From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 18:30:55 BST
Hi all,
I would say to David Robjant and others who are annoyed by the
Chomsky thread distracting them from serious discussion of the MOQ,
that all they need do is stop posting unsupported attacks against the
man. Then, those of us who know better, will not feel obligated to
respond, and you'll be able to get back to the important stuff, like
tintinitus.
Adam said:
> Yawn.. Where to begin? David, again, on what basis are you accusing
> Chomsky of being guilty of 'idiotic bi-polar simplifications'?
On 3 Jun 2004 at 20:38, David Robjant wrote:
On the basis of the fact that american military interventions abroad
are treated as "imperialism" by Chomsky. Next:
msh says:
Not just American interventions, but foreign military adventurism in
general, throughout history. But, as for recent American, there
have been, what, something like 50-60 such direct or indirect
interventions over the last 100 years or so, resulting in the deaths
of countless innocent civilians. I'll be happy to provide a complete
list, if you like, with details and death estimates. Just contact me
directly: markheyman@infoproconsulting.com.
Can you name a few that were in your view "humanitarian" in nature?
Please provide documentation with your analysis.
adam asked:
> What were you reading that
> cause you to come to this conclusion? Really, I'd love to know.
I've read newspaper articles (including some by the man himself)
detailing his campaign against the neo-cons and reporting his views
with something like adulation and orthodoxy (I take the left leaning
Guardian newspaper in the UK, and of course I have to put up with the
Today programme on BBC radio, you know, the 'Terrorist Bomb in Iraq -
Bush and Blair definitely evil' show - both of which treat N Chomsky
as some sort of God), and I've read Chomsky fans (such as yourself)
extolling the Chomsky take in exactly the terms "imperialsism",
"unjusfified aggression" etc.
msh says:
No documentation provided. Nothing to check. As for your idea that
the Guardian and BBC are leftist, I suggest you take a look at
MediLens.ORG, a web site which takes a special interest in revealing
the special business interests behind all mainstream news outlets in
Britain.
David Robjant continued:
By the way, I know my history where the Chomsky analysis is
concerned: it's a repackaging of the Pilger view (Pilger is an
antipodean journo, for those who know him not), with some traces of
the old east coast type, what's his name now, who wrote about America
as the new Rome (I'm ashamed to forget this name - you'll remind me).
msh says:
Chomsky a repackaging of Pilger? Pilger is a terrific asset, and
often relies on Chomsky's analysis, as does Chomsky on Pilger's
excellent journalism. The simple chronological fact is that Chomsky
was writing his analyses when Pilger was still at Sydney High School.
David Robjant wrote:
But the trouble with discovering malice and conspiracy is that once
you've made a career out of it, it becomes addictive, and common
sense goes on holiday.
msh says:
Ah, yes. The conspiracy, and common sense out the window attack..
Chomsky has written a lot about the "conspiracy" attack, but pretty
much ignores them now. The thrust is that the activity he criticises
are anything but conspiratorial in nature. They are the natural
result of unaccountable institutions of power projecting and
protecting their power. Don't have the references at my fingertips,
but will supply them for anyone interested enough to email me.
David Robjant wrote:
Saddam was clearly a threat to the US and the West as a whole in a
way that Vietnam never was: what was known of his weaponry and
incomplete disposal of it, his violation of very necessary
international verification proceedures, his goals evinced in Kuwait,
and yes, his osition where the world economy gets most of its oil
from etc etc etc -
msh says:
Seen as a threat by whom? The NY Times? No need to comment there,
given their murderously tardy mea culpa. He wasn't even feared by
his geographical neighbors, who regarded him as a brute and tyrant
and all around bad guy, to be sure, as they did all along, right
through his most murderous period when he was the darling of the
first Bush administration, and Reagan administration before that.
David Robjant continued:
to say nothing of the threat he posed to his own people.
msh says:
Yes, the threat he posed to his own people, which was fine evidently,
till he got a little too uppity and invaded Kuwait. (See above.)
It's stunning, really, given the nearly endless list of brutal
dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US, (Armas, Pahlavi,
Somoza, Suarto, Marcos, Duvalier, Pinochet on and on), many of them
replacing democratically elected governments, that anyone still
seriously suggests that US interventions are basically "humanitarian"
in nature. But again, this isn't just the US. As Chomsky says,
states are not moral agents, they, all of them, will act in ways that
will project and protect their power, unless their citizens, the real
moral agents, do something about it. This BTW would cover my
response to your ideas about guilt being the motivating factor, as
well.
David Robjant wrote:
When you say that "plenty more", Adam, I recommend you tackle my
observation that throughout the twentieth century US foreign policy
far more consitently shows the influence of a succession of
electorally significant minorities than it shows the influence of the
interests of 'Big Business', whatever these may be thought to be (and
it's usually possible to offer contradictory accounts here).
msh says:
I've invited just such contradictory accounts. As for my view of the
intertwining of business and government, see my previous post to you.
David Robjant wrote:
By the by, your analysis in which spending lives and dollars on the
liberation of Europe was simply a bid to improve corporate profits is
creative, not to say bizarre. Do you really beleive this?
msh says:
Can't speak for Adam, but I believe nothing even remotely so
simplified. If you would like to engage me over the idea that
governments, when they are the shadows cast by Big Business, have
fascist tendencies, then please do.
David Robjant wrote:
I recall, from having been myself a leftie in my youth, that much of
the attraction is in the way it offers you a systematic understanding
of the world. Well, surprise surprise, the world ain't that
systematic. ... Take note Bush,
take note Chomsky.
msh says:
As noted above, Chomsky offers no such all-encompassing system of
understanding, and has often said that he doesn't see how such a
system can ever exist. He offers a framework for analysis of very
real events, causing very real misery for very real people, in the
hopes that such analysis will lead to some understanding of the
world, and, more important, some hope for making things better.
Thanks you,
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
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 18:27:37 BST