Complete nonsense. You remind me of Noam Chomsky. When asked whether Iran is a terrorist nation, he replies: Isreal is a terrorist nation, and so is the United States. How's that for thougtful analysis? By that reasoning, we never should have entered WW 2 in either theater!
Complete nonsense. You remind me of Noam Chomsky. When asked whether Iran is a terrorist nation, he replies: Isreal is a terrorist nation, and so is the United States. How's that for thougtful analysis? By that reasoning, we never should have entered WW 2 in either theater!
Eff Noam Chomsky, many a progressive will defend him and adore him, because in many ways his their intellectual guru, he has infected the minds of students and professors.
There is this la ti da, dream among those infected with the Chomskyite version of Marx, all the world will be set right, if only their version of Marxism prevailed. Notice "his version" like religion there are as many versions of socialism as their are "Marxists".
Trouble with Marx and those who deify him, is that Marx saw man as an economic creature. unable to grasp the fact that economics is only a tool by which to attain power.
A good book, if you can find it, as it is out of print, is the New Class, ny Milovan Djilas, it is an incisvie look into the Ruling class of Communist Yugoslavia. Commmunism did not do away with a class structure, it just supplanted one ruling class for another.
The Tidewater Aristocracy, the planters of Virginia and the Carolinas, only joined the revolution (most were descendants of Royalists who fled Cromwell), and they had visions of being the new royalty, but that failed because the people had no intention of replacing British nobles, dukes and barons, with homegrown ones. So they resorted to surveillance (Committees of Public Safety) and propaganda (pamphlets by thinkers like Thomas Paine) and were successful, but had unintended consequences. The people now educated by the Rights of Man, were not about to stand for a new nobility, and they threatened a second revolution, thus our constitution.
Bravo! If I could put you in charge of the History Department at Harvard (or any other major university) I would! What you said about Marx is spot on. I would add to your thoughts on Chomsky the following. He is an authority on language. He knows exactly what he is doing by circumventing questions and re-directing the conversation to suit his purposes. He is a self-described anarchist, which is the poison at the heart of his intellectual errors, for no anarchist can be anything other than a fascist. Thanks for your great comments and book recommendation.
I'll take your comparison as a great compliment. Is anyone talking about Iran here? We're talking about Israel and the US. Your "logic" is anything but logical. Spare me the nonsense.
Your logic is laughable. I used Iran as an example. Shall I define 'example' for you? (I also included Israel and the US in the example, or didn't you notice?) Once again, you have proved yourself to be as big a charlatan as Chomsky is.
Complete nonsense. You remind me of Noam Chomsky. When asked whether Iran is a terrorist nation, he replies: Isreal is a terrorist nation, and so is the United States. How's that for thougtful analysis? By that reasoning, we never should have entered WW 2 in either theater!
Eff Noam Chomsky, many a progressive will defend him and adore him, because in many ways his their intellectual guru, he has infected the minds of students and professors.
There is this la ti da, dream among those infected with the Chomskyite version of Marx, all the world will be set right, if only their version of Marxism prevailed. Notice "his version" like religion there are as many versions of socialism as their are "Marxists".
Trouble with Marx and those who deify him, is that Marx saw man as an economic creature. unable to grasp the fact that economics is only a tool by which to attain power.
A good book, if you can find it, as it is out of print, is the New Class, ny Milovan Djilas, it is an incisvie look into the Ruling class of Communist Yugoslavia. Commmunism did not do away with a class structure, it just supplanted one ruling class for another.
The Tidewater Aristocracy, the planters of Virginia and the Carolinas, only joined the revolution (most were descendants of Royalists who fled Cromwell), and they had visions of being the new royalty, but that failed because the people had no intention of replacing British nobles, dukes and barons, with homegrown ones. So they resorted to surveillance (Committees of Public Safety) and propaganda (pamphlets by thinkers like Thomas Paine) and were successful, but had unintended consequences. The people now educated by the Rights of Man, were not about to stand for a new nobility, and they threatened a second revolution, thus our constitution.
Bravo! If I could put you in charge of the History Department at Harvard (or any other major university) I would! What you said about Marx is spot on. I would add to your thoughts on Chomsky the following. He is an authority on language. He knows exactly what he is doing by circumventing questions and re-directing the conversation to suit his purposes. He is a self-described anarchist, which is the poison at the heart of his intellectual errors, for no anarchist can be anything other than a fascist. Thanks for your great comments and book recommendation.
I'll take your comparison as a great compliment. Is anyone talking about Iran here? We're talking about Israel and the US. Your "logic" is anything but logical. Spare me the nonsense.
Your logic is laughable. I used Iran as an example. Shall I define 'example' for you? (I also included Israel and the US in the example, or didn't you notice?) Once again, you have proved yourself to be as big a charlatan as Chomsky is.