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.
Very interesting, Stan, thanks for educating me. Let me see if I understand, since this is all new to me. When you say that fracking towers were designed for Ural crude feedstocks, does that mean they need Ural crude in order to operate? Does Europe have fracking or only the US? Pardon my naivete but is liquid natural gas what the US produces with fracking?
The short of what you're saying seems to be that Europe is screwed (slightly sooner than the US, but soon to follow). I remember reading Michael Hudson saying that the Ukraine war was really an attack on Germany for going back on their commitment to pour millions into dredging a harbor deep enough for US oil tankers, to be sold to them at a higher price than Russia's.
Very scary for France, and Matt Ehret was saying that the Polish are being told to collect kindling for the winter. Icebergs ahead for this Titanic, and not an unintended consequence. I see the US becoming very isolated in the months to come.
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.)
Agreed, Jack. I had that same reaction when I heard of Noam's pronouncement on the unvaxxed, which is why I linked the Manufacturing Contempt episode at the bottom. The 'consent' that's now being manufactured is for mandates, masks, lockdowns, Ukraine--and Noam is falling for it.
On another thread, someone dismissed Noam as always having been a propaganda agent, and I pointed out all the very unpopular fronts where he's been, often, the only voice--criticism of Israel, global politics, unwavering defense of Julian to name three. Like Glenn Greenwald, he's consistently used facts and logic rather than a party stance.
So was his statement an anomaly, due to age and fear, the mind like the elastic band on underwear that eventually loses its stretch? Until I heard this interview, I would have said yes. But listening gave some clues as to how he was fooled, and therefore other people of good hearts and minds. That's why I thought he served as a model for the problem.
In Russell's interview, Noam talks about Trump being "just a horrible person." His easy acceptance of everything Trump was against follows from that. Noam believes that he, and people like him, are better people and need to be in control over others. It's a clear-cut illustration of how the left was captured.
And, like the commenter who dismissed Noam, I'm seeing a backlash on the right of rejecting everything he stood for. That's the next pendulum swing, if we let it be.
For lifelong friends, I'm not qualified to say since I don't have any. I have daughters and dancers, and we might agree as long as the conversation doesn't go too deep. But when I perceive someone as thinking of other people as inferior, there's no reason to engage. I have nothing to learn from them and I'll never change their mind. That's what I see Noam doing now.
I like your phrase 'the narcissism of small differences' and applaud the ditching of mental constructs and the tending towards acceptance. Have you finished The Dawn of Everything or are you dabbling? I'm 3/5ths through it and loving every word.
I had to add to 'I don't have any lifelong friends.' Everyone's my lifelong friend when I'm with them. But I resist the distinction of 'this person, not that person.' It would be like having a favorite daughter--they're each my favorite when I'm with them. And I think that if I talked long enough with anyone, on the proverbial desert island, we'd come to agree and start building from there. It's the inbetween places--not superficial and not deep--where we get into trouble, I think.
After reading your comment, I decided I needed to listen to the Russel Brand interview with Chomsky myself. And what I heard led to a fitful night’s sleep. So I listened to it again today, and clearly the only anarchist in that conversation was Russel Brand. Here’s one telltale quote from Chomsky I wrote down: “Dealing with the current existential problems like climate destruction and nuclear war we are going to have to work within the framework of existing institutions. That’s obvious…. We can modify them, we can improve them, but they can’t be overthrown in any reasonable time scale.”
When I heard him say that, I woke up a little. Was that really something one of the leading anarchist intellectuals in the world would say? (As I mentioned in my previous comment, I’ve been trying my best to cut him slack, but a pattern is developing—I was also put off by his dismissive attitude toward metaphysics, which is an intellectual pillar of western philosophy for the last 2500 years, his contempt toward spirituality, and his apparent belief that humans ought to automatically help others, as if morality should be an algorithm running in our brains rather than requiring a conscious decision.)
When I look critically at my perception of Chomsky, it’s based on reading a couple brief political books ten years ago (that were forgettable), reading “Manufacturing Consent” (which I thought was important, but nothing Bernays or Neil Postman hadn’t already covered), and watching him when he did interviews on Democracy Now or on YouTube, always to great fanfare. And, since I live in Tucson where he now has a token high paying “laureate” professorship at the University of Arizona, I visited a live interview with him (along with 1000 or so other adoring fans), and now that I look back on that interview I can’t remember a single thing he said that seemed important. Why can’t I remember the great man saying anything important? And why did he receive a standing ovation (from me included)? Why? Was I in a trance? Could it all have been simple sleight of hand? From what I know about mass formation, the answer is yes. I like to think I’ve avoided mass hypnosis, but we are all susceptible. If I took the time to go back through his many books to try to find evidence that he really is an anarchist, I bet I would just find that he is now what he has always been: a carefully selected “pressure relief valve” intentionally crafted by The System to reframe and declaw anarchism into vapid incrementalism, i.e., standard Democratic Party politics. This has really shocked me. I think I’m mourning not only the loss of Chomsky in my pantheon, but also my own gullibility in falling for his act.
On a happy note, yes, I’ve finished reading “The Dawn of Everything” and “How to Dismantle an Empire,” but both merit additional study because they have upset my apple cart and I need a bit of time to gather my thoughts. My formerly immovable paradigms are dropping like flies.
Ah, you're in Tucson. My ex is from there and now lives in the house we had built. At one point, I wondered if our Poly Sci-Arabic majoring daughter should live with him for a bit after graduation just to take advantage of those Chomsky lectures (and hand-deliver my book to him of course.) So you weren't the only one fooled. I have a whole Chomsky section in my library, and also watched him avidly on DN as one of my favorite and most fair-minded presenters.
A good anarchist is hard to find. I get a lot of titles from AK and PM Press (and tried to get them to publish mine) but I find them often reactionary and scattered. I helped crowdfund a book called Fuck Neoliberalism which got me a sweatshirt I can't wear in public and what turns out to be an 8-page rant that says nothing more than the title, translated into 17 languages in subsequent chapters. Then I was REALLY insulted that they barely glanced at my book.
You really go deep on this, Jack. That's a very telling quote from Chomsky. Others have said he was 'controlled opposition' and I dismissed them. But it does seem strange that he's never presented a coherent position on anarchy. I've also heard criticism that his position on Israel is very moderate and conciliatory, not questioning the land grab at the heart of the occupation.
Well, Graeber IS presenting a very coherent and encouraging anthropology of anarchy, and we know he can never disappoint us :-( I'm eager to finish and put together an episode on it. I did my one-year retrospective on YT but haven't gotten it up yet on Substack, it mentions you and others who it's been a great joy to find! And I didn't realize you had a soft spot for metaphysics ... if you think your paradigms are dropping like flies now, prepare for the meteor shower! I talk about my craziest ideas on the What Is Reality? playlist. Here's the YT link but I'll get it up on SS soon: https://youtu.be/Pt5eB7D8JUQ.
Thanks for going back and reading this, Howard, along with the comments! Yes, now I look back and think I was an 'early un-adopter' of Chomsky but that train seems to be gathering steam with the Epstein revelations and his defensiveness about them.
And, significantly, his outright dissing of challenges to the JFK narrative and the Sept. 11 "attack" (on the latter, he might subscribe to the "blowback" synopsis, but an inside job, no way; "conspiracy theory," blah, blah, blah.
What bothered me is that Chomsky seemed blind to the harm that would be experienced by quarantining/rejecting unvaccinated people. Also he seemed to be blind to the difference between "obeying a traffic law" vs. injecting a vaccine developed at warp speed with significant side effects--including death. I would like anyone who wishes to "punish" other people to be able to feel some remorse at the necessity (if there is necessity) of depriving others of their freedom and possibly their health.
Agreed. His condescending attitude sickened me. On Eisenstein's Substack, Nizami asked me about Chomsky's connection to Epstein and what I thought. This is what I wrote:
"I just walked over to look at them, and I have the Chomsky Trilogy, The Indispensable Chomsky, and What We Say Goes. I've learned a tremendous amount from him, particularly in Manufacturing Consent. I did a play on his title in this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/manufacturing-contempt.
"I have two theories. One is that he reached the limits he could stretch, like an old pair of underwear, and couldn't evolve his thinking past that point. I've seen that before, in other arenas. He was a liberal icon and beloved for that, so when liberal contempt was manufactured against anti-vaxxers and free speech, he stood with liberals and not principles.
"The other theory is that he was captured. How early on is a good question. His connection to Epstein was financial, I wouldn't guess sexual blackmail. He has a big chunk of money from Epstein that he said was a loan or some nonsense. I don't buy that. He took the money.
"If you've followed him, I think you'd like my episode on him. It goes into his contradictory stance, saying he's an anarchist but first we need big gov't to solve the climate crisis. I think he's too smart to be spouting the things he is. I think he's a sell-out, and the only difference is whether he's fooling himself that he believes it or just fooling us. Thanks for asking!"
Thanks for your reply! In the video he had not shaved--his beard was long and down to his chest. His hair also was long and uncut. I'm not sure whether it was Matt Taibbi who pointed out that he was terrified of getting Covid so he refused to go to a hairdresser where he might be infected. If he bought into the narrative and thought unvaccinated people were threatening his life--then he would definitely have contempt for them and wish for them to be controlled and punished. So I assumed he was scared and angry. I don't think he just was captured. I think I WOULD like your episode on him. I thought this was that episode.
I can't get over what he said about the unvaccinated--how little charity he showed. I took it personally. Now I don't know. Maybe you are right--but he DEFINITELY was also scared. He also said his wife wouldn't let him leave the house for fear of getting infected. (Regression to child under mother's care.)
Yes, this is that episode. Sorry, that was quoting my comment to Nizami. And that's interesting about why he's been looking so unkempt. I think in general he's losing it. But I also think guilt makes people paranoid, and his excuse about the money he got from Epstein was mighty fishy.
I agree with you. I think Chomsky is having trouble regulating his affect. Maybe he's showing the beginnings of dementia? He could be extremely fearful AND extremely fishy at the same time. I don't like to say I hate him BUT I hate that he is so rejecting and dismissive of unvaccinated people. We are people--aren't we?
I was always suspicious of Chomsky.... eventually I figured he is used by the establishment when their narrative grossly lacks credibility, so they pull Chomsky the "anti-establishment" tool to support the narrative. Thus he was used on the two most significant crimes of the century* (9/11 & Covid)
You were more alert to this than I was, Fadi. But I also think you had more direct sources of information and analysis. When I first found Chomsky, it was like finding a spring in a desert. He gave me facts and put into words things I'd just begun to suspect. I'm still grateful that he was a stepping stone. Even their controlled opposition helps us, I think, in the end. And I'd add another crime of the century--his two state solution in Israel. A false paradigm that ignores the real issue of justifying a military occupation established through torture and terror.
Excellent point. When a linguistics prof abandons logic, you know he's one of them. I had thought his field of study insulated him because he wasn't teaching politics and therefore captured. Linguistics seems especially good for learning how to think rather than what to think. So I thought it gave him the economic security without constraining him. It's still possible, to me, that he was trapped and turned to the dark side. At the time he was speaking out, I couldn't find any other Western voice for Palestine. But his thinking is certainly addled and poisoned now, and maybe that was the point all along--someone with contradictory thinking who'd lead us in circles.
Of course, you need some "respectable" individual to be used solely in case of emergencies.
In your village/hamlet who would be of least value to the community, the carpenter, farmer, butcher, electrician, plumber, mechanic, gardener or linguist? :-)
I worked for a while as a machinist in a machine shop, it was a very rewarding experience, by the end of the day, you don't need any proof that you had a productive day. You can see the higher value parts you produce from stock steel. That's why it is rare to see blue collar workers needing antidepressants.
Hahaha! Well played, Fadi! I was just considering this morning that thinking is what we should be doing on the side of our productive endeavors. To make it a profession takes it away from everyone else, as if they're 'amateurs'.
When I dropped out from my PhD program and decided not to write a dissertation, after some months of scraping by with waitressing, my friend asked if I wanted a job packing boxes, paying minimum wage which was $5/hr at the time. I said sure! I'd start out with a stack of papers and end up with a wall of stacked boxes. I loved it! After academia and never being done, always having another thing you could and should be doing, it was heaven. I went home and slept well. And there's something to be said for physical labor.
That company grew from 10 people above a garage, when I joined, to one of the leading software companies at that time. I became the manager of shipping and data entry within a month, and was pissed when they wanted me to head a human resources dept--I thought they just wanted a man in shipping. But stock from that company is how I bought my house, before I met my husband, with 25% down, helping to keep it in the divorce 25 yrs later. Leaving academia was the best decision I ever made, followed by leaving that company so I did meet my husband and had our daughters.
"The woman in white dress is Cornelia. She had twelve children, but only three survived childhoods. She entertains a lady friend at her home. Her friend shows Cornelia a jewelry collection.
“Do you have any favorite pieces of ornaments?”
Pointing at her two sons and holding her daughter, Cornelia replies, “My children are my ornaments and my treasures.”
Quan has a very special style, seems very simple, but has deep wisdom embedded in what he writes. Here is a quote I loved from another article of his:
I had a meeting with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, in the Kremlin, during my whirlwind tour to organize BRICS Summit 2024. I asked him a question on behalf of my daughter Sophia.
“Mr. President. Are you afraid of being a war criminal?”
He looked me in the eye and inquired gently, “Quan, do you even know how one becomes a war criminal?”
“I believe one becomes a war criminal by doing bad things, such as genocide, sexual violence, and unlawful deportation of protected persons.” I answered after a long period of musing and pondering.
We all figure things out at our own pace, in different times, somewhat independently. We could all fast-track our awakening by visiting The Third Paradigm …
Here is Vanessa Beeley (and myself – see comment within) realising that Chomsky IS the problem.
• The Real Noam Chomsky – The Wall Will Fall - Vanessa Beeley / December 30, 2021
Thanks for that endorsement, Julius! And for the Vanessa reference. She talked about Noam long before I started listening to her, and long before my own 'Noam-shift' so it will be a joy to visit that and your comment!
As soon as Chomsky went on that tirade against the unjabbed, I knew right then and there that he was not all he was cracked up to be.
I don't in principle oppose his idea of a "needs based economic system", as I am not an anarchist myself (though I used to be one when I was much younger), but it is obvious now that Chomsky is certainly no anarchist or anything even remotely close to one.
Oh I thought I responded to this back when you posted it, but must have gotten distracted! I'm a big fan of Howard Zinn. He's one of the people, along with David Graeber, Eduardo Galleano, Anthony Bourdain and Ursula K LeGuin, that I dedicate my book to: "who imagined the future and illuminated the past by the bright lights of (extra)ordinary people."
Interesting article overall. Not sure I agree 100% with all of it, but interesting nonetheless.
I would also like to add that the Electoral College was not only openly elitist, but even darker than that, it was also designed to protect slavery by effectively giving the less-populated slave states more of a vote. Every single time we got a President who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote (from Rutherford B. Hayes to Bush II to Trump), it has NOT ended well, and primarily benefitted the "master class".
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.
Very interesting, Stan, thanks for educating me. Let me see if I understand, since this is all new to me. When you say that fracking towers were designed for Ural crude feedstocks, does that mean they need Ural crude in order to operate? Does Europe have fracking or only the US? Pardon my naivete but is liquid natural gas what the US produces with fracking?
The short of what you're saying seems to be that Europe is screwed (slightly sooner than the US, but soon to follow). I remember reading Michael Hudson saying that the Ukraine war was really an attack on Germany for going back on their commitment to pour millions into dredging a harbor deep enough for US oil tankers, to be sold to them at a higher price than Russia's.
Very scary for France, and Matt Ehret was saying that the Polish are being told to collect kindling for the winter. Icebergs ahead for this Titanic, and not an unintended consequence. I see the US becoming very isolated in the months to come.
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.)
Agreed, Jack. I had that same reaction when I heard of Noam's pronouncement on the unvaxxed, which is why I linked the Manufacturing Contempt episode at the bottom. The 'consent' that's now being manufactured is for mandates, masks, lockdowns, Ukraine--and Noam is falling for it.
On another thread, someone dismissed Noam as always having been a propaganda agent, and I pointed out all the very unpopular fronts where he's been, often, the only voice--criticism of Israel, global politics, unwavering defense of Julian to name three. Like Glenn Greenwald, he's consistently used facts and logic rather than a party stance.
So was his statement an anomaly, due to age and fear, the mind like the elastic band on underwear that eventually loses its stretch? Until I heard this interview, I would have said yes. But listening gave some clues as to how he was fooled, and therefore other people of good hearts and minds. That's why I thought he served as a model for the problem.
In Russell's interview, Noam talks about Trump being "just a horrible person." His easy acceptance of everything Trump was against follows from that. Noam believes that he, and people like him, are better people and need to be in control over others. It's a clear-cut illustration of how the left was captured.
And, like the commenter who dismissed Noam, I'm seeing a backlash on the right of rejecting everything he stood for. That's the next pendulum swing, if we let it be.
For lifelong friends, I'm not qualified to say since I don't have any. I have daughters and dancers, and we might agree as long as the conversation doesn't go too deep. But when I perceive someone as thinking of other people as inferior, there's no reason to engage. I have nothing to learn from them and I'll never change their mind. That's what I see Noam doing now.
I like your phrase 'the narcissism of small differences' and applaud the ditching of mental constructs and the tending towards acceptance. Have you finished The Dawn of Everything or are you dabbling? I'm 3/5ths through it and loving every word.
I had to add to 'I don't have any lifelong friends.' Everyone's my lifelong friend when I'm with them. But I resist the distinction of 'this person, not that person.' It would be like having a favorite daughter--they're each my favorite when I'm with them. And I think that if I talked long enough with anyone, on the proverbial desert island, we'd come to agree and start building from there. It's the inbetween places--not superficial and not deep--where we get into trouble, I think.
After reading your comment, I decided I needed to listen to the Russel Brand interview with Chomsky myself. And what I heard led to a fitful night’s sleep. So I listened to it again today, and clearly the only anarchist in that conversation was Russel Brand. Here’s one telltale quote from Chomsky I wrote down: “Dealing with the current existential problems like climate destruction and nuclear war we are going to have to work within the framework of existing institutions. That’s obvious…. We can modify them, we can improve them, but they can’t be overthrown in any reasonable time scale.”
When I heard him say that, I woke up a little. Was that really something one of the leading anarchist intellectuals in the world would say? (As I mentioned in my previous comment, I’ve been trying my best to cut him slack, but a pattern is developing—I was also put off by his dismissive attitude toward metaphysics, which is an intellectual pillar of western philosophy for the last 2500 years, his contempt toward spirituality, and his apparent belief that humans ought to automatically help others, as if morality should be an algorithm running in our brains rather than requiring a conscious decision.)
When I look critically at my perception of Chomsky, it’s based on reading a couple brief political books ten years ago (that were forgettable), reading “Manufacturing Consent” (which I thought was important, but nothing Bernays or Neil Postman hadn’t already covered), and watching him when he did interviews on Democracy Now or on YouTube, always to great fanfare. And, since I live in Tucson where he now has a token high paying “laureate” professorship at the University of Arizona, I visited a live interview with him (along with 1000 or so other adoring fans), and now that I look back on that interview I can’t remember a single thing he said that seemed important. Why can’t I remember the great man saying anything important? And why did he receive a standing ovation (from me included)? Why? Was I in a trance? Could it all have been simple sleight of hand? From what I know about mass formation, the answer is yes. I like to think I’ve avoided mass hypnosis, but we are all susceptible. If I took the time to go back through his many books to try to find evidence that he really is an anarchist, I bet I would just find that he is now what he has always been: a carefully selected “pressure relief valve” intentionally crafted by The System to reframe and declaw anarchism into vapid incrementalism, i.e., standard Democratic Party politics. This has really shocked me. I think I’m mourning not only the loss of Chomsky in my pantheon, but also my own gullibility in falling for his act.
On a happy note, yes, I’ve finished reading “The Dawn of Everything” and “How to Dismantle an Empire,” but both merit additional study because they have upset my apple cart and I need a bit of time to gather my thoughts. My formerly immovable paradigms are dropping like flies.
Ah, you're in Tucson. My ex is from there and now lives in the house we had built. At one point, I wondered if our Poly Sci-Arabic majoring daughter should live with him for a bit after graduation just to take advantage of those Chomsky lectures (and hand-deliver my book to him of course.) So you weren't the only one fooled. I have a whole Chomsky section in my library, and also watched him avidly on DN as one of my favorite and most fair-minded presenters.
A good anarchist is hard to find. I get a lot of titles from AK and PM Press (and tried to get them to publish mine) but I find them often reactionary and scattered. I helped crowdfund a book called Fuck Neoliberalism which got me a sweatshirt I can't wear in public and what turns out to be an 8-page rant that says nothing more than the title, translated into 17 languages in subsequent chapters. Then I was REALLY insulted that they barely glanced at my book.
You really go deep on this, Jack. That's a very telling quote from Chomsky. Others have said he was 'controlled opposition' and I dismissed them. But it does seem strange that he's never presented a coherent position on anarchy. I've also heard criticism that his position on Israel is very moderate and conciliatory, not questioning the land grab at the heart of the occupation.
Well, Graeber IS presenting a very coherent and encouraging anthropology of anarchy, and we know he can never disappoint us :-( I'm eager to finish and put together an episode on it. I did my one-year retrospective on YT but haven't gotten it up yet on Substack, it mentions you and others who it's been a great joy to find! And I didn't realize you had a soft spot for metaphysics ... if you think your paradigms are dropping like flies now, prepare for the meteor shower! I talk about my craziest ideas on the What Is Reality? playlist. Here's the YT link but I'll get it up on SS soon: https://youtu.be/Pt5eB7D8JUQ.
Also, 40-plus years at one of the major CIA educational institutions, MIT, kind of makes you wonder.
Thanks for going back and reading this, Howard, along with the comments! Yes, now I look back and think I was an 'early un-adopter' of Chomsky but that train seems to be gathering steam with the Epstein revelations and his defensiveness about them.
And, significantly, his outright dissing of challenges to the JFK narrative and the Sept. 11 "attack" (on the latter, he might subscribe to the "blowback" synopsis, but an inside job, no way; "conspiracy theory," blah, blah, blah.
What bothered me is that Chomsky seemed blind to the harm that would be experienced by quarantining/rejecting unvaccinated people. Also he seemed to be blind to the difference between "obeying a traffic law" vs. injecting a vaccine developed at warp speed with significant side effects--including death. I would like anyone who wishes to "punish" other people to be able to feel some remorse at the necessity (if there is necessity) of depriving others of their freedom and possibly their health.
Agreed. His condescending attitude sickened me. On Eisenstein's Substack, Nizami asked me about Chomsky's connection to Epstein and what I thought. This is what I wrote:
"I just walked over to look at them, and I have the Chomsky Trilogy, The Indispensable Chomsky, and What We Say Goes. I've learned a tremendous amount from him, particularly in Manufacturing Consent. I did a play on his title in this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/manufacturing-contempt.
"I have two theories. One is that he reached the limits he could stretch, like an old pair of underwear, and couldn't evolve his thinking past that point. I've seen that before, in other arenas. He was a liberal icon and beloved for that, so when liberal contempt was manufactured against anti-vaxxers and free speech, he stood with liberals and not principles.
"The other theory is that he was captured. How early on is a good question. His connection to Epstein was financial, I wouldn't guess sexual blackmail. He has a big chunk of money from Epstein that he said was a loan or some nonsense. I don't buy that. He took the money.
"If you've followed him, I think you'd like my episode on him. It goes into his contradictory stance, saying he's an anarchist but first we need big gov't to solve the climate crisis. I think he's too smart to be spouting the things he is. I think he's a sell-out, and the only difference is whether he's fooling himself that he believes it or just fooling us. Thanks for asking!"
Thanks for your reply! In the video he had not shaved--his beard was long and down to his chest. His hair also was long and uncut. I'm not sure whether it was Matt Taibbi who pointed out that he was terrified of getting Covid so he refused to go to a hairdresser where he might be infected. If he bought into the narrative and thought unvaccinated people were threatening his life--then he would definitely have contempt for them and wish for them to be controlled and punished. So I assumed he was scared and angry. I don't think he just was captured. I think I WOULD like your episode on him. I thought this was that episode.
I can't get over what he said about the unvaccinated--how little charity he showed. I took it personally. Now I don't know. Maybe you are right--but he DEFINITELY was also scared. He also said his wife wouldn't let him leave the house for fear of getting infected. (Regression to child under mother's care.)
Yes, this is that episode. Sorry, that was quoting my comment to Nizami. And that's interesting about why he's been looking so unkempt. I think in general he's losing it. But I also think guilt makes people paranoid, and his excuse about the money he got from Epstein was mighty fishy.
I agree with you. I think Chomsky is having trouble regulating his affect. Maybe he's showing the beginnings of dementia? He could be extremely fearful AND extremely fishy at the same time. I don't like to say I hate him BUT I hate that he is so rejecting and dismissive of unvaccinated people. We are people--aren't we?
Indeed we are ;-)
I was always suspicious of Chomsky.... eventually I figured he is used by the establishment when their narrative grossly lacks credibility, so they pull Chomsky the "anti-establishment" tool to support the narrative. Thus he was used on the two most significant crimes of the century* (9/11 & Covid)
- 9/11
- Covid
*Crime of the century, courtesy of Supertramp
You were more alert to this than I was, Fadi. But I also think you had more direct sources of information and analysis. When I first found Chomsky, it was like finding a spring in a desert. He gave me facts and put into words things I'd just begun to suspect. I'm still grateful that he was a stepping stone. Even their controlled opposition helps us, I think, in the end. And I'd add another crime of the century--his two state solution in Israel. A false paradigm that ignores the real issue of justifying a military occupation established through torture and terror.
Suffice from your article this statement, to figure out his evil mindset:
"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 "vaccine" is a vaccine, then those who had it are immune, it is the unvaccinated that are at risk. Why do they have to be isolated/ostracized?
Hint: If you have a "professor of humanities/economics/business/law" from an Ivy League School, then he is guilty until proven innocent ;-)
Excellent point. When a linguistics prof abandons logic, you know he's one of them. I had thought his field of study insulated him because he wasn't teaching politics and therefore captured. Linguistics seems especially good for learning how to think rather than what to think. So I thought it gave him the economic security without constraining him. It's still possible, to me, that he was trapped and turned to the dark side. At the time he was speaking out, I couldn't find any other Western voice for Palestine. But his thinking is certainly addled and poisoned now, and maybe that was the point all along--someone with contradictory thinking who'd lead us in circles.
Of course, you need some "respectable" individual to be used solely in case of emergencies.
In your village/hamlet who would be of least value to the community, the carpenter, farmer, butcher, electrician, plumber, mechanic, gardener or linguist? :-)
I worked for a while as a machinist in a machine shop, it was a very rewarding experience, by the end of the day, you don't need any proof that you had a productive day. You can see the higher value parts you produce from stock steel. That's why it is rare to see blue collar workers needing antidepressants.
Hahaha! Well played, Fadi! I was just considering this morning that thinking is what we should be doing on the side of our productive endeavors. To make it a profession takes it away from everyone else, as if they're 'amateurs'.
When I dropped out from my PhD program and decided not to write a dissertation, after some months of scraping by with waitressing, my friend asked if I wanted a job packing boxes, paying minimum wage which was $5/hr at the time. I said sure! I'd start out with a stack of papers and end up with a wall of stacked boxes. I loved it! After academia and never being done, always having another thing you could and should be doing, it was heaven. I went home and slept well. And there's something to be said for physical labor.
That company grew from 10 people above a garage, when I joined, to one of the leading software companies at that time. I became the manager of shipping and data entry within a month, and was pissed when they wanted me to head a human resources dept--I thought they just wanted a man in shipping. But stock from that company is how I bought my house, before I met my husband, with 25% down, helping to keep it in the divorce 25 yrs later. Leaving academia was the best decision I ever made, followed by leaving that company so I did meet my husband and had our daughters.
Quote: "I went home and slept well" Exactly! peace of mind!
Quote: "followed by leaving that company so I did meet my husband and had our daughters."
This reminded me of an article I read today, by Quan Nguyen, I think from Vietnam, living in Texas now.
https://quannguyen128.substack.com/p/a-little-about-me
"The woman in white dress is Cornelia. She had twelve children, but only three survived childhoods. She entertains a lady friend at her home. Her friend shows Cornelia a jewelry collection.
“Do you have any favorite pieces of ornaments?”
Pointing at her two sons and holding her daughter, Cornelia replies, “My children are my ornaments and my treasures.”
Quan has a very special style, seems very simple, but has deep wisdom embedded in what he writes. Here is a quote I loved from another article of his:
https://quannguyen128.substack.com/p/the-art-of-sharing-hypocritically
I had a meeting with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, in the Kremlin, during my whirlwind tour to organize BRICS Summit 2024. I asked him a question on behalf of my daughter Sophia.
“Mr. President. Are you afraid of being a war criminal?”
He looked me in the eye and inquired gently, “Quan, do you even know how one becomes a war criminal?”
“I believe one becomes a war criminal by doing bad things, such as genocide, sexual violence, and unlawful deportation of protected persons.” I answered after a long period of musing and pondering.
“No. It is by losing a war.”
"I'm still grateful that he was a stepping stone. Even their controlled opposition helps us, I think, in the end."
Framed. How many times have I expressed that recently!
We all figure things out at our own pace, in different times, somewhat independently. We could all fast-track our awakening by visiting The Third Paradigm …
Here is Vanessa Beeley (and myself – see comment within) realising that Chomsky IS the problem.
• The Real Noam Chomsky – The Wall Will Fall - Vanessa Beeley / December 30, 2021
https://thewallwillfall.org/2021/12/30/the-real-noam-chomsky/
Onwards …
Just posted a comment regarding this on Vanessa's latest. What a powerful analysis she gives!
Thanks for that endorsement, Julius! And for the Vanessa reference. She talked about Noam long before I started listening to her, and long before my own 'Noam-shift' so it will be a joy to visit that and your comment!
As soon as Chomsky went on that tirade against the unjabbed, I knew right then and there that he was not all he was cracked up to be.
I don't in principle oppose his idea of a "needs based economic system", as I am not an anarchist myself (though I used to be one when I was much younger), but it is obvious now that Chomsky is certainly no anarchist or anything even remotely close to one.
What are your thoughts on Howard Zinn?
Oh I thought I responded to this back when you posted it, but must have gotten distracted! I'm a big fan of Howard Zinn. He's one of the people, along with David Graeber, Eduardo Galleano, Anthony Bourdain and Ursula K LeGuin, that I dedicate my book to: "who imagined the future and illuminated the past by the bright lights of (extra)ordinary people."
He also told me the real deets on Shay's Rebellion, which is a key point in my position that the Constitution was a coup: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup.
Interesting article overall. Not sure I agree 100% with all of it, but interesting nonetheless.
I would also like to add that the Electoral College was not only openly elitist, but even darker than that, it was also designed to protect slavery by effectively giving the less-populated slave states more of a vote. Every single time we got a President who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote (from Rutherford B. Hayes to Bush II to Trump), it has NOT ended well, and primarily benefitted the "master class".