- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense
- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense
You must log in or register to comment.
Chomsky’s response to the Epstein files release indicates 100% he knew and participated.
https://www.insider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4
Renowned academic Noam Chomsky told The Wall Street Journal that his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein are “none of your business”
Oh, yikes. Even if that’s meant simply as standing on principles of personal privacy, that’s… tone deaf and not good optics, at the very least.
its okay he is synthetic left this is to be expected
I have a hard time respecting Chomsky because of his comments regarding post-modern philosophy. You’d think he would have a cogent criticism where he defends structuralism and Marxism. But no, it’s just a bunch of conspiracy minded “they just say that because they’re getting paid” nonsense you would expect from Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson.
He actually had the nerve to criticize Foucault for using unnecessarily esoteric language to explain simple things. Chomsky said that…ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE!
That was actually one of my earliest exposures to Chomsky. On one hand, I feel like “Postmodernism is fake because I can understand complex things but I can’t understand this” may have prematurely soured me on him. On the other hand, considering his horrific takes on imperialism and atrocities that are committed by non-Western powers, perhaps being soured on him from the start isn’t such a bad thing.
It’s a completely valid criticism of Foucault. There’s nothing I hate more than obscurantist Parisian bullshit.
If I remember correctly, Chomsky is neither a structuralist nor a Marxist, and has said that he has not studied Marxism in much detail. Foucault was (sort of) a structuralist, and I think Zizek is a Marxist.
Chomsky like Greenwald really licking the tit of Kremlin propaganda.
White hot take: All the “leftists” talking about how NATO shouldn’t exist and is evil are the same morons who think Americans shouldn’t vote for Biden on the grounds of him “not being left enough.”
Like, yeah, NATO shouldn’t have to exist, but we see what happens when smaller countries don’t work together when near a larger/hostile neighbor. Same deal with voting for the (shitty) Democrats over Republicans: we know what happens when shitty people get into power, and it is painfully obvious they will do ANYTHING to keep power once in.
Sometimes, the best we can do is “stop things from getting shittier” instead of “making things less shitty.”
It’s kind of like in the prisoner’s dilemma. That kind of leftist is only cooperating (which in a perfect world would be the best option) but because of that is easily taken advantage of. Conservatives mostly see stuff as a zero-sum game and always choose to defect and make sure they at least don’t lose which in the long term is also horrible.
People ‘just’ need to accept that the world is not black and white and neither perfectly good nor completely bad either and that you achieve more with cooperation but can’t be a pushover either…
“smaller countries don’t work together when near a larger/hostile neighbor” Classic propaganda, you are aware that US is alone much wealthier and has bigger population than Russia?
NATO existing had an excuse when there was a Warsaw Pact, which was created to balance the powers of eastern and western block. After the fall of soviet union, it is just Russia (and Belarus in this war) and NATO should have been disbanded because clearly Russia is no threat to Europe and certainly not US, it can’t even win it’s idiot war against Ukraine.
Classic propaganda on each side is just pointing out other sides flaws, not accepting that all of us live in countries run by imperialistic governments. NATO is involved in far many wars in fighting for their own interests around the World then Russia and are funding Israel and Saudi Arabia, two most horrific countries in the World. There is no excuse for NATO as there is no excuse for Russia.
It amazes me that after two World wars started by the west, people still believe in this idiotic propaganda like they are the victims. Both are horrible, one is far bigger then the other, but both are horrible.
NATO should be led me socialist United States of America
China needs in too . thats the real tanky take from Maupin himself
Can you read what you wrote?
Anarchism doesn’t really have an option aside from siding with NATO, as politically expensive that is. Imperialism was bad in the 16th century, in the 18th century, in the 20th century and is bad in the 21st century.
As an anarchist I’m on the side of the Ukrainian people defending their homes and resisting imperialism. The fact that NATO is on the same side is just a coincidence.
in theory yes
but in reality children die and suffer so this war must end
Anarchism doesn’t really have an option aside from siding with NATO,
just because you can type the words in that order doesn’t make the statement true. nato is bad and anarchist should not support it.
care to elaborate in this context?
deleted by creator
What option is there?
deleted by creator
NATo is not bad at all, it keeps the world in order without the states being in control.
NATo is not bad at all, it keeps the world in order
no it doesn’t.
That’s a very well-constructed argument.
I don’t know what I was thinking before I read that.
deleted by creator
Without NATO the US is the biggest army so I’d like to see how you can easily debunk my lie.
NATO, the famous USA counterweight LOL
Imperialism has nothing to do with Ukraine
Nothing to do with it? There are thousands of uninvited members of a foreign military in five of their oblasts right now.
The statement is a bit ambiguous. They might mean it in support of Ukrainian independence.
Not every invasion is imperialism.
It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.
Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.
Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.
attempting to restore the lost power of years past.
In other words, trying to rebuild the empire, i.e. imperialism.
Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.
None of the lands you just listed were unoccupied. They literally had indigenous people that were eradicated or absorbed into the empire.
…like what Russia is trying in Ukraine.
I think they mean unoccupied by them. So for example, WWI wouldn’t be imperialism because Germany and France both claimed to be the Holy Roman Empire and Flanders is within that territory. I disagree but I understand the argument
Yes, although WWI is a bad example. Continental domination wasn’t the goal of WWI, it was the result of the web of alliances. You could argue that taking control of colonies owned by the other European nations is imperialism, but that seems like late stage colonialism issues. Can’t colonize once everything is occupied.
Fair, the conquests of Henry VIII into France then? The Italian campaign in Africa?
The USSR isn’t invading Ukraine. Russia is.
Someone should get the word out to the UK, they basically can’t do imperialism.
Then why is it under siege by the Russian federation, which is in fact an empire
Russia isn’t a federation. It’s still the USSR but different tactics and name.
Why did Russia start this in 2014? They lost their puppet government in Ukraine. Russia desires secure borders. They always have. Ukraine slipping away necessitated Russia to invade to reinstall a puppet government. The bonus for Putin was retaking Crimea after the USSR gifted it to Ukraine in the 80s I believe.
Ok that’s bullshit. They’re hyper capitalist and anti communist and anti equality. They share similarities to the USSR, but those qualities also appeared in czarist Russia. Russia is just like that and will be until they fix it
USSR was barely communist. They were closer to fascist than communist.
Releasing the grip slightly to appeal more to the global market was strategic to adapt to the times.
It’d be cool if the anarchads and demsocs of yesteryear had coined a catchy term to describe the Soviets who were genociding them and making deals with Hitler.
Oh wait, they did.
Red Fascists.
Yeah exactly lol USSR was not a communist nation. Soviets aren’t communist, Maoism is closer to Marxism.
People look at the name of the country and assume it all changed. USSR -> Russia was just a rebrand and trimming the fat of the less than useful “members” of the “alliance”
If it has nothing to do with it you certainly know some different reasons why Ukraine was attacked and carved piece by piece since 2014.
Please elaborate.
Copy pasting what I said elsewhere:
Not every invasion is imperialism.
It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.
Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.
Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.
Calling everything imperialism is incorrect. It’s no different than calling somebody a Nazi because of a racist statement. It dilutes the meaning of the word.
Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands.
By that definition the only imperialism in the last centuries was in Antarctica.
Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.
Invading other societies with the purpose of acquiring their resources and people sound imperialists to me, same with Russia.
Colonialism is a form of imperialism but imperialism isn’t always colonization. Read the comment I just made, or study the history of the USSR up to now to understand motivations for the actions.
Uh.
I don’t think you know the meaning of the term ‘imperialism’.
Based Zizek
We can support Ukraine and even NATO without using the Bandera colours. He was a fascist.
Edit: I can’t tell diagonal from horizontal.
Red and black with diagonal division is usually regarded as anarcho-communist. ‘Anarcho-NATOism’ is a common joke in some circles.
Oooh, right. Diagonal vs horizontal also.
Carry on.
No worries! I understand the trepidation. No fascist-sympathies here, though, I promise you.
Fuck NATO, it shouldn’t exist anymore. Putin sucks though.
In a magical fairy-tale land, yes, defense alliances shouldn’t need to exist.
In reality: NATO is the only reason NATO countries weren’t attacked by Putin’s act of blatant imperial aggression.
I mean, honestly, the most anti-NATO position is “Russia shouldn’t have attacked Ukraine”, considering that there was an open question of “Why the fuck is NATO still around?” in some countries before Russia’s act of blatant imperialism.
Russia’s attack on Ukraine revitalized NATO both in purpose and in popularity. Fucking insane what a self-defeating action that was in terms of international interests on Russia’s part.
Agreed, which leads me to believe that this wasn’t the primary motivation for Putin in the first place but just good bullshit for his gullible domestic base.
As Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine, such manufactured crises provide incentive to produce radical change. In this case:
-
Putin’s consolidation of power and proverbial nights of long knives (or high windows) as he kills off oligarchs and opponents.
-
Commiting ethnic genocide within his own borders by prioritizing minorities, prisoners, and impoverished to the Frontlines with no hope of survival.
-
Clamping down on domestic leftism and independent media.
-
Carrying out the playbook of neo-nazi Aleksandr Dugin and revitalizing the so-called might of the Russian empire.
Putin did think and have fair reason to believe he could seize Ukraine for very little cost both economically and geopolitically.
… But at this point it is all for saving face and legacy. Even if he took Ukraine in the next year (and he likely will never get more than 17% of the initial goals he had), it would almost never be worth it for the damage already done to Russia economically, intellectually, and geopolitically.
-
deleted by creator
All offensive operations were offensive, sure but the reason there were no defensive actions was that no one is stupid enough to mess with nato.
The biggest benefit of nato though is countering nuclear proliferation and making it so that less countries develop and possess word ending doomsday devices. This means the chances of us nuking ourselves back to the stone age are somewhat smaller… So that’s something I guess
These interventions, barring Yugoslavia, were largely spurred by United Nations votes, meaning NATO was acting as an arm of democratic votes. Yugoslavia was the exception of course, because both Russia and China would veto intervention of the atrocity taking place there.
Afghanistan triggered Article 5, which is the entire point of the defensive alliance.
NATO was literally losing support until the moment Russia invaded and made it relevant. NATO doesn’t make some mafia structure as you suggest; the institution itself isn’t even chaired by the US right now and the defense forces and military production are still largely in independent control of each member. This isn’t some warlord setup; it’s a voluntary club with a pretty explicit charter.
deleted by creator
In the end the whole thing was botched, but the US was attacked and said individuals must harbor behind some nation-state.
In what world do you think a counterattack is not justified?
As I explained: Not a mafia.
Yeah cause Russia is a real danger to the world with their 50-year-old equipment, ooohhh so scaaryyy. Ukraine entering NATO was the reason Putin needed to justify his aggression, that’s the reality. USA should stop trying to be world hero, but this has nothing to do with heroism, war is very lucrative for them, specially when is very far from their territory. I’ll say it again, fuck NATO and their bullshit, is not about protection of allies, it’s about expanding power and influence as much as possible.
Ukraine never joined NATO, goofball.
Are you high or something? Think this through for just a fucking second, will you?
-
NATO comes about as a VOLUNTARY Defensive Alliance to protect against aggressors.
-
Because a house decides to go in on a mutual pact with their neighbor that if an intruder invades their SOVEREIGN land, they both will meet that AGGRESSOR with overwhelming force…
-
… You somehow think it’s fine for the burglar to break in because they put defensive security measures in place and instead should just leave the door unlocked…?
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard in a long time and basically means to cave to dictators outright.
Also, did you forget that Russia once had its own equivalent called the Warsaw Pact? Given your complete lack of knowledge demonstrated here, I doubt it. So what’s stopping them? Oh, there’s no legitimate threat and Russia is a shithole that has nothing to leverage, hence its dissolution.
Ironically, NATO strengthened because of Putin’s actions lmao.
Ukraine never joined but NATO wanted them eventually, as it was getting really close allies surrounding Russia.You can’t say they weren’t trying to extend military influence to all possible Russian borders. Imagine what would happen if China tried to make a military alliance with Mexico and Canada, just to be safe cause you never know, lol. No I don’t think it justifies Putin actions at all, but it was definitely a big deal. The Russian invasion is very wrong but NATO did help in escalating the situation.
Yeah, I know about Warsaw Pact, but that was a very different time and situation, one where even NATO actually made sense. I lack knowledge of many things, but at least I’m not a dumb ass bitch who thinks NATO has a reason to exist besides intimidation of countries that refuse to be exploited by the West.
Ok. So let’s forget the fact that you fucked up and either (a) lied about Ukraine being in NATO, or (b) were too uninformed to know they weren’t.
What is more astounding to me is that it doesn’t dawn on you that Ukraine intentionally DIDN’T join NATO so as to prevent their larger aggressive neighbor from invading… YET THEY DID ANYWAY.
So let’s look at it another way: If Mexico was actually afraid of the USA, then I would have no problem with them joining a defensive alliance. But why would Mexico contribute 2% of their GDP for a nonsensical reason? Why would I or USA care remotely? The only reason to care is if we actually had intentions of invading a weaker adversary BEFORE they were buddied up with a larger nation.
These arguments are absolutely terrible and full of logical missteps. Your complete ignorance is part of the problem that strong-men dictators exploit. Educate yourself. You are very, very naive about Russia and Putin’s plans. Clearly, you’ve never read about the Foundations of Geopolitics by Putin’s right-hand man.
I’m not reading that, I just wanted to make you angry for calling me dumb and from the size of this essay I guess I accomplished that. Good luck on your future arguments with people on the internet. Bye.
You’re in denial and your ignorance is getting people killed, so sorry if that sort of willful ignorance pisses me off as few things can do. That you won’t read it proves you have no interest in self-improvement. Good night.
-
