 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)DADONCK belb ...and 258 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613452 Today 5 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im a lovely person. you ppl dont get me at all |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sure you're lovely and i'm not implying you're wrong just that it seems it's time you made a nice conclusion and another thread. -----> :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh u mean that bit where u said Do a new thread, AMPI, you can make it work! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
u were implying that i'm wrong |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm implying that i don't understand why you keep repeating yourself. I never stated that you were wrong or correct. I merely reacted to your oddly founded Chomsky stance (sorry to have an opinion) and mentioned that although you don't see it, most people agree with you on drones. So my final question is where do you go from here? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
paris. rome. pluto |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Aurora XO |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
brown G it was |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(my browser isnt copying time utube links idk just skip to 19:00) so yeah why have the left gone so shit? theres lots more to this than chomsky obviously so who else/what circumstances got us here? i know the left fucked up around the 70s and the dream died but thats just cos my mum says that. i really dont know enough about that timeline |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this left is bad for art dudes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the hope of the 60s was born of LSD and fueled by amphetamines, then hunter s. thompson's wave speech and all that. dennis hopper goes from easy rider to mutual fund commercials. paparazzis photograph him until he falls into a gutter, breaks a hip, and dies. warhol and cage and pollack were sort of like the internet for art. now we just aimlessly fap, forever |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
really, is all that gives me hope. a pair of 13yo kids getting aphex twin noise out of a computer and some midi abuse |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so the 60s went dark right at the end ykno dead hendrix and manson murders. loads of young hippies in creepy love cults coming down off the acid ect. then the 70s went all serious; weather underground/symbionese liberation army. chomsky really popular now. i presume stuff like cambodia continue to provide pessimism for the left at this point - realising the revolutionary dream was complicated ACTUALLY. so it's this point in the mid/late 70s that i dont understand. what happened to the left? it sort of feels like they started sulking and giving up even before the collapse of the soviet union? i dunno. things went really strange. and then reagan thatcher happened |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Still on about Chomsky without ever leaving us with even a glimpse of a quote. You've never even opened one of his books. There's a new thing out he made with Michel Gondry which i wouldn't mind seeing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here's a 2 post response russel. Enough copy and paste from whatever single source you get most of your venom from. - i reference a bunch of different people here. what are u talking about? on chomsky i referred to ed vullaimy, keith windschuttle, oliver kamm, that david campbell blog and i think a few others. without ever leaving us with even a glimpse of a quote. - no. if you go to [#02462202] on the first page you'll find where i quoted chomsky. it's a transcript of the video further down the thread. it's hosted on chomsky.info. apart from that i've given you articles that scrutinise quotes from chomsky far better than i can. maybe i meant for u to read those You've never even opened one of his books. - well i have to admit i've got pdfs of the new mandarins, hegemony and survival, media control ect that i just couldn't keep reading. his stuff is pretty shit man and only compelling for people who take the term global hegemony seriously. atm im spending more time looking into his shit articles, statements and essays. You don't want to listen. - well yeah i do but it's very hard to talk about anything here. if you just skim the start of this thread u will see i get the old 'u havnt even read chomsky' take down basically straight away. u have any idea how typical that is? when i get derailed by silly criticisms then i start squabbling but apart from that im all ears basically. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And what is it with you and Chomsky, a person who writes books and none of which you have read? - whoa a person who writes BOOKS?! you have to realise that when christians say 'you've never read the bible, idiot!' it dosnt mean they have won the argument against a critic of choir boy buggery. what would you have me read russel? which one of his revisionist shit sandwiches is your favourite? It all stinks to death and the original intent of the thread has backfired greatly. - but you dont get the thread russtits...chomsky says the srebrenica concentration camp was just a refugee center. meanwhile he's widely considered the top public intellectual of our time. figuring this out is interesting. btw do u believe what chomsky said about omarska/srebrenica? or do u think im making his statement up or even (the typical chomsky defense) taking it out of context? Maybe i'm missing your point. - yes You seem like a lone man set on a mission when most people agree with you. - about drones? no. i dont think an understanding had been reached on the subject since the last response i had was 'you swallow like a slag, follow yr sources'...which is fine but im hoping u can see why i wasnt completely satisfied. its sort of OBVIOUS |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok so lets look at chomsky. earlier this year i've been reading this article rather carefully. i also tried to learn myself on the exact history of the indochina stuff and cos im a beginner i'm only just starting to get a clearer picture of things. this stuff takes ages and i havn't gotten very far yet. (if it's tldr for you then i'd basically some it up as; 'in a way, if u really think about it, america did it') |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 6, 1977 On May 1, 1977, the New York Times published an account of the "painful problems of peace" in Vietnam by Fox Butterfield. He describes the "woes" of the people of the South, their "sense of hardship" and the grim conditions of their life, concluding that "most Southerners are said to appear resigned to their fate." His evidence comes from "diplomats, refugees and letters from Vietnam." - so already you've got chomsky casting doubt on the 'establishment' or 'mass media' reporting here. or maybe he's not lets see. In journals of the War Resisters League and the American Friends Service Committee of March-May 1977, in contrast, there are lengthy reports by Carol Bragg on a visit to Vietnam earlier this year by a six-person AFSC delegation, including two who had worked in Vietnam and are fluent in Vietnamese. The group traveled widely in the South and spoke to well-known leaders of the non-Communist Third Force who are active in the press and government, as well as ordinary citizens. They report impressive social and economic progress in the face of the enormous destruction left by the war, a "pioneering life" that is "difficult and at times discouraging," but everywhere "signs of a nation rebuilding" with commitment and dedication. - right ok so he's saying there's an alternative situation to that which Fox Butterfield and the establishment mainstream media have described. fair enuff. i cant find anything from Butterfield or Carol Bragg on this. Some of you may realise how much this is already sounding like a 70's pro communist pamphlet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 6, 1977 Butterfield claims that "there is little verifiable information on the new economic zones -- no full-time American correspondents have been admitted since the war -- but they are evidently not popular." While it is true that American correspondents are not welcomed in Vietnam, there is nonetheless ample expert eyewitness testimony, including that of journalists of international repute, visiting Vietnamese professors from Canada, American missionaries and others who have traveled through the country where they worked for many years. Jean and Simonne Lacouture published a book in 1976 on a recent visit, critical of much of what they saw but giving a generally very positive account of reconstruction efforts and popular committment. - now can anyone help me out with Jean and Simonne? i cant find much about them in english. i dont know much here's the wikipedia information: (google translation) In 1975 , after greeting the fall of Saigon , Jean Lacouture welcomes the imminent arrival of a "better Cambodia" with the Khmer Rouge while the edition of 17 April 1975 the World title: The collapse of illusions (of Long Boret , successor to Lon Nol ) and the Khmer Rouge enter Phnom Penh . At that time, for Jean Lacouture, the Khmer Rouge are "a resistance movement against a government made by the Americans" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 6, 1977 Max Ediger of the Mennonite Central Committee, who worked in Vietnam for many years and stayed for thirteen months after the war, testified before Congress in March 1977 on a two-week return visit in January, also conveying a very favorable impression of the great progress he observed despite the "vast destruction of soil and facilities inflicted by the past war." There have also been positive accounts of the "new economic zones" in such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Canadian Pacific Affairs. - chomsky's saying that there have been lots of people who have seen inside postwar vietnam and apparently it's lovely - so fox butterfield (and by extension the us media coverage of vietnam) is probably wrong. not exactly a balanced intellectual approach to a complex situation where the facts are few and far between. chomsky's angle here is that we should dismiss butterfield's reporting in favour of what feel like some very selective and willfully ignorant accounts of life inside vietnam. chomsky also gives us some economic data which does nothing to inform us of the wellbeing of people inside the new vietnam. it really seems like chomsky dosnt care very much about that. he's asking the reader to treat any worries of massacres and re-education as unlikely and people telling you otherwise are sort of basically definitely part of the disinformation machine of america. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you getting this, people? This is important AND obvious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
AMPI wants to open your eyes, guys. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ampi listen to Terrence Mckenna's work shops , do some psychedelic drugs and find your inner peace for fucks sake. We are all connected to a universal consciousness, machine elves are waiting for you in the hyper spacial dimensional upper realm like badly trained excited dogs, so light up a joint and fall into the vortex my old friend .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah but Vietnam's a crud hole where they eat endangered animals that have been electrocuted to make their meat more tender and had their ballsacks ground up to make traditional medicines that improve your chances of wealth and success, or some bullshit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cmon boys it wont take forever |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 6, 1977 But none of this extensive evidence appears in the New York Times's analysis of "conditions in Indochina two years after the end of the war there." Nor is there any discussion in the Times of the "case of the missing bloodbath," although forecasts of a holocaust were urged by the U.S. leadership, official experts and the mass media over the entire course of the war in justifying our continued military presence. On the other hand, protests by some former anti-war individuals against alleged human rights violations in Vietnam are given generous coverage. This choice of subject may be the only basis on which U.S. -- as opposed to Soviet -- dissidents can get serious attention in the mass media today. - this bit is about how suspiciously generous coverage is given to 'protests by some former anti-war individuals against alleged human rights violations in Vietnam'. all in one instance he manages to quite effectively dismiss the media as lies, former anti-war leftists as pawns in a game, and human rights violations in vietnam as imaginary. he does it using suggestion and implication rather than any really compelling argument. he basically sounds like all the conspiracy twats we're all used to hearing from these days. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey dudes. in post [#02464722] i mentioned lacouture. it's definitely worth pointing out that jean lacouture later regretted his support of the khmer rouge (i think around 1976). there were lots of leftists like him at the time and i completely understand how they were convinced that communism could work and that these revolutions would lead to a fairer world. i don't blame them for that at all. this article is pretty good i wish i'd found it sooner. this bit is worth reading: Lacouture was hardly alone in his support for the Communists in Southeast Asia. Many in the West accepted the idea that the Communists would be "liberators" freeing the masses from the servitude of imperialism. (Chomsky and Herman themselves on several occasions refer to the Khmer Rouge victory as "liberation."(65)) Many years later, when Lacouture did change his views, he would write that "... it is not only because I once argued for the victory of this very regime, and feel myself partially guilty for what is happening under it, that I believe I can say: there is a time, when a great crime is taking place, when it is better to speak out, in whatever company, than to remain silent."(66) Disparaging these sentiments, Chomsky and Herman describe Lacouture's mea culpa as "deeply wrong."(67) They suggest that "Future victims of imperial savagery will not thank us for assisting in the campaign to restore the public to apathy and conformism so that the subjugation of the weak can continue without annoying domestic impediments."(68) Apparently, contemporary victims of Communist savagery were less important than the hypothetical future victims of imperialism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
chomsky didnt care about the victims in cambodia. you have to admit that. even at this point in 'Distortions' it's made perfectly clear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so yeah whats going on dudes? if chomsky dosnt care about cambodian peasants or bosnian muslims then what is his leftism? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Noam Chomsky is one of the most hysterically abused figures in the world today. Even his critics have to concede that his work inventing the field of linguistics -- and so beginning to decode the structure of how language is formed in the human brain -- makes him one of the most important intellectuals alive. But when he applies the same rigorous scientific method to figuring out the structure of how power -- especially the American government's - works, he is pepper-sprayed with smears. He is a self-hating Holocaust denier, a jihad-loving traitor, a Pol Pot-licking communist, and on and on. If all you know of his work is the smears, then his new book Hopes and Prospects will be a revelation. In his rather dry understated way, he excavates the reality behind the babbling Babel of 24/7 corporate news, and places long-buried truths on the table for us to examine. Every one is sourced to the leading academic journals, the best experts, the sharpest medical advice -- yet each one is a shock if you rely on news brought to you by corporations and corrupt right-wing billionaires. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 6, 1977 The technical name for this farce is "freedom of the press." All are free to write as they wish: Fox Butterfield, with his ideological blinders, on the front page of the Times (daily circulation more than 800,000); and Carol Bragg, with her eyewitness testimony, in New England Peacework (circulation 2,500). Typically, reports which emphasize the destruction caused by the United States and the progress and commitment of the Vietnamese reach a tiny circle of peace activists. Reports that ignore the American role -- Butterfield can only bring himself to speak of "substantial tracts of land made fallow [sic] by the war," with no agent indicated -- and that find only "woes" and distress, reach a mass audience and become part of the established truth. In this way a "line" is implanted in the public mind with all the effectiveness of a system of censorship, while the illusion of an open press and society is maintained. If dictators were smarter, they would surely use the American system of thought control and indoctrination. - chomsky's saying that freedom of press in america is a complete farce dude. it's a system of control... you have to realise that's complete bollocks. i thought saying stuff like 'thought control and indoctrination' was for truthers (youtube generation in FULL effect). some of you need to figure your perspectives out. you cant laugh at alex jones and then take noam chomsky seriously. just look at the kind of shit he's saying here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the images of the burnt girl Phan Thị Kim Phúc defined vietnam. new york times ran those pictures the next day. that isnt thought control. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
