[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tedious Chomsky arguments, some small remailer relevance.
[email protected] (Mark Chen) writes an amazing article
worthy of Chomky himself
I note that Chomsky fans, like Chomksy himself, have no
shame in lying bare faced in public.
> There is no mention anywhere of moral superiority. There
> is a statement of the demonstrable fact that "the editors
> and the ambassador, in the not very distant past, have
> supported racist murder on a scale that exceeds Amin's
> wildest fantasies," referring, perhaps, to the (then)
One: Chomsky's claim clearly implies a claim of extreme
Two: Your claim, and Chomsky's claim, is a flagrant lie
Amin murdered three hundred thousand people, ate a few of
them, and daydreamed out loud of extending a similar rule
over all of black Africa.
2.1. Even if the Ambassador and the editors of the New York
times had personally commanded the repression and man made
famine in East Timor they could not have clocked up as many
as Amin did in real life, let alone in Amin's "wildest
2.2 It is completely false that the New York times supported
the genocide in East Timor. They were sympathetic to, or
tolerant of, the wrong side in East Timor, but, unlike
Chomsky, they did not support genocide.
Nothing the New York times said or did remotely compares
with Chomsky's enthusiastic support of Pol Pot's genocide
in Cambodia. Chomsky compared Pol Pot's genocide to the
denazification by the French Resistance after world war II.
When did the New York Times compare Indonesia's repression
in East Timor to reconstruction after the American Civil
More rationally, Mark Chen claims that I have failed to make
my case that Chomsky is seeking to achieve a totalitarian
state in America by democratic, constitutional, and institutional
methods, as the National German Socialist Workers party did in
Germany, rather than by revolutionary methods, as the Bolsheviks
did in Russia.
Certainly it is true that Chomsky never says in so many words
"Hey let us imitate the great methods that Pol Pot used in order
to make sure the will of the people prevails over the immensely
powerful secret conspiracy by evil racist capitalist imperialists."
But Chomsky defines peoples free choice to say one thing rather
than another thing, to listen to one source rather than another
source, to be "extreme coercion and control".
With this definition, it obviously follows that exterminating
those who engage in "extreme coercion and control" is an act
of self defence.
When a socialist argues labor theory of value, I know he is planning
to rob me.
In the same way, when Chomsky argues that speech is coercion, and choice
is submission, I know that he and his pals in the government are planning
to enhance our civil liberties by protecting us from that speech, and
to enhance our lives by rescuing us from that submission.
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald
are. True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. [email protected]