any chomsky fans out there?

while perusing through the literally millions of books at books a million a couple days ago, i found a noam chomsky book that i'd never read. it was sitting all alone in the politics section and looked like it needed a friend

anyways, anyone here read hegemony or survival? i'm only 3 chapters in as chomsky sometimes loses me (i'm not exactly your guru of politics but i like to try to learn) and it's kinda giving me a new perspective. of course anyone who is familiar with chomsky knows he's a bush basher, which is fine with me, but this book really kinda hit me hard.

it's pretty much a recount of previous and current events that show how the united states will sacrifice anything, even survival, to be the dominant nation. i won't say much more, but anyone who is at all interested in this type of stuff should grab this book, it's only $13.

any opinions on it?

-A

 

All I know is for a linguist, Chompsky certainly doesn't know how to use language. His books, while informative, ramble. I saw him give a lecture, thought he'd be more charismatic, he was worse. Good stuff though. The Chompsky Reader is a great book too. As a collection of his most important essays and writings since Vietnam, you get an historical overview of US imperialism since the 60s.

 

Manufacturing consent and Hegemony or Survival are his two most popular I thought. I like me some Chomsky. Dense writer though. Hes hard to read if you're not really into politics

 

I came to the conclusion long ago that Noam Chomsky is a shill for the globalist agenda, which is the New World Order. I do like some of his material, though -- in particular Manufacturing Consent. Much of his work, I think, is garbage, however.

For the most part, I think Chomsky is a very disingenuous person. He peddles the stereotypical leftist ideals that the US is behind all evil in the world, failing to expose the forces working from behind the scenes, which, like him, are socialist in nature.

Many people look at him as an intellectual. I tend to look at him as being more of a fraud than anything else.

 

I saw him on Charlie Rose once. That's one smart mf-er!

 

I disagree. Chomsky has made significant progress in psychology. He's actually one of the most looked-to, if not the most significant figure in the realm of linguistics and language-acquisition.

Seems like the tell-tales of an intellectual to me.

Plus, why would he be a fraud? What fraudulent claims has he made to so incur the wrath of Pressed_Rat?

I have 'Hegemony or Survival', although I haven't read all of it yet. It wasn't my time.

Yet, I have come across Chomsky in quite respectable fields as perception, emotion and philosophy. It strikes me that you fail to take into account all the positive that he has done, or written about and instead judge him on vices which you fail to list.

Where is your argument, Pressed_Rat? I long ago fell out of the conspiracy circles so I can't make the connections between Chomsky and the NWO?

And why the socialist comments?

 

Well Chomsky is a socialist, along with Zinn, and as they may appear very smart, which they may be, I believe Pressed Rat thinks that they aren't talking about the real topics, like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, The Skull and Bones, Etc. I agree with him, as i agree many of what chomsky says about the media and about the US government, the US government isn't the main evil in the world, it's the people who control the US, which I and Pressed rat both believe are socialists, and would like nothing more than for the people to be socialist and give up all their property, money, and rights, to the government. If this is in fact true, than these bankers and oil tycoons would love Noam Chomsky for diverting the public's attention to a smaller picture instead of the big one, which is global, not just the US.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

He is definately not a socialist. He calls himself as a "social libertarian". He is not like any other leftist intellectual I have ever heard/read. He has his own take on issues that always involves critical analysis and not necessarily political retoric. His work as a linguist is seperate from his political views; however, all linguists have to be fascinated by political language. Chomsky is no exception.

 

I see your point. Let me re-phrase it for you in my own words and with my bias, so you see part of what I see:

You and Pressed_Rat believe that Chomsky is a 'fraud' (using Pressed_Rat's own words) because Chomsky doesn't talk about the 'real' topics, like the Bilderburgs, Rothschilds-Germanic-Rosicrucian connection, G8/Trilateral Commission/WTC issues. Correct?

The assumption in your argument is that the 'real' topics, and by this I believe you mean those topics of more importance, are the ones mentioned above, correct? And that Chomsky, who already does far more than a large percentage of any political analysts, is a fraud because he doesn't take it to the extent that you wish him to.

Furthermore, to catch the eye of the general public wouldn't you think it only prudent that one should start with the most basic of principles/thesis? How would Chomsky fare if he wrote a book, or gave a speech to a university about topics whether true or not that are nonetheless seen as in the realm of conspiracy?

I agree, the United States is definitely not a malevolent nation in itself. But I think you are skipping the entirety of the middle ground between the people in the government who are not under 'control' or the under the paycheck of the elite, and the elite itself. Average people are pretty decent. Unless the US government was infiltrated on all levels, I would think that the average, white, God-fearing American that entered politics to make a positive change would smell something fishy, if say, his superiors were acting - to say the least, a little strangely.

I think conspiracy theorists have good arguments, but bad methods and mediums in which to spread the 'word'.

Why would the elite be socialist? They are bankers. Controlled-capitalism is in their best interest! The G8 summits and WTC are very obvious and clear tools that the elite most probably manipulate to regulate the capitalist system so as to avoid the inevitable system of Karl Marx.

Wars also regulate capitalism.

I don't think I had the clearest argument but I disagree in the bias I sense in your argument. Yet, you seem slightly more optimistic that Pressed_Rat.

I just don't think Noam Chomsky should be the first person to rag on. Like the US, he's done more good than harm. Far more good.

 

I read 9-11, and I thought it was quite interesting, for fiction if nothing else. Even if you dont like him, we should all read as many ideas as possible..

 

Manufacturing Concent is one of the most impressive books ive ever read

 

Ah, this is where you are wrong. Are you familiar with the Hegelian Dialectic? This is a tool of manipulation that the globalists have used throughout history to create false sides and false enemies. The fact is, socialism is as much a product of the world banks as capitalism is. The Russian Revolution and communism were all funded by the Illuminist bankers to create two opposing sides that were both under their control.

Socialism was created to spread revolution (ie: war and chaos) and give people the false impression that they were rebelling against the capitalist system, when in fact they were playing right into the hands of it. You need to understand that the central banks have full control over all money, and they control its production and circulation. Socialism is nothing more than the transfer of wealth from the working class to the ruling elite, yet it is often disguised as being for the common good of everyone. . . . a total lie.

The fact is that people like Marx and Trotsky were working for the Rothschilds to promote their false system of control.

This reminds me a lot of the two party-system today in America. Most people think the two parties are different from each other, when they're almost exactly alike. So they use phony rhetoric to stir up commotion over bogus issues in order to give people the impression that there is a real difference between the two parties and something worth fighting for. Really, they're being distracted over nothing. They're being distracted from being able to see that the system was set up so that no matter who wins, the same elites stand to gain, and at the people's expense.

 

I see your points.

It is hard for me to debate that which I am not at home with.

Firstly, the Russian revolution was not 'funded' by anyone. Lenin was supported by the Germans, pre-Weimar republic, if that is what you mean. Why would the White's, the imperialist nations who invaded Russia to stop the revolution, fight against the very uprising their bankers at home funded?

It sounds like a fantastic hoax, but it has no practical applications. Why would Stalin go through 25 million Russians in order to self-sustain Russia if he was funded by the richest families in the world?

Furthermore, there never really was 'communism'. Russia was always socialist. Marx and his followers never even looked towards Russia as the forerunner of communism, instead many saw it as, "the corner of despotism in Europe". Thus unsuitable for a modern industrialised nation to undergo the changes necessary for a dictatorship for the proletariat.

I can almost agree with the view you have on the Party system in the US. Ever since Reagan the hollywood president, I find that all is needed to win an election is an excellent speech-writer and a good-looking actor.

Having read direct sources of information like Trotsky's autobiography, "My Life", I can assure you that he did his own research on the illuminati while imprisoned before the Feb. Revolution. He made no further mention of it than interest in the hegemony of the banking families in Europe.

I think you have extremely good points; but hold some strong bias that is skewing what might be a more logical and accurate perspective.

 

I read his book about anarchy in which he calls himself as social-libertarian, but I didn't find that great "answer" I thought I might have found..

anyway he's a great writer and his contribution is unreckoning..

 

Come on now, really? A philosophy that we can see being developed and evolving through the constant tinkering and debate of hundreds of German philosophers during the early and mid-late 1800s was actually pre-planned and enginered by the Illuminati? It seems very difficult for me to believe that such a group could predict such an outcome. From Hegel's opposition to Kant, to the New Hegelians, to the Marxists, all taking place over 100 years...the Illuminati had all planned out, eh?

 

True that.

 

Well i disagree with rat saying he's a fraud or an NWO shill, I think he is an honest writer, who has many valid points, but just misses what's really important.

The elite are capitalists in the sense that they want to make money and gain power for themselves and nobody else, BUT they see socialism and capitalism as the best means to achieve this, when the whole country/world is under the control of socialism, all the money, all the property, etc. goes right to them, and the people are nothing more but cattle for their rulers, atleast with capitalism people are able to make money for themselves and have a piece of the pie for themselves, under socialism and capitalism, they get neither. Again, I don't mean to rag on Noam Chomsky, I just believe he is distracting people from the real hardcore issues and just dealing with 1/1000000000 of the problems and evils in this world.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Look, the thing with you guys is that you are fundamentally anti-humanist. You are against any notion that people can make their own government, decide for their own good, and create that which is in their best interest for their labor.

EVEN IF, let us say, that capitalism became somehow pure without outside regulation, you would still argue for some kind of revolution.

What you don't know, is what you want!

Any economic system, in its pure form requires people in its pure form.

And no such thing exists.

 

I going to quote Larry Abraham from his book Call It Conspiracy.

*The Bolshevik Revolution happened, not because of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses as the communists perpetuate the big lie, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent Lenin in Switzerland and Trotsky in New York to Russia to organize it. (ibid., p. 76).

"Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous "sealed train." With him Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and lifelong socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand, alias "Parvus." When Trotsky left New York with an American passport with his entourage of 275 revolutionaries. (ibid., pp. 76-77)

*Jacob Schiff, senior partner in Kuhn, Leob & Co., and father-in-law of Max Warburg's brother Felix, also helped finance Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949: ""Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." (ibid., pp. 77-78)

*Arsene de Goulevitch, an important White Russian General, wrote in his book Czarism and the Revolution :

"The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires or the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent heir support to the Russian revolutionary cause. . . . The important part played by the wealthy American banker Jacob Schiff in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret." (ibid., p. 78)

*General Alexander Nechvolodov is quoted by de Goulevitch as saying that:

"In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded."

*Schiff's participation in the Bolshevik Revolution was well known among Allied intelligence services at the time. Later evidence indicates that the bankrolling of the Bolsheviks was handled by a syndicate of international bankers, which in addition to the Schiff-Warburg clique, included Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Documents show that the Morgan organization put at least $1 million in the Red revolutionary kitty. The paymaster of these funds in Petrograd, where the Revolution started, was Lord Alfred Milner, head of the secret "Round Table" Group which was backed by Lord Rothschild. De Goulevitch reveals that:

"In private interviews I was told that over 21 million roubles were spent by Lord Milner in financing the Russian Revolution." (ibid., pp. 79-80)

*Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, using for the most part, official State Department documents, shows conclusively that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A. (ibid., p. 83)

 

That is certainly not what I believe.

Let me ask you this: What is your ideal form of government? Or do you believe there should be no government at all? No government, in theory, sounds nice. But it would never work.

I believe in a limited government that works for the people, not against the people. This might sound utopian, but it's the vision our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution, and it's something that should be strived for as much as possible, even though it seems as if everything is working against it (which should give people even more reason to stand up for it).