoy life under the Taliban.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:OK then where's

EXC wrote:

OK then where's the evidence of a vast criminal conspriacy? Sure they may have been some corrupt CIA and government officials, put em jail. This is just conpriaciy theory crap, that's why you can't get a convition in court.

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol1/cia_body.html

You can look at the documentary evidence listed below the article, all published in mainstream media (Washington Post etc.). It's not controversial, CIA actually made a contract with Noriega in 1967. This is not about a few criminal CIA operatives, it's modus operandi of the global empire - if you have a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

I am not being condescending here, just trying to help.

EXC wrote:

Yes of course because we have a large population we must be more evil. Only nations with small populations are good because they have fewer people. What sound statistical reasoning you have! I live in the most evil state in the USA because we have the most number of unisured people, it's not important that we have way more people than any other state. We the most evil just because we have the most people.

I never said that. You don't have more people than China and have only slightly more than Europe, but you sure as shit occupy more in the international scene than all the other players combined. This is why it's unavoidable.

EXC wrote:

And of course if Saddam had stayed in power there would have been no killings, poverty or violence in Iraq. The Sunis and Shia would have ended their 1000+ year religious war if the US had not invaded.

Sunni and Shia issue is there just like North vs. South is there in US - it had to be reanimated by creating dependence on sectarianism through disbanding of the Iraqi army and destruction of Iraqi state. If some country was to occupy the US, they would most probably put an accent on internal divisions of this sort to make the occupation and/or plunder easier, so invasion only exasurbated the "issue".

If you did not invade, you might have done something constructive with those six trillion dollars and 5 thousand lives. Might even have recruited me to do volountary work in the region and offer investment. You could have recruited the whole world, but that's not the plan. This way only Halliburton & co. get the gig. What a coincidence.

EXC wrote:

Hope you enjoy life under the Taliban.

Absolutely not, when they try to impose their ideas on others, they should be strongly encouraged not to. Of course, this can not be different for the imperial US policy.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:ZuS wrote:I never

ZuS wrote:

I never said that. You don't have more people than China and have only slightly more than Europe, but you sure as shit occupy more in the international scene than all the other players combined. This is why it's unavoidable.

Don't for get to divide by the population when measuring the amount of evil a country has.

We also have the largest economy, big money attracts theives. So of course there will be more theives doing everything they can to steal. People don't rob banks because banks are evil, they rob banks because "That's where the money is".

ZuS wrote:

If you did not invade, you might have done something constructive with those six trillion dollars and 5 thousand lives. Might even have recruited me to do volountary work in the region and offer investment. You could have recruited the whole world, but that's not the plan. This way only Halliburton & co. get the gig. What a coincidence.

But you are an infidel, so it would be the holy Islamic persons duty to kill you. How could you do anything in that country until a secular government was put in place?

ZuS wrote:

Absolutely not, when they try to impose their ideas on others, they should be strongly encouraged not to. Of course, this can not be different for the imperial US policy.

They kill for Allah, they kill for the afterlife. War is their religion. How do you discourage someone like that? All you can do is arrange a meeting with Allah for them.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I now understand.

EXC wrote:

I now understand. If the USA did not exist, the rest of the world would no longer have poverty, war and injustice. Every family in Haiti would have no more than 2 children, so they would never have an overpopulation/poverty problem. US capitalists are causing people to fuck and have large families.

while not strictly true, there is some truth in America causing poverty in less developed countries, not only america mind you.

 

Edit

 

but let me add if it wasn't America it would just be someone else, and i for one am glad its America with all its "noble" principles. Better a country that believes in freedom of speach etc. then one that doesn't. The alternative may very well be worse than what we have.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Don't for get to

EXC wrote:

Don't for get to divide by the population when measuring the amount of evil a country has.

Evil? You want to perform exorcism on someone maybe?

EXC wrote:

We also have the largest economy, big money attracts theives. So of course there will be more theives doing everything they can to steal. People don't rob banks because banks are evil, they rob banks because "That's where the money is".

That's right. War profiteering is a very good business, so the thieves you talk about do a lot of that too. Some of the most prosperous of them actually declare wars.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

If you did not invade, you might have done something constructive with those six trillion dollars and 5 thousand lives. Might even have recruited me to do volountary work in the region and offer investment. You could have recruited the whole world, but that's not the plan. This way only Halliburton & co. get the gig. What a coincidence.

But you are an infidel, so it would be the holy Islamic persons duty to kill you. How could you do anything in that country until a secular government was put in place?

Amasing what one would do for something one believes in, isn't it? Actually, my biggest worry would not have been religious zealotry, but secular thugs clinging to power. Saddam was as atheistic a criminal as they get, his violent rule was secular and women drove cars, wore lipstic and short skirts in Baghdad - you could live your life just fine, as long as you didn't meddle with politics. Kind of like the USA if you think about it. Now, however, religious fanaticism and sectarian gangs are probably every activists biggest problem, since US army is encouraging and financing them at the moment. But as I understand it, you don't know any of this, because your are busy performing the hard task of sticking your head up your ass when it comes to gathering information about the foreign policies of your country.

EXC wrote:

They kill for Allah, they kill for the afterlife. War is their religion. How do you discourage someone like that? All you can do is arrange a meeting with Allah for them.

I know a couple of simple things USA could do to diminish religious fanaticism in the middle east. First thing would be to stop participating in it. Calling the invasion a "crusade", always remembering to "God bless USA", having presidential candidates talk about how "God is on our side" and the like. It would not eliminate it completely, but it would help. And when it comes to terrorism, stopping US participation in it would not eliminate terrorism altogether either, but would decrease it by a large amount. Every radical group in the middle east has been supported by US weapons and money at some point in time, while today genocidal sectarian factions that did most of the ethnic clensing in Iraq work for the State Department.

In fact, this is more of a general state of affairs, rather than just what US does in the middle east. We mentioned Noriega earlier, who graduated from the School of the Americas organised and supported by the US Army. Look into that school a bit, very informative.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.