Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Noam Chomsky: We Must Confront the “Ultranationalist, Reactionary” Movements Growing Across Globe" video.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  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
  4.  @daddyaf945  Hey, psychopath, next question: Who exactly do you think you are?
    3
  5.  @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
  6.  @tybofborg  Jordan Peterson? What an idiotic assertion. The rest of your rant is even worse. There's nothing to build on. Seek help.
    1
  7.  @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
  8.  @daddyaf945  Now define capitalism, you silly antifa fascist.
    1
  9. 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