Philosophy Now Forum

Yes what is 'our' collective responsibility, is there an 'our', an 'us', a 'we the people' anymore. Of course yes. But it is fragmented and compartmentalised and thus its power is degraded. People all over the world came out and marched against the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. But of course it was ignored, mostly.

The protests in Paris 68, and those against the Vietnam war, were done by a very different people who still saw themselves as being democratic agents of change, checking power's corruption and lies. Today it's like we now have a people who are polar-opposite. Chomsky's work on the power of mass media, and his 'in a democracy you (power) cannot use the bludgeon so you have to control what people think', have I'm sure, been really insightful for thousands. Manufacturing Consent, the book is an amazing piece of work, the documentary under the same title equally good. I too have wrote to him and got a response, though the last occasion I thought, though signed by Chomsky, rather was written by his, supposedly many helpers. He's reachable, that's enough. He cares, he's moral, has integrity.

His work on the power of the mass media will hopefully continue to be delved into, re-worked, and extended, after he's gone. For it is this power that has become so awesome and all encompassing, the air we breathe, integrated to our biosphere, that, in the hands of power, is a tool of control, dictators of old could only dream about. And not just dictators of course. It's this power that has us under a spell, hypnotised. Marching in step to the tune of power.

Recently from the truth movements against the official version of 9/11, some have condemned Chomsky's silence, or rather his clumsy responses when asked if it could be possible that rogue elements within government agencies could have carried-out such attacks. And some people have began painting him as a gate-keeper leftist. Which is perhaps unfair but at the same time, could be good to keep in mind.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war

Isn't he just stating the obvious there? It's not exactly rocket science.[/quote]

In hindsight it may seem so, to us, but at the time it was an unpopular. Ever hear of this chap?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 0456d7.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68 (see at about 5:22 in....)

Pluto wrote:... And some people have began painting him as a gate-keeper leftist. Which is perhaps unfair but at the same time, could be good to keep in mind.

Eh! Painting him? He's an avowed anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist or a communist anarchist, take your pick they are all much of a much.

Melchior wrote: Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war

I perhaps should have made it clearer, but that book looks like a warmonger's bible. I was talking about this part of your post:
"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Melchior wrote: Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war

I perhaps should have made it clearer, but that book looks like a warmonger's bible. I was talking about this part of your post:
"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

It's not a 'warmonger's bible'. Just read it.

Melchior wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Melchior wrote: Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war

I perhaps should have made it clearer, but that book looks like a warmonger's bible. I was talking about this part of your post:
"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

It's not a 'warmonger's bible'. Just read it.

You and Bob should start a forum together. Both of you like to throw up a smoke screen when your ideas are put to the challenge. Why don't you tell us a little about the book? I mean who goes out and blindly buys a book based only on the title and then reads the whole thing in order to determine if it was worth the price or not?

Here is the ONE AND ONLY REVIEW ON THE BOOK AT AMAZON:

every American should read this book it would help them to understand that we can't set back and play defense and win.

The review says NOTHING of content. There is NO BLURB on amazon describing the content of the book.

It's frustrating dealing with intellectual posers and charlatans like you, Melchior.

Gary Childress wrote:
You and Bob should start a forum together. Both of you like to throw up a smoke screen when your ideas are put to the challenge. Why don't you tell us a little about the book? I mean who goes out and blindly buys a book based only on the title and then reads the whole thing in order to determine if it was worth the price or not?

Here is the ONE AND ONLY REVIEW ON THE BOOK AT AMAZON:

every American should read this book it would help them to understand that we can't set back and play defense and win.

The review says NOTHING of content. There is NO BLURB on amazon describing the content of the book.

It's frustrating dealing with intellectual posers and charlatans like you, Melchior.

It was written in early 1942. The author criticizes the 'Western democracies' for (among other things) waiting too long to confront Hitler, in hopes that he could be appeased, or that defensive measures would protect them. Both were mistakes. Germany's military power only grew stronger the longer they waited. Just read it!

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/ ... ot-win-war

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-revi ... n-the-war/

https://www.questia.com/library/414292/ ... in-the-war

Melchior wrote:...
It was written in early 1942. The author criticizes the 'Western democracies' for (among other things) waiting too long to confront Hitler, in hopes that he could be appeased, or that defensive measures would protect them. Both were mistakes. Germany's military power only grew stronger the longer they waited. Just read it!

You ignore that Britain was in no condition to fight a war with Germany in Europe and had only just started to recover from the last one. There's a fair argument that Chamberlain managed to give us the breathing space to at least start to rearm and remilitarize for defense at least.

Arising_uk wrote:

Melchior wrote:...
It was written in early 1942. The author criticizes the 'Western democracies' for (among other things) waiting too long to confront Hitler, in hopes that he could be appeased, or that defensive measures would protect them. Both were mistakes. Germany's military power only grew stronger the longer they waited. Just read it!

You ignore that Britain was in no condition to fight a war with Germany in Europe and had only just started to recover from the last one. There's a fair argument that Chamberlain managed to give us the breathing space to at least start to rearm and remilitarize for defense at least.

Read the book.

Melchior wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Melchior wrote: Also, you need to read Defense Will Not Win the War...

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Will-Not- ... ot+win+war

I perhaps should have made it clearer, but that book looks like a warmonger's bible. I was talking about this part of your post:
"In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace."

It's not a 'warmonger's bible'. Just read it.

I'm pretty sure it is. American warmongers would love it. And he can't spell defence.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I'm pretty sure it is. American warmongers would love it. And he can't spell defence.

"The collective enthusiasm of the French for warfare lasted well into the first few months of World War One..."

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
No-one knows, its never been done

Yeah, and who saved Europe's ass? If you recall, we were neutral until December 7, 1941. Even then, it was 'Europe first'. There was quite a bit of sentiment in the USA against getting involved. 'Isolationism' it was called by those who opposed it.

https://thelongshotist.files.wordpress. ... on-war.jpg

Melchior wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I'm pretty sure it is. American warmongers would love it. And he can't spell defence.

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

No-one knows, its never been done

Yeah, and who saved Europe's ass? If you recall, we were neutral until December 7, 1941. Even then, it was 'Europe first'. There was quite a bit of sentiment in the USA against getting involved. 'Isolationism' it was called by those who opposed it.

https://thelongshotist.files.wordpress. ... on-war.jpg

I keep forgetting, America won the war. And it only got involved because of Pearl Harbour. It's not the same county now anyway. The people have got fatter and fatter, and stupider and stupider by the decade.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Melchior wrote: https://thelongshotist.files.wordpress. ... on-war.jpg

I keep forgetting, America won the war. And it only got involved because of Pearl Harbour. It's not the same county now anyway. The people have got fatter and fatter, and stupider and stupider by the decade.

I agree, but so have Europeans...

Arising_uk wrote:You ignore that Britain was in no condition to fight a war with Germany in Europe and had only just started to recover from the last one. There's a fair argument that Chamberlain managed to give us the breathing space to at least start to rearm and remilitarize for defense at least.

The Brits were already re-militarizing before Chamberlain came to Munich. They must have felt ready for a conflict since it was the Brits who declared war on Germany and not the other way around. They were never threatened by Hitler. In this case, it was Churchill who was the war monger.

Dubious wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:You ignore that Britain was in no condition to fight a war with Germany in Europe and had only just started to recover from the last one. There's a fair argument that Chamberlain managed to give us the breathing space to at least start to rearm and remilitarize for defense at least.

The Brits were already re-militarizing before Chamberlain came to Munich. They must have felt ready for a conflict since it was the Brits who declared war on Germany and not the other way around. They were never threatened by Hitler. In this case, it was Churchill who was the war monger.

Churchill always was a warmongering, elitist bastard. I don't know why he's so revered.