Friday, March 09, 2007
"An attack on Iran would effectively launch World War Three"
Chomsky, "America's Orwell", quotes the military historian Corelli Barnett in this insightful piece of writing :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2030015,00.html
"An attack on Iran would effectively launch World War Three".
The last known published words of Orwell were :
"The moral to be drawn from this nightmare situation is a simple one : Don't let it happen. It depends on you."
('Statement on Nineteen Eighty-Four' - June 1949)
We ignore the likes of Orwell and Chomsky at our peril.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2030015,00.html
"An attack on Iran would effectively launch World War Three".
The last known published words of Orwell were :
"The moral to be drawn from this nightmare situation is a simple one : Don't let it happen. It depends on you."
('Statement on Nineteen Eighty-Four' - June 1949)
We ignore the likes of Orwell and Chomsky at our peril.
Comments:
<< Home
The problem with Chomsky, Richard, in my opinion is that he might become boring to his readers because of so much arguing against the present politics in the Middle East.
We must on our side try to always repeat what he says everywhere, so as to make his interventions more sonorous - so to speak - more known the world around.
I praise your insistence in this connection
We must on our side try to always repeat what he says everywhere, so as to make his interventions more sonorous - so to speak - more known the world around.
I praise your insistence in this connection
Yes, Jose, I see what you mean - and it's good to hear from you again...here's hoping you are keeping well.
One criticism which one often hears is that Chomsky is so "boring".
Wow, wouldn't it be great if the major criticism of us was that we were "boring".
To me, and probably to you, such criticisms are a huge compliment - because detractors can't find major fault in the arguments - just that they are "boring" - in other words, consistent.
Chomsky is consistent - amazingly - and so is his moral integrity.
I'm reading one of his 1994 books, and they are very similar to his Guardian piece - and others.
What I think we must do is not 'deify' Chomsky, but simply apply his insights to our own situation - locally, nationally and internationally - and go beyond...
Standing on the shoulders of giants we can see further...if we use our eyes to see.
One criticism which one often hears is that Chomsky is so "boring".
Wow, wouldn't it be great if the major criticism of us was that we were "boring".
To me, and probably to you, such criticisms are a huge compliment - because detractors can't find major fault in the arguments - just that they are "boring" - in other words, consistent.
Chomsky is consistent - amazingly - and so is his moral integrity.
I'm reading one of his 1994 books, and they are very similar to his Guardian piece - and others.
What I think we must do is not 'deify' Chomsky, but simply apply his insights to our own situation - locally, nationally and internationally - and go beyond...
Standing on the shoulders of giants we can see further...if we use our eyes to see.
Is consistency necessarily a good thing? It could suggest that he's unable to assimilate alternative views, or take on board conflicting evidence.
Dogma is usually consistent, right up to the time it takes you over or you have to reject it.
Chomsky is not 'boring' to me, repetitive, yes. Grating at times, definitely. Of course, on occasion, he is also 'wrong' (just as Orwell could, at times)
Dogma is usually consistent, right up to the time it takes you over or you have to reject it.
Chomsky is not 'boring' to me, repetitive, yes. Grating at times, definitely. Of course, on occasion, he is also 'wrong' (just as Orwell could, at times)
I would be very interested to know where you think Chomsky and Orwell hae got it fundamentally 'wrong', Danivon.
They have made mistakes for sure - many of which they admit themselves it seems - but I struggle to find where they have got it fundamentally 'wrong'.
They have made mistakes for sure - many of which they admit themselves it seems - but I struggle to find where they have got it fundamentally 'wrong'.
To be moral is never boring or repetitive. And I think Chomsky is above everything else moral. The problem is that people think that that morality always exhibited by Chomsky is too much of a burden on them.
Indeed, Jose, there's only so much moral reality people can stand...
Chomsky is relentless...and those with not enough moral 'bottle' eventually give way either to psychological denial, or personal insult - which has nothing to do with his unpalatably clear, repetitive message.
For me, I sometimes get 'burnt out' on his relentless moral truth, and have to go away and read the equivalent of the Beano for a rest...
But I return refreshed, stimulated by the force of his ideas - like Orwell's.
His ideas are vital food for thought, and thought for food - and are a call to action...
Chomsky is relentless...and those with not enough moral 'bottle' eventually give way either to psychological denial, or personal insult - which has nothing to do with his unpalatably clear, repetitive message.
For me, I sometimes get 'burnt out' on his relentless moral truth, and have to go away and read the equivalent of the Beano for a rest...
But I return refreshed, stimulated by the force of his ideas - like Orwell's.
His ideas are vital food for thought, and thought for food - and are a call to action...
And, Richard, he is not the only one to think like he does. There are many more common-sense people in the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home
