After losing point after point. Perle reverts to an earlier one that State Dept Records hardly dictate policy and I suppose this is a legitimate argument. He even gains a bit of sympathy when he describes the planning process comprising of people not always with a selfish agenda but prone to mistakes. However policy planners are not ultimately the policy deciders as was so painfully obvious during the Bush Jr Administration
economic power elite = more specifically the special interests for JPMorgan/Chase, NMRothschild, ExxonMobil, BP, etc.. In other words, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, their worldwide banking network, corporations and numerous trusts and foundations.
Like Chomsky's work - nothing conspiratorial here, just a bit more detail. ;)
That's it pretty much, I think.. I'd say this model applies to all capitalist democracies generally.. And this is *not* a conspiracy theory. It's just taking a quick look at what kind of economic and political power structures exist and how they relate to each other.. I think there's always going to be a kinda symbiotic relation between Big Business, State and Media (i.e. 'the establishment') in capitalist democracies.. that's just how the system is framed.
- And, lastly, if that's not enough, there's what Chomsky mentioned in passing: occasional direct meetings between representatives of the major corporations and banks and government officials to draw up policy..
You'd expect it to have a systematic bias in favor of what "The Establishment" does. Politicians all have to be effectively vetted by Big Business before they can go into office.
- Direct lobbying in Congress once they're elected. That's the tip of the iceberg, that's sometimes receives some mild media criticism.
- Media: to stand any chance to get elected, you have to receive a positive and extensive media coverage. All the mainstream media,- liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter- is owned by corporations, which are themselves part of bigger conglomerates, and own shares in other corporations, and are tied to banks, and, very important, have to struggle to keep their advertizers (i.e. other corporations) happy etc etc etc. So the media is totally, completely part of "The Establishment".
On the other hand they enthusiastically fund people who will further their interests. (Just look up on google who the 20 biggest contributors to Obama's campaign are.. *All* of them are corporations and private (i.e. corporate funded) universities)
- Funding: the parties and politicians rely on private donations to fund their campaigns. Now, it's easier to get $1,000,000 from one rich sponsor than to get $1 from 1,000,000 individual supporters. That means politicians end up competing (it's part of the free market thing, lol) for the favors of the very wealthy. Now, the rich and powerful aren't completely stupid generally, and they don't fund people who might threaten their interests.
The picture Perle creates of some shadowy secret elite meeting in a smoke filled room is very, very dishonest. IMHO, this is how business control over govt works:
- The business elite directly provides much of the hi level govt personal (e.g. Cheney -> Halliburton; Bush's family owns an oil company (Unocal) and a bank; Rice had a hi level management job in the Bushs' oil firm; Rumsfeld is majority shareholder in a pharmaceutical corporation; and on and on and on)
Chomsky won't specify the particular corporations and fink tanks that engage in murderous policies, but I will: World Bank CFR WTO IMF Pentagon [mercenaries under control of corporate america] Oil Corporations Federal Reserve Media conglomerates [Murdoch etc] Real Estate Corporations Pharmaceutical Industries Food Conglomerates [Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland etc]
Notice without denying it, Perle creates a picture of the elite all meeting in a room to conjure up a "conspiracy" notion. Chomsky doesn't mention the forum in which policy makers discuss objectives, it's only Perle's way of avoiding the question. Perle's whole stance on this is denialism. It's foolish for any government to not discuss policy objectives; why not strategize? It's not that they do so that's the problem, just that these specific objectives o against self determination.
Perle started his 'argument' by advocating listeners to adopt a more infrmal view of the haphazard way governemtn operates. 'Ignore Chomsky's use of sources' he said, 'No-one knows what they're doing'.
Now he says the exact opposite, 'It is well thought out, exact precise etc'
And along with the protectionist policy he's complaining of, which parallels Obama trillion dollar democratic spending plan, he also points out that the main support is for Hi-Tech, and then specifically names the COMPUTER market.
Was anybody listening to NPR today when they broadcast the story about Intel investing billions into new technology, and the CEO of Intel was on the phone with Obama last night talking about this new spending bill...
obama is an imperial corporate puppet just like his bush and predecessors, but he is a slight improvement because of his progressive domestic positions
What's really funny is how he complains about government protecting the US economy for big corporations, and here we are, getting this huge protectionist spending package from Obama.
I bet that's a god with feet of clay in Chomsky's eyes...
..and this is why the right wing and republicans retreat to the idiotic debates over religion, guns, and abortion.. these are all based on beliefs and faith which needs no reasoning. Real world debate on concrete fact is something Republicans could never win.
Our ideals are based on the idea to "Ideally make more money", so we can buy another Van Gogh, a Castle in Ireland, or a more expensive car or very expensive prostitute.
Actually Chomsky has in his head, a stunningly deep and broad knowledge of politics, culture, and world history, which is always brought to bear in backing up his opinions. Just the opposite of your idiotic and unsupported comment. Typical Chomsky hater; they either resort to cheap insults, pulling opinions out of their asses with no attempt to support them, or they support them with lies (calling Chomsky anti-American, Nazi supporter, self hater, etc). Zero substance in either case.
I doubt that I am a "typical" Chomsky hater since I made that comment within seconds of hearing him speak here for the first time in my life.
You tell me: After jumping from topic to topic, including the economy of 1940s, the computer industry, Reagonist protectionism, and NASA as a front for the Pentagon, what point did he make?
Other than implying his support for the illuminati conspiracy theory.
I don't hate Chomsky; his spin is entertaining. And yes, his rambling did show broad knowledge.
Typical only in the sense that your comments are far trom accurate. The "illuminati" comment shows that you've missunderstood his words. If you're interested, judge him on his many excellent books; the worst that can come of that is that you'll learn a ton, even if you don't share his views.
And, what point does Chomsky make, if not that he accuses the "US based corporations" of operating on an Illuminati-style model enforcing economic protectionism?
"Few facts"+"vast opinions". Chomsky's exhaustive research is unparalleled: "many facts, logically laid out" would be more accurate. Again, check out his books, including end notes. "Vast opinions" = nonsense phrase. "Spin doctor": absurdly reductionist, negative term that you presumably use for anyone with strong views. Spin implies distortion, which he does not do; respecting the reader enough to provide reams of research, allowing you to check his conclusions.
Chomsky made his point better than I can, but it wasn't a conspiracy theory. He does have an "institutional analysis", which some mis-label a "conspiracy theory". Big difference. Obviously corporations pursue their own ends, such as lobbying for favorable legislation. The fact that what favors one, often favors many is obvious and needs no conspiracy. I can't boil down Chomsky's important work in a few words, but your comments would be quite different if you'd read and honestly evaluated it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, you can't "boil Chomsky's important work down in a few words" and obviously neither can he, so he quotes a few facts from a history book, as I would from Wikipedia nowadays, and used them in his "institutional analysis", which of course is not a conspiracy theory because he doesn't refer to a crime.
But he does imply from his anti-Vietnam War rhetoric that the economy is being artificially protected, obviously a spin from his own Communist mindset.
Wikipedia; the information source of non-readers and people too lazy to research for themselves. Quabot, Chomsky is famous for his scholarship, for his exhaustive research, and for his logic and lucidity. If you bothered to actually investigate that claim for yourself, you'd feel rather foolish for your silly comments here. Research doesn't mean typing a keyword into wikipedia search. It means you take a look at what scholars have written, and dissect the footnotes. For one thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Few facts"+"vast opinions" are exactly what he presents here for me to judge him by, and my judgement is "Spin doctor".
That's what I hear speaking here. Perhaps I'm not hearing the real Chomsky?
I have strong views too, but I don't need to use sprinkles of history distorted from reality to back them up, as this non-Chomsky we are listening to here does.
This seems pretty fruitless. I've suggested a couple times that you try reading what he's written (vastly more illuminating than arguing on youtube). If you think he's a "spin doctor", short on facts (LOL), or "distorted from reality", based on this snippet of a debate, fine. But if Chomsky critiques someone, he's read what they've written, and cites it. You might take a lesson from that, or maybe you'd prefer to continue arguing on youtube. Not me. Best wishes.
@ quabot: YOU say, "I doubt that I am a "typical" Chomsky hater since I made that comment within seconds of hearing him speak here for the first time in my life." . . . No, typical Chomsky "hater" i.e. one who has never actually read a word he has written.
A typical hater is prejudiced. My comment because of what I heard the man say. I can judge a comment of his for its individual merit without deference to his smokescreen of volumes of writing, which are obviously full of enough spin to keep the likes of you occupied.
quabot, you obviously wouldn't know a scholarly source if it fell on your pointy little head. Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. To see what a scholar has written, you have to read these things called "books." At the end of each chapter (in scholarly works) you'll find these things called "notes" or "footnotes." This is where the author/ scholar cites his references. From these, you can see for yourself where the author got his information, and can look into it if you doubt further.
No, I'm not "set off" in the least, in fact I'm bored of explaining to you that what Chomsky has to say isn't "spin," and just how "gullible" and naive, and ignorant you are for thinking so, and again, you are the quintessential "Chomsky hater," as you refer to yourself. Nothing atypical about your silly rant here. Now go back to your little "Anti-Chomksy Reader," since you have no intention of discovering for yourself what it is that Chomsky actually writes about. *yawn*
Quoting an existing authoritative source document is different from referring to a hypothetical document that, if it exists, portrays nothing more than a model or intention and using that as evidence of motivation for a current event .
In Chomsky's case, the smokescreen is the spin job after the reference. He refers to the documents to appear informed, but his opinions themselves are uninformed.
Perle is uninformed and has on numerous occasions throughout this debate stated as much, though only through derisive asides as regards to Prof. Chomsky and his overwhelming knowledge of US foreign policy history.
Chomsky isn't spinning anything, in fact, the vast majority of his source material is declassified US government document. You too could access any of this material, though I understand your commentary already states your reluctance to read.
Chomsky is citing official government documents which admit the things that he's referring to. Big difference between accusations in news articles and open admissions.
@quabot Chomsky can 'quote a few articles' !!!! As if that is some small thing. He has the clearest, most insightful mind alive today and I thank the mother that gave birth to him that he can unravel the obvious obfuscation and conscious-deceit/ignorance peddled by Perle and his impious minions.
Perle is an actual policy maker. It's like when people who have never served in Iraq tell me about what horrible things soldiers are doing there... I was one of them, and I know its not true, even though they sometimes come back and say they SAW horrors there.
Chomsky speaks from the vantage point of an Ivory Tower. He does not know what the boots on the ground are doing.
Chomsky is thus obviously to me the one misinformed.
Even if it's true that you didn't personally see horrible things done by soldiers in Iraq there's plenty of these things documented on video camera. Wikileaks just released one yesterday so your argument is totally invalid.
@quabot Any broad-based historical or current-events perspective is necessarily vicarious in nature. One person cannot experience boots on the ground everywhere. The best that researchers can do is to look for documentation from others & verify facts through comparisons between disparate sources, an error-prone process. No alternative for such an ivory-tower method can be used for aggregation & analysis of widely assembled information.
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
The last of perle's statement was very interesting, he actually made an articulate retort of Chomsky's opinion. And as he was saying what Chomsky actually believes. And it fell in line with all the facts of history, with common sense, with just plain laws of physics.
Funny; I don't recall any talk of physics, nor do I recall Perle making much reference to any facts of history, nor any points supported by them. In fact, as I recall, he came across as an arrogant fool. His principle arguement seems to be that what Chomsky says (and supports with facts and logic) is so outlandish that he just doesn't know how to respond. No substance at all.
romodel actually thinks NAFTA doesn't have any protectionist measures built into it! HAHAHA He probably believes the American economy is a true free market; poor poor ignorant republican
Concerning "the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State" which Chomsky quotes and which Perle says is not so influential. Makes sense. When did George Bush ever followed the State under Colin Powell? I get the feeling throughout, though, that Perle has had little access to classified documents affecting his superiors' decisions in ways he may not recognize. They both have good points.
Chomsky begins by crediting the consistency of US policy on...money ("corporations" & "law firms," etc). Makes sense. "Follow the money." Perle is more like "follow the principles" ("democracy," etc). Power seeks humane priciples as sure as water flows down hill? Perle should call that "bizarre."
The word 'conspiracy' is too loaded. It's become the territory of tinfoil and X-Files, the property of fringe groups and nut-jobs. It's no more a conspiracy than the workings of any other power structure in any other nation. The real decisions take place behind closed doors - 'smoke-filled rooms' - by those who actually exercise power. The public receives the sanitised version. Woodrow Wilson said, 'The business of America is business'. By God, he got that right.
One more thing. Perle kept scoffing at the 'documents'. The fact is they are part of the public record. State Department, with conent' repeatedly stated', often stressed. Nothing conspiratorial here. Or else a conspiracy so inept as to leave a paper trail. I prefer that reading. Tape was Nixon's undoing, remember. Chomsky has gone to huge trouble to research that mass of material, connect the dots, in a staggering job of scholarship. A conspiracy that scholarship can unearth is a flop.
Chomsky is all about the facts and figures -- it's interesting that the conservative guy is so philosophical. Don't republicans accuse liberals of being "skulls full of mush" and not having a clear idea of the way the world really works?
The Reagan administration succeeded in combining some of the worst features of state-run economies, inefficiencies and so on with some of the worst features of private capitalism, its a real acheievement. hahaha, I laughed my ass of when Noam said that.
@bovall is it possible to get this in text?
P2ak47 7 months ago
After losing point after point. Perle reverts to an earlier one that State Dept Records hardly dictate policy and I suppose this is a legitimate argument. He even gains a bit of sympathy when he describes the planning process comprising of people not always with a selfish agenda but prone to mistakes. However policy planners are not ultimately the policy deciders as was so painfully obvious during the Bush Jr Administration
nblumer 1 year ago
economic power elite = more specifically the special interests for JPMorgan/Chase, NMRothschild, ExxonMobil, BP, etc.. In other words, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, their worldwide banking network, corporations and numerous trusts and foundations.
Like Chomsky's work - nothing conspiratorial here, just a bit more detail. ;)
kappy0405 1 year ago
I love this debate. Perle get whooped worse than anyone I've ever seen. At least Buckley thought he was holding his own.
mistermoen 1 year ago
That's it pretty much, I think.. I'd say this model applies to all capitalist democracies generally.. And this is *not* a conspiracy theory. It's just taking a quick look at what kind of economic and political power structures exist and how they relate to each other.. I think there's always going to be a kinda symbiotic relation between Big Business, State and Media (i.e. 'the establishment') in capitalist democracies.. that's just how the system is framed.
Dalambam 2 years ago
- And, lastly, if that's not enough, there's what Chomsky mentioned in passing: occasional direct meetings between representatives of the major corporations and banks and government officials to draw up policy..
Dalambam 2 years ago
You'd expect it to have a systematic bias in favor of what "The Establishment" does. Politicians all have to be effectively vetted by Big Business before they can go into office.
- Direct lobbying in Congress once they're elected. That's the tip of the iceberg, that's sometimes receives some mild media criticism.
Dalambam 2 years ago
- Media: to stand any chance to get elected, you have to receive a positive and extensive media coverage. All the mainstream media,- liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter- is owned by corporations, which are themselves part of bigger conglomerates, and own shares in other corporations, and are tied to banks, and, very important, have to struggle to keep their advertizers (i.e. other corporations) happy etc etc etc. So the media is totally, completely part of "The Establishment".
Dalambam 2 years ago
On the other hand they enthusiastically fund people who will further their interests. (Just look up on google who the 20 biggest contributors to Obama's campaign are.. *All* of them are corporations and private (i.e. corporate funded) universities)
Dalambam 2 years ago
- Funding: the parties and politicians rely on private donations to fund their campaigns. Now, it's easier to get $1,000,000 from one rich sponsor than to get $1 from 1,000,000 individual supporters. That means politicians end up competing (it's part of the free market thing, lol) for the favors of the very wealthy. Now, the rich and powerful aren't completely stupid generally, and they don't fund people who might threaten their interests.
Dalambam 2 years ago
The picture Perle creates of some shadowy secret elite meeting in a smoke filled room is very, very dishonest. IMHO, this is how business control over govt works:
- The business elite directly provides much of the hi level govt personal (e.g. Cheney -> Halliburton; Bush's family owns an oil company (Unocal) and a bank; Rice had a hi level management job in the Bushs' oil firm; Rumsfeld is majority shareholder in a pharmaceutical corporation; and on and on and on)
Dalambam 2 years ago
why did you upload this past part 10 you cant hear
djboony 2 years ago
smujismuj 2 years ago 4
Don't forget Dole fruit. They have one of the more dramatic histories of violence.
TBlake34 2 years ago
And let's not forget Chaquita [formerly united fruit company]
smujismuj 2 years ago
Really we could probably go on for hours, you are correct.
TBlake34 2 years ago
Notice without denying it, Perle creates a picture of the elite all meeting in a room to conjure up a "conspiracy" notion. Chomsky doesn't mention the forum in which policy makers discuss objectives, it's only Perle's way of avoiding the question. Perle's whole stance on this is denialism. It's foolish for any government to not discuss policy objectives; why not strategize? It's not that they do so that's the problem, just that these specific objectives o against self determination.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago 4
Where can I find an audible version of this. The audio is unintelligible.
rooley 2 years ago
Perle started his 'argument' by advocating listeners to adopt a more infrmal view of the haphazard way governemtn operates. 'Ignore Chomsky's use of sources' he said, 'No-one knows what they're doing'.
Now he says the exact opposite, 'It is well thought out, exact precise etc'
mupeteer 3 years ago
oh WILD!!!
And along with the protectionist policy he's complaining of, which parallels Obama trillion dollar democratic spending plan, he also points out that the main support is for Hi-Tech, and then specifically names the COMPUTER market.
Was anybody listening to NPR today when they broadcast the story about Intel investing billions into new technology, and the CEO of Intel was on the phone with Obama last night talking about this new spending bill...
In that sense, Chomsky has a point.
quabot 3 years ago
"... corporations, investment firms, half a dozen law firms that represent primarily corporate interests... "
Refresh my memory here, who were Obama's top contributors?
quabot 3 years ago
obama is an imperial corporate puppet just like his bush and predecessors, but he is a slight improvement because of his progressive domestic positions
jlToolfan 2 years ago
whoa horrible typo D:, i meant to say "just like bush and his predecessors"
jlToolfan 2 years ago
What's really funny is how he complains about government protecting the US economy for big corporations, and here we are, getting this huge protectionist spending package from Obama.
I bet that's a god with feet of clay in Chomsky's eyes...
quabot 3 years ago
..and this is why the right wing and republicans retreat to the idiotic debates over religion, guns, and abortion.. these are all based on beliefs and faith which needs no reasoning. Real world debate on concrete fact is something Republicans could never win.
Lawlow1978 3 years ago 2
Our ideals are based on the idea to "Ideally make more money", so we can buy another Van Gogh, a Castle in Ireland, or a more expensive car or very expensive prostitute.
American Ideals, at the top, in a nut shell.
gjsterp 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky is such a spin doctor with a few facts and vast opinions.
quabot 4 years ago
Actually Chomsky has in his head, a stunningly deep and broad knowledge of politics, culture, and world history, which is always brought to bear in backing up his opinions. Just the opposite of your idiotic and unsupported comment. Typical Chomsky hater; they either resort to cheap insults, pulling opinions out of their asses with no attempt to support them, or they support them with lies (calling Chomsky anti-American, Nazi supporter, self hater, etc). Zero substance in either case.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
I doubt that I am a "typical" Chomsky hater since I made that comment within seconds of hearing him speak here for the first time in my life.
You tell me: After jumping from topic to topic, including the economy of 1940s, the computer industry, Reagonist protectionism, and NASA as a front for the Pentagon, what point did he make?
Other than implying his support for the illuminati conspiracy theory.
I don't hate Chomsky; his spin is entertaining. And yes, his rambling did show broad knowledge.
quabot 3 years ago
Typical only in the sense that your comments are far trom accurate. The "illuminati" comment shows that you've missunderstood his words. If you're interested, judge him on his many excellent books; the worst that can come of that is that you'll learn a ton, even if you don't share his views.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
OK, two questions:
What did I say that is so inaccurate?
And, what point does Chomsky make, if not that he accuses the "US based corporations" of operating on an Illuminati-style model enforcing economic protectionism?
quabot 3 years ago
"Few facts"+"vast opinions". Chomsky's exhaustive research is unparalleled: "many facts, logically laid out" would be more accurate. Again, check out his books, including end notes. "Vast opinions" = nonsense phrase. "Spin doctor": absurdly reductionist, negative term that you presumably use for anyone with strong views. Spin implies distortion, which he does not do; respecting the reader enough to provide reams of research, allowing you to check his conclusions.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago 2
Chomsky made his point better than I can, but it wasn't a conspiracy theory. He does have an "institutional analysis", which some mis-label a "conspiracy theory". Big difference. Obviously corporations pursue their own ends, such as lobbying for favorable legislation. The fact that what favors one, often favors many is obvious and needs no conspiracy. I can't boil down Chomsky's important work in a few words, but your comments would be quite different if you'd read and honestly evaluated it.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, you can't "boil Chomsky's important work down in a few words" and obviously neither can he, so he quotes a few facts from a history book, as I would from Wikipedia nowadays, and used them in his "institutional analysis", which of course is not a conspiracy theory because he doesn't refer to a crime.
But he does imply from his anti-Vietnam War rhetoric that the economy is being artificially protected, obviously a spin from his own Communist mindset.
quabot 3 years ago
Wikipedia; the information source of non-readers and people too lazy to research for themselves. Quabot, Chomsky is famous for his scholarship, for his exhaustive research, and for his logic and lucidity. If you bothered to actually investigate that claim for yourself, you'd feel rather foolish for your silly comments here. Research doesn't mean typing a keyword into wikipedia search. It means you take a look at what scholars have written, and dissect the footnotes. For one thing.
SweetDissident 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Few facts"+"vast opinions" are exactly what he presents here for me to judge him by, and my judgement is "Spin doctor".
That's what I hear speaking here. Perhaps I'm not hearing the real Chomsky?
I have strong views too, but I don't need to use sprinkles of history distorted from reality to back them up, as this non-Chomsky we are listening to here does.
quabot 3 years ago
This seems pretty fruitless. I've suggested a couple times that you try reading what he's written (vastly more illuminating than arguing on youtube). If you think he's a "spin doctor", short on facts (LOL), or "distorted from reality", based on this snippet of a debate, fine. But if Chomsky critiques someone, he's read what they've written, and cites it. You might take a lesson from that, or maybe you'd prefer to continue arguing on youtube. Not me. Best wishes.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago 3
@ quabot: YOU say, "I doubt that I am a "typical" Chomsky hater since I made that comment within seconds of hearing him speak here for the first time in my life." . . . No, typical Chomsky "hater" i.e. one who has never actually read a word he has written.
SweetDissident 2 years ago
A typical hater is prejudiced. My comment because of what I heard the man say. I can judge a comment of his for its individual merit without deference to his smokescreen of volumes of writing, which are obviously full of enough spin to keep the likes of you occupied.
quabot 2 years ago
quabot, you obviously wouldn't know a scholarly source if it fell on your pointy little head. Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. To see what a scholar has written, you have to read these things called "books." At the end of each chapter (in scholarly works) you'll find these things called "notes" or "footnotes." This is where the author/ scholar cites his references. From these, you can see for yourself where the author got his information, and can look into it if you doubt further.
SweetDissident 2 years ago 4
You're losing me by changing the subject to a strawman fallacy on Wikipedia.
Your condescending smokescreen is very similar to Chomsky's. And with good reason.
I still don't need to read his spin to dislike hearing it.
quabot 2 years ago
You are a hopeless non-reader.
SweetDissident 2 years ago 3
Did you go on that rant because of my comment "he quotes a few facts from a history book, as I would from Wikipedia nowadays"?
ROFLMAO!!!!
That's what set you off?
Did I say "According to my trusty Wikipedia"? No.
The point of that is that the books Chomsky quotes from are as authoritative as Wikipedia.
You are KILLIN' me.
hahahahahaha
BTW did you no the 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?
quabot 2 years ago
No, I'm not "set off" in the least, in fact I'm bored of explaining to you that what Chomsky has to say isn't "spin," and just how "gullible" and naive, and ignorant you are for thinking so, and again, you are the quintessential "Chomsky hater," as you refer to yourself. Nothing atypical about your silly rant here. Now go back to your little "Anti-Chomksy Reader," since you have no intention of discovering for yourself what it is that Chomsky actually writes about. *yawn*
SweetDissident 2 years ago 3
@quabot
I fail to understand how making reference to existing historical documents could be described in any way as a 'smokescreen'.
ErrolSaid 1 year ago
@ ErrolSaid
If it's any consolation, so do I.
Quoting an existing authoritative source document is different from referring to a hypothetical document that, if it exists, portrays nothing more than a model or intention and using that as evidence of motivation for a current event .
In Chomsky's case, the smokescreen is the spin job after the reference. He refers to the documents to appear informed, but his opinions themselves are uninformed.
Perle is informed on both model and policy.
quabot 1 year ago
@ quabot
Perle is uninformed and has on numerous occasions throughout this debate stated as much, though only through derisive asides as regards to Prof. Chomsky and his overwhelming knowledge of US foreign policy history.
Chomsky isn't spinning anything, in fact, the vast majority of his source material is declassified US government document. You too could access any of this material, though I understand your commentary already states your reluctance to read.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
How do you guys surmise that I am reluctant to read?
All I said was that I can see through what Chomsky is SAYING HERE.
I am constantly reading the history and policies (especially the military history) of numerous regimes throughout the historical spectrum.
Chomsky can quote a few articles, but he never nails enough details down to make a valid point when he talks about US policy and actions.
I am only judging his speech on THIS video.
I am not judging his writing RIGHT HERE.
quabot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Principally, my reason for believing you're reluctance to read is this quote:
"I still don't need to read his spin to dislike hearing it."
Other reasons include:
your ad hominem attacks on those who oppose your views
your flaccid attempts to malign Chomsky's reason
your dependence on rhetorical devices in argument
and, perhaps most damningly, your belief in the words of Richard Perle.
brandnutopian 1 year ago
Chomsky is citing official government documents which admit the things that he's referring to. Big difference between accusations in news articles and open admissions.
highervis 1 year ago
@quabot Chomsky can 'quote a few articles' !!!! As if that is some small thing. He has the clearest, most insightful mind alive today and I thank the mother that gave birth to him that he can unravel the obvious obfuscation and conscious-deceit/ignorance peddled by Perle and his impious minions.
gavleopardi70 1 year ago
Perle is an actual policy maker. It's like when people who have never served in Iraq tell me about what horrible things soldiers are doing there... I was one of them, and I know its not true, even though they sometimes come back and say they SAW horrors there.
Chomsky speaks from the vantage point of an Ivory Tower. He does not know what the boots on the ground are doing.
Chomsky is thus obviously to me the one misinformed.
quabot 1 year ago
Even if it's true that you didn't personally see horrible things done by soldiers in Iraq there's plenty of these things documented on video camera. Wikileaks just released one yesterday so your argument is totally invalid.
highervis 1 year ago
@quabot Any broad-based historical or current-events perspective is necessarily vicarious in nature. One person cannot experience boots on the ground everywhere. The best that researchers can do is to look for documentation from others & verify facts through comparisons between disparate sources, an error-prone process. No alternative for such an ivory-tower method can be used for aggregation & analysis of widely assembled information.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
No he just reads the quotes and they admit that exactly what he's arguing is true. There's no spin.
highervis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noam Chomsky is a Propagandist. He has the right to be one. He has three very prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (would-be dictator)
2. Fidel Castro. (Communist dictator)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (Al-Qaeda fanatic)
Yesterday's failures: Trotskyites.
Today's new-and-improved failures: Chomskyites!
tharnax 4 years ago
Hey! tharnax! Aren't you the guy who wrote on one of the videos in this series that you "never (unlike Chomsky) repeat" yourself?
You've copied and pasted these exact same comments on every video in this series!
Repetition is one form of propaganda!
You hypocrite asshole!!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahaha!
bapyou 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
tharnax 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
tharnax 4 years ago
The last of perle's statement was very interesting, he actually made an articulate retort of Chomsky's opinion. And as he was saying what Chomsky actually believes. And it fell in line with all the facts of history, with common sense, with just plain laws of physics.
concerrned123 4 years ago
Funny; I don't recall any talk of physics, nor do I recall Perle making much reference to any facts of history, nor any points supported by them. In fact, as I recall, he came across as an arrogant fool. His principle arguement seems to be that what Chomsky says (and supports with facts and logic) is so outlandish that he just doesn't know how to respond. No substance at all.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
romodel actually thinks NAFTA doesn't have any protectionist measures built into it! HAHAHA He probably believes the American economy is a true free market; poor poor ignorant republican
irishprick86 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
protectionism, like the NAFTA deal signed shortly after these lectures. goddamn Chomsky...
romodel 4 years ago
did you see what happened with NAFTA in Mexico?
ALLCAPS5 4 years ago 9
Looks like you and I are racking the hate points in, romodel.
Must be a grip of Chomsky cult followers here...
quabot 2 years ago
Concerning "the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State" which Chomsky quotes and which Perle says is not so influential. Makes sense. When did George Bush ever followed the State under Colin Powell? I get the feeling throughout, though, that Perle has had little access to classified documents affecting his superiors' decisions in ways he may not recognize. They both have good points.
tommienogo 4 years ago
Chomsky begins by crediting the consistency of US policy on...money ("corporations" & "law firms," etc). Makes sense. "Follow the money." Perle is more like "follow the principles" ("democracy," etc). Power seeks humane priciples as sure as water flows down hill? Perle should call that "bizarre."
tommienogo 4 years ago
Is Chomsky, in his document backed statements, implying an American world conspiracy ???
fruglescot 4 years ago
The word 'conspiracy' is too loaded. It's become the territory of tinfoil and X-Files, the property of fringe groups and nut-jobs. It's no more a conspiracy than the workings of any other power structure in any other nation. The real decisions take place behind closed doors - 'smoke-filled rooms' - by those who actually exercise power. The public receives the sanitised version. Woodrow Wilson said, 'The business of America is business'. By God, he got that right.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago 5
One more thing. Perle kept scoffing at the 'documents'. The fact is they are part of the public record. State Department, with conent' repeatedly stated', often stressed. Nothing conspiratorial here. Or else a conspiracy so inept as to leave a paper trail. I prefer that reading. Tape was Nixon's undoing, remember. Chomsky has gone to huge trouble to research that mass of material, connect the dots, in a staggering job of scholarship. A conspiracy that scholarship can unearth is a flop.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago 13
Comment removed
highervis 1 year ago
Chomsky is all about the facts and figures -- it's interesting that the conservative guy is so philosophical. Don't republicans accuse liberals of being "skulls full of mush" and not having a clear idea of the way the world really works?
Farsay 4 years ago 6
The Reagan administration succeeded in combining some of the worst features of state-run economies, inefficiencies and so on with some of the worst features of private capitalism, its a real acheievement. hahaha, I laughed my ass of when Noam said that.
UncleJalapeno84 4 years ago 2