Noam Chomsky Mocks Intellectuals as 'Independent Minds'

[fistfulofknowledge]

I agree a lot with Chomsky's points, but the question remains (not trying to sound too leninist here) What is to be done? Discussing such matters is of high value, but what does one do? Do you allow monsters such as the Baath party and Taliban carry on their oppression? Perhaps it's not so much acceptance or endorsement of these invasions or the regimes behind them, but rather a more pragmatic and realistic mindset of the world, one which sometimes sides with the lesser evil.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@fistfulofknowledge

' What is to be done?'

Simple NOTHING until a CORRECT DIAGNOSIS of the problem is operated. People are constantly being suckered into anything because of this compulsive 'thinking', that goes:

'Oh, such and such happened, authority must react because after all it's authority's job to solve problems and keep us safe, so we can either use path of action A or path of action B.

People are PROGRAMMED into this pavlovian mindframe. What's REALLY required, is for...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@fistfulofknowledge

...people to analyze problems with more depth. For instance, you mention 'Taliban carry on their oppression'.

This is a typical instance of dissociated fragmented thinking, following the pattern

1. Taliban are evil and inflicting harm.

2. Since we must at least try to make the world a better place, which involves fighting evil, we must fight the Taliban, which of course leads to

3. War in Afghanistan is a good solution or at least justified.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@fistfulofknowledge Of course, if people simply had the attention spans and the intellectual honesty to see the TALIBAN WERE CREATED BY THE WEST, and that they were created ON PURPOSE, that problems are CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED ON PURPOSE because problems justify the taking of solutions and these solutions always expand the scope of control of the actual stringpullers. Before doing anything, analyze the real problem first, and if you can't, well then you must reserve your opinion.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@fistfulofknowledge But really, it shouldn't be too hard to verify that all regimes and monstrous dictators were PUPPETS, PUT IN CONTROL. Just check their bio's, or wonder how a guy like Mobutu made it to the top. So obvious. It's irrational to constantly want to remediate all kinds of evils mushrooming everywhere with measures that ALWAYS generate even more evil without ever wondering what the ACTUAL source of the problem is...

[fistfulofknowledge]

@suddenlyitsobvious The Taliban, and indeed most Islamic fundementalist movements, weren't so much created by the west, but rather aided by western govts due to common enemies. Imperialism has always been present in Islam ever since its conception, more so than in western imperialism, really the movements now are reacting to their decline of power and their wish to re-establish the caliphate. Dealing with them was a moral mistake of the west, they can only be combated.

[fistfulofknowledge]

@suddenlyitsobvious Of course western regimes still continue to aid Islamist regimes throughout the world, so really their not fighting Islamism. Nonetheless foreign intervention of Iraq and Afghanistan saved lives for the greater good, the action itself was justified, the motives suspect. I've analzed the problems and came to the conclusion that 1) fundamentalists cannot be negotiated with 2) Muderous dictators must be removed. I can expand on my reasons for thinking so if you wish.

[fistfulofknowledge]

@suddenlyitsobvious Also, just out of curiosity, what would you have done put in the position to remove the Baathist, Taliban, or indeed any horrible regime run by dictators or extremists? I mean in those cases you'd be free to control your own motives, and have only the ability to claim your own responsiblity. Would you intervene or not? Of course I've disconnected it away from the real world invasions, but it's important to in order to gauge why one is against it...

[fistfulofknowledge]

@suddenlyitsobvious ..If you're for intervention that means that you claim some lives, innocent lives. If your for allowing these regimes to stay on, however, your responsible for allowing non-negotiable monsters to carry on such terrors whilst you could have acted. Indeed many of these monsters may attack yourself and demand slavery. In this scenario one can be idealistic, but in the real world one sometimes has to be pragmatic, as is the case with the so-called 'war on terror'

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@fistfulofknowledge

(1)

I see where you're coming from. You've basically maintained all the big lines

& main parameters of the mediatized 'Western paradigm' in its approach to Islam

& the current confrontations taking place.

You state: 'The Taliban, and indeed most Islamic fundementalist movements, weren't so

much created by the west, but rather aided by western govts due to common enemies.'

 This kind of statement confirms my above observation: your loyalties (to your country,...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(2)

...to 'the West') dictate your perspective, but since you've also looked into the topic a bit

further, you've heard -perthaps from Chomsky, perhaps from another source, how the Taliban came into being during the US-Soviet confrontation in Afghanistan during the 80s.

So you have decided that they were 'aided', not 'created', which is playing on

semantics, & in fact rather false because they simply didn't exist before they received

indoctrination & training financed by Western...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(3)

... intelligence agencies, who had the OBJECTIVE to create them, and did so.

Then you of course immediately choose to accept such agencies had a 'good reason' -fighting the 'evil Soviets'- but that doesn't make it less true that this mess (the Taliban) was indeed created by the West. You must then of course in order to maintain your faith in the fundamental goodness of the system and the authorities you trust suppose that it wasn't the purpose of these agencies to create a mess,...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(4) ...but what if you're being very naive about this & it was, and always is, PRECISELY the objective to create messes, since ONLY MESSES, only CHAOS justify

military interventions and a constant expansion of authority's control as the public is submerged by emergencies and drama. What's even more, but this may be way over your head, the conflict in the 80s ITSELF was of course an orchestrated conflict, the entire 'cold war' being in reality just a ploy to advance global...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(5)

... control; in reality the entire cold war was set up & both parties playing the game, the logistic infrastructure of ACTUAL US-USSR relations during the cold war being documented eloquently by f.i. Anthony Sutton in a manner that leaves no doubt that the USSR was basically funded all along by Wall Street and the US government, pretty much since its incipience. A reality that certainly deserves some very serious meditation! So, the system gives you a good reason for a bad thing,...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(7)

... to justify what you have already decided is right? How remarkable to speak of Islamic imperialism when all arabic states have since well over a century been completely controlled by the West, & when Western imperialism has ruthlessly exploited the ENTIRE WORLD -Asia, Africa, South-America-

like a factory since centuries, exterminating all native cultures, massacring millions of

people and creating a soulles master-slave global society.

You state:

'Nonetheless...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(8)

...foreign intervention of Iraq and Afghanistan saved lives for the greater good, the action itself was justified, the motives suspect.'

Oh really? Have you kept track of the civilian death toll in Irak? At least in the hundreds of thousands if not well over a million. The country is completely destroyed, and again, evil puppet Sadam was put in charge by the West of course.

He was quickly eliminated -kind of like Ben Laden who apparently is suddenly dead-

so the public can't...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(9)

...get an actual balanced picture of the embarassing reality of how small & insignificant these MAAAAASSIVE threats to the West really were.

'Also, just out of curiosity, what would you have done put in the position to remove the Baathist, Taliban, or indeed any horrible regime run by dictators or extremists?' I would first of all investigate who put such dictators in charge and why,

and make sure these people (people like your national security advisors, members of...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(11)

...to you. It is already established that you'll side with your authorities, and your reasonings subsequently become distorted in increasingly painful efforts to rape truth. Face it: the US government and it can be said, basically the entire West LIED about the reason for attacking Irak. They lied to US, to its own citizens, scaring its own citizens with a FAKE THREAT. How is it possible that you actually keep on buying into these lies? If you are interested in TRUTH, in...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(12)

...developing your understanding of society, you can't think with your emotional investments, national pride or whatever. You have to simply take these priorities out of your thinking, that is, if you want to make a claim to honesty. You should really be investigating how come the War with Irak could be sold to the world based on a blatant lie (WMD) and what this says about the entire system.

As you honestly look into these things, you'll find an entire new world...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(13)

...of understanding and insight opening up before you.

Such insights might not be very rosy, but at least they'll be TRUE, and you'll know that you are being honest with yourself and reality, and it is only through bringing this kind of truth into being that the world can change for the better, when enough people will master the courage to take an honest look at reality...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

*of one's own processing skills

[suddenlyitsobvious]

 Now the waiting is for some hysterical pseudo-intellectual to come up with the 'conspiracy' -slurs -the current mass-mediatized mass-technique for implementing full thought-stop...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

...is precisely why he's at the place he's at. People who need Chom are intellectually passive and dreaming one can be something of an intellectual while at the same time having one's thought processes controlled by politically-correct drivel. There are numerous ways to completely discredit Chom's integrity, but his upholding of the 9/11 official narrative makes this exercice utterly redundant. A complete sold deceiver on a payroll and the fawning fans just won't see it...

[termsofusepolice]

@suddenlyitsobvious Send him one of your tin-foil hats. Maybe he'll start picking up the right frequencies.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@termsofusepolice

Aahaaah, another idiot who can't think and is just about able to reproduce the standard conspiracy-slurs. Even Chomsky has a record of scorning this sort of mindlessness.

So you can't formulate anything of substance. You're blocked.

[thepostnihilist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

Exactly. People need to understand the idea of deliberate deception.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@thepostnihilist Yeah, but the idea of deliberate deception is WAYYY too much for people to handle.

It directly confronts the full load of their sense of security, endangers their pyschological, social, professional investments, engendering massive perplexity and disorganization. Perhaps it is ESPECIALLY close to impossible for the masses to reassess the system because their lifelong reliance on it has prevented the psychological and intellectual resources required for the development...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@thepostnihilist

...ONE'S OWN processing skills from coming into being.

Hence they are DOOMED to their programming and of course tragically and boisterously confusing their parroting activity with use of critical thinking skills. Most people are basically brainwashed, as is invariably illustrated even by their replies

to for instance my posts, or to any observation critical of authority or social dogma: they can NEVER actually address them SUBSTANTIVELY.

They've been programmed to...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@thepostnihilist

...rely on substandard 'conspiracy-theorist slurs' to disqualify anyone or anything straying from the party-line, and follow this stratagem religiously for fear

of exposing, of discovering, their actual monstrous intellectual incompetence.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@thepostnihilist It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of the social engineers and

puppets like Chomsky to RETRO-ACTIVELY be hyper-critical of and expose those social movements and currents that THEY THEMSELVES were most instrumental in bringing into being.

Chomsky here is scorning the posturing intellectuals who are in reality merely

following the herd -which is true. And the youtubers are enthralled...,

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@thepostnihilist ...feeling they're on the clever side of the fence, laughing with Chomsky at those 'stupid

intellectuals'. Ha ha ha! They're so dumb! Little does the laughing youtuber -who in reality is merely venting his intellectual frustration & rage at any scapegoat designed by authority- understand that HE HIMSELF is even dumber, or that Chomsky hasn't got the SLIGHTEST INTEREST

in seeing either the herd intellectuals, OR the laughing youtuber

gaining an ounce of insight.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

He's sayingintellectuals aren't independent and he is NOT saying what their dependence prevents them to express.

He's making the mistake of qualifying Stuart Mills' as a man 'of the highest moral integrity' while at the same time following the party-line, which is a logical fallacy, as Chom ALWAYS displays at some level. People so easily fall for the little condescending tone critical of the system, the appearance of mavericism and reblliousness... Chom is the most sold of all, which...

[IntellectualPopulist]

Where's the rest?

[mrmike9959]

Astute thoughts indeed. Reminds me of C. S. Lewis quote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[utilitarian12]

@mrmike9959 well picked quote like that a lot, the idea of ignorance to the torment one is enacting as a result of a satisfied concious seems highly relevant

[Counterreactionary]

Noam Chomsky has some plausible thoughts and statements, but I prefer Alan Woods over him any day.

[rollotwomassey]

Noam......do you realize you're describing yourself?

[Ichtiostega]

@rollotwomassey what's there to realize? chomsky isn't mainstream, he's criticizing mainstream intellectuals.

[rollotwomassey]

@Ichtiostega Chomsky is the EPITOME of a mainstream intellectual. All the hallmarks are there- leftism, self-loathing, an elite university pedigree, a history of dabbling in fora in which he has no formal training or education, appearing in all the "bien pensant," upscale, pseudo-intellectual magazines and media outlets. picking the easiest targets in the world all the while refusing to actually identify himself as one thing or another [unless you count "anarcho-syndicalist"].

[oldstock1607]

Ol' Chomsky. OH THE IRONY of the bellweather of American intellectual culture criticizing the nature of intellectual culture.

[ThePatcam]

@oldstock1607 you know, the people i find to most ardently disagree with noam chomsky are the ones who misunderstand and misinterpret him the most.

[Ichtiostega]

@oldstock1607 how is chomsky the bellwether of american intellectual culture? he's an anarchist for christ's sake.

[oldstock1607]

@Ichtiostega Lol. Yeah, he's an "anarchist." One of those "anarchists" who teaches at one of the Nation's leading Universities. What kind of "anarchist" does that? "Anarchist" is just a buzzword he has adopted to describe himself in an attempt to pander to those leftist-extremists who already view him as a demi-god.

[Ichtiostega]

@oldstock1607 he was an anarchist before he became a professor and I don't see the contradiction there. you don't seem to understand what anarchism is.

[windsofsolaris]

Slovenija, Croatia, BH, CG, Kosovo are all free states now, because Serbian imperialism made that possible. Had the Serbs waited one more generation, war would have not been possible (by that time, Jugoslavija would have been even more homogenized), but Serbian impatience, hysterical paranoia greed and nationalism killed it.

[MrROTD]

We are ALL totally unique. Think about that for awhile LOL

[languagenow]

explains a lot, actually...

[zentonil]

Antonio Gramsci

[munkdo3]

MORE!

[1844Freddy]

The herd of independent minds!