Chomsky: Obama’s Claim of U.S. as “Anchor of Global Security” Ignores Record of Illegal Wars, Coups

Black Soul Science > Blog Posts  > Chomsky: Obama’s Claim of U.S. as “Anchor of Global Security” Ignores Record of Illegal Wars, Coups

30 Comments

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    absolutely, though I try not to be too cynical about our fellow folk that are still mentally ensnared. It's only a few years back when I was just as lost in the system. I think we have to be understanding and friendly if we want a hope of persuading others to shake off their intellectual chains.

    As for systems, I'm certainly concerned about jumping on word bandwagons like 'socialism' and 'communism'. They are all too easily steered by the establishment. Fighting power itself is all we have IMHO

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    And that essencially defeats the idea of "will of the people". When it has to be hammered into beer drinking, football watching sheep.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    "I honestly cannot believe that if there is no control over what people do with their capital …

    I agree. Capitalist barons have done a great job of selling the religion of free markets to right libertarians. Trying to talk sense with these folk is frustrating too.

    I would love to see a world without govt, but we currently need these institutions to keep any reins on the ruling class. Sadly, in the west things are going in the opposite direction. We need bigger people's movements.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Indeed it does, but I would hasten to add that this is the mentality of our ruling classes not ordinary folk. The peasantry has to be propagandized into going along with this stuff.

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    But look at how liberated the Iraqis are, they are free to be employed by multinational corporations, to sell their business to them, to have their natural resources looted by them and for all others who can't "benefit" from their new-found freedom, there is the freedom of the grave. The entrepeneurial spirit of the wild west meets the middle-east.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Well if this is democracy then giving a slave the day off once every few years ought to be called freedom.

    I dont believe in hierachichal systems full stop. They just lead to cultural stratification, injustice and suffering (of those at the bottom). So I reject the whole structure of what is called democracy in the West. It is propagandized as democracy for the benefit of those at the top but it is only democracy in the same sense that murdering a couple of million iraqis is 'liberating' them.

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Democracy worked in ancient Athens because slaves did the work so the free citizens could spend their days discussing politics, thinking about the universe and training for war and sports. Slavery was an essencial component of that democracy, it freed citizens to watch public affairs. How to implement democracy in a slave-free world is far more complicated, but rest assured: without public oversight, democracy is just a mask for tirany and imperialism.

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    If money is power and individuals can do what they want with it, we're far more likelly to see private armies, private prisons, private laws, private islands, governments, countries, etc. Giving people the freedom to buy governments doesn't really solve the problem. Democracy and freedom is not based on the lack of government, but the constant watch and management of people OVER government, regardless of how big it is. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    I share your political view on this. IMHO, capitalism and individualism have run their cycles. Socialism and communism might not be the answer, but that still leaves us with the question. All republican revolutions were supposed to give power to peoples, not individuals. They were hijaked by the capitalist powers. I honestly cannot believe that if there is no control over what people do with their capital like libertarians advocate, people would live more peacefully and with prosperity.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    I think libertarianism spans the left and right, but I would say that right wing libertarians also share with the left a strong dislike for establishment power, whilst both have the view that each other's views on how to deal with that power leads to greater establishment power.

    IMHO right libertarianism is based on ownership/property, which I think is the basis of greed and conflict. I just wish they would embrace the principles that this is OUR planet and we should look out for each other.

  • a4d3
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    lol, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has some of the most ludicrous ideas when it comes to economics. It's interesting, and a little scary, that the American politician that has come out mot prominently against US imperialism can believe such things as completely cutting social security, minimum wage, etc.

  • Gakgaming
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    That's true. Libertarians and the left have common goals in the peaceful foreign policy as opposed to the bipartisan cartel establishment but not much else.

  • Major Wedgie
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Q/. If there is a big weavel and a little weavel in a race which do you choose?

    A/. You must always choose the lesser of two weavels.

    This is how American politics works.

  • Derick Burton
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Noam Chomsky rocks

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Capitalism and trade (or free trade) are not synonymous. They can coexist, for a period at least, but they are not the same thing. It is a common misconception. I have to point this out because you seem to be conflating the two (though maybe my mistake about what you are saying)

    Capitalism is using capital to accumulate capital, as opposed to working to accumulate capital. In other words it is a system for making money from doing nothing but exploiting those without capital.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    "How would a system of free market capitalism…"

    It's almost impossible to articulate in this tiny space, but simply put it creates freedom for the most ruthless to accumulate obscene wealth and power, and when that happens they are in control and subject everyone else to their policies.

    Eliminating govt', as things stand, would just put humanity back to feudalism. Then they form alliances and reinstitute gov'ts to serve their will.

    The trick is to make gov'ts protect us, not them.

  • 415City
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Hypocrisy = USA

  • kesquisse
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Ron Paul says it, but doesn't do anything about it.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Chomsky has been saying it for about 60 years.

  • AI fan
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that although he rejects the aggressive nature of US militarism his economic ideology, based on Rand. Hayak and Friedman, would give total freedom to the powers that drive militarism and further more accelerating the transfer of wealth and power from ordinary people to the rich minority.

  • newsworthyable
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    the invisible hand has slapped us silly

  • newsworthyable
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    chomsky is an anarcho syndicalist, he believes that all authority should be challenged. I never got the notion from him that big gov was the solution. Also, he has said in the past that it is easy to talk of other countries failings and atrocities, but to talk of ones own countries failings and atrocities is rare. this is i believe his stance and i do not think he denies other countries bad deeds, but focuses on america cause he's an american patriot..in his own freedom loving eccentric way

  • newsworthyable
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Chomsky has said that Ron Paul's plan will lead to Corporate Tyranny

  • syntaxed2
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    You are drawing parallells between humanist social democracies such as Sweden and authoritarian socialist republics, such as China.
    These models are very different even though they share the words "social".
    China and America are both republics, does that mean they are similar?
    See how easy it is to get tangled in wordplay…
    You also imply that social democracies always have big governments but that is simply not true.
    Also, corporations are not considered people in a social democracy.

  • GuiR3X
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    The level of corruption is even more profound ? really ?
    I don't think so, it s just that corruption is called "doing business" that's all.
    A government, in a democracy (which is a system no country on earth has experienced so far), is the caution of the egality between citizens, to their access to education, energy, transportation, communication and information.
    Who else can do the job? the market ? there is NO structure more corrupted than the market, in essence.

  • RequiemFor America
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    the problem i have with chomsky is that he sees big government as the solution and never talks about human rights violations in socialist countries – there, where the government's power is even more absolute than it is here, the level of corruption is even more profound.

    the very fact that he tends to see big government as a SOLUTION knowing how inherently corruptible it is, as if ONLY american government is corruptible, is where chomsky loses all his credibility

  • West Mantooth
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    This man is an American Hero.

  • moviedude22
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Would like to see Chomsky's record in the oval office

  • JackHabbit
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    you watch too much TV if you use that term so it wouldn't be worth answering that question with an honest response.

    Please try a question you don't have a prepared answer for. Be genuine.

  • ano nymous
    July 17, 2017 at 2:07 am

    What else is it but blowback?