Noam Chomsky: Anyone but Bush, likes Kucinich, says he can't win, no LIHOP

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1645315.php

....FLOWER: Have you picked out anybody you like for president ?

CHOMSKY: Anyone likely to come near a chance.... To tell you the honest truth, I would vote for almost anyone at this point that I could imagine running against Bush.... Of the people who have announced for candidate, the one whose program seems to me the best is Dennis Kucinich. On the other hand, there’s not a possible chance that he could win. An election in the United States, the way things now stand, is something that’s essentially bought. You have to have massive financial support, which means, as the world exists, corporate support. Business support. Or else an enormous popular movement, massive popular movement, which can make up for the lack of business support -- like in Brazil, for example , which is in many respects a much more advanced democracy than ours. Huge and very effective popular movements were able to compensate for their lack of elite business support and actually elect a quite remarkable president. But we’re nowhere near that.



*TODD IN ARCATA: Did Bush know about 9/11 in advance?

CHOMSKY: Personally, I’m quite skeptical about it. I haven’t read everything, obviously, but what I’ve read about this material suggests to me a general fact that’s worth keeping in mind. Namely, if you take any historical event, something that happened yesterday, and you look at it closely, you’re going to find all kinds of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, oddities, and so on. In fact, that’s even true in controlled scientific experiments....In the case of historical events, in retrospect a lot of things fall into place because you know what happened. It’s kind of like reading the last page of a detective story and then being able to pick up the hints along the way. But at the time, there’s just a flood of information; you don’t know what’s important and what isn’t. Even the most competent, unimaginably perfect intelligence agencies would have a very hard time sorting out what matters and what doesn’t matter in the flood of low-quality information that’s coming through them. And the coincidences may mean something, or they may not. But I think you have to have pretty strong evidence to build a case like that, and I haven’t seen it. I’m not thoroughly convinced about it.... Anyhow, I’m skeptical, but draw your own conclusions.

Chomsky never supports the idea of consipiracies because that would further marginalize his other views, so at this stage of his career it would be too risky to embrace the idea of 9-11 conspiracy.

That's also why you don't see Alex Coburn ("Counterpunch) or Pacifica, or "The Nation" or "The Progressive" nor any other "liberal" media or media persons...none of them will touch the idea of a 9-11 conspiracy (except the Official Story Conspiracy, of course), because they fear it would be bad for their career, and their magazines or radio network would be tarred by the right-wing corporate media. (remember, Ariana's speaking fee is $5,000 or more...and she isn't about to take a stand on something which jeopardize that little cash cow.)

Only Gore Vidal will take a firm stand about 9-11 being a possible U.S. conspiracy.

http://news.GlobalFreePress.com we aren't shy to talk about the most important story of our time. :bounce:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

very very good point

he writes a good game, but you are absolutely correct, this is a business for him and to see real change would cut into his profit.

Many of those 'progressive' media's people will tell you privately and obliquely that there is definitely fire with that smoke...
But your reasoning "never supports the idea of consipiracies because that would further marginalize his other views" is right--the career stuff is over the top (any of those writers and academics could be making lots more CASH than working for mainstream publications, so I don't think CASH is the motive)

Probably as you said being associated with bad scholarship, wingnut 'cranks' from all over the spectrum (from insane to militant) and fears their legitimate work will be suspect...

I suspect guys like Chomsky, Zinn, Cockburn, Gitlin et. al. are approached all the time with the 'smoking gun' by various people including 'spooks'.

They must subscribe to Martin Gardner's attitude regarding disproving UFOs...why bother...a guy brings you a picture of a UFO, and you meticulously and nicely provide possible explanations (Occam's Razor), then he goes away and comes back with another picture...you do it again...then he comes back with another picture...WELL after the 94th time...you just FUCK YOU, You're an idiot

Thats the important piece.

And he is right, you need powerful evidence to build a case for LIHOP.

But that is sort of why I believe in it. I think the administration knows that it will take undeniable proof to get this off the ground.

I just can't dismiss it, after looking at all Bush has done after 9/11 and all of the ways it benifitted him.

But I am getting off topic......

well, heads - yes, thats plural - of state made sure that we GOT THE MESSAGE. shoot even our own people were sounding the alarm and the chimp himself was briefed in aug of 01.

then there are PLENTY of other 'coincidences' that doesn't add up and points to complicity or at least deliberatley looking the wrong way.

not to mention the way the buildings fell, especially wtc7, and the cover up of evidence, not wanting an investigation etc that could lead a reasonable person to conclude MIHOP.

at least he confesses his ignorance on the subject and doesn't claim to be convinced himself of the official story.

peace

These are two of the most sensible comments by Prof. Chomsky to come to my attention.

I know you are much to wise to be part of the anti-chomsky crowd ;->

:hi:

peace

but he is above knee-jerk criticism, isn't he?

peace

He informs me that he voted against Reagan specifically even though he did not agree with much of the Democratic programme at the time.

It's the same here, 20 odd years later. Bush is bad enough to vote against, just as Reagan was (more accurately, the people around Reagan).

He'd vote for Kucinich in 2004 (as would I), but he'd also vote ABB. For Democrats, they're ain't a hell of a lot wrong with that! :toast:

"LETS GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Chomsky rarely ever looks at an issue without assuming the CIA did it.

Chomsky has to try to appeal to a certain sect of readers--it wouldn't pay for his books to be sensible analysis--his readers what mud-slinging slander, terrifying revelations, any thing that bashes US policy even if it is not very accurate.

"Chomsky rarely ever looks at an issue without assuming the CIA did it."

As someone who has read a number of Chomsky's books and articles, I know that is a complete lie. I also know that *whenever* Chomsky is brought up, he's constantly lied about and slandered by people who NEVER quote from his work, but rely on stock fallacies and outright deception. It's amazing how consistent it is and how far removed from reality.

Your posts on this thread are closer to what Ann Coulter writes than anything Chomsky has ever said.

just becuase he describes an imperial nations actions doesn't make him bad.

it would be nice if you would cite one of his not very accurate bashings of our FP.

:hi:

peace

of our U.S. history, as told by U.S. citizens (and allies). The hypocricy of labeling what THEY (whether the Nazis, Communists, Terrorists) do (bombing, killing innocent people, ruining people's lives) as criminal but when the U.S. has done exactly the same horrible things, it is justified as saving the American Way. Only then the American Way doesn't mean Truth & JUstice, it means saving the profits and the economic interests of certain priveleged Americans (& their allies).
Growing up in the United States, I believed in the best of what the United States stood for: Truth, Justice and the American Way.Back then, I thought the American way WAS Truth and Justice. Growing awareness of the lack of justice for people of color, women, children here in the US began, for me in the 60's. As I matured, I came to accept that my parents weren't the perfect, god (& goddess?-like creatures I once thought and I came to accept that the U.S. has done some horrible, criminal (except we were too powerful for anyone to 'arrest' us) things, still does. I like Noam's explanations for how this has happened and why so many of us rarely see the hypocricy of the U.S's actions.

of our U.S. history, as told by U.S. citizens (and allies). The hypocricy of labeling what THEY (whether the Nazis, Communists, Terrorists) do (bombing, killing innocent people, ruining people's lives) as criminal but when the U.S. has done exactly the same horrible things, it is justified as saving the American Way. Only then the American Way doesn't mean Truth & JUstice, it means saving the profits and the economic interests of certain priveleged Americans (& their allies).
Growing up in the United States, I believed in the best of what the United States stood for: Truth, Justice and the American Way.Back then, I thought the American way WAS Truth and Justice. Growing awareness of the lack of justice for people of color, women, children here in the US began, for me in the 60's. As I matured, I came to accept that my parents weren't the perfect, god (& goddess?-like creatures I once thought and I came to accept that the U.S. has done some horrible, criminal (except we were too powerful for anyone to 'arrest' us) things, still does. I like Noam's explanations for how this has happened and why so many of us rarely see the hypocricy of the U.S's actions.

like all the rest of us ABBA folks.

:)

shoot, he even likes DK :evilgrin:

peace

but I'm not sure about being an ABBA person. ;-) Disco sucks.

This is something I advocated on DU recently.

MIKE: What about the removal of power from the corporations?

CHOMSKY: ....There’s no justification, I agree with you on this, that ”private tyrannies” -- which is what corporations are -- should have rights. Certainly not the rights of persons, which they’ve been granted -- in fact, rights beyond persons -- any rights at all. They’re legal fictions that shouldn’t have any decision-making power. That power should be in the hands of the participants in the institutions, the working people in the communities, and so on. How do you get that result? How do you achieve that? It’s like asking: How do you overthrow tyranny?

n/t

now where have I heard that before? http://www.iww.org/

I already pay my dues to the teamsters. And will say Unions are better than sliced bread. Being a member of the Teamsters I was able get bailed out of very bad situation only last week.

Management in charge of my postition had to make a better and more equitable solution, which looks even better for the company as a whole. It did make the immediate management angry because they had to give in from their demands and lessened immediate power for them.

Top down management it counter productive in many cases.

On Edit: Thought I might leave this here since this was about workers and different politcal systems

http://rwor.org/a/1197/corim.htm
May 1st, 2003: Statement from the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
An Emerging New Tide of World Revolution
Revolutionary Worker #1197, May 4, 2003, posted at rwor.org

We received this statement which was issued by the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.

The class-conscious proletarians and the revolutionary masses of all countries are celebrating May First this year under exceptional conditions. Throughout the world, the people are furious with the U.S. imperialists for their brutal rape of Iraq and determined to settle accounts. Resistance in the early days of the war showed that the masses in Iraq were determined to fight. A people's movement of tens of millions stormed the world stage. But the sudden collapse of the Saddam regime has shown, yet again, that there can be no effective struggle against imperialism under the leadership of the reactionary classes. It is the great task of the proletariat, and to it alone, to unite and lead the people in revolutionary struggle aimed squarely at the imperialists and the reactionary rulers of every country.

It is only the international proletariat, the class that stands opposite the imperialists on a world scale, whose interests lie in the complete destruction of the imperialist system, in the full liberation of all nations and in the creation of a society without classes and exploitation--communism. The enemy mouthpieces have been working overtime for many years to declare this vision and this mission an impossible and dangerous dream. But it is a dream that is rooted in the material conditions of the international proletariat itself, in its cooperative labor, its conditions of exploitation and its common struggle. It is a dream that must and does constantly fight to reassert itself despite the mountains of distortions and lies and continues to provide enthusiasm and a sense of direction and purpose. The truly dangerous deception is the strange idea that the problems of humanity could be solved without uprooting the capitalist system itself. A social system whose very motor is the exploitation of man by man, which breeds every kind of oppression and inequality, which has sacrificed many millions of people in its unjust wars of aggression and plunder-- such a system can never be reformed.

The beneficiaries and protectors of this predatory world system will never listen to reason nor bow to the demands of the people, even when that will is expressed in an overwhelming and forceful way. In the mouths of the imperialists, words like "international law", "democracy", "consent of the governed", "freedom", whether eloquently preached by Tony Blair, grunted by George Bush or even when translated into French or German, are nothing but decorations to cover over this naked reality.

The imperialists and reactionaries are a small minority and can only maintain their domination of the planet through their armies, police forces and intelligence services, not to mention their huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction over which they are so determined to keep a monopoly. The war on Iraq proved once again the truth of Mao Tsetung's words, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
(snip)

That man is a mental force. And that is impressive considering his age.

Thanks for the link, I love reading what Chomsky has to say!

Even Chomsky says to DUers - wake up and face reality!

ABB can be interpreted different ways. From what I've understood here at DU, some interpret it as voting for the nominee no matter who that turns out to be. Others interpret it as giving up on the candidate you want and supporting the one you don't want that you think will be the most "popular" in the primary.

I'll vote for whoever gets the nod. I'm saying that firmly, and grabbing myself by the scruff of the neck to keep myself in line...because I'm not as sure of that as I was before Clark entered the race. I have a weird antipathy to the man. I don't really have a good explanation. I know which things make me uncomfortable, but that doesn't explain the visceral reaction.

How about any democrat but bush in the general election? That one I can support.

Support the candidate closest to your views and vote against Bush.

Don't make them mutually exclusive.

Or: follow your heart + vote out that fucking bastard. :)

comparing Dean to Lula? Come on!

convince me. How many new voters has Dean signed up? If Dean loses, will the new organization stay together and endorse the Democratic candidate? Does the organization have any life outside of Dean? Can the organization change focus to work on another problem besides electing Dean?

If so, than it's a bona-fide popular movement, but so far, all I've seen is a clever political campaign. Prove me wrong, and I'll vote for Dean. Seriously.

He uses the same head-in-the-sand approach that he uses on the JFK assassination.

I can't respect that.

:beer: :beer:

I don't get the fascination with this guy.

He's as wacky to me in his way as Ann Coulter. But it does raise an interesting question - what would a child they raised together be like? Talk about your plot for a sci-fi movie...

"I don't get the fascination with this guy."

:shrug:

peace

He's also a wildly co-dependent apologist for a failed ideology, but hey, nobody's perfect.

Of course, I think Shaw said it best: "if you're not a socialist at 19, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at 29, you have no brain".

yeah, now dazzle us with another silly cliche :hi:

peace

Surely you can't be serious?

Both of them are ideologues divorced from common sense.

that's a good one :toast:

chomsky has a lot of uncommonsense and coulter has no sense.

peace

in their reporting because their overwhelming attachment to political ideology makes it impossible to look objectivly at any issue.

Cite an example from his large body of work? Title, page number.

My friend is a Chomsky addict, and I have borrowed several books, including 'Deterring Democracy' and 'What Uncle Sam Wants' and some of those short pamphlets.
My critiscm of Chomsky comes from years of reasing much more objective history. He often cites little known objects from history, things no one can challenge him on because they are so little known. But in instances where he talks about things I know he often gives very decieving pictures of events.

I have to work from memory here, and I honestly cannot remember all the different times I have read what I consider a historical error because of bias and omission in Chomsky's writings.

Here is one--The Italian Elections of 1948--first Italian elections in 3 decades. Chomsky claims the CIA rigged the elections to ensure a 'fascist victory'. Not true by any standard. The CIA donated 1 million dollars to the Christian Democrat Party, a moderate democrat party that was the frontrunner in the polls being challenged by what Chomsky calls 'populist democrats', which in reality was a Moscow funded Comintern Party, stalinist in ideology and subserviant to Moscow. The leader of the Christian Democrats, contrary to being a 'fascist' was a former anti-fascist Library attendant, who spent years hiding out because of Mussolini.

Another--In one book, Chomsky claims that the Soviet Union itself had distanced itself from torture since the death of Stalin. He says the Soviet Union rarely aided oppressive regimes in the Third World, a complete lie. He mentions one regime, that of Mengitsu and the Dergue in Ethiopia as being a repressive state the Soviets aided.
The truth is that torture in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and other states never ended. Only Gorbachev managed to reduce the systematic assault on human rights in the USSR, and then he was only partially sucsessful. Here is a list of major human rights abusing states in the 3rd world supported by the Soviets (and this is just from memory. I am sure there are more)
The USSR itself (much of the USSR could be called 3rd World), North Korea, Egypt under Nasser (Nasser was the first Arab dictator to use poison gas warfare, in Yemen), Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, South Yemen, China until the split in the 60s, Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Baathist Syria, Baathist Iraq, Communist Afghanistan, Laos as well as all of the Eastern European states save Yugoslavia. They also supported terrorist groups like the FARC, the Red Brigades, Abu Nidal and virtually every Marxist Leninist revolutionary movement in the world.

This is only a partial list, which I have made brainstorming right now. I am just pointing out how Chomsky ignores all of this.

you're being specific, I'll give you that. If Chomsky said the CIA interfered with the 1948 elections, and the CIA gave a candidate a million dollars, I'd say that qualified. Did Chomsky say "rig" the election as if they stuffed ballot boxes?

"He says the Soviet Union rarely aided oppressive regimes in the Third World, a complete lie. "

I'll believe Chomsky said that when you give me a quote, it sounds like a typical anti-Chomsky lie to me.

Deterring Democracy or What Uncle Sam Wants. I do not own the books or have them here. I borrowed them from a friend who is a big fan of Noams. I found errors, but the two I can think of were these. I do not have page numbers, nor am I confident I know what book they are in. I jus remember in many cases, more than these, he says things that are terribly inaccurate and do not jibe with any objective histories I have read.

My point was the CIA gave money to the Christian democrats because the Comintern was funding the Italian Communist Party. He called the Christian Democrats 'fascists' and a stalinist comintern party 'populists'.

he calls all anti-communists fascists? Fascism is very different from a reactionary military junta. It is a revolutionary mass popular movement that wishes to transform society than uphold the status quo. Nazi theory really differs from communism on one simple thing. Replace the word class in marxist theory with race and you have a simplified version of Hitler's ideology. Instead of class conflict, you had race conflict. You had race interests instead of class interests. Instead of workers uniting, Hitler saw germans uniting. Hitler substituted Jews for Landowners and Aristocrats.

fascism is a more general term and can be applied to many actors during wwII even the japanese.

please do not attack the messenger for his message.

:hi:

peace

Nazism is rather perpendicular to the conventional left-right baseline. Certainly substituting race for class does not make it resemble Marxism, unless one imagines that to be aimed at further exaltation of the plutocratic classes.

In Italy, a worker- and peasant-based movement, led by the Communist party, had held down six German divisions during the war and liberated northern Italy. As US forces advanced through Italy, they dispersed this antifascist resistance and restored the basic structure of the prewar Fascist regime.

Because of its responsiveness to the needs of these social sectors, the Communist Party was labelled "extremist" and "undemocratic" by U.S. propaganda, which also skillfully manipulated the alleged Soviet threat. Under U.S. pressure, the Christian Democrats abandoned wartime promises about workplace democracy and the police, sometimes under the control of ex-fascists, were encouraged to suppress labor activities. The Vatican announced that anyone who voted for the Communists in the 1948 election would be denied sacraments, and backed the conservative Christian Democrats under the slogan: "O con Cristo o contro Cristo" ("Either with Christ or against Christ"). A year later, Pope Pius excommunicated all Italian Communists.24

Italy has been one of the main areas of CIA subversion ever since the agency was founded. The ClA was concerned about Communists winning power legally in the crucial Italian elections of 1948. A lot of techniques were used, including restoring the Fascist police, breaking the unions
and withholding food. But it wasn't clear that the Communist party could be defeated.

The very first National Security Council memorandum, NSC 1 (1948), specified a number of actions the US would take if the Communists won these elections. One planned response was armed intervention, by means of military aid for underground operations in Italy.

Some people, particularly George Kennan, advocated military action before the elections- he didn't want to take a chance. But others convinced him we could carry it off by subversion, which turned out to be correct.

more...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Traditional.html

as far as him denying that any large state had not supported terrorism would be a new one to me and i would have to see that cited in context since he is often misquoted or quoted out of context.

chomsky knows all to well that states sponser terrorism to achieve their own ends he happens to know more about his own state and points it out repeatedly upsetting the status quo of we are the good guys and they are bad.

chomsky is a target for many because he speaks truth to power and MANY can not handle it.

peace

His version is not accurate. The Italian Communists were directly controlled by Moscow, were stalinist in ideology and were filled with KGB agents. The Soviet hand was very real there and the Italian Communist Party, like all of the western communist parties, were Soviet Puppets. It was only after the Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that the European Communists split over supporting the USSR.
Read the Mitrokhin Archive--it gives tons of evidence from KGB files to support the Soviet Control of the Italian communists. The propaganda was correct--they were not democratic in ideology.

Restoring the fascist police--I do not recall the blackshirt brigades were ever reconstituted!! the Blackshirts and the Fascist militias were the 'Fascist Police'.It seems that he is talking about the Italian Regular Police. It seems that Italy's regular police force continued to work for a non-Mussolini government. Italy's regular police existed before Mussolini and continue to exist today. Like many who claim that all German soldiers and officer were Nazis, it is a fallacy to claim all the Italian police were fascists.

Yes, so much food was withheld that Italy was one of the fastest recovered countries from WWII, and one of the top recipients of US Aid.

The CIA merely gave 1 million dollars to the campaign of the Christian Democrats-- they did not rig the elections.

he doesn't say they weren't communist, sheesh.

he just lays out how we intervened - like we have in many places - and even restored pre-war fascist to defeat the communist.

how is that 'wrong'?

just becuase you have justified it in your own mind doesn't make it WRONG.

more of the story...

"When British and then American troops moved into southern Italy, they simply reinstated the fascist order-the industrialists. But the big problem came when the troops got to the north, which the Italian resistance had already liberated. The place was functioning- industry was running. We had to dismantle all of that and restore the old order.

Our big criticism of the resistance was that they were displacing the old owners in favor of workers' and community control. Britain and the US called this "arbitrary replacement" of the legitimate owners. The resistance was also giving jobs to more people than were strictly needed for the greatest economic efficiency (that is, for maximum profit-making). We called this "hiring excess workers."
In other words, the resistance was trying to democratize the workplace and to take care of the population. That was understandable, since many Italians were starving. But starving people were their problem-our problem was to eliminate the hiring of excess workers and the arbitrary dismissal of owners, which we did.

Next we worked on destroying the democratic process. The left was obviously going to win the elections; it had a lot of prestige from the resistance, and the traditional conservative order had been discredited. The US wouldn't tolerate that. At its first meeting, in 1947, the National Security Council decided to withhold food and use other sorts of pressure to undermine the election.

But what if the communists still won? In its first report, NSC 1, the council made plans for that contingency: the US would declare a national emergency, put the Sixth Fleet on alert in the Mediterranean and support paramilitary activities to overthrow the Italian government."

more...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomskyOdonian_Nazis

peace

The US did not, neither did the British. The 'fascist police' he slanders seem to have been Italy's regular police and not the blackshirt brigades.
The left and the moderates were neck and neck in the polls--Moscow was supporting the Communists, the US began aiding the Christian democrats. If the communists were so popular, why did a mere 1 million in campaign funds swing the election? That was the extent of the CIA's interference.

The Italian resistance had created pockets--but Northern Italy until April 1945 had been dominated by Germany and to a lesser extent Mussolini's government, which was really just a German fiefdom by that point. Most of the Industry was in their hands.

I have never read anywhere that the biggest fear of the Communists was their hiring of excess workers--their close ties to the Comintern and Stalin were a major concern.

If the US did not care about starvation, why was a huge amount of food supplies shipped to Europe, including Italy? This was going on even before the end of the war.

if you do not think that we supported facist at the end of the war that only reveals your ignorance it does not change the facts.

shoot, we are much closer in ideology to the facist then the socialist and many famous folks here supported hitler during his rise and some even during the war - bush's grandfather for one

read about 'operation paperclip' to get more insight to how we collaborated with not only the facist of europe and asia but also the NAZIS.

besides the game is over... we are the only ones still trying to dominate the whole world, by FORCE... how do you spin that away?

peace

and biased. I wish I had some of his books here so I could find more inaccuracies. Unfortunately most of the stuff he brings up is so arcane that no other authors even mention it. But on topics I know well his analysis and even his facts can be called into question.

bring up some facts that show he is inaccurate here.

:hi:

peace

Chomsky: Exactly. Italy, as far as we know, has been the main target of US efforts to undermine democracy since the Second World War. There was great fear in the 1940s that the Left in Italy would win a democratic election. In 1948 particularly, there was great concern that the Left, which had a lot of prestige – I mean, it supported the resistance against Fascism and those were important things in those days, and it had backed labour unions – were going to win the elections, and the US had plans. I don’t know if you know this, but the National Security Council’s first planning body, NSC1 was concerned with how to undermine democracy in Italy. That was considered to be the problem at the time. And they concluded that they could undermine democracy by withholding food – and I don’t have to remind you that people were starving at that time – reinstating Fascist police, which they did, undermining unions and a whole variety of techniques of that sort were used. But then it was concluded that if this doesn’t work, if Italy nevertheless has a Left political victory, the US will call a national mobilisation, will begin to support paramilitary activities in Italy against the government. The National Security Council won, and that continued until the seventies and maybe beyond. I mean, we only know until the seventies because that’s where the documents stop. That includes supporting P2. So the effort to undermine Italian democracy goes back very far. Compared with this, Berlusconi isn’t making plans to carry out military activity to overthrow the government. What’s going on isn’t correct, but in terms of the efforts to undermine democracy it’s not a major thing. And it’s the same here. Clinton didn’t happen to have a lot of trials for corruption. But just look at his record. But look at Reagan’s record and just look at some of the people in the Reagan administration <1981-89>.

Pacitti: There’s more than a suspicion here in Italy that Berlusconi obtained heavy backing from the Sicilian Mafia at national elections.

Chomsky: Yes, but where did the Sicilian Mafia come from? It didn’t arise from nothing. The Mafia was, as you know, destroyed by Mussolini. And how did the Mafia get reconstituted? It got reconstituted as the American and British armies moved first through Sicily and then southern Italy and the same in southern France and it was reconstituted as an agency to undermine the resistance and undermine the Left.

Pacitti: You’ve looked at the Italian question in some detail, then?

Chomsky: I haven’t done original research on it but I’ve reviewed it with different sources. So, for example, in my book Deterring Democracy, one of the chapters , has something about the main, first project of the United States and Britain after the Second World War, which was to undermine the resistance against Fascism and to restore the traditional system. Italy is discussed, and it’s also discussed in a later book with new revelations. And there’s actually a very good book which I review somewhere . It’s by an Italian historian , who incidentally thinks it’s fine that the Allied Forces should have “disarmed the resistance and brought its Committee of National Liberation to order” on the grounds that “free political and social movements always inspired mistrust among the Allies” since they were “hard to control”. Romero describes the efforts of the British and the Americans to undermine the labour groups and the resistance against Fascism in northern Italy. And he describes it very positively, but he also describes it pretty accurately.

more...
http://www.justresponse.net/deterring_democracy.html

peace

was not just Comintern controlled parties. I bet most of the Italian communists between August 1939 (the time of the Soviet Nazi Pact)-June 1941 (invasion of the USSR) were pro-Hitler, like most Communist organs in Europe. Communist Propaganda all over the world backed the Nazis during this period. Communists in Yugoslavia and Greece refused to fight the Germans. It was only after Hitler turned on his Soviet Ally on June 22, 1941 that the Communists fought tooth and nail all over Europe.

And since Hitler and Mussolini were gone and Stalin now the world's most dangerous tyrant--wouldn't be safe to say that stopping the spread of Stalin's influence would be akin to someone stopping the spread of Naziism and Fascism in the 1930s?

Once again, the US did not starve anyone. The US shipped more food and other aid than every other country in the world combined to Europe, including Italy. The people that did starve were starved by the communists in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia---more than 2 million ethnic Germans alone died as they were forced out of Eastern Europe by the Russians and other communists.
The only non-comintern controlled communist party in Europe was Tito's, but they massacred hundreds of thousands of people in Yugoslavia after taking power.

lets see some facts please.

the left were the first ones to resist hitler in germany and elsewhere in the world. of course he had a treaty with russia so no one moved against him till he attacked but you gotta be kidding me if you expect anyone to think they were natural allies before hitler attacked - lol

but we do have real evidence of how many corporate states initially welcomed facism and supported fascism.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" Benito Mussolini

the U.S. has been interested in maintaining and expanding it's empire for a long time but especially since wwII.

to try to argue that it hasn't is just silly today since many of these documents have been disclosed and written about.

are you trying to argue that we aren't an empire that has acted brutally at times to maintain it?

peace

During the period of the Hirler-Stalin Pact, Communist Parties throughout the West opposed any measures against Hitler, and continued to do so until the Barbarossa offensive. This did not prevent the Hitlerite and Mussolini regimes from continued persecution of Communists and other leftists in their own countries, or conquests. Hitler, interestingly enough, turned over to Stalin a number of Communist prisonners, who were shipped straight into the Gulag as Trotsky-ites.

The CIA, Henry and a few others feared losing money and control so they did the dirty work regardless

http://www.nightmare.org/textfiles/conspiracy/italy.txt

GLADIO: THE SECRET U.S. WAR TO SUBVERT ITALIAN DEMOCRACY

by Arthur E. Rowse

(snip)
Moro was so shaken by the threats, according to an aide, that he became ill the next day and cut short his U.S. visit,
saying he was through with politics. *52 But U.S. pressure continued; Senator Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) issued a
similar warning two years later in an interview in Italy. *53 Shortly before his kidnapping, Moro wrote an article
replying to his U.S. critics, but decided not to publish it. *54

While being held captive for 55 days, Moro pleaded repeatedly with his fellow Christian Democrats to accept a ransom
offer to exchange imprisoned Red Brigade members for his freedom. But they refused, to the delight of Allied officials
who wanted the Italians to play hardball. In a letter found later, Moro predicted: My death will fall like a curse on all
Christian Democrats, and it will initiate a disastrous and unstoppable collapse of all the party apparatus. *55

During Moro's captivity, police unbelievably claimed to have questioned millions of people and searched thousands of
dwellings. But the initial judge investigating the case, Luciano Infelisi, said he had no police at his disposal. I ran the
investigation with a single typist, without even a telephone in the room. He added that he received no useful
information from the secret services during the time. *56 Other investigating magistrates suggested in 1985 that one
reason for the inaction was that all the key officers involved were members of P-2 and were therefore acting at the
behest of Gelli and the CIA. *57

Although the government eventually arrested and convicted several Red Brigade members, many in the press and
parliament continue to ask whether SID arranged the kidnapping after receiving orders from higher up. Suspicions
naturally turned toward the U.S., particularly Henry Kissinger, though he denied any role in the crime. In Gladio and
the Mafia, Washington had the perfect apparatus for doing such a deed without leaving a trace
(snip)

Is Henry Kissinger a war criminal, fascist or just misunderstood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=345935

It's time for another Bush/Nazis thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=199853

The only ideology that Chomsky appears to espose is a respect for democracy and an unflinching understanding that Power protects itself with propaganda, indoctrination and brute force. Does that sound wacky to you?

An outting of amoral Machiavellian tactics that power structures use to keep people from controlling their own lives?? Here's a good quote on the influence of media to chew on from pp 121-122:

"Remember that the media have two basic functions. One is to indoctrinate the elites, to make sure they have the right ideas and know how to serve power. In fact, typically the elites are the most indoctrinated segment of a society, because they are the ones who are exposed to the most propaganda and actuallly take part in the decisio-n making rocess. For them you have the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and so on..

But there's also a mass media, whose main function is just get rid of the rest of the population-to marginalize and eliminate them, so they don't interfere with decision-making. And the press that's designed for that purppose isn't the New York Times and the Washington Post, it's sitcoms on television, and the National Enquirer, and sex and violence, and babies with three heads, and football, all that kind of stuff.

But the approximately 85 percent of the population that is the main target of that media, they don't have it in their genes that they're not interested in the way the world works.

And if they can escape from the effects of the de-education and indoctrination system, and the whole class system it's a part of-it's after all not just indoctrination that keeps people from getting involved in political life, by any means-if they can do that, then yeah, they're a big audience for an alternative, and there's some hope.

while another just puts out the most outrageous tripe they can think of not having to worry wether or not it will stand up to scrutiny since that is what she gets paid for.

just because he points out our imperial ways doesn't make him wrong but it is interesting noting the DENIAL many are in about our history.

some can't handle the truth and cling to fairy tales which is why coulter even has an audience.

peace

he rarely ever puts any facts in his books that might disagree with his thesis. He uses sources that agree with him but ignores conflicting evidence. He often labels groups inaccuratly--like calling moderate democrats 'fascists' or hardcore stalinists 'populists'. His work is highly biased, and often do not contain 'undisputed facts' but opinions masquerading as fact.

he articulately describes our modern imperial ways though some refuse to admit it doesn't make his analysis flawed.

please cite an example so we can have an actual discussion of the facts.

peace

I can only remember some specifics off the top of my head. I have a friend who is an avid fan of Chomsky and I have proved him to be inaccurate a number of times. I have read two Chomsky full length books--Deterring Democracy and What Uncle Sam Wants as well as several of the small books. I borrowed them from him.

here is one of my favorites online... FREE
What Uncle Sam Really Wants

Noam Chomsky

Copyright © 1993
Table of Contents

The main goals of US foreign policy

1. Protecting our turf
2. The liberal extreme
3. The "Grand Area"
4. Restoring the traditional order
5. Our commitment to democracy
6. The threat of a good example
7. The three-sided world

Devastation abroad

1. Our Good Neighbor policy
2. The crucifixion of El Salvador
3. Teaching Nicaragua a lesson
4. Making Guatemala a killing field
5. The invasion of Panama
6. Inoculating Southeast Asia
7. The Gulf War
8. The Iran/contra cover-up
9. The prospects for Eastern Europe
10. The world's rent-a-thug

Brainwashing at home

1. How the Cold War worked
2. The war on (certain) drugs
3. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
4. Socialism, real and fake
5. The media

The Future

1. Things have changed
2. What you can do
3. The struggle continues
4. Notes

more...
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

:hi:

peace

Certainly most fascists think they're very moderate. No one is a bigot to himself.

When you read even two books of him, and you proved that he was inaccurate a number of times, you surely remember one of the issues were he was wrong.
If you only claims “he is so biased”, that is just an opinion, but cannot be taken seriously as an argument as long as you do not explain it in more detail.

I read “Manufacturing Consent”. I think Herman/Chomsky proved their thesis (the Propaganda Model) quite convincingly by analyzing a huge amount of media reports.
What one can to deplore is that they do not cite very precisely. Very often they add a footnote to a whole paragraph with a lot of sources, and sometimes it is hard to attribute a certain source to a certain element in the paragraph.

However, on the whole, this work is not biased or flawed, but very well researched. It is a seminal contribution to the explanation of the media in the USA.

Manufacturing Consent kind of supports a conspiracy theory, it even proves the existence of a phenomenon that could be called conspiracy. What I do not understand is why Chomsky cannot the possibility of conspiracies in other areas (JFK, 9/11).

conclusions and insights when observing the modern elites from the outside looking in.

with an unquestioned mastery in the understanding of language and by being a native son of the world's lone 'super power' he has an EXCELLANT advantage of perspective which aids his perceptions than most.

some hate his message though and try to smear him anyway they can... not to mention being a natural target at the top ;->

peace

a few others were investigating the JFK thing back in the sixties that showed where he and his associates were made so frightened by what a few opts in the company (CIA) had to tell them about JFK murder that they had to knuckle under and give up.

The last part is about giving up is speculation but a lot of the rest about the meeting and such were documented. Not that Noam is a bad guy, its just everyone has some secrets they don't want to talk about. That would seem kind of strange for such a story about him and the implications, but the story is out there, and he never would really explain it, if I remember correctly.

both can dig up facts and what not, but both have a flawed historical analysis, corrupting ideological biases, inability to look at issues in more than one way, sanctimonius preaching, reporting opinions as facts, unwillingness to present information contrary to their thesis, reliance on a largely paranoid vision and many other similarities.

Both are shills for their respective ideologies and both are less concerned with accuracy and fairness than with selling their paranoid views of the world.

Coulter and Chomsky are two sides of the same coin, although since Chomsky is a professor and less prone to outbursts achieves a measure of dignity. Coulter just looks like a slut.

more nonsense. anyone who compares chomsky to coulter doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

one is a renowned SCHOLAR the other is a LYING fraud.

interesting how no one here who makes these ridiculous charges has any facts to back them up.

peace

Chomsky is that kind of guy. "quite skeptical" also means he does not completely exclude the possibility.

Wrt the candidates, i think he's just being realistic. He'd like to vote for someone who has a chance of winning. He's also saying US democracy is "not very advanced", and he hits at it being completely corrupted.

Maybe someone should ask him if he thinks that "anyone but Bush" is guaranteed solve the current problems.

Isn't convinced by all the unassailable logic -proving- Bush knew and planned 9/11?

OBVIOUSLY, he is paid by Rove. Couldn't be -any- other expanation, could there?

thanks for contributing more of the spin you are famous for :hi:

peace

I take heart from Chomsky's admission--it's in one of the books, but I can't offer a cite offhand--that he's more a strategic than a tactical thinker, and that he has been too pessimistic before about what people are willing to do. (His too-pessimistic might have been about Brasil, now I come to think about it)

*LOL* The more people hear about Kucinich the more they give him another look. I'm finding that all over the place, Repubs and Dems alike are really looking at him, at least in the places I frequent.

I just had an Ohio resident tell me she'd never heard of him until she happened to read one of my posts about the Ghandi Award on an alternative spirituality forum. I gave her some resource links and invited her to volunteer.

Even Noam Chomsky understands that Kucinich is unelectable. Just goes to show you how delusional Kucinich's supporters are. Nominating him would be the greatest gift to the GOP since McGovern. Um, wait, actually it would be a greater gift. At least McGovern was a war hero. Kucinich is a wacky vegan pacifist who has introduced legislation banning mind control weapons from space. The guy's elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.

As for 9/11, I don't think any serious person believes in LIHOP.

i am one serious person who believes 911 was at least a LIHOP not to mention it FITS our MO historically.

though you do provide good insight into the thoughts of the 90 percenters, thanks :toast:

;->

peace

Or 21% of all Germans? So many Germans believe that LIHOP is a possibility.

Just to assume that they are nuts might be a little bit too simplistic and self-righteous, even though German media does exactly that.

I think anyone who believes that Bush and Co. had precise knowledge of the attack and let it proceed anyway to enable some political agenda is a nutcase. Believing that they had all the information available to them but failed to act on it out of simple incompetence is one thing, but believing that the admin. deliberately allowed the attacks to proceed when they knew precisely how to stop them is delusional. I don't care who believes this or how many of them there are.

Uncovering a conspiracy of this magnitude would be the single greatest scandal in American history. Or perhaps all of modern political history. And for it to have happened, who knows how many people would need to be involved...dozens, scores, hundreds? Everyone from spies on the ground to analysts to political appointees, intellgence agency bureaucrats, the list is endless. The idea that they would all be willing to keep quiet (forsaking the millions in book deals for being the one to expose the LIHOP scandal) is simply implausible to the point of impossibility. It would be too big a secret to keep under wraps.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are so blinded by their hatred of this President that they would take leave of their senses and subscribe to such silly fantasies.

I am willing to go round and round with you if you are actually willing to learn why some 'serious' people are willing to consider LIHOP but you better be ready to discuss this with actual facts an not ad hominem attacks.

now what if i told you that they were warned at the highest levels before the attack so they KNEW it was comming?

what if i told you our own people warned that these folks that they wanted to investigate at the flight schools could hijack a plane and fly it into the towers but were shut down from above.

what if i told you that the bush admin shut down the terrorist task force tracking saudi/bin laden connection and that the head agent quit in protest over it in june 01.

what if i told you SOP wasn't followed during that event and not one plane was intercepted during almost 2 hours.

that my friend os JUST the tip of the iceberg.

folks have no problem admiting to the conspiracies of history or of OTHER countries but not to thier OWN.

peace

Delusional arent you a kind person. BTW McGovern was still a great guy even with his lost. Since when is being a vegan bad? I am not one but I dont hate vegans nor do I hate pacifists.

funny, I haven't heard any Democrats call Bush's inaction surrounding 9/11 "incomptence"

Maybe they're in on it too.

and show that we are as active and intelligent as the people of Brazil.

:dem:Vote for Dennis.