Journalist Gary Webb Gets the Last Word in

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Also here is a law source that refers to not reporting a felony.

The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. �??�?�§ 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
[/quote]

It’s based on the English common law principle of “misprision of a felony”. However, it requires “active concealment” not just “failing to report”. Furthermore, if reporting the felony is liable to incriminate yourself then you don’t have to do it.[/quote]

So when the C.I.A. protected the drug runners and contract agents from the law that wasn’t concealment?
[/quote]

They didn’t conceal anything. In fact, the accusation is they contacted law enforcement and requested leniency for a trafficker.
[/quote]
Why was the leniency requested?

102

^^Because he’d been running arms to the Contras for the CIA.

103

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^Because he’d been running arms to the Contras for the CIA.[/quote]

And running drugs back to the U.S. with the knowledge of the C.I.A.

104

More associations of Kissenger and the neo-conservatives.

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/kissinger-bremer.htm

Definition of neo-conservatives

Well what do you know. Dick Cheney is a neo-conservative who would consult with Kissinger. So much for never being associated with and ideologically opposed to.

105

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^Because he’d been running arms to the Contras for the CIA.[/quote]

And breaking The Boland Amendment in the process with the C.I.A.'s blessing.

106

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More associations of Kissenger and the neo-conservatives.

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/kissinger-bremer.htm

[/quote]

That’s your source? Here’s what Wikipedia says about your source:

“one of the most radical right-wing antisemitic homepages on the net”

"The station resumed broadcasting in 1991 under the direction of the Swedish Nazi David Janzon…

The focus of the Radio Islam website is the alleged influence of Jews and “Zionists” on society, and in particular on politics in Western countries and in the Middle East. It proposes that there are conspiracies of Jews/“Zionists” to control Western society and oppress and/or kill Muslims (among other groups), and that these actions are a historic feature of both Jews and Judaism (which it describes as the Jewish “Religion”). It considers the Holocaust to be a fraudulent “Zionist” attempt to turn attention away from “the ongoing Zionist war waged against the peoples of Palestine and the Middle East”. Major topics of the website include “Zionist massacres”, “Zionist terrorism”, “Jewish Power”, “Jewish racism”, “Jewish racism against Blacks”, Holocaust denial, “Jewish hypocrisy”, “Jewish propaganda”, “Jewish war against Iraq”, and “Jewish war against Lebanon”. Radio Islam’s online library contains several complete works, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which EncyclopÃ?¦dia Britannica describes as a “fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century”), Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Henry Ford’s The International Jew, Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe…

Radio Islam denies the view of all scholars relating to the Holocaust, claiming that most of those who died were non-Jewish victims of typhus…

It also denies the existence of gas chambers, and claims that the Nazis only ever used cremation for the corpses of victims of typhus and other infections diseases, as a method of epidemic prevention…

A 2003 report commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia described Radio Islam as “one of the most radical right wing anti-Semitic homepages on the net with close links to radical Islam groups”, one of a number of “racist and xenophobic sites” which “utilis[e] the denial of the Holocaust as a component of anti-Semitic agitation” and “make use of the entire spectrum of anti-Semitic stereotypes”. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Radio Islam as “a Stockholm-based neo-Nazi propaganda outfit” which "contains a treasure trove of antisemitica…

Per Ahlmark, co-founder of the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism, has described Radio Islam as “the most vicious anti-Jewish campaign in Europe since the Third Reich.”

For the last time, no one who knows anything about foreign policy thinks Kissinger is a neoconservative.

Kissinger is a “realist” and he pursued “Detente” with the Soviet Union - the easing of geopolitical tensions. Kissinger did not believe that the Soviet Union could be defeated. He believed in a managed bipolarity as opposed to pursuit of unipolarity.

By contrast, the neoconservatives are “idealists” who under the Reagan administration opposed Detente and pursued a “roll back” of the Soviet Union. They believed the Soviet Union could be defeated and so they pursued unipolarity.

Understand?

No mention there of Kissinger. Not under prominent people associated with neoconservatism nor anywhere else in the entire article.

I know the difference between idealism and realism; I know what neoconservatism is.

Kissinger is the most prominent foreign policist in modern American history. That’s why he consults with many people, for example with Obama and Obama’s foreign policy advisor Jim Jones.

[quote]

So much for never being associated with and ideologically opposed to.[/quote]

See above. And I’m not really interested in conversing with someone who’s into Neo-Nazism, holocaust denial and so on. You’ve obviously got some issues you need to deal with. Good luck with that.

Edited

107

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More associations of Kissenger and the neo-conservatives.

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/kissinger-bremer.htm

[/quote]

That’s your source? Here’s what Wikipedia says about your source:

“one of the most radical right-wing antisemitic homepages on the net”

"The station resumed broadcasting in 1991 under the direction of the Swedish Nazi David Janzon…

The focus of the Radio Islam website is the alleged influence of Jews and “Zionists” on society, and in particular on politics in Western countries and in the Middle East. It proposes that there are conspiracies of Jews/“Zionists” to control Western society and oppress and/or kill Muslims (among other groups), and that these actions are a historic feature of both Jews and Judaism (which it describes as the Jewish “Religion”). It considers the Holocaust to be a fraudulent “Zionist” attempt to turn attention away from “the ongoing Zionist war waged against the peoples of Palestine and the Middle East”. Major topics of the website include “Zionist massacres”, “Zionist terrorism”, “Jewish Power”, “Jewish racism”, “Jewish racism against Blacks”, Holocaust denial, “Jewish hypocrisy”, “Jewish propaganda”, “Jewish war against Iraq”, and “Jewish war against Lebanon”. Radio Islam’s online library contains several complete works, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which EncyclopÃ??Ã?¦dia Britannica describes as a “fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century”), Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Henry Ford’s The International Jew, Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe…

Radio Islam denies the view of all scholars relating to the Holocaust, claiming that most of those who died were non-Jewish victims of typhus…

It also denies the existence of gas chambers, and claims that the Nazis only ever used cremation for the corpses of victims of typhus and other infections diseases, as a method of epidemic prevention…

A 2003 report commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia described Radio Islam as “one of the most radical right wing anti-Semitic homepages on the net with close links to radical Islam groups”, one of a number of “racist and xenophobic sites” which “utilis[e] the denial of the Holocaust as a component of anti-Semitic agitation” and “make use of the entire spectrum of anti-Semitic stereotypes”. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Radio Islam as “a Stockholm-based neo-Nazi propaganda outfit” which "contains a treasure trove of antisemitica…

Per Ahlmark, co-founder of the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism, has described Radio Islam as “the most vicious anti-Jewish campaign in Europe since the Third Reich.”

For the last time, no one who knows anything about foreign policy thinks Kissinger is a neoconservative.

Kissinger is a “realist” and he pursued “Detente” with the Soviet Union - the easing of geopolitical tensions. Kissinger did not believe that the Soviet Union could be defeated. He believed in a managed bipolarity as opposed to pursuit of unipolarity.

By contrast, the neoconservatives are “idealists” who under the Reagan administration opposed Detente and pursued a “roll back” of the Soviet Union. They believed the Soviet Union could be defeated and so they pursued unipolarity.

Understand?

No mention there of Kissinger. Not under prominent people associated with neoconservatism nor anywhere else in the entire article.

I know the difference between idealism and realism; I know what neoconservatism is.

Kissinger is the most prominent foreign policist in modern American history. That’s why he consults with many people, for example with Obama and Obama’s foreign policy advisor Jim Jones.

[quote]

So much for never being associated with and ideologically opposed to.[/quote]

See above. And I’m not really interested in conversing with someone who’s into Neo-Nazism, holocaust denial and so on. You’ve obviously got some issues you need to deal with. Good luck with that.

Edited[/quote]

What does anti-semitism have to do with Kissinger and/or Cheney?

You may be into labels but it matters not. The results are what matters. Both camps invade or overthrow democratically elected governments to take over their resources. And in the process cause thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths. But these deaths do not weigh on your mind because it is our right to take what we want to further our interests. Morals do not apply when it comes to America. Only your outrage and morals come into play when someone says they hate America and everything about her. You don’t apply these feelings towards American actions, why?

Kissinger is not coming over the WH for tea and crumpets. He is coming over to advise. So your claim there is no association is still hogwash.

It is you who has issues! You think Americans can indiscriminately slaughter and no one is supposed to get angry. What an idiot! From the mind who brought you 9/11.

"Stem Cell Secrets Exposed" Video
108

You tell me. You’re the one who posted a link to a notorious Neo-Nazi site that asserts the neoconservative movement is a Jewish plot to take over the world.

On the contrary, you’re the one into labels and you’re trying to push a circle into a square hole.

It’s actually about maintaining the balance of power not “taking over resources”. And if that’s your definition of neoconservatism then you obviously have no idea about foreign policy or the neoconservatives.

That’s not what I said. I said international relations is synonymous with warfare. All other nation states are either allies or enemy. This is not by anyone’s design. It’s a natural condition of man that could only be transcended by a global government. A single global government could only be tyrannical and could only be achieved by total war against every sovereign nation state on earth. I don’t support global government nor revolutionary universalist movements like Marxism. I recognise the state of war that exists between nation states and I support Western governments in this war.

America and other Western governments are the least aggressive in human history. They respect human rights more than any other nations in history. This is part of the reason why I support them in this war. Note the word “war”. War is existential which is why objectives in war must take precedence over universal human rights whenever the two conflict.

Oh okay. So Obama is a neoconservative too. Everyone is a neoconservative. It’s a pretty meaningless term if you extend it to include just about everyone who met Kissinger. As I said, I’m not arguing in favour of neocons - I don’t like neocons. I’m simply telling you what neoconservatism is because you don’t seem to have any idea.

I said Americans should be allowed to “indiscriminately slaughter” did I? Where did I say that?

Osama bin Laden stated that part of the justification for mass murdering US citizens is the failure of the US government to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. That’s right - climate change is justification for mass murdering citizens. I’d say an idiot is someone who takes what Islamists say at face value. Islamists kill more Muslims each month than the US has in the last 50 years. So the argument for legitimate grievances is a lie. People who push it are either liars or what Lenin called “useful idiots”. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter in spite of your Neo-Nazi links.

109

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You tell me. You’re the one who posted a link to a notorious Neo-Nazi site that asserts the neoconservative movement is a Jewish plot to take over the world.

On the contrary, you’re the one into labels and you’re trying to push a circle into a square hole.

It’s actually about maintaining the balance of power not “taking over resources”. And if that’s your definition of neoconservatism then you obviously have no idea about foreign policy or the neoconservatives.

That’s not what I said. I said international relations is synonymous with warfare. All other nation states are either allies or enemy. This is not by anyone’s design. It’s a natural condition of man that could only be transcended by a global government. A single global government could only be tyrannical and could only be achieved by total war against every sovereign nation state on earth. I don’t support global government nor revolutionary universalist movements like Marxism. I recognise the state of war that exists between nation states and I support Western governments in this war.

America and other Western governments are the least aggressive in human history. They respect human rights more than any other nations in history. This is part of the reason why I support them in this war. Note the word “war”. War is existential which is why objectives in war must take precedence over universal human rights whenever the two conflict.

Oh okay. So Obama is a neoconservative too. Everyone is a neoconservative. It’s a pretty meaningless term if you extend it to include just about everyone who met Kissinger. As I said, I’m not arguing in favour of neocons - I don’t like neocons. I’m simply telling you what neoconservatism is because you don’t seem to have any idea.

I said Americans should be allowed to “indiscriminately slaughter” did I? Where did I say that?

Osama bin Laden stated that part of the justification for mass murdering US citizens is the failure of the US government to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. That’s right - climate change is justification for mass murdering citizens. I’d say an idiot is someone who takes what Islamists say at face value. Islamists kill more Muslims each month than the US has in the last 50 years. So the argument for legitimate grievances is a lie. People who push it are either liars or what Lenin called “useful idiots”. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter in spite of your Neo-Nazi links.[/quote]

You may have not said America can indiscriminately slaughter but you champion a foreign policy whose result is that very thing.

Bin Laden also said plenty of times that the U.S. needs to get out of their holy land, this was more of a reason to plan an attack on the U.S. not the Kyoto Protocol. But you cannot admit that as it flies in face of your ideology so you have to reach further into fantasyland to help justify your brainwashed beliefs.

I’m not claiming that everyone who talks to Kissinger is a neo-con. but your assertion that there is no association is mildly retarded.

America and other Western governments are the least aggressive in human history. They respect human rights more than any other nations in history. This is part of the reason why I support them in this war. Note the word “war”. War is existential which is why objectives in war must take precedence over universal human rights whenever the two conflict.

This would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. This statement just goes to show how well the propaganda system works in the U.S.

The U.S. sponsors more terroristic actions than any other country in the world.

It’s actually about maintaining the balance of power not “taking over resources”. And if that’s your definition of neoconservatism then you obviously have no idea about foreign policy or the neoconservatives.

Funny, but taking over resources is what they do. And overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing one who is more conducive to American corporate interests is also an end result. Maybe “the balance of power” is the ostensible reason or cover-up but their true intentions are bore out by the end result.

I said international relations is synonymous with warfare. All other nation states are either allies or enemy. This is not by anyone’s design. It’s a natural condition of man that could only be transcended by a global government.

Do you think if the U.S. would curtail greatly it’s invasions of other countries and it’s murder of citizens it would make us less or more desirable as a friendly nation?

110

[quote] Zeppelin795 wrote:

You may have not said America can indiscriminately slaughter but you champion a foreign policy whose result is that very thing.

[/quote]

No I don’t. Furthermore, “indiscriminate slaughter” is antithetical to the American tradition. “Indiscriminate slaughter” is more in line with the Marxist regimes and sympathisers that you like to exclusively associate yourself with(and Neo-Nazis).

Bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s philosophy is founded upon the work of Sayyid Qutb who championed a war against America in 1940’s when the US didn’t have troops in the “holy” land. Did you know that? Instead of reading what OBL said publicly, have you ever thought to examine their actual philosophy? Sayyid Qutb believed that the Western culture, liberalism and parliamentary democracy was subverting Muslim societies. Not troops stationed there. But rather, movies, books, fashion - you know, “culture”. He advocated a war against the United States to cleanse the world of liberalism and democracy.

This is the ideological foundation of radical Islam. We can’t withdraw our “culture” from Muslim lands. They’re fighting against our culture that has spread throughout the world in the post-war era. Do you understand?

Try to think logically. Take a month in Iraq: the Islamists kill say, 500 civilians with suicide bombs then kill a hundred more at the funerals of the victims. America then targets one of the Islamist commanders and kills him and some of his family members that happened to be with him - maybe 12 people: say, 3 high ranking terrorists and 9 of their family members. This is typical of a month in Iraq during the fighting over there. It is not logical to say that people then join the Islamists and start suicide bombing Iraqi civilians because they want to stop Muslims being killed. That doesn’t make sense does it? Surely?

The connection being he talked to them? Okay whatever. I explained the two different camps. They’re ideologically opposed.

Read your own links. It says “some scholars say” and then it lists said scholars: Noam Fucking Chomsky et al. I’ve already deconstructed Chomsky’s pathological lies for you in another of your threads and you didn’t respond. You’re not interested in serious debate which is why I get sick of responding to your hard left propaganda. The reason I respond at all is because I don’t like this sort of crap to go unchallenged.

To put it simply, the US is the sole reason the world has not descended into barbarism since 1945. In fact, there’s a good chance that neither you nor I would even be alive today if it weren’t for the foreign policies of successive US administrations. The same can be said for most of the third world who live on US aid and await the US military and US NGOs every time they suffer a famine, natural disaster, epidemic or regional war.

Firstly, that’s a loaded question. Secondly, nation states are interested exclusively in their own power and security and will “piggyback” onto whichever great power they believe will protect their interests. America is hated by those regimes who see America as an obstacle to their ambitions.

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Zeppelin795 wrote:

You may have not said America can indiscriminately slaughter but you champion a foreign policy whose result is that very thing.

[/quote]

No I don’t. Furthermore, “indiscriminate slaughter” is antithetical to the American tradition. “Indiscriminate slaughter” is more in line with the Marxist regimes and sympathisers that you like to exclusively associate yourself with(and Neo-Nazis).

Bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s philosophy is founded upon the work of Sayyid Qutb who championed a war against America in 1940’s when the US didn’t have troops in the “holy” land. Did you know that? Instead of reading what OBL said publicly, have you ever thought to examine their actual philosophy? Sayyid Qutb believed that the Western culture, liberalism and parliamentary democracy was subverting Muslim societies. Not troops stationed there. But rather, movies, books, fashion - you know, “culture”. He advocated a war against the United States to cleanse the world of liberalism and democracy.

This is the ideological foundation of radical Islam. We can’t withdraw our “culture” from Muslim lands. They’re fighting against our culture that has spread throughout the world in the post-war era. Do you understand?

Try to think logically. Take a month in Iraq: the Islamists kill say, 500 civilians with suicide bombs then kill a hundred more at the funerals of the victims. America then targets one of the Islamist commanders and kills him and some of his family members that happened to be with him - maybe 12 people: say, 3 high ranking terrorists and 9 of their family members. This is typical of a month in Iraq during the fighting over there. It is not logical to say that people then join the Islamists and start suicide bombing Iraqi civilians because they want to stop Muslims being killed. That doesn’t make sense does it? Surely?

The connection being he talked to them? Okay whatever. I explained the two different camps. They’re ideologically opposed.

Read your own links. It says “some scholars say” and then it lists said scholars: Noam Fucking Chomsky et al. I’ve already deconstructed Chomsky’s pathological lies for you in another of your threads and you didn’t respond. You’re not interested in serious debate which is why I get sick of responding to your hard left propaganda. The reason I respond at all is because I don’t like this sort of crap to go unchallenged.

To put it simply, the US is the sole reason the world has not descended into barbarism since 1945. In fact, there’s a good chance that neither you nor I would even be alive today if it weren’t for the foreign policies of successive US administrations. The same can be said for most of the third world who live on US aid and await the US military and US NGOs every time they suffer a famine, natural disaster, epidemic or regional war.

Firstly, that’s a loaded question. Secondly, nation states are interested exclusively in their own power and security and will “piggyback” onto whichever great power they believe will protect their interests. America is hated by those regimes who see America as an obstacle to their ambitions.

[/quote]

Indiscriminate slaughter may be antithetical to the myth but it has been the result. Which is more important the result or claims?

And I have already explained labels are of little consequence when the aim and end result is the same. Subjugate the population and make their resources more amicable to U.S. corporate interests. A philosophy you approve of mightily.

The U.S. sponsors more terrorism and destruction around the globe to further it’s interests than any other country. This is the reason we are hated around the globe and more of a reason that 9/11 occurred. But I know I’m supposed to believe that 9/11 happened because the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. Do you think I’m as ignorant as you?

Wow the great Sex Machine has deconstructed Chompsky and proven he is a liar.
What you said that Chopmsky was a Holocaust denier or sympathizer or something like that. Please list the times Chompsky has been defeated in a debate. I’ve seen him wipe the floor with William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line. All he does is sight fact and speak the truth and that is all you need.

To put simply the U.S. is the main reason for destabilization around the globe.

Even if other countries are trying to further their interests it doesn’t make it right for the U.S. to invade other countries, indiscriminately slaughter civilians to further their interests.

112

Chomsky saying things you like and you nodding your head and Buckley saying things you don’t like doesn’t mean Chomsky “won” the argument. I can’t really continue with this discussion anymore. I’ve shown you scholarly work that exposes Chomsky as a systematic historical revisionist who practiced apologetics on behalf of the Khmer Rouge and holocaust denial and on and on. You’re posting links to Neo-Nazi sites and to Islamic fundamentalists and there’s just no point in continuing.

113

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I also think a meritocracy is the way to go and in your realist sense this is what exists now: some may inherit wealth or position, but they can certainly lose both if not capable of managing their affairs.

Really how different is it from what we have now?

[/quote]

This is a very complex question and it would take me a long time to articulate how modern liberalism and post-war Anglo-American parliamentary democracy and Continental democratic socialism inhibit meritocracy. I’ll start a thread on this when I have the time. Although I’ve addressed a lot of it already in my posts in PWI from different perspectives.

[quote]

How would you propose implementing this system? [/quote]

I’m actually very reluctant to take a normative or prescriptive approach to politics. Ideas to “fix” broad systemic problems in society always reek of Utopianism to me. I believe that political institutions reflect the culture of society and that the culture needs to be changed before political institutions can be changed. I also have a pessimistic and deterministic view of civilisation. Since the French Revolution the prevailing Anglo-American worldview sees civilisation as following a linear trajectory: that we are moving inexorably “forward” towards a “better world” and that the industrial revolution and the enfranchisement of the masses represent a positive and progressive force and so on.

My worldview is completely different. I see the trajectory of civilisations as a cyclical process and that European Civilisation is in the last stage of its cycle. This is a Greco-Roman worldview which was formalised by Polybius and Cicero as the political model of “anacyclosis”:

Essentially I believe that Western Civilisation is in its death throes. This theme was popular in Germany and to a lesser extent Italy from the last quarter of the 19th Century and was articulated by people like Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West and Julius Evola. These guys tended towards the creation of a new aristocracy in the mould of Nietzsche’s “supermen”. But I’m more pessimistic and see these ideas as just another kind of Utopianism. Basically I don’t see any prospects of reforming the current system; I believe it will need to collapse entirely before anything can be built. In this sense I welcome the “clash of civilisations” as an opportunity to build a new order from the ruins of the ancien regime.

Sorry if I haven’t articulated my position very clearly. This is just a hasty response to a subject that deserves a great deal of time and careful exposition. As I said, I’ll start a thread on this when I get some time.[/quote]

I fucking KNEW you were a Spenglerian! All of your past posts on the topic of the culture and “reactionary” movements clued me in. I’m late to the thread but I have a question for you: do you think that the cycle of civilizations is accelerating with a greater pace of information interchange and faster technological progress?

114

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I also think a meritocracy is the way to go and in your realist sense this is what exists now: some may inherit wealth or position, but they can certainly lose both if not capable of managing their affairs.

Really how different is it from what we have now?

[/quote]

This is a very complex question and it would take me a long time to articulate how modern liberalism and post-war Anglo-American parliamentary democracy and Continental democratic socialism inhibit meritocracy. I’ll start a thread on this when I have the time. Although I’ve addressed a lot of it already in my posts in PWI from different perspectives.

[quote]

How would you propose implementing this system? [/quote]

I’m actually very reluctant to take a normative or prescriptive approach to politics. Ideas to “fix” broad systemic problems in society always reek of Utopianism to me. I believe that political institutions reflect the culture of society and that the culture needs to be changed before political institutions can be changed. I also have a pessimistic and deterministic view of civilisation. Since the French Revolution the prevailing Anglo-American worldview sees civilisation as following a linear trajectory: that we are moving inexorably “forward” towards a “better world” and that the industrial revolution and the enfranchisement of the masses represent a positive and progressive force and so on.

My worldview is completely different. I see the trajectory of civilisations as a cyclical process and that European Civilisation is in the last stage of its cycle. This is a Greco-Roman worldview which was formalised by Polybius and Cicero as the political model of “anacyclosis”:

Essentially I believe that Western Civilisation is in its death throes. This theme was popular in Germany and to a lesser extent Italy from the last quarter of the 19th Century and was articulated by people like Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West and Julius Evola. These guys tended towards the creation of a new aristocracy in the mould of Nietzsche’s “supermen”. But I’m more pessimistic and see these ideas as just another kind of Utopianism. Basically I don’t see any prospects of reforming the current system; I believe it will need to collapse entirely before anything can be built. In this sense I welcome the “clash of civilisations” as an opportunity to build a new order from the ruins of the ancien regime.

Sorry if I haven’t articulated my position very clearly. This is just a hasty response to a subject that deserves a great deal of time and careful exposition. As I said, I’ll start a thread on this when I get some time.[/quote]

I fucking KNEW you were a Spenglerian! All of your past posts on the topic of the culture and “reactionary” movements clued me in. I’m late to the thread but I have a question for you: do you think that the cycle of civilizations is accelerating with a greater pace of information interchange and faster technological progress? [/quote]

Towards a technological singularity? Maybe yes.

115

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Chomsky saying things you like and you nodding your head and Buckley saying things you don’t like doesn’t mean Chomsky “won” the argument. I can’t really continue with this discussion anymore. I’ve shown you scholarly work that exposes Chomsky as a systematic historical revisionist who practiced apologetics on behalf of the Khmer Rouge and holocaust denial and on and on. You’re posting links to Neo-Nazi sites and to Islamic fundamentalists and there’s just no point in continuing.[/quote]

A letter written to America by Bin Laden. Funny I thought you told me that we were attacked because the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. It is a very small blurb in this otherwise lengthy and detailed letter.

Buckley V. Chompsky

Here Buckley follows the conceptual distinction while Chompsky follows the reality-based distinction. I thought you were a results kinda guy?

What scholarly work that proves Chompsky is a systematic historical revisionist?

116

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

A letter written to America by Bin Laden. Funny I thought you told me that we were attacked because the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

[/quote]

No I didn’t. That’s part of the reason I’m not interested in talking to you. Your comprehension skills and your reasoning faculties are not functioning. That’s why you’re attracted to irrational extremist politics. I pointed out that bin Laden listed failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol as one of his grievances with the United States. The point I was making is that bin Laden’s public utterances were irrational lies and bore no relation to his real motivations - his real motivations being informed by his radical international jihadist program originating with the Muslim Brotherhood and specifically, the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

I’m not interested in watching Buckley’s mincing and Chomsky’s pathological lying.

I’ll try this one more time. I’ve provided you with links to a scholarly deconstruction of Chomsky’s academic integrity.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

117

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point I was making is that bin Laden’s public utterances were irrational lies and bore no relation to his real motivations - his real motivations being informed by his radical international jihadist program originating with the Muslim Brotherhood and specifically, the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

[/quote]

This is off Wikipedia:

“Bin Laden’s overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long war of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the enemy nations.[73] Al-Qaeda manuals clearly express this strategy. In a 2004 tape broadcast by al-Jazeera, bin Laden spoke of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy”.[74]”

…I think Zawahiri was the one more focused on the study of Qutb and was jailed in Egypt after Qutb’s execution. Bin Laden may have been a believer, but he was more of a logistician and strategist than an Islamic scholar.

118

[quote]theuofh wrote:

…I think Zawahiri was the one more focused on the study of Qutb and was jailed in Egypt after Qutb’s execution. Bin Laden may have been a believer, but he was more of a logistician and strategist than an Islamic scholar. [/quote]

It’s true that bin Laden was not an Islamic scholar. The theological brains of the outfit was Zawahiri. OBL grew up as a secular, Westernised playboy - he hung around brothels and nightclubs in Beirut. Then he became a “true believer”. Some credit Zawahiri with helping to radicalise him. Regardless, Qutbism and an internationalist vanguard jihadism is the driving motivation. It’s this radical internationalist ideology that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia harnessed to serve their foreign policy interests. They constitute a threat that most other terrorist outfits don’t. Most terrorists have limited objectives relating to their own regional autonomy. Some have become smuggling/organised crime rackets - some of the Pakistani groups are more along these lines. AQ however, is a group of “true believers”(in the sense meant by Eric Hoffer) and their objectives are unlimited; internationalist and against the modern world. Their war is a metaphysical and spiritual war against modernity and all mankind.

119

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

A letter written to America by Bin Laden. Funny I thought you told me that we were attacked because the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

[/quote]

No I didn’t. That’s part of the reason I’m not interested in talking to you. Your comprehension skills and your reasoning faculties are not functioning. That’s why you’re attracted to irrational extremist politics. I pointed out that bin Laden listed failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol as one of his grievances with the United States. The point I was making is that bin Laden’s public utterances were irrational lies and bore no relation to his real motivations - his real motivations being informed by his radical international jihadist program originating with the Muslim Brotherhood and specifically, the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

I’m not interested in watching Buckley’s mincing and Chomsky’s pathological lying.

I’ll try this one more time. I’ve provided you with links to a scholarly deconstruction of Chomsky’s academic integrity.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
[/quote]
Wow, Paul Bogdanor, what a scholar! Here is a rebuttal to this ignoramus by someone who isn’t even an intellectual.

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.ca/2011/06/response-to-paul-bogdanors-top-200.html

Of course your not interested in watching the video. It might be too difficult to stomach to watch Buckley consistently interrupt Chompsky’s points.

The not signing of the Kyoto Protocol was the only reason you gave. So one has to make the assumption that you feel it is very important. But it was only a small blurb of his grievances. You listed this as a reason for the attacks on 9/11. In fact it was the only reason you gave. Look it up.

120

^^As I said you can’t read properly. Your comprehension skills are fucked. I have the example of the Kyoto Protocol to demonstrate the fundamental irrationality of bin Laden’s publicly stated grievances. The Hyoto Protocol was not a reason for 911. US stationed in Saudi Arabia was not a reason. The reason can be found in the fundamental ideological belief system of al Qaeda and international jihadists. The reason for 911 was a fundamental metaphysical war against modernity and what they perceive as American “culture” of consumerism, secularism and everything unIslamic and at odds with a fundamentalist Islamic worldview that sees Islam as a force of conquest that aims at the establishment of an Islamic state as a political entity and geographical sovereign entity. And the internationalist agenda of extending this territorial entity over the whole of the earth.

This military conquest of other peoples and their forced submission to Islam and the Islamic metaphysical system is seen as a “little holy war” - the “greater holy war” being the spiritual submission of the self to the objective, universal system of Islamic monotheism. The acts of terror are seen as formalised rituals that give substance to the greater inner struggle or “greater holy war”. Radical Islam manifested as an internationalist and anti-modernist form is a metaphysical and spiritual war against the individual and all of mankind. This is the “reason” for 911 and international jihadism.

Regarding Buckley, I don’t like Buckley - I’ve seen the interview in the video you posted before. I will speak for myself; not Buckley. And yes, Bogdanor is one of a number of scholars who have exposed Chomsky as a systematic liar and historical revisionist. The book “The Anti-Chomsky Reader” chronicles Chomsky’s career of deception and academic malpractice.