Showing posts with label Noam Chomsky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noam Chomsky. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Noam Chomsky Reminds: Clintons Are Republicans



See, e.g., Noam Chomsky, "Rollback," part 1, Z Magazine, Jan., 1995, https://chomsky.info/199505__/.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Let’s Throw Our Brains and Our Guns Into the Toilet at the Same Time (Parody)

(Parody of Josie Duffy’s histrionic harangue “Your Opinion on Gun Control Doesn't Matter,” posted to the liberal Daily Kos website, December 2, 2015. Warning: Many sentiments, including those herein attributed to Noam Chomsky and Patrick Henry, are purposely inverted. It’s meant to be satirical. Caveat lector!)



Let’s Throw Our Brains and Our Guns Into the Toilet at the Same Time

Why don't we just stop thinking entirely? I don't care about your "arguments." I only care about the images that I am shown on my television.

I'm willing to call a spade a spade: I'm too emotionally-engaged to process this anymore. Thankfully, the six-odd corporations that own the majority of the news media in this country have made the talking-points crystal clear.

Firstly, there have been more mass shootings than days in the year! Who needs analysis when faced with numbers like that?

Secondly, if you are one of those types that views the Bill of Rights as an organic whole, such that one amendment protects the others; or who thinks that a citizen who is well-trained in the use of her firearm could actually protect herself and others from being senselessly massacred by shooters hopped-up on psychotropic drugs; or who believes, with the Founding Fathers that being armed is quite possibly a population's very last defense against government tyranny; then you are a monster.

You can take history and philosophy and shove them! Your right to keep and bear firearms is preventing the rest of us from carrying out background checks and monitoring behavior for potential threats. I mean, who could have spotted mild-mannered Sayed Farook as a would-be mass killer when all he did was things like subscribe to Sunni Islam and take vacations to the ISIS-supporting country of Saudi Arabia? Let's recall that only 15 of the 19 men blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. (The remainder was surely culled from the Tea Party.)

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this is a public health crisis. I feel sick already.

We need to move immediately to task the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the job of gun-violence-epidemic surveillance. As an institution committed to sober scientific analysis, the CDC would never make a mountain out of a molehill. I thank my lucky stars every day that CDC alerts probably saved Western Civilization from hantavirus and monkeypox. Though, I confess that I still get the shiver-shakes whenever I see a mouse trap or visit the local zoo.

Now this media fixation upon gun violence has my stomach in knots every time my fiancé takes the subway to work. I don't want people I love to die. I don't want to die. I'm too young to die!

This is exactly why I never turn off the television! I have a deep-seated psychological hunger to be constantly apprised of every single danger that might face my fiancé or me. Who cannot see, between the commercial breaks, the plain writing on the screen?

If there is one thing we know for sure, it's that seemingly endless attention upon violent events is going to bring the viewing audience clarity. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the mass media and television is dominated by the public relations (PR) industry. Around World War One, this business was called the propaganda industry. After it was found out that "propaganda" was entirely the work of dastardly, rightwing types like "Nazis" and the National Rifle Association, the name was changed straight-away.

I thank the Universe that, as Chomsky put it, the PR industry, which in its regular vocation sells toothpaste, life-style drugs, automobiles and other commodities, has truth for its guiding principle. "[T]he Committee on Public Information, established to coordinate propaganda during World War I, ...'discovered in 1917-18 that one of the best means of controlling news was flooding news channels with facts, or what amounted to official information.'"

You just think about that! I'm watching a livestream of the local news right now. I won't even turn it off to complete my article submission - that's how scared your guns have made me.

I am inundated with facts. A bewildered reporter tries to swallow his tears. From that, you heartless rightwing bastard, I infer that he's sad! Fact number one!

It's also raining outside. How fittingly that sets the mood. And it's also fact number 2!

Clear across the country in California there are a dozen dead bodies, each end brought by bullets. There are so many facts packed in there I feel like I need an enema! I don't need to wait for an "autopsy." Scrutiny is offensive to "survivors" and it always has been!

I don't care if these shooters, like so many others, were on mood-altering, prescription pharmaceuticals. You know the type. They sport "black box" warnings that possible side-effects include suicidal thoughts and violent outbursts.

I don't need any "investigation"! The initial, live footage, together with the speculations of various talking heads, is good enough for me!

What could possibly be discovered in an inquiry that would be of any interest, you insensitive a-hole? What? The U.S. government itself has no track record of training assassination squads in Latin America. The Central Intelligence Agency has never engaged in "black operations." The Federal Bureau of Investigation has never infiltrated domestic groups with anything like "COINTELPRO." The National Security Agency doesn't spy on Americans. Edward Snowden taught us that in his spare time while he was vacationing in Russia.

It's not even possible that there is a deeper narrative - to this event or the "gun control" push in general. How dare you insinuate otherwise?

What I care about are the parents, frantically calling, hoping that their children are alive. And thanks to the uncompromising truth-mission of the mainstream media, I get continual doses of raw facts.

At this moment right now, the crime has just been committed. It's not time for a criminal investigation! It's time to give up our guns!

Think about it this way. The survivors are just embarking on a journey of pain, guilt, trauma, regret and flashbacks. Their pain might last decades.

But maintaining historical continuity with the Founding Fathers is supposedly worth it to you! You say, Let's not give up the hard-won liberties, maintained over centuries, just because we've been whipped-up into a frenzy by the corporate media over goings on the last few years. You quote the Roman poet Juvenal, "Who will guard the guards themselves?"

Do I have to remind you that most governments, historically, are more than willing to protect their unarmed people? Do I have to say it out loud? I will! "Giving up our cherished American liberties is absolutely worth it to me!" What else can I do??



As Patrick Henry said: "Life is so dear, and peace is so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery!" I just want the icky feeling to go away.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Canadian Monarchist Advises: Rally 'Round the President'

Response to William Thomas, “America – He’s Your President for Goodness Sake!”[1]

In 1990, the famed M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky famously - or, from the opposing perspective, infamously - stated that: “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”[2]

There is no reason to think that Chomsky exempts subsequent presidents from this assessment.

For instance, Chomsky notes that Obama is implicated in “a global assassination campaign.”

“There’s a global assassination campaign going on... [T]he New York Times story... is more or less a leak from the White House, because they are apparently proud of how the global assassination campaign works. Basically President Obama and his national security advisor, John Brennan, now head of the CIA, get together in the morning. ...[T]hey decide who is going to be killed today.”[3]

Elsewhere, explaining that “easy suppression of one’s own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states,” Chomsky asks readers to “consider,” as an example, “Obama’s terror weapons (drones) in Pakistan.”[4]

Despite these facts, one writer urges Americans to “rally around” the president, complaining that Obama is being treated “disrespectfully.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the blogger in question hails from Canada.

Of course, Canada is part of the “Commonwealth” countries whose head (some say “titular” only) is the woman more commonly designated the “Queen of England.” In reality, she is just as much the Queen of Canada as of “England.”

The “Official Website of the British Monarchy” reports, concerning the Queen’s “unique relationship with Canada”: “The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen’s name.”[5]

Given this frame of reference, one can imagine that this unfortunate Canadian is possibly projecting his country’s fascination with “royalty” onto his southern neighbors.

Indeed, there may even be a movement to elevate the “chief executive” to a status whereby he “personifies the state and the personal symbol of allegiance,” etc., etc.

This is not the heritage of the United States, however.

Even today, school children do not “pledge allegiance” to the president. They “pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of American; and to the Republic…”.[6]

Setting aside the questions of whether this is wise or historical, it is surely a far cry from swearing allegiance to the president.

The idea that Americans should fall lockstep into line behind the head of one of the three separate-but-equal branches is first of all ahistorical.

Arguably, the federal-level governmental figure with which the average American might, from a Constitutional point of view, feel close camaraderie, would be his or her Congressional Representative. After all, it is the House of Representatives that is supposed to be the clearest and most direct vehicle for the People’s voice in the corridors of power.

Beside this, it is highly questionable that Obama – alone among presidents – is suffering under some disproportionate level of mockery.

“Comics had mimicked presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt’s time…”.[7]

The famed columnist and wit, “H. L. Mencken mocked [Calvin Coolidge’s] daily naps,” seemingly ranking him below the brutal Roman dictator, Nero, who at least “fiddled” while “Coolidge only snored.”[8] In fact, Coolidge was mocked to such a degree that when the president’s death was reported in the press, the satirical writer “Dorothy Parker reportedly asked, ‘How could they tell?’…”[9]

Other presidents have been mocked as well. One thinks immediately of the comedy show Saturday Night Live’s portrayals of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.[10]

Various lists of “most hated presidents” are readily available through easily conducted Google searches. Investigation will show that many of these figures were ridiculed in their lifetimes – and often during their presidential tenures.

It may be suggested that such derision is, collectively, a sign of healthy dissent. As an oft-repeated proverb has it: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

The United States is not ruled by a dictator. Or is it? And if it is, should this matter in terms of whether the subjugated peoples express their displeasure about the crimes of “their” leaders?

When repressed populations have a healthy sense of indignation, even genuine kings are not immune from humiliation. During the period before America’s Revolution: “The King himself was pelted with rotten fruit when he appeared.”[11]

“Rally around the leader” is a game of population control.

Speaking of the absurdity of cheering for his high school’s sports teams, Chomsky once stated: “[I]n high school …I suddenly asked myself at one point: ‘Why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? I don’t know anybody on the team. They have nothing to do with me. Why am I cheering for my team? It does not make any sense.’”[12]

Answering his own questions, Chomsky noted: “But the point is, it does make sense: It’s a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority and group cohesion behind leadership elements. In fact it’s training in irrational jingoism.”[13]

I say: Keep mocking the president – any president, every president. Derision, I think, puts a check on blind “submission to authority” and “jingoism.”



[1] <http://kstreet607.com/2013/06/21/a-canadians-view-on-our-disrespect-of-president-obamas-presidency/>.

[2] Noam Chomsky, "If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...," speech, ca. 1990, reproduced online, Chomsky[dot]info, <http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm>.

[3] Steven Garbas, “Noam Chomsky on the era of the drone,” Satellite, Sept., 2013, <http://www.satellitemagazine.ca/2013/09/noam-chomsky-on-the-era-of-the-drone/>.

[4] Noam Chomsky, "There is Much More to Say," ZNet, May, 2011, <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/201105--.htm>.

[5] <http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx>.

[6] “Pledge of Allegiance,” <http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm>.

[7] Louis Liebovich, The Press and the Modern Presidency: Myths and Mindsets from Kennedy to Election 2000, Westport, Ct.: Greenwood, 2001, p. 99.

[8] Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Great Refrainer: ‘Coolidge,’ by Amity Shlaes,” New York Times, Feb. 14, 2013, < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/books/review/coolidge-by-amity-shlaes.html>.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Liebovich, loc. cit.

[11] Daniel P. Mannix, The Hellfire Club, reprint ed., New York: Ibooks, 2001, p. 110.

[12] Quoted in Peter Wintonick and Mark Achbar, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, video, 1992, reproduced on YouTube, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE>.

[13] Ibid. For the specific quotation, see YouTube, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz1nIHv6P6Q&t=1m55s>.