Noam Chomsky

>>2977946
He's a typical American cuckold. To this day I have yet to encounter an American "intellectual" who isn't a bitch, a cuck, or a retard.

File: 1480731886820.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>bad guys

>>2977946

he is pretty much right about everything.

File: 1486859004582.png (1MB, 690x460px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 690x460px

>>2977946

>KHMER ROUGE DINDU NUFFIN

>>2977955
obviously i was oversimplifying things. You know what i mean. But i do have the feeling that without any nuance chomsky sees the US indeed as "THE bad guys"

>>2977957
he said the red khmer were quite ok and that viatnamese socialism was pretty much perfect
agree with that?

File: 1488514861527.png (130KB, 341x326px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 341x326px

>>2977946

>Man holding knife to girl's throat, police shoot him to death, one dead body, bystander injured by bullet
>Man barges into old lady's house, shoots her and robs her, runs off into the night

In Chomsky's world, these are morally equivalent, except the police officer might actually be worse because another person was injured :^)

>>2977946
>What's the /his/ opinion on Chomsky?
For such a brilliant man, he can be remarkably stupid. He manages to miss the forest for the trees pretty consistently; and while his quoting of facts in the minute sense is pretty much always spot-on, he manages to weave incredibly dumb macrohistorical narratives out of it; largely because he tends to look at any given situation, try to identify the single biggest actor in that situation, shout loudly that it's that one actor's fault and nobody else's, and ignore everything else. Given that the U.S. is the de facto hegemon of the world and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union was pretty easily the most wealthy and militarily powerful state, that's usually America. But the mere fact that America has agency and a very long reach does not mean no other powers or policymakers have no agency, which is a corollary of his arguments.

File: IMG_1017.jpg (100KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 600x450px

>>2977984
Nice strawman

>>2977988
he does admit that other countries have a saying in those matters too: Saudi Arabia and Israel.
So the US, SA and Israel are the causing agents of everything that is wrong with the world according to him.

>>2977984
have any direct examples from something he said regarding your analogy?

>>2977946
On the one hand he's right in saying that the US promotes capitalism and establishes puppet governments around the world.

Where he goes wrong is saying that this is universally bad. He countersignals the US so hard that he literally endorsed the Khmer Rouge as >>2977966 pointed out, which is retarded.

He really should stick to linguistics tbqh.

File: mt-stupid.png (43KB, 613x481px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x481px

>>2977946
He needs to shut the fuck up about politics and go back to linguistics and/or computer science.

When he talks about politics he's the epitome of Mount Stupid.

>>2978006
>So the US, SA and Israel are the causing agents of everything that is wrong with the world according to him.

He never said anything like this.

Anyone can say "business interests influence US foreign policy", it is basically true, but how much influence does it have really? How does it work? Why would the soda and electronics lobbies want to support a tinpot dictator? A corrupt unstable country isn't a good place to do business. The remaining oil and arms lobbies who would apparently benefit via some spurious conspiracy theory only compose a fraction of "business interests" which are themselves only a fraction of the machiavellian fuzzball that is WDC. Chomsky kind of glosses over the practical details and the complexities, the lack of hindsight, the lack of options and the various risks and priorities a policymaker has to juggle, who, though a flawed human being, usually isn't quite the devil they are made out to be.

Were he analyzing King Charles I he would rank alongside a 1st year history student only expected to make some kind of inference to flesh out an essay, not take a wider look at things and hold themselves to a critical standard. He doesn't have to go further than this because that is often the level of his target audience.

>>2978020
He can't seem to grasp how global realpolitik works. Or if he does, he's just a laughable moral pygmy

I don't know too much about chomsky, but he's saying that the US should basically just stick to themselves and leave all other countries alone, right?
Sounds good to me.
Maybe some minorities will get killed in some parts of the world without US intervention, but overall it seems to always just escalate when the US does something, with long term negative/destabilizing effects

>>2978024
well he says that the US, SA and israel indirectly fund dictatorships and fuel religious segregation and support terrorist groups.
I can't think of any instance were in the end he hasn't blamed one of those three nations in the end eventually. (Or atleast said that the US had done something equally or even more horrible when confronted with something that wasn't the US's fault)

>>2977946
>how is his historic accuracy? Is he trustworthy when he quotes historic events?

List of lies/stupid bullshit by Chomsky (so far):
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

example:
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East
Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”

>>2977946
His critique of US foreign policy is good.
His linguistics is good.
But he turns a blind eye to the good that capitalism's done and lumps it in with US imperialism. And he ignores all the bad things that happened under communist dictatorships.

File: 1496331809430.jpg (15KB, 285x249px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 285x249px

>>2977946
>anarchist
>any intellect what so ever

I can't wait for Molyneux to wreck this commie in a debate.

>>2977946
He is correct many times but you can sense that he pathologically hates the US and ignores anything positive or takes things out of context

>>2978385

They're both anarchists though and much as I dislike Chumpsky I don't think Molyneux would fare too well in a debate against him.

He's generally correct on facts but he cherry picks to support a retarded far left, childlishly naive view of international relations.

He also implies US policy makers did X or Y because of their myopic support of capitalism while ignoring all interviews with policy makers, leaks, investigations, etc. that real historians would use.

It's basically undergrad level searching for sources to support what you already think, but he's smart so he does it well.

>>2978410

For instance, you won't see Chomsky breakdown the language in an administrative NSS, or do a deep dive into the works of deputy national security advisors, or read leaked and declassified reports to see how people responded to events in real time.

For him ideology is the primary mover of security policy. Having worked in the field, I can say this often is not true.

>>2978410
On the other hand, the reality of the situation often gets forgotten behind politics.

The United States IS traveling the globe and dropping bombs on people in the name of liberal-capitalism.

>>2978435

Not really. The US has been bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan. In every case except Iraq and Syria the entire focus is eliminating members of groups who attempt to carry our terror attacks in America.

There were broader aims in Iraq and Syria but the main goal has been eliminating hostile forces that have carried out attacks in the West.

That's basic security, not liberal democracy.

No one thinks killing AQI members was making Yemen more democratic or argued that.

>>2978484
>the entire focus is eliminating members of groups who attempt to carry our terror attacks in America.
It's used as a pretext for deeper influence in those countries and entire regions. It would be stupid to only "fight terrorist" when you've already made the decision to send troops and start wars.

It's not exactly about making countries "more democratic". The US is pragmatic, it only cares about democracy in other countries only after their other interests have been taken care of. When the US supported dictators in countries like Greece and Chile it wasn't to make them more democratic, it was to bring them into their geopolitical orbit, just like the Soviets fought to bring other countries under their influence. The issue is that this mindset didn't actually stop when the Soviet Union collapsed and Cold War "ended" and there were plenty of states that were still outside of America's orbit. So you get a victorious and overconfident America making plans to spread their Cold War institutions and liberal values globally and starting threatening those who don't comply with it. But now Russia is back on track again, and things are getting funny.

>>2978505
Scandinavia and Canada are objectively bigger political threats to liberal capitalism than some shithole in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't the US bombing, boycotting and generally fucking with them?

>>2978513
"social democracy" is the highest form of capitalism - the one that makes you think it isn't.

>>2978082
>just look at this pdf by some literal-who!

>>2977946
He reminds me of a very leftist anti-America friend I have.
I love the guy, he's genuinely intelligent and is able to recognize his ideology as a preference and not the standard, but at the same time he has such a massive hate-boner for America it's unreal.
Sometimes I'm genuinely afraid he's going to endorse an IS terror attack, as long as American government workers like police or republican (specifically) politicians are at risk.

>>2978519
disprove the sources actually cited in the article rather than the fact that "nobody of importance" compiled the citations
It's not surprising to note an appeal to authority from someone defending Chomsky.

>>2977966
>>2977968
>>2978020
He never supported Khmer Rouge, he just said that he doubted the sources originally, but then in 93 he admitted that they were evil. His bigger point was that the US was treating it completely different than the stuff that was happening in Indonesia, and also forgetting how the Khmer Rouge came to power. You guyz r dum.

>>2977946
That being said, I think Chomsky can be a bit hypocritical and can have certain blind spots. For example, he criticizes professional sports as he believes they marginalize the average American to become an apathetic moron who throws their entire energy at those athletes, rather than using that energy to dictate actual policies. He's right about this.

But the same exact arguments he uses against professional sports are left by the wayside when discussing organized religion.

He can also be too forgiving to people like Stalin and other Marxist-Leninists, even though he claims to be an anarchist.

>>2978554
>he criticizes professional sports as he believes they marginalize the average American to become an apathetic moron who throws their entire energy at those athletes, rather than using that energy to dictate actual policies.
Typical dweeb opinion

>>2978561
No, I watch sports, but he's completely right. Sport fans are generally incredibly stupid and quite cowardly.

>>2977954
>Shitskins need to be bombed, pay your taxes, and support our troops.
Wow, the pinnacle of intellect right there.

>>2977946
Brilliant political theorist with some good contributions to linguistics as well. He's one of the most consistent and comprehensive critics of imperialism and has done a great job revealing the brutality of many hiearchies -- most notably the US oppression of occupied nations -- to the general public.

He's also the face of libertarian socialism for a hell of a lot of people.

>>2977968
He never said the Khmer Rouge were okay. That is a lie.

While he was pilloried for downplaying the massacres of Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars, later evidence vindicated Chomsky's argument that the atrocities were exaggerated.

>>2978561
>Meathead jocks can't into complex civility.
https://youtu.be/Vz1nIHv6P6Q
>And to worry about “Mother With Child With Six Heads
https://youtu.be/AUui74TP9cg

>>2978006
That isn't too far off, though. Add Britain and Japan and you're golden.

While Russia and their friends do a lot of bad shit, 9/10ths of this is reactive toward the aggression of Western capital.

Assad was pilloried for taking Aleppo back from the Jihadis who had seized control, yet nobody thought to mention that these terrorists were supported by the US and Saudi Arabia every step of the way.

>>2977968
>>2978614
https://youtu.be/AnZQgrmCP84

>go into chomsky thread
>right wing retards lying about chomsky and the khmer again
Why so dishonest? Are you forced to lie because you can't beat his arguments?

He's a genius, but he does appear naive at times. He's the ultimate enlightenment philosopher honestly, in the good and the bad implications.

Also, he has superhuman memory:
>On one occasion I gave him a 500-page book to read on the war in Laos at about 10 at night, and met him the next morning at breakfast prior to our visit to political officer Jim Murphy at the U.S. Embassy. During the interview the issue of the number of North Vietnamese troops in Laos came up. The Embassy claimed that 50,000 had invaded Laos, when the evidence clearly showed there were no more than a few thousand. I almost fell off my chair when Noam quoted a footnote making that point, several hundred pages in, from the book I had given him the night before.

>>2978661

> The US supports ISIS to attack Shia regimes like Assad meme.

T. Abbas

>>2978688
Keeping the masses ignorant but jingoistic is somehow good for society according to reactiotard philosophy.

>>2978692
They literally do you dumbass

>>2978521
>I'm genuinely afraid he's going to endorse an IS terror attack

I know a lot of Stalinists who strongly support ISIS and oppose PKK.

>>2978692
There is reportedly substantial evidence in wikileak cables proving this. Not that it means much since in our world elected officials and administrations and aren't subject to the same laws us regular citizens are.

he massively underplayed the khmer monstrosities, no matter how much people here are saying, that his critizism had some basis.
He was completely wrong and later recognised that, because he just couldn't refute the numbers.
He was right to call out the media on the unequal reporting, and their agenda behind it; but everyone should recognise his agenda in downplaying the khmers role and again blaming the US (indirectly)
He never openly endorsed the Khmer, of course not; but his infatuation with socialism truly blinds him

File: erdogan-turkey.png (40KB, 313x420px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 313x420px

>>2978738
t. Mehmet

>>2978775
Nothing most opposing journalistic haven't done already. Still has more credibility than them.

>>2978788
*journalistic entities

>>2978767

No they don't. You do realize all the fucking Sunnis blame the US for creating ISIS too, as an excuse to act as Assad's airforce. You know, they can't both be right. ISIS was a Jewish, American, Shia plot to undermine a Sunni revolt.

Actually, ISIS/AQI is the brain child of a pissed off Jordanian slum kid who got radicalized in prison and got really lucky that the Iraq War kicked off when it did.

"I lige gommunism"
"And sonig, lol"
-t. Noam Chompsdicks

>>2978812
um honey...i dont think he said that!

File: israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-next-to-a-wounded-mercenary-israeli-military-field-hospital-at-the-occupied-golan-heights-border-with-syria-18-february-2014.jpg (45KB, 628x418px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 628x418px

>>2978811
Proofs? There's tons of information alleging the opposite not the least of which is the U.S.'s opposition to all Russian action in the region and continued condemnation of Assad and his allies, support for rival factions, NGO's etc.
https://youtu.be/ItykyRdBTHE

It's true that the political revolution was overwhelmed by the polarization between jihadists and regime loyalists and jihadist support is a minority but sizeable enough to cause the problems it has.

>>2978811
>Shias are going to create a huge struggle which will cause millions of deaths of their own and nearly overthrow them just to wipe out the Sunnis for good and Saudis support Sunni factions in good faith.
>not - All sides end up fighting eachother due to the circumstances spurred on by the U.S. invasion and attempted overthrows of regimes.

>>2978738
Bullshit.

Most Stalinists see both ISIS and the PKK/YPG/SDF as western imperialist proxies and only support Assad, Russia, and Hezbollah.

File: 51gufeCTQ8L._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (49KB, 330x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 330x499px

>>2977946
>Is he correct in his US foreign policy critique?
Yes and no.
>Is he correct in his evaluation of who the bad guys are?
Yes and no.
>Is he correct in his evaluation of the causes of terrorism?
Yes.
>and lastly: how is his historic accuracy? Is he trustworthy when he quotes historic events?
Yes.

Chomsky is a bit like a rock band from the 1970s that had one great album, but then everything they wrote afterwards sounds the same. His linguistic and socio-linguistic work, along with his books like Manufacturing Consent, were truly revolutionary, especially at the time when I grew up, that is before the internet, where people really did get all of their views from a few news sources.

Anyone who knows what they're talking about in the social sciences would have looked into Noam Chomsky. But you'll find it difficult to find anyone who claims to be a "Chomskian" thinker. There are many reasons for that.

He's a great critic, and he's certainly worth looking into, but his moral absolutist views and oversimplified method of smashing everything with his hammer of class warfare and anti-Americanism is weak. The simple fact that hasn't been arrested or shot or tortured for his views is enough to signal that there is good in American power. Do you think Chomsky or his followers world be happier if Putin was at the helm of global hegemony? Or take his criticism for American intellectuals, how they're sellouts and traitors who worship corporate and state power - how is that any different than "If you're not with us you're against us".

So, Chomsky is great - but you gotta take him with a grain of salt. He has an overly simple moral code that he bases all of his views on, which makes him attractive as a public intellectual I guess, and he is certainly a force to be reckon with in academia and among intellectuals, but he still has many flaws.

>>2979067
The Stalinist's he talks about are probably current bull prepping agitators with Judaic overlords.

File: 1469573677922.jpg (142KB, 459x579px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 459x579px

>>2979067
Most stalinists are retarded
Otherwise they wouldn't be stalinist

He wrote about a political crisis in Laos blaming the U.S. for the breakdown in the relations between communists and nationalists and ignored a communist invasion of the country.

That tells you all you need to know about him. He is a liar.

>>2979139
t. anti communist victims defamation league shill
Right let's pay attention to vastly covered issues that are oftentimes erroneously asserted as opposed to more underreported issues. Surely that will help the truth prevail over "might makes right".

He also wrote against the Black Book of Communism arguing that Indian famine deaths equaled Chinese famine deaths, and those should be blamed on democratic capitalism.

Not mentioning the fact that criticizing a historical work that documents crimes of a political movement is bad taste for someone who prizes himself in denouncing these kind of political crimes, not mentioning that there is no citation for the "Indian deaths = Chinese deaths" statistics, saying that India during the Cold War was a "democratic capitalist" society is just plain falsehood, considering that India was a socialist country alligned with the Soviet Union during this period.

But my favorite one is his criticism of the "loss of China" term. According to Chomsky:

>"In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western discourse as "the loss of China" – in the US, with bitter recriminations and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The "loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had major policy consequences."

Not to mentioning the historical falsehood (China gained independence in 1949), Chomsky reveals himself to be a psychopath here. "It is only possible to lose something that one owns". Chomsky never had a friend? If you lose a friend, you lose something that you didn't owned. It seems like either Chomsky never had a single friend in his remarkably long life, or he is a deliberate liar and spreader of falsehoods.

>>2978688

Not even other commies defend Khmer Rouge

File: 01-strawman.png (10KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 150x150px

>>2979180
>Not even Chomsky defends the Khmer Rouge
ftfy

>>2979124
They aren't retarded, they just don't care if millions have to die in their crusade of global liberation

I appreciate how meticulously researched his writings are, and that he sources everything. I'm not sure what to make of his personal politics, but he's done an incredible amount of reading, and presents a lot of significant facts in his work.

A lot of people in this thread are saying that Chomsky hates America, but that's not the impression I get. He's repeatedly praised the high levels of political freedom in the USA, and acknowledges that were he living in most other countries he wouldn't be able to be as openly critical of the state as he is.

Chomsky focuses on America because (he claims) he feels a responsibility to hold his own government accountable for their actions, in the interests of helping the country live up to its ideals. He doesn't pretend that other powers don't do terrible things to further their interests, but there's plenty of focus on that in the media as it is.
In any case he considers it largely meaningless to criticise foreign countries from within his own, that's not where his influence is greatest.

>>2979121
are you having a stroke

>>2977946
He's a pretty standard libertarian socialist, probably a little less radical than Murray Bookchin.

Chomsky is considered unusual in his political views because he's the only prominent anarchist given a platform by the popular media. Academic cred, even in a field as far divorced from politics as linguistic psychology, can go a long way.

>>2977946
Chomsky is great at pointing out the flaws with US foreign policy, and any prominent anti-war voice is always good in my book. However, his solution (anarcho-syndicalism) is retarded and his fanbase is usually awful.

>>2978385
>>2978406
They actually did debate once. I haven't seen all of it, but from the segment I did watch it seemed like Chomsky had the upper hand.

>>2979609
>debate
Chomsky just explained the history of libertarianism and called right wing ""libertarians"" a bunch of private tyranny condoning, corporate-dick sucking retards, while molyneux kept nodding too scared to actually engage him.

>>2979329
Sure Chaim I'm sure you'll be there to squeeze every cent from my insurance.

Noam "Pol Pot did nothing wrong" Chomsky

>>2979176
>India was socialist
In its constitution it claims to be a secular socialist republic, but in practice it isn't, with the exception of a few areas.
>hurr Chomsky is a psychopath
Right wing propagandist detected.

Bog standard "hurrrrr Amerikkka is ebil" 'intellectual' who, despite his 16 year old tier opinions, lhas lived and worked his whole life in America.

>when you're so edgy and anti-American you unironically support the Khmer Rouge

>>2978688
He thinks anarcho anything is a viable ideology. Confirmed retard who never got past his edgy college phase and grew up,

>>2979160
Communism is a disgusting broken ideology and needs to be fought and discredited at every step.

>>2979622
>libertarianism is for freedom!
>oh but your not allowed to start a business
>or amass wealth
>or own property
>or employ people
>or or or
Are there a bigger group of retards than left wing lolbertarians?
>inb4 I'm a right wing libertarian

>>2978596
>intellect equates to claudication, appeasement, assimilation and surrender

>>2979124
>most communists are retarded, or else they wouldn't be communists
It's kind of a pre-requisite.

>>2978606
Apparently oppression at the hands of communist nutcases like Pol Pot is a okay, though.

i don't get why he cps so much hate. he just says basic shit that you can't disagree with. his main thing is reciprocity and that what we apply to one side we don't apply to the other.

>>2979817

cops*

>>2977946
commie apologist

>>2979785
Nah lies are what need to be exposed wherever they turn up and liars with them.

>>2979658
You're parroting literal MSM liberal propaganda

>>2979789
Right wing "libertarianism" is incalculably worse
>statist oppression is completely acceptable if it's being done for a profit

>>2978484
holy fuck you really took the red pill didn't you

this guy (the navy seal) says the US is constantly doing good all around the world and that the civilians indeed wanted them to be there; it's just that the critique of US foreign policy is fashionable.
Isn't it morally wrong for someone with the possibility to intervene/help, like the US army, stand aside in world events, do nothing and watch as entire people get genocided?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yP7zPSQ86I

>>2980350
*tips ten-gallon hat*

File: anti chomsky.jpg (20KB, 443x648px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 443x648px

has anybody read this book?

just how butthurt is Horowitz? Has he a point?

File: 1315019918022.jpg (86KB, 340x280px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 340x280px

>>2980350

>the US army intervenes in world events for humanitarian purposes and not to secure resources, bolster regimes which are beneficial to them, and maintain their sphere of influence aka to perpetuate imperialism

>>2980366
those things don't exclude each other

>>2980354
i don't really get what you mean

File: 1407404504643.jpg (31KB, 396x594px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x594px

>>2980372

>imperialism and humanitarianism are the same thing

what did he mean by this?

has chomsky ever lost an open debate?
(i don't know, because i always fall asleep after 10 minutes of him talking)

File: 1481360501123.jpg (68KB, 757x470px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 757x470px

>>2980376

that's his superpower. i saw him speak once for 2 hours or some shit but i can't remember what the fuck he talked about.

>>2980372
>i don't really get what you mean
I'm implying that you are sucking America's cock

>>2980375
the same=/=exclude each other

just because your motivations might be non humanitarian doesn't mean that you can be a force for humanitarianism
I'm pretty sure there are supressed minorities/peoople under horrible regimes that just pray that there will be large reserves of oil found in their country, so that the US will finally invade and "liberate" them (obviously a hyperboly; you get what i mean)

>>2980380
ah, thanks for the clarification

>>2980385
*doesn't mean that you can't be a force for humanitarianism

I don't know if Chomsky is correct about everything he says but I have never seen an intelligent take down of him. Like ever. It's always lies and propaganda.

>>2980390
he's constantly wrong about economic issues, that's where he fails horribly
about US foreign policy he is mostly spot on

File: 1381973982513.jpg (24KB, 308x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 308x400px

>>2980385

yeah all those oppressed minorities are doing so well now in iraq, syria, libya, central america, etc.

>>2980375
Quite simple, really.
>here, we built a hospital in Bongobongoland
>that hospital consumes goods manufactured in our country and thus benefits us as well as the people using it
Only a retard would disagree that both sides are better off as a result.

>>2980411
The Kurds seem to be doing alright, pre US they were being gassed and exterminated.
Hell, even Vietnam is one of the most pro-US countries in the world, because it acts as a balance to China, so his opinions kind of fall flat there as well.

>>2980400
Eh, it was revolutionary at the time, but now is looking less and less credible.
A lot of countries nowadays are begging for US aid or to be included in their sphere of influence, even countries the US fucked up in the past such as, like someone else said, Vietnam.

>>2980415
it keeps bongobongoland dependent on the US and robbs them of the opportunity to develop a strong enough economy of their own
it's like selling a man a fishing rod to feed himself, but destroying any fishing rod he produces on his own

I'm actually agreeing with you somewhat. We should keep developing countries from completely destroying themselves; but we should leave them alone nevertheless overal

What would happen if Chomsky was the POTUS?
Would the foreign policy be drastically altered or would he denounce his old ways?

File: 1491576703753.jpg (658KB, 1562x2191px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1562x2191px

>>2980415

the british dismantled the indian textile industry and prevented industrialisation so there was no competition.

the ottomons taxed serbs at much higher rates and also prevented them from industrialising so they could collect agricultural taxes.

banana republics are set up in central america to keep labour cheap and make profit for a few corporations.

etc etc etc

>>2980419

kurds weren't doing ok until this syrian shitfight, and none of the powers involved have used the kurds as rationale for their actions.

vietnam had nothing to do with minorities.

>>2980433

hopefully return to isolationism

>>2980433
Well, if we ever need to destroy the country in a week.

>>2978023
oh the ironing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language

absolutely BTFO by the Piraha language

>>2980447

universal generative grammar was proven to be true last year i think. sorry.

>>2980437
And? They're still not mutually exclusive. Most French imperialism in its former colonies (Mali, etc) is at the behest of the government and population. Would you rather they fall to Islamic theocracies?
Africa hasn't starved in two decades because of mutually beneficial aid.
China is pretty open about its exploitation of Africa, yet that same exploitation is rapidly developing the countries there, thus improving the quality of life.
It's like he's stuck in the Cold War, when every conflict had some ideological root. Now it's one for profit and, is more often than not, mutually beneficial.

>>2980445
Anyone that thinks anarchism is a viable ideology is trash desu
He might have some reasonable, albeit outdated, opinions on US foreign policy, but politically, he's retarded.

>>2980454

>africans wanted to be colonised

[citation needed]

>it's a choice between brutal imperialism and islamic theocracy

what? do you even history?

>africa hasn't starved

actually they are starving. too much reliance on aid.

>chinese exploitation is improving african quality of life

[citation needed]

>Now it's one for profit and, is more often than not, mutually beneficial.

what?

>>2980449
really?! when? how?
give source please

>>2980464
>>africa hasn't starved
>actually they are starving. too much reliance on aid.

No, Africa has learned from the West:
It's economy (and agriculture is growing) overall (It's still failing in certain parts like zimbabwe)

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/middle-east-and-africa/whats-driving-africas-growth

>chinese exploitation is improving african quality of life

>[citation needed]
from the same article:
>This geographic shift has given rise to new forms of economic relationships, in which governments strike multiple long-term deals at once. China, for example, has bid for access to ten million tons of copper and two million tons of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in exchange for a $6 billion package of infrastructure investments,3 including mine improvements, roads, rail, hospitals, and schools. India, Brazil, and Middle East economies are also forging new broad-based investment partnerships in Africa.

I'm conflicted about chomsky in terms of his politics.
He seems to always have the moral highground when it comes to foreign policy and i don't think i can argue with him on that.
But i feel like he's just not pragmatic enough somehow and that's something which is a huge problem even for me personally. Doing something which is pragmatically reasonable doesn't mean it's moral to do so.
Just because policy makers think it serves the US in the longterm to attack ME states and secure their oil in the long term (before another country does) doesn't make it right; but it might be "necessary".
It's like bullying the small kid for his lunch money. Of course it's wrong; but you didn't bring any lunch, forgot your money and you don't want to ask your nemesis for food (who would be willing to steal the kids money just to leave you optionless)

>>2980467

http://www.medicaldaily.com/noam-chomskys-theory-universal-grammar-right-its-hardwired-our-brains-364236

>>2980477

so contemporary chinese trade deals prove that french imperialism was good for mali in the 19th century?

>>2980538
never said that. I was just replying to the questions regarding the current state of africa and the involvement of china.
I don't have any idea about Mali in the 19th century, so i can' comment on that, but i would argue for example that english imperialism was great for india overall

>>2980542

>english imperialism was great for india overall>>2980437

>>2980378
>that image
My sides are in orbit.

>>2977946
>>2979109
>Is he correct in his evaluation of the causes of terrorism?
>Yes.

really? Isn't he saying that US and Israeli intervention in the ME as well as saudi arabia forcefully creating extremists (for whatever reason) as well as the socioeconomic differences between muslims and non muslims in the west are the only causes for radical islamism/terrorism and it has nothing to do with Islamic doctrine/ideology? Or am i misquoting him here?

The socioeconomic argument has been disproven time and again (A huge portion of terrorists being well educated/middle class fanatics; altough the statistics will surely skew the other way around pretty soon, since now people just attack with knifes and trucks. You don't need good education/ability to plan and coordinate for that). As for US/israel intervention, he has a strong point, but he goes way to far, when he says it's THE reason.
Has he ever said something about organizations like the muslim broderhood? It would be interesting to hear what he says about that

>>2980454
>It's like he's stuck in the Cold War, when every conflict had some ideological root. Now it's one for profit and, is more often than not, mutually beneficial.
You've never read him have you?
That's exactly his point for the most part, that the ""ideological reasons"" behind the interventions are purely bullshit, and it's all done for profit

>>2980551
i know that the colonization of india had a great side effect for britain, in the ability to force a huge population to buy the textiles they were now able to produce with their new technology, sure. But just out of pure necessity for this trade to work and to manage the land, they had to built huge infrastructure, security, legal infrastructure and schooling (so that atleast the upper class indians could be employed as rulers, managers and judges), social reforms....

It's very similar to that monty python sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

>>2980459
He is not really an anarchist. For him, being an anarchist means always being skeptical and critical of state actions, it doesn't mean wanting to abolish the state itself.

>>2979888
Fuck of under-graduate

>>2979778
This. He is a glorified crypto-redditor.

>>2980652
"America can do no wrong!!" is a far more reddit opinion

File: 200px-SirHumphrey[1].jpg (8KB, 200x241px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x241px

>>2980523
>moral highground when it comes to foreign policy
Really anon, must you be so naive. There is no moral highground when it comes to foreign policy, there's only our interests and their interests

>>2981774
More like r/the_donald opinion.

>>2978811
>You do realize all the fucking Sunnis blame the US for creating ISIS too, as an excuse to act as Assad's airforce.

How fucking stupid can you possibly be?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/18/us-shoots-down-syrian-air-force-fighter.html

>>2980542

Great in what sense or for whom ?

I could argue it was awful for the millions of indians that died from starvation during their colonial phase.

>>2977946
He's Howard Zinn's work in living form

>>2978554

>He never supported Khmer Rouge, he just said that he doubted the sources originally, but then in 93 he admitted that they were evil. His bigger point was that the US was treating it completely different than the stuff that was happening in Indonesia, and also forgetting how the Khmer Rouge came to power.

If that's true then I'm sorry. I somehow was under the impression that he endorsed them.

>>2977946
He gets it right on critiquing U.S. foreign policy and possibly the cause of terrorism. However when it comes to anything else, especially for his apologism towards the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, he's completely wrong. I can't really get behind someone that ironically supported the Khmer Rouge because "Muh U.S. imperialism" in the 1970s.

File: 111515.png (747KB, 1507x966px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1507x966px

Another piece in pic related

>>2982761
He did. In an essay in the 1970s he described pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia as "pre-liberation" and post as "post-liberation"

File: 1495499434991.png (103KB, 256x443px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 256x443px

>Pirahã
This triggers the Chomsky

>>2980449
No it wasn't, that paper did nothing to refute Everett's claims

>>2977946
Is that the Requiem for the American Dream guy? It's tempting to believe since feeling like a victim can be satisfying, but then I found out about Price's Law and I get a feeling that no one has even half a rough solution to wealth distribution and the destabilizing effect drastic differences in relative wealth can have

>>2979124
>says the anime poster

>>2979268
This. It's just underestimating them and the potential of human maliciousness if you think they're all just bimbos who bumbled and fumbled their way into slaughter.

>>2978484
>Iraq and Syria
>hostile forces that have carried out attacks in the West.
Sadam and Assad are awful people but they didn't pose an existential threat to the West

>>2978031
How about you read any of his books instead of ranting out of your ass. Everything you say he doesn't do he already did, clown.

>>2979176
The basis of your dismissal is the retarded idea that states have friendships.

This is the level at which criticism of Chomsky resides. Jesus...

File: 0de071bdc877d7afe4ca35265d1fcae9806d6335abdb1dd243037480ad12a09f.png (169KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1000x600px

>>2979622
He is not wrong though. Anarchism was a left wing movement till right wingers co-opted the word libertarianism

>>2979789
Nice strawman. You are only not allowed to own private property coz in a truly free world it is impossible to have private property only personal property

>>2985480
>Everything you say he doesn't do he already did
Give 1 (one) example of Noam Chomsky (him) addressing the issues I raised.

Perhaps you misunderstood my argument to mean me saying he never addressed the facts. The problem is he hand picks facts to suit preconceived notions. One could make a list of all the white swans in the world but it doesn't prove all swans are white. One does not prove all swans are white by looking for white swans. Think intelligence, facts, logic, Occam's razor, falsifiability, inflexible Anglo rationalism. Here is an example.

>It is not easy, under such conditions, to maintain political power. Only one good method is known: inspire fear. That tactic was employed throughout the Reagan-Bush years, as the leadership conjured up one devil after another to frighten the populace into obedience.

>The threats to Americans during the first war on terror were immense. By November 1981, Libyan hit men were roaming the streets of Washington to assassinate the president, who courageously faced down the scoundrel Qaddafi. From the first moment, the administration recognized Libya to be a defenseless punching bag, and therefore set up confrontations in which many Libyans could be killed, hoping for a Libyan response that could be exploited to induce fear.

What is his evidence? Just this apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/18/us/reagan-denies-overreaction-by-us-to-report-of-libyan-assassin-team.html

He does not mention the gulf of Sidra incident (1981) or that Libya had conducted a belligerent unprovoked invasion of Chad in 1978 and bizarrely also Egypt which could contend with Libya militarily.

His writing is littered with this. It is a list of white swans. As a teenager I had underdeveloped critical thinking skills but now reading it again I can recognize these flaws. Come on. Think. You can do it.

>>2978023
And where oh where on that graph do you think you are when it comes to Chomsky? Have you read any of his works? No? Hmm, I'll let that sink in for a second.

>>2977946
He's a contrarian fuckwit without the first inclinination to genuinely study power politics or political philosophy.
>Khmer Rouge din du NUFFIN!

>>2980390
I like Chomsky, but this exchange is the worst I've seen him come out of:
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

>>2986820
>>2985497
Gee Chomsky, don't you have better things to do?

Chomsky is usually correct in his criticism of American imperialism. He holds the US to the moral standards it pretty much invented and that makes a lot of people on both sides salt merchants.

>>2986895
I remember this. Chomsky comes across as such a pompous windbag

>>2986895
I don't understand why either of them had to write so much. All that needed to be asked is "Do you agree that these two genocides were in fact genocides, and if not, why not?"

>>2984246
Can you link them?

>>2984244
The "nationalist" parties in Europe are all 100% Mossad operatives. Like there can't even be any doubt about it.

>Mossad finances ISIS operatives to stage terrorist attacks in Europe and the rest of the world
>anti-islam tensions rise
>wtf we need to vote for (((Geert Wilders))) and (((Marine Le Pen))) and ally with BASED ISRAEL!
And I'm not shilling for islam in case you're wondering, I don't want them in Europe at all, but in this case they camel jorkeys are clearly used by (((them))) just to steer the narrative.