From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat May 21 2005 - 19:00:06 BST
msh:
So, the problem is not that my interpretation of someone's argument
is tainted by their politics, or mine. The problem arises when
conclusions are endlessly repeated, hand-in-hand with a refusal to
provide supporting argument and evidence, AT ALL. This is dogmatism
not philosophical inquiry.
The Faux Philosopher:
MSH as usual provides a moment of merriment by condemning conclusions
that are reached without offering evidence while at the same time
reaching a conclusion without offering evidence. I'm not surprised,
however. MSH graduated from the same school that believes with
absolute certainty that there are no absolutes.
msh May 21, 2005:
For evidence, let's dip into the archives:
TFP:
"I try to judge a written work solely on its merits, regardless of
the author's reputation."
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/8666.html
Mark Maxwell to TFP:
I am currently reading Noam Chomsky's 'Deterring democracy.' I am not
content to rely upon what other people say about Noam Chomsky, i wish
to read his primary texts for myself.
I hope you may read it also Platt? Then we will both have a basis for
discussion? We may both enquire into the Quality of this work
together.
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/8711.html
Mark Maxwell responds to TFP:
TFP:
Well, I don't see that Europe looks to the U.S. for leadership in
matters of justice anyway. In fact, we get precious little praise for
saving Europe from totalitarian rule twice in the last 100 years.
I'm always stunned by the lack of gratitude on the part of Europeans
towards the U.S.
Mark Maxwell:
You very seriously need to begin reading 'Deterring democracy' by
Noam Chomsky. For example, are you aware how much the American
government approved of Mussolini when he came to power? Mussolini was
described as, "a splendid chap." Mussolini was supported, as was
Hitler, and both described as 'moderates' by the US government of the
time. This is a matter of congressional record. It is there in black
and white.
...
Unless you are going to tell me that you, Platt Holden, know better
than your own government's official records, you have no recourse but
to agree with me.
Please educate yourself to the facts Platt? You may do this a number
of ways; the best way would be for you to research the congretional
archives and disprove Noam Chomsky.
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/8727.html
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
Hello Platt, If you read 'Deterring democracy' you may find this out
for yourself.
Mussolini was supported, as was Hitler, and both described
as 'moderates' by the US government of the time. This is a matter of
congressional record. It is there in black and white.
TFP:
The congressional record reports what is said in Congress. The
Administration, a separate branch of government in case you didn't
know, is responsible for U.S. foreign policy. Congressmen are always
flapping their gums about this and that. But they don't make policy.
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
A 1937 state department report concluded that "fascism is becoming
the soul of Italy," having "brought order out of chaos, discipline
out of licence, and solvency out of bankruptcy." To "accomplish so
much in a short time severe measures have been necessary," the report
concluded. Deterring democracy. p. 41.
This stance changed considerably, as we both know. But what i wish
for you to understand is this: If the US government's officially
declared position is researched prior to the beginning of World war
2, it is a matter of official documentation that the US preferred
fascism to democracy in Italy and Germany.
TFP:
That my friend is just absolute nonsense.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Notice simple dismissal, despite textual
evidence presented for discussion. No discussion, just dismissal.
Without evidence or counter-argument.]
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
The American charge d'affaires in Berlin wrote to Washington in 1933
that the hope for Germany lay in "the more moderate section of the
[Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself...which appeal(s) to all
civilised and reasonable people," and seems to have "the upper hand"
over the violent fringe. In 1937, the State department saw fascism as
compatible with US economic interests. ibid.
[msh notes, May 21,2005: On the U.S. government and business
community's support for Hitler and Mussolini before World War II, see
for example,
Christopher Simpson, The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and
Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Monroe, ME: Common Courage, 1995,
especially pp. 46-64;
David F. Schmitz, Thank God They're On Our Side: The United States
and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965, Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1999, chs. 1 and 3;
David F. Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940,
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988;
John P. Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism: the View from America,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.]
Mark Maxwell earlier:
If you consult a map of Europe, you will note that England and
France are in close proximity to Germany and Italy. It was England
and France who had to deal with fascism on their doorstep, and not
the US, who supported fascism as a matter of official record.
TFP:
Not only is this false, but it bears no relevance to the Americans
who died to defeat the Axis in WWII. Why do you attempt to belittle
what the U.S. did to free Europe from the Fascist and Communist
boots?
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Again, dismissal with no attempt to deal
with evidence. Note also the schoolbook idea that the US rid the
world of Fascism all by itself, as if the British and Russian
military had nothing to do with it. The US may very well have lost
the war in Europe, if not for the sacrifices made by those horrible
Russian communists (20 million or more dead).]
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
Platt, you insist that truth hurts. But ignorance is bliss? The US
did not free Europe all by itself. I seem to remember my father
telling me before he died that he fought in the second World war.
Maybe that was just a dream, but i don't recall him mentioning
fighting with Americans? Perhaps it was their day off or something?
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: No comment from TFP, not even an apology
for his gross and insulting distortion of history, suggesting he is
unwilling to even question his jingoist and dogmatic "philosophy."]
Mark Maxwell before:
Please educate yourself to the facts Platt?
TFP:
By reading Chomsky's skewed version of history? No thanks.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Judged skewed without reading. This is a
good place to repeat TFP's claim: "I try to judge a written work
solely on its merits, regardless of the author's reputation."]
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
I see. This is very interesting. You are not going to read a book
which may tell you some things you would very much rather not expose
yourself to. Pure thought tells you Chomsky has skewed history
without taking the time to consult evidence? This is the mark of an
individual with a closed mind Platt.
Mark Maxwell before:
You may do this a number of ways; the best way would be for you to
research the congressional archives and disprove Noam Chomsky.
TFP:
You are making the claims. You do the research.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Mark Maxwell is not the only one making
claims, but he is the only one producing evidence in support of his
claims. TFP constantly and consistently derides Chomsky, Zinn, Blum,
as well as numerous other sources of information, but, when
questioned, refuses to support his claims. ]
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
I feel you are good example of the effectiveness of US propaganda
when applied to its own people.
Mark Maxwell before:
By the way, Sadham Hussien was also described as a middle Eastern
'moderate' when it suited the US in the 80's. (About the time he was
being armed with nerve gas by Donald Rumsfeld.)
TFP:
Another unsubstantiated claim.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Not even Donald Rumsfeld denies this. He
would be foolish to do so. Here's a link, via The Global Policy
Forum:]
globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.htm
TFP:
What has this to do with the MOQ?
Mark Maxwell 3-6-04:
If you agree with me and regard the MOQ as a Metaphysical
description of everything, then the answer to your question should be
pretty obvious. We may view Chomsky's work in the light of a Value
centred metaphysics. We may examine the behaviour and evolution of
various political organisations and gain understanding.
Unless of course bliss is your preferred state? In that regard, you
at least have a very large number of companions. And let's face it,
it is by far the easier option?
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/8736.html
msh May 21, 2005:
Even though we can keep going with more of the same, week after week,
let's flash forward to more recent posts:
TFP:
As for Chomsky, his support of the Holocaust denier and anti-Semite
Robert Faurisson is all you need to know about the quality of his
historical veracity.
msh:
Anyone who actually reads NC knows this is nonsense. Anyone who
reads my original exchanges with Platt, from about a year ago, will
see that Platt has never read Chomsky, much less taken the time to
verify Chomsky's references.
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/14931.html
msh:
Werner Cohn [who claims Chomsky is anti-semitic] believes anyone who
denounces Israeli expansionism and brutality against the Palestinians
is an Anti-Semite, which means about half the population of Israel.
But, rather than make me read the whole thing, why don't you pick out
what you consider to be Cohn's most convincing argument against
Chomsky, and we can talk about that. And, if we must, let's do it in
a different thread.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Offer to discuss Cohn's evidence is
ignored. Ad hominem attack continues.]
TFP:
And if that doesn't give you pause about Chomsky's historical
accuracy, check out his support of Mao, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min and
his initial denials of their genocides which he later justified as a
small price to pay to establish communist regimes.
msh says:
This is deja vu all over again. Please provide direct quotes from
Chomsky, with references, in support of your claims above.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Demand for evidence is ignored. No evidence
provided. Ad hominem attacks against Chomsky as well as other
progressive thinkers and organizations (such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch) continue to this day.]
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/14944.html
msh:
What difference does it make if you use gas chambers or napalm or
atom bombs or Cruise Missiles? And there was abuse of POWs on both
sides, as always in war, as recent history quite clearly reveals.
Besides, I reject as obscene your insistence that a few million
murdered is somehow not as bad as 6 million. If the American
bombing of SE Asia had continued long enough to kill 6 million, would
you have suddenly turned against it? This seems highly doubtful. It's
clear that, to you, the numbers killed are not as important as WHO is
doing the killing.
TFP:
I reject as obscene your blindness to the difference between fighting
for freedom and fighting to enslave. It's not a question of WHO, but
WHY.
msh says:
Your assumption that the USG always and forever uses aggression to
fight for freedom is what is being challenged in part by my Nuremberg
example, as well as by almost every political discussion you and I
have ever had. As long as you refuse to examine and discuss evidence
against your assumption, your position is dogmatic, not
philosophical.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Charge is ignored. No evidence or argument
provided. Point goes whoosh down the memory hole.]
msh before:
But, rather than make me read the whole thing, why don't you pick out
what you consider to be Cohn's most convincing argument against
Chomsky, and we can talk about that. And, if we must, let's do it in
a different thread.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Offer to discuss evidence is declined. Ad
hominem attack resumes. See below]
TFP:
Funny. You want me to read the whole of Chomsky, but when it comes to
a anything that exposes your hero as a fraud, you'll read nothing.
That's what I call fair and balanced.
msh:
I've read quite a bit of Cohn's work, and most of the essay you
offered, and have found to it be the usual misrepresentation and
distortion of Chomsky's ideas. But if you can point to an argument
you find convincing, I'll be happy to discuss it.
But why should either of us have to read secondary interpretations of
Chomsky's work when the source writing is so easily available? You've
made numerous accusations against Chomsky's scholarship, and yet are
unable to offer any primary evidence in support of your claims.
Nothing personal, but the only fraud I see here is you pretending to
be interested in politics and philosophy.
[msh notes, May 21, 2005: Offer to discuss evidence is again
declined. Ad hominem attacks resume unabated.]
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/14954.html
Mark Maxwell gives up, June 30, 2004:
You have become a joke of your own making. No more shall i involve
myself with it.
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9460.html
msh concludes, May 21,2005:
I'm not as smart as Mark Maxwell, so it took me another 10 months to
see the light.
Thanks to all MOQers who were interested enough to read this far. I
encourage you to use this thread to identify unsupported negative
assessment of any thinker by anyone, especially by me. I will
welcome the opportunity to provide evidence and argument in support
of my opinion, and to retract and apologize if I cannot.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 22 2005 - 03:10:02 BST