Noam Chomsky IS the Problem
a critical look at the ideology of a liberal icon
Russell Brand did an interview of Noam called Anarchy and Ideas for Change. I look critically at three ways that Noam's ideology keeps us stuck in a fight over moral superiority rather than moving towards anarchy, which is based on all people being capable of community self-governance. I contend that Noam’s focus on “Why isn’t everyone like me?” ignores his status and security as a university professor, but is also logistically impossible.
The first concept of Noam’s that I question is a needs-based economic system, something that should be called socialism rather than anarchy. Then I look at whether youth will save us, particularly environmentalism and Greta Thunberg speaking at Davos. Regarding the ADHD drive towards activism, I quote Sun Yat-sen, first President of China, who said, “Learning is hard. Action is easy.”
In my last episode, I cited Caitlin Johnstone’s article showing the US has only 11 years of proven oil reserves at the current level of production. I wondered where that oil was going and found an article on The Atlantic called “America Is the World’s Largest Oil Producer. So Why Is Losing Russia’s Oil Such a Big Deal?” Robinson Meyer writes:
In December, in a ballet of global logistics, more than 30 tankers ferrying liquid natural gas from the United States to various destinations around the globe—Japan, Brazil, South Africa—canceled their trips and set a new course for the European Union. On the days they pulled into port, the U.S. supplied more natural gas to Europe than Russia did.
This represented more than a minor milestone in global energy history. As recently as the mid-2000s, energy companies fretted that the U.S. would soon run out of natural gas. Now, thanks to the U.S.-invented technology of hydrofracturing, or fracking, the country produces more gas than it can consume. “As in World War II and other crises, America has Europe’s back,” Mike Sommers, the chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, wrote last week. (The institute, despite its scholastic name, is Washington’s leading lobbyist for the oil-and-gas industry.)
So while the US is phasing out gas cars and gas appliances “to end climate change,” and our water supply is endangered by fracking, the last drops were being shipped to the highest European bidder even before we insisted that they cut off Russian oil.
Third, I express skepticism on the inherent justice of toddlers when they protest, “That’s not fair!” Lastly, I question Russell’s assertion that it's possible to treat the symptoms of poverty and cure the disease of capitalism both at the same time. I suspect that ideas for change will only come after governments at every level are discredited when the consequence of these ideologies become apparent.
Other videos recommended from this one:
Wokeness vs. the Void on Kehinde Andrews & Candace Owens
Russell Brand has a vigorous debate with Candace Owens where they jest, they joust, they hold hands and they redesign the system on a yellow pad. Russell's next interview, Kehinde Andrews, calls Candace contradictory, wrapped around a bubble, an empty void, like talking down a hole, belongs on a plantation, crazy ideas, dangerous nonsense, irrational, ridiculously delusional, and a black face on white racism. Who's right? I present their positions and solutions, and then show how we could enable Kehindeville, Russelltopia and Candaceland, along with my own system of community reciprocity.
Manufacturing Contempt (Noam has stated that for “people who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to, but rather to insist that they be isolated. If people decide, 'I am willing to be a danger to the community by refusing the vaccine,' they should then say, 'Well, I also have the decency to isolate myself. Okay. I don’t want a vaccine, but I don’t have the right to run around harming people.’” This video shows the psychology research that perfected the propaganda Noam fell for, a position that’s been amply disproven since.)
I take a close look at a July 2020 study on 'persuasive messaging' for a vaccine not yet released. The Naked Emperor fulfilled my wish for details on what triggers compliance and scorn for those who don't. I examine some of the repercussions citing a tender and emotional comment thread on Robert Malone’s Substack. I question if persuasive messaging on Ukraine has been similarly tested, quoting Matt Taibbi's article, Give War a Chance. I end with the advice to be kind to ourselves and generous to other people, even when we're the target of their contempt. Let go of accomplishment, we're on a bullet train and we're all getting somewhere without doing anything.
Tereza, subject Russian crude oil: Western European refineries are designed to process Russia's Ural crude, beginning 1963 former USSR. Refineries cannot be reconfigured because fracking towers etc were designed specifically for Russian Ural crude feedstocks. LNG is transferred ship- to - ship because the US connector fittings won't connect to the floating terminals connections. All western European countries are evading sanctions and paying rumbles or their supplies are now cut off by Russia. France's natural gas was shut off yesterday. LNG is not a direct replacement for 'natural gas' due to different energy volumes, i.e. industries' end use equipment must be modified. Western Europe is using reserves 'now' at the start of summer (50% used up) instead of November, i.e. January 2023 will be cold, dark and hungry for the populist.
Lots of information via Telegram channels like Eurasia & Multipolary, MoD Russia, Military Summary.
During the height of the pandemic, I was very disappointed with Chomsky when he said those who refuse vaccination should isolate themselves (https://youtu.be/7RPt7hRfr8I). In that instance at least, he proved that even the most famous “leftist anarchist” on the planet could be swayed by fear (and perhaps also too much faith that germ theory is settled science). I still respect his views and his past contributions, but there is much to learn about mass formation in his ideological inconsistency on, at least, this one point.
When I first heard him make this statement, after I got over my shock I had an internal dialog about how much we can realistically ever agree with another human being, and I decided, in keeping with Pareto’s rule, 80% is probably the threshold sufficient for bonds like long-term friendship, tribe, and community. However, some statements carry much more weight than others and some can tell us everything we need to know about a person’s true nature. I was very tempted to take this as one of those really telling statements and to write him off completely. But he’s just been too right too many times to do that. I wish I could have been so right about so many things. And due to his age he did have some additional rational fear of any illness. So I’ve decided he’s still in my imaginary tribe.
I decided to cut Chomsky some slack because, it seems to me, we must recognize that any of us can be mistaken and unintentionally inconsistent due to things like unconscious bias, and that given enough time (and age) any of us might put our foot in our mouth. Also, as you’ve discussed, mistakes are opportunities for learning, and even Chomsky has some things left to learn—right? I am also trying to avoid my own participation in the narcissism of small differences, and my larger goal is to ditch ideological mental constructs that have become unconsciously algorithmic in my own head. So I'm trying to hone my personal tolerance standards toward acceptance rather than agreement.
One of the things that is most offensive to me about woke/cancel culture is that no one is allowed to misspeak, which is an unattainable human standard. Instead, all communication becomes a purity test and no dissidence (or dissonance) is tolerated, which is as good a definition of totalitarianism as I need, and which is also the central symptom of mass formation.
In case you can’t tell, I’m working through Matias Desmet’s book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism. (While I think the book is important, I believe I detect some editorial interference. Or maybe that's my own paranoia. If this book ever makes your reading list, I'd be very interested in your take.)