Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Walker]

It's not necessarily 'numbers'. I think rounding up people and systematically gassing them in an allegedly civilised country full of intellectuals and artists would be pretty hard to surpass.

Gary, if you could go back in time and change history by eliminating the one who authorities said would be the death of democracy ... would you do it?

If you wouldn't, there's likely some addled, impressionable 20-year old, who would.

I guess it would hinge on whether or not the accusations by authorities are true. Chomsky has stated many times that he thinks Republicans are going to destroy the world with their policies. Chomsky is also the most quoted intellectual on the planet apparently. If that doesn't move a person to radical action, I don't know what will. I mean, I'd like to think that things will be fine and turn out OK regardless of who gets in the White House. But the world's most quoted intellectual says otherwise. \_(*_*)_/

Well, can't get any more vague than that fortune telling by Chompsky.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, if you could go back in time and change history by eliminating the one who authorities said would be the death of democracy ... would you do it?

If you wouldn't, there's likely some addled, impressionable 20-year old, who would.

I guess it would hinge on whether or not the accusations by authorities are true. Chomsky has stated many times that he thinks Republicans are going to destroy the world with their policies. Chomsky is also the most quoted intellectual on the planet apparently. If that doesn't move a person to radical action, I don't know what will. I mean, I'd like to think that things will be fine and turn out OK regardless of who gets in the White House. But the world's most quoted intellectual says otherwise. \_(*_*)_/

Well, can't get any more vague than that fortune telling by Chompsky.

To be precise, Chomsky thinks Republicans are going to increase tensions with China possibly getting us into war with China and he thinks that by advocating for more drilling of oil, and bringing back coal, the Republicans will destroy the Earth's ecological system even faster than the Democrats are. I mean, when the most quoted intellectual alive says that the end of the world is at hand, it's a sobering thought. Makes me want to sit out the election. I don't want to be party to any world disaster.

[Dubious]

It's not necessarily about 'numbers'. I think rounding up people and systematically gassing them in an allegedly civilised country full of intellectuals and artists would be pretty hard to surpass.

The Nazis put an end to any further reign of intellectuals & artists, etc. Most of the few that were left no-longer lived in Germany. The first concentration camps were made for Germans, not Jews. Had Nietzsche lived, for example, he certainly would have ended up in one. The Nazis, in effect, did not care if you were German. If you opposed them in any way, your life, as you used to have it, was over.

[Walker]

I guess it would hinge on whether or not the accusations by authorities are true. Chomsky has stated many times that he thinks Republicans are going to destroy the world with their policies. Chomsky is also the most quoted intellectual on the planet apparently. If that doesn't move a person to radical action, I don't know what will. I mean, I'd like to think that things will be fine and turn out OK regardless of who gets in the White House. But the world's most quoted intellectual says otherwise. \_(*_*)_/

Well, can't get any more vague than that fortune telling by Chompsky.

To be precise, Chomsky thinks Republicans are going to increase tensions with China possibly getting us into war with China and he thinks that by advocating for more drilling of oil, and bringing back coal, the Republicans will destroy the Earth's ecological system even faster than the Democrats are. I mean, when the most quoted intellectual alive says that the end of the world is at hand, it's a sobering thought. Makes me want to sit out the election. I don't want to be party to any world disaster.

Do you understand the fallacy of logic in referencing Chompsky as the most quoted? (Appeal to authority).

*

Not giving a hoot in hell about Chompsky, what I’ve osmosisticized about him through his effect upon you, is that rather than look to the strengths of democracy, he looks to weaknesses of democracy that are made possible by unvirtuous actions, actions intent on corrupting the intent of the constitution, intent as clarified by The Declaration of Independence. His predication of judgement upon democracy's weak points that can be assailed by the unvirtuous assumes that such corruption cannot be controlled by the good folks in society, and in fact it can’t be controlled when weakness to protect and uphold the constitution rules the day, such as the current unconstitutional weakness being demonstrated by the current VP in her dereliction of duty, whose only job is to intervene and take over the presidency when the elected president becomes unfit for presidential duties … which Biden clearly is and in fact was to those paying attention when he was elected, although technically at that time he could still walk and chew gum for more than six hours a day.

These drug cocktails they're feeding him can only do so much, and in the meantime, the constitutional republic of the USA is weakened due to the corruption of the unvirtuous, lying, Democrat Party That Hates America.

[Gary Childress]

Well, can't get any more vague than that fortune telling by Chompsky.

To be precise, Chomsky thinks Republicans are going to increase tensions with China possibly getting us into war with China and he thinks that by advocating for more drilling of oil, and bringing back coal, the Republicans will destroy the Earth's ecological system even faster than the Democrats are. I mean, when the most quoted intellectual alive says that the end of the world is at hand, it's a sobering thought. Makes me want to sit out the election. I don't want to be party to any world disaster.

Do you understand the fallacy of logic in referencing Chompsky as the most quoted? (Appeal to authority).

*

Not giving a hoot in hell about Chompsky, what I’ve osmosisticized about him through his effect upon you, is that rather than look to the strengths of democracy, he looks to weaknesses of democracy that are made possible by unvirtuous actions, actions intent on corrupting the intent of the constitution, intent as clarified by The Declaration of Independence. His predication of judgement upon democracy's weak points that can be assailed by the unvirtuous assumes that such corruption cannot be controlled by the good folks in society, and in fact it can’t be controlled when weakness to protect and uphold the constitution rules the day, such as the current unconstitutional weakness being demonstrated by the current VP in her dereliction of duty, whose only job is to intervene and take over the presidency when the elected president becomes unfit for presidential duties … which Biden clearly is and in fact was to those paying attention when he was elected, although technically at that time he could still walk and chew gum for more than six hours a day.

These drug cocktails they're feeding him can only do so much, and in the meantime, the constitutional republic of the USA is weakened due to the corruption of the unvirtuous, lying, Democrat Party That Hates America.

Fair enough.

[Walker]

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not giving a hoot in hell about Chompsky, what I’ve osmosisticized about him through his effect upon you, is that rather than look to the strengths of democracy, he looks to weaknesses of democracy that are made possible by unvirtuous actions, actions intent on corrupting the intent of the constitution, intent as clarified by The Declaration of Independence. His predication of judgement upon democracy's weak points that can be assailed by the unvirtuous assumes that such corruption cannot be controlled by the good folks in society, and in fact it can’t be controlled when weakness to protect and uphold the constitution rules the day, such as the current unconstitutional weakness being demonstrated by the current VP in her dereliction of duty, whose only job is to intervene and take over the presidency when the elected president becomes unfit for presidential duties … which Biden clearly is and in fact was to those paying attention when he was elected, although technically at that time he could still walk and chew gum for more than six hours a day.

Your understanding of Chomsky's views (and in the sense of his analysis of power systems) is fundamentally flawed. I know that presenting this to you, Walker, will have and can have no effect, but the fact is that though Chomsky can be critiqued for various reasons, it would be irrational to dismiss his views of those power-systems and how they function.

A few quotes illustrate:

"One of the most effective devices is to encourage debate, but within a system of unspoken presuppositions that incorporate the basic principles of the doctrinal systems. These principles are therefore removed from inspection; they become the framework for thinkable thought, not objects of rational consideration. The more the debate rages within permissible bounds, the more effectively the unquestioned premises are instilled as sacred Truths."

The role of concentrated power in shaping the ideological framework that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion, choice of action, all of that is too familiar to require much comment. Tonight I’d like to discuss a critically important example, but first a couple of words on one of the most perceptive analysts of this process, George Orwell.

Orwell is famous for his searching and sardonic critique of the way thought is controlled by force under totalitarian dystopia. But much less known is his discussion of how similar outcomes are achieved in free societies. He’s speaking, of course, of England. And he wrote that although the country is quite free, nevertheless unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. Gave a couple of examples, provided a few words of explanation, which were to the point. One particularly pertinent comment was his observation on a quality education in the best schools, where it is instilled into you that there are certain things that it simply wouldn’t do to say—or, we may add, even to think. One reason why not much attention is paid to this essay is that it wasn’t published. It was found decades later in his unpublished papers. It was intended as the introduction to his famous Animal Farm, bitter satire of Stalinist totalitarianism. Why it wasn’t published is apparently unknown, but I think perhaps you can speculate.

The fact that America is an exceptional nation is regularly intoned by virtually every political figure, and, I think more revealingly, the same is true of prominent academic and public intellectuals. Can select almost at random. Take, for example, the professor of the science of government at Harvard. He’s a distinguished liberal scholar, government adviser. He’s writing in Harvard’s prestigious journal, International Security, and there he explains that unlike other countries, the “national identity” of the United States is “defined by a set of universal political and economic values,” namely “liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets.” So the U.S. has a solemn duty to maintain its “international primacy” for the benefit of the world. And since this is a matter of definition, we can dispense with the tedious work of empirical verification, so I won’t spend any time on that.

I submit that the influence of the views that Chomsky articulates have penetrated far and wide. I also suggest that in some way that might be possible to trace, though I do not know how to do that, his views have even penetrated to people like Tucker Carlson who, especially in his more informal discussions (lectures) reveals his deep DEEP distrust of the political class and the concomitant perception that that class, and the political establishment at the very seat of power, is CORRUPT and working against those human interests, those social and popular interests, that Carlson says he is committed to.

I am uncertain how a careful and constructive critique of Chomsky could be undertaken. But I can say, and I believe it is true, that all power-systems necessarily involve various forms of indoctrination. Therefore, any analysis that counters a narrative that is indoctrinating, i.e. created by those defending the power-system, must be described as wacko, falsely premised, etc.

I have submitted this very unusual, indeed exceptional, presentation of a very critical viewpoint that Carlson authored when he had the Fox position. There is no way to describe it except as radical. The implications are enormous. This is not typical rightwing analysis by any stretch of the imagination. It is a scathing critique of deeply entrenched institutional corruption.

[Walker]

Hey, thanks for the intelligent comments although as a Chompsky illiterate, I glean his meaning from his lineage as continued by the one who most often quotes and references him ... Gary.

Without much choice in the matter and guided solely by the winds of interest and social commitments such as an upcoming weekend at a mountain home I've recently been told that I must attend as a social thing, (and more funerals that will likely be upcoming) I'm lightening the load rather than adding to it, seeing as how I'm no longer a seeker, which is a story that I find interesting but stopped telling when I noticed folks couldn't relate, or understand.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, thanks for the intelligent comments although as a Chompsky illiterate, I glean his meaning from his lineage as continued by the one who most often quotes and references him ... Gary.

Without much choice in the matter and guided solely by the winds of interest and social commitments such as an upcoming weekend at a mountain home I've recently been told that I must attend as a social thing, (and more funerals that will likely be upcoming) I'm lightening the load rather than adding to it, seeing as how I'm no longer a seeker, which is a story that I find interesting but stopped telling when I noticed folks couldn't relate, or understand.

I borrow from some of his insights. However, I bear little resemblance to Chomsky, I can assure you. You'll have to read him yourself if you want to understand his views.

[Walker]

I borrow from some of his insights. However, I bear little resemblance to Chomsky, I can assure you. You'll have to read him yourself if you want to understand his views.

I know, and took that into consideration.

[Walker]

I have submitted this very unusual, indeed exceptional, presentation of a very critical viewpoint that Carlson authored when he had the Fox position. There is no way to describe it except as radical. The implications are enormous. This is not typical rightwing analysis by any stretch of the imagination. It is a scathing critique of deeply entrenched institutional corruption.

Could be why Carlson was fired. I rarely see him anymore, although I hear he's still out there somewhere.

[Gary Childress]

I have submitted this very unusual, indeed exceptional, presentation of a very critical viewpoint that Carlson authored when he had the Fox position. There is no way to describe it except as radical. The implications are enormous. This is not typical rightwing analysis by any stretch of the imagination. It is a scathing critique of deeply entrenched institutional corruption.

Could be why Carlson was fired. I rarely see him anymore, although I hear he's still out there somewhere.

More on Paul Singer the man from Carlson's expose.

[Walker]

"Greed is good."
- Gordon Gekko

Such folks have lobbyists who write legislation and make the rules in cooperation with legislative aids and regulatory agencies.

Ayn Rand was quite a fortune teller, wasn't she.

[Walker]

(continued)

... a fortune teller, seeing as how her philosophy of "good greed" gets corrupted in life as she described, even though she didn't create the fictional Gekko.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hey, thanks for the intelligent comments although as a Chompsky illiterate, I glean his meaning from his lineage as continued by the one who most often quotes and references him ... Gary.

May I try to describe what, in my view, the entire issue revolves around? Doing so, I believe, will provide a very real clarity that, at least one hopes, we might all put to use.

Our country is an extension of a European world-conquering, or dominating, movement in history. Right there, exactly right there, and when what is entailed in colonial projects, conquest, domination, extending domain, procuring raw materials like lumber, gold, silver and everything else that can be imagined, is what Chomsky and the Chomskian view cannot abide. The reasons are simple and obvious: these expansion projects involve going out and grabbing what is there to be grabbed. There is no other way to put it nor to see it. They came, they saw, they conquered, they took, they built -- and this is how our civilization was created, plain and simple. We cannot back out of this as realness, as reality. And here is the crucial element: all the systems of enterprise that were put in motion (mining, lumber, plantations, the extraction of myriad natural resources including that of persons (as serfs, as slaves) all these enterprises are on-going. The essential model is still, obviously, operative.

With that said, I refer to Chomsky's Year 501: The Conquest Continues. It is a brilliant book in its way because its thesis is exactly what I described. They came, the conquered, and they set up funnel-like extraction-systems and transport systems from the hinterlands down to the ports where the goods, and the values, and the life-materials, were floated off to Europe. What Chomsky points out in this work is just what I say: the core model still exists although certainly with the development of local economies in the various countries there is a circulation of resources and not exclusively an economy of exploitation. But here's the thing: everyone in those countries lives in the aftermath of everything that went before. In this sense "the conquest continues".

Now we turn to Gary but I mean Gary as an emblem of how people think about *their world*. It has to do with the model through which they perceive reality. Gary cannot bear the thought of but really more the feeling of the exploitation he has become aware of. He cannot *support* or condone the present in many ways because he cannot reconcile himself to the realness, the reality, of how all of this -- our culture, our states, our economies, our nation, the world we live in, highways, agricultural fields, mining, industry EVERYTHING -- came to be.

The Chomskian narrative -- or better put analysis (it is thoroughly Marxian) -- necessarily involves the citizen, the participant, the individual, in an act of turning against this history to which he is intimately tied; of which he is a product and outcome. He must turn against all of that because of the moral imperative. Test this by finding a person who can or will defend the founding of the US, and all that was constructed here, including the so-called *genocide* that certainly took place (in large part through communicable disease but also as a stark result of takeover), and the enslavement of primitive tribal Africans in the plantations of the South, as an historical process that is as old as time itself.

In order for that individual to defend, therefore, his own self in the present world, there are two basic choices: One, that he turn against the entirety of the immorality through which it was all built and made possible. He does this to preserve his *moral standing*. Or two -- and this is far more tricky -- he must create defenses and justifications for all that was done, all that happened, and he must therefore defend the realness of the world and the reality of how things actually function. He must then become immoral or in any case amoral.

This is why I continually refer to this video and its narration. And no one seems to get it! No one can actually respond to the essence of what it states.

Now with that said let's be realistic: Chomsky says he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist. Actually what that means is a communist. Give it the shade you want but Anarcho-Syndicalism is really another word for communism. Because when you think things through that is the only moral alternative that his elaborated outlook can allow. That is what it proposes or leads to.