Premier Rock Forum

nihil wrote:
Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:
Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric. Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:

Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? His impact is next nil except for his cult following in the academic world, , IN MY OPINION if you disagree, which is fine. He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric.

Ah, "free speech," it works wonders, doesn't it?

On page one of this thread, Slajov Zizek responded to the following question:

Chomsky and people like him seem to think that if we just got the facts out there, things would almost take care of themselves. Why is this wrong? Why aren't "the facts" enough?


Zizek: Let me give you a very naive answer. I think that basically the facts are already known. This is what I've referred to as "postmodern cynicism." Let's take Chomsky's analyses of how the CIA intervened in Nicaragua. Ok, a lot of details, yes, but did I learn anything fundamentally new? It's exactly what I'd expected: the CIA was playing a very dirty game. Of course it's more convincing if you learn the dirty details. But I don't think that we really learned anything dramatically new there. I don't think that merely "knowing the facts" can really change people's perceptions.

What Paul Berman criticizes in Chomsky, namely his belief in the rationality of self-interested individuals, is apt. Only it seems (from my limited reading) as though Berman suggests that it's only or primarily religious nuts and totalitarian ideologies that complicate Chomsky's overly optimistic assumptions about human rationality. The truth is that the abstract (American) individualism that Chomsky and Berman both espouse is precisely the ideology that renders Chomsky's truth-telling moot. "Whining," as HofTW puts it.

Andrew L. wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:

Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstruction about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? His impact is next nil except for his cult following in the academic world, , IN MY OPINION if you disagree, which is fine. He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric.

Ah, "free speech," it works wonders, doesn't it?

On page one of this thread, Slajov Zizek responded to the following question:

Chomsky and people like him seem to think that if we just got the facts out there, things would almost take care of themselves. Why is this wrong? Why aren't "the facts" enough?


Zizek: Let me give you a very naive answer. I think that basically the facts are already known. This is what I've referred to as "postmodern cynicism." Let's take Chomsky's analyses of how the CIA intervened in Nicaragua. Ok, a lot of details, yes, but did I learn anything fundamentally new? It's exactly what I'd expected: the CIA was playing a very dirty game. Of course it's more convincing if you learn the dirty details. But I don't think that we really learned anything dramatically new there. I don't think that merely "knowing the facts" can really change people's perceptions.

What Paul Berman criticizes in Chomsky, namely his belief in the rationality of self-interested individuals, is apt. Only it seems (from my limited reading) as though Berman suggests that it's only or primarily religious nuts and totalitarian ideologies that complicate Chomsky's overly optimistic assumptions about human rationality. The truth is that the abstract (American) individualism that Chomsky and Berman both espouse is precisely the ideology that renders Chomsky's truth-telling moot. "Whining," as HofTW puts it.

Andrew,

Regarding nihil's comment. I don't think anything said should be censored on the board but degenerating into petty name calling is counter productive, wouldn't you agree? I don't see the necessity to result to verbal abuses just because matthew has strong opinions on something. He shouldn't be ostracized for that quality and any point of view should be taken into account, oui?

As for this Chomsky/ Berman contrast, I would have to read more of the latter to formulate an opinion on whether Chomsky's truth telling is moot. True is in the eye of the beholder to use a gross, cliche expression. No truth is absolute. I mean no disrespect to the Chomsky aficionados either.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:
Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric. Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

I'll stick with my description of matthew....he's earned it.
You just called Chomsky a "whiner"........something he has not earned. If the American public could care less, why are all his appearances jam packed and booked years in advance? Chomsky has dedicated his life to tireless activism. He is not an idol or a politician. Look into this a little more. I think you might change your mind.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner.

Do you not like Chomsky or do you not like the content of his criticism?

If anything, Chomsky has such an affinity for emotionless and gentle language that people who are normally tuned into propaganda and sloganeering never read him or hear him. He's about the most soft-spoken revolutionary out there, and it's really unfair to put him on the same level with chronically whining sound bite machines like a Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something?

Okay, three choices:

1-Speak out for 40+ years, lecturing, writing, generating a mountain of opposition theology.

2- Do all the above, but do it from France, thus satisfying all the sanctimonious asswipes who believe every critic of America's first duty is to renounce citizenship.

3- Get so pissed off at U.S. foreign policy that he hijacks an airliner and pilots it into a skyscraper, a sure way to win converts.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change.

Yes, very true. Because Chomsky hasn't vanquished a legion of profit-driven multinational corporations with his position papers, his ideas have been thoroughly discredited. There are millions of americans just waiting to take back democracy, but they're waiting to hear the absolutely perfect rhetoric from an 80 year old linguist before they commit to the operation.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:The American public as a whole couldn't care less.

Ding!! Your prize is waiting for you.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: I don't see him running for any public office.

Let's all draft an 80 year old linguist to fight the good fight. Nader says he'll endorse him, ensuring Chomsky one or possibly 1.25% of the popular vote in Vermont and maybe Massachussets, and we'll only need about 10 or 20 million dollars in media to guarantee that. I'll work on the Chomsky campaign in red state Alabama myself- I hear there's a Jew who's read the Nation somewhere near Tuscaloosa.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric.

You are not listening.

If you listened, you would be helped.

Help only comes to those who seek it. If you like the status quo, then by all means, reject Chomsky.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

It's never too late.

If you approach Chomsky with anger because he criticizes a country that you love, then you need to fall out of love for America, because your country has fallen out of love with you, and that's because you no longer own it; it's been hijacked by insiders collaborating with outsiders, and these traitors have decided that rich is no longer good enough.

The profit of a mining company is more important than the life of a miner.

Time to get rich.

The profit of an oil company is more important than the life of a soldier.

Time to get richer.

The profit of a defense contractor is more important the the lives of wrong god wrong color wrong place wrong time civilians on the other side of the globe.

Time to get all the money.

Accept all this, ignore Chomsky, say that Chomsky and his ideas have no purpose in such a complex world.

America is full of people loyal to a comfortable way of life. How many do you suppose would trade that way of life for something like principles, something like peace with less prosperity?

The empire is built on blood and oil, and you want to hold Chomsky accountable?

nihil wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:
Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric. Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

I'll stick with my description of matthew....he's earned it.
You just called Chomsky a "whiner"........something he has not earned. If the American public could care less, why are all his appearances jam packed and booked years in advance? Chomsky has dedicated his life to tireless activism. He is not an idol or a politician. Look into this a little more. I think you might change your mind.

I think he is all about idolatry. His thoughts and presence have been co-opted by the likes of college students, punk rock/indie hipster types like Jello Biafra and a certain fringe of the radical left.

One of my main problems with him? He slams capitalism in public yet lives in two exclusive, nearly all-white neighborhoods in Massachusetts (one of his home is worth over $1.2 million... hey, isn't against "Property Rights"?); or how he has a trust that he set up in his daughter's and tax attorney's names (though he has denounced trusts publicly), hides him money from the U.S. government so as to pay less in taxes (though he has compared tax rebates to a welfare payment) and assigned the copyrights to several of his books to another daughter, Diane Chomsky (even though he claims to be against "intellectual property" and copyrights and patents in general). He also charges $12,000 for speeches given on college campuses-- not exactly the socialist ideal, huh? -- and charges fees for people to download them off the Internet (thank you Altervative Tentacles and Jello Biafra, another leftist hypocrite if there ever was one-- he once said on Politically Correct that every penny a person makes after $100,000 per-year should be confiscated by the IRS). There is something about him that strikes me as phony and two-faced. He should be lucky that he has the position and power that he has.

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote:
One of my main problems with him? He slams capitalism in public yet lives in two exclusive, nearly all-white neighborhoods in Massachusetts (one of his home is worth over $1.2 million... hey, isn't against "Property Rights"?); or how he has a trust that he set up in his daughter's and tax attorney's names (though he has denounced trusts publicly), hides him money from the U.S. government so as to pay less in taxes (though he has compared tax rebates to a welfare payment) and assigned the copyrights to several of his books to another daughter, Diane Chomsky (even though he claims to be against "intellectual property" and copyrights and patents in general). He also charges $12,000 for speeches given on college campuses-- not exactly the socialist ideal, huh? -- and charges fees for people to download them off the Internet (thank you Altervative Tentacles and Jello Biafra, another leftist hypocrite if there ever was one-- he once said on Politically Correct that every penny a person makes after $100,000 per-year should be confiscated by the IRS). There is something about him that strikes me as phony and two-faced. He should be lucky that he has the position and power that he has.

Ignoring the fact that this is a paraphrasing of that stupid Peter Schweize hatchet-job book, a couple of points:

1. He's not a politician, and thus the fact that he may or may not be a hypocrite doesn't rob his political analysis of any validity whatsoever.

2. He's a very successful writer and academic. He's 80. He has worked tirelessly. It's hardly surprising that he has some money.

I'm annoyed with the no-win situation leftists find themselves in in the public debate. To criticize capitalism while living in a capitalist society inevitably entails a conflict between public positions and private life -- The man has a bank account, so screw him and everything he says.

Conversely, when a public thinker takes great pains and goes out of the way to live according to the strictest tenets of his espoused beliefs, like Peter Singer, he is attacked for being a "weirdo."

Fuck that. Rush Limbaugh is a dope fiend, yet he is capable of being also a lying idiot. That is the more important of his traits. That Noam Chomsky has money and tries to keep it for his family should be no surprise and no offense. His dis-assembly of propaganda into constituent lies is among the most important acts in public discourse ever.

clocker bob wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner.

Do you not like Chomsky or do you not like the content of his criticism?

If anything, Chomsky has such an affinity for emotionless and gentle language that people who are normally tuned into propaganda and sloganeering never read him or hear him. He's about the most soft-spoken revolutionary out there, and it's really unfair to put him on the same level with chronically whining sound bite machines like a Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something?

Okay, three choices:

1-Speak out for 40+ years, lecturing, writing, generating a mountain of opposition theology.

2- Do all the above, but do it from France, thus satisfying all the sanctimonious asswipes who believe every critic of America's first duty is to renounce citizenship.

3- Get so pissed off at U.S. foreign policy that he hijacks an airliner and pilots it into a skyscraper, a sure way to win converts.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change.

Yes, very true. Because Chomsky hasn't vanquished a legion of profit-driven multinational corporations with his position papers, his ideas have been thoroughly discredited. There are millions of americans just waiting to take back democracy, but they're waiting to hear the absolutely perfect rhetoric from an 80 year old linguist before they commit to the operation.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:The American public as a whole couldn't care less.

Ding!! Your prize is waiting for you.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: I don't see him running for any public office.

Let's all draft an 80 year old linguist to fight the good fight. Nader says he'll endorse him, ensuring Chomsky one or possibly 1.25% of the popular vote in Vermont and maybe Massachussets, and we'll only need about 10 or 20 million dollars in media to guarantee that. I'll work on the Chomsky campaign in red state Alabama myself- I hear there's a Jew who's read the Nation somewhere near Tuscaloosa.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote: If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric.

You are not listening.

If you listened, you would be helped.

Help only comes to those who seek it. If you like the status quo, then by all means, reject Chomsky.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

It's never too late.

If you approach Chomsky with anger because he criticizes a country that you love, then you need to fall out of love for America, because your country has fallen out of love with you, and that's because you no longer own it; it's been hijacked by insiders collaborating with outsiders, and these traitors have decided that rich is no longer good enough.

The profit of a mining company is more important than the life of a miner.

Time to get rich.

The profit of an oil company is more important than the life of a soldier.

Time to get richer.

The profit of a defense contractor is more important the the lives of wrong god wrong color wrong place wrong time civilians on the other side of the globe.

Time to get all the money.

Accept all this, ignore Chomsky, say that Chomsky and his ideas have no purpose in such a complex world.

America is full of people loyal to a comfortable way of life. How many do you suppose would trade that way of life for something like principles, something like peace with less prosperity?

The empire is built on blood and oil, and you want to hold Chomsky accountable?

The fact is that by this illustration you portray Chomsky as a saint, which I have a big problem with. He represents the rich, white upper class status quo that you claim he is against when I find it all to be a laughable facade. How much of Chomsky's money is going toward anything charitable or otherwise? intellectual pontificating is fine but intellectual masturbation I have a problem with. As the old saying goes, action speaks louder than words.