Recently, a group of pro-Palestinian activists signed a letter condemning Gilad Atzmon (Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon). The letter states in part:
Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.
This inspired me to write the following letter on another Jewish, pro-Palestinian activist, Noam Chomsky. It is an exercise in analogy, based on the ideas and phrasing of the anti-Atzmon letter:
For many years now, Noam Chomsky has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles.
With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Chomsky by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Chomsky’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.
Chomsky’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with his Jewishness. He claims that all European Christian politics are racist. To Chomsky, the existence of European Christians, whether in their homelands in Europe, in the United States, Canada or Australia, is not a normal human historical project, but a trans-historical racist one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a White. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a White or Christian and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a White or a Christian is to be a racist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Chomsky’s argument is itself racist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be White or a Christian is to be a racist.
Palestinians have faced two centuries of Jewish, Zionist, colonialist and imperialist domination of our native lands. And so as Palestinians, we see such language as immoral and completely outside the core foundations of humanism, equality and justice, on which the struggle for Palestine and its national movement rests. As countless Palestinian activists and organizers, their parties, associations and campaigns, have attested throughout the last century, our struggle was never, and will never be, with Whites, or Christians, no matter how much Jews and Zionists insists that our enemies are the Whites. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism, a modern Jewish settler colonial movement, similar to movements in many other parts of the world that aim to displace indigenous people and build new societies on their lands, like that of Muslim settler colonialists in Europe.
We reaffirm that there is no room in this historic and foundational analysis of our struggle for any attacks on our White allies, Christians, or Christianity; nor denying the mass murder of 60 million Russian, Ukrainian and other Christians by the Judeo-Bolsheviks in the USSR; nor allying in any way shape or form with any Jewish conspiracy theories, far-right, and racist arguments, associations and entities. Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of White Christian identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on White-Christian identities, nor the demeaning and denial of European and trans-European histories in all their diversity.
Indeed, we regard any attempt to link and adopt Christophobic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-racist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism as a system of world domination. In addition to its immorality, this language obscures the fundamental role of specifically Jewish imperialism and specifically Jewish colonialism in destroying our homeland, expelling its people, and sustaining the systems and ideologies of oppression, apartheid and occupation. It leaves one squarely outside true solidarity with Palestine and its people.
The goal of the Palestinian people has always been clear: self determination. And we can only exercise that inalienable right through liberation, the return of our refugees (the absolute majority of our people) and achieving equal rights to all through decolonization. As such, we stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights. We will never compromise the principles and spirit of our liberation struggle. We will not allow a false sense of expediency to drive us into alliance with those who attack, malign, or otherwise attempt to target our political fraternity with all liberation struggles and movements for justice.
As Palestinians, it is our collective responsibility, whether we are in Palestine or in exile, to assert our guidance of our grassroots liberation struggle. We must protect the integrity of our movement, and to do so we must continue to remain vigilant that those for whom we provide platforms actually speak to its principles.
When the Palestinian people call for self-determination and decolonization of our homeland, we do so in the promise and hope of a community founded on justice, where all are free, all are equal and all are welcome.
Until liberation and return.
Facing the Future as a Minority
We must be reaching Singularity. When something is written, just take out the key words and replace them with a different set of key words, and it works. I’ve been practicing this myself while reading certain political articles, and replacing certain words with their opposites, and it comes out the same, because both sides say the same things against the other side. Singularity.
Now if only the Ancient Aliens would return to break the stalemate. It’s said once Singularity is reached they would return :)
That nails a wide spectrum of Jewish and Jewish controlled organization’s assertions and claims about Christian European ethnic people — that their religion, values, culture, societies etc are intrinsically evil and must be effaced.
typo correction: organizations’
It is always a struggle for freedom. Jews are always the threat to freedom. That’s because they always want what belongs to others. They are the thief who comes in the night and ties your hands to keep you from being free to fight back against home invasion.
Home Invaders that’s what Jews are. They libel others groups as criminals, but when you turn over the rock you find Jews!
We must understand that Jews fight tooth and toe nail against any force that would derail organized Jewry. Jesus Christ took an implacable stand against organized Jewry. If Christians (and I am one) truly believe Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, the Creator, then we should realize God took an implacable stand against organized Jewry. To date He has revealed any change to His stand.
Whatever it is that keeps Jewry organized – Zionism, tribalism, materialism, parasitic greed, etc. – it must be furret out and shattered.
Sorry for leaving out a word. I should have said “to date God has not revealed He has changed His stand.” (against organized Jewry.)
I refuse to read anything Chomsky writes, so I had no idea that he claims that Christians have no right to ally with Palestinians against the Zionists.
Obviously Chomsky, like so many liberal college profs knows nothing about the subject on which he endlessly pontificates. Palestine was always one of the most Christian of Arab nations. Palestinian Christians were and are as prosecuted by the zionists as the muslim Palestinians. Syria is one of the most persistent and successful of the Arab nations that oppose Israel. It has a significant elite Christian population. The present ruling tribe, the Alawites are suspected by many muslim clerics of being some sort of secret Christian pagan heretical crew masquerading as muslims.
Sirhan Sirhan killer of Robert Kennedy is a Greek Orthodox Christian. Here is the story of a typical middle class Christian Palestinian family and how the zionists destroyed that family.
Father got a good administrative job with the Jerusalem city goverment in the early 1920′s. Mother had a decent dowry. The family was prosperous. They lived in a 10 room apartment in a building they owned. Also owned some small farms and got rental income from the farms as well as the city apartments. Family had 8 children, mostly boys.
Jewish terrorists set off a bomb that killed one of the sons before the English left. A week after the United Nations
gave Palestine to the Jews the Father was fired from his job and lost the pension he had earned over the past 25 years.
The farms were confisticated and the family lost those rents.
A few months later Jews armed with machine guns appeared and gave the family exactly 1 hour to leave.
Sirhan was only 4 years old. He had to leave his favorite toy, a tiger on wheels he could ride around. Family was lucky they were Christian. They moved into one room in a
Christian pilgrims hostel.
Can you imagine moving from a 10 room apartment to one room with a family of 7 kids, mostly boys?
The Greek orthodox church eventually brought them to Pasadena Ca. Kids went to school, Mother got a job in a Church nursery school, kids went to school and assimilated. Dad went back to Palestine.
That’s a typical story of what Jews did to Palestinians. The Sirhans were lucky I suppose. Only one of them was killed and no one was tortured.
And Chomsky dares to claim that Christians cannot ally themselves with Palestinians?
How old is Chomsky anyway? Isn’t he ready for assisted living? I vaguely remember him on TV during the vietnam war when I was in grade school. He looked about the same age as my grandfather 40 years ago.
Glad to see that these Palestinians see through his commie racist *#&*
@Heather Blue: Heather, no need for the apology. It’s obvious what you meant because it’s clear you are an intelligent person.
@mari: True post Mari. Even a Jewish activist sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, once said to his great credit, that the situation was simple, they gave the Palestinians, twenty minutes to vacate their own houses, then they blew them up, whether they were vacated or not.
First thing to understand is that we are not in a debate with Noam Chomsky. We do need his permission to engage in a full-blown race-revolt at hands of post-1965 high fertility nonwhites. We do not need to justify a highly racialized Native Born White American revolt. Unfortunately, I feel that Kevin McDonald and Jared Taylor spend all of their time asking for permission to revolt against race-replacement…this seems to be the whole point of quoting one HBD study and scholar after another…it’s just another way of saying “Hey why can’t we do it also?”
If you have to “debate” Chomsky just state that he is a hyperthnic Jew who wants to culturally,economically and demographically annihilate the Native Born White American Christian Majority. Ask Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn if they would both jump with joy if the Native Born White American Christian Majority started having very large families again..we all know the answer they will give..ask them “Why not”.
Chomsky romanticizes the Ameridians who practiced genocide amomg themselves for centuries.
Ask Chomsky what reasons could he give the Native Born White American Christian Majority for supporting post-1965 Immigration policy..he couldn’t. Therefore, Chomsky and Cockburn should not be the least bit shocked if post-1965 Immigration Policy provokes a very strong highly racialized revolt among millions of Native Born White American Christians. This is how you “debate” Noam Chomsky. Millions of enraged Native Born White Americans will figure out who was cheerleading and agitating for their racial annhilation within the borders of America.
I have said it before and I will keep saying it till I am banned from this site;
………………….”All the religions of man are FALSE GODS!”………………………….
All the religions and Constitutions that men dream up are merely rules designed to keep the preachers and politicians in power.
This is why they LOVE Democracy, Equality, and Freedom.
Democracy keeps them in power because if only intelligent people were allowed to vote they would be looking for honest work.
Equality assures a chaotic society and various social ills which they (preachers and politicians) can scare the **** out of people and look to (Guess who) for salvation.
Freedom, Read (power) is what they use as the “carrot” to keep the congregation/electorate in line…This is where deacons, “church elders” and congressmen and senators come from.
The whole thing is orchestrated by those who have NO GOD!, false or otherwise, read (multigazillionaire media and banking moguls)
Most Constitutions and religions start out faily simple and forthright, The Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independance, etc, but they sure as hell don’t stay that way long. right away those in power start adding new books (Gospels) and new rules (amendments) which further consolodates their hold on power. (of course each new “book” is supposed to better assure our chance of heaven and each new rule is supposed to make us more free)
Before you know it their little cryptic “holy book” and their legalistic “constitution” is so complicated and devious NOBODY really knows what in the hell it says. Thus you get all kinds of interpretations from literally EVERYONE you ask…each preacher say the Bible REALLY MEANS (THIS) and each lawyer says the framers REALLY MEANT (that)
Why don’t you people read a real book, like “Whats wrong with Democracy” “Which way Western Man” “Natures Eternal Religion” “The inevitability of Patriachy” or Watch a real movie like “All the kings men” “Citizen Kane” “Ordinary People” and get you nose out of the preachers/politicians posterior.
P.S. so called racism is a fact of life..like it or not. Forty thousand different religions all claiming to be THE religion is pure FANTASY. and yes, that includes the three sister religions; Judaism, Islam, and CHRISTIANITY!
Really, only the Palestinians can care about the Palestinians, for both Jews and white alt righters, the decision whether to support one side or the other is an internal power struggle.
I’m a bit cynical of the lot, but its inconsistent for anti-immigrationists to support Israel, and supporting Israel doesn’t get the Jews and anti-’racists’ to lay off.
@Henry Baxley:
You’re wasting your breath. As much as I like this site, it’s full of Christians who divide their loyalty between Europeans and Christianity, and even consider the two inseparable. I’ve tried to explain that many of our bad ideas come directly from Christianity and that it’s not possible to have a real organic form of White nationalism with it, but no one listens.
Thank you, Bobby.
Well….I hope I did not derail this topic to a discussion about religion. That was not my intention. I also hope we will think about focusing on Jews as organized Jewry. It is obvious they will go to any length to keep Jewry organized. It is also obvious that anything they perceive as a threat gets their full attention. Any suggestion of Jews converting to Christianity throws them in a panic. After two thousand years of not converting I doubt it is even possible, but if the Jews did sincerely bend a knee to the Christian altar it would certainly destroy organized Jewry. Surely, there are other methods not dependent on their cooperation that would destroy organized Jewry.
@mari:
I read Sirhans brother sold Heroin here in LA….
The story doesnt reflect well on Jews..
nor on Immigration…
remember who wrote ‘give me yr huddled masses’ was a racist
zionist jew.
@mari: I’m not so sure that Sirhan’s killing of Robert Kennedy is quite as straightforward as is made out. Piper Collins goes into this in depth in Final Judgment:
http://goo.gl/A0IhF
Professor Chomsky, who is Jewish and spent time living on a kibbutz in Israel in the 1950s, is an outspoken critic both of American and Israeli policy. He has objected to Israel’s foundation as a Jewish state, but he has supported a two-state solution and has not condemned Israel’s existence in the terms of the country’s sharpest critics.
Whenever Noam Chomsky talks about racism, it is a safe bet his target is to be found in Western society — a society whose tolerance outdoes that of the non-Western world.
Excellent article, A++ would read again. One of the best on TOO ever.
Leaving genetics aside, the “Jews” simply define themselves as opposed to the “goyim” – yet as TOO readers know, these same “Jews” pathologize any Whites that define themselves versus non-Whites.
Other than genetics, “Jew” just means someone who subscribes to the primitive, superstitious nonsense of “Judaism,” or the cultural substitution thereof. Other than bagels and lox, what is a “cultural Jew” anyway? Just some white-skinned half-European, half-Arab who pretends to identify with the “oppressed browns” against the “oppressing whites,” nothing more than a way of competing with other white-skinned ethnic/social groups as more “morally righteous” LOL.
That nonsense may have worked in 1960 – but today? The “Jews” are doing the oppressing, of the Palestinians, etc., not to mention the “Jews” ran the African slave trade hundreds of years ago. It’s simply chutzpah … this is exactly what Thomas Wolfe described in “Radical Chic” 50 years ago.
http://nymag.com/news/features/46170/index15.html
Seriously, Chaim and Miriam need to give it a rest. Nobody – I mean, nobody, gives a damn about their “Judaism,” religious, cultural, or otherwise.
That goes double for these phony “pro-Palestinian” activists: clearly just a bunch of privileged fakers trying to “out Jew” their fellow Jews by posing, yet again, as “champions of the oppressed” while never actually doing anything of substance other than promoting their own “lefty cred.” (Remember TOO’s hilarious article about the Jew “college activist” that wrote “Darfur” on his hand – not a word about his own group oppressing the Palestinians.) The references to Noam Chomsky were right on. Chomsky wrote 10,000 pages about the “corporate media” but never breathed a word about how “Jew” the industry is, and within a week, wrote his infamous “What Jewish Lobby?” paper attacking Mearsheimer and Walt. Chomsky never dares to point out that any so-called “White Privilege” is enjoyed by the white-skinned “Jews” far more than some “racist” Republican conservative.
You see, according to Jew Noam Chomsky, rich, wealthy, politically connected Jews have nothing to do with America’s imperialist foreign policy, that’s strictly a “corporate” (read: WASP) thing, and if you dare suggest otherwise … anti-semite! HITLER!
Last century was the “Jewish Century.” This century will not be. “Israel” can go back to the Arabs – nobody – NOBODY – gives a damn about that shitty little country half way around the world. And nobody gives a damn about their “rich Jew heritage” or whatever you call it. What is “Judaism” anyway, other than mutilating the genitals of baby boys? It’s sick, disgusting. A throwback to the stone ages.
Doug Stanhope: F**k the Jews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAVyiJ1SINE
Now if we can only get rid of the obnoxious Jew-wannabes like the Catholics and Xian Zionists … we wouldn’t be having all these problems.
Oh, let’s not forget the “rich, cultural Jewish traditions” like animal sacrifice – literally, cutting up chickens, waving them around their heads and splattering their blood around, in some sort of ritual to make a deal with the “devil.” Is this not barely one step above (if that) some voo-doo African “magic?” How seriously are we supposed to take these “Holy Jews?”
Really? And we’re supposed to be sympathetic to their ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? We’re supposed to send our boys to go fight the Persians and the Arabs for “humanitarian” reasons, to protect the “Holy Jews?”
Come on – who can take any of this nonsense seriously? Anyone calling themselves a “Jew” in the 21st Century needs to be sent away to the crazy farm. What a bunch of FREAKS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNnsj3K_0
Why White Europeans/Americans still humor these nutjob fanatics is beyond me. If I was a “Jew” I sure as hell wouldn’t want to tell anyone – how embarrassing!
@Rich Pearson: Rich I have been listening to Chomskys hypocritcal drivel for the past 40 years. The idolization of this buffoon by some “intellectuals”, just blows me away.
Why anyone, anywhere, would get involved in the ME is beyond me. The Jews and the Arabs (or whatever they are called) are not “our” friends. And it is not our business how they go about killing each other, and themselves. Both groups should be left alone to work it out amongst themselves, if they can. And if they can’t, so be it. Islam and Judaism. Just what the world needs more of.
whites are cowards, we do not stand for ourselves. What has the Republican Party done for us?
We have one party, two agendas: the democratic party represents the social communist and the republican party represents the zionist one world order. The party is controlled and manipulated by JEWS. The jews control the party and both agendas.
Until we stand up to the Republican Party we have no hope, without white America, the Republican Party has nothing.
The question to the Republican Party should not be “what are you going to do to get the Hispanic and black vote” the question to the Republican Party should be “WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO KEEP THE WHITE VOTE”.
It is time to stop running. It is time to stand and fight.
It is time sue the Republican Party for dereliction of duty to its base. A class action suit against the Republican party will get the party’s attention.
After many years of calling Muslim the plagerized religion. I had an ephiphany.
If we believe the Devil was in the garden tempting Jesus, why would the Devil not be in the temple doing the same?
Did God, fed up appear again. If anything perhaps we as Christians should align with the Muslims.
@Bill:
Where do i sign?
Great essay and great comments by the readers !
Chomsky is a fraud. My boyfriend in Oakland corresponded
with him for 20 years, even reviewed two of his books for Left
publications, met him and talked with him over the phone.
Chomsky is a total fraud, an anti-white hardcore Marxist-Leninist (he was NEVER an anarchist), never challenges Zionism or the creation of Israel and he is the Ayatollah of Anti-American.
Chomsky apologized for genocidal regimes in Cambodia
(3 million murdered) and Mao’s China (110 million murdered)
as well as mass murderers like Ho, Kim, Fidel, you name it
and he has apologized for it.
Chomsky is a Left Zionist and a great exaggerator of white
atrocities against Indians here and in India. He turns thousands of victims into tens of millions if done by the West and in the Communists’ case it goes the other way, tens of millions are turned into thousands.
Chomsky lies for the sake of lying. He even denies there’s a powerful Israeli Lobby in DC (AIPAC) !
He glorifies Black criminals like Mumia and the Panthers.
He’s now 83 as of last December 7th.
Order The Anti-Chomsky Reader from crazy Davey Horowitz.
At 45% of it is true but we need a much more comprehensive, reliable critique.
Let me if and where I can sign.
Marcy Flemming
What you wrote about Chomsky is completely false..ie;pack of lies.
Much of what Chomsky has written on foreign policy and economics is completely accurate. Your claim that Chomsky was an apologist for Pol Pot is a bold face lie started by NYT journalist Sydney Shamberg(Abbey Hoffman’s cousin).
What Chomsky and Herman wrote about Pol Pot and Cambodia was this:Sydney Shamberg hid in a luxury Hotel during the period during in which Pol Pot forces came to power. He had no way of knowing if the scale of atrocities attributed to Pol Pot were accuate or not. Schamberg could have been exagerating the scale of Khmer Rouge atrocities to retroactively justify the US invasion-we come here as liberators..our intentions are benign-and destruction of Vietnam,Cambodia and Laos. Chomsky and Herman allowed for the possiblility that the Khmer Rouge atrocities were on the scale that Schamberg claimed..but this is completely beside the point..for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were largely a creation of the maniac bombing campaign of Nixon when he expanded the scale of the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos. Chomsky and Herman were right about this. The Nixon bombing of Cambodia set into motion a rural peasant-victims of the bombing-revenge lust for the urban dwellers who they percieved as puppets of the US. In the end, Pol Pot was financially sustained by US tax $$$$$$..enabling Pol Pot to wage a terroist war against the Vietnamese forces who had invaded Vietnam to put an end the Khmer Rouge atrocities.
The actual number of atrocities in Cambodia were:500 thousand killed by the Khmer Rouge and 500 thousand killed by Nixon’s bombing campaign…CIA’s own numbers
Vietnam posed 0 threat to America..Chomsky was right about this. As with every invade the world escapade, there is a mass population transfer to America..thereby accerlerating Native Born White Amercan race-replacement.
If you are going to criticize Noam Chomsky, at least make it a intelligent criticism. There is no doubt that Noam Chomsky is over-the-top-smart. He has made very deep contributions to Linguistics-psychology-biology,mathematics,computer science and philosophy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just intellectually marginal.
It is precisely because of Noam Chomsky’s anarchist-anticorporatist views that makes him so vulnerable in a debate with a Native Born White American Patriot who is familiar with Chomsky’s writngs. In the end, Chomsky agitates for a massive labor subsidy to the very corporate criminals-Alan Greenspan comes to mind-he has spent his whole academic life exposing as criminals.
Keep this is mind,Chomsky came to the defense of the Christian Serbs when they were being bombed by war criminal Jewish neocons in the Clinton Adminstration.
Who was the most ferocious supporter of Pol Pot in the “US” Congress? Answer:the treasonous neocon Jewish Traitor Steven Solarz.
@wattylersrevolt: CIA’s own numbers. After that statement, I look askance at everything else you claim. Give me a break. It’s like asking the U.S. General staff in the army about what’s going on in the middle east.
@wattylersrevolt: It IS, true of what you claim aboaut Chomsky’s defense of the Christian Serbs. The problem with Chomsky is that most everything else Marcy said is accurate. He is a two -faced phony where the best interests of European Americans are concerned.
90404
March 17, 2012 – 1:22 am | Permalink
@mari:
I read Sirhans brother sold Heroin here in LA….
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. 7 children, mostly boys, maybe one of them sold heroin. One story of one Palestinian family. Multiply by millions.
When my Jewish friends get into “the Arabs ran away *&^% I reply. So the next time you go on vacation and I come over to water your plants and change the litter box I can just give the keys to anyone and you have nor rights to your house?
I find it encouraging that TOO has published this essay.
We should be asking ourselves whether there are any similarities or connections between the plight of the Palestinians and the existential threat we are facing in our European homelands. And more generally, are there any common factors to be perceived in the War on Islam and the War on Christianity?
I would like to hear more from Bill (poster above) on his “epiphany” and his suggestion that Muslims could be allies.
I thought this paragraph from the essay was particularly incisive:
Indeed, we regard any attempt to link and adopt Christophobic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-racist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism as a system of world domination. In addition to its immorality, this language obscures the fundamental role of specifically Jewish imperialism and specifically Jewish colonialism in destroying our homeland, expelling its people, and sustaining the systems and ideologies of oppression, apartheid and occupation.
Keep up the good work, Professor MacDonald.
@Jordan:
Of recent Jewish organisations have been “outreaching” to muslim organisations, presumably trying to form an alleigence of minorities among whom they carefully cultivated resentments. I daresay the the muslims won’t be fooled but I also say they may find this attractive at least temporarily.
As “Irmin Vinson” says in “Some thoughts on Hitler” Jewish orientalists deliberatly over enobled muslims (ie those of Grenada) as a way of descrediting White identity and lowering our defences.
Of course now that demographic penetration has occured and find their interests are threatened many Jews (often then same ones) have become harsh critics but doing so in a way that White interests and identity can’t be asserted.
So while I don’t want to exaggerate the threat of Islam and the it is a serious threat however we may be able to work and learn from these people.
What was done in Palestine was and is a crime that started well before WW2 even WW1 when zionist organisations began funding Israel immigration against the wishes of the Palestinian people (under the Hegemony of the Turks and British and therefor powerless) and I recognise and acknowledge the Palestinian people and what happened to them. What happened to them is happening to us by a different route. Some pre war ‘soft zionists’ sincerly believed that the Palestinian people would be happy to join the utopia they dreamed of but intentionally or not this affected self delusional puerillity had the effect of softening and legimizing them as ‘well intentioned’. Today Liberal Jews presribe a Liberal multiracial utopia in the same way. I see these people as just a self deluding vanguard of liars conducting a softening up opperation.
“Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon” comes across as incredibly puerile. I am left with the impression these people are muddle headed fools.
@Rich Pearson:
wow! breathtaking!
am in Soviet Monika…where ruth seymore took over
[far as I can tell] KCRW.
And yes they put NC on, on KCRW.
CRW is for…college radio workshop…not since the jews took over
@mari:
Its on wiki…if I recall correctly hes 90 or older
@Bobby:
he has a commanding ‘Im the smartest guy in the world’ voice.
@90404: Yes he does. But that’s a pose so many leftists have mastered. The quiet, contemplative voice, and the serious stare, suggesting that what is coming out of their mouths is directly from the almighty. It really is amazing how many people get taken in by this typically leftist method. However, I’ve noticed that once they come up against someone equally serious and not trying to pose, but instead can debate them to the point of defeat, they often get loud, obnoxious, or just plain start shaking their heads, because they are really dumbfounded and acting as if they are just being polite, while burning up inside with hate.
Wattersly revolt, you are the one putting forth a huge pack of lies. That bogus ’500,000′ figure was invented by Noam Chomsky to try to make a moral equivalence between a few thousand American casualties in Cambodia versus the Maoist
genocide by the Communists of at least half the population in Cambodia. All of the sources that Chomsky listed for his lies about Communist genocide in Cambodia have repudiated him. This was relatively speaking the greatest genocide in human history and it was NOT a result of US bombing.
Chomsky is a bold faced apologist for Pol Pot as was proven in his August 1979 debate with Anthony Lewis of the New York Times in Boston where Chomsky lavished praised Pol Pot’s welfare programs AND the emptying of Cambodia’s capital. I’ve heard the tapes of this and Chomsky is a 100%
Pol Pot Communist apologist par excellence.
Pol Pot was a creation of Maoist Communism which killed 110 million Chinese in China in 27 years. Chomsky blames EVERYTHING on America because he is a very sick Jew who hates America. 90% of us Jews repudiate him.
The CIA never gave the bogus ’500,000′ figures for each side that you state. That is a total LIE.
Chomsky claimed Serbian genocide in Bosnia and that unlike Cambodia was not true. Chomsky supported UN-US military intervention in the Balkans AGAINST the Serbs. He never defended ANY Serbian Christians. Where did you invent such lying garbage ?
Chomsky had every way to know of the astounding scales of Pol Pot Communist genocide in Cambodia and he refused to acknowledge the truth. Only a Communist rag like The Nation or Z would print his garbage.
Vietnam was part of the International Communist Conspiracy and Ho killed millions and more millions fled from him.
Vietnam was not a military threat as such but an evil totalitarian regime of the sort that a intellectual crook like Chomsky routinely defends.
Chomsky has made NO contributions to philosophy, biology,
psychology, computer science or mathematics.
Now his linguistic “contributions” are under attack as you can see by surfing the web and read linguist Paul Postal’s attack on him regarding linguistics in The Anti-Chomsky Reader available from Amazon. He may well be a fraud in that area too. Chomsky has made NO contributions to history.
Chomsky is the biggest intellectual fraud in world history.
Chomsky is an anti-corporate and anti-business Marxist but has never been an anarchist as he favors gun control, socialized medicine, nationalized industry, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong and opposes limitations on the ability of governments to raise taxes.
Some ‘anarchist’ !
Wattersly, you are typical of the Chomsky Cult assuming you are not Chomsky himself as your hysterical tone and massive lying gives you away.
Marcy Fleming
There is no record of Anthony Lewis ever debating Noam Chomsky in public anywhere. But he has debated the clown Alan Dershowitz on two public occasions and flattened him. Go google the transcripts and video for at least one of these public debates. Norman Finkelstien has debated and flattened Dershowitz in public debate also. Anthony Lewis in the pages of the NYT accused Noam Chomsky of being sympathic to Pol Pot. Noam Chomsky sent a letter to the NYT refuting Lewis on this point..of cours.. as you would expect, the NYT never published the letter.
Chomsky and Herman’s point was not that Pol Pot was a not a maniac killer, but but rather, the numbers being quoted at the time-5-8 million by a french journalist-were fabricated numbers. The CIA’s own numbers and the number used by Cambodian Specialists put the number killed around a million possibly a bit more. The inflated numbers were used to retroactively to justufy the US invasion and subsequent destruction of SE Asia. It was predicted by knowledgeable observers in SE Asian at the time that if Nixon went on a maniac bombing campaign in Cambodia, there would be revenge killings by a rural peasant army..this prediction came to pass. Also, the US bombing of the Cambodian countryside..by all honest estimates killed around 500 thousand rural Cambodians. So. it is not unreasonable to state that the US was the major perpertrator of mass murder in Cambodia..Pol Pot was very much a creation of Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia.
What about the the black book on Capitalism? In addition to mass murder in SE Asia..twenty years after the Vietnam War, we have Republican-Democratic mass murder of the Iraqi civilian population-at least a million. The slaughter of muslim civilians continues to this day in Iraq,Arganistan and Pakistan..Iran next. And then there is the ethnic cleansing of Muslim and Christian Palestinians funded by US Tax Payers.
If you were a supporter of Republican-Democatic intervention in SE Asia..you set into motion the ongoing race-replacement of the Native Born White American majority.
If you are going to take on Noam Chomsky..take him on for his actual crimes..such as Native Born White American Christian race-replacement. We do not accept it..and exactly what is Professor Chomsky going to do about it?
I recommend that you evolve beyond Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly talking point memos about Cambodia.
Pol Pot was not only a creation of Nixon’s maniac bombing of Cambodia..he was also subsidized by the Carter and Reagan adminstrations which enabled him to carry out terrorist attacks on the Cambodia people. Were it not for the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Pol Pot’s atrocities could have gone beyond the 500 thousand or more that he actually slaughtered.
Rob Isner;
“A call for the disavowel of……Noam Chompsky”
What the hell difference does it make who one man is or what he says.
What are we going to do about our degenerating society?
Personal attacks against intelligent people who are at least very close to right about SOME things, should be reserved for those idiots who are wrong about EVERYTHING. imho
Henry, you are dead wrong. Chomsky is the personification of evil, he is wrong about everything including Palestine. He is only sympathetic to the Palestinians because he perceives them as another leftist stick to attack white western society. Your view that a singular person is unimportant is an appallingly anti-intellect and anti-reason statement to the core.
You should be ashamed of writing such utter nonsense as it is precisely intellectuals such as Chomsky who are responsible for the anti-white, anti-western civilization, anti-reason and anti-free market ideology of today. Chomsky has done more damage than a billion Blacks.
He is a total fraud and this exposure here can only be criticized for being way too limited.
For instance Chomsky is still denying the massive Communist holocaust in Cambodia where three million out of a then six million population were murdered by the Pol Pot Communists and when he does get around to very mildly criticizing Pol Pot he always blames America as the real culprit ! Somehow Nixon’s bombing of armed Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia caused these poor Commies to commit the largest genocide relative to population in world history. Then Chomsky invents a figure of 500,000 each
for Nixon and Pol Pot. See it’s the same ! The head of cattle argument. I will admit the 500,000 figure is a far larger one than what he and Herman assigned to the Khmer Rouge for many years.
His response to 9-11 was to whine about the Contras, how could they try to overthrow that oasis of freedom known as Marxist Nicaragua ? Then there was the photo of Chomsky standing reverently next to Castro in Havana and he looked like he wanted to kiss Fidel. Then Chomsky in military uniform at a large Castro rally. Even former supporters like Christopher Hitchens and Marc Cooper have totally disavowed Chomsky. You name the Marxist from Allende to Fidel to Ho to Mao and you will find that Chomsky has vigorously supported them en toto. The main leftist who still supports him is Alexander Cockburn is still denying Stalin’s holocaust of tens of millions from the 20s to the 50s !
When ONE person died in Clinton’s mistaken bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan Chomsky claimed that millions would die as a result and of course there is zero evidence that that has happened. He quoted some German source who repudiated Chomsky’s statement.
When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 Chomsky was outraged. Then years later he praised Communist Vietnam
for taking out Pol Pot and claimed it was America who was
responsible for keeping in Pol Pot ! In the bizarro lunatic asylum world of Chomsky and his now dying Cult there is always one main Satan, America and one main Angel of Lightness, the Communists.
If you read Chomsky’s books you will find that they are invariably slight variations of each other, the sources are always leftist ones like The Nation and quite often he sources himself.
In 1969 Chomsky mangled a 1940s Harry Truman quote to make it appear that the leftist Truman said the purpose of US foreign policy was to promote US business. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the New Deal historian corrected Chomsky in Commentary Magazine and dubbed Noam “an intellectual crook.” For once many of us agreed with Schlesinger, Jr.
Chomsky similarly mangled a Daniel Moynihan quote at the UN to make it appear that Moynihan was endorsing the Indonesian slaughter in East Timor.
The Anti-Chomsky Reader has this material and it’s worth a read even though it is edited by the frenetic neocon David Horowitz.
As regards Vietnam Chomsky claimed that US got involved there because Ho Chi Minh was “the threat of a good example” throughout the region including Japan ! Ho had killed millions and many more millions fled to South Vietnam. And he brought dictatorship, concentration camps, secret police and grinding poverty to North Vietnam.
Such a great ‘example’, eh ?
I have found over the years that 99% of the people I agree with on Palestine have terrible politics on everything else.
I think Israel should out of the Occupied Territories and cease getting any US aid and pay back the hundreds of billions they have received.
But I’m under no illusions about the type of society the Palestinians will set up. When they first received some autonomy one of the first things their government did was censor Edward Said’s works which are not censored in Israel. Said was the leading Palestinian intellectual.
Palestine will be a state like the other 20 Arab tyrannies where
animals are brutally mistreated and Fathers kill daughters who have intercourse before marriage as is common in the West Bank. I still think Israel should get out but as the old saying goes, you can have more than one enemy.
Ignore the robotic rants of the mindless Chomsky Cultists
except to refute them totally.
You folks have done a great service in exposing this intellectual charlatan and self-admitted product of Deweyized
education or miseducation.
Marcy Flemming
And you are also an expert on advanced syntax theory and you can expertly evaluate Paul Postal’s criticism of Chomsky’s minimalast syntax program. Stick with things you undertstand. Chomsky’s ideas are used in compiler design and the Chomsky heirarchy is taught to every computer science student who takes a course on the thery of computation. As far as we are concerned here, all we care about is Chomsky’s race-replacement enthusiasm..at a public talk recently at the Universtity of Arizona, Noam Chomsky 1)called for teaching Mexican Amerian racial identity courses on Arizona college,university and high school campuses and called Arizona occupied Mexican territory…under the right circumstances this is the kind of advocacy that can get one imprisoned and possibly hanged for treason.
Wattylers, how would you know what I’m expert on ?
Paul Postal, who was one of Chomsky’s linguistic proteges
and strongest supporters, turned against him for reasons he
details in his essay in The Anti-Chomsky Reader.
My mention of the FACT that Chomsky’s linguistics ‘revolution’ is now under serious challenge from linguistics
academics was only after I debunked all your other claims
regarding Chomsky.
Furthermore you don’t get to tell me what I need to stick to.
Chomsky is a fraud across a whole range of issues and it doesn’t matter in the slightest that he is taught in computer
science classes. Which by the way was not our discussion here. Lots of terrible ideas are taught in colleges on things ranging from economics to history to philosophy to sociology
to literature, et cetera. That hardly makes them right.
I agree with you that Chomsky should be hung for treason.
Chomsky is wrong about Arizona and California. When California became a Republic there were only 4,000 Mexicans living in California and not many more than that in Arizona.
Chomsky also greatly exaggerates the number of Indians north of the Rio Grande. There were a few hundred thousand
Indians, not tens of millions as he and White Man Ward Churchill falsely claimed. Churchill has tried to pose as an Indian.
@Marcy Fleming:
Marci I respectfully disagree with most of what you say. I respectfully disagree with SOME of what Chompsky says. I think he is a brilliant man…WRONG, in some respects but brilliant none the less.
That said, given your impassioned and intelligent criticism of the man, and my relative lack of knowledge of his work, I will check into it further. I still believe our problem is more ideological than personal, and our greatest enemys are bad ideas, not bad people.
“Some” of what he says ? 99.99% of what Chomsky says is Marxist-Leninist anti-white, anti-American, ant-Western Civilization equivalent of mental excrement. His “brilliance” is self-manufactured.
You might want to look up the March 31, 2003 The New Yorker for a long and penetrating by Larissa MacFarquhar,
starting on page 69. She’s more a friendly critic but her story
titled The Devil’s Accountant is devastating to Chomsky’s
entirely underserved reputation.
I would never dream of being rude to a polite person like yourself but I have to honestly say that while I respect your absolute right to hold any views you please, I have no respect for the content of your comments here.
If you can specific any particulars where I am wrong about Chomsky do so so I have something to respond to.
The brilliant nonsense won’t cut it anymore as regards Chomsky.
He now has more ex-fans than LaRouche, Scientology, the late Bill Buckley, Nathaniel Branden, Obama and Ayn Rand combined.
Bad ideas ARE promulgated by bad people, not ethereal ghosts from another dimension.
Anyone that defends and whitewashes Pol Pot is evil. Period.
Chomsky has also written that he would to see some seriously suffer and they are successful whites.
As a Jew I’m ashamed to have such an object in our race.
Intellectually he’s the worst villain imaginable. There’s plenty of Chomsky critiques on the web, look them up.
@Marcy Fleming: For quite a while now Marcy, I have been calling him Noam Chumpsky, when the topic comes up with friends. All I will cede to Chumpsky is that he is a very eloquent advocate of Marxism Leninism.
Thanks, Bobby, the only thing I’d take out of your words is the word ‘eloquent’ as Chimpsky is a bad writer and worse speaker.
Henry Baxley
Marcy Fleming’s comments are the insane rantings of a Bircher. In their world view, there is no difference between Pol Pot and seniors who recieve SS and Medicare..you see its socialism and socialism is evil. She googles and finds a book written one of Chomsky’s former students who happens to have neocon Jewish politics that overlap with nutter Birchers craving for starting a nuclear WWW3..put the coin in the machine..bingo Chomky’s scientific work is fraudulent…this is what you call being insane an stupid at the same time.
The eight million dead Cambodians is a number hatched in the heads of the insane Birchers. There has been very serious demographic and statistial analysis of the actual number of deaths attributable to Pol Pot and no one has been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Pol Pot is responsible for the death of three million Cambodians..which is beside the point since all sane people all agree that Pol Pot-including Noam Chomsky- was evil. Pol Pot’s brutlality was of 0 concern to the war criminals Nixon-whose bombing campaign largely created the Khmer Rouge blood lust for revenge-and the ones in the Carter and Reagan adminstrations who used US Tax dollars to arm and feed Pol Pot and his followers after the Vietnamese kicked them out of Cambodia. How Ironic isn’t it that anti-commie crusaders become Pol Pots best friend.
Birchers such a s Marcy Flemming give new meanng to the word nuts.
For the rest of you:it takes phd level training to understand the linguistic program laid out by Noam Chomsky…unless you have this level of understanding you have no idea if Chomsky’s program is valid or not. However, there are several major universities that have phd level progam in minimal syntax..including the one that Postal teaches at..and there are quite few universities in Europe and Japan where there is very active research in minimalist syntax.
I agree with much of what Chomsky writes on labor issues and the economy since much of it is obviously true..and as Chomsky has written many times..it doesn’t take an enormous intellect to figure this stuff..just normal run-of the-mill Cartesian common sense. Wat Tyler and his peasant army figured it out in 1301. The Birchers have always been arch enemies of economic fairness and sanity.
@Marcy Fleming:
Lets assume you are right about Noam Chompsky and he died tonight. What would you be talking about tomorrow? In other words, now that I know who you are AGAINST, I would like to know who you SUPPORT. Who has the GOOD ideas? In your considered opinion?
@wattylersrevolt:
We are mostly in agreement on the John Birch Society. That said I read “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” as a youth (I think I was 17), and was so impressed that I saved up $50.00 and joined. I even went door to door passing out Birch literature. It only took about four months to figure out they were republican/Christian elitists whose primary concern was $$$
That said, they are anti-communists and so am I. I will reserve judgement on Chompsky til I learn more about him, which may take a while as I do have to work.
Wattylers, you can’t read or think straight. There were three million Cambodians killed out of a population of six million.
That is relatively speaking the greatest mass genocide in world history. No one has ever used the bogus “eight million” figure that you made up, not the Birchers or anyone.
If you agree with much of what Chomsky writes on economics and labor then you are a total ignoramus on economics and labor.
Read Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises, Capitalism by George Reisman, Man, Economy & State With Power & Market
deluxe edition by Murray Rothbard, Economic Controversies by Murray Rothbard and The God Of vThe Machine by Isabel Paterson.
I have never been a Bircher but I agree with them except on
abortion, God and israel. Their main hangup is on sex and I had great sex in Tel Aviv.
So your comment here is typically stupid arrogance.
Cartesianism repudiates both empiricism and common sense
so your comment is typical Chomskyite Cult stupidity with a capital S.
The Birchers are great on economics and Marxists like Chomsky are economic illiterates.
It doesn’t take Ph.D level to decipher the fraud of Chomsky’s linguistic ‘revolution.’ Just read Paul Postal’s essay on this fraud in The Anti-Chomsky Reader. There are also linguistics scholars on the web who challenge every aspect of Chomsky in linguistics. Write in critiques of Chomsky and you’ll find them. If you can’t let me know and I’ll find them for it.
Watterlys, you are a stinking liar, I never equated Medicare with Pol Pot AND Chomsky never repudiated his Pol Pot Communist Holocaust Denial.
The Birchers have nothing to do with the neocons AND the Birchers are non-interventionist and have opposed US entry in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon in 1958, the 1991 Gulf War, the 2003 Gulf War, even Afghanistan and the pro-war agitation against Iran.
Henry, Wattylers is either clinically insane OR Chomsky himself.
Your comments on the Birchers are off the wall too.
My heroes ? Check the above reading list I recommended to this nut Wattylers and those are the people who have the answers.
There’s a one shop site on the web titled The Chomsky Hoax and it references a vast compedium of articles on academe’s most infamous Charlatan. Look it up and ignore Wattylers as he has ignored coming to grips with ANY of my arguments on Chomsky.
One thing I want to add here and since this site is properly concerned with racial matters it is appropriate.
In late 1985 when my boyfriend in Oakland initiated his correspondence with Chomsky, he asked Noam how come he never spoke of the plight of white South Africans and white Rhodesians who had been in their countries far longer than most Jews now living in Israel.
Chomsky wrote back that he had often spoken out on their behalf. We researched it and we found out that Chomsky had NEVER raised that issue. NEVER.
So Noam is a LIAR.
Chomsky had rejected the PLO proposal in the early 70s for a democratic, secular state because he said they were “insincere” and how could he KNOW that ? His ouji board ?
Chomsky STILL rejects that even though a two-state nonsolution has been rendered impossible due to US and Israeli intransigence.
Paul Postal, the linguistics scholar is right, Noam lies for the sake of lying. And you don’t need a Ph.D to understand his linguistics, plenty of undergrads at Berkeley do before they even get their Bachelor’s.
on page 39 or so of Fateful Triangle, Chomsky declares himself a zionist.
I started blowing the whistle on him about 10 years ago.
Given the facts of biology, Palestinians are Arabs and differ significantly from Ashkenazis who share about half their genes with Whites. For a racialist site like this to endorse racial equality is kinda funny. Arab IQ generally runs about 84. Israel’s IQ is somewhat low by European standards.
Intelligence is not everything, but it is probably the most important thing, with tempermentcoming in a close second.
We can support Palestine for racialist and nationalist reasons…it is their country and the jews stole it in 1948 and 1967.
Chomsky and Finkelstein and probably Fisk too, are zionists. They represent the older European tradition of zionism with a socialist/anarchist face. This is actually a kind of fascist face, from the point of view of taxonomy.
However, I do not criticize zionists for their relative fascism. I criticize them for their starting of world war 3, and their lies, and their hijacking of the West, espec the US for their adventures in conquest in the Middle EAst, Euphrates to the Nile.
The zionists are not colonialists or imperialists in the 19th and early 20th C. mold. They are nation invaders and destroyers. They are genocidal and/or ethnic cleansers of people who have been in possession of their own land for hundreds if not thousands of years..
Let us not get too cozy with Palestinians since their Muslim brethren are invading our lands in Europe. Palestine and the Middle East for Arabs, and Europe for Whites. J
Wattylersrevolt,
Excellent posts. I have quite a handful of Chomsky books from my leftist days (that mostly deal with relevant topics like propaganda and foreign policy). Even though my worldview is completely different now than it was when I purchased the books, I still find the Chomsky books I had purchased in my youthful ignorance to read in a way that is totally valid. This is not something I can say about many other leftist writers. In other words, his worldview is true, in a sense. The issue between someone like Chomsky and white nationalists is one of conflicting value judgments, not ‘truth’.
The arguments Chomsky employs possess a dull prose that is supported with a litter of citations coming straight from the government that are widely available to anyone who cares to look. Most writers, whether liberal or neo-con, don’t care to look. They don’t systematically analyze so someone like Chomsky will often take them to task and rightfully so even if he’s after different ends than racially aware whites are after. It’s one thing to criticize Chomsky’s beliefs; it’s quite another matter to imply he’s the old left’s version of a neo-con like Dershowitz who IS actually a liar.
Marcy, simply because the man has a different value system than you doesn’t make him a liar. At least criticize the man intelligently because when you don’t, you set us back.
What some people don’t seem to understand is that the CIA and the government regularly document information that SUPPORTS our worldview. So why aren’t our ideas more accepted by the mainstream? Because that’s not how power works. If we’re going to get so conspiratorial on this site that we can’t even view a figure like Chomsky RATIONALLY, then what chance do we have at correctly analyzing the necessity of the steel bright concepts needed to regenerate Western civilization?
UFASP, your wordsalad makes no sense and most of Chomsky’s fabricated statistics do not come from FedGov, as unreliable as that source is.
You never even begin to deal with all the specific criticisms I make of Chomsky but take up lots of space spouting meaningless generalities in the manner of all Cult robots.
I can’t answer you because you haven’t said anything.
Chomsky’s Communist worldview is completely wrong but I can’t answer you because you, like all Chomsky Cultists, have given no specifics.
UFSAP
Just ignore Marcy..it is ovious that he,she or it is a nut.
Here is Chomsky’s problem:you can easily imagine him sitting next to Alan Greenspan-who Chomsky has used as an example of maximum corporate whorism in many of his talks and writings in recent years-at a table testifying before a Congressionial Committee on the ecnomic benefits of immigration about how the border between Mexico and the US should be wiped away.
If Noam Chomsky lives long enough he could very well face very serious treason charges along with his daughter Aviva. Mexican drug cartels have now penetrated deep into the interior of the US where they are destroying our National Forests. The Federal Goverment is now using ex-special forces vets to combat these heavily armed narco-terrorists. Noam Chomsky should be put on trial for treason now along with Alan Greenspan.
We can easily taunt the old hebe Chomsky with the charge of corporate whorism and treason.
@UFASP:
This post seems reasonable…rational disscussion based on facts, instead of insults. I think both communism and capitalism have their admirers, and both systems are utilised in peoples lives. But they are both concerned with METHODS of survival (making a living) and I prefer to focus my energy on survival itself.
Being a Natural Polarist, I find good and bad in both economic theories, as they both seem to benefit Big Brother. That said, I have read up a little on Chompsky, and my estimation of him has dropped considerably because of his seemingly communist, equalitarian world view. That in NO WAY cancels out the truth of SOME of his observations.
The way I see it, both communist and capitalist systems depend more on the quality of administration (who is running it) than the system itself, and both seem to be extreme ends of big Brothers left and right hand.
Ideally Government should not be in the business of allocating resources. This is why we need a NEW system, independant of extreme economic and social ideologies. Because many times (depending on how they were raised) you will find Big Brother of communism arguing with Big Brother of Capitalism. With both focused ONLY on getting rich at the expense of the system and all its followers.
Wattylers, I’m going to take your advice and ignore you from here on out. You have not dealt with any of my issues with the Chomsky fraud and are reduced to the ad hominem fallacy
of name calling in lieu of rational argumentation.
You are consistent at least in that you consistently evade all the substantive criticism in favor of LaRouchian lunatic charges of Mexican drug dealing.
I am an Ashkenazim woman and Chomsky strikes as an all too typical Ashkenazim male of the extreme narcissist variety that Mom has always warned me about, which is probably why she married an Irishman.
My boyfriend worked on a political campaign in Berkeley with Avi Chomsky years ago and while she was reticent about talking about her Dad he got the distinct impression that growing in his household was far from pleasant.
Henry, I find your thinking very confusing and imprecise.
Of course I do agree with you that if Chomsky says something truthful it should be acknowledged.
However I’m reminded about what Eisenhower said 1960 when asked what contributions Nixon had made to his Presidency :”Give me a week and I might think of one.”
The Irish side of me tires of chewing over the same cabbage
and wasting my time dealing with the willfully blind but I don’t include you in that category.
Cheers.
Rich Pearson wrote about lefty Israeli Jews trying to surpass Jewish victimhood cred by joining the pro palestinian left.
There was an article today about Israeli feminiazis who demonstrate against Israel with the Palestinians and are complaining about sexual harassement. Opression within oppression within oppression.
Jews often compete with each other to see who is more victimized. Dianne Feinstein goes to million dollar Jewish fundraisers and complains about how she was discriminated against as a 5 year old in private school admissions.
There were 3 elite girl’s private schools in San Francisco when she was a child. Feinstein was only accepted in 2 of them. Horrors!!!!! As bad as Julius Rosenwald not being eligible for the Onwentsia country club in Lake Forest 100 years ago.
This multi billionair’e wife who has been a member of the American upper class since birth still claims that being accepted at just 2 out of 3 schools is proof of discrimination against little Dianne Goldman.
But Jewish foundantions funding Jewish attorneys to file law suits resulting in making it illegal to hire a White for a goverment, education or medical job is not discrimination at all in the eyes of Feinstein and the rest of the wicked wolves of wall street who fund her senate office.
I have never heard that Chomsky made any contribution to computer programming so I asked my brother in law who has been a computer systems designer for 30 years.
He worked for microsoft and then was in charge of designing expedia. He has never heard of Chomsky in relation to computers.
What is linguistics anyway? A lot of drivel and nonsense about as valid as the psychoanalytic theories of Dr Sigmund Fraud.
WATTYLER’SREVOLT wrote
“For the rest of you:it takes phd level training to understand the linguistic program laid out by Noam Chomsky…unless you have this level of understanding you have no idea if Chomsky’s program is valid or not. However, there are several major universities that have phd level progam in minimal syntax’
Major universities also have PHD programs in critical race theory, feminizi falsehoods and fantazies, hispanic, african and black studies that claim that africans, asians and american indians invented everything, and Dr Sigmund Fraud’s nonsense about infant sexuality and claims little girls want to be molested by their fathers.
Why should Chomsky’s theories be any more valid than Jew Noel Ignatieff’s theory that if only all Whites but Jews be exterminated the world will become paradise?
So why should Chomsky’s linguistic theories be any more valid than the claim that bantu black africans built the pyramids and Pythagorus, Euclid and other ancient Greeks were either (1) actually bantu black africans or (2) stole their ideas from bantu african blacks? Or Dr fraud’s theory that girls who don’t want to be molested by their fathers and fathers friends suffer from frigidity?
All I need to know about Chomsky is that he is a communist Jew professor who hates Whites like Dershowitz does. Half the university programs are nothing but anti White racist commie propaganda anyway whose major purpose is to give office space and credibility to people like Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Derrick Bell and all the other White hating commies that prevade our campuses.
Is linguistics like sociology and psychology that have to rewrite the books every 10 years as their enemies change from capitalists to White elites to the White working class?
@fender: fender
March 16, 2012 – 11:18 pm | Permalink
“@Henry Baxley: You’re wasting your breath. As much as I like this site, it’s full of Christians who divide their loyalty between Europeans and Christianity, and even consider the two inseparable. I’ve tried to explain that many of our bad ideas come directly from Christianity and that it’s not possible to have a real organic form of White nationalism with it, but no one listens. ”
I do. I listen.
I may not always agree but I always listen and I always appreciate the candor, sensitivity and intelligence you bring to the discussions you join.
You are not singing to the choir here but you are certainly not singing to a room filled with people who refuse to listen to or consider your points of view either.
…just saying…
PS Mr. Baxley, I enjoyed reading your post – the one that prompted Fender’s comments I responded to above. Please keep it up. You regularly bring up more than the oft-mentioned highlights of the circular discussions we are always having here @ too.
Outside the box is good.
@mari: Mari, having lived in California most of my life, I can tell people that Dianne Feinstein, is one of the most abominable human beings I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading about and observing. This woman has committed so many improprieties, if not OUTRIGHT CRIMINALITY, since she’s been a Senator that it’s mindboggling. Every time she gets deeply involved with some bill or other, that she usually put forth, it turns out to constantly be in conflict with her husbands businesses, in that it always makes the Feinsteins richer. God, her vile manner is sickening, but not only for this. I remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was ruining for Governor of California as a Republican. This bothered Feinstein so much, that she actually opened her piehole to say that “he’s just an opportunist”. Good Lord, I almost got sick, this coming from the likes of that crook. She has never done one damned thing for any California taxpayer, yet gets elected over and over.
@Marcy Fleming:
Ms. Fleming, You GO gurl!
I have already praised one of your critics for his thinking outside the box in an earlier post but you surely have opened my eyes some this evening too.
(There’s some good, solid thinking going on here!)
I’ve always liked the kind of in-your-face passion you bring to argument. It’s a style of discussion I try my best to use too. You even provide us with facts in support your opinions and positions!
…But that’s just gravy.
Please, keep the passion tank filled – I’m rapt with anticipation at your next foray into the discussion.
…This is loads better than television…and I’ve only read half the comments!
I appreciate the effort you’ve taken to rebut your critics…and you appear to be doing it for the right reasons. Who can be angry with you for that?
@Marcy Fleming:
I have no interest in debating you. I was just weighing in. Others have already spoken for me, in a sense. If they won’t make you ‘see,’ why should I think I’ll have any luck? And even if I did, it’s hardly worth the effort given that I don’t feel too strongly one way or another how you feel about Chomsky. But I do think people like yourself make white nationalists look ridiculous.
@wattylersrevolt:
This country is finished. I’m not saying that Chomsky isn’t treasonous. But that hardly makes him unique in any sense. All cultural leftists are subversive and treasonous, in a sense.
The problem is that this country is obsessed with ‘rights’ over self-preservation. This country by design produces treasonous individuals.
@Henry Baxley:
I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. Only whites are slaves to economic ideology to such a high degree that they identify such abstractions (“libertarian,” “socialist,” etc.) as being more essential to their identity than the race and religion and overall organic culture they sprung up from. I lean more toward a national socialism type of structuring myself but I also think Catholic natural law and distributism can be excellent rubrics for white nationalists. At any rate, I’m not going to let ideological abstraction get in the way of what works. And it’s clear from history that Enlightenment-based ideology does not preserve a people– so state sponsored global usury (Americanism) and Marxism are out as far as I’m concerned.
“Ms. Fleming, You GO gurl!”
Far be it for me to tell what to think, but sheesh. Does negro/feminist ‘talk’ get a quota on the OO of all places?
@UFASP: “This country by design produces treasonous individuals.”
Aha!!! I’ve commented a millions times on different blogs where it was appropiate, that, “we have so many traitors in this nation, that it’s mindboggling.” Your versions is four words shorter.
@UFASP:
That is the fate of any “propositional” nation. Nations, in the true sense of the word, should be ethnic-organic not abstract-propositional.
Arthur, thanks for your welcome words. I appreciate it more than I tell you.
Mari, thanks for clarifying the computer science nonsense that Chomsky made any contribution there. And your comments on the general run of Academe nonsense courses is refreshing.
You are also correct that way too many Jews are concerned with victimhood.
USFAP, if you had read carefully with any thought at all you would see that Wattylers had not answered me at all and that I demolished his attempted whitewash of Chomsky’s typical Communist apologetics for Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
Since I’m neither a feminist or a Negro your last sentence makes no sense.
Again, I thank OO for a long overdue demolition of the Chomsky Myth.
@UFASP: ““Ms. Fleming, You GO gurl!”
Far be it for me to tell what to think, but sheesh. Does negro/feminist ‘talk’ get a quota on the OO of all places? ”
“Far be it for me to tell what to think”
You should have stopped there, fellah…while we still weren’t sure if you were a pompous a_s or not.
@arthurdecco:
“You should have stopped there, fellah…while we still weren’t sure if you were a pompous a_s or not.”
Meh, there’s worse things to be than “pompous” by your accord. You respond to criticism well, it seems.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
“That is the fate of any “propositional” nation. Nations, in the true sense of the word, should be ethnic-organic not abstract-propositional.”
Yes. I’d only add that a propositional nation is an oxymoron. What we’ve always had is a propositional country. Without any notion of blood and soil, you effectively have no nation.
“USFAP, if you had read carefully with any thought at all you would see that Wattylers had not answered me at all and that I demolished his attempted whitewash of Chomsky’s typical Communist apologetics for Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.”
Oh, I see. If someone disagrees with your assessment on an intellectual figure, they’re reading sans thought, eh? And I’ve been told by another on this site that III’m “pompous.”
@Bobby:
We do have traitors but I’d go a step further and say that to believe in traditional loyalty toward one’s country and people (the historical white population) actually makes us nationalistic types all traitors from the perspective of the state. In the 21st century, up is down and left is right and so on. Meanwhile, La Raza and Bill Gates (who has funded such a dubious group) are all patriots, in a sense. Bill Gates is a mega successful capitalist (so “yay!” by default there) and the La Raza scum are just “poor people who want a share of the American dream” that spoiled white people take for granted. Sadly, there is some truth the idea that white people are spoiled.
UFASP, what are you trying to vainly articulate ? The mass genocide by Pol Pot and the millions killed by Ho Chi Minh
are not my personal opinion but objective facts.
Chomsky IS a pompous ass and I gave just a small sample of examples showing this.
Buy The Anti-Chomsky Reader, The New Yorker of March 31, 2003 and look up the many anti-Chomsky websites.
Yes, you are pompous and learn to spell I’m.
@Marcy Fleming:
“UFASP, what are you trying to vainly articulate ?”
I’ve answered your question already but it seems you’re the one having trouble with reading comprehension now. I said I wasn’t interested in debating you but that I was simply weighing in. That’s pretty much all I said to you when you, in so many words, asked me this previously.
“The mass genocide by Pol Pot and the millions killed by Ho Chi Minh”
You’re going to insist, I guess.
No one has disputed Pol Pot’s genocidal nature. (I’ve actually been to Cambodia, for what that’s worth. I’ve seen the camps which, unlike the ones in Auschwitz, are not fake.) I admittedly know less about Ho Chi Minh, but I do know they hate him in Ho Chi Minh city or “Saigon” as the locals still call the place. But those claims are not what made your comments suspect to me. I’m not disputing “facts.”
The issue is not “facts”. The issue is how you interpret Chomsky’s interpretation of such facts which is a couple of layers removed from simple “facts” and when condemning someone as you’re trying to do, you have to do a bit better job than name-calling and projecting. I’m not disputing Pol Pot or even Ho Chi Minh’s brutality; but when you say Chomsky “downplayed” Pol Pot (which is a standard neo-con charge against many leftists who do sometimes get foreign policy right), you’re being disingenuous because that’s not at all what he was trying to do. You see, this is where “fact” runs into interpretation. And you’re choosing to view Chomsky’s assessment of Pol Pot in the most cynical light simply because you don’t like the man. He’s not my favorite person, either. I’m not defending him because I like Chomsky. I’m defending him because I hate how anti-intellectual people like yourself make white nationalist groups and websites seem. Even I can see that his point about Pol Pot wasn’t that he was some great misunderstood man, but rather, that the newspapers gave disproportionate coverage to the Khmer Rouge when one considers what was happening in East Timor was basically ignored. His point is that the media is corrupt and not at all even-handed which is something we should be able to relate to, no?
What’s the media doing currently? They are making some huge martyr out of that seventeen year old black kid that was murdered by that Hispanic (the media said he was “white”) guy. Yeah, maybe it was a tragedy. But what about the whites who get murdered by blacks on a daily basis? Why doesn’t the media want us to grieve or pay any attention to them? Because one death serves a political end for the media and the other deaths do not. In much the same way, focusing on Cambodia while ignoring the tragedy in East Timor served a political end. When Chomsky says that was his point for the criticism of the coverage, I find that to be highly plausible. I don’t just reflexively say “liar” because he’s a liberal Jew. In fact, some of the best anti-Israeli material I have heard has come directly from Chomsky’s mouth and I wager to say that the people who are behind the publication of the The Anti-Chomsky Reader probably don’t take too kindly to such an accurate critique of what Israel is actually doing.
People like you who seem to tow the neo-con line make us look ridiculous. You make those of us who are interested in preserving our race and culture seem like people to the right of Birchers as Wattylersrevolt wrote previously. By that I mean any effort to put someone like Pol Pot in a greater context other than “he is pure evil end of discussion” (which no one is even disputing) is seen as apologetics. Using your same logic, people slander decent WWII historians like David Irving simply because he won’t just write “the Nazis were pure evil end of discussion” like everyone else.
“Chomsky IS a pompous ass and I gave just a small sample of examples showing this.”
You claim to know his motives yet you clearly can’t prove his motives anymore than I can because you simply do not know what is inside the man’s head. And maybe he is pompous. But that doesn’t make him wrong and you right.
“Buy The Anti-Chomsky Reader, The New Yorker of March 31, 2003 and look up the many anti-Chomsky websites.”
Sure. I’ll do that. But how many books by Chomsky have you read cover to cover though? How balanced is your view of a man who is anything but a simplistic thinker?
I can find tons of stuff that is anti-Buchanan, but if I haven’t read something like The Death of The West cover to cover, I haven’t really given him a fair shake and am likely viewing him out of context, am I not? You see, I follow this rule with respect to EVERYONE I read. Not just people l want to like ahead of time.
“Yes, you are pompous and learn to spell I’m.”
I wrote “III’M” for phonetic emphasis. That you direct any energy here at all shows to me you’re only interested in arguing for the sake of your ego.
TWENTY Chomsky books cover to cover at least. Maybe more.
My boyfriend gave the only US review of Necessary Illusions
by Chomsky, an early media work, in the Communist National
Guardian in Summer 1990. Even then he had to fight with the editors there because they thought that Chomsky was getting tiresome with different editions of the same book.
NO, there is nothing to interpret about Chomsky’s Communist apologetics on Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
They are on the record pure and simple. Your analogy with
Irving is spurious as he is a real historian and Chomsky
is NOT. By the way, Irving is NOT a revisionist on the ‘holocaust.’
And Chomsky HAS disputed Pol Pot’s genocide from 1977 to today. Apparently facts have no meaning for you.
Nor did I JUST name call, I gave references so people could check out my assertions on Chomsky, something you haven’t done.
This is the first time I’ve ever been called a neocon (!) or anti-intellectual !!!!!!
I assume neocon is a code word for Jews for you.
You are right on one thing, I should not be wasting my intellectual energy on you.
So let’s end this.
@Marcy Fleming:
“TWENTY Chomsky books cover to cover at least. Maybe more.”
Quote me a passage that is in context from one of those twenty books you read cover to cover where his point is to excuse Pol Pot’s brutality.
“My boyfriend gave the only US review of Necessary Illusions
by Chomsky, an early media work, in the Communist National
Guardian in Summer 1990. Even then he had to fight with the editors there because they thought that Chomsky was getting tiresome with different editions of the same book.”
Uh, why are you telling me this? This exposition is about as relevant to our discussion as you informing me that your favorite color is green. If Chomsky or his publishers or whomever want to keep publishing the same book over and over, that’s none of my concern and it seems silly to me that you lose any sleep over such an incidental.
“NO, there is nothing to interpret about Chomsky’s Communist apologetics on Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.”
Again, quote me a passage where Chomsky’s aim is to apologize for either one of those regimes rather than to put something into perspective as I have previously explained was the case with East Timor.
“They are on the record pure and simple.”
I’m sure in your world everything is simple.
“Your analogy with
Irving is spurious as he is a real historian and Chomsky
is NOT.”
How does the fact that Irving is a “real historian” make my analogy “spurious”? You’re not even thinking logically. Instead, you’re playing a semantics game. Regardless of their areas of specialization, Irving and Chomsky can each put forward intellectual arguments using archives and historical sources, can they not? Simply because Chomsky doesn’t define himself as a historian doesn’t mean that he can’t make an intelligent intellectual point using source material the same way Irving can (and does). By your stupid standard of “spurious,” Kevin MacDonald should be dismissed because The Culture of Critique is very historical and MacDonald is not a “real historian,” either, but is, instead, a psychologist by trade. But I’d imagine you like Kevin MacDonald (as do I) so the fact that he’s not a “real historian” in this instance doesn’t matter, right?
“By the way, Irving is NOT a revisionist on the ‘holocaust.’”
No, he isn’t. But that doesn’t mitigate my point at all now, does it? He gets all sorts of flack from the liberal establishment all the same for admiring Adolf Hitler for various reasons. Deviating from the kosher narrative as he does is enough to get someone in trouble. The fact that he’s not a Holocaust-denier actually strengthens my point. Despite the fact that he goes along with a great deal of the WWII narrative, liberals absolutely loath him. In much the same way, Chomsky doesn’t deviate from basic facts but because, like Irving, he comes to conclusions about foreign policy that the Republican Party doesn’t like, he’s loathed by the other side of the ideological isle all the same.
“And Chomsky HAS disputed Pol Pot’s genocide from 1977 to today.”
Please show me a passage where Chomsky disputes that a genocide in Cambodia took place. Disputing the numbers is not the same as disputing that the genocide occurred nor is it apologizing for Pol Pot anymore than disputing the numbers of people killed under Stalin would be apologizing for him.
“Apparently facts have no meaning for you.”
No, they do. But you see, the burden is on you. Not me. You’re making assertions here. You’re ascribing a dubious motive to Chomsky that most people would rightly disagree with. There is a reason he is not seen as an apologist for Pol Pot the way say… Dershowitz is seen as a shill for Israel. He is not nearly as transparent as you make him out to be. Again, I don’t agree with the guy’s politics. But it does not follow that because I dislike his politics that your hysterical assertions are accurate.
“Nor did I JUST name call, I gave references so people could check out my assertions on Chomsky, something you haven’t done.”
I’m not making any specific assertions. Do you know how arguments work? You made a some claims in order to characterize someone who could be said to be one of our ideological enemies. Wattylersrevolt and I both disputed such claims and explained why we take issue your positive assertions. The burden is on you. And you’ve proven nothing. All you’ve proven is how tiresome you’re capable of being when someone dares question your precious opinions which you so laughably call “fact.”
“This is the first time I’ve ever been called a neocon (!) or anti-intellectual !!!!!!”
I didn’t call you a neo-con. I wrote that you seemed to be towing the neo-con line. That’s not exactly the same thing. But maybe in your “simple” world, it is. But you see, that’s a problem if you want to claim to understand a complicated thinker’s worldview. Nuance is not something to be taken lightly. If you can’t even read and assimilate my posts to you carefully and correctly, why should I believe you can read and assimilate twenty Chomsky books correctly?
“I assume neocon is a code word for Jews for you.”
Why? There are plenty of gentile neo-cons. By “neo-con” (and I think I implied this already in the previous post) I meant someone who thinks that any person who doesn’t simply say “Pol Pot was evil and that’s the end of discussion” is some limp-wrested apologist for communism. That’s basically how neo-cons portray their enemies. And that’s how you sound when you claim that Chomsky is an apologist for Mao or Pol Pot. I’m all for criticizing people on the left, but I’d rather our criticisms be intelligent ones rather than hollow ones that typically come from jingoistic types who gravitate toward AM radio.
“You are right on one thing, I should not be wasting my intellectual energy on you.
So let’s end this”
lol
You think pretty highly of yourself. I can’t imagine why, though.
Of course Pal activists avoid antagonizing Christians. Just a decade or two ago around a third of Palestinains were Christians. Greek Orthodox and Melkite Catholic. Bible thumping zionist dispensationalist Pentecostals apparently were not aware of that or never cared. Jews sure don’t.
A lot of these Christian Arabs from Palestine and Lebanon have emigrated to the US past 20 yyears however, and have given impetus to Democratic efforts to pantomime a more neutral role in middle east. But with Jews like Axelrod running Obama, that will all be fake.
Arabs are not our people; but they are a normal ethnic group, and not a sick, twisted, parasitic and domineering one like the ther sons of Shem.
Look up the original Chomsky article in The Nation co-authored with Edward Herman on Cambodia, it
was in the June 25, 1977 issue.
Look up the book he co-authored with Edward Herman
titled The Political Economy Of Human Rights, Volume
2, After The Cataclysm:Postwar Indochina And The
Reconstruction Of Imperial Ideology, South End Press,
1979.
Look up The Anti-Chomsky Reader, Chapter One,
Whitewashing Dictatorship In Communist Vietnam
And Cambodia By Stephen J Morris, Encounter Books,
2004.
You must be one of the densest people in the world
not to have known of Chomsky’s incredible apologetics
of the greatest relative genocide in history ! Even among
the entire Left Chomsky is notorious for this.
Get off your butt and do the research here.
I’m supposed to hold your hand ?
I never listen to AM radio and if people like Wattys and you are an example of ‘intelligence’ then God save us all !
Your willful blindness is only exceeded by your arrogance.
I have written before several times that anyone could look
on the web all the Chomsky BS on Cambodia and much else.
Now you have been given three specific sources.
I have done my job.
Well, I’m sure that you couldn’t imagine why a very highly intelligent person would have a properly high opinion of
her self because you are light years away from that world.
There’s nothing ‘hysterical’ about criticizing a person whose
documented record is horrendous as Chomsky’s is.
He is far, far, far worse than Israeli apologist Dershowitz
because Pol Pot’s genocide was far worse than anything Israel has done and I don’t have to ‘prove’ this to you as it is all
on the record.
Furthermore, who are these ‘most people’ who think attacking Chomsky on his apologetics is bad ? Except
for an occasional Maoist lunatic I’ve never met them.
I only mentioned my boyfriend’s review of two Chomsky books in 1990 in The Guardian and 2000 in Z to show that
we are intimately familiar with Chomsky himself and his
work and we have not hesitated to praise it to praise it when praise was due. We never lost any sleep over the National
Guardian’s weariness with Chomsky, we were just demonstrating that even the Left twenty two years ago was
tiring of him. But that’s too subtle a nuance for you, eh ?
Ok, I’ve answered you fully.
Do not waste anymore of my valuable time.
You are the one who brought up Irving when it was irrelevant to our conversation.
What we’ve always had is a propositional country
1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 limits the right of become a naturalized citizen to “free white persons,” thereby excluding Africans and Asians. US government takes the first steps toward closing its open attitudes about immigrants by limiting those who could become naturalized citizens on the basis of race and political affiliation. Law remained for 162 years.
http://www.idexer.com/articles/immigration_response.htm
@TabuLa Raza:
“Law remained for 162 years”
This shows the enherent weakness of Constitutions not based on Natural Law.
The Declaration of Independance should have read “all men are created equal, therefore we all need a place of our own! Not just the Jews!”
@wattylersrevolt:
and you Sir know what about ‘philosophy”?beside an IT or even a “college=knowing by heart” degree on “philosphy”?so you think that linking current “phraseology” to algebraic formulations(as if anything else it is nothing but a language with a pre conceived abstractional “phraseology”) are worthy of what precisely?? and all this attempts by Bertrand Russell to arithmetize logic PROVED completely boggus by Godel’s undecidebility proof of phallacy attempting to REDUCE the once vital and oppulent natural philosphy of the GREEK masters and then a bunch of self deluded angry pseudo philosophers Russell followers such Witgenstein and the spo called analytic philosophers(what a joke!!!) could succeed after Godel’s debunking of these phallacies???my dear friend you have to be as self deluded as them to think that binarism is the sacred callice and can lead to any and I repeat any major develpment beyond the ill managed ego of said “philosophers”…but TIME…yes time is going to judge things according to its merit!!!!!…as was foretold by a “regular” old fashioned philosopher long long time ago (when “they” really invented things and discovered MIND YOU!!! that we live in a round sphere “levitating” in nothing more than vaccuum itself!!! by guess what? …you would know ever HOW they came to see what is UNSEEN …well let me think…what is it worth? the non sense ridiculous talking on semantical value of our phrases or the real greek old fashioned deal?????????even if you would consider that all this garbage actually only exists and it is delivered onto our heads BECAUSE the old greeks invented the mechanism……LOL…
@Joe Webb:
dear sir I respect your opinions but I beg to differ…I am not sure about your factual,and more importantly your field knowledge on the matter…”old”palestinians are and never have been “arabs”..’old” palestinians are the bible (in)famous PHILISTINES(which is still the correct spelling and pronunciation)…and they were the descendants of the old canaanites and they were somewhat NON semitic people hanging around the mediteranean palestinian seashore namely GAZA(as known by no other HERODOTUS..the first historian in the essence of the word..had the enligtenment to describe man’s interactions without the providence of the divine!!!!!)…so what we know for sure that there was ANOTHER group of people that was hanging there into the jordan area known as (by the source old babylonian one) as ABIRU(or modern hebrew) …they were some tribes that were giving them headache…then we have the unfolding situation where the PHILISTINES and the ABIRU got in struggle to dominate the area…now the modern PHILISTINES…they are obviously the MIX of these two different groups that are todays professing christianity or islam!!!what you call arabs are a very different kind of people and they were comprised from a lot of tribes distributed from the fringe of old palestine to the seashore of yemen..do not forget a detail that jerusalem was founded 8.000 years ago and rest assure there was NO JUDEA at that time!another interesting thing is that the Mecca Templewas already known by the same TRUSTWORTHY historian , Mr Herodotus himslef by the name of BACCA and not Mecca and their inhabitants already worshiped a ONE GOD but He had “children” fallen from the stars(represented symbolicaly by meteors )!and they worshiped a ABRAHAM that had lived there before and in NO way he would be livingthere and 2500 km throught hte desert at UR as was told by the bible! so we have 2 NARRATIVES contradicting themselves..one stating that the original father of the two groupsare from UR and other stating that he was actually from the WESTERN arabic penninsula!which is to be true??simple answer:Ur was originally and founded by NON SEMITE SUMERIAN culture and the western arabia was and still is SEMITE!another fact proving that the original has to be from arabia is that the olde Sumerian described their fate when they were conquered by SEMITE COMING FROM THE “SOUTH” meaning arabia(actually emirates nontheless arabia)CONCLUSION:JUDDAH and jewish ARE ARABS!on the subject of genetics…the problem is that genetical features AFTER islam a LOT of AFRICAN slaves(and even before alongside the arabic pennisula given their very very ancient oppullence see “Arabia felix” of the romans!)were INCORPORATED to the people’s genalogical tree!! but still a lot( and I could repeat a LOT) of people in the arabic penninsula still KEEPS their lineage because of local STRONG costume that is intra TRIBAL or clan MARRIAGE…so a lot of such genetical analysis are FLAWED because you get a lot of “genetical noises” and they do not get the right sample I can assure you because of POLITICS!!!! other related features=same problem!!! regards and peace
@mari:
Yes, Mari. These ‘Social[COUGH] Sciences etc’ are rather boring and useless once you have seen thru them.
Perhaps you can add to the list [Think of the Trillions of dollars wasted]
SOCIOLOGY
ECONOMICS
LINGUISTICS
PSYCHIATRY
JEWISH STUDIES
AND AT ANTIOCH: LIBERAL STUDIES n GBLT STUDIES
@Bobby:
In the 1990s she wrote an OpEd for LA Times about [cough]
Human Rights in China.
Anyone here able to give us updates on Boxer, Feinstein, Harman and Waters ? [yikes what a gruesome 4some]
@90404: Yeah, it’s the typical Feinstein hypocrisy. Did not one one of her husbands businesses have something to do with shipping containers for Chinese goods. BARF!!
Updates on those four broads can be summarily described as, they either have gone on to greater criminality, or are defending the criminality they got caught in, like Waters, and Harmon for example. Boxer, is simply arrogant and stupid, a dangerous combination if ever there was one. Honest to God, if we had a system that was nationalist, and honest, all of them would be prosecuted and jailed.
Alfred, I don’t have any use for Joe as he seems to be some Biblical fanatic but I was getting a headache reading your response.
Obviously the Palestinians are a separate tribe from the Hebrews, Canaanites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, etc., but they are the descendants of the Philistines which is no longer the proper name for the last two thousand years. Get up to date. Then almost 1400 years they converted to Islam and were the great majority in Palestine until mid-1948.
There was a Palestinian Arab village or town or farming settlement under almost every Jewish town in Israel.
We Jews may well be descended from a mixture of races
and tribes after 70AD. This is hotly debated in Israel.
Mari, real Austrian Economics is a science and is not to be compared to the other frauds you lumped it with.
Read Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises.
@Marcy Fleming:
dear Marcy..I hope your headache does not get worst..I am truly grateful for your interest to uncover the truth whatever it is..but I regret for the headache again as we speak ..I am sorry to disagree with you ..Philistine is still Palestine..it is semantics that changed but the word is STILL enunciate like this by the whole locals inhabitants…again jewish are from ONE tribe (JUDDAH’s tribe among 11 other tribes descendants from the people that migrated from Egypt according to the Thorah)therefore JEW=YEHUDAH=JUDDAH…even though the area for this particular tribe was SOUTH to Jerusalem…into the DESERT..I do agree however that the religious body was the SAME among all the tribes and even the descendants of the canaanites as you speak and Itruly think that actual jewish people are a mix of this subgroups that were displaced…but I am truly sorry for your misunderstandings about the actual meaning of words and I regret that you people have to use Wikipedia instead of technical source..again…you did dismiss other valuable information to build a veritable case using current “narratives’ based upon the bible as a technically valid alternative even when you discharge the religious view …I am open to any data even from the religious books BUT i have to be convinced by actual ON GROUND fact checking..otherwise it would be a lovely afternoon tea occasion and that is not my purpose..a FACT:semites are not originally from Palestine and they moved from the southern SAUDIA ARABIA or western arabia when theris features were most alike among these inhabitants than by now(since that what you call today arabian desert was actually a flourishing FOREST for 100.000 years during the last cycle of ICE AGE which by the way lasted 100.000 years and ended 10-12.000 years ago and it is a FACT and a the MOST important fact on all this history and it has been like that for at least 600.000 years to date-meanwhile the populations developed and grew in such area which has to be dig in to find a lot of the local and regional history from that time…one and probably the MAIN reason for people invading and conquering BOTH south Iraq(SUMER) and parts of Palestine and fringes of Syria and Lebanon and Jordan was the DESERTIFICATION which probably reached its peak during the 3 and second millenium before Christ..and these invasions were narrated described and written down on CLAY by the most evolved people around the region at the time i.e. SUMERIANS..Egypt was not invaded…again…Philistines are people that the bible describe meaning that they were ORIGINAL in this place…furthermore.the tribes that you erroneously call arabs are NOT arabs and that little detail show a very misguidded process of hiding the truth from yourselves by depicting the people there as PALESTINIANS-ARABS which THEY ARE NOT..they are the descendants from the original PHILISTINES+CANNANITES + 10 TRIBES of HEBREW(most of the hebrew blood in fact ) that through time converted to Christianism and lately to islam..the “modern” ARABS did not INVADE until after ISLAM ONLY…and they never had been numerous to the point of changing the identity of the population in ANY loccus in the middle east beyond a political reset…there is no arab state in Lebanon (they are remnants mainly from the Phoenicians..yes..some Phoenicians are muslims today some are christians even the so called xiites are mainly from phoenicians ascendancy..and the same in all other countries ..such as the Hitites who spoke indo-european language and nowadays are the “sunni muslims” in Syria…people do not DISAPPEAR even under plagues as it is well known..they change culturally and this is the main point of the question and even of this debate…it was a political and elite disfranchisement as was the mongol invasion ..I am amazed that you have no facts beyond naming people by newly “groups” as if the “old” groups are not still living and being displaced by a pathological misconceptions about identity …
Alfred, you give no sources for your many assertions but if they are remotely true what does it matter ?
Shlomo Sand in The Invention Of The Jewish People states what you do about the Palestinian Arabs of today POSSIBLY being descended from the ancient Jews. I think Dr. MacDonald takes issue with Sand on this and other points
but what difference does it make ? People who call themselves
Arabs for the last few centuries have been living in Palestine/Israel for at least 1300 years, if not 2,000 years or longer. Ashkenazim Jews only started a state after they expelled 750,000 to a million Palestine Arabs in 1947-48.
They hardly have legitimacy as such.
I think your assertions are wrong but with all due respect, Alfred, to your readings I honestly think that they are irrelevant to the Middle East today. The Palestinian Arabs are staying and so far most of the Israeli Jews are though a million of them are here in the USA. Another million have US passports and personally I prefer they stay in Israel/Palestine rather than come here. As they tend to be fanatics.
Thanks for your polite input here.
[sorry about my typos.. it's early in the morning!]