Thursday, July 12, 2007

Noam telling it like it is

Earlier this week, a few members of the Conspiraloon Alliance got caught up in some minor skirmishing on another blog (the author seems to dick around with people's comments so I'm not linking to it).

The issue in question was the author's claim that parapolitical conspiracy theorists are a) barking mad, and b) diverting resources from much more important work; specifically the overthrow of the capitalist system which, as always, is just around the corner

The author is a fan of Marx, as are some friends of mine.

I'm not. First and foremost because Marx was far too keen on centralised state power for my tastes

However, I appreciate that many people are interested in Marxism because it appears to offer a path to a fairer world and I'm not going to trash people for wanting that

As I've already commented elsewhere, one of the biggest clues that Marxists may be barking up the wrong tree with their centralising ideology and their demonisation of those of us who believe that individuals shape the world as much as impersonal socio-economic forces, is the amount of time the corporate media devotes to rubbishing parapolitical conspiracy theories (lots) compared to the amount of time it devotes to attacking Marxism (none)

All of the above is just an intro to me linking to a video clip of Noam Chomsky (I've linked to it before) talking about conspiracy theories and 9/11. The bulk of the clip consists of Chomsky spouting pseudo-scientific bullcrap, leading up to the punchline of the piece and Chomsky's thoughts on 9/11 scepticism (3:45)...

"It's diverting people from serious issues. And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance."

which goes a long way to illustrating why contemporary Marxism/ 'Hard' Left ideology isn't scaring any bad guys. Far from it

edit: and thanks to anon who posted a link to this vid of Peter Dale Scott presenting a counter viewpoint to the guff Chomsky's been coming out with...


and whilst on the subject of individuals shaping the world, someone dropped me an email yesterday (thanks G.) to make me aware of the latest edit to David de Rothschild's Wikipedia entry - it's still up there, for now (clickies)

editing David's bio is rapidly turning into a popular Internet passtime for all the family

Maybe people are being a little hard on him. Imagine finding out for the very first time, probably whilst still a child, that you've been born into a dynasty that has been accused of scheming, funding and profiting from all of the world's wars since before Napoleon. It must have come as quite a shock to the system. That, and the big black demon hound following you everywhere...

David Rothschild



paul said...

More of this stuff?!!? Where's the fucking puppies?

I was always under the impression that nc was an anarchist type, rather than a doctrinaire marxismist.

Stef said...

Yeah, he's supposed to be but a lot of Marxists kiss his arse

Stef said...

I think the key difference between Chomsky Lefties and Conspiraloons is this..

Chomsky-loving Lefties see themselves as being enlightened intellectuals concerned with higher level concepts and the bigger picture. The details and circumstances of individual events, or even individual lives, count for little in the grand scheme of things

Conspiraloons think that's bollocks

Bridget Dunne said...

Stef I couldn't agree more with your sentiment regarding intellectuals and the bigger picture. As for Chomsky, I've always believed that if he really offered any challenge to the establishment we'd never have heard of him.

His views on 9/11 are disgraceful - perhaps because this event was a bit too close for comfort? He might have had to actually do something other than write a book about it.

The Antagonist said...

"I think the best way to view Chomsky is as a one-man Zionist 'sleeper cell’. He started to write about the American Empire at about the same time as the extreme Israeli right was planning its campaign of taking political power in Israel and creating Greater Israel over the dead bodies of a lot of Arabs."

- The Treachery of Noam Chomsky

paul said...

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, he can be interesting,informative and has turned on quite a few to a different viewpoint.

The problem is with his fanbase, listening to amy goodman fawning over him as he reels off his material makes your ears burn with embarrassment.

If you have moved past him on certain subjects, that's all to the good, the fact that he's something of a plaster saint to some is annoying, but not a tragedy. Keep the good stuff, don't get weighed down with resentment.

whyowhy can't I get on with anyone today?!!?

Anonymous said...

Related to what stef posted earlier...

Short video of Peter Dale Scott talking about Chomsky, and how his 'deep politics' differs from Chomsky's systematic view.

paul said...

That is a good clip, and accurately captures the clockwork capitalism those clackers over at the tomb subscribe to.

Stef said...

If you have moved past him on certain subjects, that's all to the good, the fact that he's something of a plaster saint to some is annoying, but not a tragedy. Keep the good stuff, don't get weighed down with resentment.

Quite, as a great thinker once said...

He's done some great work on how the media and State propaganda are to all intents and purposes one and the same thing, and then takes the media's word as gospel.

as for getting on with people today, or any other day, never forget that the bonds that tie we happy band of Conspiraloons together are as strong as a really strong bonding thing

Stef said...

and yes that's a top clip

thanks for that

The Antagonist said...

Paul - Agreed about Chomsky, he's very good with the traditional stuff, with propaganda, PR and all the stuff about private corporate tyrannies and manufacturing consent and so on but for some reason he wilts before he gets to the point of the highest form of manufacturing consent, the psyop, which, apparently, is the 'primary weapon in the war against terrorism'.

This doctrine of military thinking explains rather a lot.