Your video, noam chomsky-why i am not a liberal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@RFlagg
i am watching the video right now and have not gotten to the jessica lynch segment,but the jessica lynch story was utter bullshit:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0905-09.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bbc-proves-jessica-lynch-rescue-story-was-a-hoax/

i agree with his underlying message that opinions are being manipulated by those who most profit/benefit.noam chomsky probably makes the best argument in his book "manufacturing consent".

Well, to be brutally honest, I knew that before we even set foot in Iraq that this type of stuff was going to happen (if not even worse stuff further down the road) simply because the ONLY two examples in history we really have that allowed for the successful creation of new countries after horrific wars were: Japan and Germany.

But, there were some major things that needed to be noticed, if indeed Iraq ended up being a successful story; though it would have taken a few generations and perhaps 30 years... It would require us to remain in Iraq for a VERY long time.

I called it before the war even started. I literally stated that if we pulled out before we succeed in "our" goal (and BTW, we STILL have not "pulled out" of Japan nor Germany, but we aren't enemies either; but it shows you the level of commitment we had in the 50's versus our, "...we have to see results in one year, otherwise we'll just drop the whole thing like hot bricks...", type of idiocy prevalent in our politicians and populous right now...

I don't think we should have EVER gone into Iraq, simply because we never had the backbone NOR the stomach to actually remain there and to see it ALL the way through. When Bush proposed this war, if he would have been a smart man, he would have told the entire nation that going there would be a new level of commitment we hadn't been used to for quite some time. IT WOULD get Americans killed; possibly even a fairly high amount...

Nobody simply wanted to face the truth and reality of what they wanted to achieve and WHAT it would actually take to get it done. Instead, we went to war, just long enough (and I really hope this wasn't the biggest reason; but, my EXTREMELY cynical and negative side wants to say it's true...) to line the pockets of the politicians that signed on and, of course, the banks, portfolios, and third parties all involved in stealing--literally--billions of taxpayer dollars and making billions more in revenue and other sources...

Truly making Cheney and Bush utterly despicable. By that point, that everything was realized to be an utter falsehood we had two choices: stick to the course created for a false reason (but turn it into on of history's greatest success stories; and WE COULD have done it, it just required...well...something Americans didn't wish to give Iraqis, sadly); and dropping the war as fast as possible with some sort of "transition" to the Iraqi government.

We took option two and we KNEW full well (at least if you were smart enough to know ANYTHING about history, just what was about to come eventually for Iraq) that their "peace" we created for them, to "save" them, was utter horse-shiat. They are now paying for the war crimes our leaders perpetrated against them...

Had we stayed, if we were still there and the media was patiently trying to explain to the American people WHY we had to stay--if we TRULY wish to FREE a country and make it into something great and new--it takes time and a lot of it.

Like I said, if you want to see what you have to do to pull this off, go look at Japan and Germany following WW2. It's not pretty; life WILL be lost. But, it might, just might, be better than this jihad social network that is in its infancy trying to become a true monster...



/political rant--because like the guy that Chomsky refers to, I saw this crap coming a long, long, long time ago
//I really had issues with the whole Iraq thing back in the day; but, I did say that if we went in, we should prepare to commit not for years, but for DECADES... I think THAT is where the American people, in general, didn't realize how truly long this fight would really be as it was indeed a "generational" fight... To me, it makes complete sense why we utterly FAILED, but ALSO why we were beginning to get things to actually work (and then flushed it all down the toilet--because a President sent us over to fight a war that I don't believe we were mentally prepared to REALLY win/fight; and as I said at the end, our soldiers (and their families) simply weren't ready for a war that would span a decade or more...
///Too many people think like the politicians do with war; war should be "nice and clean", "quick and simple", "profits and power"; as Sherman once said which applies to these type of politicians, but sadly many Americans in general who see war like a video game, not recognizing the true horror AND the true lengths men, woman, and children in those areas will need to change to make peace a word that can once again be common place in their society--not just for the hopeful: "I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

Your video, noam chomsky-how the US helped create ISIS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I would say that example is a false dichotomy. You're never going to find a case in Palestine or elsewhere in the world that someone blows themselves up purely for the religious reasons. There are clearly political and social motivations at play in every terrorist attack.

This relates directly to my main point though. Some some pundits want to use a suicide bombing in the West Bank as proof that Islam is "evil" or "dangerous" without addressing the elephant in the room--that the Palestinians are living in the world's "largest open-air prison" (to use Chomsky's words) and are resisting what they see as occupation of their lands in any way they can. It is no where near as simplistic as the "Muslims good/infidels bad cuz Koran says so" argument that some people seem to want to make.

And let's be clear, I'm not saying there aren't passages in the Koran that are being interpreted by Hamas and others as justification for the use of terrorism as an acceptable form of resistance. I'm saying this isn't unique to Islam. During the height of fighting in Northern Ireland both sides were using the Bible to justify the car bombs, assassinations, and other violence that occurred during The Troubles (another complex conflict where religious, political, and social issues intertwined). Yet I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Christianity is "evil" or "dangerous" based on what went down in Northern Ireland. It is a great example, though, of how any organized religion can be mobilized to support evil acts.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Extremely clever and insightful guy, and he has delivered a great piece of truth to the people of the world.
It sounds like he is leaning towards the Noam Chomsky school of thought. i.e. The war on terror is a fabrication, designed to protect the power, profits and dominance of the foreign policy elites and the powers they represent...

Yep. Good bloke. Good luck to him.

Extremely simplistic and naive guy, but he has delivered a great piece of propaganda to the enemy.
He sounds like he is leaning toward the Noam Chomsky school of thought ie; "its all the Wests fault, if we just stopped being so nasty, these lovely people would leave us alone..."

@artician
you always have the same criticisms.
with the same conclusions and yet you never offer an alternative.
now i understand your criticisms and they are not exactly wrong,but rather too over-simplified in my opinion.

what i DON'T understand is how you can bring that same criticism for a trailer.this is a small sniglet to get people to watch this movie.a glimpse of the content using dramatic music and flashy visual imagery all with the specific intent:to get people to watch this movie.

this tactic is used for every trailer,every commercial for a tv show or reality series,it is even used to sell BOOKS!

and to postulate that the mere appearance of manipulation invalidates the content,even if true,is illogic made manifest.

of course a documentary is going to have a certain bias,they are trying to make a point,but if the facts are solid and the logic reasonable..who cares if they use dramatic music to set the tone?

chomsky relays some of the most in-depth criticisms of american hegemony but he also is soft spoken and monotone.he puts many people to sleep.so it doesnt matter that his facts are backed by reams and reams of data,he simply bores many people.

see what im saying? because it appears to me,THAT is what you would prefer.no music,no dramatic production,just straight facts delivered in a monotone voice.

meh../shrugs.guess we just disagree on this point.and that's fine.

OH oh oh I bet this will be good. Ill have to watch later but thought you might enjoy. http://videosift.com/video/Chomsky-Krauss-An-Origins-Project-Dialogue

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade

i would not say i am anti-establishment but rather suspicious of power and authority,and rightly so in my opinion,but thats all that is..my opinion.

i tend to post chomsky because he is the most quoted and since he is so critical of power his research tends to be thoroughly vetted.i also post:chris hedges,henry giroux,sheldon wolin,carl popper all whom are extremely critical of the current power structures.

my faith dictates my politics and to me the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness

i am critical of power.
i challenge authority and question its validity,forcing said authority to prove its relevance in todays society.

just because i criticize and challenge current power structure in no way dismisses the very good and beneficial accomplishments of the society i reside in.there are many positives to be acknowledged and applauded,but we must be vigilant and do our due diligence in order to challenge extremely powerful forces that seek to undermine the myriad of hard-won rights and privileges in order to benefit themselves at the detriment of everybody else.

so while my politics may be perceived as radical by some,it is not radical at all to me.which should be self-evident.

and disagreement is not only fine by me but welcomed,and i am glad you will engage with me (some people fear conflict).engagement forces me to refine and examine my own ideologies and if they are found lacking,then they must be discarded.without challenge and criticism we will all sit in our own hubris,an echo chamber of our own insular ideologies,smelling our own farts.

now where is the fun in that?

anyways..always a pleasure sparring with ya.
stay awesome brother and merry christmas happy new year!

You say; "i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him."
Well, my friend, that is precisely because his opinions never change. The west, and everything it has achieved or stands for - especially the USA - is, according to him the great evil. So why would my comments be amended?
Btw, your points; 1,2,3 are exactly what one would expect from a Chomskey devotee.
Of course I watch the videos. Though I must admit it is more for the soporific tone of his voice than his lazy defeatist opinion. Also, I doubt that reading one of his books would better explain his points. Rather, I would imagine they go into even greater unnecessary detail of his already well known views.
Finally; thank you for your concern, but I can assure you, I am far from being confused regarding Chomskey or, in fact, your good self, who derides my repeated criticism yet insists on posting the same anti-establishment videos.
Ps; Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you, and yours.

@A10anis
i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him.

his premise is fairly consistent and self evident:he is critical of power.

while i do not disagree with your assertions on personal responsibility and i suspect most people would agree with you on that point.i do not see chomsky making an argument against personal responsibility.so your point in that regard is moot.but to ignore massive monied and powerfully influential political and corporate institutions and their affects on society is naive' at best and venal at worst.

you appear to be made uncomfortable by the criticizing of the power structure and institutions of the west (i do not know where "here" is for you).which suggests to me that you have confused ideology with reality,made clearer by your suggestions:
1.taking advantage of an education system that more and more translates to debt peonage and a high percentage of not even working in the field utilizing that education.
2.free thought.
ok i have to admit this one made me giggle.
everybody has free thought but the irony here is relevant to the very video on how that thought is manipulated and your comment reveals in ironic delicousness.
3.certain rights.
yes we do have certain rights.rights that have been systematically chipped away at due to abstract wars on:terror,drugs,immigrants etc etc.rights are becoming more a suggestion than actual rights.

your conclusion has the suggested flavor that since chomsky benefited in this society that he should just shut up,sit down and behave like a good little boy,and that those who admire his courage to criticize the most powerful country on the planet are "followers".

since you do watch the videos of chomsky( you do watch them dont you?),yet have the exact same criticism every time,maybe it is time you actually read one of his books?
just an idea...
you may find much of your confusion in regards to chomsky will be clarified.

Another rant from the harbinger of doom. I believe his followers gain succour from his dystopian views because it gives them an excuse for the shortcomings in their own lives. OK, that's a bit strong, but the fact is, no matter what figures you want to analyze, never in history have humans been so fortunate both in health and general well being. Generally, each generation lives longer, is better cared for and enjoys a better quality of life than the last. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. Do we care enough about our third world cousins? Again, probably not.
I never quite "get" what Chomsky's real problem is. Is it Multinationals? Media? Government? Corporations? It seems to be all of these, and a whole lot more. North Korea would be a good place for him to rail against evidential control, injustice and a true dystopian existence. Here we are allowed to take advantage of education, free thought and certain rights. In short, to make the best of things. I suggest he, and his followers, do the same. Moaning on, and on, and on about this awful, oppressive existence we suffer in the west, really gains no sympathy from people who live in places where they would love the chances Chomsky seems to take for granted.