22 Responses

  1. First words out of his mouth were to favorably quote Noam (JFK and 9/11 don’t matter) Chomsky. I tuned out immediately.

    • oh yeah, I’m sure you did and you made sure to share that thought here in hopes everyone else would do the same, right? Doesn’t matter that the quote was a joke about being boring (“people say I’m boring and I’m proud of that”) and he doesn’t mention Chomsky again. No, all you want to do is make sure ideas like this are trampled under foot of your litmus test “fail”. I could have tuned out myself when he mentioned Gloooooobal Warming!! (eek) twice, but you know, the rest of the talk is accurate, informative and in many ways, very important for folks to listen to, even if they don’t agree with everything. even if he mentions a joke a guy once made who folks like would rather no one ever listens to.

      • Your accusation is patently unfair and completely off the mark. I have no hopes of influencing anyone here. No one here (or most anywhere, really) listens to me. Was Just voicing my opinion. Chomshy nauseates me. And Hedges has been what, maybe a step above being a 9/11 Truth denier? Haven’t you written about that? I’d have given Hedges (perfect name) a chance were it not for his opening line. I don’t know what the story is re Global
        warming, have not gotten into it, but Truthers whom I respect are on both sides of the issue. Congrats on hanging in there after that. Yes, I still apply the 9/11 litmus test–hasn’t failed me yet.

        • not only was I offended by Hedge’s comments about GW but also his seemingly vapid approval of the end of communism in Czechoslovakia and his summing up his speech talking about how wrong it is to “rip mothers from their babies” here in America talking about sending illegals back to where they came from. So, yeah, there’s a good deal of wrong I see in his speech and his approach, but all in all, it’s good stuff with important messages and lessons he learned from resistance groups in Latin America over the decades. Something I have said for years we should be focusing on in terms of how we move forward from here.

          yes, but as soon as heard the name Chomsky, you turned it off. And it was a 9-word-long joke about being boring. And you missed all the rest because you’ve become conditioned to do that. you see what I am saying?

          • I’ve conditioned myself to steer clear of Disinformation Specialists. Apparently Scott, you have forgotten how. https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/chris-hedges-absurd-disinformation-regarding-the-new-color-revolution-in-egypt/

            • You can find more on my disapproval of Hedges all day long. That isn’t the only time I called him out for his bullshit in the past. And for that matter, I have savaged Chomsky as well. But again, in case you haven’t figured it out, even if someone is wrong (or purposefully dense like Chomsky and Hedges have both been at times) from time to time, it doesn’t mean they are AlWAYS wrong. Still a good speech worth listening to.

              • Yes, if you like listening to disinformation specialists.

                • “To resist radical evil is to endure a life by the standards of wider society, is a failure. It is to defy injustice at the cost of your career, your reputation, your financial solvency and at times, your life. It is to be a life long heretic.”

                  “The power of the powerless, living in the truth… a refusal to be part of the charade and it has a cost”

                  Where is the “disinformation” in those quotes from his talk? Why don’t you point to specific disinfo so I can tell what it is you are talking about.

                  • I’m talking about his past disinformation  efforts, some of which you have discussed. Based on his prior rhetoric, I had written off Hedges previously. Your latest headline intrigued me, so I gave it a shot; but Hedges’ citing Chompsky in a positive light turned me off, and took me back to my prior mindset. I didn’t go beyond the Chomsky reference. This time, I’m sure Hedges had, as he has had in the past, some worthwhile things to say. That’s what good Disinformation Specialists do, as you know.  Chomsky is another example. I can’t listen to him either. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

                    • He didn’t “cite Chomsky in a positive light”… he opened with a joke about being proud he was considered “boring”… that doesn’t nearly qualify.

                    • Mentioning Chomsky as some sort of glorified authoritative speaker without reminding people of his JFK and 9/11 don’t matter stances–key issues of our times–casts him in a positive light. That’s how I see it, you don’t, so, ok, we disagree. But to me It’s like saying, “As the NY Times has reported…” without pointing out that the Times is part of the Mockingbird press. One way around this is to say something like “Even The NY Times admits that…” I don’t know how you’d get around this problem when mentioning Chomsky. I’d never cite him for anything positive. To me it’s important never to lose cite of what he’s really about.

                    • Isn’t it funny how you never want to hear anything about Chomsky or by Chomsky… and the MSM feels pretty much the same way? I wonder why that is?

                      The U.S. is the world’s leading terrorist state, and proud of it… this is a record to be contemplated with some awe” The CIA is “the world champion in generating terror”

                      “The first paragraph of the Times article cites three major examples of ‘covert aid’: Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba. In fact, each case was a major terrorist operation conducted by the US,”

                      “Washington joined South Africa in providing crucial support for Jonas Savimbi’s terrorist Unita army in Angola,”

                      “The toll of the long terrorist war (against Cuba) was amplified by a crushing embargo, which continues even today in defiance of the world. On Oct. 28, the UN, for the 23rd time, endorsed ‘the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba,’”

                      “To this we may add the world’s greatest terrorist campaign: Obama’s global project of assassination of ‘terrorists.’ The ‘resentment-generating impact’ of those drone and special-forces strikes should be too well known to require further comment,” Noam Chomsky

                      Just curious… which part of that do you find MOST offensive?

                    • Different reasons: The mainstream press is pro-Zionist and pro-USA, and I’m pro 9/11 and JFK etc. Truth.

                      How come you love Chomsky so much today? Did you kiss and make up? Search Chomsky on your own site.


                    • don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I love him, I said he’s right on some issues, wrong on others. Why don’t you ever address my questions or what I just posted?

                      what in that do you find offensive?

                    • Actually I had answered but then lost it via a failed cut and paste. I found nothing offensive.

                      I also missed one of your replies. Yes, you would be less effective if, like me, you applied a litmus test. That’s your job to cover all bases, even Alex Jones.

                      Why do I especially dislike Chomsky and Hedges? Because they have very significant “Left” followings, and serve as very effective gatekeepers. If they came out for 9/11 Truth, it could be very beneficial for the Truth Movement and maybe the world.

                    • “(they) serve as very effective gatekeepers. If they came out for 9/11 Truth, it could be very beneficial for the Truth Movement and maybe the world.”

                      we agree completely on that. though I think the Truth movement is pretty much over unfortunately, it would be helpful for the whole world and maybe necessary to fix what is going on today.

                    • Agreed.

                    • could you imagine how useless I would be as a Truth advocate or and anti-globalization activist if I never listened to disinformation specialists or read the work of their propagandists, ever? CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Guardian? What if folks like me never once listened to any of them or read any of them? How could we do our work? How would we know what’s going on? I’m not comparing Hedges to them I’m just saying, I bet even you don’t live up to that standard when it comes to other “disinformation” sources, so why just Chomsky and Hedges? You know, there was a thing in the truth movement back in the day run by neoliberals who were determined to make sure “truthers” (as they (the Jon Gold faction) called us) didn’t look at the real history of neoliberalism. They were very happy when we blamed baby-sacrificing lizard people or “the JoooOoooOoows” but when we started discussing the history of corporatism and neoliberalism and things like the Lewis Powell Memo and that sort of thing, they always came out swinging against Chomsky and Hedges and even Howard Zinn when they could. You remember that? You’ve been around this stuff as long as I have, even longer I believe. So I know you remember that. I mean, talk about “controlled opposition”, that was the definition.

  2. “Climate change anti-capitalism” – a perfect example of a controlled, usurped, opposition and a recipe for failure.

    • agreed.. but… the whole Global Warming thing (and lets call it by it’s original name, shall we?) isn’t anti-capitalism. The savage capitalists started and promote the idea in an effort to wrest control of every nation’s economy, manufacturing and energy production rights from those nations and put it in the hands of unelected boards who will decide who gets to industrialize, manufacture and drill and HOW they do it. It’s total control BY the very same elements of global control that the anti-capitalists claim they oppose. I mean, look at the new Russia, Iran, North Korea sanctions bill. All based on LIES and all for the purpose of imposing control. “Global Warming” mythology is set up to justify setting up a control grid very similar in fact. Anyone steps out of line, doesn’t hand over their central bank, doesn’t stay on the dollar as international currency, doesn’t buy oil and LNG from who the masters of the universe tells them to, then they pay the price, like Russia, Iran and North Korea. So it’s not been “usurped”. It always was, in my opinion.

      • I agree with you. I used the term, “climate change anti-capitalism” to mean, “man-made global warming anti-capitalism” simply to make the language more up to date.

        Of course the idea of catastrophic, runaway global warming was always a lie and a tool of the bankers and other capitalists who are represented by the Club of Rome. Therefore, to express anti-capitalism in the same breath as expressing the need to reduce our “carbon footprint” is to support the capitalists while at the same time as attacking them.

        The word, “usurped” was used in my post to apply to two groups. Firstly, organized socialism has been usurped by their traditional enemy, international finance capitalism, by the way that the man-made global warming theory has become such an integral part of modern socialist doctrine. Secondly, the genuine environmental movements have been usurped by the way that CO2 and man-made global warming has been made to be the central issue of environmental protection, at the expense of genuine environmental issues.

        Not only that, hitching anti-capitalism to the man-made global warming bandwagon is a recipe for failure simply because the man-made global warming bandwagon itself is destined to fail. Once people actually have a closer look at the topic, every year more and more of them come to see that what the mainstream media has said about the 9/11 terror attacks is a lie. Exactly the same applies to the man-made global warming hoax. This is especially true once people learn that average global temperatures have not increased for the past 19 years, and once people learn that more and more scientists are predicting an upcoming Grand Solar Minimum, even a ‘mini ice age’ that will last for several decades.

        Chris Hedges is, in my opinion, yet another left gatekeeper. No doubt his sense of morality is genuine but for leftists to appoint him as a leader is to allow themselves to be led down the wrong path.

        • Posting a video of his is by no means suggesting he is a “leader” of anything. But he’s right on 95% of this talk. and he’s especially right when he says real leftists and progressive minded people are NEVER going to find the solution they seek in the unDemocratic Party. He is absolutely correct in that which is one of the reasons I decided to post this, knowing full well a certain segment would come out immediately attacking me for doing so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: