anybody asked themselves how come the zionist jews in israel are pale skinned and long nosed? while the ppl around that area are dark skinned? how do they convince ppl that THEY MAREK from poland og zbigniew from ukraine in fact originate from that area that borders africa? what idiot would belive that these khazars actually are decendants of abraham pbup. was he a plae skinned polish kid? THEY ARE FAKE JEWS, converts! stupid ppl dont see that. even tho its obvious.little marek and zbigniew yeah
Lastly, if you read his books, he has a lot of positive things to say about the United States and its citizens, just not a whole lot to say in favour of its ruling class, government or foreign policy. Also, as stated in Manufacturing Consent, your responsibility as a citizen of any country is first to criticise /your/ country's negative actions, because those are the ones you have some responsibility for. So he doesn't criticise the US because he hates it, quite the opposite.
@CommieCassie So you are saying that despite all the videos on youtube and elsewhere of Chomsky, the only way I can hear him say anything positive about the USA is to go search through
@CommieCassie one of his books? That's the only way? Like I said, despite all the videos of him, if that's the only way, then he doesn't have many positive things to say about the USA
@CommieCassie And I suggest he move somewhere else. I don't agree with him that the first thing you should do is criticize your country. That is ridiculous. You should love your country
@CommieCassie You love your wife or husband right? So do you criticise them first? Or any other family member? I love my country, and I am proud to say that.
@kuhnmartin You have it completely backwards! If you love someone (say a child) you hold that child to a higher standard than others. You don't enable that child and turn a blind eye to their misgivings! Same as if you own a business. If you run an honest ethical company you don't allow unethical behavior and you should be pointing out every problem you see. I love my country but when I see it heading down a destructive path I will NOT be silent! When good men say nothing they cease to be good!
@kreteman777 I am not saying be silent, where did you get that idea? I am just asking why this guy can't say anything good about the USA? All he has to say are negative things about it. He sounds so hateful. You wouldn't sound like you loved your child so much if you kept putting them down now would you? If you had not one nice thing to say about them? Of course that's how it would sound and you would never do that to your child, but Chomsky does it to his country.
@kuhnmartin You have to understand where he is coming from. He is honest person in a sea of liars and people who will NEVER criticize the U.S. for fear of being labeled a traitor! He has been asked many times what he likes about the U.S. and has listed many things but he has dedicated his life to exposing the other side of the story, which needs to be told because our so-called media ignores these things. What he is doing is what our msm journalists should be doing. If not him then who?
@kuhnmartin Now in the age of the internet people can news that they could not get from the corporate whore media outlets. There are now many real sources for news online and not a bunch of propaganda and cheerleading. I for one don't want things sugarcoated and hidden from me. I want the TRUTH!
@kreteman777 The truth is fine, I have no problem with that. Let me see if I can explain it differently. I work in Santa Ana sometimes and for my job I have to go into people'e houses. Many houses in Santa Ana have a huge Mexican flag in front, but no American flag even though they live here. That is so insulting. If you love Mexico so much, go back. Get out of here. I don't mind them putting up a Mexican flag as long as they have an American flag next to it. Without it, it is a
@kuhnmartin You think people Americans who take issue with their countries policies should move?! Putting up a Mexican flag has NOTHING to do with criticizing our governments policies. That analogy holds NO water. Anyway. What about people who put up a rebel flag, do they hate America? Or do they just have a different view of what we are all about? Your blurring the lines between people who love America and want to change policies with people who just hate America period! I
@kreteman777 You obviously didn't understand what I meant regarding the flag. When I see a Mexican flag without an American flag next to it, that is a slap in the face. Very insulting. It's an emotion, not government policies. When I hear Chomsky put down this country over and over I feel the same way because he truly hates America. Again, do you agree with his comparison or not?
@kuhnmartin As for his comparison. No i don't totally agree. Yet there is truth to the fact that presidents under the constitution are SUPPOSED to be limited in their executive powers. Not to the extent of just being a figure head like the queen but I see where he is going with it. Although over the past hundred years or so congress has been inept in allowing the executive branch to obtain to much power through executive orders and unconstitutional signing statements.
@kuhnmartin Again though. Everything he said about are system of special interests and crony-capitalism is true. No one in the media until very recently (because of Ron Paul) even mentioned the term crony capitalism even though everyone knows this is the form of government we live under. Whether you think he is too negative or an apologist shouldn't prevent you from acknowledging that any free society needs people who are not afraid to dissent from the power structures in place.
@kuhnmartin As for emotion, I think that may be your achilles heal. I love my country and as such I hate to see it being ran into the ground! If I didn't love my country I wouldn't care. If your spouse is an alcoholic and you love them do you not want to change their drinking habit? Emotion gets in the way of action. I'm not saying you dislike your country but burying your head in the sand and ignoring our huge problems can't be solved by singing the star spangled banner!
@kreteman777 Well, then if that is the case, where do we go from here? How does it change? Is any president capable of bringing real change? I kind of doubt it. Obama didn't. I don't think any Republican candidate will either. I mean, what is the answer? I do agree with much of what you say, you, personally, and a little of what Chomsky says, not much. I agree, the country is going down the shitter. I am currently reading, "Suicide of a Superpower" by Pat Buchanan. Very interesting
@kuhnmartin That's awesome! Love Pat and love his honesty. That is the next book on my list. It's just too bad the main stream media has blacklisted him the same way they try to blacklist Ron Paul. I'm no conspiracy theorist but there are some shady things happening in this country and understanding what Pat and others are trying to say is a good step towards change. Like you said, 1 man can't do it but like Ron Paul says, " A movement whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or gov..
@kuhnmartin Change comes from us. Changing the hearts and minds of the people is the only way because the government really is a reflection of it's people. It's inevitable that we will get change, the only question is how much pain do we suffer before the people wake up and do something about it.
@kreteman777 read so far. I agree though, this country is going down the crapper, partly the governments fault, partly our own, and it has been happening over several decades. What is the answer to bring it back around? There is too much greed on everyone's part. Even those Occupy Protesters are greedy, they wanted something for nothing. A lot of rich people worked hard for what they have. I don't know if there is any going back, unless we start from scratch, and we can't really do
@kreteman777 that. As far as my emotion, yes, it does show sometimes, sometimes not. The Mexican flag thing without the American flag INFURIATES me when I see that. But there are other things that I can debate calmly about. The Mexican flag without the American flag is a slap in my face everytime I see it. I also don't ignore the problems, I am very aware of them. I just don't like the way Chomsky goes about his rhetoric, it really does sound hateful. He just sounds anti-American.
@kuhnmartin The Mexican flag thing would piss me off too. But I'm curious as to who you think Chomsky is being hateful towards? Like I said his anti-free market theories are dreadful and his foreign policy positions are very critical but hateful? Maybe your just a more cheerful person than I am? lol. To me the criticism he presents is something I try to learn from. I personally don't need to be told how great this country is because I already know it's great compared to other nations.
@kuhnmartin My goal is to educate myself about the problems that need fixing. Knowledge is the most important tool we have if we are ever going to make a difference. But changing things will be hard when the cards are stacked against us. I do believe what we are doing right now gives us a fighting chance even though they are trying their best to pass laws to censor us.
@kreteman777 And I only say that because he never seems to say anything nice about this country. It is very hard to stomach and listen to someone who sounds so incredibly negative.
@kreteman777 huge slap in the face. It's very insulting. I feel the same way about this guy. Every time he opens his mouth it is something negative about this country we live in. That pisses me off. Now, if he said, "Well I really like the way the USA handled such and such, however I don't like such and such and blah blah blah," then I would be able to tolerate him. But so much distaste flies from his lips every time he speaks. Who wants to listen to someone who is so negative?
@kuhnmartin Where's your distaste for people who turn a blind eye and play as if American only does good? There are 100 times more cheerleaders than there are critics. I find good in America and I find bad. When I see the bad I sure as hell am going to point it out! Your criticism of him is almost juvenile. You THINK he should be more pleasant towards America but if he was just another apologist and there were no dissenting voices we would be no different from any communist nation.
@kreteman777 By the way, he is an apologist without actually apologizing. He wants the whole world to know about all the harm he thinks this country has brought to them, all the evil, all the corruption. He IS an apologist.
@kreteman777 And what makes you think this guy has the truth anyways? What makes him a journalist? I don't see him out there on the front lines getting the story. It's easy for him to point fingers from his safe spot behind a podium on a college campus. What makes you think this guy knows more than anyone else? Again, he compared the position of the President to that of the Queen of England. Why on God's green earth would you want to listen to someone like that? Someone so ignorant?
Hes a distinguished professor at MIT, and hes an objective reporter of current events, thats why you can believe what he says, that and the fact thats its the opposite of what the mainstream media says. Hes unbiased and only points to the logical conclusions that the U.S. media refuses to share with the American people. Youre questioning his credibility? Youre the ignorant one.
@jesscutiehott Like I said, he's a journalist on the front lines right? He is getting the story directly at the source like other journalists do, right? No, he is not. He sits at his desk or podium, very comfortably, making observations which any of us can do, and spewing his hatred of this country, and don't tell me he loves this country because if he did, he would from time to time say something good about it. He's an objective reporter of current events? What newpapers publish
@jesscutiehott his day to day reports? What newspapers does he have a syndication with? What tv or radio stations carry his objective reports? Please, do tell.
@jesscutiehott I am an objective reporter of current events, as are you and millions of others, so you better define what you mean because that really is nothing all that different or special that the average man who is aware of current events cannot do. Like I said, newspapers, radio, tv, magazines, who does he have a syndication with?
@kuhnmartin You bring up 1 comparison he made that you disagree with and now he isn't telling the truth? What about the hundreds of other topics he speaks about? I dare you to name 1 person, whether it's an author or a professor that you agree with all the time? I disagree with completely with Chomskys socialistic views and many other views but any man that seeks truth has to be able to listen from people they disagree with. Your never going to know it all and someone always knows more than you
@kreteman777 Exactly. I know what you know but you don't know what I know. I am able to listen to people I disagree with, hence why I am here. I disagree with most of what he says, not all, but most. I don't think people who take issues with their countries policies should move, just people like Chomsky who can't find any good in this country. I have issues with certain policies yet I am still able to say something positive about this country. He is unable, not without adding a
@kreteman777 negative comment to it. My point about his comparison is that it is so absurd that why would you want to listen to anything else he has to say? He is so far out in left field. He is an ideologue. If you don't agree with his socialist view points, then why bother listening to him? That's a huge topic and a lot of his beliefs are based upon that. Why not listen to someone who is a little more practical. Do you agree with his comparison?
Nobody cares about OBL's lack of trial for his sake, it's the principle of the thing. All people should be given fair legal hearing.
Saying that the US President serves primarily as a figurehead isn't untrue, really. they're primarily a figurehead for their party and by extension for the ruling class that supplies the party's money and power.
@CommieCassie Of all the people in the world, I couldn't care less if OBL had a fair trial. I can't hardly use the word "fair" and the name "Osama Bin Laden" in the same sentence, how can you? Was it fair almost 3000 of our people were butchered one September morning? You believe OBL should be treated fairly? FAIRLY? That's disgusting. He's just a hair above your average criminal, don't you think?
Of course he could highlight the crimes of others, - but again, if ones critique does not have any affect, it has no moral value whatsoever. Chomsky is simply being a responsible citizen of his country.
@Luziao How about every so often he can mention something good the United States has done for the world, so he doesn't sound like such a self-hating American. We have done some good for this
@Luziao world contrary to his opinion. All I ever hear this guy do is bad mouth America. He has nothing good to say. If he doesn't like it here, get the fuck out.
Furthermore, the US is the most powerful state in the world, which by definition means its also the most violent. Just as Britain was the most violent state in the world during its peak. And finally, the reason why Chomsky mostly highlights US crimes are very simple. He is merely doing what any morally sane and responsible person would do, ie. he is opposing issues that he actually can affect.
Chomsky does not hate America. He constantly repeats how the US is the most free country in the world and so on. But there are some crucial facts to acknowledge, if one is to make any sense of his critique. The fact that one state is democratic internally, does not mean it will pursue democratic values externally. This has, historically, always bin the case.
@kuhnmartin, you blathering fool. You are but a puer, an overemotional pollywog, a cretin. Was you mother unable to afford the abortion? You must know, it is not to late to commit suicide. We'll just call it "LATE term abortion."
Your words bore me, for I am the pretentious KING of pseudo-intellectual snobs on these threads, Buckley and Chomsky, and my gay companions.
I haven't had sex in decades (except with my dildo). My hemorrhoids are making even THAT source of pleasure rare
LOL does anyone believe we would have invaded Iraq if their main export was pickles and lettuce? Yes, Noam. They're called republicans. You know -- the fascist faction of the ruling party.
This gentleman also said Khmer Rouge was no threat (even after the genocide they perpetraded in Cambodja). He says nowadays Iran is no threat (even though the very president of the country prays to destroy Israel and other infidels). What a smooth voice to convince people ! Wise professor MY ASS.
@driliveira The president of Iran has never uttered a word about destroying isreal, maybe if you could discern the difference between propaganda and facts you would be more open to Chomsky's ideas. Also when has he ever said the Khmer rouge is no threat ?
@fallenempireoverdrve The President of Iran would love to have Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Do you deny that? Chomsky hates America. He finds fault with anything we have ever done. Maybe he should move to another country if he finds so much distaste here. Thank God he is not in power. Our country would be taken over in a day with him in office. How you guys can think this man's ideas are great are way beyond me. He is a self-hating American.
@billdoesjudo Maybe so, but I don't hear him say much good about the US, only the harm we have caused around the world. He doesn't seem to acknowledge any of the good that we have done. And his comments about how the US soldiers who killed OBL not only killed him, but assassinated him, murdered him. He was an unarmed defensless individual. Those comments make me despise this man. He has so much sympathy for OBL but I doubt any for the 3000 people that died on 9-11.
@kuhnmartin Oh come on there is nothing to suggest he cares more about people who aren't American. I get the impression that - as an American - he sees a better way for America, and sees a lot of ignorance among Americans about what their country really is and really does. He criticised the Bin Laden assassination because if America followed through with the oft-stated ideals he would have gone through due political process - something which no doubt would have made Chomsky proud.
@billdoesjudo You really care about OSL getting to sit through a fair trial? That's one guy on this planet I don't care about at all. And if we had caught him, the Muslim extremists would have gone berserk and stepped up way more bombings and more kidnappings insisting we release him as well. Those SEALS did the right, the just thing. I can't believe that you actually care whether OBL of all people gets a fair trial.
@kuhnmartin You are too much of coward to stand up for the principle of due process and trial in the face of the threat of violence or you don't care for those principles when it does not suit you (a lá Guantanamo Bay). You are being pedantic about his statement, if it is genuine, about the US president and the queen of England - Chomsky would never have meant that literally, only a fool arguing on technicalities would argue as such.
@billdoesjudo You and CommieCassie seem to be on the same side but have a completely different viewpoint. You think Chomsky would never have meant that literally, when it's very clear he does mean it literally, and CommieCassie believes that Presidents are largely figureheads for their party an not much else. I believe you two should debate this issue. Same side, different view points. That's interesting. Much confusion on that side.
@billdoesjudo Let me ask you, if he did mean it literally, would that change your opinion of him and his political views, or are you married to an ideology?
@billdoesjudo Speaking of ignorance, Chomsky actually compared the position of the President of the United States to that of the Queen of England, that they are both just figure heads
@driliveira You have no excuse to be this ignorant nowadays. You must be an agent of the evil entity demonizing anybody that speaks against the agenda of the NWO. Go away
o fuckin what if it's about control, economy and oil. Chosky is a dipshit who staes the obvious and dresses up as some reason for his vague but twisted ideology. It wouldn't matter what the US and rest of the west did Chosky would sneer at it. The thing he doesn't do though is live the life of the ones's he trupets for. Just a dangerous old fart with no productive bone in his body. A total flea brain king of the kids.
Vague and twisted ideology... well, then you're either a complete idiot or a deluded man. It's neither vague, nor twisted and I would stand far from saying it's an ideology.
It's very obvious what he states and there's nothing vague or twisted in it. Basically, any structure of social organization which grants power to a few people unaccountable actors will see their interests supersede that of those bellow... you have to be dumb not to see that.
And, unlike Chomsky, you're not providing a reliable basis for criticizing: you're just making empty, totally unsubstantiated statements and think the one who's being idiotic here is the professor who does provide diversified and solid sources...
The reason Chomsky is displeased with the East is the actions they take against freedom and human well-being. He's displeased at almost every country at every time because of that.
But even more than the contradiction between their rhetoric and their actions, what he's pissed off about is that they turn good people like you into moronic arbitrary deluded supporters of an unlawful, immoral and profoundly inhumane system that works so damn well you're now here praising your lords because they enchained you and your mind.
He's not just making up statements like that in front of his desk to piss you off: he's not O'Reilly, he uses facts.
Next time you criticize someone, begin by understanding the argument in the first place. And, before you ever come close to saying it: saying someone is biased isn't enough; it needs to be an unsustainable assertion, an arbitrary stance... if it's backed up by a profound and valid analysis, it's not a bias. A bias is about assuming a position beforehand and reading only the data which confirms your statements. Chomsky doesn't do that which is why he's considered a scientist.
I think you didn't get the idea at all... the point behind what he writes is precisely that it's not a conspiracy, not a series of individuals; it's a structural problem.
@KrugmanTheKing Dress it up any way you like. The nett result is the same. Chomsky can't handle complexity and his gross oversimplifications lead him to ridiculous conclusions. He whinges and moans because nobody listens to his pseudo answers. He is the structural problem here, no one else is.
Those are again rants... I'm still waiting for some substance to back up your criticism. Besides, he's purposefully trying to make it as vulgar and accessible as he can. It's not because you might hear an expert try to speak and writes in a way that is convenient to you that you're actually capable of comparable intellectual feats. And, actually, he's not the one who's oversimplifying.
@KrugmanTheKing It's not about convenience to me. It's about relevance and common sense, neither of which Chomsky demonstrates. He drones on stringing random thoughts together to fit his petty US hatred based paranoid world view and show the immature members of his audience his fraudulent know-all foolery. I agree with you though that he is very vulgar.
Will you post anything else than totally non demonstrated and biased judgments? You CLAIM that Chomsky is irrelevant, that he lacks common sense, that he makes up things to justify his hatred...
You're the one who's doing that presently. You know, he uses that little blind-sided thing scientists used that's called FACTS and you use the very objective standard of the I am right and you are wrong... and then you have the pretentiousness to say he's wrong?
Babbling doesn't turn lies into facts, so you'll have to come up with a series of things wherein Chomsky was first wrong -- but not only wrong because you're not pretending he's making a mistake, you're saying he's biased -- and in a second time not using reliable sources to found his judgement.
If you find one -- even just a single instance -- like that, you'll be lucky. I personally took the time to verify his claims about Smith, Lincoln, Tocqueville, Humbodlt and they're all true.
All what he explained about people on the right misusing classical liberalism, that's confirmed and very well documented... I went through it, the statements are there, same reasoning, same ideas. The mainstream opinion on those thinkers is totally made up -- I thought he was wrong, but no.
I didn't read his books, but as a person who thinks Chomsky is wrong, you have to unless you are yourself guilty of being biased. So, do the same. Pick up the arguments he make.
Anyway, they're simplistic, as you say, so it would be surprising that such a superior mind as yours fails to understand the logical structure of an argument. Take a few of them. Ask yourself if the premises do entail the conclusion -- that's all internal criticism, it's about self-consistency.
If that's ok, he's not using logical fallacies. So, maybe his sources are wrong. Look up at the end and see if it's reliable.
If it is reliable -- and I have no hesitation telling you it is because he's so often quoted in scholarly articles he's barely bellow Marx --, then maybe he left out details that he should have considered.
But, you see, his entire stuff he does is about exactly that: the stuff that's left out unobserved. You'll have hell of a hard time finding relevant details he didn't mention and, if you do, you'll probably confirm what he has to say.
I can't condone every statement he made because I do lack the expertise, but I can certainly say that the framework which he uses is much more relevant, much more sensible and much closer reality than whatever might come out of someone who bothers typing down his opinion without any proof, without any basis and goes on to say that it's the other one who is biased... that kind of person is either deluded or stupid, but certainly not right.
@KrugmanTheKing Your petulant nonsense serves only to compound the ignoramus Chomsky. His dreary monotone adventures do nothing other than reaffirm his outdated Marxist anarchism which buckles under authority, cowering and kowtowing to his conspiracy driven power illusions like the dog he is. His activism is only a facade to his total intellectual inadequacy. I don't need any other reference material other than his tacky video presence and voice. He damns himself.
Again, a long rant that only proves that you are biased and that you have nothing to hold against him, except that "you disagree and so he must be wrong" -- but that's not an argument, that's stupidity.
Also, Marxism isn't about authority; read Marx, it's about the total opposite of this: workers control of the production in a classless stateless society -- that's being against power, not in favor of it. To give you an example, your assertion is a fact that proves you misunderstand it
Secondly, Chomsky is a Libertarian socialist -- he'd probably disagree with Marx in certain details.
Thirdly, you are making an other unsubstantiated assertion in saying that it's outdated when it first never really took place and, secondly, you cannot evaluate a position without understanding which you have done a good job of disproving: indeed, you don't understand it, so you cannot criticize it.
Fourthly, you accuse him of having a power driven agenda, again without support.
We can probably see at least three or four logical fallacies in that paragraph, to name the few ad hominen and how you tried to poke at a straw-man when you said Marxism was oriented toward authority.
After review and consideration and the repeated attempts at discrediting Chosmky -- as well as my replies -- without any other basis than your disagreement, I can now say without some substance that you are biased and that your ideas are useless.
Remain caught in your homeland of circular reasoning and irrational opposition; continue to think that you are right without anything to back it up; continue to criticize scholars on the basis of your disagreement and without bothering to first listen to what they say...
You'll end up being a wonderfully deluded man who thinks of himself as being very smart, but which rather cannot articulate a single sensible analysis because of your lack of interaction with others.
Either you provide substance to your assertions or go play somewhere else; you're being pointless here. There's absolutely no point in saying you disagree with someone, but never saying why -- and claiming those ideas are nonsensical to you isn't a good reason; you also have to demonstrate that they are nonsensical if you claim them to be so.
If you are so convinced you're right, do the thing properly: if you're wrong, you'll learn something; if you're right, you'll teach something.
@KrugmanTheKing I'll go where and when I like and say what I like. Chomsky has taught you very badly unless of course you believe the dictatorship of his moribund self serving hypocrisy is something to admire especially since you only seem capable of playing with yourself, an action which has blinded you to Chomsky's bankrupt ideals.
I never said that you had to do anything under threat of repression... I said that you were being potentially harmful and certainly wasting an opportunity to learn instead of making blind-sided claims -- normally, I don't say that, but in your case I do have about one comment page to prove that it's the case, so I can. On the other hand, you're still saying stupid things and making worthless claims, resorting to logical fallacies, one after the other.
@KrugmanTheKing Of course you are repressive. Just like the fatuous Chomsky your delusions of grandeur attempt to stifle fair criticism and correction. No amount of pompous arrogance will save you from the paranoid mire you share with your defunct professor Noam Trotsky.
@KrugmanTheKing If you think the drivel that you and Chomsky propogate are anything more than intellectual pomposity and arrogance then I can only conclude your delusions have now become a psychosis. Seek treatment immediately. Like Chomsky you've lost touch with reality.
@KrugmanTheKing The pathetic monstrosity of anarchic despotism as espoused by you and Chomsky is just tired rhetoric designed to cater for the professors king-of-the-kids followers whose only purpose is to destroy society so he can rebuild it in his own distorted and malevolent paradigm which places him at the head of the table. Just manipulating reality to gain all power for yourselves. Chomsky, just another failed dictator, an exercise in impotent megalomania, a Ghaddafi without a tent!
@arktiro I have never read such tripe, do you actually know what you are writing? One failing of the internet is that it does not filter out stupidity.
@KrugmanTheKing I have little disagreement with Chomsky here. Please explain to me how US efforts to dominate middle east oil is bad for me? As far as I can tell this action benefits me and my children well into the future. Americans should realize that morality has little to do with geopolitical action. Self interest reigns supreme and I want to insure that my government works in the best interest of my country and my family. His attempt to show that US works for elites only is lacking.
You missed the point. The idea of a power structure is for people at the top to coordinate gestures and influence decisions so that they suit their own interests at the expenses of others. Self-interest in that structure means interest of those above.
In the US, the average median income in real term has fallen for most of the last 30 or so years (before the 2008 crisis, it was bellow its 1999 level). That's the 50% line and it moved backward.
However, real GDP increased a lot during that same period, so it means that the majority of the population didn't benefit AT ALL of the gains in production... they lost something and it went to the top. To answer your question upfront, you're in a loosing bet.
That's the direct answer. To answer your question about morality, I will tell you that it's actually all that matters actually. The current political institutions and the economic organizations
(cont.) are inherently flawed. The idea at the beginning was that free and naturally good people would tend, in the pursuit of their self-interest, yield public benefits. And the problem is there: they're not free. If you are subordinated to other people, so are your interests in the decision process: you become a tool.
But this also means some voices are heard louder than others and that's really a problem when you'd have to deal with
(cont.) social, economic -- in fact, human -- issues. The reason it is so important is because this situation is unsustainable: you will sacrifice the environment, millions of lives, destroy hopes, families, exploit and abuse of people... and be the cause for wars and conflicts until there is nothing left to own, let alone share at all and no one left to order or being ordered.
It's simply standing everything that is valuable in human nature, it cannot be desirable.
@KrugmanTheKing While your position is morallly admirable it is also a pie in the sky ideology ignoring history, human nature and the geopolitical realites that currently exist. Morality does not, has not and never will exist in the geopolitical theater as it goes against human nature. Your ideology is based on the belief that man is a noble creature. While man is capable of some levels of nobility especially at the individual level, historically he is not especially when viewed in groups.
@KrugmanTheKing Your ideology leads to globalism which does not benefit me or mine. I live in the 3rd world, I see the suffering of mankind daily, I do not wish to join them. What will happen to the western world if all of the worlds resources are distributed evenly amongst the worlds people? The decline of western standards while the poor and disenfranchised see little benefit. In a resource hungry world you prepose a redistribution of wealth and power. To whom? You emphasize the importance of
@KrugmanTheKing morality. Whose morality? Morality is subjective and ultimately a construct of the prevailing society which surrounds it. I.E. in Afghanistan a woman who does not wear the burkha is considered immoral. Should we adopt this morality? War is the common state of man, it is not an abberation. When demand for available resources exceeds the supply war is the inevitable result. It serves as a pressure relief and reallignment of interests. Immoral as it is, war serves a historic purpose
@KrugmanTheKing I do not support war, I simply accept it as a historic and ultimately unavoidable reality. This being the case I ask you again how does Chomskys' position further my interests as an American? It does not.
The very social structures which enable control over other people are also responsible for suppressing your freedom. I'll say it even more simply: the problem is too much power in the hands of too few people. You're paying for that as well, although it is more marginal.
If that still doesn't awake you, I have an other reason: America is profoundly hated around the globe specifically because of that kind of foreign policy.
When you set military bases around the globe, coordinate international organizations to impose unsustainable economic measures to foreign countries, spend decades overthrowing democratically elected governments to suit your interests and impose your conditions on struggling people, you're giving a damn good reason to desperate people to use desperate measures to harm you.
What's the cause of 9-11? American Foreign policy.
Putnam made a very good study on a thing called social capital which basically is the aggregate of social interactions in a given community or other. He confirmed what Tocqueville explained: that one of the most important condition for democracy to work is a strong civic society.
Putnam showed that as social capital increased, virtually all imaginable social problems decreased and economic growth increased... social structures are very boldly the problem.
To my sense it's very clear, you have two options: either you support freedom on the ground that people tend to pursue well-being or you reject it on the ground that the masses are too stupid or incompetent or whatever -- same for international affairs.
Do I need to remind you that the second position was that put forward by Lenin to justify deviating from Marx's anarchist vision; it was the justification fascism gave when they talked about an enlightened leader...
It was used to justify slavery, advocate the temporary rule of metropoles over their former colonies when they de-colonized, to sustain a political elite in democratic governments as early as in England -- John Locke famously maintained that people had to be kept out of the political arena by deluding them for their own good; etc.
Each time, it ended up with more or less extended infringement on the integrity of human beings, at home and abroad.
And, now, Americans make the same declaration, hold the same position, institute their political, social and economic structures around the few and the privileged.
You think they'll make it better this time around? Better than everyone before them while doing the exact same thing? No, they won't. The reason is simple: only free people can participate to society fruitfully without people to be repressed.
If there's something true and bold in human history, it's this.
Of course, there might still be problems around, but I can ensure you that they will be less important in number and quality. Make people freer, it's as straightforward as that.
@KrugmanTheKing So your answer is that I, my family and my country will benefit because people will like us more? I avoid moral arguement when it comes to geopolitical discussions precisely because sooner or later the hypocrisy of the moral arguement becomes apparent. When the US is criticized for its' hypocritical foreign policy I am forced to admit the flaw. The US also (in cases where self interest is served) promotes freedom while on the other hand it will also ignore the misdeeds of
Americans do not at all promote freedom... it promotes the interests of its owning class. I am sure that you made this judgment in all awareness that the US repeatedly overthrown democratically elected governments in its history, armed forces that threatened world peace and democratic movements, imposed trade deals that were certain to be devastating to the local institutions... they are ENEMIES of freedom. They hate it because it would force them to be accountable.
@KrugmanTheKing tyrants and autocrats. You seem to extoll the virtues of Stalinism which while adopted as a philosophy for the revolution rapidly degrades into something much worse. Have you not learned that man is INCAPABLE of acting in the interests of the greater good? Most of the world is wondering whether they will eat today or not. People will be free under a strong central social construct which will care for me from cradle to grave? What if I don't want to be cared for? What happens
I never said that men were going to suddenly act in the interests of others for the sake of generosity, but you are poking at a straw man... and you do it because you don't know what is freedom and what I am saying.
If you want to know it, all power structures should be democratically and locally controlled. It's not State control, it's people's control. Centralized power is what I criticized and it's not what will yield a solution.
@KrugmanTheKing to me if I disagree with your glorious social construct? What if I am anti social? Will your free society eliminate me as an abberation? I have seen the type of freedom you espouse in action and I want none of it. You have proven my point in that your ideals do not benefit me, my family or my country. I understand you are an idealist but idealists are better suited to the arts than the geopolitical arena.
I am not an idealist; I am in fact a materialist. And the issues I see rely onto a scientific analysis of the social dynamics, their relation to institutions and of the evolution of the ideas, as well as their context, through out history.
And I didn't prove your point because you can't even follow the ideas I laid down... and the empirical proof lies here in that last post of yours. The type of thing I advocate never existed on a large scale.
But before you again resort to fallacies, I will tell you why. Because each time it was about to happen, someone got up and told the tale of the happy slave. It takes different forms every time, but it always revolve around:
People are too dumb or ignorant to rule themselves; they are dangerous if we don't organize them and they risk to harm one another. So, we, benevolent masters, will get to rule them for their greater good.
Well, that's the problem. All imaginable issues you might have in mind within your country as well as abroad are cause by this tale and by the fact people follow it.
When I say that you either get equality and freedom or you loose both, that's also true for you. The very same order which allows the foreign policies you back up -- you are a good boy, so you always say what they want you to say -- harm you personally in your homeland.
If you don't see that, if you can't understand that, you should bother reading maybe a bit before forming an opinion because you're currently only reciting what you're told to say and you can't even integrate comments in your discussion.
@KrugmanTheKing No one can accuse you of being inarticulate in your opinions. However for someone who is making the point that "the people are too dumb or ignorent to rule themselves" as a fallicy, you have rapidly degraded your arguement too that I who has an opinion opposite to yours is "to dumb or to ignorent to form an opinion". You suggest that I must do a bit more reading before before forming an opinion. Tell me how do you reconcile the two statements as I am obviously not well read
@KrugmanTheKing enough to form an opinion? Again you make my case. You argue that people should not be ruled by an intellectual elite and then you attempt to silence me by questioning my intelligence. You cite scientific analysis of social dynamics. Which societies? Are they homogenous societies or multi cultural? Do they address divisions at religious, racial, regional, national or tribal levels? Like I said sir, I do not question your nobility of purpose but I take exception to your pseudo
I suggested you to read because you didn't seem to understand when I was exposing the point -- I didn't say "believe me because I am knowledgeable."
Secondly, the studies social dynamics... I am referring mostly to Tocqueville and his more contemporary counterpart which revolves around the concept of social capital -- Putnam put this forward in the early 90's and he made his case by comparing States in the US.
What Putnam showed was that when you tend more toward what Tocqueville called an associative dynamic (that's when people organize freely which in that case means outside of public and economic institutions), then various problems like crimes, racism, violence and poverty decline while economic growth and other sort of beneficial parameter increase.
Social capital is basically the aggregate of interactions: the whole of human relationships, if you prefer.
Actually, you'd have to get out certain types of relationships, but it's basically that.
What Tocqueville said, basically, was that if people don't participate, don't form a strong body, a strong civic society -- that's being active, speaking, participating in events and organization -- it would lead to a form of division: people would become isolate, individualist, apathetic (that's cynical toward the regime), they would turn toward consumption and material gains, etc.
If that happens, Tocqueville explains, then, it might be possible for decisions to not take into account the interests of certain people, even in a democratic state and, toward that minority, the regime would be despotic, tyrannic. That's the tyranny of the mass: the surrender of your politic right to govern by contempt and a lack of participation.
This applies in any society at any time. If people remain isolated, they loose their freedom.
As Putnam correctly showed, it means that several social problems come out of such a situation; many people have their needs not addressed and they typically do not react in a humanly desirable manner.
The argument I tried to bring forward -- and yes, I do see that it can be somewhat complicated that it might come off as almost elitist -- is that encouraging that system perpetuate problems that concern you as much as other people.
If you want the most simplistic version I can find of it, there are many problems in our society -- we could even speak of a global society, but simply include international issues. You can deal with them two ways. One is to go forward with the patch-work job: you punish more harshly, you send more people in jail, you wage wars and hit harder. That's the patch-work. Or, you can cut the problems at their very root and change the way we do things.
The philosophers and political scientists I referred to handed us a common and pretty clear conclusion: the system is the problem.
The only reason I do try to champion the weak is because I can... if I didn't, I wouldn't respect myself. If you were to actually observe Lenin, if we believe Chomsky, he begun by being a Statist, then an Anarchist and finally came back to his old habits -- we have good reasons to believe he just appealed to the crowd so he could get support.
@KrugmanTheKing longer (at a least I try, its a hard habit to break) take a moral stance and believe that political pragmatism is whats best for the United States and thus best for me. The US global role now is as a global policeman, (no one likes the cop on the beat). Should we remove ourselves from this position voluntarily we will create a large power vacuum, which will be filled by regional hegemons operating in their best interests. It was once said that "If the United States did not exist
@KrugmanTheKing the world would need to invent it". The UN is an attempt to replace US hegemony, it is structurally flawed and has proven itself in numerous peacekeeping missions inadequate. If the US is to withdrawl from it's global hegemonic position it would need to be replaced by a stronger and more effective UN force. Thus establishing the dreaded world government. I doubt anyone really wants this to happen.
So, I will disagree with Chavez here: my job isn't to look obscure and smart, it's to find a way to make the idea understandable. I'd rather do as Socrates said, educate people without ever myself being a politician.
@KrugmanTheKing I am not a social scientist so to argue this topic with you on an intellectual level clearly leaves me at a disadvantage. A quick wikipedia read of Tocquevilles' background and beliefs, show the man to be a product of the french revolution (not a good start) who was distrusted by both the political left and the political right. He supported colonization of Algeria and while an abolitionist he was clearly a segregationist. (Not uncommon amongst ablolitionists of the period). His
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
@KrugmanTheKing opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
@KrugmanTheKing opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
@KrugmanTheKing opinions. I have seen children turned into assasins in the name of social justice. Can you blame me for cringing at the term? I belief in a llimited social safety net. Tocqueville noted that poverty is the motivation to grow rich... I agree. Thus those screaming for equality (economic primarily) are destructive to the nation as a whole. On the larger geopolitical stage while I admire those that take a moral stance, the immorality of man almost always becomes apparent. Thus I no
"Tocqueville noted that poverty is the motivation to grow rich" No, he didn't. Here's what he actually thought:
"I have shown how democracy favors the growth of manufactures and increases without limit the numbers of the manufacturing classes; we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
The whole point is actually that you can't have freedom without people to stand on the same ground hierarchically speaking.
That point Tocqueville noted in the second book of Democracy in America, second section, chapter XX which unsurprisingly bear the title "how an aristocracy may be created by manufactures."
If you even want to know, Adam Smith actually agrees with Tocqueville in saying that this sort of economic organization belittle workers -- he says it turns men into creatures as ignorant and stupid as they can get.
And, following this, I never said that I was only looking at the end of the game. Between here and then, we must always judge of our steps and progressively transform those things into a better system -- that's pragmatism, in fact; you're not observing it if you just maintain the status quo because that situation is ultimately bound to be problematic.
Further, I am not speaking merely of social justice: I am saying that without equal consideration, freedom doesn't exist.
Taking the moral stance is inevitable... because you're in the end judging of what's preferable and what's not. To my sense, it's a choice between freedom the reassuring guidance of the few and the answer should always be freedom. The way to do it should always be to minimize infringements and, as you get out of your office of leader, making sure history won't be able to repeat itself.
Begin with trade treaties and give back some weight to worker unions.
@KrugmanTheKing We view morality differently. I view morality as a social construct which in the view of social mores allows one to make a determination between right and wrong. To make a judgement between what is best for you or your nation versus what is not, falls within the category of pragmatism. Clearly in ones life personal morality is not only desirable but imperative. In the geopolitical arena too many people both good and bad on both sides will die in the immoral but necessary social
@KrugmanTheKing exercise which is war. It is the common state of mankind and unlikely to change. If I believed that man was capable of behaving morally as I understand morality to be, I could never have spent a lifetime in military service. Those who die on both sides represent both the moral and immoral. Your assertion that this can be changed (correct me if I misunderstand you) is too idealistic for me to accept. You said you are a materialist. How do you propose to achieve materialist goals
@KrugmanTheKing on a planet of 7 billion people and counting? The basic resources of food, fuel and shelter are in short supply. Mankind is largely ignorant and uneducated, unable to see past the need to supply their next meal. The social, economic, cultural and political elements required for the next violent global spasm exist today and I see little that will bring about its change. The most common man with little experience in the world senses the danger of our times. You suggest we begin
@KrugmanTheKing with trade treaties? The US believe it or not has a relatively well educated workforce capable of high levels of productivity. Even with this advantage we can not compete with nations paying slave wages and access to cheaper energy. (we could probably compete with lower wages or cheaper energy but not both). Empowering unions in a non union world is detrimental to global competitiveness. Either we unionize globally or we shouldn't unionize at all. Given a partially level playing
@KrugmanTheKing field the US would again become an industrial giant. (Note that this creates resentment which again leads to conflict). Our greatest advantages today are the control of international trade routes of which trans pacific and trans atlantic are the most important (OWS protesters tried to shut down port of oakland, clearly someone knew what they were doing). North American dominance of grain markets and significant levels of untouched natural resources. Protected by a military that
@KrugmanTheKing is the envy of the world. (a little self serving here). China has just imposed additional tariffs on GM products entering the country. Where I live now if we import from the US the tarriff is 120%. The US imposes very little in the way of protectionist trade policies but if things continue in their current form a trade war is imminent. Trade wars are frequently the precursor to real wars. Trade treaties don't look very likely in the face of global protectionism.
Being a materialist refers to the primacy of matter over mind -- I basically contend that social behaviors, as well as ideas, culture and political institutions are material phenomenons inherent to a certain economic system. That's the comment I made from the beginning: humans behave the way they do because of the economic organization and changes proceed accordingly to what the superstructure allows -- in short, society tends to reproduce itself.
As for morality, I do not adopt a relativist position at all because it is by necessity reducible to nihilism or else it remain self-contradictory, both of which are unsustainable. I think of moral judgments as an evaluation of options in the pursuit of well-being; clearly some tend in that direction, others don't. Of course, many people call themselves moral, but all moral claims are reducible to this objective: a mistake would then amount to a contradiction between means
and purpose. When you make a political judgement, you are judging about what would constitute the best social organization for the decision process or else how to best approach a favorable social condition: it's intrinsically ethical to my sense.
It might appear as if we argue semantics here, but the little distinction is important. Bringing everything back to human well-being is the detail I have in mind.
Freedom better accomplishes that than anything else -- it's apparently that anything else brought some of the worst conditions and situations into reality.
As for your reply, thinking of it as too idealist... well, it's hard to answer. Let's say that I think we will either move toward that and share what we do have or else there will be nothing left to steal, rob or defend, no more than people to do those things.
It's either that or it's the end of humanity as I see it.
But it has to begin at the bottom... it can't be the government out of their own initiative starting to try to solve those issues -- the whole argument is specifically that it's not in the interests of the few and the privileged, so they won't do it unless there is a social basis for it. It has to be people forming movements and bringing their demands forward as a community.
But in any case, there's no valid reason to sustain the current social conditions.
anybody asked themselves how come the zionist jews in israel are pale skinned and long nosed? while the ppl around that area are dark skinned? how do they convince ppl that THEY MAREK from poland og zbigniew from ukraine in fact originate from that area that borders africa? what idiot would belive that these khazars actually are decendants of abraham pbup. was he a plae skinned polish kid? THEY ARE FAKE JEWS, converts! stupid ppl dont see that. even tho its obvious.little marek and zbigniew yeah
amisab 2 days ago in playlist Chomsky Shows Israel's History ISN'T as Mass Media Claims
He who controls the spice, controls the universe.
Redfingers 2 days ago in playlist Chomsky Shows Israel's History ISN'T as Mass Media Claims
@kuhnmartin
Lastly, if you read his books, he has a lot of positive things to say about the United States and its citizens, just not a whole lot to say in favour of its ruling class, government or foreign policy. Also, as stated in Manufacturing Consent, your responsibility as a citizen of any country is first to criticise /your/ country's negative actions, because those are the ones you have some responsibility for. So he doesn't criticise the US because he hates it, quite the opposite.
CommieCassie 4 days ago
@CommieCassie So you are saying that despite all the videos on youtube and elsewhere of Chomsky, the only way I can hear him say anything positive about the USA is to go search through
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@CommieCassie one of his books? That's the only way? Like I said, despite all the videos of him, if that's the only way, then he doesn't have many positive things to say about the USA
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@CommieCassie And I suggest he move somewhere else. I don't agree with him that the first thing you should do is criticize your country. That is ridiculous. You should love your country
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@CommieCassie You love your wife or husband right? So do you criticise them first? Or any other family member? I love my country, and I am proud to say that.
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@kuhnmartin You have it completely backwards! If you love someone (say a child) you hold that child to a higher standard than others. You don't enable that child and turn a blind eye to their misgivings! Same as if you own a business. If you run an honest ethical company you don't allow unethical behavior and you should be pointing out every problem you see. I love my country but when I see it heading down a destructive path I will NOT be silent! When good men say nothing they cease to be good!
kreteman777 2 days ago in playlist Chomsky Shows Israel's History ISN'T as Mass Media Claims
@kreteman777 I am not saying be silent, where did you get that idea? I am just asking why this guy can't say anything good about the USA? All he has to say are negative things about it. He sounds so hateful. You wouldn't sound like you loved your child so much if you kept putting them down now would you? If you had not one nice thing to say about them? Of course that's how it would sound and you would never do that to your child, but Chomsky does it to his country.
kuhnmartin 2 days ago
@kuhnmartin You have to understand where he is coming from. He is honest person in a sea of liars and people who will NEVER criticize the U.S. for fear of being labeled a traitor! He has been asked many times what he likes about the U.S. and has listed many things but he has dedicated his life to exposing the other side of the story, which needs to be told because our so-called media ignores these things. What he is doing is what our msm journalists should be doing. If not him then who?
kreteman777 2 days ago
@kuhnmartin Now in the age of the internet people can news that they could not get from the corporate whore media outlets. There are now many real sources for news online and not a bunch of propaganda and cheerleading. I for one don't want things sugarcoated and hidden from me. I want the TRUTH!
kreteman777 2 days ago
@kreteman777 The truth is fine, I have no problem with that. Let me see if I can explain it differently. I work in Santa Ana sometimes and for my job I have to go into people'e houses. Many houses in Santa Ana have a huge Mexican flag in front, but no American flag even though they live here. That is so insulting. If you love Mexico so much, go back. Get out of here. I don't mind them putting up a Mexican flag as long as they have an American flag next to it. Without it, it is a
kuhnmartin 2 days ago
@kuhnmartin You think people Americans who take issue with their countries policies should move?! Putting up a Mexican flag has NOTHING to do with criticizing our governments policies. That analogy holds NO water. Anyway. What about people who put up a rebel flag, do they hate America? Or do they just have a different view of what we are all about? Your blurring the lines between people who love America and want to change policies with people who just hate America period! I
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kreteman777 You obviously didn't understand what I meant regarding the flag. When I see a Mexican flag without an American flag next to it, that is a slap in the face. Very insulting. It's an emotion, not government policies. When I hear Chomsky put down this country over and over I feel the same way because he truly hates America. Again, do you agree with his comparison or not?
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@kuhnmartin As for his comparison. No i don't totally agree. Yet there is truth to the fact that presidents under the constitution are SUPPOSED to be limited in their executive powers. Not to the extent of just being a figure head like the queen but I see where he is going with it. Although over the past hundred years or so congress has been inept in allowing the executive branch to obtain to much power through executive orders and unconstitutional signing statements.
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kuhnmartin Again though. Everything he said about are system of special interests and crony-capitalism is true. No one in the media until very recently (because of Ron Paul) even mentioned the term crony capitalism even though everyone knows this is the form of government we live under. Whether you think he is too negative or an apologist shouldn't prevent you from acknowledging that any free society needs people who are not afraid to dissent from the power structures in place.
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kuhnmartin As for emotion, I think that may be your achilles heal. I love my country and as such I hate to see it being ran into the ground! If I didn't love my country I wouldn't care. If your spouse is an alcoholic and you love them do you not want to change their drinking habit? Emotion gets in the way of action. I'm not saying you dislike your country but burying your head in the sand and ignoring our huge problems can't be solved by singing the star spangled banner!
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kreteman777 Well, then if that is the case, where do we go from here? How does it change? Is any president capable of bringing real change? I kind of doubt it. Obama didn't. I don't think any Republican candidate will either. I mean, what is the answer? I do agree with much of what you say, you, personally, and a little of what Chomsky says, not much. I agree, the country is going down the shitter. I am currently reading, "Suicide of a Superpower" by Pat Buchanan. Very interesting
kuhnmartin 23 hours ago
@kuhnmartin That's awesome! Love Pat and love his honesty. That is the next book on my list. It's just too bad the main stream media has blacklisted him the same way they try to blacklist Ron Paul. I'm no conspiracy theorist but there are some shady things happening in this country and understanding what Pat and others are trying to say is a good step towards change. Like you said, 1 man can't do it but like Ron Paul says, " A movement whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or gov..
kreteman777 21 hours ago
@kuhnmartin Change comes from us. Changing the hearts and minds of the people is the only way because the government really is a reflection of it's people. It's inevitable that we will get change, the only question is how much pain do we suffer before the people wake up and do something about it.
kreteman777 21 hours ago
@kreteman777 read so far. I agree though, this country is going down the crapper, partly the governments fault, partly our own, and it has been happening over several decades. What is the answer to bring it back around? There is too much greed on everyone's part. Even those Occupy Protesters are greedy, they wanted something for nothing. A lot of rich people worked hard for what they have. I don't know if there is any going back, unless we start from scratch, and we can't really do
kuhnmartin 23 hours ago
@kreteman777 that. As far as my emotion, yes, it does show sometimes, sometimes not. The Mexican flag thing without the American flag INFURIATES me when I see that. But there are other things that I can debate calmly about. The Mexican flag without the American flag is a slap in my face everytime I see it. I also don't ignore the problems, I am very aware of them. I just don't like the way Chomsky goes about his rhetoric, it really does sound hateful. He just sounds anti-American.
kuhnmartin 23 hours ago
@kuhnmartin The Mexican flag thing would piss me off too. But I'm curious as to who you think Chomsky is being hateful towards? Like I said his anti-free market theories are dreadful and his foreign policy positions are very critical but hateful? Maybe your just a more cheerful person than I am? lol. To me the criticism he presents is something I try to learn from. I personally don't need to be told how great this country is because I already know it's great compared to other nations.
kreteman777 21 hours ago
@kuhnmartin My goal is to educate myself about the problems that need fixing. Knowledge is the most important tool we have if we are ever going to make a difference. But changing things will be hard when the cards are stacked against us. I do believe what we are doing right now gives us a fighting chance even though they are trying their best to pass laws to censor us.
kreteman777 21 hours ago
@kreteman777 Well, I guess only time will tell what will happen. Although I still don't care for Chomsky's rhetoric.
kuhnmartin 12 hours ago
@kreteman777 And I only say that because he never seems to say anything nice about this country. It is very hard to stomach and listen to someone who sounds so incredibly negative.
kuhnmartin 23 hours ago
@kreteman777 huge slap in the face. It's very insulting. I feel the same way about this guy. Every time he opens his mouth it is something negative about this country we live in. That pisses me off. Now, if he said, "Well I really like the way the USA handled such and such, however I don't like such and such and blah blah blah," then I would be able to tolerate him. But so much distaste flies from his lips every time he speaks. Who wants to listen to someone who is so negative?
kuhnmartin 2 days ago
@kuhnmartin Where's your distaste for people who turn a blind eye and play as if American only does good? There are 100 times more cheerleaders than there are critics. I find good in America and I find bad. When I see the bad I sure as hell am going to point it out! Your criticism of him is almost juvenile. You THINK he should be more pleasant towards America but if he was just another apologist and there were no dissenting voices we would be no different from any communist nation.
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kreteman777 By the way, he is an apologist without actually apologizing. He wants the whole world to know about all the harm he thinks this country has brought to them, all the evil, all the corruption. He IS an apologist.
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@kreteman777 And what makes you think this guy has the truth anyways? What makes him a journalist? I don't see him out there on the front lines getting the story. It's easy for him to point fingers from his safe spot behind a podium on a college campus. What makes you think this guy knows more than anyone else? Again, he compared the position of the President to that of the Queen of England. Why on God's green earth would you want to listen to someone like that? Someone so ignorant?
kuhnmartin 2 days ago
@kuhnmartin
Hes a distinguished professor at MIT, and hes an objective reporter of current events, thats why you can believe what he says, that and the fact thats its the opposite of what the mainstream media says. Hes unbiased and only points to the logical conclusions that the U.S. media refuses to share with the American people. Youre questioning his credibility? Youre the ignorant one.
jesscutiehott 1 day ago in playlist Chomsky Propaganda Model Internet
@jesscutiehott Like I said, he's a journalist on the front lines right? He is getting the story directly at the source like other journalists do, right? No, he is not. He sits at his desk or podium, very comfortably, making observations which any of us can do, and spewing his hatred of this country, and don't tell me he loves this country because if he did, he would from time to time say something good about it. He's an objective reporter of current events? What newpapers publish
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@jesscutiehott his day to day reports? What newspapers does he have a syndication with? What tv or radio stations carry his objective reports? Please, do tell.
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@jesscutiehott I am an objective reporter of current events, as are you and millions of others, so you better define what you mean because that really is nothing all that different or special that the average man who is aware of current events cannot do. Like I said, newspapers, radio, tv, magazines, who does he have a syndication with?
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@kuhnmartin You bring up 1 comparison he made that you disagree with and now he isn't telling the truth? What about the hundreds of other topics he speaks about? I dare you to name 1 person, whether it's an author or a professor that you agree with all the time? I disagree with completely with Chomskys socialistic views and many other views but any man that seeks truth has to be able to listen from people they disagree with. Your never going to know it all and someone always knows more than you
kreteman777 1 day ago
@kreteman777 Exactly. I know what you know but you don't know what I know. I am able to listen to people I disagree with, hence why I am here. I disagree with most of what he says, not all, but most. I don't think people who take issues with their countries policies should move, just people like Chomsky who can't find any good in this country. I have issues with certain policies yet I am still able to say something positive about this country. He is unable, not without adding a
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@kreteman777 negative comment to it. My point about his comparison is that it is so absurd that why would you want to listen to anything else he has to say? He is so far out in left field. He is an ideologue. If you don't agree with his socialist view points, then why bother listening to him? That's a huge topic and a lot of his beliefs are based upon that. Why not listen to someone who is a little more practical. Do you agree with his comparison?
kuhnmartin 1 day ago
@kuhnmartin
Nobody cares about OBL's lack of trial for his sake, it's the principle of the thing. All people should be given fair legal hearing.
Saying that the US President serves primarily as a figurehead isn't untrue, really. they're primarily a figurehead for their party and by extension for the ruling class that supplies the party's money and power.
CommieCassie 4 days ago
@CommieCassie Of all the people in the world, I couldn't care less if OBL had a fair trial. I can't hardly use the word "fair" and the name "Osama Bin Laden" in the same sentence, how can you? Was it fair almost 3000 of our people were butchered one September morning? You believe OBL should be treated fairly? FAIRLY? That's disgusting. He's just a hair above your average criminal, don't you think?
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
well the Japs DID have it coming.
rickster348 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The roads of war mongering lead back to the ethnic supremacists in Tel Aviv. Like that racist Netanyahu psychopath.
OrthodoxDarwinist 1 week ago
Of course he could highlight the crimes of others, - but again, if ones critique does not have any affect, it has no moral value whatsoever. Chomsky is simply being a responsible citizen of his country.
Luziao 1 week ago
@Luziao How about every so often he can mention something good the United States has done for the world, so he doesn't sound like such a self-hating American. We have done some good for this
kuhnmartin 6 days ago
@Luziao world contrary to his opinion. All I ever hear this guy do is bad mouth America. He has nothing good to say. If he doesn't like it here, get the fuck out.
kuhnmartin 6 days ago
Furthermore, the US is the most powerful state in the world, which by definition means its also the most violent. Just as Britain was the most violent state in the world during its peak. And finally, the reason why Chomsky mostly highlights US crimes are very simple. He is merely doing what any morally sane and responsible person would do, ie. he is opposing issues that he actually can affect.
Luziao 1 week ago
Chomsky does not hate America. He constantly repeats how the US is the most free country in the world and so on. But there are some crucial facts to acknowledge, if one is to make any sense of his critique. The fact that one state is democratic internally, does not mean it will pursue democratic values externally. This has, historically, always bin the case.
Luziao 1 week ago
@Luziao America isn't all that democratic. internally anyway.
billdoesjudo 1 week ago
@billdoesjudo
Agree, but at least formally speaking.
Luziao 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kuhnmartin, you blathering fool. You are but a puer, an overemotional pollywog, a cretin. Was you mother unable to afford the abortion? You must know, it is not to late to commit suicide. We'll just call it "LATE term abortion."
Your words bore me, for I am the pretentious KING of pseudo-intellectual snobs on these threads, Buckley and Chomsky, and my gay companions.
I haven't had sex in decades (except with my dildo). My hemorrhoids are making even THAT source of pleasure rare
TempIarLeonem 1 week ago
The volume was too low and I missed 90 percent of what he said
fgleich 1 week ago
LOL does anyone believe we would have invaded Iraq if their main export was pickles and lettuce? Yes, Noam. They're called republicans. You know -- the fascist faction of the ruling party.
GreggTheEgg 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Correction: Ahminabenijad
TemplarLeonem 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wrong. President Ameninenijad has stated precisely that.
TemplarLeonem 1 week ago
This gentleman also said Khmer Rouge was no threat (even after the genocide they perpetraded in Cambodja). He says nowadays Iran is no threat (even though the very president of the country prays to destroy Israel and other infidels). What a smooth voice to convince people ! Wise professor MY ASS.
driliveira 2 weeks ago
@driliveira The president of Iran has never uttered a word about destroying isreal, maybe if you could discern the difference between propaganda and facts you would be more open to Chomsky's ideas. Also when has he ever said the Khmer rouge is no threat ?
fallenempireoverdrve 1 week ago
@fallenempireoverdrve The President of Iran would love to have Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Do you deny that? Chomsky hates America. He finds fault with anything we have ever done. Maybe he should move to another country if he finds so much distaste here. Thank God he is not in power. Our country would be taken over in a day with him in office. How you guys can think this man's ideas are great are way beyond me. He is a self-hating American.
kuhnmartin 1 week ago
@kuhnmartin He probably just loves human rights and respects human life rather than hating America.
billdoesjudo 1 week ago
@billdoesjudo Maybe so, but I don't hear him say much good about the US, only the harm we have caused around the world. He doesn't seem to acknowledge any of the good that we have done. And his comments about how the US soldiers who killed OBL not only killed him, but assassinated him, murdered him. He was an unarmed defensless individual. Those comments make me despise this man. He has so much sympathy for OBL but I doubt any for the 3000 people that died on 9-11.
kuhnmartin 1 week ago
@kuhnmartin Oh come on there is nothing to suggest he cares more about people who aren't American. I get the impression that - as an American - he sees a better way for America, and sees a lot of ignorance among Americans about what their country really is and really does. He criticised the Bin Laden assassination because if America followed through with the oft-stated ideals he would have gone through due political process - something which no doubt would have made Chomsky proud.
billdoesjudo 1 week ago
@billdoesjudo You really care about OSL getting to sit through a fair trial? That's one guy on this planet I don't care about at all. And if we had caught him, the Muslim extremists would have gone berserk and stepped up way more bombings and more kidnappings insisting we release him as well. Those SEALS did the right, the just thing. I can't believe that you actually care whether OBL of all people gets a fair trial.
kuhnmartin 6 days ago
@kuhnmartin You are too much of coward to stand up for the principle of due process and trial in the face of the threat of violence or you don't care for those principles when it does not suit you (a lá Guantanamo Bay). You are being pedantic about his statement, if it is genuine, about the US president and the queen of England - Chomsky would never have meant that literally, only a fool arguing on technicalities would argue as such.
billdoesjudo 4 days ago
@billdoesjudo You and CommieCassie seem to be on the same side but have a completely different viewpoint. You think Chomsky would never have meant that literally, when it's very clear he does mean it literally, and CommieCassie believes that Presidents are largely figureheads for their party an not much else. I believe you two should debate this issue. Same side, different view points. That's interesting. Much confusion on that side.
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@billdoesjudo Let me ask you, if he did mean it literally, would that change your opinion of him and his political views, or are you married to an ideology?
kuhnmartin 4 days ago
@billdoesjudo Speaking of ignorance, Chomsky actually compared the position of the President of the United States to that of the Queen of England, that they are both just figure heads
kuhnmartin 6 days ago
@billdoesjudo and nothing more. Can you actually support a statement like that? Who is the ignorant one here? It's Chomsky.
kuhnmartin 6 days ago
@driliveira You have no excuse to be this ignorant nowadays. You must be an agent of the evil entity demonizing anybody that speaks against the agenda of the NWO. Go away
papapetad 1 week ago
o fuckin what if it's about control, economy and oil. Chosky is a dipshit who staes the obvious and dresses up as some reason for his vague but twisted ideology. It wouldn't matter what the US and rest of the west did Chosky would sneer at it. The thing he doesn't do though is live the life of the ones's he trupets for. Just a dangerous old fart with no productive bone in his body. A total flea brain king of the kids.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
Vague and twisted ideology... well, then you're either a complete idiot or a deluded man. It's neither vague, nor twisted and I would stand far from saying it's an ideology.
It's very obvious what he states and there's nothing vague or twisted in it. Basically, any structure of social organization which grants power to a few people unaccountable actors will see their interests supersede that of those bellow... you have to be dumb not to see that.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
And, unlike Chomsky, you're not providing a reliable basis for criticizing: you're just making empty, totally unsubstantiated statements and think the one who's being idiotic here is the professor who does provide diversified and solid sources...
The reason Chomsky is displeased with the East is the actions they take against freedom and human well-being. He's displeased at almost every country at every time because of that.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
But even more than the contradiction between their rhetoric and their actions, what he's pissed off about is that they turn good people like you into moronic arbitrary deluded supporters of an unlawful, immoral and profoundly inhumane system that works so damn well you're now here praising your lords because they enchained you and your mind.
He's not just making up statements like that in front of his desk to piss you off: he's not O'Reilly, he uses facts.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Next time you criticize someone, begin by understanding the argument in the first place. And, before you ever come close to saying it: saying someone is biased isn't enough; it needs to be an unsustainable assertion, an arbitrary stance... if it's backed up by a profound and valid analysis, it's not a bias. A bias is about assuming a position beforehand and reading only the data which confirms your statements. Chomsky doesn't do that which is why he's considered a scientist.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I think you protest too much. Chomsky and Pilger make a pigeon pair of conspiracy theorising boredom.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
I think you didn't get the idea at all... the point behind what he writes is precisely that it's not a conspiracy, not a series of individuals; it's a structural problem.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Dress it up any way you like. The nett result is the same. Chomsky can't handle complexity and his gross oversimplifications lead him to ridiculous conclusions. He whinges and moans because nobody listens to his pseudo answers. He is the structural problem here, no one else is.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
Those are again rants... I'm still waiting for some substance to back up your criticism. Besides, he's purposefully trying to make it as vulgar and accessible as he can. It's not because you might hear an expert try to speak and writes in a way that is convenient to you that you're actually capable of comparable intellectual feats. And, actually, he's not the one who's oversimplifying.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing It's not about convenience to me. It's about relevance and common sense, neither of which Chomsky demonstrates. He drones on stringing random thoughts together to fit his petty US hatred based paranoid world view and show the immature members of his audience his fraudulent know-all foolery. I agree with you though that he is very vulgar.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
Will you post anything else than totally non demonstrated and biased judgments? You CLAIM that Chomsky is irrelevant, that he lacks common sense, that he makes up things to justify his hatred...
You're the one who's doing that presently. You know, he uses that little blind-sided thing scientists used that's called FACTS and you use the very objective standard of the I am right and you are wrong... and then you have the pretentiousness to say he's wrong?
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Babbling doesn't turn lies into facts, so you'll have to come up with a series of things wherein Chomsky was first wrong -- but not only wrong because you're not pretending he's making a mistake, you're saying he's biased -- and in a second time not using reliable sources to found his judgement.
If you find one -- even just a single instance -- like that, you'll be lucky. I personally took the time to verify his claims about Smith, Lincoln, Tocqueville, Humbodlt and they're all true.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
All what he explained about people on the right misusing classical liberalism, that's confirmed and very well documented... I went through it, the statements are there, same reasoning, same ideas. The mainstream opinion on those thinkers is totally made up -- I thought he was wrong, but no.
I didn't read his books, but as a person who thinks Chomsky is wrong, you have to unless you are yourself guilty of being biased. So, do the same. Pick up the arguments he make.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Anyway, they're simplistic, as you say, so it would be surprising that such a superior mind as yours fails to understand the logical structure of an argument. Take a few of them. Ask yourself if the premises do entail the conclusion -- that's all internal criticism, it's about self-consistency.
If that's ok, he's not using logical fallacies. So, maybe his sources are wrong. Look up at the end and see if it's reliable.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
If it is reliable -- and I have no hesitation telling you it is because he's so often quoted in scholarly articles he's barely bellow Marx --, then maybe he left out details that he should have considered.
But, you see, his entire stuff he does is about exactly that: the stuff that's left out unobserved. You'll have hell of a hard time finding relevant details he didn't mention and, if you do, you'll probably confirm what he has to say.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
I can't condone every statement he made because I do lack the expertise, but I can certainly say that the framework which he uses is much more relevant, much more sensible and much closer reality than whatever might come out of someone who bothers typing down his opinion without any proof, without any basis and goes on to say that it's the other one who is biased... that kind of person is either deluded or stupid, but certainly not right.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Your petulant nonsense serves only to compound the ignoramus Chomsky. His dreary monotone adventures do nothing other than reaffirm his outdated Marxist anarchism which buckles under authority, cowering and kowtowing to his conspiracy driven power illusions like the dog he is. His activism is only a facade to his total intellectual inadequacy. I don't need any other reference material other than his tacky video presence and voice. He damns himself.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
Again, a long rant that only proves that you are biased and that you have nothing to hold against him, except that "you disagree and so he must be wrong" -- but that's not an argument, that's stupidity.
Also, Marxism isn't about authority; read Marx, it's about the total opposite of this: workers control of the production in a classless stateless society -- that's being against power, not in favor of it. To give you an example, your assertion is a fact that proves you misunderstand it
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Secondly, Chomsky is a Libertarian socialist -- he'd probably disagree with Marx in certain details.
Thirdly, you are making an other unsubstantiated assertion in saying that it's outdated when it first never really took place and, secondly, you cannot evaluate a position without understanding which you have done a good job of disproving: indeed, you don't understand it, so you cannot criticize it.
Fourthly, you accuse him of having a power driven agenda, again without support.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
We can probably see at least three or four logical fallacies in that paragraph, to name the few ad hominen and how you tried to poke at a straw-man when you said Marxism was oriented toward authority.
After review and consideration and the repeated attempts at discrediting Chosmky -- as well as my replies -- without any other basis than your disagreement, I can now say without some substance that you are biased and that your ideas are useless.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Remain caught in your homeland of circular reasoning and irrational opposition; continue to think that you are right without anything to back it up; continue to criticize scholars on the basis of your disagreement and without bothering to first listen to what they say...
You'll end up being a wonderfully deluded man who thinks of himself as being very smart, but which rather cannot articulate a single sensible analysis because of your lack of interaction with others.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@arktiro
Either you provide substance to your assertions or go play somewhere else; you're being pointless here. There's absolutely no point in saying you disagree with someone, but never saying why -- and claiming those ideas are nonsensical to you isn't a good reason; you also have to demonstrate that they are nonsensical if you claim them to be so.
If you are so convinced you're right, do the thing properly: if you're wrong, you'll learn something; if you're right, you'll teach something.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I'll go where and when I like and say what I like. Chomsky has taught you very badly unless of course you believe the dictatorship of his moribund self serving hypocrisy is something to admire especially since you only seem capable of playing with yourself, an action which has blinded you to Chomsky's bankrupt ideals.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
I never said that you had to do anything under threat of repression... I said that you were being potentially harmful and certainly wasting an opportunity to learn instead of making blind-sided claims -- normally, I don't say that, but in your case I do have about one comment page to prove that it's the case, so I can. On the other hand, you're still saying stupid things and making worthless claims, resorting to logical fallacies, one after the other.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Of course you are repressive. Just like the fatuous Chomsky your delusions of grandeur attempt to stifle fair criticism and correction. No amount of pompous arrogance will save you from the paranoid mire you share with your defunct professor Noam Trotsky.
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro
Arrogance? I am not assuming my personal opinion based on a gut feel is better than a scientific analysis, but it's what you however are doing.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing If you think the drivel that you and Chomsky propogate are anything more than intellectual pomposity and arrogance then I can only conclude your delusions have now become a psychosis. Seek treatment immediately. Like Chomsky you've lost touch with reality.
arktiro 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing The pathetic monstrosity of anarchic despotism as espoused by you and Chomsky is just tired rhetoric designed to cater for the professors king-of-the-kids followers whose only purpose is to destroy society so he can rebuild it in his own distorted and malevolent paradigm which places him at the head of the table. Just manipulating reality to gain all power for yourselves. Chomsky, just another failed dictator, an exercise in impotent megalomania, a Ghaddafi without a tent!
arktiro 1 month ago
@arktiro I have never read such tripe, do you actually know what you are writing? One failing of the internet is that it does not filter out stupidity.
quinariuscoin 1 month ago
@quinariuscoin And that is supposed to mean what?
arktiro 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I have little disagreement with Chomsky here. Please explain to me how US efforts to dominate middle east oil is bad for me? As far as I can tell this action benefits me and my children well into the future. Americans should realize that morality has little to do with geopolitical action. Self interest reigns supreme and I want to insure that my government works in the best interest of my country and my family. His attempt to show that US works for elites only is lacking.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
You missed the point. The idea of a power structure is for people at the top to coordinate gestures and influence decisions so that they suit their own interests at the expenses of others. Self-interest in that structure means interest of those above.
In the US, the average median income in real term has fallen for most of the last 30 or so years (before the 2008 crisis, it was bellow its 1999 level). That's the 50% line and it moved backward.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
However, real GDP increased a lot during that same period, so it means that the majority of the population didn't benefit AT ALL of the gains in production... they lost something and it went to the top. To answer your question upfront, you're in a loosing bet.
That's the direct answer. To answer your question about morality, I will tell you that it's actually all that matters actually. The current political institutions and the economic organizations
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
(cont.) are inherently flawed. The idea at the beginning was that free and naturally good people would tend, in the pursuit of their self-interest, yield public benefits. And the problem is there: they're not free. If you are subordinated to other people, so are your interests in the decision process: you become a tool.
But this also means some voices are heard louder than others and that's really a problem when you'd have to deal with
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
(cont.) social, economic -- in fact, human -- issues. The reason it is so important is because this situation is unsustainable: you will sacrifice the environment, millions of lives, destroy hopes, families, exploit and abuse of people... and be the cause for wars and conflicts until there is nothing left to own, let alone share at all and no one left to order or being ordered.
It's simply standing everything that is valuable in human nature, it cannot be desirable.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing While your position is morallly admirable it is also a pie in the sky ideology ignoring history, human nature and the geopolitical realites that currently exist. Morality does not, has not and never will exist in the geopolitical theater as it goes against human nature. Your ideology is based on the belief that man is a noble creature. While man is capable of some levels of nobility especially at the individual level, historically he is not especially when viewed in groups.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Your ideology leads to globalism which does not benefit me or mine. I live in the 3rd world, I see the suffering of mankind daily, I do not wish to join them. What will happen to the western world if all of the worlds resources are distributed evenly amongst the worlds people? The decline of western standards while the poor and disenfranchised see little benefit. In a resource hungry world you prepose a redistribution of wealth and power. To whom? You emphasize the importance of
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing morality. Whose morality? Morality is subjective and ultimately a construct of the prevailing society which surrounds it. I.E. in Afghanistan a woman who does not wear the burkha is considered immoral. Should we adopt this morality? War is the common state of man, it is not an abberation. When demand for available resources exceeds the supply war is the inevitable result. It serves as a pressure relief and reallignment of interests. Immoral as it is, war serves a historic purpose
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I do not support war, I simply accept it as a historic and ultimately unavoidable reality. This being the case I ask you again how does Chomskys' position further my interests as an American? It does not.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
The very social structures which enable control over other people are also responsible for suppressing your freedom. I'll say it even more simply: the problem is too much power in the hands of too few people. You're paying for that as well, although it is more marginal.
If that still doesn't awake you, I have an other reason: America is profoundly hated around the globe specifically because of that kind of foreign policy.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
When you set military bases around the globe, coordinate international organizations to impose unsustainable economic measures to foreign countries, spend decades overthrowing democratically elected governments to suit your interests and impose your conditions on struggling people, you're giving a damn good reason to desperate people to use desperate measures to harm you.
What's the cause of 9-11? American Foreign policy.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Putnam made a very good study on a thing called social capital which basically is the aggregate of social interactions in a given community or other. He confirmed what Tocqueville explained: that one of the most important condition for democracy to work is a strong civic society.
Putnam showed that as social capital increased, virtually all imaginable social problems decreased and economic growth increased... social structures are very boldly the problem.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
To my sense it's very clear, you have two options: either you support freedom on the ground that people tend to pursue well-being or you reject it on the ground that the masses are too stupid or incompetent or whatever -- same for international affairs.
Do I need to remind you that the second position was that put forward by Lenin to justify deviating from Marx's anarchist vision; it was the justification fascism gave when they talked about an enlightened leader...
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
It was used to justify slavery, advocate the temporary rule of metropoles over their former colonies when they de-colonized, to sustain a political elite in democratic governments as early as in England -- John Locke famously maintained that people had to be kept out of the political arena by deluding them for their own good; etc.
Each time, it ended up with more or less extended infringement on the integrity of human beings, at home and abroad.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
And, now, Americans make the same declaration, hold the same position, institute their political, social and economic structures around the few and the privileged.
You think they'll make it better this time around? Better than everyone before them while doing the exact same thing? No, they won't. The reason is simple: only free people can participate to society fruitfully without people to be repressed.
If there's something true and bold in human history, it's this.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Of course, there might still be problems around, but I can ensure you that they will be less important in number and quality. Make people freer, it's as straightforward as that.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing So your answer is that I, my family and my country will benefit because people will like us more? I avoid moral arguement when it comes to geopolitical discussions precisely because sooner or later the hypocrisy of the moral arguement becomes apparent. When the US is criticized for its' hypocritical foreign policy I am forced to admit the flaw. The US also (in cases where self interest is served) promotes freedom while on the other hand it will also ignore the misdeeds of
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Americans do not at all promote freedom... it promotes the interests of its owning class. I am sure that you made this judgment in all awareness that the US repeatedly overthrown democratically elected governments in its history, armed forces that threatened world peace and democratic movements, imposed trade deals that were certain to be devastating to the local institutions... they are ENEMIES of freedom. They hate it because it would force them to be accountable.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing tyrants and autocrats. You seem to extoll the virtues of Stalinism which while adopted as a philosophy for the revolution rapidly degrades into something much worse. Have you not learned that man is INCAPABLE of acting in the interests of the greater good? Most of the world is wondering whether they will eat today or not. People will be free under a strong central social construct which will care for me from cradle to grave? What if I don't want to be cared for? What happens
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
I never said that men were going to suddenly act in the interests of others for the sake of generosity, but you are poking at a straw man... and you do it because you don't know what is freedom and what I am saying.
If you want to know it, all power structures should be democratically and locally controlled. It's not State control, it's people's control. Centralized power is what I criticized and it's not what will yield a solution.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing to me if I disagree with your glorious social construct? What if I am anti social? Will your free society eliminate me as an abberation? I have seen the type of freedom you espouse in action and I want none of it. You have proven my point in that your ideals do not benefit me, my family or my country. I understand you are an idealist but idealists are better suited to the arts than the geopolitical arena.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
I am not an idealist; I am in fact a materialist. And the issues I see rely onto a scientific analysis of the social dynamics, their relation to institutions and of the evolution of the ideas, as well as their context, through out history.
And I didn't prove your point because you can't even follow the ideas I laid down... and the empirical proof lies here in that last post of yours. The type of thing I advocate never existed on a large scale.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
But before you again resort to fallacies, I will tell you why. Because each time it was about to happen, someone got up and told the tale of the happy slave. It takes different forms every time, but it always revolve around:
People are too dumb or ignorant to rule themselves; they are dangerous if we don't organize them and they risk to harm one another. So, we, benevolent masters, will get to rule them for their greater good.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Well, that's the problem. All imaginable issues you might have in mind within your country as well as abroad are cause by this tale and by the fact people follow it.
When I say that you either get equality and freedom or you loose both, that's also true for you. The very same order which allows the foreign policies you back up -- you are a good boy, so you always say what they want you to say -- harm you personally in your homeland.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
If you don't see that, if you can't understand that, you should bother reading maybe a bit before forming an opinion because you're currently only reciting what you're told to say and you can't even integrate comments in your discussion.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing No one can accuse you of being inarticulate in your opinions. However for someone who is making the point that "the people are too dumb or ignorent to rule themselves" as a fallicy, you have rapidly degraded your arguement too that I who has an opinion opposite to yours is "to dumb or to ignorent to form an opinion". You suggest that I must do a bit more reading before before forming an opinion. Tell me how do you reconcile the two statements as I am obviously not well read
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing enough to form an opinion? Again you make my case. You argue that people should not be ruled by an intellectual elite and then you attempt to silence me by questioning my intelligence. You cite scientific analysis of social dynamics. Which societies? Are they homogenous societies or multi cultural? Do they address divisions at religious, racial, regional, national or tribal levels? Like I said sir, I do not question your nobility of purpose but I take exception to your pseudo
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
I suggested you to read because you didn't seem to understand when I was exposing the point -- I didn't say "believe me because I am knowledgeable."
Secondly, the studies social dynamics... I am referring mostly to Tocqueville and his more contemporary counterpart which revolves around the concept of social capital -- Putnam put this forward in the early 90's and he made his case by comparing States in the US.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
What Putnam showed was that when you tend more toward what Tocqueville called an associative dynamic (that's when people organize freely which in that case means outside of public and economic institutions), then various problems like crimes, racism, violence and poverty decline while economic growth and other sort of beneficial parameter increase.
Social capital is basically the aggregate of interactions: the whole of human relationships, if you prefer.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Actually, you'd have to get out certain types of relationships, but it's basically that.
What Tocqueville said, basically, was that if people don't participate, don't form a strong body, a strong civic society -- that's being active, speaking, participating in events and organization -- it would lead to a form of division: people would become isolate, individualist, apathetic (that's cynical toward the regime), they would turn toward consumption and material gains, etc.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
If that happens, Tocqueville explains, then, it might be possible for decisions to not take into account the interests of certain people, even in a democratic state and, toward that minority, the regime would be despotic, tyrannic. That's the tyranny of the mass: the surrender of your politic right to govern by contempt and a lack of participation.
This applies in any society at any time. If people remain isolated, they loose their freedom.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
As Putnam correctly showed, it means that several social problems come out of such a situation; many people have their needs not addressed and they typically do not react in a humanly desirable manner.
The argument I tried to bring forward -- and yes, I do see that it can be somewhat complicated that it might come off as almost elitist -- is that encouraging that system perpetuate problems that concern you as much as other people.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
If you want the most simplistic version I can find of it, there are many problems in our society -- we could even speak of a global society, but simply include international issues. You can deal with them two ways. One is to go forward with the patch-work job: you punish more harshly, you send more people in jail, you wage wars and hit harder. That's the patch-work. Or, you can cut the problems at their very root and change the way we do things.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
The philosophers and political scientists I referred to handed us a common and pretty clear conclusion: the system is the problem.
The only reason I do try to champion the weak is because I can... if I didn't, I wouldn't respect myself. If you were to actually observe Lenin, if we believe Chomsky, he begun by being a Statist, then an Anarchist and finally came back to his old habits -- we have good reasons to believe he just appealed to the crowd so he could get support.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing longer (at a least I try, its a hard habit to break) take a moral stance and believe that political pragmatism is whats best for the United States and thus best for me. The US global role now is as a global policeman, (no one likes the cop on the beat). Should we remove ourselves from this position voluntarily we will create a large power vacuum, which will be filled by regional hegemons operating in their best interests. It was once said that "If the United States did not exist
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing the world would need to invent it". The UN is an attempt to replace US hegemony, it is structurally flawed and has proven itself in numerous peacekeeping missions inadequate. If the US is to withdrawl from it's global hegemonic position it would need to be replaced by a stronger and more effective UN force. Thus establishing the dreaded world government. I doubt anyone really wants this to happen.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
So, I will disagree with Chavez here: my job isn't to look obscure and smart, it's to find a way to make the idea understandable. I'd rather do as Socrates said, educate people without ever myself being a politician.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I am not a social scientist so to argue this topic with you on an intellectual level clearly leaves me at a disadvantage. A quick wikipedia read of Tocquevilles' background and beliefs, show the man to be a product of the french revolution (not a good start) who was distrusted by both the political left and the political right. He supported colonization of Algeria and while an abolitionist he was clearly a segregationist. (Not uncommon amongst ablolitionists of the period). His
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53 opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrugmanTheKing opinions very often appear to be convoluted. I.E. His opinion on the value of Christianity in America versus Christianity in Europe. Was Tocqueville the philospher who observed that "the power of America rests in the goodness of her people" ? If so, while I can agree with the sentiment, I question the goodness of our people (any people for that matter). Like I said, I am not a social scientist, my background and experience in life is military. My experiences form most of my
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing opinions. I have seen children turned into assasins in the name of social justice. Can you blame me for cringing at the term? I belief in a llimited social safety net. Tocqueville noted that poverty is the motivation to grow rich... I agree. Thus those screaming for equality (economic primarily) are destructive to the nation as a whole. On the larger geopolitical stage while I admire those that take a moral stance, the immorality of man almost always becomes apparent. Thus I no
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
"Tocqueville noted that poverty is the motivation to grow rich" No, he didn't. Here's what he actually thought:
"I have shown how democracy favors the growth of manufactures and increases without limit the numbers of the manufacturing classes; we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
The whole point is actually that you can't have freedom without people to stand on the same ground hierarchically speaking.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
That point Tocqueville noted in the second book of Democracy in America, second section, chapter XX which unsurprisingly bear the title "how an aristocracy may be created by manufactures."
If you even want to know, Adam Smith actually agrees with Tocqueville in saying that this sort of economic organization belittle workers -- he says it turns men into creatures as ignorant and stupid as they can get.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
And, following this, I never said that I was only looking at the end of the game. Between here and then, we must always judge of our steps and progressively transform those things into a better system -- that's pragmatism, in fact; you're not observing it if you just maintain the status quo because that situation is ultimately bound to be problematic.
Further, I am not speaking merely of social justice: I am saying that without equal consideration, freedom doesn't exist.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Taking the moral stance is inevitable... because you're in the end judging of what's preferable and what's not. To my sense, it's a choice between freedom the reassuring guidance of the few and the answer should always be freedom. The way to do it should always be to minimize infringements and, as you get out of your office of leader, making sure history won't be able to repeat itself.
Begin with trade treaties and give back some weight to worker unions.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing We view morality differently. I view morality as a social construct which in the view of social mores allows one to make a determination between right and wrong. To make a judgement between what is best for you or your nation versus what is not, falls within the category of pragmatism. Clearly in ones life personal morality is not only desirable but imperative. In the geopolitical arena too many people both good and bad on both sides will die in the immoral but necessary social
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing exercise which is war. It is the common state of mankind and unlikely to change. If I believed that man was capable of behaving morally as I understand morality to be, I could never have spent a lifetime in military service. Those who die on both sides represent both the moral and immoral. Your assertion that this can be changed (correct me if I misunderstand you) is too idealistic for me to accept. You said you are a materialist. How do you propose to achieve materialist goals
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing on a planet of 7 billion people and counting? The basic resources of food, fuel and shelter are in short supply. Mankind is largely ignorant and uneducated, unable to see past the need to supply their next meal. The social, economic, cultural and political elements required for the next violent global spasm exist today and I see little that will bring about its change. The most common man with little experience in the world senses the danger of our times. You suggest we begin
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing with trade treaties? The US believe it or not has a relatively well educated workforce capable of high levels of productivity. Even with this advantage we can not compete with nations paying slave wages and access to cheaper energy. (we could probably compete with lower wages or cheaper energy but not both). Empowering unions in a non union world is detrimental to global competitiveness. Either we unionize globally or we shouldn't unionize at all. Given a partially level playing
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing field the US would again become an industrial giant. (Note that this creates resentment which again leads to conflict). Our greatest advantages today are the control of international trade routes of which trans pacific and trans atlantic are the most important (OWS protesters tried to shut down port of oakland, clearly someone knew what they were doing). North American dominance of grain markets and significant levels of untouched natural resources. Protected by a military that
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing is the envy of the world. (a little self serving here). China has just imposed additional tariffs on GM products entering the country. Where I live now if we import from the US the tarriff is 120%. The US imposes very little in the way of protectionist trade policies but if things continue in their current form a trade war is imminent. Trade wars are frequently the precursor to real wars. Trade treaties don't look very likely in the face of global protectionism.
AmericanPatriot53 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Being a materialist refers to the primacy of matter over mind -- I basically contend that social behaviors, as well as ideas, culture and political institutions are material phenomenons inherent to a certain economic system. That's the comment I made from the beginning: humans behave the way they do because of the economic organization and changes proceed accordingly to what the superstructure allows -- in short, society tends to reproduce itself.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
As for morality, I do not adopt a relativist position at all because it is by necessity reducible to nihilism or else it remain self-contradictory, both of which are unsustainable. I think of moral judgments as an evaluation of options in the pursuit of well-being; clearly some tend in that direction, others don't. Of course, many people call themselves moral, but all moral claims are reducible to this objective: a mistake would then amount to a contradiction between means
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
and purpose. When you make a political judgement, you are judging about what would constitute the best social organization for the decision process or else how to best approach a favorable social condition: it's intrinsically ethical to my sense.
It might appear as if we argue semantics here, but the little distinction is important. Bringing everything back to human well-being is the detail I have in mind.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot53
Freedom better accomplishes that than anything else -- it's apparently that anything else brought some of the worst conditions and situations into reality.
As for your reply, thinking of it as too idealist... well, it's hard to answer. Let's say that I think we will either move toward that and share what we do have or else there will be nothing left to steal, rob or defend, no more than people to do those things.
It's either that or it's the end of humanity as I see it.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing American citizens generally have a sense of entitlement where it comes to cheap oil.
The whole culture depends on securing and squandering it.
1965guitarboy 2 weeks ago
@AmericanPatriot53
But it has to begin at the bottom... it can't be the government out of their own initiative starting to try to solve those issues -- the whole argument is specifically that it's not in the interests of the few and the privileged, so they won't do it unless there is a social basis for it. It has to be people forming movements and bringing their demands forward as a community.
But in any case, there's no valid reason to sustain the current social conditions.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago