Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Democracy Now!" channel.

Daddy AF Can you define "fascism" other than as some generic pejorative to assign to people and groups that supposedly go against your sense of your cult's interests as vaguely defined by your cult's talking heads? Fascism is basically "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the "vanguard party" to fight for "justice" during the "age of socialism" until "pure communism" is achieved (communism is the prophesied age where no more labor will be required, ever). Chomsky has no idea what he's talking about, actually. He doesn't know the difference between fact-based history and recycled critiques and predicted derived from from 19th century pseudosciences.
9
@ronsanchez6992 Right. But "colonialist" is conflated with "white racist oppressor" class and so forth.
4
@ZaniinaN3690 "After colonialist left back to europe, they also installed a caucasoid type of oppressive classes to make them at ease." Caucasoid class? What determines "classifications" of various humans? If you're talking about a "class system" there has to be distinctions between "classes" that have some discernible real world effect. African Apartheid had two legal classes. In India they have cultural "tribal" class distinctions. German Nazis created a fake "Aryan" class as well as "Jewish" and several other classes that were encoded by law. In the European monarchies you had 3 possible "classes" distinguished by your relationship with the monarchy, the institutional church and whether or not you owned land (under the monarch's land grants). Another class emerged of people that were able to make profits from trade but those people also had close relationships with the monarch and were also "landed". Some also acquired wealth through military service and did not fit in to any of the other classes. Finally you had the "peasant" class that simply didn't have access to any of those above mentioned things. "Caucasian" theory is closely related to the German "Aryan race" theory. It's a reference to the Caucasus region and perhaps to the Turks or some other imagined tribe from the past. It's not always easy to figure out what pseudoscientific racialist persons are trying to promote.
4
Chomsky thinks that Constitutional rule of law is "ultra nationalist" because he's a lunatic that thinks the rule of law = "Social Darwinism" and that we need "Brain Trusts" (like him) to explain Social Justice to use untermensch that are not "woke" like he supposedly is. Chomsky believes with all his heart and mind in Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scientific screeds. That's why he can talk in endless circles without actually showing the "science" support for his beliefs. If you don't fully understand Dawkins and Chomsky, it's because you're incapable. You have some variation of "God Delusion" or whatever. You're don't have the "woke (gene) mutation." Chomsky is not a classic libertarian that acknowledges human autonomy and the potential of all humans to live together under egalitarian rule of law (equal application of the law). He's a collectivist Libertarian that believes he has "woke libertarian" mutation. He believes in Brain Trust democracy. IOW, special "democratic elites" must govern the demos. The demos can't possibly understand what they actually need in the modern age. The Brain Trusts must organize it and explain it with their baby talk and the convoluted intellectual framework that puts you to sleep thinking that the Brain Trusts have everything under control. Notice Chomsky doesn't bother defining might"nationalist" or "ultranationalist" might even mean. You're supposed to conflate all "nationalism" as lying on some spectrum of "Hitlerian" rule. It's unbelievable how this boring puppet is constantly put on camera and mic to try to manipulate the demos. Organizing "nationalism" around an assembly of Jacobins is different than organizing it around a murderous political messiah, yet something else when organized around a Constitution that guarantees divided government and so forth.
4
@WileCoyoteMoncure-Smith What is that gibberish? What if you're one of the baddies?
3
What do you think you understand? It's just detached neo-Marxist BS. He's like a living model of Marxist analytical paradigms that doesn't acknowledge any contrary data or theories.
3
@daddyaf945 Hey, psychopath, next question: Who exactly do you think you are?
3
@Smekkel17 Well, in some cases the UN members themselves want never-ending "proportionate" conflict. Guess who that would be?
2
@sarahmurphy-nf4yl New Zealand? Try China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I mean, you really think this is all English speaking UNSC permanent members? Where on earth did you get that idea? Australia and New Zealand are not even in NATO, officially. But they are in a different coalition that overlaps. The US, UK, New Zealand and Canada share a lot of "security" information and material. But they don't meet in halls and issue proclamations.
2
@olliemck60 But you're wrong. You don't know anything about history. The history of "colonialism" is mostly about trade. What happened generally is that the locals that benefitted first and most from this foreign trade and foreign enterprises is taht they didn't understand why it wasn't "shared" according to Jacobin Marxist "common sense". There have of course been legitimate objections to these deals that occurred mostly between local and foreign "power". Power is not innately oppressive. Corrupt power is. All of this conflation is pretty stupid because why accept solutions form totalitarian leftists that posit all power is innately oppressive? It's like you're admitting that you have no solutions. Just that you're going to make all of the nonruling class equal peasants again. And a "racist" colonialist is just someone that doesn't "include" the local people en masse as Communists promise to do. The legitimate grievances come from land use and how traditional property rights were parsed out everywhere but in the USA. The British monarch presumed the same sovereignty over the USA but never managed to claim and hold land as property. The threat that he would try that was a major reason for the war. The taxes were the easier method and so that is nominally what they fought over. But they didn't want any trace of a traditional monarchy in the USA and they managed to achieve that. All of these legitimate grievances can not simply be filed under "Colonialist = Oppressor".
2
@Kewlstorybro101 I really don't understand people like you who ask questions with such obvious answers. The UN is an NGO. It has no "governing" or "sovereign" role. The UN was established to bring nations together for negotiation and propagation of values and so forth. Even building "consensus" for NATO or whatever is somewhat mendacious politically. It creates the impression that the UN represents some kind of 'democracy' when at its best is replicates the Peace of Westphalia, but worldwide and without regional bigotries. There's no such thing as "international human rights" other than aspirational declarations. To expect more than this is to fall in to the trap of Utopian promises and give power to Stalinists and Maoists. Which is their goal since the beginning of the UN itself. I just don't understand how anyone with access to well stocked libraries can be confused about this. And the people of Palestine that want to build an independent sovereign State are only going to get endlessly stabbed if they think that the UN itself can help them achieve this sovereignty. Never mind whether you trust Israel. If Egypt and Jordan feel they can't help what do you expect from the UN? Someone needs to purge the people inside that are coopting the movement towards sovereignty for their own aims. I know why China wants to play "peacemaker" while poking all sides in to war. Communist regimes are super easy to understand if you just crack open a few history books guided by critical thinking rather than Critical Theory. And no matter how much you might hate Putin or Russia they no longer have the same "global" ambitions that the CCP now has. Russia is far more inclined to support the Westphalian paradigm than the CCP. The Soviet Union of course saw the Westphalian paradigm as a bulwark for "Reactionary Capitalism". Good intentions are not enough. You have to actually understand all of the various forces and what tools are available to competent people that want to promote Westphalian sovereignty.
1
@Montezuma0 It's supposed to replicate the Peace of Westphalia process with no end date. Treaties can of course be signed, ideally, but the purely diplomatic mission/institution itself remains open for business. That's all it can be.
1
@richardkuzan8849 He wrote that those 5 sovereigns would leave the UN because it's only useful for them if they possess that veto. If you took the veto away from all 5 they would still show up but the Security Council vote would have even less meaning than it does now. When you get all 5 to agree on something it shows that the most powerful militaries in existence are all in agreement. Sorry, that's how power operates.
1
@linute14 It's diplomacy only. It should have zero to do with "-cratic" anything. International relations are sovereign to sovereign affairs. He can you even dream that the UN is "democratic" when the CCP has never held elections at all?
1
@olliemck60 If you want to reduce it to a simple binary, the only real question is whether sovereign "rulers" value human development over material exploitation. Marx was seen as a defender of "laborer" when he really just hypothesized the laborers would revolt and seize all of the wealth of the world and then create a "just" society based on "From each according to ability, to each according to need". There's also his "false (class) consciousness" theory that suggests anyone going against the Marxist "equity" prophecies has cognitive dissonance. He's also quoted as saying "Man is nothing, time is everything." Using his form of analysis to conflate all issues to "good or evil" Manichean analysis or simply that all of human history is reduced to "Will to Power" actually overlooks all of the things that exist in reality that you binary-thinking critics envy but fail to understand. And protections for humans either comes from "rule of law" nationalism or does not exist at all. Those are the only choices from history proved to work. Nationalism itself as a paradigm comes from "The Peace of Westphalia". Can there ever be an "international rule of law" that protects all humans in accordance with "the rule of law" paradigm? In theory, yes. But that means you need a globally enforceable and single interpretation of a "bill of rights" so that every human has the same standing in whatever courts are used to protect the rights of the accused and the petitioners. It's frustrating to me that anyone can attend US schools and not understand this. Perhaps just as bad is going to European schools where the USA came to fight for the freedoms of the allied nations during WWII and nobody teaches about the true history of "democracy" and protected freedoms AKA "the rule of law". When you use terms like "colonialists" as a clear "thing" that is understood by "experts" what it show is that you've never, ever thought about what the choices and and the possibility that some "colonialism" is part of "good" history and that whatever controversies exist as a nation strived to become an independent sovereign might or might not be the fault of the "colonialists" and the same goes for the "born there" natives. Our schools and now our so called "intellectuals" talk about these topics as if reviewing a primate study where behavioral labels are viewed as 'rules' that explain all "experts" need to know.
1
@olliemck60 LOL. What? "EV's are progress" is an ignorant, dogmatic slogan. "You can have EVs without exploitation, EVs are not the problem greed is! It would be the same thing with bananas." Your sloganeering comes directly from dogmatic Marxist Critical Theory ignorance. All of Marx's dogmas are easily debunked but you're not even aware of what is alluded to under "science denier" versus "settled science". BTW, if 'EVs' are so "progressive" then hybrid vehicles would be even more so. Why didn't your heroes put in a smooth transition plan going back to when the first successful hybrid vehicles were produced? As battery tech evolved and cars became lighter we would have already been ahead today of the supposed "progressive" goals. The "progressive" goals are to take away a free middle class. Even in Europe they simply tax TF out of cars and have been for decades so that only the "rich" can afford cars. And "Progressives" have been nagging about having "social justice" trains and whatnot for decades. If they have actual replacements that make economic sense why don't they build them? the most sensible transition vehicle would involve hybrids and would have started decades ago. Suddenly, to overcome "populism" they all decided that they should outlaw gasoline and diesel engines because it's harder to control use of those vehicles moment to moment the next time they want to call out some kind of "emergency" and lock you in your home. If not something worse. And don't get my started with your "greed" comment. Study a little more about Freudian projection and envy. The root problem is, around the world, people that take power and lie in order to destroy individual freedoms in favor of "fascist" totalitarian control under supposedly "liberal" aka "Progressive" policies.
1
BTW, the "text book" shows "genocide" as being something like rounding people up and either slaughtering them by religious and or ethnic identity or first rounding them up and working them to death, harvesting organs, performing experiments and then liquidating them. Promoting free abortion is also a "genocidal" program. That's what the textbooks say. Until Critical Theory propagandists started "colonizing" and "occupying" Occidental institutions. And guess where actual genocide is occurring today? Lawyers are supposed to bring relevant case evidence to the courts and public. Not use dramatic and even fallacious labeling in place of real case evidence. Lawyers like this only get people that already agree with them to get even angrier. They take people away from solving problems. Lawyers like RFK were pilloried for citing "disparate outcomes" of the Coronavirus pandemic to imply "genocide" and rightly so. Stop trying to get people to cultivate their own anger and close their minds to problem-solving diplomacy.
1
@pookz3067 "The core of traditional Marxist thought is dialectics and Marxist theory, and Chomsky almost never uses the former and rarely the later. " Nonsense. He has his own distinct lexicon but his dialectics involve the same Marxist- materialist analytical paradigms. He uses Critical Theory jargon and framework for the most part so that it sounds like he's applying his own distinct critical thinking but he's not. "Neo Marxists are steeped in the postmodernist tradition, which Chomsky actively critiques." LOL. Infighting. They're "tribalist" Neo-Marxists thanks to the likes of Dawkins. "It’s why he doesn’t get along with famous Marxists like Zizek." It's inherent to Critical Theory to strive chaotically to come up with the best "survival of the fittest" answers while never quite expecting to be able to fully explain why their ideas are "fittest" or "the best." Political power is the only "proof" that matters. That's where "Selfish Gene" starts and finishes. "Even the most “moderate” Marxists at least use Marx’s critiques of capitalism as a starting point." Those that choose to approach "disparity" from that angle do. Those that choose more oblique attacks, as in Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, all choose different starting points with all of the same assumptions. Marxists try to explain disparity and the cognitive dissonance of how incompetent people can be poor or "disenfranchised" without being personally responsible. Their victim status is taken for granted. They're victims of "the system" or "status quo institutions" and so forth. If you specifically offer evidence based criticism against something that can lead to ordinary critical thinking and constructive problem solving. If you reference paradigmatic institutions like "capitalism" or "patriarchy" or "neo colonialism" or any of that collectivist garbage you are highly affected by Critical Theory, which is basically Marxist excuses for why the international workers' revolution didn't bring about "Communism" or at least a clearly organized "dictatorship of the proletariat." An "Anarchist" by identity that relies on all of the institutions that he critiques...wtf is that? An actual anarchist works to become independent of any form of coercive social structures. Does he do that? Are you kidding me? He also identifies as "Libertarian" while attempting to explain human sentience as a hard materialist along the lines of Richard Dawkins. The man is very confused. Putting him on a pedestal doesn't do anyone any good at all. His entire lexicon is mendacious, at best. Also, anarchists would be supportive of natural property/liberty rights, not condemning "corporations" that form under the doctrines of free will and don't break the law. Anarchists are not against other people forming their own cooperative organizations. Everything Chomsky says is all about his POV as some wannabe messiah that is attempting to explain "disparity" and "injustice" of the "demos" that don't fall in line with his incoherent doctrines.
1
@tybofborg Jordan Peterson? What an idiotic assertion. The rest of your rant is even worse. There's nothing to build on. Seek help.
1
@GamesJoblin I have no idea what your views are rooted in except that we know Chomsky doesn't call for open revolution in the democracies. In that sense he's not a revolutionary Marxist or a braindead French Jacobin revolutionary. I'm not sure what your actual point could be. He's somewhat critical of anyone, but he's still an apologist for the Marxist worldview and the "plebeian" reaction to "disparity." To say that he's "not at all respected on the left" means that you don't know that "the left" stands for the "disenfranchised classes" in early democracies and then was extended to all disenfranchised. It's basically the people with fact-free, collectivist "victim" stories that don't know how to organize case evidence or can't face the fact that they have no idea what they're talking about or how to put together a rational standard for what human "justice" might look like. Why you people arbitrarily bring up Jordan Peterson is beyond my understanding. I assume you believe "media" reports that he's "alt right" or something. Whatever that is supposed to mean to you. Jordan Peterson is a liberal individualist. He leans strongly materialist but he's not as dogmatic as lunatics like Chomsky, Dawkins, etc. Peterson is an intellectually honest, moderate liberal.
1
@daddyaf945 Now define capitalism, you silly antifa fascist.
1
@pwrofmusic Wait a minute. Indians are yada yad to themselves. You can make that argument about any war whether internal or bilateral. Where does it say that suddenly the UN can intervene in bilateral sovereign affairs but not internal affairs? You're dreaming, actually.
1
@pwrofmusic "first you need understand what the UN is for. " I already told you what it is for. If you have a better explanation then spit it out. "Why does the UN give aid to places if it doesn't has nothing to do with internal conflicts." The UN has no collective motive or emotions. Get real. If you want to discuss the motives of those that pay out versus those that collect that might be an interesting conversation that I doubt you could even follow. "Why does it have humanitarian assistance?" What was the first assistance that "it" handed out? Whatever the answer it has nothing to do with what I laid out. The UN is a diplomatic institution. It is a place where sovereigns are invited to meet according to a sort of pecking order and it has "subcommittees" that are also not understood at all by casual commenters like yourself. At the end of the day it is where nations come together to avoid war and under certain theories this involves preaching to each other and handing out money when the sovereign feels they can afford to do that with such a fat tax base to manipulate for its own ends. And the truth is that the UN itself was formed in the aftermath of WWII and the birth of Communist imperialism. So that complicates matters if we're to discuss whether it adheres to its original mission. In a lot of cases the nations that come in good faith as believers of the General Assembly have lots of good conversations and it has turned in to a way to get together and suggest emergency responses and so forth. That still falls under good faith diplomacy. The UN is not itself a bank or wealth store that people vote in concerning a UN fund unless nations voluntarily contributes to those dedicated funds. This has nothing to do with perceptions of "democracy" or "international justice" or whatever except that each nation can add commentary along with their donations and so forth. There is nothing wrong with this use of the UN. The UN and other institutions are premised on good faith dialog and good faith dialog requires a shared worldview where the participants understand the conflicts of interests and interests in common. That's never really existed at the UN because Marxism is a cult that turns all good faith discourses upside down and wants to endlessly confuse everyone else. Even their own allies. Again, if you have something that you think has value you should just state your theory and or explanation rather than ask "smart" questions.
1
aprinc1960 Fascists minimize or deny the importance (or even the existence) of synergistic (cooperative) relations. Like you. Nationalism without context is simply the support of Wesphalian sovereignty. The Treaty of Westphalia is probably the most important treaty in human history. And yet you lunatics have no idea how the world works nor who the evil liars are. You have no way to know what "should (or could) be" in order to minimize evil and maximize "shared prosperity."
1