He can do it. Try to do that if you are a student, worker, or employee. You'll lose your appointment within a few weeks. No government job will be available for your forever. Most people realize that the way to survival is to kill with the wolves, not to bite them in the back. Sad but true.
Tribal Chief know! Best village is upstream of other villages.
So, just how is today's corporate state and practices NOT simply human group nature run rampant due to the sheer BULK of humanity presently in existence?
Perhaps our Elite should take their yearly vacation on a nice open tropical island, rather than in Sonoma County.
In style this documentary seems to be under the influence of the Errol Morris mode, an admirable "aesthetic" which, however, in this instance has something of the effect of treating Chomsky with a bit of "I have a dream" hagiography. It gets the message out, but it puts the man in front of the message, and I believe Chomsky has himself stated reservations about the film to this effect.
@DanLackey He did. Last I heard, in the books of his ("Understanding Power" maybe, I think) he refused to watch the film, ever. To this day. Simply because he doesn't want to give people the idea that he's spearheading some "movement" to "join". It's up to people to get rid of the Elites, not Chomsky. He's just a messenger.
If the elite can keep us under an illusion of freedom and democracy, we are much easier to control and thus cheaper to keep. If only cows would stay where we left them we wouldn't need expensive fences.
Innocence can no longer exist in this world realistically. We can't just wish the parts of the world that we don't like to go away.
1st The masses will find out (slowly but surely) about what's wrong in the world.
2nd They will get sick of it.
3rd The masses will be so collectively sick of the corruption of the world that it will reach critical mass, and it will be impossible for any elite to contain it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that how it's always worked?
Chomsky's assumptions in this clip are very revealing. Anything humans create is "garbage", apparently (I think that says a lot about Chomsky's feelings about humanity!) Whereas anything natural, apparently, is NOT garbage. This same hypocrisy likewise underlies (and characterizes) the anti-human environmentalist movement. The world IS an infinite resource: because there are infinite worlds. It will take individual inititiative and courage to conquer them- if socialism doesn't end us first.
Thank you redditors! You really do shine in the face of the mass consumer American. In spite of him in fact. It's odd that a bored web user may find something so interesting and intellectual as to inspire an exhaustive quest for truth.
@AhmedsCorner There are basic flaws to Chomsky's thought, which he has never recognized or dealt with. Basically, Chomsky's thought is totalitarianism and anti-Americanism with a new face -all, of course, in the name of "the people", or "society", or the "community", or whatever mass collective movement altruists see fit to condemn individuals beneath - as if society were not made up of individuals. Greed is NOT a vice. And the universe IS an infinite resource. (Space is infinite.)
@beardsleyaubrey first of all, the world we live in is certainly not an infinite resource... second of all, I'd like to see you go to mars and find water to drink... Lastly, space ISN"T INFINTE... it is EXPANDING... Idiot
@lifeemusicelife I see lifeemusicelife is as well-mannered and even-tempered as Chomsky's other defender. Water is plentiful in the universe, and human ingenuity excels in making harsh landscapes habitable, from pioneers in California, to Israeli settlers. Thankfully, we all don't share lifeemusicelife's defiant pessimism, or else the Americas would never have been discovered, and the U.S.A. would never have been created.
"Water is plentiful in the universe, and human ingenuity excels in making harsh landscapes habitable, from pioneers in California, to Israeli settlers"
The availability of water is contingent. The US southwest has been in a drought pattern for a decade now; proxy evidence suggests it's endured droughts of far greater legnth in its past. If water is unavailable, human ingenuity can't do a damned thing about that.
@bapyou That is what distribution systems, trade, and pipelines are for. Not to mention whatever dazzling terraforming and weather-seeding technologies may be developed in the future. Of course, these things may never come to pass, if the neo-barbaric environmentalist movement -which wishes to reduce humanity once again to a primitive hunter-gatherer level- has its way. Not to mention such anti-human terrorist groups as the ELF, Greenpeace, Deep Ecology, and other leftist organizations.
"Cat has a panic attack when his string is taken": 1,232,760 views, at time of writing.
This vid: 12,799 views, at time of writing. Ratio of approx 1000:1. Pretty good sample of where peoples' priorities lie. Until this is reversed, there is no hope.
@gorillabelly1 Your defeating your own point. 1,232,760 people being able to choose what media they digest is what Noam Chomsky was after his whole life. it means we've won. It means that the internet has become the way in which information is stretched from two sentences between commercials too an infinite source of information which sits between no advertisements.
@TruthSmack I find the fact that Lenin is quoted here in support of Chomsky very revealing of their common philosophical basis. Ultimately, both support crime in the name of the collective- as if the number of people supporting it, somehow negates the fact that thievery (redistribution of property) is a crime.
Noam chomsky is a pawn for the new world order. He is a leftist gatekeeper. He wishes to disarm this nation, promotes the united nations (nwo) and never says shit about the federal reserve. Which is obviously the main source for our problems and coming major problems in this country. Yes he is a linguistics professor but he enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture.
lol truthsmack, if you think the main source of problems is the fed then you gotta learn stuff, dont just go watchin that zeitgeist conspiracy stuff. the fed is a problem yes, but it is a problem born out of the major problem which is the system, it is a syptem not the problem. and he supports the un but wants it to act as it and the majority of counties want it to, not as the us does by controlling it with its veto.
@TruthSmack. Chomsky isn't NECESSARILY proposing a model. He's proposing that we follow our own ideals! He's just proving to all of us that we don't follow them at all! His political ideology isn't communism! He's an anarcho-syndicalist! He believes that human progress is possible with out mass collusion (i.e. why do we have to live in such large countries, why can't we simply be governed in small sovereign communities). Why? Because if that were the case then nobody could exploit anybody!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomskys role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
@TruthSmack So wait, chomsky says we should live in small independent communities that govern democratically, and to that is the same as a one world gov't bank etc? I think you are missing something good sir.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@freemarketsocialist- chomsky gives you half truths. yes a lot of what he says is correct but he never tells you the bigger picture. ever heard him talk about the federal reserve, rothschilds, international bankers? no i did not think so. i too used to listen to chomsky and thik he was on my side but he is only a leftest gatekeeper. please do not dismiss what i say without looking into it. restore the republic not democracy of the united states. however it is too far gone to save.
I have read vast amounts on the fed, roths, etc. His premise that the power is there for the people to seize. Consider him a gatekeeper to further dissent and revolution if power is being wielded unjustly. He promotes the mindset, the passion for knowledge, and the bravery to speak up and organize, that is required to rid us of the monetary slave system that is in place. Since the gov't and the private lobby are one in the same, he is still pointing the finger at the right people.
As he said in so many words: either the general population will take control of its own destiny or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
The general population is beginning to realize this...... support the Venus project for the world we ALL deserv.
Yep. And you may never see the world in the same way again. Innocence lost? That's what happened to me after my first reading of Chomsky and especially after watching this film.
@68generation What victims? You mean when the U.S. saved Europe and saved France (twice?) from totalitarianism? You mean when U.S. inventions: the assembly line, mass-produced cars, space travel, air flight, television, improved lives and provided work for millions of people, and created wealth for whole countries? Or when the U.S defeated the USSR, and free thought flooded Eastern Europe, and millions of people embraced U.S. values? Chomsky's hatred of the US isn't supported by facts.
@mogem I used to think that way about Chomsky- before I read more. There are basic (and dangerous) flaws to Chomsky's logic. What does he actually mean, for example, when he says the "general population" must "take control"? Stripped of its euphemisms, he means nothing less than revolution, crime, and thievery- all in the name of "the people". (Not, of course, the same "people" who are having their property stolen or redistrubuted!) Chomsky's thought is basically just an excuse for crime.
@beardsleyaubrey Let me get this straight...by general assumptions and misinterpretations you have distorted information and rearranged facts to fit your special brand of stupid...hmmm, nice.
@mogem If Mogem's reply represents the general calibre of (the "genius") Chomsky's defenders, then my reply stands with no fear of refutation.
No doubt Mogem, like many others, looks forward to Chomsky's "people's revolution" -and to the prospect of winning what could not be earned rationally, or rightfully, in a free marketplace of competing individual initiatives.
@mogem Chomsky truly gets the followers he deserves. And certainly Mogem's mispelling "stupid" forms its own rebuttal.
>>"Flag waving airhead..."
Nothing explains my disenchantment (not to say disgust) with leftism, better than this. So I guess all the right-wing pundits ARE correct, when they say liberals and leftists (and crypto-communists) hate the U.S.
@beardsleyaubrey crime, thievery??? What have you been smoking? What he means by the general population taking control is that people should probably refuse to keep electing these rick assholes who don't give a fuck about them. They might start CARING about themselves and each other and perhaps elect people from their own ranks and press for more transparency in the government. Fight to end programs which don't benefit us and fight for programs that do. What's so difficult to understand?
@lifeemusicelife Has lifeemusicelife watched the entirety of Manufacturing Consent on DVD? Chomsky makes it quite clear that he has nothing less in mind than the dismantling of the entire modern industrial capitalist system. Which means redistribution of property. Which means unlawful transfer of ownership. Which means stealing. Which is a crime. It doesn't matter if this stealing is done legally, via a vote, or at the point of a gun. It is still crime -even if you're a college professor.
Are you serious? redistribution of property would be the last thing he would say. This is you misunderstanding Manufacturing Consent, and Anarchism in the same comment. But, believe what you want... I can't tell you what to say, but maybe you should understand something completely before you start making declarative statements like that.
@DesmondE Any dismantling of the capitalist-industrial system, such as Chomsky advocates, would necessarily involve transfers of ownership. Naturally, one would not expect a thief to broadcast the fact- so Chomsky's (admittedly vague) goals are obscured by such benevolent ideas as the common good, rational planning, agrarian reform, the peoples' will, lower class justice, etc., and whatever other ideas have commonly been utilized throughout history to justify thievery in the name of mankind.
>"you should understand something completely before you start making declarative statements" All the same I would not want to be around to witness the revolution which Chomsky advocates finally come to pass. Nor, I think, were he a business owner, would DesmondE. Such arguments have been used throughout history against the opponents of revolution. Lenin said his opponents did not yet have a proper class consciousness -just as the rapist says his victim does not truly understand HIS needs, etc
Neither did the british before the american revolution. Those in power do not want change, which is natural, but power centers do not take into account the system as a whole. What we need is a system that grows and evolves with the needs of humanity, not 2% of it.
@DesmondE Except that there is an explicit difference between the aristocratic British system, which depended upon arbitrary authority and threat of force, and the U.S. capitalist system, which is based upon upon self determination and mutual consent. No doubt the 98% of humanity have great needs- but majority cannot trump morality. Thievery is thievery, even if ratified by the majority's justifications. The thief who steals your wallet has a "need" too -as does the rapist.
Well if morality trumps all, then then the earth and its inhabitants can no longer be exploited. Capitalism is exploitation. You can have morality or you can have capitalism. Not both
Capitalism is not exploitation- it is freedom and self determination. A fact easily proven by comparing human history before capitalism (feudalism, theocracy, divine right of kings, god-kings, barbarism) and after: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Industrialism, medicine, and technology. Exploitation can only mean rule by force and crime: i.e., socialism (stealing). The thief has all sorts of great things he wishes to do with your money. So too the socialist.
capitalism, by definition is based on exploitation. You have to be able to exploit something to gain capital from it. workers must be exploited to to earn capital from it. People must be exploited to earn capital from property. our society is based on being able to manipulate the value of everything, goods, land, and even people. This is wrong.
@DesmondE By whose definition? Marx's? On the contrary, capitalism is the only NON-exploitative system, since it is both contingent upon, and reflective of, the basic aspects of human freedom -human intelligence, free will, and volition. Capitalism simply means free exchange by mutual consent: wages for labor, rewards for creativity, creation of wealth. Collectivism, on the other hand, can only ever be a parasitic stealing of what others produce: a transfer of the earned to the unearned.
in our capitalist society, are people being exploited? If you did not exploit labor, you could not profit. If you disagree, tell me how. There is no choice in the society but to work. You do not have a choice whether or not you have to earn money to pay someone who exploits you for a place to live. I could go on and on. Exploitation has proven to be dangerous to society and the environment(hence the statements in the video).
>>"There is no choice in the society but to work." That is simply a condition of existence itself, not an aspect of any particular economic model. If DesmondE does not wish to earn his living, fine, but he should not expect other working people to pick up his bill. Man is the only species which has volition, the choice between Life and Death. Crime is an aspect of mysticism: it seeks to impose the unreal on the real, like the thief appropriating someone else's money -as if to make it "his."
Why should anyone have to "pick up his bill"? Have you ever even asked yourself that question before you repeat that statement?
The anarchism vs. capitalism argument will always come down to this: Our existence on this planet depends on our concerns for humanity as a whole. How do we preserve the right of all humanity to be truly free? Humanity is anything but that right now. Wage slavery is a huge part of that. Capitalism plays a huge role in taking away freedoms of all people
>>"Our existence on this planet depends on our concerns for humanity as a whole."
What form of "humanity as a whole" does not include the individual within it? Collectivism is a smokescreen used to negate individual rights. The "people's revolution" never seems to include the "people" who are being murdered or stolen from.
>>"How do we preserve the right of all humanity to be truly free?"
Free to do what? To steal? To claim unearned wealth? Wages aren't slavery, they are free exchange.
"The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him…" -->
@DesmondE Slavery and capitalism are antithetical. That is why capitalism destroyed slavery, and why it was the capitalistic, industrialized North which ended slavery in the aristocratic, feudal South. DesmondE's quote, too, about "farm labourers" who "till the soil whose fruits they will not eat" is characteristic of feudalism, not capitalism. Capitalism is free exchange by mutual consent of value for value. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from becoming a huge success if he tries.
Why would you believe that? Slavery has only existed in capitalist and feudal societies. Just as a funny social experiment, ask 100 people on the street whether they are experiencing this "free exchange by mutual consent of value for value". It is insulting that you would think my intelligence so poor to believe that.
@beardsleyaubrey "what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?"
@DesmondE "So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money?[...] Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?" -Ayn Rand
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? [...] By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability." -Ayn Rand
A discussion of whether a person is lazy doesn't even have a place in a truly free society. Maybe in a academic discussion or something. Someone who is truly free to be whatever he wants, so long as he does not infringe on the freedom of others.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities..." -Ayn Rand
What are these great achievements of great productive civilizations? Starvation for masses of the globe? Entire countries sold into debt and used as slaves for generations? This capitalist utopia might be what she is talking about as crumbling...
@DesmondE "That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--[...] Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, [...] and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists." -Ayn Rand
Money in and of itself is not evil. Capital is. Capital is what is left when the exchange of goods is not equal. I knew I would get to hear a little Ayn Rand, but I am not sure why you used this quote because it doesn't support your argument that well.
@DesmondE@DesmondE For more on Chomsky's revealingly laissez-faire attitude toward crime (in this case, toward terrorism), read Amy Goodman's interview with Michael Albert on the Democracy Now website. Here, Chomsky speaks positively about leftist murderers and terrorists, like the Weathermen, the SDS, and Bill Ayers:
"They’re wonderful people. They’re great people. They’re moved well. I mean, their motives are good. Some of them are going to die. Some of them are going to hurt others..."
Are you suggesting that Noam Chomsky approves of terrorism? Of course not. Why bring it up? Since you brought it up, I think I will jump on the weatherman/bill ayers thing. What crimes were bill ayers convicted of? I already know the answer to this question, but I am wondering if you do. Do you know anything about the weathermen group? How about the students for a democratic society(SDS)? Please tell me what your interpretation of their crimes are. msg me if you want.
@DesmondE On the contrary, Chomsky's statement to M. Albert reveals an explicit approval of terrorism, just as an implicit approval can be discerned in Chomsky's larger philosophy. And this is to be expected. Once the more basic moral corruption of collectivism and redistribution of wealth is accepted, it is but a small stepping stone towards an altruistic justification of crime (disguised as revolutionary acts). Ayers' essay writing from the '60's is even more permeated with this attitude.
You believe that Noam Chomsky is an advocate of terrorism? please just stop there. I asked you to fill me in on crimes of bill ayers. Did you come up with anything?
@DesmondE >>"What crimes were bill ayers convicted of?" The classic criminal dodge. From an editorial in the Dec. 2004 issue of The New Criterion: "With unfortunate but admonitory timing, The New York Times ran a flattering profile of Mr. Ayers on September 11, 2001: 'I don't regret setting bombs,' Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Yes, well. Others have stepped in to help you, Mr. Ayers." p.3 From Ayers' essay, "A Strategy to Win": "...when a pig gets iced that's a good thing..."
That is not a "criminal dodge". I am not a criminal. I asked you what crimes he was convicted of. Bill Ayers was accused of property damage. He was involved with setting bombs in statues and empty buildings. In my mind that was dumb but does not fall under the definition of terrorism. I am sure that the emails and blogs you read every day describe it differently, but I really don't need to debate you on the issue. Noam Chomsky has NEVER approved, or advocated violence.
@DesmondE "What crimes were I convicted of?" is a classic criminal dodge. One can certainly question why prosecutors never brought Ayers and the others up on charges, but that does not negate Ayers' own admissions.
>>"He was involved with setting bombs in statues and empty buildings. In my mind that was dumb but does not fall under the definition of terrorism."
I am sure the people whose statues and buildings were blown up would disagree. It was both dumb AND terrorism.
@DesmondE It is significant that DesmondE's whole argument depends upon redefining the meanings of words: capitalism as slavery, and terrorism as not-terrorism. But substituting the unreal for the real is a characteristic of all mystical and criminal philosophies. When a terrorist blows up a building, he is attempting to negate the fact of that building. To supplant reality with his own unreal version of existence, and substitute destruction for creation, theivery for true ownership.
is it? I think you assume too much. I believe that slavery is a capitalist enterprise, and can only exist in a feudal or capitalist society. I define terrorism as the belief in using terror(inciting fear for ones life) to coerce people. I do not believe that destruction of property is terrorism. I believe that capitalism requires entire classes of people to exploit. Like I said. I am not trying to redefine anything. Think a little, before you respond.
DesmondE would do well to follow his own advice, and "Think a little" before he responds. "I believe"? "I believe that.."? "I define terrorism as..."? The issue is not what one "believes", the issue is objective fact. People "believe" all sorts of crazy things. Muslim terrorists think they are waging a "Holy War." Assassins call their murders "eliminations." Thieves call their stealing "borrowing." Ayers justified his crimes via his absurd leftist philosophy. No judge would buy it.
I always follow my own advice. I gave my definitions so that we understand what definition of terrorism I believe. This supports my previous statement about us having different opinions on the definition.
Everyone has differing opinions of all philosophies. Your perspective is different from mine. I believe that the solution is anarchism. This way we can all be free of the others views.
@DesmondE >"I believe that slavery is a capitalist enterprise, and can only exist in a feudal or capitalist society."
Untrue. Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind. It pre-existed both feudalism and capitalism, and is characteristic of theocratic, tribal, primitive, and dictator-run societies (ie, "slave-states.") Capitalism inherited slavery, and put an end to it. If DesmondE is aware of ANY slaves in his midst, I suggest he contact his nearest law enforcement agency.
"Chomsky makes it clear he has in mind the dismantling of the capitalist system. ... redistribution of property ... unlawful transfer of ownership... stealing. Which is a crime."
The redistribution of wealth has nothing to with personal property, it has to do with the owning of essential resoruces: water, land, etc.
You are nothing but right-wing scum; right-wing scum who would rather people starve so that the elite may profit. I fucking loathe you scum.
Not long ago, I would have agreed with bapyou. The only "scum", however, are criminals who attempt to use force to bend others to their will: whether the mugger who steals a wallet, or the Muslim who flies a plane into a skyscraper, or the socialist who embezzles private money for the public good. Morality is not based on emotion, but on adherence to logical principles. Emotion can lead one anywhere; if emotions were "true", we would ALL be right: criminal or not.
The mainstream will continue to ghettoize us precisely because we know too much as the old saying goes "we know where the bodies are buried" the oppression of the largely non-white third world of which chomsky speaks is evidence of the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy. However, it will crumble, it is only a matter of time, a toast to the freedom fighters in the third world who resist this racial contract and the 'race traitors' like Chomsky who refuse to accept it.
The coming end of global white supremacy? Perhaps. Only to be replaced by the Asian Tiger! And the West is indeed taking notice, at least from what I see, considering the great increase in articles that include heavy China bashing and (typical) Western hypocrisy over the 5+ past years.
He can do it. Try to do that if you are a student, worker, or employee. You'll lose your appointment within a few weeks. No government job will be available for your forever. Most people realize that the way to survival is to kill with the wolves, not to bite them in the back. Sad but true.
lodproductions90 7 months ago
Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our lifetime, history will be the ultimate judge of that.
djamorpheus 9 months ago 3
Tribal Chief know! Best village is upstream of other villages.
So, just how is today's corporate state and practices NOT simply human group nature run rampant due to the sheer BULK of humanity presently in existence?
Perhaps our Elite should take their yearly vacation on a nice open tropical island, rather than in Sonoma County.
CharlieOchs 1 year ago
In style this documentary seems to be under the influence of the Errol Morris mode, an admirable "aesthetic" which, however, in this instance has something of the effect of treating Chomsky with a bit of "I have a dream" hagiography. It gets the message out, but it puts the man in front of the message, and I believe Chomsky has himself stated reservations about the film to this effect.
DanLackey 1 year ago 7
@DanLackey
If it serves the truth and justice, simplification is not always bad.
vriend1 1 year ago
@DanLackey He did. Last I heard, in the books of his ("Understanding Power" maybe, I think) he refused to watch the film, ever. To this day. Simply because he doesn't want to give people the idea that he's spearheading some "movement" to "join". It's up to people to get rid of the Elites, not Chomsky. He's just a messenger.
Bodhidharma1986 5 months ago
If the elite can keep us under an illusion of freedom and democracy, we are much easier to control and thus cheaper to keep. If only cows would stay where we left them we wouldn't need expensive fences.
eyeswideopennimrod 1 year ago
What was that at 1:00?
titaniumlibra 1 year ago
Innocence can no longer exist in this world realistically. We can't just wish the parts of the world that we don't like to go away.
1st The masses will find out (slowly but surely) about what's wrong in the world.
2nd They will get sick of it.
3rd The masses will be so collectively sick of the corruption of the world that it will reach critical mass, and it will be impossible for any elite to contain it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that how it's always worked?
JessAtlas 1 year ago
Chomsky's assumptions in this clip are very revealing. Anything humans create is "garbage", apparently (I think that says a lot about Chomsky's feelings about humanity!) Whereas anything natural, apparently, is NOT garbage. This same hypocrisy likewise underlies (and characterizes) the anti-human environmentalist movement. The world IS an infinite resource: because there are infinite worlds. It will take individual inititiative and courage to conquer them- if socialism doesn't end us first.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
Thank you redditors! You really do shine in the face of the mass consumer American. In spite of him in fact. It's odd that a bored web user may find something so interesting and intellectual as to inspire an exhaustive quest for truth.
paserko2 1 year ago
I`ve come to know him reading in linguistic books he is the top linguistic intellectuals. Nice to know his knowledge has an wider range!
Valdris1987 1 year ago
Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky.... what a genius
AhmedsCorner 1 year ago
@AhmedsCorner There are basic flaws to Chomsky's thought, which he has never recognized or dealt with. Basically, Chomsky's thought is totalitarianism and anti-Americanism with a new face -all, of course, in the name of "the people", or "society", or the "community", or whatever mass collective movement altruists see fit to condemn individuals beneath - as if society were not made up of individuals. Greed is NOT a vice. And the universe IS an infinite resource. (Space is infinite.)
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey first of all, the world we live in is certainly not an infinite resource... second of all, I'd like to see you go to mars and find water to drink... Lastly, space ISN"T INFINTE... it is EXPANDING... Idiot
lifeemusicelife 1 year ago
@lifeemusicelife I see lifeemusicelife is as well-mannered and even-tempered as Chomsky's other defender. Water is plentiful in the universe, and human ingenuity excels in making harsh landscapes habitable, from pioneers in California, to Israeli settlers. Thankfully, we all don't share lifeemusicelife's defiant pessimism, or else the Americas would never have been discovered, and the U.S.A. would never have been created.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
"Water is plentiful in the universe, and human ingenuity excels in making harsh landscapes habitable, from pioneers in California, to Israeli settlers"
The availability of water is contingent. The US southwest has been in a drought pattern for a decade now; proxy evidence suggests it's endured droughts of far greater legnth in its past. If water is unavailable, human ingenuity can't do a damned thing about that.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou That is what distribution systems, trade, and pipelines are for. Not to mention whatever dazzling terraforming and weather-seeding technologies may be developed in the future. Of course, these things may never come to pass, if the neo-barbaric environmentalist movement -which wishes to reduce humanity once again to a primitive hunter-gatherer level- has its way. Not to mention such anti-human terrorist groups as the ELF, Greenpeace, Deep Ecology, and other leftist organizations.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
"Cat has a panic attack when his string is taken": 1,232,760 views, at time of writing.
This vid: 12,799 views, at time of writing. Ratio of approx 1000:1. Pretty good sample of where peoples' priorities lie. Until this is reversed, there is no hope.
gorillabelly1 1 year ago 15
@gorillabelly1 Your defeating your own point. 1,232,760 people being able to choose what media they digest is what Noam Chomsky was after his whole life. it means we've won. It means that the internet has become the way in which information is stretched from two sentences between commercials too an infinite source of information which sits between no advertisements.
bigdt87 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Critical thinking is what the world needs
StraussBR 1 year ago
The youtube version of the documentary has very large portions missing.
I recommend google-video, wich allows for full length video's, of bit-torrent.
funny that some parts are missing from a documentary that tries to point out the shortcommings of our media....
DjurreBouman 1 year ago 10
does anyone know the music that was playing?
smartsam9949 1 year ago
this documentary was disappointing to me after just reading "understanding power". are there parts missing from these youtube videos?
JimmyTheMute 2 years ago 3
There's a critical part missing between part 8 and 9! The "The point is you have to work, that's why the propaganda system is so successful..." part.
sadunkal 2 years ago
Fuck! Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.
We've got work to do, corrections to make.
8644371 2 years ago 2
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." - Lenin
TruthSmack 2 years ago
@TruthSmack I find the fact that Lenin is quoted here in support of Chomsky very revealing of their common philosophical basis. Ultimately, both support crime in the name of the collective- as if the number of people supporting it, somehow negates the fact that thievery (redistribution of property) is a crime.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noam chomsky is a pawn for the new world order. He is a leftist gatekeeper. He wishes to disarm this nation, promotes the united nations (nwo) and never says shit about the federal reserve. Which is obviously the main source for our problems and coming major problems in this country. Yes he is a linguistics professor but he enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture.
TruthSmack 2 years ago
lol truthsmack, if you think the main source of problems is the fed then you gotta learn stuff, dont just go watchin that zeitgeist conspiracy stuff. the fed is a problem yes, but it is a problem born out of the major problem which is the system, it is a syptem not the problem. and he supports the un but wants it to act as it and the majority of counties want it to, not as the us does by controlling it with its veto.
shifty1367 2 years ago
@TruthSmack. Chomsky isn't NECESSARILY proposing a model. He's proposing that we follow our own ideals! He's just proving to all of us that we don't follow them at all! His political ideology isn't communism! He's an anarcho-syndicalist! He believes that human progress is possible with out mass collusion (i.e. why do we have to live in such large countries, why can't we simply be governed in small sovereign communities). Why? Because if that were the case then nobody could exploit anybody!
NathanJSweet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomskys role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
TruthSmack 2 years ago
@TruthSmack So wait, chomsky says we should live in small independent communities that govern democratically, and to that is the same as a one world gov't bank etc? I think you are missing something good sir.
FreemarketSocialist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@freemarketsocialist- chomsky gives you half truths. yes a lot of what he says is correct but he never tells you the bigger picture. ever heard him talk about the federal reserve, rothschilds, international bankers? no i did not think so. i too used to listen to chomsky and thik he was on my side but he is only a leftest gatekeeper. please do not dismiss what i say without looking into it. restore the republic not democracy of the united states. however it is too far gone to save.
TruthSmack 2 years ago
I have read vast amounts on the fed, roths, etc. His premise that the power is there for the people to seize. Consider him a gatekeeper to further dissent and revolution if power is being wielded unjustly. He promotes the mindset, the passion for knowledge, and the bravery to speak up and organize, that is required to rid us of the monetary slave system that is in place. Since the gov't and the private lobby are one in the same, he is still pointing the finger at the right people.
FreemarketSocialist 2 years ago 3
Aside from the cheap critique of Marx, how exactly does Chomsky do the same?
DonVoghano 2 years ago
As he said in so many words: either the general population will take control of its own destiny or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
The general population is beginning to realize this...... support the Venus project for the world we ALL deserv.
blaziermissy 2 years ago 5
what ezzacly is that orange shit? and are they building roads on top of it?
darwindeeez 2 years ago
great salt lake. It looks like the building of "spiral jetty" earth sculpture. //j
slaytonj5 2 years ago
When I read this book I felt sick at learning all the victims the US produced around the world...
68generation 2 years ago 35
Yep. And you may never see the world in the same way again. Innocence lost? That's what happened to me after my first reading of Chomsky and especially after watching this film.
gorillabelly1 2 years ago 34
Comment removed
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@68generation What victims? You mean when the U.S. saved Europe and saved France (twice?) from totalitarianism? You mean when U.S. inventions: the assembly line, mass-produced cars, space travel, air flight, television, improved lives and provided work for millions of people, and created wealth for whole countries? Or when the U.S defeated the USSR, and free thought flooded Eastern Europe, and millions of people embraced U.S. values? Chomsky's hatred of the US isn't supported by facts.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
Comment removed
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@68generation Spread the word my friend spread the word. This man is a genuis but the mainstreem opinion ignores him.
Noeldiego 1 year ago
Those were the words! (my name: Marianne Johansson)
hampus80 2 years ago
an information & knowledge genus
mogem 2 years ago 3
@mogem I used to think that way about Chomsky- before I read more. There are basic (and dangerous) flaws to Chomsky's logic. What does he actually mean, for example, when he says the "general population" must "take control"? Stripped of its euphemisms, he means nothing less than revolution, crime, and thievery- all in the name of "the people". (Not, of course, the same "people" who are having their property stolen or redistrubuted!) Chomsky's thought is basically just an excuse for crime.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey Let me get this straight...by general assumptions and misinterpretations you have distorted information and rearranged facts to fit your special brand of stupid...hmmm, nice.
mogem 1 year ago
@mogem If Mogem's reply represents the general calibre of (the "genius") Chomsky's defenders, then my reply stands with no fear of refutation.
No doubt Mogem, like many others, looks forward to Chomsky's "people's revolution" -and to the prospect of winning what could not be earned rationally, or rightfully, in a free marketplace of competing individual initiatives.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey yep, stuipid! Flag waving airhead...
mogem 1 year ago
Comment removed
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mogem Chomsky truly gets the followers he deserves. And certainly Mogem's mispelling "stupid" forms its own rebuttal.
>>"Flag waving airhead..."
Nothing explains my disenchantment (not to say disgust) with leftism, better than this. So I guess all the right-wing pundits ARE correct, when they say liberals and leftists (and crypto-communists) hate the U.S.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey crime, thievery??? What have you been smoking? What he means by the general population taking control is that people should probably refuse to keep electing these rick assholes who don't give a fuck about them. They might start CARING about themselves and each other and perhaps elect people from their own ranks and press for more transparency in the government. Fight to end programs which don't benefit us and fight for programs that do. What's so difficult to understand?
lifeemusicelife 1 year ago
@lifeemusicelife Has lifeemusicelife watched the entirety of Manufacturing Consent on DVD? Chomsky makes it quite clear that he has nothing less in mind than the dismantling of the entire modern industrial capitalist system. Which means redistribution of property. Which means unlawful transfer of ownership. Which means stealing. Which is a crime. It doesn't matter if this stealing is done legally, via a vote, or at the point of a gun. It is still crime -even if you're a college professor.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Are you serious? redistribution of property would be the last thing he would say. This is you misunderstanding Manufacturing Consent, and Anarchism in the same comment. But, believe what you want... I can't tell you what to say, but maybe you should understand something completely before you start making declarative statements like that.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE Any dismantling of the capitalist-industrial system, such as Chomsky advocates, would necessarily involve transfers of ownership. Naturally, one would not expect a thief to broadcast the fact- so Chomsky's (admittedly vague) goals are obscured by such benevolent ideas as the common good, rational planning, agrarian reform, the peoples' will, lower class justice, etc., and whatever other ideas have commonly been utilized throughout history to justify thievery in the name of mankind.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
>"you should understand something completely before you start making declarative statements" All the same I would not want to be around to witness the revolution which Chomsky advocates finally come to pass. Nor, I think, were he a business owner, would DesmondE. Such arguments have been used throughout history against the opponents of revolution. Lenin said his opponents did not yet have a proper class consciousness -just as the rapist says his victim does not truly understand HIS needs, etc
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Neither did the british before the american revolution. Those in power do not want change, which is natural, but power centers do not take into account the system as a whole. What we need is a system that grows and evolves with the needs of humanity, not 2% of it.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE Except that there is an explicit difference between the aristocratic British system, which depended upon arbitrary authority and threat of force, and the U.S. capitalist system, which is based upon upon self determination and mutual consent. No doubt the 98% of humanity have great needs- but majority cannot trump morality. Thievery is thievery, even if ratified by the majority's justifications. The thief who steals your wallet has a "need" too -as does the rapist.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Well if morality trumps all, then then the earth and its inhabitants can no longer be exploited. Capitalism is exploitation. You can have morality or you can have capitalism. Not both
DesmondE 1 year ago
Capitalism is not exploitation- it is freedom and self determination. A fact easily proven by comparing human history before capitalism (feudalism, theocracy, divine right of kings, god-kings, barbarism) and after: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Industrialism, medicine, and technology. Exploitation can only mean rule by force and crime: i.e., socialism (stealing). The thief has all sorts of great things he wishes to do with your money. So too the socialist.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
capitalism, by definition is based on exploitation. You have to be able to exploit something to gain capital from it. workers must be exploited to to earn capital from it. People must be exploited to earn capital from property. our society is based on being able to manipulate the value of everything, goods, land, and even people. This is wrong.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE By whose definition? Marx's? On the contrary, capitalism is the only NON-exploitative system, since it is both contingent upon, and reflective of, the basic aspects of human freedom -human intelligence, free will, and volition. Capitalism simply means free exchange by mutual consent: wages for labor, rewards for creativity, creation of wealth. Collectivism, on the other hand, can only ever be a parasitic stealing of what others produce: a transfer of the earned to the unearned.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
in our capitalist society, are people being exploited? If you did not exploit labor, you could not profit. If you disagree, tell me how. There is no choice in the society but to work. You do not have a choice whether or not you have to earn money to pay someone who exploits you for a place to live. I could go on and on. Exploitation has proven to be dangerous to society and the environment(hence the statements in the video).
DesmondE 1 year ago
>>"There is no choice in the society but to work." That is simply a condition of existence itself, not an aspect of any particular economic model. If DesmondE does not wish to earn his living, fine, but he should not expect other working people to pick up his bill. Man is the only species which has volition, the choice between Life and Death. Crime is an aspect of mysticism: it seeks to impose the unreal on the real, like the thief appropriating someone else's money -as if to make it "his."
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Why should anyone have to "pick up his bill"? Have you ever even asked yourself that question before you repeat that statement?
The anarchism vs. capitalism argument will always come down to this: Our existence on this planet depends on our concerns for humanity as a whole. How do we preserve the right of all humanity to be truly free? Humanity is anything but that right now. Wage slavery is a huge part of that. Capitalism plays a huge role in taking away freedoms of all people
DesmondE 1 year ago
>>"Our existence on this planet depends on our concerns for humanity as a whole."
What form of "humanity as a whole" does not include the individual within it? Collectivism is a smokescreen used to negate individual rights. The "people's revolution" never seems to include the "people" who are being murdered or stolen from.
>>"How do we preserve the right of all humanity to be truly free?"
Free to do what? To steal? To claim unearned wealth? Wages aren't slavery, they are free exchange.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
"The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him…" -->
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE Slavery and capitalism are antithetical. That is why capitalism destroyed slavery, and why it was the capitalistic, industrialized North which ended slavery in the aristocratic, feudal South. DesmondE's quote, too, about "farm labourers" who "till the soil whose fruits they will not eat" is characteristic of feudalism, not capitalism. Capitalism is free exchange by mutual consent of value for value. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from becoming a huge success if he tries.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
"capitalism and slavery are antithetical"???
Why would you believe that? Slavery has only existed in capitalist and feudal societies. Just as a funny social experiment, ask 100 people on the street whether they are experiencing this "free exchange by mutual consent of value for value". It is insulting that you would think my intelligence so poor to believe that.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey "what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?"
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE "So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money?[...] Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?" -Ayn Rand
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
I am curious... If a man has made money from slaves, did he get that money morally? Is he justified in calling this wealth his own?
DesmondE 1 year ago
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? [...] By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability." -Ayn Rand
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
A discussion of whether a person is lazy doesn't even have a place in a truly free society. Maybe in a academic discussion or something. Someone who is truly free to be whatever he wants, so long as he does not infringe on the freedom of others.
DesmondE 1 year ago
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities..." -Ayn Rand
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
What are these great achievements of great productive civilizations? Starvation for masses of the globe? Entire countries sold into debt and used as slaves for generations? This capitalist utopia might be what she is talking about as crumbling...
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE "That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--[...] Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, [...] and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists." -Ayn Rand
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Money in and of itself is not evil. Capital is. Capital is what is left when the exchange of goods is not equal. I knew I would get to hear a little Ayn Rand, but I am not sure why you used this quote because it doesn't support your argument that well.
DesmondE 1 year ago
Comment removed
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DesmondE @DesmondE For more on Chomsky's revealingly laissez-faire attitude toward crime (in this case, toward terrorism), read Amy Goodman's interview with Michael Albert on the Democracy Now website. Here, Chomsky speaks positively about leftist murderers and terrorists, like the Weathermen, the SDS, and Bill Ayers:
"They’re wonderful people. They’re great people. They’re moved well. I mean, their motives are good. Some of them are going to die. Some of them are going to hurt others..."
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
Are you suggesting that Noam Chomsky approves of terrorism? Of course not. Why bring it up? Since you brought it up, I think I will jump on the weatherman/bill ayers thing. What crimes were bill ayers convicted of? I already know the answer to this question, but I am wondering if you do. Do you know anything about the weathermen group? How about the students for a democratic society(SDS)? Please tell me what your interpretation of their crimes are. msg me if you want.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE On the contrary, Chomsky's statement to M. Albert reveals an explicit approval of terrorism, just as an implicit approval can be discerned in Chomsky's larger philosophy. And this is to be expected. Once the more basic moral corruption of collectivism and redistribution of wealth is accepted, it is but a small stepping stone towards an altruistic justification of crime (disguised as revolutionary acts). Ayers' essay writing from the '60's is even more permeated with this attitude.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
You believe that Noam Chomsky is an advocate of terrorism? please just stop there. I asked you to fill me in on crimes of bill ayers. Did you come up with anything?
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE >>"What crimes were bill ayers convicted of?" The classic criminal dodge. From an editorial in the Dec. 2004 issue of The New Criterion: "With unfortunate but admonitory timing, The New York Times ran a flattering profile of Mr. Ayers on September 11, 2001: 'I don't regret setting bombs,' Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Yes, well. Others have stepped in to help you, Mr. Ayers." p.3 From Ayers' essay, "A Strategy to Win": "...when a pig gets iced that's a good thing..."
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
That is not a "criminal dodge". I am not a criminal. I asked you what crimes he was convicted of. Bill Ayers was accused of property damage. He was involved with setting bombs in statues and empty buildings. In my mind that was dumb but does not fall under the definition of terrorism. I am sure that the emails and blogs you read every day describe it differently, but I really don't need to debate you on the issue. Noam Chomsky has NEVER approved, or advocated violence.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE "What crimes were I convicted of?" is a classic criminal dodge. One can certainly question why prosecutors never brought Ayers and the others up on charges, but that does not negate Ayers' own admissions.
>>"He was involved with setting bombs in statues and empty buildings. In my mind that was dumb but does not fall under the definition of terrorism."
I am sure the people whose statues and buildings were blown up would disagree. It was both dumb AND terrorism.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
obviously we disagree on our definition of terrorism.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE It is significant that DesmondE's whole argument depends upon redefining the meanings of words: capitalism as slavery, and terrorism as not-terrorism. But substituting the unreal for the real is a characteristic of all mystical and criminal philosophies. When a terrorist blows up a building, he is attempting to negate the fact of that building. To supplant reality with his own unreal version of existence, and substitute destruction for creation, theivery for true ownership.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
is it? I think you assume too much. I believe that slavery is a capitalist enterprise, and can only exist in a feudal or capitalist society. I define terrorism as the belief in using terror(inciting fear for ones life) to coerce people. I do not believe that destruction of property is terrorism. I believe that capitalism requires entire classes of people to exploit. Like I said. I am not trying to redefine anything. Think a little, before you respond.
DesmondE 1 year ago
DesmondE would do well to follow his own advice, and "Think a little" before he responds. "I believe"? "I believe that.."? "I define terrorism as..."? The issue is not what one "believes", the issue is objective fact. People "believe" all sorts of crazy things. Muslim terrorists think they are waging a "Holy War." Assassins call their murders "eliminations." Thieves call their stealing "borrowing." Ayers justified his crimes via his absurd leftist philosophy. No judge would buy it.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
I always follow my own advice. I gave my definitions so that we understand what definition of terrorism I believe. This supports my previous statement about us having different opinions on the definition.
Everyone has differing opinions of all philosophies. Your perspective is different from mine. I believe that the solution is anarchism. This way we can all be free of the others views.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@DesmondE >"I believe that slavery is a capitalist enterprise, and can only exist in a feudal or capitalist society."
Untrue. Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind. It pre-existed both feudalism and capitalism, and is characteristic of theocratic, tribal, primitive, and dictator-run societies (ie, "slave-states.") Capitalism inherited slavery, and put an end to it. If DesmondE is aware of ANY slaves in his midst, I suggest he contact his nearest law enforcement agency.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
I guess I can make my statement in another way that doesn't confuse.
Slavery only exists in a system where slaves can be exploited. Can we agree on that?
People are still being exploited today (in a capitalist system). Instead of being owned, people are rented.
DesmondE 1 year ago
@beardsleyaubrey
"Chomsky makes it clear he has in mind the dismantling of the capitalist system. ... redistribution of property ... unlawful transfer of ownership... stealing. Which is a crime."
The redistribution of wealth has nothing to with personal property, it has to do with the owning of essential resoruces: water, land, etc.
You are nothing but right-wing scum; right-wing scum who would rather people starve so that the elite may profit. I fucking loathe you scum.
bapyou 1 year ago
Not long ago, I would have agreed with bapyou. The only "scum", however, are criminals who attempt to use force to bend others to their will: whether the mugger who steals a wallet, or the Muslim who flies a plane into a skyscraper, or the socialist who embezzles private money for the public good. Morality is not based on emotion, but on adherence to logical principles. Emotion can lead one anywhere; if emotions were "true", we would ALL be right: criminal or not.
beardsleyaubrey 1 year ago
The mainstream will continue to ghettoize us precisely because we know too much as the old saying goes "we know where the bodies are buried" the oppression of the largely non-white third world of which chomsky speaks is evidence of the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy. However, it will crumble, it is only a matter of time, a toast to the freedom fighters in the third world who resist this racial contract and the 'race traitors' like Chomsky who refuse to accept it.
XAMAJANI 2 years ago
Power corrupts, color is not restricted.
rolpho 2 years ago 2
The coming end of global white supremacy? Perhaps. Only to be replaced by the Asian Tiger! And the West is indeed taking notice, at least from what I see, considering the great increase in articles that include heavy China bashing and (typical) Western hypocrisy over the 5+ past years.
gorillabelly1 2 years ago
It is not about a global white elite, but about a capitalist social elite. He's neither talking about races nor about nations, but about classes.
Maybe you're right about western hypocrisy, however not for the last 5 or 10 years, the west's been hypocrite for the last 200 or 250 years.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago 4
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" Ron Paul.
tobywonken 2 years ago 6
EVERY AMERICAN needs to see this
blaziermissy 2 years ago 9
Comment removed
feynman1988 2 years ago