Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
New Chomsky Interview: "U.S. Is A Leading Terrorist State"
The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world.
12/28/02
Mark Thomas: If we can start with US foreign policy in relation to Iraq and the War on Terror, what do you think is going on at the moment?
Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course. These guys can't be conducting a war on terror. It's just out of the question. They declared a war on terror 20 years ago and we know what they did. They destroyed Central America. They killed a million and a half people in southern Africa. We can go on through the list. So there's no 'War on Terror'.
There was a terrorist act, September 11th, very unusual, a real historic event, the first time in history that the west received the kind of attack that it carries out routinely in the rest of the world. September 11th did change policy undoubtedly, not just for the US, but across the board. Every government in the world saw it as an opportunity to intensify their own repression and atrocities, from Russia and Chechnya, to the West imposing more discipline on their populations.
This had big effects - for example take Iraq. Prior to September 11th, there was a longstanding concern of the US toward Iraq - that is it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. So one way or another the US was going to do something to get it, that's clear. September 11th gave the pretext. There's a change in the rhetoric concerning Iraq after September 11th - 'We now have an excuse to go ahead with what we're planning.'
It kinda stayed like that up to September of this year when Iraq suddenly shifted... to 'An imminent threat to our existence.' Condoleeza Rice [US National Security Advisor] came out with her warning that the next evidence of a nuclear weapon would be a mushroom cloud over New York. There was a big media campaign with political figures - we needed to destroy Saddam this winter or we'd all be dead. You've got to kind of admire the intellectual classes not to notice that the only people in the world who are afraid of Saddam Hussien are Americans. Everybody hates him and Iraqis are undoubtedly afraid of him, but outside of Iraq and the United States, no one's afraid of him. Not Kuwait, not Iran, not Israel, not Europe. They hate him, but they're not afraid of him.
In the United States people are very much afraid, there's no question about it. The support you see in US polls for the war is very thin, but it's based on fear. It's an old story in the United States. When my kids were in elementary school 40 years ago they were taught to hide under desks in case of an atom bomb attack. I'm not kidding. The country is always in fear of everything. Crime for example: Crime in the United States is roughly comparable with other industrial societies, towards the high end of the spectrum. On the other hand, fear of crime is way beyond other industrial societies...
It's very consciously engendered. These guys now in office, remember they're almost entirely from the 1980s. They've been through it already and they know exactly how to play the game. Right through the 1980s they periodically had campaigns to terrify the population.
To create fear is not that hard, but this time the timing was so obviously for the Congressional campaign that even political commentators got the message. The presidential campaign is going to be starting in the middle of next year. They've got to have a victory under their belt. And on to the next adventure. Otherwise, the population's going to pay attention to what's happening to them, which is a big assault, a major assault on the population, just as in the 1980s. They're replaying the record almost exactly. First thing they did in the 1980s, in 1981, was drive the country into a big deficit. This time they did it with a tax cut for the rich and the biggest increase in federal spending in 20 years.
This happens to be an unusually corrupt administration, kind of like an Enron administration, so there's a tremendous amount of profit going into the hands of an unusually corrupt group of gangsters. You can't really have all this stuff on the front pages, so you have to push it off the front pages. You have to keep people from thinking about it. And there's only one way that anybody ever figured out to frighten people and they're good at it.
So there's domestic political factors that have to do with timing. September 11th gave the pretext and there's a long term, serious interest [in Iraq]. So they've gotta go to war... my speculation would be that they would like to have it over with before the presidential campaign.
The problem is that when you're in a war, you don't know what's going to happen. The chances are it'll be a pushover, it ought to be, there's no Iraqi army, the country will probably collapse in two minutes, but you can't be sure of that. If you take the CIA warnings seriously, they're pretty straight about it. They're saying that if there's a war, Iraq may respond with terrorist acts.
US adventurism is just driving countries into developing weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent - they don't have any other deterrent. Conventional forces don't work obviously, there's no external deterrent. The only way anyone can defend themselves is with terror and weapons of mass destruction. So it's plausible to assume that they're doing it. I suppose that's the basis for the CIA analysis and I suppose the British intelligence are saying the same thing.
But you don't want to have that happen in the middle of a presidential campaign... There is the problem about what to do with the effects of the war, but that's easy. You count on journalists and intellectuals not to talk about it. How many people are talking about Afghanistan? Afghanistan's back where it was, run by warlords and gangsters and who's writing about it? Almost nobody. If it goes back to what it was no one cares, everyone's forgotten about it.
If Iraq turns into people slaughtering each other, I could write the articles right now. 'Backward people, we tried to save them but they want to murder each other because they're dirty Arabs.' By then, I presume, I'm just guessing, they [the US] will be onto the next war, which will probably be either Syria or Iran.
The fact is that war with Iran is probably underway. It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey. They're there because they're preparing for the war against Iran. They don't care about Iraq. Iraq they figure's a pushover, but Iran has always been a problem for Israel. It's the one country in the region that they can't handle and they've been after the US to take it on for years. According to one report, the Israeli airforce is now flying at the Iranian border for intelligence, provocation and so on. And it's not a small airforce. It's bigger than the British airforce, bigger than any NATO power other than the US. So it's probably underway. There are claims that there are efforts to stir up Azeri separatism, which makes some sense. It's what the Russians tried to do in 1946, and that would separate Iran, or what's left of Iran, from the Caspian oil producing centres. Then you could partition it. That will probably be underway at the time and then there'll be a story about how Iran's going to kill us tomorrow, so we need to get rid of them today. At least that's been the pattern.
Campaign Against Arms Trade: How far do you see the vast military production machine that is America requiring war as an advertisement for their equipment?
Chomsky: You have to remember that what's called military industry is just hi-tech industry. The military is a kind of cover for the state sector in the economy. At MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] where I am, everybody knows this except maybe for some economists. Everybody else knows it because it pays their salaries. The money comes into places like MIT under military contract to produce the next generation of the hi-tech economy. If you take a look at what's called the new economy - computers, internet - it comes straight out of places like MIT under federal contracts for research and development under the cover of military production. Then it gets handed to IBM when you can sell something.
At MIT the surrounding area used to have small electronics firms. Now it has small biotech firms. The reason is that the next cutting edge of the economy is going to be biology based. So funding from the government for biology based research is vastly increasing. If you want to have a small start-up company that will make you a huge amount of money when somebody buys it someday, you do it in genetic engineering, biotechnology and so on. This goes right through history. It's usually a dynamic state sector that gets economies going.
One of the reasons the US wants to control the oil is because profits flow back, and they flow in a lot of ways. Its not just oil profits, it's also military sales. The biggest purchaser of US arms and probably British arms is either Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates, one of the rich oil producers. They take most of the arms and that's profits for hi- tech industry in the Unites States. The money goes right back to the US treasury and treasury securities. In various ways, this helps prop up primarily the US and British economies.
I don't know if you've looked at the records, but in 1958 when Iraq broke the Anglo-American condominium on oil production, Britain went totally crazy. The British at that time were still very reliant on Kuwaiti profits. Britain needed the petrodollars for supporting the British economy and it looked as if what happened in Iraq might spread to Kuwait. So at that point Britain and the US decided to grant Kuwait nominal autonomy, up to then it was just a colony. They said you can run your own post office, pretend you have a flag, that sort of thing. The British said that if anything goes wrong with this we will ruthlessly intervene to ensure maintaining control and the US agreed to the same thing in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.
CAAT: There's also the suggestion that it's a way of America controlling Europe and the Pacific rim.
Chomsky: Absolutely. The smarter guys like George Kennen were pointing out that control over the energy resources of the middle east gives the US what he called 'veto power' over other countries. He was thinking particularly of Japan. Now the Japanese know this perfectly well so they've been working very hard to try to gain independent access to oil, that's one of the reasons they've tried hard, and succeeded to an extent, to establish relations with Indonesia and Iran and others, to get out of the West-controlled system.
Actually one of the purposes of the [post World War II] Marshall Plan, this great benevolent plan, was to shift Europe and Japan from coal to oil. Europe and Japan both had indigenous coal resources but they switched to oil in order to give the US control. About $2bn out of the $13bn Marshall Plan dollars went straight to the oil companies to help convert Europe and Japan to oil based economies. For power, it's enormously significant to control the resources and oil's expected to be the main resource for the next couple of generations.
The National Intelligence Council, which is a collection of various intelligence agencies, published a projection in 2000 called 'Global Trends 2015.' They make the interesting prediction that terrorism is going to increase as a result of globalisation. They really say it straight. They say that what they call globalisation is going to lead to a widening economic divide, just the opposite of what economic theory predicts, but they're realists, and so they say that it's going to lead to increased disorder, tension and hostility and violence, a lot of it directed against the United States.
They also predict that Persian Gulf oil will be increasingly important for world energy and industrial systems but that the US won't rely on it. But it's got to control it. Controlling the oil resources is more of an issue than access. Because control equals power.
MT: How do you think the current anti-war movement that's building up compares with Vietnam? What do you think we can achieve as people involved in direct action and protest? Do you think there's a possibility of preventing a war from occurring?
NC: I think that's really hard because the timing is really short. You can make it costly, which is important. Even if it doesn't stop, it's important for the war to be costly to try to stop the next one.
Compared with the Vietnam War movement, this movement is just incomparably ahead now. People talk about the Vietnam War movement, but they forget or don't know what it was actually like. The war in Vietnam started in 1962, publicly, with a public attack on South Vietnam - air force, chemical warfare, concentration camps, the whole business. No protest... the protest that did build up four or five years later was mostly about the bombing of the North, which was terrible but was a sideshow. The main attack was against South Vietnam and there was never any serious protest against that.
This time there's protest before the war has even got started. I can't think of an example in the entire history of Europe, including the United States, when there was ever protest of any substantial level before a war. Here you've got massive protest before war's even started. It's a tremendous tribute to changes in popular culture that have taken place in Western countries in the last 30 or 40 years. It's just phenomenal.
SchNEWS: It sometimes seems that as soon as protest breaks out of quite narrow confines, a march every six months maybe, you get attacked. People protesting against the war recently in Brighton were pepper sprayed and batoned for just sitting down in a street.
Chomsky: The more protest there is the more tightening there's going to be, that's routine. When the Vietnam War protests really began to build up, so did the repression. I was very close to a long jail sentence myself and it was stopped by the Tet Offensive. After the Tet Offensive, the establishment turned against the war and they called off the trials. Right now a lot of people could end up in Guantanamo Bay and people are aware of it.
If there's protest in a country then there's going to be repression. Can they get away with it? - it depends a lot on the reaction. In the early 50s in the US, there was what was called Macarthyism and the only reason it succeeded was that there was no resistance to it. When they tried the same thing in the 60s it instantly collapsed because people simply laughed at it so they couldn't do it. Even a dictatorship can't do everything it wants. It's got to have some degree of popular support. And in a more democratic country, there's a very fragile power system. There's nothing secret about this, it's history. The question in all of these things is how much popular resistance there's going to be.
* This is an edited version. If you want to see the whole video, contact Undercurrents 01865 203661, underc [at] gn.apc.org .
Mark Thomas: If we can start with US foreign policy in relation to Iraq and the War on Terror, what do you think is going on at the moment?
Noam Chomsky: First of all I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase 'War on Terror'. There can't be a War on Terror. It's a logical impossibility. The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course. These guys can't be conducting a war on terror. It's just out of the question. They declared a war on terror 20 years ago and we know what they did. They destroyed Central America. They killed a million and a half people in southern Africa. We can go on through the list. So there's no 'War on Terror'.
There was a terrorist act, September 11th, very unusual, a real historic event, the first time in history that the west received the kind of attack that it carries out routinely in the rest of the world. September 11th did change policy undoubtedly, not just for the US, but across the board. Every government in the world saw it as an opportunity to intensify their own repression and atrocities, from Russia and Chechnya, to the West imposing more discipline on their populations.
This had big effects - for example take Iraq. Prior to September 11th, there was a longstanding concern of the US toward Iraq - that is it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. So one way or another the US was going to do something to get it, that's clear. September 11th gave the pretext. There's a change in the rhetoric concerning Iraq after September 11th - 'We now have an excuse to go ahead with what we're planning.'
It kinda stayed like that up to September of this year when Iraq suddenly shifted... to 'An imminent threat to our existence.' Condoleeza Rice [US National Security Advisor] came out with her warning that the next evidence of a nuclear weapon would be a mushroom cloud over New York. There was a big media campaign with political figures - we needed to destroy Saddam this winter or we'd all be dead. You've got to kind of admire the intellectual classes not to notice that the only people in the world who are afraid of Saddam Hussien are Americans. Everybody hates him and Iraqis are undoubtedly afraid of him, but outside of Iraq and the United States, no one's afraid of him. Not Kuwait, not Iran, not Israel, not Europe. They hate him, but they're not afraid of him.
In the United States people are very much afraid, there's no question about it. The support you see in US polls for the war is very thin, but it's based on fear. It's an old story in the United States. When my kids were in elementary school 40 years ago they were taught to hide under desks in case of an atom bomb attack. I'm not kidding. The country is always in fear of everything. Crime for example: Crime in the United States is roughly comparable with other industrial societies, towards the high end of the spectrum. On the other hand, fear of crime is way beyond other industrial societies...
It's very consciously engendered. These guys now in office, remember they're almost entirely from the 1980s. They've been through it already and they know exactly how to play the game. Right through the 1980s they periodically had campaigns to terrify the population.
To create fear is not that hard, but this time the timing was so obviously for the Congressional campaign that even political commentators got the message. The presidential campaign is going to be starting in the middle of next year. They've got to have a victory under their belt. And on to the next adventure. Otherwise, the population's going to pay attention to what's happening to them, which is a big assault, a major assault on the population, just as in the 1980s. They're replaying the record almost exactly. First thing they did in the 1980s, in 1981, was drive the country into a big deficit. This time they did it with a tax cut for the rich and the biggest increase in federal spending in 20 years.
This happens to be an unusually corrupt administration, kind of like an Enron administration, so there's a tremendous amount of profit going into the hands of an unusually corrupt group of gangsters. You can't really have all this stuff on the front pages, so you have to push it off the front pages. You have to keep people from thinking about it. And there's only one way that anybody ever figured out to frighten people and they're good at it.
So there's domestic political factors that have to do with timing. September 11th gave the pretext and there's a long term, serious interest [in Iraq]. So they've gotta go to war... my speculation would be that they would like to have it over with before the presidential campaign.
The problem is that when you're in a war, you don't know what's going to happen. The chances are it'll be a pushover, it ought to be, there's no Iraqi army, the country will probably collapse in two minutes, but you can't be sure of that. If you take the CIA warnings seriously, they're pretty straight about it. They're saying that if there's a war, Iraq may respond with terrorist acts.
US adventurism is just driving countries into developing weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent - they don't have any other deterrent. Conventional forces don't work obviously, there's no external deterrent. The only way anyone can defend themselves is with terror and weapons of mass destruction. So it's plausible to assume that they're doing it. I suppose that's the basis for the CIA analysis and I suppose the British intelligence are saying the same thing.
But you don't want to have that happen in the middle of a presidential campaign... There is the problem about what to do with the effects of the war, but that's easy. You count on journalists and intellectuals not to talk about it. How many people are talking about Afghanistan? Afghanistan's back where it was, run by warlords and gangsters and who's writing about it? Almost nobody. If it goes back to what it was no one cares, everyone's forgotten about it.
If Iraq turns into people slaughtering each other, I could write the articles right now. 'Backward people, we tried to save them but they want to murder each other because they're dirty Arabs.' By then, I presume, I'm just guessing, they [the US] will be onto the next war, which will probably be either Syria or Iran.
The fact is that war with Iran is probably underway. It's known that about 12% of the Israeli airforce is in south eastern Turkey. They're there because they're preparing for the war against Iran. They don't care about Iraq. Iraq they figure's a pushover, but Iran has always been a problem for Israel. It's the one country in the region that they can't handle and they've been after the US to take it on for years. According to one report, the Israeli airforce is now flying at the Iranian border for intelligence, provocation and so on. And it's not a small airforce. It's bigger than the British airforce, bigger than any NATO power other than the US. So it's probably underway. There are claims that there are efforts to stir up Azeri separatism, which makes some sense. It's what the Russians tried to do in 1946, and that would separate Iran, or what's left of Iran, from the Caspian oil producing centres. Then you could partition it. That will probably be underway at the time and then there'll be a story about how Iran's going to kill us tomorrow, so we need to get rid of them today. At least that's been the pattern.
Campaign Against Arms Trade: How far do you see the vast military production machine that is America requiring war as an advertisement for their equipment?
Chomsky: You have to remember that what's called military industry is just hi-tech industry. The military is a kind of cover for the state sector in the economy. At MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] where I am, everybody knows this except maybe for some economists. Everybody else knows it because it pays their salaries. The money comes into places like MIT under military contract to produce the next generation of the hi-tech economy. If you take a look at what's called the new economy - computers, internet - it comes straight out of places like MIT under federal contracts for research and development under the cover of military production. Then it gets handed to IBM when you can sell something.
At MIT the surrounding area used to have small electronics firms. Now it has small biotech firms. The reason is that the next cutting edge of the economy is going to be biology based. So funding from the government for biology based research is vastly increasing. If you want to have a small start-up company that will make you a huge amount of money when somebody buys it someday, you do it in genetic engineering, biotechnology and so on. This goes right through history. It's usually a dynamic state sector that gets economies going.
One of the reasons the US wants to control the oil is because profits flow back, and they flow in a lot of ways. Its not just oil profits, it's also military sales. The biggest purchaser of US arms and probably British arms is either Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates, one of the rich oil producers. They take most of the arms and that's profits for hi- tech industry in the Unites States. The money goes right back to the US treasury and treasury securities. In various ways, this helps prop up primarily the US and British economies.
I don't know if you've looked at the records, but in 1958 when Iraq broke the Anglo-American condominium on oil production, Britain went totally crazy. The British at that time were still very reliant on Kuwaiti profits. Britain needed the petrodollars for supporting the British economy and it looked as if what happened in Iraq might spread to Kuwait. So at that point Britain and the US decided to grant Kuwait nominal autonomy, up to then it was just a colony. They said you can run your own post office, pretend you have a flag, that sort of thing. The British said that if anything goes wrong with this we will ruthlessly intervene to ensure maintaining control and the US agreed to the same thing in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.
CAAT: There's also the suggestion that it's a way of America controlling Europe and the Pacific rim.
Chomsky: Absolutely. The smarter guys like George Kennen were pointing out that control over the energy resources of the middle east gives the US what he called 'veto power' over other countries. He was thinking particularly of Japan. Now the Japanese know this perfectly well so they've been working very hard to try to gain independent access to oil, that's one of the reasons they've tried hard, and succeeded to an extent, to establish relations with Indonesia and Iran and others, to get out of the West-controlled system.
Actually one of the purposes of the [post World War II] Marshall Plan, this great benevolent plan, was to shift Europe and Japan from coal to oil. Europe and Japan both had indigenous coal resources but they switched to oil in order to give the US control. About $2bn out of the $13bn Marshall Plan dollars went straight to the oil companies to help convert Europe and Japan to oil based economies. For power, it's enormously significant to control the resources and oil's expected to be the main resource for the next couple of generations.
The National Intelligence Council, which is a collection of various intelligence agencies, published a projection in 2000 called 'Global Trends 2015.' They make the interesting prediction that terrorism is going to increase as a result of globalisation. They really say it straight. They say that what they call globalisation is going to lead to a widening economic divide, just the opposite of what economic theory predicts, but they're realists, and so they say that it's going to lead to increased disorder, tension and hostility and violence, a lot of it directed against the United States.
They also predict that Persian Gulf oil will be increasingly important for world energy and industrial systems but that the US won't rely on it. But it's got to control it. Controlling the oil resources is more of an issue than access. Because control equals power.
MT: How do you think the current anti-war movement that's building up compares with Vietnam? What do you think we can achieve as people involved in direct action and protest? Do you think there's a possibility of preventing a war from occurring?
NC: I think that's really hard because the timing is really short. You can make it costly, which is important. Even if it doesn't stop, it's important for the war to be costly to try to stop the next one.
Compared with the Vietnam War movement, this movement is just incomparably ahead now. People talk about the Vietnam War movement, but they forget or don't know what it was actually like. The war in Vietnam started in 1962, publicly, with a public attack on South Vietnam - air force, chemical warfare, concentration camps, the whole business. No protest... the protest that did build up four or five years later was mostly about the bombing of the North, which was terrible but was a sideshow. The main attack was against South Vietnam and there was never any serious protest against that.
This time there's protest before the war has even got started. I can't think of an example in the entire history of Europe, including the United States, when there was ever protest of any substantial level before a war. Here you've got massive protest before war's even started. It's a tremendous tribute to changes in popular culture that have taken place in Western countries in the last 30 or 40 years. It's just phenomenal.
SchNEWS: It sometimes seems that as soon as protest breaks out of quite narrow confines, a march every six months maybe, you get attacked. People protesting against the war recently in Brighton were pepper sprayed and batoned for just sitting down in a street.
Chomsky: The more protest there is the more tightening there's going to be, that's routine. When the Vietnam War protests really began to build up, so did the repression. I was very close to a long jail sentence myself and it was stopped by the Tet Offensive. After the Tet Offensive, the establishment turned against the war and they called off the trials. Right now a lot of people could end up in Guantanamo Bay and people are aware of it.
If there's protest in a country then there's going to be repression. Can they get away with it? - it depends a lot on the reaction. In the early 50s in the US, there was what was called Macarthyism and the only reason it succeeded was that there was no resistance to it. When they tried the same thing in the 60s it instantly collapsed because people simply laughed at it so they couldn't do it. Even a dictatorship can't do everything it wants. It's got to have some degree of popular support. And in a more democratic country, there's a very fragile power system. There's nothing secret about this, it's history. The question in all of these things is how much popular resistance there's going to be.
* This is an edited version. If you want to see the whole video, contact Undercurrents 01865 203661, underc [at] gn.apc.org .
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The U.S. War on Terror is a logical impossibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not the function of our goverment to keep
the citizen from falling into error; it is the function
of the citizen to keep the goverment from falling
into error."
U. S. S U P R E M E C O U R T J U S T I C E
R O B E R T H. J A C K S O N
1 9 5 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not the function of our goverment to keep
the citizen from falling into error; it is the function
of the citizen to keep the goverment from falling
into error."
U. S. S U P R E M E C O U R T J U S T I C E
R O B E R T H. J A C K S O N
1 9 5 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
For more information:
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/elliber...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from a speech delivered by astronomer Carl Sagan on July 3, 1988 to approximately 30,000 people at the 125th celebration of the Battle of Gettysburg and the rededication of the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, Gettysburg National Military Park, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Every quarter century, the peace memorial at Gettysburg is rededicated; Presidents Wilson, Franklin Roosvelt and Eisenhower have been previous speakers.
(From 'Lend Me Your Ears': Great Speaches in History,
selected and introduced by William Safire -New York,
W.W.Norton 1992)
* Cowritten with Ann Druyan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begining:
"Fifty-one thousand human beings were killed or wounded here-ancestors of some of us, brothers of us all. This was the first full-fledged example of an industrialized war, with machine-tooled arms and railroad transport of men and matériel. It was the first hint of an age yet to come, our age; an intimation of what technology bent to the porpouses of war might be capable. The new Spencer repeating rifle was used here. In May 1863, a reconnaissance ballon of the Army of the Potomac detected movement of Confederate troops across the Rappahan-nock River, the begining of the campaign that led to the Battle of Gettysburg. That ballon was a precursor of air forces and strategic bombing and reconnaissance satellites"...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
..."It is time to learn from those who fell here. And it is time to act.
In part the American Civil War was about freedom; about extending the benefits of the American Revolution to all Americans, to make valid for everyone that tragically unfulfilled promise of "Liberty and justice for all". I'm concerned about a lack of historical pattern recognition. Today the fighters for freedom do not wear three-cornered hats and play the fife and drum. They come in other costumes. Thay may speak other languages. They may adhere to other religions. The color of their skin may be different. But the creed of liberty means nothing if it is only our own liberty that excites us. People elsewhere are crying, "No taxation without representation", and in Western and Eastern Africa, or the West Bank of the Jordan River, or Eastern Europe, or Central America they are shouting in increasing number, "Give us liberty or give us death." Why are we unable to hear most of them? We Americans have powerful nonviolent means of persuassion available to us. Why are we not using these means?
The Civil War was mainly about union; union in the face of differences. A million years ago, there were no nations on the planet. There were no tribes. The humans who were here were divided into smal family groups of a few dozen people each. We wandered. That was the horizon of our identification, an itinerant family group. Since then, the horizons have expanded. From a handful hunter-gatherers, to a tribe, to a horde, to a small city-state, to a nation, and today to inmense nation-states. The average person on the Earth today owes his or her primary allegiance to a group of something like 100 million people. It seems very clear that if we do not destroy ourselves first, the unit of primary identification of most human beings will before long be the Planet Earth and the human species. To my mind, this raises the key question: wheter the fundamental unit of identification will expand to embrace the planet and the species, or wheter we will destroy ourselves first. I'm afraid it's going to be very close"...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
..."We need more than anniversary sentimentalism and holiday piety and patriotism. Where necessary, we must confront and challenge the conventional wisdom. It is time to learn from those who fell here. Our challenge is to reconcile, not after the carnage and the mass murder, but instead of the carnage and mass murder. It is time to fly into one other's arms.
It is time to act"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from a speech delivered by astronomer Carl Sagan on July 3, 1988 to approximately 30,000 people at the 125th celebration of the Battle of Gettysburg and the rededication of the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, Gettysburg National Military Park, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Every quarter century, the peace memorial at Gettysburg is rededicated; Presidents Wilson, Franklin Roosvelt and Eisenhower have been previous speakers.
(From 'Lend Me Your Ears': Great Speaches in History,
selected and introduced by William Safire -New York,
W.W.Norton 1992)
* Cowritten with Ann Druyan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begining:
"Fifty-one thousand human beings were killed or wounded here-ancestors of some of us, brothers of us all. This was the first full-fledged example of an industrialized war, with machine-tooled arms and railroad transport of men and matériel. It was the first hint of an age yet to come, our age; an intimation of what technology bent to the porpouses of war might be capable. The new Spencer repeating rifle was used here. In May 1863, a reconnaissance ballon of the Army of the Potomac detected movement of Confederate troops across the Rappahan-nock River, the begining of the campaign that led to the Battle of Gettysburg. That ballon was a precursor of air forces and strategic bombing and reconnaissance satellites"...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
..."It is time to learn from those who fell here. And it is time to act.
In part the American Civil War was about freedom; about extending the benefits of the American Revolution to all Americans, to make valid for everyone that tragically unfulfilled promise of "Liberty and justice for all". I'm concerned about a lack of historical pattern recognition. Today the fighters for freedom do not wear three-cornered hats and play the fife and drum. They come in other costumes. Thay may speak other languages. They may adhere to other religions. The color of their skin may be different. But the creed of liberty means nothing if it is only our own liberty that excites us. People elsewhere are crying, "No taxation without representation", and in Western and Eastern Africa, or the West Bank of the Jordan River, or Eastern Europe, or Central America they are shouting in increasing number, "Give us liberty or give us death." Why are we unable to hear most of them? We Americans have powerful nonviolent means of persuassion available to us. Why are we not using these means?
The Civil War was mainly about union; union in the face of differences. A million years ago, there were no nations on the planet. There were no tribes. The humans who were here were divided into smal family groups of a few dozen people each. We wandered. That was the horizon of our identification, an itinerant family group. Since then, the horizons have expanded. From a handful hunter-gatherers, to a tribe, to a horde, to a small city-state, to a nation, and today to inmense nation-states. The average person on the Earth today owes his or her primary allegiance to a group of something like 100 million people. It seems very clear that if we do not destroy ourselves first, the unit of primary identification of most human beings will before long be the Planet Earth and the human species. To my mind, this raises the key question: wheter the fundamental unit of identification will expand to embrace the planet and the species, or wheter we will destroy ourselves first. I'm afraid it's going to be very close"...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
..."We need more than anniversary sentimentalism and holiday piety and patriotism. Where necessary, we must confront and challenge the conventional wisdom. It is time to learn from those who fell here. Our challenge is to reconcile, not after the carnage and the mass murder, but instead of the carnage and mass murder. It is time to fly into one other's arms.
It is time to act"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information:
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/elliber...
There was a time when Noam's support of totalitarian propaganda and anti-American rhetoric offered a refreshing glimpse into existential absurdity. He offered a portrait of something unique to the academic elite-- providing aspiring intellectuals with a sense of pride in their own self-loathing and nausea. A mixture of Sarte's failed identity and nightmares of Nietzsche, he was once the "noble philosopher" of all that is neurotic, half-formed and ill-received. Upon further education in the art of totalitarian propaganda, having explored the state-run media of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Mideast (inspired by 9/11)-- I've discovered that what I took as unique was, in reality, a rehash of a third-rate Information Ministry. As a proud American, I can respect the opinions (no matter how flawed) and perspectives of free men and women. I do not require that every thinker have the political convictions of a Thomas Paine or Ayn Rand. I am saddened, however, when an American is unable to surpass the quality of rhetoric and conspiracy theories produced by a generic totalitarian sychophant in Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or Syria. Sure, Noam didn't have the benefit of being indoctrinated into the culture of hate, intolerance, irrationality and non-accountability that is the trademark of totalitarian societies. Living in a society where you won't get killed for offering an opinion (unlike Nigeria, Iraq, etc) contrary to the government's is a disadvantage, to be sure. But the spirit of America is the ability of individuals to overcome these disadvantages and to rise to the top of one's chosen field. Noam, unfortunately, has disappointed his American heritage by being a second-rate Totalitarian Sychophant - an "also-ran" in an effort to disgrace the American values of freedom, self-determination and individual accountability. I expected more from a fellow American.
For more information:
http://mideast.payingattention.net
This simply reaffirms the fact that Noam Chomsky is one of the worlds dumbest people. He's a disgrace to America, himself, and the formerly esteemed academic institution that employs him. In other words, he's an uninformed jerk.
His article here is so incredibly shallow. It's beyond stupid.
He ranks with the dumbest of the dumb. That would include Cheech and Chong, Hillary Clinton, Ramsay Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Beavis and Butthead, Al Gore, and don't forget our own beloved dumber than dumb Nessie.
His article here is so incredibly shallow. It's beyond stupid.
He ranks with the dumbest of the dumb. That would include Cheech and Chong, Hillary Clinton, Ramsay Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Beavis and Butthead, Al Gore, and don't forget our own beloved dumber than dumb Nessie.
As someone said on portland imc - who on earth would name themselves 'Bush Admirer'? Is he insane? What a joke!
In case some of you MORONS out there don't keep up with technology, it is now quite easy for terrorists to build very dangerous devices, explosive, nuclear, or biochemical. Since the US's border and port security is a joke, the question is, how do you prevent another attack?
One way is to work on OUR problems instead of backing corrupt foreign leaders, so why don't we do that for a change? How about less dependence on oil? How about not always agreeing with Israeli hardliners? How about not backing dictators? Too bad no one talks about that instead they say and do things that makes the current grave situation even worse.
The more we stir things up overseas, the more likely they will blow something here up cuz they will know that the rest of the world will agree when they say they were provoked by the US's actions. Why give them an excuse? Look at what happened to Israel, things were getting better there until the "Man of Peace" Sharon started stirring things up.
No wonder the Military contractor's stocks have shot up!
One way is to work on OUR problems instead of backing corrupt foreign leaders, so why don't we do that for a change? How about less dependence on oil? How about not always agreeing with Israeli hardliners? How about not backing dictators? Too bad no one talks about that instead they say and do things that makes the current grave situation even worse.
The more we stir things up overseas, the more likely they will blow something here up cuz they will know that the rest of the world will agree when they say they were provoked by the US's actions. Why give them an excuse? Look at what happened to Israel, things were getting better there until the "Man of Peace" Sharon started stirring things up.
No wonder the Military contractor's stocks have shot up!
Chomsky is certainly reproachable (he's not nearly critical enough of the US "labor movement", he has nothing interesting to say regarding anti-capitalist strategy, he over-rates the achievements of leftish activism...) but rightist "criticism" of him, as demonstrated above, is absolutely vapid.
"Chomsky's a sycophant/jerk/totalitarian" doesn't constitute a counter-argument.
It would be refreshing to see one of our erstwhile rightist turds attempt a systematic refutation of Chomsky's arguements.
I suspect that is asking too much.
"Chomsky's a sycophant/jerk/totalitarian" doesn't constitute a counter-argument.
It would be refreshing to see one of our erstwhile rightist turds attempt a systematic refutation of Chomsky's arguements.
I suspect that is asking too much.
It seems to me that lot of people posting here in all SF INDYMEDIA posts are in the same error: they love to insult people, they love to say even "fuck your wife" when they don't know the wife or the husband, just for insulting. That is not the way, we must attack arguments, base our posting in counter-arguments better than just insults to the person we are trying to criticize...
Trastor
Trastor
Hm..U.S Control over world Oil supplies. Does this mean I can buy a bigger SUV?? God I love Bush.
<Hm..U.S Control over world Oil supplies. Does this mean I can buy a bigger SUV?? God I love Bush>
you may also want to buy a gas mask to protect yourself from all the poison your SUV pumps into the air.
and after that, you may want to consider a spacesuit for your cave on the moon, since you'll be living there after your Republican policies make Earth unlivable.
Don't choke on your own fumes, Bush lover!
you may also want to buy a gas mask to protect yourself from all the poison your SUV pumps into the air.
and after that, you may want to consider a spacesuit for your cave on the moon, since you'll be living there after your Republican policies make Earth unlivable.
Don't choke on your own fumes, Bush lover!
I was laughing for a long time when I read the comment of some “dude” (mR. bUsH aDmIRER)who talks about dumbness and disgrace of Chomsky to America. Disgrace is the people who can not use the freedom of speech because of their lack of intelligence. Title “dumbness” belongs to one who is nationalistic without any base. Lastly I believe that he is (the writer) as smart as Baby Bush. I might not agree with Mr. Chomsky in every point, but it’s depressing to see comments as the “smart dude Mr. Bush Admirer “. Hope to see justice overcome the KKK mentality,
Freedom Admirer
Freedom Admirer
>>> and after that, you may want to consider a spacesuit for your cave on the moon, since you'll be living there after your Republican policies make Earth unlivable <<<
I remember in the late 1960s/early 1970s when the same doom and gloom predictions were being made: "by 2000 the earth will be unliveable, there will be too much pollution, blah blah blah"
Guess what--life expectancies are longer than ever and continue to increase. The strides in pollution control, etc., have more than made up for the inconsiderate folks who drive monster SUV's.
I remember in the late 1960s/early 1970s when the same doom and gloom predictions were being made: "by 2000 the earth will be unliveable, there will be too much pollution, blah blah blah"
Guess what--life expectancies are longer than ever and continue to increase. The strides in pollution control, etc., have more than made up for the inconsiderate folks who drive monster SUV's.
<The strides in pollution control, etc., have more than made up for the inconsiderate folks who drive monster SUV's?>
But it was the "gloom and doom" predictions that led to these pollution controls over the fierce objections of the GOP gas-guzzling right wingers. If the gloom and doom scenarios hadn't been heeded, we WOULD be living in a dessicated moonscape.
Typical right winger who benefits from leftist innovation, and then takes credit for it. Freeloader!
But it was the "gloom and doom" predictions that led to these pollution controls over the fierce objections of the GOP gas-guzzling right wingers. If the gloom and doom scenarios hadn't been heeded, we WOULD be living in a dessicated moonscape.
Typical right winger who benefits from leftist innovation, and then takes credit for it. Freeloader!
I do agree with Mr. Chomsky in many repects.
The truth is the world has always functioned like this from the first day 'Power' was invented. From the Roman and Persian Empires 2000 years ago to the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century, whoever had the power would use it against others and in favor of its own people.
The difference today is that these powers use the Media to brain-wash people to believe they are doing these thing for 'democracy in the world' or 'saving the world'. It is amazing that 60-70% of the American people now believe that Iraq is more dangerous than North Korea (only 6%)!!! The Media is unbelievably powerful!
If the US cared about democracy, it would have started with the most fundemantalist regime in the world, Saudi Arabia!
The truth is the world has always functioned like this from the first day 'Power' was invented. From the Roman and Persian Empires 2000 years ago to the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century, whoever had the power would use it against others and in favor of its own people.
The difference today is that these powers use the Media to brain-wash people to believe they are doing these thing for 'democracy in the world' or 'saving the world'. It is amazing that 60-70% of the American people now believe that Iraq is more dangerous than North Korea (only 6%)!!! The Media is unbelievably powerful!
If the US cared about democracy, it would have started with the most fundemantalist regime in the world, Saudi Arabia!
Dr. Chomsky,
I wish there were more courageous educators around, to expose the truth about capitalism and self destructing path that the US has taken in this world. Keep up the great work!
I wish there were more courageous educators around, to expose the truth about capitalism and self destructing path that the US has taken in this world. Keep up the great work!
People are brainwashed in the U.S. because they work 60 to 80 hours a week to pay off their debts and support their kids. They may very well be aware of what's really going on in the world according to Chomsky, yet feel powerless to do anything about it, trusting instead in elected officials to solve it all before the 7:00 pm news broadcast.
You work longer and harder in this country in order to stay quiet during times like these and obey your govt. and media outlets. That's why so many war protesters from the '60s are quiet now...they're at an office job (or desperately looking for one).
You work longer and harder in this country in order to stay quiet during times like these and obey your govt. and media outlets. That's why so many war protesters from the '60s are quiet now...they're at an office job (or desperately looking for one).
... true, unfortunately i think you're right. jobs take a lot out of people. they come home tired and stressed out and just want someone else to "deal with shit". they just want to relax and be entertained by their new toys n' gadgets. they just want everything to be easy and all figured out. after all, they worked their ass off. been there, felt that. but it's still a sad excuse...
is there any really good reason to be oblivious and uninvolved in your:
- personal life/feelings/health
- your family/loved ones
- your neighborhood
- your community
- your state
- your country
- your world...
is there any really good reason to let things slip, to let the "leaders" make the wrong decisions, because the people were to tired to make the right decisions...
are we all just sightless, unthinking worker ants? capitalism would sure like us if we were. we'd be real easy to manage... building a fucking capitalist ant colony without even noticing or caring what we're doing or where we're going? punch in, punch out? day in, day out...
... but ya still gotta pay them bills somehow...
is there any really good reason to be oblivious and uninvolved in your:
- personal life/feelings/health
- your family/loved ones
- your neighborhood
- your community
- your state
- your country
- your world...
is there any really good reason to let things slip, to let the "leaders" make the wrong decisions, because the people were to tired to make the right decisions...
are we all just sightless, unthinking worker ants? capitalism would sure like us if we were. we'd be real easy to manage... building a fucking capitalist ant colony without even noticing or caring what we're doing or where we're going? punch in, punch out? day in, day out...
... but ya still gotta pay them bills somehow...
i agree. last night i went to a Quakers anti-war meeting. The attendees all had other responsibilities, were fiercely devoted to the anti-war cause, and were clearly overwhelmed with the tasks ahead of them. there couldn't have been more than a dozen people there. And i bet a lot of the anti-war folks who plead "family and work responsibilities" as an excuse were at home watching television, eating junk food, and feeling listless and apathetic.
But it seems more appropriate for here, and the site was jammed when I wrote it before. I agree about the thing that people just go home and eat junk food and watch tv. Until they put their atm card in and nothing comes out (while there's still money in the account) they won't bother to do anything.
...............................
Yes, I was talking to some friends last night about nothing - which they prefer, since they leave or change the subject if I talk about anything political - and I was thinking how they probably wouldn't lift a finger for a general strike. They do buy organic, at least one is a vegetarian, they're part of an oppressed minority, and yet, all they really care about is doing social things, promoting their own musical events, attending musical events, and shopping at places like the Gap and Trader Joes. They've got their cell phones. They were talking about their friends who toured Europe just to taste cheese and wine for 10 days. And they've never gone to a peace march in the Bay Area in the past 10 years, probably never will. They do give a tiny amount of money to large progressive orgs and promote their own minority group in tiny ways, like going to their businesses. They assume that their vote is what counts. They can't be bothered to participate in anything or *even* to read a local newspaper aside from the Sunday NYTimes.
They aren't bad people, they just aren't interested in bothering with things that they say we're 'powerless' to change. It's sad to know that most of the country is this way or far worse - and these are MINORITIES in the Bay Area!
Thank god for the Quakers, eh?
...............................
Yes, I was talking to some friends last night about nothing - which they prefer, since they leave or change the subject if I talk about anything political - and I was thinking how they probably wouldn't lift a finger for a general strike. They do buy organic, at least one is a vegetarian, they're part of an oppressed minority, and yet, all they really care about is doing social things, promoting their own musical events, attending musical events, and shopping at places like the Gap and Trader Joes. They've got their cell phones. They were talking about their friends who toured Europe just to taste cheese and wine for 10 days. And they've never gone to a peace march in the Bay Area in the past 10 years, probably never will. They do give a tiny amount of money to large progressive orgs and promote their own minority group in tiny ways, like going to their businesses. They assume that their vote is what counts. They can't be bothered to participate in anything or *even* to read a local newspaper aside from the Sunday NYTimes.
They aren't bad people, they just aren't interested in bothering with things that they say we're 'powerless' to change. It's sad to know that most of the country is this way or far worse - and these are MINORITIES in the Bay Area!
Thank god for the Quakers, eh?
Thanks a lot doc!
Dear doctor. I always admired your love for the truth. But unfortunately you will not find this material on CNN, ABC, NY-Times, Washingtonpost.
Dear doctor. I always admired your love for the truth. But unfortunately you will not find this material on CNN, ABC, NY-Times, Washingtonpost.
Totalitarian individual is someone like you. Freedom?
Where do you see freedom in a capitalist economic system? Where do you see that our opinions count in a Bush regime?
Freedom is good only for parasite and social nonentities alike, for the working class...zero. I know you are proud of slavery, indoctrination, oppression and to subdued people that are against the misery of this economic system. Proud to be american? What difference do you make between working class of various countries? None, they are all exploited to make fat the masters of all craps of this universe.
Freedom will be when people of the world will destroy capitalism and are going to take their lives back. Nationalism is another crap word that means literally nothing. This country was stolen from red indians in the first place.
Where do you see freedom in a capitalist economic system? Where do you see that our opinions count in a Bush regime?
Freedom is good only for parasite and social nonentities alike, for the working class...zero. I know you are proud of slavery, indoctrination, oppression and to subdued people that are against the misery of this economic system. Proud to be american? What difference do you make between working class of various countries? None, they are all exploited to make fat the masters of all craps of this universe.
Freedom will be when people of the world will destroy capitalism and are going to take their lives back. Nationalism is another crap word that means literally nothing. This country was stolen from red indians in the first place.
only a Republican Orange-head could write a line like this. For those who do not know, most of David Duke's campaign money came from the registered republicans. The depressing part is that people like David Duke are still in the U.s. government, (LOTTT),
whom happen to be supported by this Republican from Orange county.
My dear Orange-head: READ Chomksey!
It'll do you good.
All the best
whom happen to be supported by this Republican from Orange county.
My dear Orange-head: READ Chomksey!
It'll do you good.
All the best
We all knew what we were getting into when G.W.Bush stole the election. "Complete disregard to the will of the people". When G.W. Bush was selected by Gang of 5 Suprem Court Justices, we all knew that laws will be broken and twisted.
Complete disregard to International rule of law, Complete disregard to Peace in Middle East is G.W.Bush Motto.
Arresting hundreds of innocent immigrants in California in the name of fight against Terrorism is a shameful reminder of Japanese imprisonment in WWII
Secretary of Defence Donnald Rumsfeld complete amnesia of his support to mad man Sadam Hussein during Iran and Iraq war which allowed this lunatic Sadam Hussein to gas his people and thousands of Iranian soldiers is amazing.
Or, Vice President Dick Cheny dealing oil with Sadam Hussein in 1998 is testomony of his disingenous commitment to fight against terror or terrorism.
Complete disregard to International rule of law, Complete disregard to Peace in Middle East is G.W.Bush Motto.
Arresting hundreds of innocent immigrants in California in the name of fight against Terrorism is a shameful reminder of Japanese imprisonment in WWII
Secretary of Defence Donnald Rumsfeld complete amnesia of his support to mad man Sadam Hussein during Iran and Iraq war which allowed this lunatic Sadam Hussein to gas his people and thousands of Iranian soldiers is amazing.
Or, Vice President Dick Cheny dealing oil with Sadam Hussein in 1998 is testomony of his disingenous commitment to fight against terror or terrorism.
Fantastic, wished more of these articles were published
for people who follow politicians blindly.
for people who follow politicians blindly.
<Totalitarian individual is someone like you. >
OK, you start off with a rather weak opening line. Not to be overly critical, but the "I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I" debate technique rarely works past the 6th grade in a capitalist society-- although I will concede this may be extented to grad school among certain circles of Socialists. Despite this, I will avoid using the "I'm-Rubber-Your Glue" technique and approach your comment as if it had some meaning beyond betraying adoloescent identity projection. I have a complete orientation to the concept of totalitarianism-- although I am fortunate to have never lived under a totalitarian regime. I despise totalitarianism to the point that I would rather cease existence rather than live under a totalitarian government (i.e., former Soviet Union, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). Totalitarianism negates the individual-- transforming him or her into an abstract concept that is absorbed by a community of misery, non-accountability and absolute totatilitarian control. Read Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" (a whole section is dedicated to everybody's favorite Marxist- Joesph Stalin) or the Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia-- both offer a context for how I apply the word "totalitarian".
<Where do you see freedom in a capitalist economic system? >
You're in luck, as an MBA and Business Consultant, I can offer a unique insight into how a capitalist system works and how freedom is necessary for it to prosper. American capitalism empowers the freedom of choice in most areas of our economic life. People (consumers) are free to buy or not to buy-- be it ideas, goods, services or concepts. People (sellers) are free to exchange what they can produce, know or do for what the buyer is willing to pay. Mr Chomsky, for example, is free to sell his ideas to the public in the form of books, speeches and lectures-- while the American public is under no compulsion to buy into or not to buy into his ideas at his offering price (money or modifications of one's beliefs). True capitalism is about the individual's right and ability to choose. You, for instance, can choose to be an artist, musician, programmer, small business owner, open a non-profit or nearly anything else. If, however, you do not have a market or talent to support your choice-- you cannot deny other people their right to reject what you produce in the marketplace. Socialism and other forms of Marxism, however, do not allow the individual to choose. Instead, they create a fictional social entity in which the individual must submit.
<Where do you see that our opinions count in a Bush regime?>
First of all, I am not a Bush supporter on most things-- including economic policy, many social issues and even his approach on dealing with terrorist who are the product of Islamic totalitarianism. But let's face it, those who want to destroy capitalism as you claim don't have their opinion counted by a huge majority of Americans-- never mind Bush.
<Freedom is good only for parasite and social nonentities alike, for the working class...zero. >
Sounds familiar. That is to say unoriginal and rhetorical. I'm sure it sounded much more profound coming from Stalin, Lenin or Mao. Unfortunately, this idea no longer carries any intellecture foundation-- confronted with the failure of Soviet Communism, China running to embrace capitalism, N. Korea's system starving its people and Marxism's inability to demonstrate success anywhere. Today, it is but a supericial justification of totalitarianism-- i.e., "freedom affords no value" arguement.
<I know you are proud of slavery, indoctrination, oppression and to subdued people that are against the misery of this economic system.>
So much intellectual dishonesty and over personalization! Whew! I'm dizzy just thinking about how much effort it took to presuppose my pride in slavery. Such a daring intellectual strategy! Without any facts concerning my predisposition towards slavery, you took a risk and produced an incredibly harsh declaration. Bravo! I would never dare such a risky move as to expose myself as a complete dumb ass. Your courage is impressive. As for indoctrination, I don't quite believe I understand the context of this term (perhaps because I'm just too damned indoctrinated). As for oppressing and subduing people who are against this economic system, I would concede this point under certain conditions. For individuals who choose to offer no economic value, are isolated from the world, and that leave themselves undeveloped and unprepared -- I am hoping that they choose differently, but they are ultimately accountabe for their choices. Those who attack our economic system with the intent to kill it should be more than oppressed or subdued-- but introduced instead to the weighty concept of non-existence.
<Proud to be american?>
Yes, very proud to be an American. I'm proud of America for its innovators, idealists, scientists, musicians, artists, athletes, men and women who saved Europe...and system of government that enables us to change through the will of the people. I'm am even proud of the 1 or 2 percent of the population that might consider switching to a non-capitalistic system. They serve to innoculate the greater population against a greater sickness.
<What difference do you make between working class of various countries? None, they are all exploited to make fat the masters of all craps of this universe.
Freedom will be when people of the world will destroy capitalism and are going to take their lives back. Nationalism is another crap word that means literally nothing. >
Wow! That's a big, fat juicy guilt sandwich for all Americans-- served with a tall glass of "I'm responsible for third-world nations". You, then, declare that capitalism must be destroyed and question the very legitimacy of America. Finally, you finish with old faithful <This country was stolen from red indians in the first place.>. Impressive.
OK, you start off with a rather weak opening line. Not to be overly critical, but the "I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I" debate technique rarely works past the 6th grade in a capitalist society-- although I will concede this may be extented to grad school among certain circles of Socialists. Despite this, I will avoid using the "I'm-Rubber-Your Glue" technique and approach your comment as if it had some meaning beyond betraying adoloescent identity projection. I have a complete orientation to the concept of totalitarianism-- although I am fortunate to have never lived under a totalitarian regime. I despise totalitarianism to the point that I would rather cease existence rather than live under a totalitarian government (i.e., former Soviet Union, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). Totalitarianism negates the individual-- transforming him or her into an abstract concept that is absorbed by a community of misery, non-accountability and absolute totatilitarian control. Read Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" (a whole section is dedicated to everybody's favorite Marxist- Joesph Stalin) or the Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia-- both offer a context for how I apply the word "totalitarian".
<Where do you see freedom in a capitalist economic system? >
You're in luck, as an MBA and Business Consultant, I can offer a unique insight into how a capitalist system works and how freedom is necessary for it to prosper. American capitalism empowers the freedom of choice in most areas of our economic life. People (consumers) are free to buy or not to buy-- be it ideas, goods, services or concepts. People (sellers) are free to exchange what they can produce, know or do for what the buyer is willing to pay. Mr Chomsky, for example, is free to sell his ideas to the public in the form of books, speeches and lectures-- while the American public is under no compulsion to buy into or not to buy into his ideas at his offering price (money or modifications of one's beliefs). True capitalism is about the individual's right and ability to choose. You, for instance, can choose to be an artist, musician, programmer, small business owner, open a non-profit or nearly anything else. If, however, you do not have a market or talent to support your choice-- you cannot deny other people their right to reject what you produce in the marketplace. Socialism and other forms of Marxism, however, do not allow the individual to choose. Instead, they create a fictional social entity in which the individual must submit.
<Where do you see that our opinions count in a Bush regime?>
First of all, I am not a Bush supporter on most things-- including economic policy, many social issues and even his approach on dealing with terrorist who are the product of Islamic totalitarianism. But let's face it, those who want to destroy capitalism as you claim don't have their opinion counted by a huge majority of Americans-- never mind Bush.
<Freedom is good only for parasite and social nonentities alike, for the working class...zero. >
Sounds familiar. That is to say unoriginal and rhetorical. I'm sure it sounded much more profound coming from Stalin, Lenin or Mao. Unfortunately, this idea no longer carries any intellecture foundation-- confronted with the failure of Soviet Communism, China running to embrace capitalism, N. Korea's system starving its people and Marxism's inability to demonstrate success anywhere. Today, it is but a supericial justification of totalitarianism-- i.e., "freedom affords no value" arguement.
<I know you are proud of slavery, indoctrination, oppression and to subdued people that are against the misery of this economic system.>
So much intellectual dishonesty and over personalization! Whew! I'm dizzy just thinking about how much effort it took to presuppose my pride in slavery. Such a daring intellectual strategy! Without any facts concerning my predisposition towards slavery, you took a risk and produced an incredibly harsh declaration. Bravo! I would never dare such a risky move as to expose myself as a complete dumb ass. Your courage is impressive. As for indoctrination, I don't quite believe I understand the context of this term (perhaps because I'm just too damned indoctrinated). As for oppressing and subduing people who are against this economic system, I would concede this point under certain conditions. For individuals who choose to offer no economic value, are isolated from the world, and that leave themselves undeveloped and unprepared -- I am hoping that they choose differently, but they are ultimately accountabe for their choices. Those who attack our economic system with the intent to kill it should be more than oppressed or subdued-- but introduced instead to the weighty concept of non-existence.
<Proud to be american?>
Yes, very proud to be an American. I'm proud of America for its innovators, idealists, scientists, musicians, artists, athletes, men and women who saved Europe...and system of government that enables us to change through the will of the people. I'm am even proud of the 1 or 2 percent of the population that might consider switching to a non-capitalistic system. They serve to innoculate the greater population against a greater sickness.
<What difference do you make between working class of various countries? None, they are all exploited to make fat the masters of all craps of this universe.
Freedom will be when people of the world will destroy capitalism and are going to take their lives back. Nationalism is another crap word that means literally nothing. >
Wow! That's a big, fat juicy guilt sandwich for all Americans-- served with a tall glass of "I'm responsible for third-world nations". You, then, declare that capitalism must be destroyed and question the very legitimacy of America. Finally, you finish with old faithful <This country was stolen from red indians in the first place.>. Impressive.
... a couple points.
first, don't start with the old "if they're against capitalism, they're automatically for totalitarian communism" argument. that doesn't carry much water. i think that as decades and centuries go by, there will be working alternatives to capitalism other than simply "communism". personally, i really do not think capitalism as we know it, and as you argue for, is going to be around for 150 years more. somewhere, somehow, something's going to change.
and secondly, there is a topic that offers me no end of debate within myself, as well as offering me no end of amazement at how citizens of this country are blind to it. what is this topic?
it is the split between capitalism and it's freedoms, and the the freedoms we are given by law in this land, namley by the bill of rights and the constitution.
what alarms me deeply, dan, is people such as yourself who seem to believe all the freedoms we have in this land are due to capitalism, and not to the bill of rights, to the very fact that we are living in a free society under law.
it alarms me deeply to see many people who seem to believe that the freedom that capitalism provides, the freedom to choose between crest toothpaste and colgate toothpaste is equal to or greater than the freedom to speak freely against either product in the company of others, or directly to the makers of the product.
i deeply believe there are two different freedoms going on there. and they are no where near being the equal to each other.
i believe that a society where citizens can freely choose to buy anything their heart desires, but are not free to criticize the government, the leaders, or the way business is conducted is more than a possibility. one only need look at the strange hybrid china has going to get some idea of a "free" market and big brother government opperating side by side.
so here's some philosophical questions/situations for you dan, and for your beliefs that the freedom we now enjoy today is due simply to capitalism.
so if i decide i want to be an artist, but not a businessman, or an athlete, and i want to paint or sculpt this, and not that, isn't that a freedom of thought/speech and not of "the market"? so how much of the freedom exercised in that decision lies in my rights as an american individual or in capitalism dan?
so now, let's say i'm an artist and the things i create are not making enough money for me to live. let's say i have a lot of creative principles about how i do my art, but i realize that if i want to put food on the table, i am going to have to drop my deeply held principles, go against what i believe, and essentially sell the "art" that appeals to the most people, but not the art that gives me satisfaction in life. so how much of the pain in this decision lies in my right as an american to freely decide how i want to find satisfaction in my life, and how much lies in the omnipotent, ever present demands of the bottom line, the market, capitalism?
so let's say i own a large corporation. i take pride in the integrity with which my corporation conducts business. there's a tradition of principles, of being straight with customers, and treating employees well. but there's a new corporation on the block. by using aggressive, shady marketing, by treating their employees badly (low wages, no benefits), and by treating their customers shabbily, they have been able to dramatically cut costs, and overwhelm the market that my corporation used to control. i am losing huge chunks of market share. i think to myself, i could cut costs if i ended my employee's benefits, if i treated my customers with disgraceful service, and if i started a half true, half bullshit marketing campaign to restore the visibility of my products. but this goes against everything i believe. it turns my stomach. what should i do?
so dan, supposedly in capitalist competition, only the best companies win. supposedly with competition, all the bad companies with the bad practices get weeded out. but what happens when the "best" companies (according to american society, the ones who make the most money for their share holders and have the biggest market share) conduct business without any principles? what happens when the companies who have a lot of intergrity and principle can't keep up? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOOD BEHAVIOR MAKES LESS MONEY THAN BAD BEHAVIOR? doesn't this destroy the notion that capitalist competition ensures the fair and just play of the market? doesn't this destroy the notion that under capitalist competition, only the good guy with the good practices wins, while the bad guy with the bad practices loses business?
here's another thing. capitalism is called capital-ism. why is that? because it's PRIMARY PURPOSE IS THE CREATION OF CAPITAL. it is not called tostito's-ism. it is not called goodyear tires-ism. it is not called marlboro-ism. it is not called jim beam-ism. it is not called dell computers-ism. it is not called verizon wireless-ism. the point i am trying to make dan, is that THE CHIEF PRODUCT OF ANY CAPITALIST BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IS THE CAPITAL. NOT THE CARS, OR THE CORN CHIPS, OR THE TIRES, OR THE CELL PHONES. all these produsts are merely the money businesses use to buy capital with.
this is just my opinion, but already this to me points to the devaluation and alienation of both the final product and the worker who made it in a capitalist economy.
- the product is automatically secondary in importance to how much capital it makes.
- the methods used to make the product are automatically secondary to how much they will cost to the business.
- the methods used to sell the product are automatically MORE IMPORTANT than the product itself.
- the people who make the product are automatically less important than their cost to the business.
- the task of doing the public good is automatically secondary to the task of doing the business good.
the point is that capitalism skews relationships between employer and employee, between the worker who makes the product and how much he takes pride in and can get satisfaction in his work, and between the buyer and seller. it has a profound social impact, perhaps not as great as a totalitarian communist system, but still enough to be felt.
to conclude, i just think it's dangerous to give the credit for our freedoms to capitalism, and not to the bill of rights. i think it demeans, belittles and weakens our freedom of speech to say that choosing between different brands of cars is a more important freedom of "speech" than protesting for higher gas mileage outside the factory where the cars are made. it is dangerous to say that the freedoms of speech which produce capital are more important than the freedoms of speech which take away capital.
i think that unless capitalism realizes that integrity in business affairs is important, that pride in work is important to workers, that workers and their happiness is important, that "honesty that makes less money than lies that make more money" is important, that the methods of production are important to the workers, the customers, and the environment, that the public good is precisely equal to the private good, that resources and raw materials are finite, that unless capitalism can come to grips with it's side effects, IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUTURE AS WE KNOW IT. it will flourish, and crumble.
obviously, capitalism is not perfect, and nor will it be. but to those who say that in a sort resigned, "i don't want to hear it anymore" way, the capitalism that you so love is going to crumle and disappear unless you get off your high horse and start listening to those who have some criticisms of it. this process of change can happen peacefully over time, or it will happen suddenly and violently.
there's 6.5 billion people on this earth. capitalism seems to is the only economic system that human beings have been able to make work. SO FAR. but if it can't deliver the goods, if it can't treat everybody a little better from one year to the next, it's going to have a hell of a lot to answer for.
first, don't start with the old "if they're against capitalism, they're automatically for totalitarian communism" argument. that doesn't carry much water. i think that as decades and centuries go by, there will be working alternatives to capitalism other than simply "communism". personally, i really do not think capitalism as we know it, and as you argue for, is going to be around for 150 years more. somewhere, somehow, something's going to change.
and secondly, there is a topic that offers me no end of debate within myself, as well as offering me no end of amazement at how citizens of this country are blind to it. what is this topic?
it is the split between capitalism and it's freedoms, and the the freedoms we are given by law in this land, namley by the bill of rights and the constitution.
what alarms me deeply, dan, is people such as yourself who seem to believe all the freedoms we have in this land are due to capitalism, and not to the bill of rights, to the very fact that we are living in a free society under law.
it alarms me deeply to see many people who seem to believe that the freedom that capitalism provides, the freedom to choose between crest toothpaste and colgate toothpaste is equal to or greater than the freedom to speak freely against either product in the company of others, or directly to the makers of the product.
i deeply believe there are two different freedoms going on there. and they are no where near being the equal to each other.
i believe that a society where citizens can freely choose to buy anything their heart desires, but are not free to criticize the government, the leaders, or the way business is conducted is more than a possibility. one only need look at the strange hybrid china has going to get some idea of a "free" market and big brother government opperating side by side.
so here's some philosophical questions/situations for you dan, and for your beliefs that the freedom we now enjoy today is due simply to capitalism.
so if i decide i want to be an artist, but not a businessman, or an athlete, and i want to paint or sculpt this, and not that, isn't that a freedom of thought/speech and not of "the market"? so how much of the freedom exercised in that decision lies in my rights as an american individual or in capitalism dan?
so now, let's say i'm an artist and the things i create are not making enough money for me to live. let's say i have a lot of creative principles about how i do my art, but i realize that if i want to put food on the table, i am going to have to drop my deeply held principles, go against what i believe, and essentially sell the "art" that appeals to the most people, but not the art that gives me satisfaction in life. so how much of the pain in this decision lies in my right as an american to freely decide how i want to find satisfaction in my life, and how much lies in the omnipotent, ever present demands of the bottom line, the market, capitalism?
so let's say i own a large corporation. i take pride in the integrity with which my corporation conducts business. there's a tradition of principles, of being straight with customers, and treating employees well. but there's a new corporation on the block. by using aggressive, shady marketing, by treating their employees badly (low wages, no benefits), and by treating their customers shabbily, they have been able to dramatically cut costs, and overwhelm the market that my corporation used to control. i am losing huge chunks of market share. i think to myself, i could cut costs if i ended my employee's benefits, if i treated my customers with disgraceful service, and if i started a half true, half bullshit marketing campaign to restore the visibility of my products. but this goes against everything i believe. it turns my stomach. what should i do?
so dan, supposedly in capitalist competition, only the best companies win. supposedly with competition, all the bad companies with the bad practices get weeded out. but what happens when the "best" companies (according to american society, the ones who make the most money for their share holders and have the biggest market share) conduct business without any principles? what happens when the companies who have a lot of intergrity and principle can't keep up? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOOD BEHAVIOR MAKES LESS MONEY THAN BAD BEHAVIOR? doesn't this destroy the notion that capitalist competition ensures the fair and just play of the market? doesn't this destroy the notion that under capitalist competition, only the good guy with the good practices wins, while the bad guy with the bad practices loses business?
here's another thing. capitalism is called capital-ism. why is that? because it's PRIMARY PURPOSE IS THE CREATION OF CAPITAL. it is not called tostito's-ism. it is not called goodyear tires-ism. it is not called marlboro-ism. it is not called jim beam-ism. it is not called dell computers-ism. it is not called verizon wireless-ism. the point i am trying to make dan, is that THE CHIEF PRODUCT OF ANY CAPITALIST BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IS THE CAPITAL. NOT THE CARS, OR THE CORN CHIPS, OR THE TIRES, OR THE CELL PHONES. all these produsts are merely the money businesses use to buy capital with.
this is just my opinion, but already this to me points to the devaluation and alienation of both the final product and the worker who made it in a capitalist economy.
- the product is automatically secondary in importance to how much capital it makes.
- the methods used to make the product are automatically secondary to how much they will cost to the business.
- the methods used to sell the product are automatically MORE IMPORTANT than the product itself.
- the people who make the product are automatically less important than their cost to the business.
- the task of doing the public good is automatically secondary to the task of doing the business good.
the point is that capitalism skews relationships between employer and employee, between the worker who makes the product and how much he takes pride in and can get satisfaction in his work, and between the buyer and seller. it has a profound social impact, perhaps not as great as a totalitarian communist system, but still enough to be felt.
to conclude, i just think it's dangerous to give the credit for our freedoms to capitalism, and not to the bill of rights. i think it demeans, belittles and weakens our freedom of speech to say that choosing between different brands of cars is a more important freedom of "speech" than protesting for higher gas mileage outside the factory where the cars are made. it is dangerous to say that the freedoms of speech which produce capital are more important than the freedoms of speech which take away capital.
i think that unless capitalism realizes that integrity in business affairs is important, that pride in work is important to workers, that workers and their happiness is important, that "honesty that makes less money than lies that make more money" is important, that the methods of production are important to the workers, the customers, and the environment, that the public good is precisely equal to the private good, that resources and raw materials are finite, that unless capitalism can come to grips with it's side effects, IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUTURE AS WE KNOW IT. it will flourish, and crumble.
obviously, capitalism is not perfect, and nor will it be. but to those who say that in a sort resigned, "i don't want to hear it anymore" way, the capitalism that you so love is going to crumle and disappear unless you get off your high horse and start listening to those who have some criticisms of it. this process of change can happen peacefully over time, or it will happen suddenly and violently.
there's 6.5 billion people on this earth. capitalism seems to is the only economic system that human beings have been able to make work. SO FAR. but if it can't deliver the goods, if it can't treat everybody a little better from one year to the next, it's going to have a hell of a lot to answer for.
Excellent review. I've avoided the topic for so long after getting so disgusted that it was nice to read a simple and orginal version of what's so wrong with it.
It's interesting because I often have the feeling that capitalism is somehow sick in a lot of ways, that the same sort of emptiness I feel after an average TV show - the nothingness and almost frantic is-this-really-all there-is feeling, which I no longer engage in - is a large component of the way capitalism is now.
One of the topics I was writing about in a review paper is called social exchange. Studies show that the unique abilities that humans have for 'mutual exchange for common good' (which primates have a little of, and other species don't have at all, except from conditioning) includes a sort of built-in ability to detect cheaters - if that hadn't evolved, the species wouldn't exist. I think that capitalism, the way it is now, with billionaires and homless people, corporate control of the elections and media, the inability to buy the most basic things, the knowledge that your parents were able to own a house but you aren't, etc. must constantly elicit a sense of being 'cheated' or, the constant need to suppress those feelings, and remove them from your awareness. I wouldn't be surprised if our whole society became far less violent if we weren't subjected to the sense of being constantly violated in a bad game. The opposite side to that is that people feel they are 'unworthy' if they are losing all the time, and, like the beaten child, generally destroying ourselves and others in small ways, and have almost no sense of who we are.
It's interesting because I often have the feeling that capitalism is somehow sick in a lot of ways, that the same sort of emptiness I feel after an average TV show - the nothingness and almost frantic is-this-really-all there-is feeling, which I no longer engage in - is a large component of the way capitalism is now.
One of the topics I was writing about in a review paper is called social exchange. Studies show that the unique abilities that humans have for 'mutual exchange for common good' (which primates have a little of, and other species don't have at all, except from conditioning) includes a sort of built-in ability to detect cheaters - if that hadn't evolved, the species wouldn't exist. I think that capitalism, the way it is now, with billionaires and homless people, corporate control of the elections and media, the inability to buy the most basic things, the knowledge that your parents were able to own a house but you aren't, etc. must constantly elicit a sense of being 'cheated' or, the constant need to suppress those feelings, and remove them from your awareness. I wouldn't be surprised if our whole society became far less violent if we weren't subjected to the sense of being constantly violated in a bad game. The opposite side to that is that people feel they are 'unworthy' if they are losing all the time, and, like the beaten child, generally destroying ourselves and others in small ways, and have almost no sense of who we are.
A list of the American companies involved in supplying arms to Iraq ... from "The Big American Lie" ...
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1554566.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1554566.php
Borrowing the Skeleton from Senator Trent Lott's Closet
INDEPENDENT MEDIA EXCLUSIVE: More details have emerged regarding the connection of Michael Rivero and whatreallyhappened.com (WRH) to the racist Special Forces Underground (http://vikingphoenix.com/politics/Election2000/Issues2000/NationalSecurity/resister.htm) militia. References to secret organization's clandestine structure complicate the Rivero's innocent explanation of cursory involvement (http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=48669&group=webcast). As made abundantly clear in the following the excerpts from issue three of the SFU newsletter The Resister, the group's psuedo-Libertarian agenda casts Democracy and Human Rights, by modern definition, as immoral perversions:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr3.htm
The Resister Issue 3
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume I, Number 3. Winter 1995
Post Office Box 2723, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21741 Copy 0365 of 1000 Copies
from OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS
...The Special Forces Underground is a description not a title. The opposition loves titles. Their narrow clerk-minds thrive on trivia and they must have something (preferably an acronym) to pigeonhole and categorize. Our organization does have a name. We prefer to let the opposition work for it.
...Foreign aid is nothing less than forced redistribution of this nation's wealth to impoverished socialist gangs and Third World savages. The belief of the internationalists is that we "owe something" to the rest of the world; most recently, food to starving irrelevancies in Somalia, political stability to ex-French slaves in Haiti, and guns to religious hoodlums in Bosnia: We deny this...
...Altruism permits no construct of a self-respecting self- supporting man. Altruism permits no view of man except as sacrificial animal, victim and parasite. Politically, altruists demand democracy knowing the consequence is statism. Socially, altruists demand egalitarianism knowing the consequence is tribalism. Economically, altruists demand collectivism knowing the consequence is slavery. Altruism is anti-life, anti-liberty and anti- property.
from Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny
...The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President.
...This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto- communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man...
Issue four outlines the necessity for a well organized citizen's militia to safeguard the country from the corrupting onslaught of democratic values:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr4.htm
The Resister Issue 4
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume I, Number 4. Spring 1995
Post Office Box 47095, Kansas City, Missouri, 64188 Copy xxxx of 1250 Copies
from LETTER TO OUR READERS
...And the reason the formation and exercise of a militia today is questionable, is because the unorganized militia of previous generations, wishing they could have their cake and eat it, did nothing while their so-called representatives appealed to their irrational whims and sold them down the socialist river.
...Where was the militia when the Supreme Court usurped the power to interpret the Constitution? Where was the militia when the Anti-Trust laws were passed? Did the militia mobilize to oppose any of the following?
...Democracy; the Federal Reserve Bank; direct taxation; popular election of Senators; universal suffrage; compulsory education; prohibition; the formation of federal law enforcement, regulatory, or social agencies; the War Powers Act; labor laws; social security; the formation of the U.N.; the Marshal Plan; so-called 'civil rights;' Lyndon Johnson's blatantly Marxist "Great Society" programs; environmental laws; lowering the voting age; equal opportunity; affirmative action; forfeiture laws; or any other statist, socialist, or Marxist legislation? The answer is: NO
Issue five reveals that the principled strength of Anglo Saxon culture is the remedy required to treat the bastardization of America:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr5.htm
The Resister Issue 5
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume II, Number 1. Summer 1995
Post Office Box 47095, Kansas City, Missouri, 64188 Copy xxxx of 1500 Copies
from On Extremism by J.F.A. Davidson
...The term "extremism" is nothing other than a smear; a smear used by self-proclaimed moderates, who have no principles, to defile those who adhere to principled thought and action. It is a terror phrase intended to instill a sense of guilt and uncertainty in the irrational mob by reference to undefined and constantly fluctuating ideological package-deals. One such package-deal is so-called "white-supremacy." Although racism is implied, the true target of this smear is western culture, (meaning specifically, of course, Anglo Saxon culture).
...The deprecation of western culture by moderates notwithstanding, the simple fact they attempt to deny is that if the cumulative impact of minority contributions to western culture were suddenly eliminated from the whole, the advance of western culture would have not been delayed one single day.
Also from issue five is this challenge to the notion that Michael Rivero's collaboration with the SFU was limited only to posting the newsletter "as received."
from Another Hitch-Hiker
...For the record, we do not, repeat, do not solicit membership or recruit. Special Forces Underground is a voluntary association, which means you have to find us, we do not go looking for you. There are a limited number of individuals in the entire special operations community who have unilateral authority to accept volunteers.
from THE PARTISAN - Militia Organizations and Effective Communications
by M.O. Warren
...As a private group, you have to make the most effective use possible of the media available to you. Examples include meetings (rallies, demonstrations, and public meetings--to include town meetings, etc.), television (both stories by local and national media--as well as local cable access channels), radio (call-in shows, interviews, news pieces), newspapers (letters to the editor, advertisements, feature stories, etc.), facsimile machines (press releases, etc.), and electronic on-line services (both commercial and bulletin board type).
...How your spokesman, your message, and your group are perceived is
critical. Your spokesman should be a well groomed, well dressed, articulate, personable, and unflappable individual. He should not be a threatening, wild eyed, sputtering fanatic. People will immediately turn your group off if your spokesman isn't a normal, credible person they can identify with. This extends logically, although to a lesser degree, to the entire group. Having a credible spokesman standing in front of a bunch of threatening fanatics negates any acceptance your spokesman has gained for your group...
...Group spokesmen should be carefully selected. Realizing you have only a finite number of choices among your membership, you might have to train your spokesman. Many local colleges have communications courses (including public speaking). Unfortunately, some training will have to be on the job, with the attendant risk.
...Questions to the Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator: Michael Rivero:
rivero [at] accessone.com
If questions were directed to Michael Rivero's e-mail account, then it suggests that some responsibility for communicating the group's message rested with Michael Rivero.Has WRH's front man become the Special Forces Underground heir-apparent - subtely broadcasting the anti-democratic message via whatreallyhappened.com? Is WRH the well groomed front for "a bunch of threatening fanatics" disgusted by racial equality?Perhaps Michael Rivero should take a page from Senator Trent Lott's book and come forward to fully divulge his involvement with the SFU militia and reflect on the group's troubling agenda - hopefully punctuated by sincere apology.
- S. Boyle: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
One day after posting What Really Happens on whatreallyhappened.com? I received several replies, none more interesting than the following:
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=42061
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Subject: Your Article about WhatReallyHappened on Uk.IndyMedia.org
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
Dear Sir,
Accept my statement as a statement from the heart. The position you take is harmful to humanity and your attack on a beacon of light is a manifestation of your inner fear. All attacks are a manifestation of fear.
Your efforts to cast a negative image on WhatReallyHappened.com and as you "claim," his "employers," or the people you claim she is "working closely with" reveal the truth in your heart and your lack of knowledge about what you presume to know.
You are bitter and you serve the nemesis of humanity with total impunity. This makes you a dangerous fool. Ultimately death in blindness is every fool's meal.
If it is glory you and your "friend" Damian Penny seek, allow me to suggest that you join the effort against the perennial slavery of humanity. Otherwise step aside and allow the light to shine.
**A word of caution:
Be extremely careful of your choice of words from this day forward for your crass and bitter comments have unleashed a power you will never comprehend-in your blindness.
Lord Nudimmud
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
I replied by explaining the motivation behind my investigation of Michael Rivero and his site whatreallyhappened.com - that being essentially the same as offered in the "offending" post. This prompted "Lord Nudimmud" to respond with the following:
...Look around you and understand that the reality you live is the fabricated result of a plan by beings who have been using you as a slave all your life. They have been doing so for thousands of years.
At stake is the freedom of humanity, thus, your own freedom.
The Operator of WRH has dedicated close to 10 years to his pursuit of truth. You should honor him for that. He is not your enemy. His dedication to his cause is a manifestation of the driving force within him. That force is what you must connect with. That force is the energy of GOD manifesting in his passion for his cause.
Soon the truth will be revealed to you. You will see it. It will come to you. When it does, my name will echoe in your mind and you will learn the history of who I am.
Regards,
Lord Nudimmud
Naturally, I was quite curious about my anonymous spiritual mentor, so I used Google to search for Nudimmud [at] Justice.com Only one entry was returned, and it just happened to show that Lord Nudimmud authored What the NWO Controllers want and what they will get are two different things! (http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1307), published by - you guessed it - http://www.BankIndex.com (see What Really Happens on whatreallyhappened.com? for relevance).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=767eca46.0212240205.4eaad0e7%40posting.google.com
Lord Nudimmud's word choice and melodramatic tone from the concluding lines caught my attention:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W24A31AE2
Humanity will fight back this paradigm of slavery and this evil will be vanquished. This model did not work in the past and it will never work, for no mind can be put to sleep permanently.
With every passing moment more and more people are learning about the lies perpetrated on humanity by the nefarious NWO clique. More importantly, now they know who is behind all the misery, death and sorrow of millions of innocent people! The fight between good and evil is finally out in the open.
No hole in the earth will be deep enough and no star shall be far enough to hide you. The wrath of the prime creator is coming????.
Written by Lord Nudimmud
Posted 10/11/2002
On a hunch, I returned to Google to see where else the terms "NWO," "slavery," and "prime creator" might have been used in combination. This time three results were returned, and that's including Lord N's BankIndex article (http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15A42AE2
).The other two links directed me to a compendium entitled The Universal Seduction (ISBN 1-59109-209-4, ISBN 1-59109-332-5 - http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/toc1.html) authored by Angelico Tapestra, a pseudonym for a group of "world recognized authors, investigative journalists, mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and scholars." (http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/) Now this very interesting.
Looking over the list of contributing author's (http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/authors.html), I discovered that they included Michael Rivero, notables William Cooper of http://www.williamcooper.com and Jeff Rense of http://www.rense.com, as well as a cast of colorful characters versed on such topics as aliens, mind control, numerology, and of course, conspiracies.
Marguerite McCall (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=2493), also known as Carole Fox-Breeding
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q16A25AE2
and author of Danielle (ISBN: 1591092426 - http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewwork.asp?AuthorID=2493&id=6882) and Under The Guise of Angels (http://www.greatunpublished.com/bookstore/critics_corner/reviews/rv_gu00046.html) served as Chief Editor and Chairperson of the group and the book's Publisher through her company, The Rose Garden, LTD. Of course naming the company the Rose Garden was not coincidental.
http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/articles/message.html
...In June of the year 2000, a group of individuals who shared a common concern for humanity came together via the Internet seeking to discover what is actually transpiring not only on the earth, but also in the cosmos. They began to share their insights and research with each other, culminating in the publication of "The Universal Seduction: Piercing the Veils of Deception," Volumes I and II (TUS 1&2).
The group, which later became known as "The Rose Garden Club" (RGC) was, from the beginning, non-hierarchical and democratic in nature, loosely organized and coordinated. This was done so that the group--as a whole--could not be manipulated or subverted to the desired ends of a few. There was also a communal willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other in order to gain a balanced perspective. Even though each and every member was not always in total agreement on all issues, an amenable camaraderie prevailed where everyone was agreeable to the concept of examining all relevant points of view. As such, there never was an "official"club position, nor is there today---other than a common concern and desire for freedom and human dignity.
Here are some of the areas into which we have been looking:
***The potential enslavement through the manipulation of the economies of nations.
***The behind-the scenes or secret attacks on Constitutional governments.
***Ominous developments in space-age weaponry, technology and warfare, including mind and weather control.
***UFO's--sightings, space contacts, abductions, underground bases and cover-ups.
***Beneficial developments in technology, science, metaphysics, nature and religion either inadequately covered by mainstream media or not yet in full use.
***Important truths with little or no previous dissemination for mass public consumption.
***Any covert or overt activity which threaten Humanity.
Now this is hardly a controversial declaration, but the threads tracing back to Lord Nudimmud's warning made me wonder; was he an overzealous, overprotective fan, a Rose Garden Club member, or someone else? I raised these suspicions directly with Lord N., but he has yet to deign me a response.
NOTE: Thought to have first appeared in Sumerian literature circa
2500-2200 BCE, Lord Nudimmud (http://www.jameswbell.com/geog0050enames) is an god of great importance whose name translates to "Begetter" (NU=to lie down with; DIM=spouse; MUD=to give birth), but is better known by the name of Enki (EN = Lord; KI = Earth) "Lord of the Earth."The story of Nudimmud is preserved in the Seven Tablets of the History of Creation (http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/KING.SEVENv1/KING.SEVENv1.219.237.pdf), a Babylonian text derived from earlier Sumerian writings. Nudimmud (Enki, Ea), the son of Anu (Ishtar, Antu), grandson of Anshar (Kishar), and father to Marduk is without equal among his brother gods. Many myths center of Nudimmud and his task to defeat the mighty Tiamat and a host of other evil gods.
Looking back at BankIndex article, the concluding warning can be read in two ways; first, as reference to a prophesied Biblical Armageddon now close at hand (be prepared to meet thy maker and be judged); or second, as reference to the author's divine inspiration and righteous cause (be prepared to suffer the real-world consequences of snooping around WRH). For the record, I very much doubt that Michael Rivero has anything to do with this self-annoited "patriot" and god-complex sufferer.
Coincidentally, Richley H. Crapo contends in An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scripture (http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/bible.htm) that Yahweh, the Hebrew word (generic) and name (personic) for god owes its entomological origins to the Sumerian Nudimmud. So Lord N's pseudonym may be a vieled promotion of the "arrogant Jew" stereotype.
- S. Boyle, Thursday December 12, 2002
mailto:sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
PS: Lord Nudimmud eventually responded to my questions with two seemingly contradictory emails:
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Re: A few questions
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002
There is no need to look too deeply into things. I am simply a friend of truth. I have no "working" relationship with the sites or groups you mention. To understand what Lord Nudimmud means, you must know what he is responsible for. Perhaps then you will understand what's at stake.
.....
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Re: A few questions
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002
Dear Mr. Boyle,
If you wish to keep this dialogue going, I will ask that you refrain from making conclusions that are simply untrue.
You are wrong about the connections you try to establish with militant groups and your conclusion is once again, wrong. Your obsession with WRH is blinding you. Your fear drives your actions and your actions are without deep reflection.
Ok, so first Lord N claims to have no relationship to the sites or groups I mentioned even though he authored a piece for BankIndex.com, and then later claims that Michael Rivero's connection to the racist Special Forces Underground is unfounded. Now how is it that Lord N has first-hand knowledge of a situation when he claims to be "simply a friend of truth" and not personally connected? Either he's making broad assumptions or lying. None-the-less, the magnamimous Lord N illuminates the "truth" for this hapless hack:
You must be able to differentiate between the God of the Jews and Nudimmud .....They are not the same! They do however share the same "Father." Perhaps you should read Gardner's works, or Sitchin's "entirely," before trying to piece information together you know absolutely nothing about.
One day of research can't possibly make up for thousands of years of fabricated lies and deception by the "blues."
Until you understand the relationship between "The Gods" (Neil Freer can help you here) and the current reality of humanity, your writing will continue to harm innocent readers. What humanity needs now is clarity. You should honor truth and all avenues that lead to it.
When you have read the authors I mention above, I may reveal more to you. As I have answered your questions and e-mails, allow me to request the same of you. Why do you hate WRH so much? What do you fear?
Regards,
Lord Nudimmud
Rest assured Lord N, I am looking into the matter - Blues, Gods, and Michael Rivero, et al.
- S. Boyle, December 26, 2002
INDEPENDENT MEDIA EXCLUSIVE: More details have emerged regarding the connection of Michael Rivero and whatreallyhappened.com (WRH) to the racist Special Forces Underground (http://vikingphoenix.com/politics/Election2000/Issues2000/NationalSecurity/resister.htm) militia. References to secret organization's clandestine structure complicate the Rivero's innocent explanation of cursory involvement (http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=48669&group=webcast). As made abundantly clear in the following the excerpts from issue three of the SFU newsletter The Resister, the group's psuedo-Libertarian agenda casts Democracy and Human Rights, by modern definition, as immoral perversions:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr3.htm
The Resister Issue 3
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume I, Number 3. Winter 1995
Post Office Box 2723, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21741 Copy 0365 of 1000 Copies
from OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS
...The Special Forces Underground is a description not a title. The opposition loves titles. Their narrow clerk-minds thrive on trivia and they must have something (preferably an acronym) to pigeonhole and categorize. Our organization does have a name. We prefer to let the opposition work for it.
...Foreign aid is nothing less than forced redistribution of this nation's wealth to impoverished socialist gangs and Third World savages. The belief of the internationalists is that we "owe something" to the rest of the world; most recently, food to starving irrelevancies in Somalia, political stability to ex-French slaves in Haiti, and guns to religious hoodlums in Bosnia: We deny this...
...Altruism permits no construct of a self-respecting self- supporting man. Altruism permits no view of man except as sacrificial animal, victim and parasite. Politically, altruists demand democracy knowing the consequence is statism. Socially, altruists demand egalitarianism knowing the consequence is tribalism. Economically, altruists demand collectivism knowing the consequence is slavery. Altruism is anti-life, anti-liberty and anti- property.
from Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny
...The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President.
...This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto- communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man...
Issue four outlines the necessity for a well organized citizen's militia to safeguard the country from the corrupting onslaught of democratic values:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr4.htm
The Resister Issue 4
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume I, Number 4. Spring 1995
Post Office Box 47095, Kansas City, Missouri, 64188 Copy xxxx of 1250 Copies
from LETTER TO OUR READERS
...And the reason the formation and exercise of a militia today is questionable, is because the unorganized militia of previous generations, wishing they could have their cake and eat it, did nothing while their so-called representatives appealed to their irrational whims and sold them down the socialist river.
...Where was the militia when the Supreme Court usurped the power to interpret the Constitution? Where was the militia when the Anti-Trust laws were passed? Did the militia mobilize to oppose any of the following?
...Democracy; the Federal Reserve Bank; direct taxation; popular election of Senators; universal suffrage; compulsory education; prohibition; the formation of federal law enforcement, regulatory, or social agencies; the War Powers Act; labor laws; social security; the formation of the U.N.; the Marshal Plan; so-called 'civil rights;' Lyndon Johnson's blatantly Marxist "Great Society" programs; environmental laws; lowering the voting age; equal opportunity; affirmative action; forfeiture laws; or any other statist, socialist, or Marxist legislation? The answer is: NO
Issue five reveals that the principled strength of Anglo Saxon culture is the remedy required to treat the bastardization of America:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr5.htm
The Resister Issue 5
The Purported Newsletter of the Special Forces Underground
Volume II, Number 1. Summer 1995
Post Office Box 47095, Kansas City, Missouri, 64188 Copy xxxx of 1500 Copies
from On Extremism by J.F.A. Davidson
...The term "extremism" is nothing other than a smear; a smear used by self-proclaimed moderates, who have no principles, to defile those who adhere to principled thought and action. It is a terror phrase intended to instill a sense of guilt and uncertainty in the irrational mob by reference to undefined and constantly fluctuating ideological package-deals. One such package-deal is so-called "white-supremacy." Although racism is implied, the true target of this smear is western culture, (meaning specifically, of course, Anglo Saxon culture).
...The deprecation of western culture by moderates notwithstanding, the simple fact they attempt to deny is that if the cumulative impact of minority contributions to western culture were suddenly eliminated from the whole, the advance of western culture would have not been delayed one single day.
Also from issue five is this challenge to the notion that Michael Rivero's collaboration with the SFU was limited only to posting the newsletter "as received."
from Another Hitch-Hiker
...For the record, we do not, repeat, do not solicit membership or recruit. Special Forces Underground is a voluntary association, which means you have to find us, we do not go looking for you. There are a limited number of individuals in the entire special operations community who have unilateral authority to accept volunteers.
from THE PARTISAN - Militia Organizations and Effective Communications
by M.O. Warren
...As a private group, you have to make the most effective use possible of the media available to you. Examples include meetings (rallies, demonstrations, and public meetings--to include town meetings, etc.), television (both stories by local and national media--as well as local cable access channels), radio (call-in shows, interviews, news pieces), newspapers (letters to the editor, advertisements, feature stories, etc.), facsimile machines (press releases, etc.), and electronic on-line services (both commercial and bulletin board type).
...How your spokesman, your message, and your group are perceived is
critical. Your spokesman should be a well groomed, well dressed, articulate, personable, and unflappable individual. He should not be a threatening, wild eyed, sputtering fanatic. People will immediately turn your group off if your spokesman isn't a normal, credible person they can identify with. This extends logically, although to a lesser degree, to the entire group. Having a credible spokesman standing in front of a bunch of threatening fanatics negates any acceptance your spokesman has gained for your group...
...Group spokesmen should be carefully selected. Realizing you have only a finite number of choices among your membership, you might have to train your spokesman. Many local colleges have communications courses (including public speaking). Unfortunately, some training will have to be on the job, with the attendant risk.
...Questions to the Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator: Michael Rivero:
rivero [at] accessone.com
If questions were directed to Michael Rivero's e-mail account, then it suggests that some responsibility for communicating the group's message rested with Michael Rivero.Has WRH's front man become the Special Forces Underground heir-apparent - subtely broadcasting the anti-democratic message via whatreallyhappened.com? Is WRH the well groomed front for "a bunch of threatening fanatics" disgusted by racial equality?Perhaps Michael Rivero should take a page from Senator Trent Lott's book and come forward to fully divulge his involvement with the SFU militia and reflect on the group's troubling agenda - hopefully punctuated by sincere apology.
- S. Boyle: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
One day after posting What Really Happens on whatreallyhappened.com? I received several replies, none more interesting than the following:
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=42061
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Subject: Your Article about WhatReallyHappened on Uk.IndyMedia.org
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
Dear Sir,
Accept my statement as a statement from the heart. The position you take is harmful to humanity and your attack on a beacon of light is a manifestation of your inner fear. All attacks are a manifestation of fear.
Your efforts to cast a negative image on WhatReallyHappened.com and as you "claim," his "employers," or the people you claim she is "working closely with" reveal the truth in your heart and your lack of knowledge about what you presume to know.
You are bitter and you serve the nemesis of humanity with total impunity. This makes you a dangerous fool. Ultimately death in blindness is every fool's meal.
If it is glory you and your "friend" Damian Penny seek, allow me to suggest that you join the effort against the perennial slavery of humanity. Otherwise step aside and allow the light to shine.
**A word of caution:
Be extremely careful of your choice of words from this day forward for your crass and bitter comments have unleashed a power you will never comprehend-in your blindness.
Lord Nudimmud
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
I replied by explaining the motivation behind my investigation of Michael Rivero and his site whatreallyhappened.com - that being essentially the same as offered in the "offending" post. This prompted "Lord Nudimmud" to respond with the following:
...Look around you and understand that the reality you live is the fabricated result of a plan by beings who have been using you as a slave all your life. They have been doing so for thousands of years.
At stake is the freedom of humanity, thus, your own freedom.
The Operator of WRH has dedicated close to 10 years to his pursuit of truth. You should honor him for that. He is not your enemy. His dedication to his cause is a manifestation of the driving force within him. That force is what you must connect with. That force is the energy of GOD manifesting in his passion for his cause.
Soon the truth will be revealed to you. You will see it. It will come to you. When it does, my name will echoe in your mind and you will learn the history of who I am.
Regards,
Lord Nudimmud
Naturally, I was quite curious about my anonymous spiritual mentor, so I used Google to search for Nudimmud [at] Justice.com Only one entry was returned, and it just happened to show that Lord Nudimmud authored What the NWO Controllers want and what they will get are two different things! (http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1307), published by - you guessed it - http://www.BankIndex.com (see What Really Happens on whatreallyhappened.com? for relevance).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=767eca46.0212240205.4eaad0e7%40posting.google.com
Lord Nudimmud's word choice and melodramatic tone from the concluding lines caught my attention:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W24A31AE2
Humanity will fight back this paradigm of slavery and this evil will be vanquished. This model did not work in the past and it will never work, for no mind can be put to sleep permanently.
With every passing moment more and more people are learning about the lies perpetrated on humanity by the nefarious NWO clique. More importantly, now they know who is behind all the misery, death and sorrow of millions of innocent people! The fight between good and evil is finally out in the open.
No hole in the earth will be deep enough and no star shall be far enough to hide you. The wrath of the prime creator is coming????.
Written by Lord Nudimmud
Posted 10/11/2002
On a hunch, I returned to Google to see where else the terms "NWO," "slavery," and "prime creator" might have been used in combination. This time three results were returned, and that's including Lord N's BankIndex article (http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15A42AE2
).The other two links directed me to a compendium entitled The Universal Seduction (ISBN 1-59109-209-4, ISBN 1-59109-332-5 - http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/toc1.html) authored by Angelico Tapestra, a pseudonym for a group of "world recognized authors, investigative journalists, mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and scholars." (http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/) Now this very interesting.
Looking over the list of contributing author's (http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/authors.html), I discovered that they included Michael Rivero, notables William Cooper of http://www.williamcooper.com and Jeff Rense of http://www.rense.com, as well as a cast of colorful characters versed on such topics as aliens, mind control, numerology, and of course, conspiracies.
Marguerite McCall (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=2493), also known as Carole Fox-Breeding
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q16A25AE2
and author of Danielle (ISBN: 1591092426 - http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewwork.asp?AuthorID=2493&id=6882) and Under The Guise of Angels (http://www.greatunpublished.com/bookstore/critics_corner/reviews/rv_gu00046.html) served as Chief Editor and Chairperson of the group and the book's Publisher through her company, The Rose Garden, LTD. Of course naming the company the Rose Garden was not coincidental.
http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/articles/message.html
...In June of the year 2000, a group of individuals who shared a common concern for humanity came together via the Internet seeking to discover what is actually transpiring not only on the earth, but also in the cosmos. They began to share their insights and research with each other, culminating in the publication of "The Universal Seduction: Piercing the Veils of Deception," Volumes I and II (TUS 1&2).
The group, which later became known as "The Rose Garden Club" (RGC) was, from the beginning, non-hierarchical and democratic in nature, loosely organized and coordinated. This was done so that the group--as a whole--could not be manipulated or subverted to the desired ends of a few. There was also a communal willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other in order to gain a balanced perspective. Even though each and every member was not always in total agreement on all issues, an amenable camaraderie prevailed where everyone was agreeable to the concept of examining all relevant points of view. As such, there never was an "official"club position, nor is there today---other than a common concern and desire for freedom and human dignity.
Here are some of the areas into which we have been looking:
***The potential enslavement through the manipulation of the economies of nations.
***The behind-the scenes or secret attacks on Constitutional governments.
***Ominous developments in space-age weaponry, technology and warfare, including mind and weather control.
***UFO's--sightings, space contacts, abductions, underground bases and cover-ups.
***Beneficial developments in technology, science, metaphysics, nature and religion either inadequately covered by mainstream media or not yet in full use.
***Important truths with little or no previous dissemination for mass public consumption.
***Any covert or overt activity which threaten Humanity.
Now this is hardly a controversial declaration, but the threads tracing back to Lord Nudimmud's warning made me wonder; was he an overzealous, overprotective fan, a Rose Garden Club member, or someone else? I raised these suspicions directly with Lord N., but he has yet to deign me a response.
NOTE: Thought to have first appeared in Sumerian literature circa
2500-2200 BCE, Lord Nudimmud (http://www.jameswbell.com/geog0050enames) is an god of great importance whose name translates to "Begetter" (NU=to lie down with; DIM=spouse; MUD=to give birth), but is better known by the name of Enki (EN = Lord; KI = Earth) "Lord of the Earth."The story of Nudimmud is preserved in the Seven Tablets of the History of Creation (http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/KING.SEVENv1/KING.SEVENv1.219.237.pdf), a Babylonian text derived from earlier Sumerian writings. Nudimmud (Enki, Ea), the son of Anu (Ishtar, Antu), grandson of Anshar (Kishar), and father to Marduk is without equal among his brother gods. Many myths center of Nudimmud and his task to defeat the mighty Tiamat and a host of other evil gods.
Looking back at BankIndex article, the concluding warning can be read in two ways; first, as reference to a prophesied Biblical Armageddon now close at hand (be prepared to meet thy maker and be judged); or second, as reference to the author's divine inspiration and righteous cause (be prepared to suffer the real-world consequences of snooping around WRH). For the record, I very much doubt that Michael Rivero has anything to do with this self-annoited "patriot" and god-complex sufferer.
Coincidentally, Richley H. Crapo contends in An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scripture (http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/bible.htm) that Yahweh, the Hebrew word (generic) and name (personic) for god owes its entomological origins to the Sumerian Nudimmud. So Lord N's pseudonym may be a vieled promotion of the "arrogant Jew" stereotype.
- S. Boyle, Thursday December 12, 2002
mailto:sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
PS: Lord Nudimmud eventually responded to my questions with two seemingly contradictory emails:
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Re: A few questions
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002
There is no need to look too deeply into things. I am simply a friend of truth. I have no "working" relationship with the sites or groups you mention. To understand what Lord Nudimmud means, you must know what he is responsible for. Perhaps then you will understand what's at stake.
.....
To: sboyle2003 [at] yahoo.com
From: Nudimmud [at] Justice.com
Re: A few questions
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002
Dear Mr. Boyle,
If you wish to keep this dialogue going, I will ask that you refrain from making conclusions that are simply untrue.
You are wrong about the connections you try to establish with militant groups and your conclusion is once again, wrong. Your obsession with WRH is blinding you. Your fear drives your actions and your actions are without deep reflection.
Ok, so first Lord N claims to have no relationship to the sites or groups I mentioned even though he authored a piece for BankIndex.com, and then later claims that Michael Rivero's connection to the racist Special Forces Underground is unfounded. Now how is it that Lord N has first-hand knowledge of a situation when he claims to be "simply a friend of truth" and not personally connected? Either he's making broad assumptions or lying. None-the-less, the magnamimous Lord N illuminates the "truth" for this hapless hack:
You must be able to differentiate between the God of the Jews and Nudimmud .....They are not the same! They do however share the same "Father." Perhaps you should read Gardner's works, or Sitchin's "entirely," before trying to piece information together you know absolutely nothing about.
One day of research can't possibly make up for thousands of years of fabricated lies and deception by the "blues."
Until you understand the relationship between "The Gods" (Neil Freer can help you here) and the current reality of humanity, your writing will continue to harm innocent readers. What humanity needs now is clarity. You should honor truth and all avenues that lead to it.
When you have read the authors I mention above, I may reveal more to you. As I have answered your questions and e-mails, allow me to request the same of you. Why do you hate WRH so much? What do you fear?
Regards,
Lord Nudimmud
Rest assured Lord N, I am looking into the matter - Blues, Gods, and Michael Rivero, et al.
- S. Boyle, December 26, 2002
For more information:
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article...
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, the U.S. CANNoT BE OIL-INDEPENDENT. why? Because even couting the oil reserves in Alaska and the gulf of Mexico, the U.s. has only 3% of the world's oil.
So, stop using idiotic Republican rhetoric and get real!
you need the oil,and we, the middle EAst, have to give you the goods. Until then, blow on some ...
So, stop using idiotic Republican rhetoric and get real!
you need the oil,and we, the middle EAst, have to give you the goods. Until then, blow on some ...
<"If the US cared about democracy, it would have started with the most fundemantalist regime in the world, Saudi Arabia!">
Touche!But does your enlightened soul care about the most repressive regime in the world?The State of Israel(a so called democracy which infact is a theocratic apartheid state run by a person convicted of crimes against humanity), where killing of 9 years old is routine.Atleast shed some crocodile tears for a people living under occupation, subjugation and repression for more than 50 years, what was left of them after the mass killings by the British colonialists.
Touche!But does your enlightened soul care about the most repressive regime in the world?The State of Israel(a so called democracy which infact is a theocratic apartheid state run by a person convicted of crimes against humanity), where killing of 9 years old is routine.Atleast shed some crocodile tears for a people living under occupation, subjugation and repression for more than 50 years, what was left of them after the mass killings by the British colonialists.
Consider the effect of a functioning hydrogen engine on the middle east. The oil exporters are really huge welfare states. If oil income collapsed Saudi would be more like nigeria, rawanda, etc. They have no material economy other than oil. They have no manufacturing or technology base in their economies. They would fall apart. I can't wait for the day my car will run on water or biodiesel.
Do you believe the biggest problem is Israel?
And if the answer is yes, what can be done?
And if the answer is yes, what can be done?
For more information:
http://Www.antidiscrimination.org
Only 3% of the world's oil is in the U.S? That seems really tiny. I guess we will be invading you afterall. Sorry.. Better get used to shitty burgers and SUVs. Can't wait to go shopping in Baghdads giant shopping center (plans are already on the works!).
So, you divined through my posts on capitalism that I undervalue the Bill Of Rights, Constitution and rule of law that assure personal freedom. Funny, I don't remember, nor can I read where I made this assertion. The topic was freedom in capitalism-- rather than the broader scope of freedom you sought to conviently reference as an arguement (there goes intellectual dishonesty rearing its ugly head). Tell me, how do expect to convince anyone that your position is sound when you have to resort to this type of logic.
As for alternatives to capitalism and your view of its demise, I am interested in hearing the plan and vision for which you are willing place such a personal stake in. Surely, to argue for a cause with a willingness to abandon intellectual integrity (as outlined above) must imply a really good plan. My guess is that you have no plan that American or Western society would find acceptable. You don't get problem-solving skills and the ability to build solutions from reading Chomsky. Instead, you get a half-ideology wrapped in the finery of an upper middle-class man's identity. The truth is that the extreme left (and right) does not understand how the New Economy works. Capitalism is constantly evolving, its organic. It adjusts when we move from agricultural, to industrial and information driven economies. It is competitive to the point of choas on the one hand and efficiency on the other. It isn't based on a caricature of what human beings want, need and produce. It represents the natural underpinnings of how human beings want, need and produce through the value concept of capital (a beautiful abstraction created to facilitate risk, exchange of value and the measure of value). Capitalism is not only a product of human behavior-- it actively facilitates the exchanges that shape human behavior (along with other factors that you are certain to point out that I haven't paid proper deference).
You claim that you cannot criticize the government. I say your arguements are too weak and ideology too repusive to the majority of Americans-- making you unable to influence government by convincing the electorate. You aren't living in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You can say the most hateful, ridiculous, half-witted things you like and not find much resistance among the government. If criticizing the government was impossible, Chomsky would be sitting in Cuba rather than helping the privideged youth of MIT cultivate their sense of guilt (for being priviledged) and self-loathing.
Here's an answer to your questions:
<so if i decide i want to be an artist, but not a businessman, or an athlete, and i want to paint or sculpt this, and not that, isn't that a freedom of thought/speech and not of "the market"? so how much of the freedom exercised in that decision lies in my rights as an american individual or in capitalism dan? >
Rights of an American individual and capitalist are the same thing. Free thought and speech and, more importantly, the freedom to make decisions are afforded to you. There is nothing to prevent you or to compel you within our political or economic system to choose or not choose a particular path. Its nuetral to choices and trusts the individual. No one has forced my artist and writer friends to become consultants, retail workers, programmers or anything else.
<so now, let's say i'm an artist and the things i create are not making enough money for me to live. >
There could be several problems here. You could be selling at too low a price. Maybe you aren't promoting your work effectively. Maybe you just can't convince anyone to sponsor or buy your work because it is not perceived as having value. At any rate, forcing other individuals to offer their resources to support you in something that they don't value is not reasonable. It is the essence of totalitarianism. Yes, it is tragic that I cannot dedicate myself to writing poems, sculpting, philosophy, watching football and hanging out in coffee shops -- and still expect to sustain my life. Life is challenging and unjust regardless of the economic system. I'm certain that many who lived in hunter-gather societies just wanted to chill by a creek and philosophize somewhere rather than sustain life via hunting and gathering. To have one's choices rejected by others is always a tough thing. To conform to the laws of nature (which are, admittedly, less altruistic than the ideals you advocate) is difficult. The study of why life isn't fair, however, should not be limited to politics and economics alone.
<let's say i have a lot of creative principles about how i do my art, but i realize that if i want to put food on the table, i am going to have to drop my deeply held principles, go against what i believe, and essentially sell the "art" that appeals to the most people, but not the art that gives me satisfaction in life. so how much of the pain in this decision lies in my right as an american to freely decide how i want to find satisfaction in my life, and how much lies in the omnipotent, ever present demands of the bottom line, the market, capitalism?>
Here, you are not debating the ability to choose but are also trying to assure a positive outcome for your choice. Your placing your choice over the ability of others to choose. You do not have the right to compel me to provide you with my resources (make my economic choice) . I am free not to value your choice and what you have to offer.
<so let's say i own a large corporation. i take pride in the integrity with which my corporation conducts business. there's a tradition of principles, of being straight with customers, and treating employees well. but there's a new corporation on the block. by using aggressive, shady marketing, by treating their employees badly (low wages, no benefits), and by treating their customers shabbily, they have been able to dramatically cut costs, and overwhelm the market that my corporation used to control. i am losing huge chunks of market share. i think to myself, i could cut costs if i ended my employee's benefits, if i treated my customers with disgraceful service, and if i started a half true, half bullshit marketing campaign to restore the visibility of my products. but this goes against everything i believe. it turns my stomach. what should i do?>
Read up on customer relationship management, human resources and marketing-- the basics and the research in the field. Your assuming that a sustainable advantage is achieved by the competition when neglecting their stakeholders (employees, customers, etc) and that this forces ethical companies to neglect their values and stakeholders. This simply not true in a free market economy.
<so dan, supposedly in capitalist competition, only the best companies win. supposedly with competition, all the bad companies with the bad practices get weeded out. but what happens when the "best" companies (according to american society, the ones who make the most money for their share holders and have the biggest market share) conduct business without any principles? what happens when the companies who have a lot of intergrity and principle can't keep up? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOOD BEHAVIOR MAKES LESS MONEY THAN BAD BEHAVIOR? doesn't this destroy the notion that capitalist competition ensures the fair and just play of the market? doesn't this destroy the notion that under capitalist competition, only the good guy with the good practices wins, while the bad guy with the bad practices loses business?>
When the bad guy wins it is due less to capitalism than the ethos of a society and willingness of stakeholders to make choices counter to their own interests or values. Enron learned that investors would not continue to support its firm becuase its practices went against investor interests (profits not real). Companies have modified their products and services to conform to societal concerns -- as a strategy to increase market share and loyalty of those who voice those concerns. Voting with dollars, consumers have forced producers to be concerned with their health (e.g., low fat food) , their lifestyle, their values, their beliefs and more. Should consumers be more educated? Certainly. Should businesses make better decisions about how they treat stakeholders? Definitely. This, however, has more to do with human behavior than capitalism.
<the rest...">
As for the rest of the manifesto, I don't quite have the time to address those abstractions and perspectives you presented. I think it would serve you well to read an economics text book from a non-Marxist. You might want to also read about the new economy and the role played by knowledge and knowledge workers. Like Chomsky, you seem stuck in the Industrial Age thinking process-- rather than the Information Age. Put down your Chomsky propaganda for a few days and read Toffler and Friedman.
As for alternatives to capitalism and your view of its demise, I am interested in hearing the plan and vision for which you are willing place such a personal stake in. Surely, to argue for a cause with a willingness to abandon intellectual integrity (as outlined above) must imply a really good plan. My guess is that you have no plan that American or Western society would find acceptable. You don't get problem-solving skills and the ability to build solutions from reading Chomsky. Instead, you get a half-ideology wrapped in the finery of an upper middle-class man's identity. The truth is that the extreme left (and right) does not understand how the New Economy works. Capitalism is constantly evolving, its organic. It adjusts when we move from agricultural, to industrial and information driven economies. It is competitive to the point of choas on the one hand and efficiency on the other. It isn't based on a caricature of what human beings want, need and produce. It represents the natural underpinnings of how human beings want, need and produce through the value concept of capital (a beautiful abstraction created to facilitate risk, exchange of value and the measure of value). Capitalism is not only a product of human behavior-- it actively facilitates the exchanges that shape human behavior (along with other factors that you are certain to point out that I haven't paid proper deference).
You claim that you cannot criticize the government. I say your arguements are too weak and ideology too repusive to the majority of Americans-- making you unable to influence government by convincing the electorate. You aren't living in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You can say the most hateful, ridiculous, half-witted things you like and not find much resistance among the government. If criticizing the government was impossible, Chomsky would be sitting in Cuba rather than helping the privideged youth of MIT cultivate their sense of guilt (for being priviledged) and self-loathing.
Here's an answer to your questions:
<so if i decide i want to be an artist, but not a businessman, or an athlete, and i want to paint or sculpt this, and not that, isn't that a freedom of thought/speech and not of "the market"? so how much of the freedom exercised in that decision lies in my rights as an american individual or in capitalism dan? >
Rights of an American individual and capitalist are the same thing. Free thought and speech and, more importantly, the freedom to make decisions are afforded to you. There is nothing to prevent you or to compel you within our political or economic system to choose or not choose a particular path. Its nuetral to choices and trusts the individual. No one has forced my artist and writer friends to become consultants, retail workers, programmers or anything else.
<so now, let's say i'm an artist and the things i create are not making enough money for me to live. >
There could be several problems here. You could be selling at too low a price. Maybe you aren't promoting your work effectively. Maybe you just can't convince anyone to sponsor or buy your work because it is not perceived as having value. At any rate, forcing other individuals to offer their resources to support you in something that they don't value is not reasonable. It is the essence of totalitarianism. Yes, it is tragic that I cannot dedicate myself to writing poems, sculpting, philosophy, watching football and hanging out in coffee shops -- and still expect to sustain my life. Life is challenging and unjust regardless of the economic system. I'm certain that many who lived in hunter-gather societies just wanted to chill by a creek and philosophize somewhere rather than sustain life via hunting and gathering. To have one's choices rejected by others is always a tough thing. To conform to the laws of nature (which are, admittedly, less altruistic than the ideals you advocate) is difficult. The study of why life isn't fair, however, should not be limited to politics and economics alone.
<let's say i have a lot of creative principles about how i do my art, but i realize that if i want to put food on the table, i am going to have to drop my deeply held principles, go against what i believe, and essentially sell the "art" that appeals to the most people, but not the art that gives me satisfaction in life. so how much of the pain in this decision lies in my right as an american to freely decide how i want to find satisfaction in my life, and how much lies in the omnipotent, ever present demands of the bottom line, the market, capitalism?>
Here, you are not debating the ability to choose but are also trying to assure a positive outcome for your choice. Your placing your choice over the ability of others to choose. You do not have the right to compel me to provide you with my resources (make my economic choice) . I am free not to value your choice and what you have to offer.
<so let's say i own a large corporation. i take pride in the integrity with which my corporation conducts business. there's a tradition of principles, of being straight with customers, and treating employees well. but there's a new corporation on the block. by using aggressive, shady marketing, by treating their employees badly (low wages, no benefits), and by treating their customers shabbily, they have been able to dramatically cut costs, and overwhelm the market that my corporation used to control. i am losing huge chunks of market share. i think to myself, i could cut costs if i ended my employee's benefits, if i treated my customers with disgraceful service, and if i started a half true, half bullshit marketing campaign to restore the visibility of my products. but this goes against everything i believe. it turns my stomach. what should i do?>
Read up on customer relationship management, human resources and marketing-- the basics and the research in the field. Your assuming that a sustainable advantage is achieved by the competition when neglecting their stakeholders (employees, customers, etc) and that this forces ethical companies to neglect their values and stakeholders. This simply not true in a free market economy.
<so dan, supposedly in capitalist competition, only the best companies win. supposedly with competition, all the bad companies with the bad practices get weeded out. but what happens when the "best" companies (according to american society, the ones who make the most money for their share holders and have the biggest market share) conduct business without any principles? what happens when the companies who have a lot of intergrity and principle can't keep up? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOOD BEHAVIOR MAKES LESS MONEY THAN BAD BEHAVIOR? doesn't this destroy the notion that capitalist competition ensures the fair and just play of the market? doesn't this destroy the notion that under capitalist competition, only the good guy with the good practices wins, while the bad guy with the bad practices loses business?>
When the bad guy wins it is due less to capitalism than the ethos of a society and willingness of stakeholders to make choices counter to their own interests or values. Enron learned that investors would not continue to support its firm becuase its practices went against investor interests (profits not real). Companies have modified their products and services to conform to societal concerns -- as a strategy to increase market share and loyalty of those who voice those concerns. Voting with dollars, consumers have forced producers to be concerned with their health (e.g., low fat food) , their lifestyle, their values, their beliefs and more. Should consumers be more educated? Certainly. Should businesses make better decisions about how they treat stakeholders? Definitely. This, however, has more to do with human behavior than capitalism.
<the rest...">
As for the rest of the manifesto, I don't quite have the time to address those abstractions and perspectives you presented. I think it would serve you well to read an economics text book from a non-Marxist. You might want to also read about the new economy and the role played by knowledge and knowledge workers. Like Chomsky, you seem stuck in the Industrial Age thinking process-- rather than the Information Age. Put down your Chomsky propaganda for a few days and read Toffler and Friedman.
Thanks to people like Chomsky, E. Said and a few other voices in the wilderness, for not being politically 'in-line'. The civilized world needs your courage.
Chomsky has zero credibility with me. He lost it all in this interview:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/130492_comment.php#130906
where the dialogue went:
BENNETT: why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
So we can commit terrorist acts and not be a terrorist nation? And he still thinks America is "the greatest country in the world"?
I don't get it.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/130492_comment.php#130906
where the dialogue went:
BENNETT: why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
So we can commit terrorist acts and not be a terrorist nation? And he still thinks America is "the greatest country in the world"?
I don't get it.
You and Chomsky have that in common Nick. He doesn't get it either.
As one of the world's greatest leaders once said, "You're either with us or against us."
Chomsky tries to have one foot in the American camp and the other foot in the Iraqi camp. That was Benedict Arnold's problem too.
As one of the world's greatest leaders once said, "You're either with us or against us."
Chomsky tries to have one foot in the American camp and the other foot in the Iraqi camp. That was Benedict Arnold's problem too.
The reality is that Chomsky could care less about what occurs in third-world countries and the policies of the US. The lives of people and the nations in which they live are an abstraction for him. His passion is the anti-American spotlight and the creation of self-negating sychophants -- at MIT and elsewhere. His work is not intended to add value or to solve problems. It is not an answer but a perspective-- an opinion --that feeds the adolescent quest for non-accountability. At best, it provides rich white kids a voice for their own nausea, guilt and lack of meaning. It is not a goal or even the beginning of a goal. It borrows from the great intellectual void of Marxism and totalitarianism-- promising its followers that others are to blame for them being miserable, unachieving shadows of humanity. At worst, it is a regurgitation of totalitarian ideology and logic-- which creates the weakest, most pathetic individuals and cultures on the planet.
When a gay man is executed in Saudi Arabia, Mr Chomsky is silent. When someone dies by stating an opinion in Nigeria, Iraq, or Syria-- Mr Chomsky is vacant of outrage. When Palestinian parents teach that self-negation is a more viable option than dialogue and less destructive forms of problem-solving -- Mr Chomsky sighs and takes no moral stand that is constructive to the Palestinian or their victims. These, according to Chomsky, are the result of a thousand abstractions-- but never a result of the individual's choice. To him, the individual is a tool to create his collective reality and that the only real meaning a human being can attain is within a collective construct. In this way, he shares the essential view of totalitarians -- which is a deep distrust of the individual.
In short, Chomsky has no sense of obligation to the oppressed or threatened peoples of the world. As the people of the Middle East head towards annihilation, he cheers them on. Not once does he tell the people of the region that its a bad idea to attack a nation that is capable of annihilating all that they claim they are fighting for. He does even tell them to wait a few years before they attack-- since their totalitarian regimes have made them weak, pathetic and unenlightened (qualities that don't help when your taking on the most powerful nation in the history of the world). Nope, he feeds them the same worthless bullshit as their totalitarian leaders. He validates their decision of self-destruction and assigns blame to the US and the West.
Will this stop the US from annihilating those who threaten our institutions and values? Will Chomsky stand in front of tanks as they roll into Iraq? Will Chomsky provide cover to Saudi mullahs who incite violence against Americans when the bullets fly? Is he willing to strap a bomb on himself and blow himself up for the cause of "putting pressure on Israel", providing Arab sponsors a sense of power or derailing the peace process? No. He hasn't the ability or courage to take action.
When a gay man is executed in Saudi Arabia, Mr Chomsky is silent. When someone dies by stating an opinion in Nigeria, Iraq, or Syria-- Mr Chomsky is vacant of outrage. When Palestinian parents teach that self-negation is a more viable option than dialogue and less destructive forms of problem-solving -- Mr Chomsky sighs and takes no moral stand that is constructive to the Palestinian or their victims. These, according to Chomsky, are the result of a thousand abstractions-- but never a result of the individual's choice. To him, the individual is a tool to create his collective reality and that the only real meaning a human being can attain is within a collective construct. In this way, he shares the essential view of totalitarians -- which is a deep distrust of the individual.
In short, Chomsky has no sense of obligation to the oppressed or threatened peoples of the world. As the people of the Middle East head towards annihilation, he cheers them on. Not once does he tell the people of the region that its a bad idea to attack a nation that is capable of annihilating all that they claim they are fighting for. He does even tell them to wait a few years before they attack-- since their totalitarian regimes have made them weak, pathetic and unenlightened (qualities that don't help when your taking on the most powerful nation in the history of the world). Nope, he feeds them the same worthless bullshit as their totalitarian leaders. He validates their decision of self-destruction and assigns blame to the US and the West.
Will this stop the US from annihilating those who threaten our institutions and values? Will Chomsky stand in front of tanks as they roll into Iraq? Will Chomsky provide cover to Saudi mullahs who incite violence against Americans when the bullets fly? Is he willing to strap a bomb on himself and blow himself up for the cause of "putting pressure on Israel", providing Arab sponsors a sense of power or derailing the peace process? No. He hasn't the ability or courage to take action.
For more information:
http://mideast.payingattention.net
It is the core of Chomsky's analysis that internal freedom does not guarantee a humane foreign policy. The determining factor is what elites control the government and what their agenda is.
History abounds with countries whose foreign policies were barbaric even while their internal societies were democratic. Among these societies was classical Athens, where Western civilization and democracy were born; and colonial empires such as Britain and France, which brutalized native populations and underwrote slavery even as they oversaw democratic reforms at home.
Regarding the U.S.: Its founding charters, its strong economic growth, and its democratic social movements, like abolitionism and New Deal reformism, eventually ensured that its guarantees of free speech and assembly are the strongest in the history of the world.
The U.S.'s internal record on social and economic rights is manifestly less impressive, however, and accounts for its shockingly high rates of poverty and other social pathologies.
The American elites--multinational corporations and their allies in the rentier class--have no interest in preserving either individual or social rights. Internally, they have been only partially successful in squashing democracy. Externally, they have enjoyed an almost complete triumph because of their iron grip over the media, among other reasons.
Thus, this elite is free to pursue its barbaric foreign policy, which is designed to provide a stable short term investment climate throughout the world by propping up stratified, low wage regimes.
The danger is that the U.S.'s terrorist foreign policy will eventually undermine its domestic freedoms.
Anyone is free to disagree with Chomsky. But it would be helpful if they understood what the good doctor is saying.
History abounds with countries whose foreign policies were barbaric even while their internal societies were democratic. Among these societies was classical Athens, where Western civilization and democracy were born; and colonial empires such as Britain and France, which brutalized native populations and underwrote slavery even as they oversaw democratic reforms at home.
Regarding the U.S.: Its founding charters, its strong economic growth, and its democratic social movements, like abolitionism and New Deal reformism, eventually ensured that its guarantees of free speech and assembly are the strongest in the history of the world.
The U.S.'s internal record on social and economic rights is manifestly less impressive, however, and accounts for its shockingly high rates of poverty and other social pathologies.
The American elites--multinational corporations and their allies in the rentier class--have no interest in preserving either individual or social rights. Internally, they have been only partially successful in squashing democracy. Externally, they have enjoyed an almost complete triumph because of their iron grip over the media, among other reasons.
Thus, this elite is free to pursue its barbaric foreign policy, which is designed to provide a stable short term investment climate throughout the world by propping up stratified, low wage regimes.
The danger is that the U.S.'s terrorist foreign policy will eventually undermine its domestic freedoms.
Anyone is free to disagree with Chomsky. But it would be helpful if they understood what the good doctor is saying.
Who cares what Chomsky says. He's an intellectual lightweight which is the main reason he doesn't get any airplay.
I wonder if Chomsky pays his share of Federal Income taxes. What do you think? Is he guilty of propping up this terrorist nation he chooses to live in?
if you don't care or know what Chomsky says, how do you know that he's an intellectual lightweight?
unlike many high paid Republicans, Chomsky pays his fair share of taxes.
Again: if any one you intellectual or moral lighweights wants to challenge Chomsky, let's see some specific rebuttals from you based on actual statements he has made.
unlike many high paid Republicans, Chomsky pays his fair share of taxes.
Again: if any one you intellectual or moral lighweights wants to challenge Chomsky, let's see some specific rebuttals from you based on actual statements he has made.
Statements:
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts..." - Noam Chomsky
"Chomsky pays his fair share of taxes." -"Mike (Chomsky advocate)
Conclusion:
Chomsky props up a terrorist regime.
Rebut that.
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts..." - Noam Chomsky
"Chomsky pays his fair share of taxes." -"Mike (Chomsky advocate)
Conclusion:
Chomsky props up a terrorist regime.
Rebut that.
Every day, Chomsky writes and speaks against U.S. foreign policy. So he is in effect contributing to making the U.S. a better country by showing how to use the country's internal freedoms to to change its foreign policy.
Paying taxes is the obligation of every citizen, which, I remind you, many Republicans and corporations do not do.
If wealthy Republicans are so patriotic, why are they so unwilling to pay a fair share of taxes to support their great country; and worse, why do so many of them REFUSE TO PAY TAXES AT ALL by engaging in Enron-type shenanigans?
Once again, you refuse to discuss the particulars of Chomsky's views. The obvious implication is that you have no idea what he is saying and probably lack the intelligence to do so.
You're no match for me, pal. Move along now so I can annihilate another right wing drone. What a great way to start the New Year!
Paying taxes is the obligation of every citizen, which, I remind you, many Republicans and corporations do not do.
If wealthy Republicans are so patriotic, why are they so unwilling to pay a fair share of taxes to support their great country; and worse, why do so many of them REFUSE TO PAY TAXES AT ALL by engaging in Enron-type shenanigans?
Once again, you refuse to discuss the particulars of Chomsky's views. The obvious implication is that you have no idea what he is saying and probably lack the intelligence to do so.
You're no match for me, pal. Move along now so I can annihilate another right wing drone. What a great way to start the New Year!
Why is paying the “forced tribute” of Income Taxes to a plutocracy controlled by the elites with a “terrorist” agenda, the “obligation of every citizen”? I would think it would be just the opposite.
And why do you keep bringing up the non sequitur of Republicans not paying taxes? It has no relevance to the discussion.
You rebuttal is weak Mike. It rings of playground shenanigans and schoolchildren cries of “I know you are but what am I?”
Chomsky discredits himself through his own inherent hypocrisy. To live in, and pay tribute to, the same country of which he alleges as “a leading terrorist state” impeaches any and every counter-argument he could make.
Not to mention the fact that his writing style is arduous and boring.
And so are you, Mike.
And why do you keep bringing up the non sequitur of Republicans not paying taxes? It has no relevance to the discussion.
You rebuttal is weak Mike. It rings of playground shenanigans and schoolchildren cries of “I know you are but what am I?”
Chomsky discredits himself through his own inherent hypocrisy. To live in, and pay tribute to, the same country of which he alleges as “a leading terrorist state” impeaches any and every counter-argument he could make.
Not to mention the fact that his writing style is arduous and boring.
And so are you, Mike.
My problem with reading the good Doctor is that his style and thinking process leaves me feeling "car sick". He creates a stew of facts outside of any context-- while flavoring his creation with a circular thought process. He is the Rush Limbaugh of the radical left-- offering no solutions, objectivity or semblance of accomplishing anything other than the agrandizement of his own idenitity. His work is designed for partisans, not intellectuals. He ignores the work of economists, sociologists, psychologists and others fields of knowledge when formulating his interpretations. Because he hasn't the skill to influence anyone who has experienced the joy of being productive, he blames the media and other boggie men. Do you find this unique? Most of what you said and that is written by Noam can be found in the ramblings of Sartre, Trotsky and other half-ass intellectuals. He's not terribly difficult to understand, although he makes a tremendous attempt to be as murky as possible.
For more information:
http://mideast.payingattention.net
If you're not intelligent enough to grasp Chomsky's prose, there are plenty of easy to read guides to his theories. There's even a "Chomsky For Beginners" comic book, which, hopefully, you won't have too much difficulty with.
For the zillionth time, you're all bluster when it comes to what Chomsky is saying. You really don't know, do you?
For the zillionth time, you're all bluster when it comes to what Chomsky is saying. You really don't know, do you?
Reading Chomsky has nothing to do with intellect. It is a matter of having a strong stomach. The same could be said for Kant-- although I hate mention Chomsky in the same statement as a legitimate philosopher.
For more information:
http://mideast.payingattention.net
Chomsky's positon on the foreign policies of the "terrorist American Empire" beg the questions of why he remains there, and furthermore, why he pays it tribute.
Both questions on which Mike has essentially remained silent, only to question the intellect of individuals who challenge Chomsky's work. Oh yes, and to accuse them of being staunch Republicans.
Pathetic, mike.
Both questions on which Mike has essentially remained silent, only to question the intellect of individuals who challenge Chomsky's work. Oh yes, and to accuse them of being staunch Republicans.
Pathetic, mike.
I assume you know the essentials of what Kant is saying. Regarding Chomsky, it appears you do not.
It's a requirement of civilized debate that a person possess some knowledge of what his antagonist is saying, either by reading his writings or by perusing easy to read comic books, et al.
You say that Chomsky doesn't consult economists, etc., but how would you know that if you've never been able to get past page 1?
You just don't know what Chomsky is saying, do you? I love it! You're not just shooting yourself in the foot here, you're blasting the whole limb off.
I love this debate! I'm shooting stationary clay pigeons here!
It's a requirement of civilized debate that a person possess some knowledge of what his antagonist is saying, either by reading his writings or by perusing easy to read comic books, et al.
You say that Chomsky doesn't consult economists, etc., but how would you know that if you've never been able to get past page 1?
You just don't know what Chomsky is saying, do you? I love it! You're not just shooting yourself in the foot here, you're blasting the whole limb off.
I love this debate! I'm shooting stationary clay pigeons here!
I answered the why does he pay taxes question in the first line of my post called "rebutted" above. Shall I have it printed in a comic book for you?
New schoolyard chant: THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING!
Another clay pigeon bites the dust! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
New schoolyard chant: THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING!
Another clay pigeon bites the dust! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
You look like a fool. You've thus far presumed:
1. We are Republicans.
2. We are of low intellect.
3. We don't understand Chompsky's deleterious perspectives.
4. That we could even care enough about his positions enough to go out and purchase his junk (no other words to describe it) only to contribute to the fat wallet of an hypocritical elitist that props up a terrorist regimes by paying taxes.
Why does he do that Mike?
1. We are Republicans.
2. We are of low intellect.
3. We don't understand Chompsky's deleterious perspectives.
4. That we could even care enough about his positions enough to go out and purchase his junk (no other words to describe it) only to contribute to the fat wallet of an hypocritical elitist that props up a terrorist regimes by paying taxes.
Why does he do that Mike?
Nick: "Why does Chomsky pay taxes?"
Mike: "It's the obligation of every citizen." (to pay tribute to regimes they consider terrorists)
Mike: "It's the obligation of every citizen." (to pay tribute to regimes they consider terrorists)
... MY topic was the "freedoms" of capitalism as well. only i do not believe that the freedoms americans have come to know are the result of capitalism. i tried to argue that the bedrock of our freedoms are to be found in the bill of right and the constitution, and not in the mechanics of a so-called free market capitalist society/economy. intellectual dishonesty? no, i don't think i was being dishonest in the least.
i will clear up my argument: where you see capitalism providing freedom, i see our free society under law providing freedom.
now, i didn't mean to suggest that you hate the bill of rights, or that you want it burnt down. but i am trying to get you, someone who has obviously studied capitalism as any student studying to get an MBA has, to realize the relationship between freedom in law and capitalism as an economic ideology. to get you to realize that perhaps the freedom you attribute to capitalism may belong instead to the fact that we are free to do, make, say and think as we wish under law. i hope this is not an unreasonable, hostile demand.
capitalism, IN ITSELF, does not create, or promote, or write the laws of freedom. it is an economic ideology. it is not a political machine, or a code of governance, or a law of governance. it, by itself, could not create a bill of rights. it, by itself, could not ensure that all in america have a chance to vote. it, by itself, could not allow citizens to find recourse in a court of law. at most, in a purely capitalist society, all a consumer could do to exercise freedom and to find recourse if harmed by a product is simply to stop buying the product. that is all the recourse capitalism has to offer. but is that enough to prevent abuse and harm?
what capitalism does is reward the individual. it is there to reward us for our decisions and our hard work. but the decisions and hard work we undertake in a free fashion are not the result capitalism. they are because we are free to do as we wish.
i think there is an important distinction there. i disagree with you when you say that they are one and the same. i tried to point out to you that the freedom to decide to become an artist or lawyer is a much more profound freedom than to decide if i want cheerios or frosted flakes. the freedom to write this lyric and not that lyric is a much more profound freedom than being able to decide if want this album or that album. i do not consider them equivalent in importance at all. they are simply not the same thing at all.
i think business schools would do students well to get them to think about freedom and capitalism, and the distinctions and relationships therein. i do not think think it helps to to dismiss me as being a marxist. nor to say that i sit around all day reading chomsky. obviously, you don't know me dan. if you did, you wouldn't say that.
as for friedman, no doubt he is an excellent spokesman for capitalism. but i do not believe that capitalism is the panacea for all the world's problems as he so eloquently tries to say. the fact is, that remains to be seen.
now, as for your point that the evil or abuses that happen are the result of evil and abusive people, and not capitalism, because capitalism is simply a "neutral" and impartial force, i admit that this is a strong argument.
but this raises problems for many capitalist arguments. many capitalists say that capitalism is "the best" because it so closely harnesses and models and uses man's desires. it is a reflection of man. it is close to his heart. but as soon as abuses occur, they begin to say that capitalism is merely a detached, impartial and non-breathing way of going about things.
so which is it? is it a reflection of man and his desire and passion, or is it merely dry, text book terminology which has no heart beat?
so when something good happens, it's because of the goodness of capitalism (but not of man), but when something bad happens it's because of the badness of man (and not of capitalism)? i find this line of arguing disingenuous and a little weasley. capitalists can't have it both ways. (nor can "anti-capitalists", whatever that vague term means...)
you're right about one thing. no, i do not have a plan for what comes after capitalism. i do not have a "third way" neatly outlined in a little book. unlike many however, i do not believe that capitalism has answered all the questions that have been put to it. i do not believe that we have reached "the end of history", and that now all questions are irrelevant, all discussions moot, and every problem figured out. i do not put all my faith in a world wide mono-economy of capitalism, as if it was some glorious dynasty that will last forever. i try to keep my eyes and ears open. i do agree that capitalism may have the ability to change and morph itself to given circumstances. but it seems that many of it's strongest proponents are afraid of this very change, and would like to keep it just the way it is forever. so who's to blame? man? or capitalism?
i will clear up my argument: where you see capitalism providing freedom, i see our free society under law providing freedom.
now, i didn't mean to suggest that you hate the bill of rights, or that you want it burnt down. but i am trying to get you, someone who has obviously studied capitalism as any student studying to get an MBA has, to realize the relationship between freedom in law and capitalism as an economic ideology. to get you to realize that perhaps the freedom you attribute to capitalism may belong instead to the fact that we are free to do, make, say and think as we wish under law. i hope this is not an unreasonable, hostile demand.
capitalism, IN ITSELF, does not create, or promote, or write the laws of freedom. it is an economic ideology. it is not a political machine, or a code of governance, or a law of governance. it, by itself, could not create a bill of rights. it, by itself, could not ensure that all in america have a chance to vote. it, by itself, could not allow citizens to find recourse in a court of law. at most, in a purely capitalist society, all a consumer could do to exercise freedom and to find recourse if harmed by a product is simply to stop buying the product. that is all the recourse capitalism has to offer. but is that enough to prevent abuse and harm?
what capitalism does is reward the individual. it is there to reward us for our decisions and our hard work. but the decisions and hard work we undertake in a free fashion are not the result capitalism. they are because we are free to do as we wish.
i think there is an important distinction there. i disagree with you when you say that they are one and the same. i tried to point out to you that the freedom to decide to become an artist or lawyer is a much more profound freedom than to decide if i want cheerios or frosted flakes. the freedom to write this lyric and not that lyric is a much more profound freedom than being able to decide if want this album or that album. i do not consider them equivalent in importance at all. they are simply not the same thing at all.
i think business schools would do students well to get them to think about freedom and capitalism, and the distinctions and relationships therein. i do not think think it helps to to dismiss me as being a marxist. nor to say that i sit around all day reading chomsky. obviously, you don't know me dan. if you did, you wouldn't say that.
as for friedman, no doubt he is an excellent spokesman for capitalism. but i do not believe that capitalism is the panacea for all the world's problems as he so eloquently tries to say. the fact is, that remains to be seen.
now, as for your point that the evil or abuses that happen are the result of evil and abusive people, and not capitalism, because capitalism is simply a "neutral" and impartial force, i admit that this is a strong argument.
but this raises problems for many capitalist arguments. many capitalists say that capitalism is "the best" because it so closely harnesses and models and uses man's desires. it is a reflection of man. it is close to his heart. but as soon as abuses occur, they begin to say that capitalism is merely a detached, impartial and non-breathing way of going about things.
so which is it? is it a reflection of man and his desire and passion, or is it merely dry, text book terminology which has no heart beat?
so when something good happens, it's because of the goodness of capitalism (but not of man), but when something bad happens it's because of the badness of man (and not of capitalism)? i find this line of arguing disingenuous and a little weasley. capitalists can't have it both ways. (nor can "anti-capitalists", whatever that vague term means...)
you're right about one thing. no, i do not have a plan for what comes after capitalism. i do not have a "third way" neatly outlined in a little book. unlike many however, i do not believe that capitalism has answered all the questions that have been put to it. i do not believe that we have reached "the end of history", and that now all questions are irrelevant, all discussions moot, and every problem figured out. i do not put all my faith in a world wide mono-economy of capitalism, as if it was some glorious dynasty that will last forever. i try to keep my eyes and ears open. i do agree that capitalism may have the ability to change and morph itself to given circumstances. but it seems that many of it's strongest proponents are afraid of this very change, and would like to keep it just the way it is forever. so who's to blame? man? or capitalism?
<1. We are Republicans.
2. We are of low intellect.
3. We don't understand Chompsky's deleterious perspectives.>
you're right; those are my assumptions, and everything you've said so far supports my view.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING!
2. We are of low intellect.
3. We don't understand Chompsky's deleterious perspectives.>
you're right; those are my assumptions, and everything you've said so far supports my view.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOMSKY IS SAYING!
Just because you pay taxes in a nation does not mean you are not free to criticize its actions. Chomsky is a rather tired character and is generally full of s$#t but he has the right to be a citizen, pay taxes and point out the country is doing something he does not agree with. In fact in a sense he has an obligation to do so. The "You are either with us or against us" is exactly the kind of totalitarian bullshit that the new republican party is encouraging, which is why I am switching to the liberatarian party in the next election, because conservatives have all but abandoned their protection of the individual against the government.
>http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/~fprefect/politics/chomsky.html>
is this link supposed to be an ATTACK on Chomsky? it's actually a defense, with a few principled and well taken criticisms. the author is fundamentally in accord with Chomsky.
Sheesh. What a buffoon this "Nick" is.
is this link supposed to be an ATTACK on Chomsky? it's actually a defense, with a few principled and well taken criticisms. the author is fundamentally in accord with Chomsky.
Sheesh. What a buffoon this "Nick" is.
He failed to answer the main question that Nick asked. That being, why is it obligatory to pay taxes to a government that you consider comprised of terrorists?
Perhaps you'd like to answer that one, in the light of Mike's silence?
Perhaps you'd like to answer that one, in the light of Mike's silence?
it's a real simple question and it's not getting any reasonable answers. if an individual is a citizen of a country where he strongly opposes his leadership, why pay taxes to the leaders? In Venezuala right now, dissidents are encouraging the people to not pay taxes to Chavez. souunds like a good idea to me.
Paying taxes is the LEGAL obligation of every citizen. An individual's willingness to pay taxes has no relation to his decision to criticize his government.
Did Brodsky and Sakharov pay taxes to the Soviet government even though they issued withering criticisms of it, far in excess of the charges Chomsky has leveled against the U.S.? Yes. Did Lech Walesa pay taxes to the Polish government, did Havel to the Czech? Yes. Closer to home, did most abolitionists pay taxes to the U.S. government even though it supported slavery, which they (correctly) viewed as the greatest moral atrocity in the history of mankind? Yes. Do most opponents of abortion pay taxes to the U.S. government even though they believe (wrongly) that abortion is genocide? Yes.
By paying taxes, Chomsky, and I, are expressing our gratitude to the country for providing the world's highest standard of free speech; and saying that the U.S.'s disgraceful record on domestic poverty and its barbaric foreign policy are capable of being changed through peaceful reform.
Your raising of the tax issue is a smokescreen designed to conceal your complete ignorance of Chomsky's positions.
So there.
Did Brodsky and Sakharov pay taxes to the Soviet government even though they issued withering criticisms of it, far in excess of the charges Chomsky has leveled against the U.S.? Yes. Did Lech Walesa pay taxes to the Polish government, did Havel to the Czech? Yes. Closer to home, did most abolitionists pay taxes to the U.S. government even though it supported slavery, which they (correctly) viewed as the greatest moral atrocity in the history of mankind? Yes. Do most opponents of abortion pay taxes to the U.S. government even though they believe (wrongly) that abortion is genocide? Yes.
By paying taxes, Chomsky, and I, are expressing our gratitude to the country for providing the world's highest standard of free speech; and saying that the U.S.'s disgraceful record on domestic poverty and its barbaric foreign policy are capable of being changed through peaceful reform.
Your raising of the tax issue is a smokescreen designed to conceal your complete ignorance of Chomsky's positions.
So there.
innocuous comments have been deleted from this thread in an attempt to skew the dialogue and make it appear more one sided than it really is. Reader beware: the truth will not be found on SF IMC.
Uncensored thoughts will not go unpunished. Remember that!!
Keep reading up on fascism and nazism all you anarchist and leftists. Should your desired world ever come to be that particular knowledge will come in handy when it comes to controlling the masses. It's funny how afraid you all are. Real fear emminates from those who "hide". Good! Call it what you want, it's the same thing. Fear is a good thing. Keeps you people in line and in your place.
Keep reading up on fascism and nazism all you anarchist and leftists. Should your desired world ever come to be that particular knowledge will come in handy when it comes to controlling the masses. It's funny how afraid you all are. Real fear emminates from those who "hide". Good! Call it what you want, it's the same thing. Fear is a good thing. Keeps you people in line and in your place.
Gee Mikey, we thought you’d gone wee wee wee all the way home after your last post. Good to see your still engaged in the debate. But your answer to the question is pathetic at best.
Question: Why pay taxes to a terrorist nation?
Mikey’s answer:
1. Because it must be the cool thing to do. I mean, everyone else is doing it.
2. (and more importantly) “By paying taxes, Chomsky, and I, are expressing our gratitude to the country…” for being the terrorist nation that we are allowed to accuse it of being! Thanks Uncle Sam, for being so understanding.
See what mikey (and consequently, Noam) is trying to say (and that they won’t tell you outright) is that they really don’t believe America is a terrorist nation. In fact, they love it here just as much as you or I do. They especially love the tremendous wealth available to be earned by our citizenry here in America. They only put the terrorist label on the package as sort of a “marketing strategy”. Helps old Noam sell more books.
We get it now mike. It’s okay to pay those taxes. It gives you the right to badmouth the government and sell books. Who the fuck cares anyhoo, as long as your bank account is getting fat in the process.
Talk about smoke screens. Geez.
Question: Why pay taxes to a terrorist nation?
Mikey’s answer:
1. Because it must be the cool thing to do. I mean, everyone else is doing it.
2. (and more importantly) “By paying taxes, Chomsky, and I, are expressing our gratitude to the country…” for being the terrorist nation that we are allowed to accuse it of being! Thanks Uncle Sam, for being so understanding.
See what mikey (and consequently, Noam) is trying to say (and that they won’t tell you outright) is that they really don’t believe America is a terrorist nation. In fact, they love it here just as much as you or I do. They especially love the tremendous wealth available to be earned by our citizenry here in America. They only put the terrorist label on the package as sort of a “marketing strategy”. Helps old Noam sell more books.
We get it now mike. It’s okay to pay those taxes. It gives you the right to badmouth the government and sell books. Who the fuck cares anyhoo, as long as your bank account is getting fat in the process.
Talk about smoke screens. Geez.
I was very disturbed by the Noam Chomsk'y's interview. Now I am debayting with my self is this a nation that I want to grow old and be a responiceble citizen. When I moved here 35 years ago, I thought I am cming to land of free and democratic process. I guss nothing remains the same! Thank you for the interview, it has opend my eyes.
thanks to these people who spend their time to educate us,i hope there is more apreciation or rewards for such hero's.
i dont think for a person like Noem,there is a personal difference if US attacks IRAQ or not,bringing this to the public's attention is his goal and that to show you who is trying to make the world a peaceful place to live.
long live Noam.
i dont think for a person like Noem,there is a personal difference if US attacks IRAQ or not,bringing this to the public's attention is his goal and that to show you who is trying to make the world a peaceful place to live.
long live Noam.
Look at this! I shouldn't even be wasting my time here, but I will say this. What are you achieving by bitching about eachother's viewpoints? There are more serious things happening right now, such as FEMA building concentration camps, microchips in items sold at Wallmart, GPS taxing of travel, etc. Don't you think we should all be putting as much effort into stopping this country becomming a prison?
We need to educate people on what this government is and stands for, not waste time on debates that will have no impact on the quality of our children's lives.
You could start by boycotting any item sold that contains a microchip. Simple action for a simple (but very serious) threat. And when the next terrorist attack happens, don't let the government fool you into blaming Iraq or the American right wing, ok? Please
We need to educate people on what this government is and stands for, not waste time on debates that will have no impact on the quality of our children's lives.
You could start by boycotting any item sold that contains a microchip. Simple action for a simple (but very serious) threat. And when the next terrorist attack happens, don't let the government fool you into blaming Iraq or the American right wing, ok? Please
Look at this! I shouldn't even be wasting my time here, but I will say this. What are you achieving by bitching about eachother's viewpoints? There are more serious things happening right now, such as FEMA building concentration camps, microchips in items sold at Wallmart, GPS taxing of travel, etc. Don't you think we should all be putting as much effort into stopping this country becomming a prison?
We need to educate people on what this government is and stands for, not waste time on debates that will have no impact on the quality of our children's lives.
You could start by boycotting any item sold that contains a microchip. Simple action for a simple (but very serious) threat. And when the next terrorist attack happens, don't let the government fool you into blaming Iraq or the American right wing, ok? Please
We need to educate people on what this government is and stands for, not waste time on debates that will have no impact on the quality of our children's lives.
You could start by boycotting any item sold that contains a microchip. Simple action for a simple (but very serious) threat. And when the next terrorist attack happens, don't let the government fool you into blaming Iraq or the American right wing, ok? Please
Besides microchips in toasters and other so-called "household appliances", which are being used to monitor our activities (as well as f*%cking up my pop-tarts)-- Dave forgot to mention them damn pink and green gooblins (goblins engineered by the government). When will American's wake up and confront this menace! Yeah, its all fun and games until a gooblin hops down your pants, climbs in your ass and makes you a zombie for Uncle Sam. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the bastards that stole Dave's medication.
By the way, this thing here, I still working on writing down some thoughts on freedom and capitalism. If you don't mind, I'm going to post this on my site http://www.payingattention.net over the next few days-- rather than taking up too much space in this discussion forum. No need to distract readers with my silly ramblings when there are more important issues to discuss.
By the way, this thing here, I still working on writing down some thoughts on freedom and capitalism. If you don't mind, I'm going to post this on my site http://www.payingattention.net over the next few days-- rather than taking up too much space in this discussion forum. No need to distract readers with my silly ramblings when there are more important issues to discuss.
For more information:
http://mideast.payingattention.net
Daniel, I did some research on those gooblins and found out that the liberals captured a gooblin, performed genetic mutation treatments on it, and created sort of a super-bizzaro anti-gooblin gooblin. It crawls up your ass and makes you cuss the government and call them terrorists.
They call it a Noamblin.
They call it a Noamblin.
>>if you don't care or know what Chomsky says, how do you know that he's an intellectual lightweight?
Again: if any one you intellectual or moral lighweights wants to challenge Chomsky, let's see some specific rebuttals from you based on actual statements he has made.>>
If it has to be explained to you why Chomsky is an intellectual lightweight, for what reason would I have to believe you could comprehend a rebuttal of his statements? Exactly. I have no reason to believe you could comprehend.
Again: if any one you intellectual or moral lighweights wants to challenge Chomsky, let's see some specific rebuttals from you based on actual statements he has made.>>
If it has to be explained to you why Chomsky is an intellectual lightweight, for what reason would I have to believe you could comprehend a rebuttal of his statements? Exactly. I have no reason to believe you could comprehend.
Noam speaks nothing but 100% truth! Honestly is the best policy!
Your failing to address the above posted tax issue is a smokescreen designed to conceal your complete ignorance of Chomsky's positions.
thanks for at least taking the time to digest and think about what i have said. this is very unlike most who post to this site, who tend to become rather defensive, hostile, and set in their views.
I found Prof. Chomsky's short comment on Azeri movement in Iran quite unfair--to say the least.
Iran's over 30 million Azeri population are deprived of their most rudimentary rights such as to read and write in
their mother tongue, the Azeri language. In 1945/1946 their struggle was for the purpose of achieving these basic human rights, and their current struggle is also about the restoration of these same basic human rights.
By associating that historically continuous struggle with Russian or American intentions, Prof. Chomseky provides an excellent excuse for Iran's rulers to butcher the Azeri dissidents, the very thing that the Iranian regime is doing right now and the regime before it (the Pahlavi regime) had also done. I think it is very insensitive of Prof. Chomsky to make such an unfounded remark.
Iran's over 30 million Azeri population are deprived of their most rudimentary rights such as to read and write in
their mother tongue, the Azeri language. In 1945/1946 their struggle was for the purpose of achieving these basic human rights, and their current struggle is also about the restoration of these same basic human rights.
By associating that historically continuous struggle with Russian or American intentions, Prof. Chomseky provides an excellent excuse for Iran's rulers to butcher the Azeri dissidents, the very thing that the Iranian regime is doing right now and the regime before it (the Pahlavi regime) had also done. I think it is very insensitive of Prof. Chomsky to make such an unfounded remark.
Why cant people just realize the truth and stop being fooled by the corrupt and greedy people in the "democratic" government of the U.S.
Very insightful
since the person that started this thread didn't post the original URL
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=2804
I looked at the apc.org website and didn't find any mention of this interview, which was odd, but ZNet is legit.
We have to be careful about stuff like this. People, don't be lazy. Copy and paste URLs. It improves the reader's ability to draw context by being able to backtrack to original sources, and it helps to make it less likely disinformation flies
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=2804
I looked at the apc.org website and didn't find any mention of this interview, which was odd, but ZNet is legit.
We have to be careful about stuff like this. People, don't be lazy. Copy and paste URLs. It improves the reader's ability to draw context by being able to backtrack to original sources, and it helps to make it less likely disinformation flies
To read and write in ones mother tongue is only one of the basic rights for minority groups in Iran. And I do agree with you that both regimes where depriving Azeri people from this very right,. But, we should have in mind that it was/is not only Azeri people who are suffering from this kind of treatment under authoritarian regimes. In the case of Iran, you are aware that Iran is a multi -national country and ALL nations in Iran have suffered from the situation and not only Azeris. What proffessor Chomky says about Azeri people is the actual fact. You surley do know about all the efforts put by Azeri people (with generous assistance of Turks in Turkey) right after the fall of soviet to seperate Azerbajdjan from Iran? It is going on right now. They have gone so far as to have meetings with the United States in order to get help and become "independent". I suggest you do some research and find out what has been and is going on in Baku. The fact that they have oil in Azerbajdjan has been and still is one of the reasons they want to get suopport from the US and US in its turn is more than happy to help them.
I just want to say that IRAN is NOT a multinational country, not like Canada or Yugoslavia or any other instances. There are different ethnic factions in Iran, like Azeries, Arabs, Balouchs, Torkmans, Kurds and so on. But all above mentioned factions have shaped the very Iran and none of them ever in new histroy has been part of another country.
As for the rights for these factions like every other gourp in Iran, say like political parties, wemon and religious minorities an so on, there is a long way to achieve level of rights that minority of European countries enjoy. But this should not be mistaken as enough reason to want to dis-embark.
As for the rights for these factions like every other gourp in Iran, say like political parties, wemon and religious minorities an so on, there is a long way to achieve level of rights that minority of European countries enjoy. But this should not be mistaken as enough reason to want to dis-embark.
Dear Shirin,
I think you are missing the big picture here. Of course there are a handful of Iranian Turks who go here and there knocking on the doors of foreign states and asking for assistance. In my view these are some individuals motivated either by their own personal interests or do such things out of desperation and helplessness. They do not represent the interest of our oppressed Azerbaijani nationality, although they may claim to do so.
Let's talk about the real issue here, the big picture. The real issue here is the principle of "the right for self-determination" for Iran's various nationalities. Does such a right apply to Iran's 30 million Azeri nation or not? Certainly Mr. Chomsky is one of the greatest champions of the right for self determination for all oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Azeri nationality in Iran is one of those oppressed peoples; and so are the Kurds, Baluchs, Arabs, Turkmans, and others.
Dear Shirin,
You are talking about "independence" as if it were a dirty word! Of course every people and nation on earth has aspirations and desires for independence, liberation, and freedom. Show me a people who doesn't want to run its own affairs, speak its own language and determine its own destiny? These legitimate aspirations are all part and parcel of the right for self determination. Ever since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905, the Azeri people has been struggling to achieve these rights mainly through peaceful means. But the dominant Persian minority has always answered the legitimate demands of non-Persian ethnic groups with killings, imprisonments, torture, and nonsensical accusations. And a most colorful of these accusations has been that of "working for American, Russian, or Israeli" governments! When are we going to put these baseless accusations aside and look at the real issue: Iran is a multi-national country and in this country all nationalities should have equal rights. What is your solution for this? How would you suggest we could get rid of the linguistic, racial, and cultural domination of the Persian minority in Iran?
I think you are missing the big picture here. Of course there are a handful of Iranian Turks who go here and there knocking on the doors of foreign states and asking for assistance. In my view these are some individuals motivated either by their own personal interests or do such things out of desperation and helplessness. They do not represent the interest of our oppressed Azerbaijani nationality, although they may claim to do so.
Let's talk about the real issue here, the big picture. The real issue here is the principle of "the right for self-determination" for Iran's various nationalities. Does such a right apply to Iran's 30 million Azeri nation or not? Certainly Mr. Chomsky is one of the greatest champions of the right for self determination for all oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Azeri nationality in Iran is one of those oppressed peoples; and so are the Kurds, Baluchs, Arabs, Turkmans, and others.
Dear Shirin,
You are talking about "independence" as if it were a dirty word! Of course every people and nation on earth has aspirations and desires for independence, liberation, and freedom. Show me a people who doesn't want to run its own affairs, speak its own language and determine its own destiny? These legitimate aspirations are all part and parcel of the right for self determination. Ever since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905, the Azeri people has been struggling to achieve these rights mainly through peaceful means. But the dominant Persian minority has always answered the legitimate demands of non-Persian ethnic groups with killings, imprisonments, torture, and nonsensical accusations. And a most colorful of these accusations has been that of "working for American, Russian, or Israeli" governments! When are we going to put these baseless accusations aside and look at the real issue: Iran is a multi-national country and in this country all nationalities should have equal rights. What is your solution for this? How would you suggest we could get rid of the linguistic, racial, and cultural domination of the Persian minority in Iran?
"You've got to kind of admire the intellectual classes not to notice that the only people in the world who are afraid of Saddam Hussien are Americans. Everybody hates him and Iraqis are undoubtedly afraid of him, but outside of Iraq and the United States, no one's afraid of him."
You have contracted yourself by stating that Americans and Iraqis are afraid of Sadam Hussien, and state that only Americans are afraid of him. All your assertions reek of this kind of double talk propaganda! You have minimized the Iraqi plight in order to villianize Americans.
You have contracted yourself by stating that Americans and Iraqis are afraid of Sadam Hussien, and state that only Americans are afraid of him. All your assertions reek of this kind of double talk propaganda! You have minimized the Iraqi plight in order to villianize Americans.
"It seems very clear that if we do not destroy ourselves first, the unit of primary identification of most human beings will before long be the Planet Earth and the human species."
It seems that hte people of a number of ocuntries like the US UK etc already are close to viewing hte world this way... it takes claims of humanitarian crisis or insane leader to get them to go to war. The problem is until the rest of the world catches up we still have a problem. Ie is is the worst states that are our issue not the most powerful ones.. because it takes only one small insane country to attack a big country to suddenly turn public opinion against the "humans of the world" view towards the "protect our island" view.
It seems that hte people of a number of ocuntries like the US UK etc already are close to viewing hte world this way... it takes claims of humanitarian crisis or insane leader to get them to go to war. The problem is until the rest of the world catches up we still have a problem. Ie is is the worst states that are our issue not the most powerful ones.. because it takes only one small insane country to attack a big country to suddenly turn public opinion against the "humans of the world" view towards the "protect our island" view.
That could be true depending on how you define world peace
..
if you mean no WWIII then its a safe bet that in a WWIII USA would be involved because without the USA it is hard to call it a world war. It is debatable whether the others will be involved.
Also - If being absorbed by a facist dictator is considered peace.. then yeah the US is a huge danger to world peace. because without the USA britain and australia none of the other countries have the backbone or the ideology to stop the next hitler so there wont be a World war without them there will jsut be a quiet capitulation followed by a massacare of everyone who doesnt look like our new "dear leader" / "big brother".
..
if you mean no WWIII then its a safe bet that in a WWIII USA would be involved because without the USA it is hard to call it a world war. It is debatable whether the others will be involved.
Also - If being absorbed by a facist dictator is considered peace.. then yeah the US is a huge danger to world peace. because without the USA britain and australia none of the other countries have the backbone or the ideology to stop the next hitler so there wont be a World war without them there will jsut be a quiet capitulation followed by a massacare of everyone who doesnt look like our new "dear leader" / "big brother".
I just want to react on what Noam Chomsky have said. That's true United States is the first terrorist nation in the world ! By attacking Iraq they don't reach Saddam Hussein but population... Civils died during the war, for the moment, is estimated about 1,000 !!! To my mind, it's not a war against the possession of massive destruction weapons, but "BLIND TERRORISM" against a people... Bush doesn't care about the veto of UN and France, anyway he did what he wanted...
I was once like many of you people. I held a belief that the United States was a beacon of hope in an otherwise corrupt and ruthless world. I would blindly listen and believe all our government and media sources but at the same time I was highly critical of the news and governments of just about any other nation. After becoming a political science major in college, I studied a vast amount of political thoughts and viewpoints and Noam Chomsky has been one of the most influential people in my life. My point is that to fully understand this interview with Chomsky, you need to be aware of the various theories that he poses. For this interview especially, it is vital that you are familiar with book called, "Manufacturing Consent." There's even a documentary film on the book in case you don't feel the need to read and want the condensed version. While Chomsky's ideas are radical and sometimes hard to swallow, he does an amazing job of backing up his theories, the fact that such agencies as CNN and MSNBC don't report in the manner that Chomsky sees things is because they are part of gigantic corporations who will greatly benefit from exploiting foreign countries. Over 99% of all media sources in America are owned by 5 companies (not exactly positive but it now may be as low as 3 corporations due to mergers and takeovers). So before you ignorantly dismiss these radical theories, please do some actual research regarding the issues you are writing about. Just because Chomsky is different doesn't mean he is arbitrarily wrong.
...you should hear me speak. I have the voice of a prepubescent girl.
Dinesh D'Souza speak, you're going to have to visit another website. We wont host his crap.
Hmm those 4th dimention beings nasty nasty things they are.
ahh they think they are so smart with all their cool technology!
ahh they think they are so smart with all their cool technology!
I love it - the Iraqi terrorists have a bomb class in a mosque (hmm - I thought that would be forbidden by Islam and would defile the mosque) because the US forces respect the prevailing religion there (seems more than the terrorists) and don't enter because they are 'infadels', the terrorists blow themselves up - and blame the US!!! Of course!!
U.S. Blames Blast on Bomb Class
Wed July 02, 2003 12:46 PM ET
By Daniel Trotta
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military said a bomb-making class inside a mosque triggered a deadly explosion that enraged the Iraqi town of Falluja, where residents vowed Wednesday to wage holy war against U.S. occupiers.
U.S. Central Command said a blast at a mosque in Falluja, west of Baghdad, Monday night was caused by people being taught how to make bombs in the building.
It said a joint investigation conducted with Falluja police had determined that coalition forces were in no way responsible for the blast. Residents had blamed it on an American air strike -- an accusation U.S. military officials flatly denied.
Iraqis living in the town said nine people were killed, including the mosque's imam, or prayer leader.
U.S. officials have blamed a spate of attacks on highly trained members of Iraq's former army and intelligence services loyal to Saddam.
Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led authority running the country, has blamed professional commandos from Saddam's old power structure for attacks on U.S. and British troops, and vowed to crush them and capture the missing ousted leader himself.
U.S. Blames Blast on Bomb Class
Wed July 02, 2003 12:46 PM ET
By Daniel Trotta
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military said a bomb-making class inside a mosque triggered a deadly explosion that enraged the Iraqi town of Falluja, where residents vowed Wednesday to wage holy war against U.S. occupiers.
U.S. Central Command said a blast at a mosque in Falluja, west of Baghdad, Monday night was caused by people being taught how to make bombs in the building.
It said a joint investigation conducted with Falluja police had determined that coalition forces were in no way responsible for the blast. Residents had blamed it on an American air strike -- an accusation U.S. military officials flatly denied.
Iraqis living in the town said nine people were killed, including the mosque's imam, or prayer leader.
U.S. officials have blamed a spate of attacks on highly trained members of Iraq's former army and intelligence services loyal to Saddam.
Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led authority running the country, has blamed professional commandos from Saddam's old power structure for attacks on U.S. and British troops, and vowed to crush them and capture the missing ousted leader himself.
Our Market, who art on earth
Hallowed be thy shame,
Thy policeman come,
Thy state power be done
At work, as it is while shopping
Give us this day our alienated labor
And do not forget to extract surplus-value from us
And lead us not
into mass collective resistance
but channel our confusion
into voting and other democratic mystifications
For you have all the power, and we do all the labor
Forever -- and ever?
Amen!
Hallowed be thy shame,
Thy policeman come,
Thy state power be done
At work, as it is while shopping
Give us this day our alienated labor
And do not forget to extract surplus-value from us
And lead us not
into mass collective resistance
but channel our confusion
into voting and other democratic mystifications
For you have all the power, and we do all the labor
Forever -- and ever?
Amen!
Dear Cough Cough (Mike),
I am designing an anti-s.u.v. sticker to be applied as a bumper sticker to s.u.v's - do you have any clever slogans to add to the stockpile???!
I am designing an anti-s.u.v. sticker to be applied as a bumper sticker to s.u.v's - do you have any clever slogans to add to the stockpile???!
The answer is yes, Israel is a problem.
Solution, well, Hitler had it but now he's gone.
Any other ideas?
Solution, well, Hitler had it but now he's gone.
Any other ideas?
Is it possible to judge a soldier under military law https://lawrina.com/practice-areas/us-military-law/ who commits atrocities, for example, in Iraq?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network