Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This conversation is working well for me, as well.I didn't frame my thesis as well as I should have.
Chomsky's quote: "The United States is extremely lucky no honest charismatic figure has arisen..." was the first sentence in Chris Hedges's third paragraph.
The second paragraph dealt with how Hitler's charisma filled the vacuum of Weimar Germany.
When Chomsky went on to say "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers"--I should have made clear the connection to the Nazis.
Apparently I'm the one tipping Ernst Mayr's evolutionary scale toward "stupid."
I still enjoy the conversation:
FDR filled the vacuum of Depression Era America + WWII, for an unprecedented 16 years. Now, of course, there is a 2 Term limit to prevent exactly what Chomsky predicted. Oddly, this was well BEFORE Nixon was elected, who Chomsky uses as an example of Charismatic Crook. My guess is he was pandering to the Anti-Nixon popular opinion at the time.
Anyway, Let's address your question:
How likely is it King or Ghandi would have mobilized Alabama the way Hitler swayed Germany?
Very unlikely.
Of course, if you had asked me in 1900 if I thought a Black Charismatic Preacher would be mobilizing the USA against racial prejudice in 1960, then I'd probably considered it preposterous.
Chomsky's remarks sound as if they are frozen in 1960's, and are chosen to explain the social turbulance of the times. I can forgive him for being out of context TODAY, but he was out of context in the 60's! MLK was a charasmatic leader who was NOT A CROOK; A Two Term Limit prevented Nixon (A "CROOK") from maintaining office more than 8 years.
When Nixon resigned in 1974 there was widespread concern in the alternative press (and some questions raised in the corporate papers) that Dick would try extra-constitutional measures to stay in office.
When Nixon resigned in 1974 there was widespread concern in the alternative press (and some questions raised in the corporate papers) that Dick would try extra-constitutional measures to stay in office.
Actually, I remember this also being a legitimate concern at the end of the Bush/Cheney administration. People talked soberly about Cheney declaring martial law and inserting himself and/or Bush as a dictatorship, so tyrannical was that administration seen...
Its a big leap between being a concern of the "1974 alternative press" and being a "legitamate concern" and then "people talking soberly about Cheney declaring martial law."
But it does make for interesting fiction.
Great Caesar's ghost!Check this out. There were (and still are) HUNDREDS of sites with this warning...
The Threat Of Martial Law Is Real
Great Caesar's ghost!
Thanks for showing us that by which you are persuaded
There were similar concerns about Clinton doing the same rather than leaving office; only total wing-nuts believed any of that.
Which leads me to believe not much would surprise you, Peep.Great Caesar's ghost!
Thanks for showing us that by which you are persuaded
There were similar concerns about Clinton doing the same rather than leaving office; only total wing-nuts believed any of that.
I didn't say that I believed it, but that it was being talked about seriously by many. I'll put it this way, though. If it had happened, I would not have been shocked or surprised.
I just want to be clear about how rare this phenomenon really is or is not.
Absolutely not; what you believe in, as described, is a mythology of hate embedded in weak minds by elements of the left that is bent on destroying the historical memory of any politician they fear. This flows from their hatred of the same, and you have bought into it.I just want to be clear about how rare this phenomenon really is or is not.
Google it. It was pretty prevalent at the time in 2007. I'm not saying that I was in secret meetings, just your basic happy hour political discussion. I also conversed with some Irish friends who, believe it or not, could see it happening. Many saw the blatant power grab by Bush/Cheney as very ominous. You're really telling me that you could not see Cheney pulling something like that?
Absolutely not; what you believe in, as described, is a mythology of hate embedded in weak minds by elements of the left that is bent on destroying the historical memory of any politician they fear. This flows from their hatred of the same, and you have bought into it.
Absolutely not; what you believe in, as described, is a mythology of hate embedded in weak minds by elements of the left that is bent on destroying the historical memory of any politician they fear. This flows from their hatred of the same, and you have bought into it.
Bought into what? I do think that administration was dishonest, corrupt and dangerous. I wouldn't put anything past them, and I don't think I am alone. I did not "believe" that they were absolutely going to do this. I only said I wouldn't be surprised or shocked if they did.
Maybe he could have dismantled those programs, but you can bet he certainly would have been impeached once the truth got out about WMDs.I still to this day think we got lucky with George W. Bush. Say what you want about the man, disagree with his politics, question his intelligence, but the facts are these. After 9/11 he could have pushed and became President for life without a lot of effort. He could have used funding the War on Terror to completely dismantle every entitlement program on the books. He could have used the ability to declare people foreign combatants to detain people all over the nation.
Post 9/11 he gained a lot of power, but he could have easily taken more. Thankfully he wasn't interested in that.
As for the rest, I think there's a possibility for a idealogue to come from both sides. I think the leaderless nature of the Tea Party makes it ripe for coopting and converting to a power base for a very charismatic leader, but I also think the Left has many groups that could just as easily be manipulated to support a rise to power.
It only qualifies as fiction until we find out if it can actually happen here.When Nixon resigned in 1974 there was widespread concern in the alternative press (and some questions raised in the corporate papers) that Dick would try extra-constitutional measures to stay in office.
Actually, I remember this also being a legitimate concern at the end of the Bush/Cheney administration. People talked soberly about Cheney declaring martial law and inserting himself and/or Bush as a dictatorship, so tyrannical was that administration seen...
Its a big leap between being a concern of the "1974 alternative press" and being a "legitamate concern" and then "people talking soberly about Cheney declaring martial law."
But it does make for interesting fiction.
On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.Absolutely not; what you believe in, as described, is a mythology of hate embedded in weak minds by elements of the left that is bent on destroying the historical memory of any politician they fear. This flows from their hatred of the same, and you have bought into it.
Bought into what? I do think that administration was dishonest, corrupt and dangerous. I wouldn't put anything past them, and I don't think I am alone. I did not "believe" that they were absolutely going to do this. I only said I wouldn't be surprised or shocked if they did.
If there had EVER been a single incident or action of illegal activity on the part of President Bush it would have been completely made a public issue and the Democrats in congress would’ve begun impeachment proceedings. They, the congress, and the MSM were certainly without fear of him; their words constantly reminded us of that. He never once passed a bill into law under circumstances that remotely paralleled what we have seen in recent days; and any Presidential order he enacted can be rescinded by a vote of congress, and none ever has been.
To some, mainly on the left, a meeting in which people who knew energy, and were asked to be a part of a session to give their ideas on policy was automatically corrupt, and not providing their names was considered illegal and a circumvention of the constitution. And our MSM went totally along with that. But the Supreme Court did not find that to be so.
Not a single act of President Bush contested by the Democrats was ever shown to be anything other than a dispute about policy. That issue seemed to come as revenge for asking for a list of those who attended Hillary’s health-care Task Force; whose names were required to be made public by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
It has been a modus operandi of the left to attempt to criminalize Republican presidents for actions which are within the purview and responsibility of those presidents and are no more than policy differences. In this way, these Democrats hope to neuter a president whose policies they oppose.
Part of the reason for that is that they believe they can give all Republican presidents the stigma of being tools of corporate interests, and delegitimize their administrations and the actions taken during them.
Another part is to serve as a warning to anyone who would aspire to the office on that side of the political spectrum to think twice, and consider other career options.
Another part is to “get even;” RE Clinton since he was brought to the bar (and de-barred in Arkansas for 5-years) for an actual illegal (criminal) act, lying under oath to a Federal judge.
So you are totally within your rights to think anything you like about President Bush, but IMO you have been a victim of totally biased reporting, which illustrates once again why we have work to usurp and completely replace the MSM, and that is happening as we speak
On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.Bought into what? I do think that administration was dishonest, corrupt and dangerous. I wouldn't put anything past them, and I don't think I am alone. I did not "believe" that they were absolutely going to do this. I only said I wouldn't be surprised or shocked if they did.
If there had EVER been a single incident or action of illegal activity on the part of President Bush it would have been completely made a public issue and the Democrats in congress would’ve begun impeachment proceedings. They, the congress, and the MSM were certainly without fear of him; their words constantly reminded us of that. He never once passed a bill into law under circumstances that remotely paralleled what we have seen in recent days; and any Presidential order he enacted can be rescinded by a vote of congress, and none ever has been.
To some, mainly on the left, a meeting in which people who knew energy, and were asked to be a part of a session to give their ideas on policy was automatically corrupt, and not providing their names was considered illegal and a circumvention of the constitution. And our MSM went totally along with that. But the Supreme Court did not find that to be so.
Not a single act of President Bush contested by the Democrats was ever shown to be anything other than a dispute about policy. That issue seemed to come as revenge for asking for a list of those who attended Hillary’s health-care Task Force; whose names were required to be made public by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
It has been a modus operandi of the left to attempt to criminalize Republican presidents for actions which are within the purview and responsibility of those presidents and are no more than policy differences. In this way, these Democrats hope to neuter a president whose policies they oppose.
Part of the reason for that is that they believe they can give all Republican presidents the stigma of being tools of corporate interests, and delegitimize their administrations and the actions taken during them.
Another part is to serve as a warning to anyone who would aspire to the office on that side of the political spectrum to think twice, and consider other career options.
Another part is to “get even;” RE Clinton since he was brought to the bar (and de-barred in Arkansas for 5-years) for an actual illegal (criminal) act, lying under oath to a Federal judge.
So you are totally within your rights to think anything you like about President Bush, but IMO you have been a victim of totally biased reporting, which illustrates once again why we have work to usurp and completely replace the MSM, and that is happening as we speak
Bush, who ducked his fight in Vietnam, went one step further by claiming the attack could happen on any given day, in other words--the attack was imminent.
A big problem Chicken George would face if he ever faced prosecution for the murder of over 4000 US service members is that six days earlier the CIA had supplied him with its National Intelligence Estimate for 2002.
"Page 8 clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him.
"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him...We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie..."
So says Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor and author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
I found Chomsky at a much later stage of my life than you did.Noam Chomsky may be the smartest person I ever met.
I spend about three hours in a living room of a browstone on the campus of Northeastern in 1976.
He was holding a seminar on the Mid East issue. There might have been twenty people in the room.
That being said, I still don't think he's presidental material.
But were I POTUS he'd be on my coucil of advisors in foreign affairs, that's for damned sure.
His capacity to absorb information and analyze data off the cuff might have been the most amazing thing I ever saw any social scientist do .
And let's remember that social science is merely a hobby of his. He's a inguist by profession...THE linguist of our age according to many, too.
Everything he said, every fact he offered, he backed up by telling us the publication, page and DATE that it was published.
I never saw anyone with both the capacity to recall, and the ability to put it all together into a cohernet narrative that Chomsky had.
And do bear in mind that I took classes with Howard Zinn and Joe Levine at BU, too. It wasn't like he was the only truly world class smart guy I ever met.
Chomsky made those guys look like undergrads.
So all the above article does is reinforce my own concerns about where this nation is heading.
The fact that Chomsky sees the same kind of threats I do, is very disheartening.
I'd hoped that I was being pessimistic.
On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.
Bush, who ducked his fight in Vietnam, went one step further by claiming the attack could happen on any given day, in other words--the attack was imminent.
A big problem Chicken George would face if he ever faced prosecution for the murder of over 4000 US service members is that six days earlier the CIA had supplied him with its National Intelligence Estimate for 2002.
"Page 8 clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him.
"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him...We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie..."
So says Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor and author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
Vincent makes for a wonderful Monday Morning Quarterback.
His quote from "Page 8" clearly shows that the CIA's 2002 NIE thought Iraq had WMD:
"the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."
Now, let's suppose, that shortly after 9/11, which the CIA did not prevent, and the Invasion of Kuwait, which took the CIA by surprise, and the gassing of Kurdish Iraqis, Bush came on TV and said:
RELAX! The CIA says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."
Given the context, the CIA's opinion of whatever Hussrin would do with WMD isn't terribly credible.
In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.
To my mind the CIA's credibility is less relevant here than its honesty.On October 7, 2002 George W. Bush delivered a speech to the nation claiming Saddam Hussein was a great danger to the most powerful Failed State in history either by directly attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction or by supplying some terrorist group with said (fictional) weapons.If there had EVER been a single incident or action of illegal activity on the part of President Bush it would have been completely made a public issue and the Democrats in congress would’ve begun impeachment proceedings. They, the congress, and the MSM were certainly without fear of him; their words constantly reminded us of that. He never once passed a bill into law under circumstances that remotely paralleled what we have seen in recent days; and any Presidential order he enacted can be rescinded by a vote of congress, and none ever has been.
To some, mainly on the left, a meeting in which people who knew energy, and were asked to be a part of a session to give their ideas on policy was automatically corrupt, and not providing their names was considered illegal and a circumvention of the constitution. And our MSM went totally along with that. But the Supreme Court did not find that to be so.
Not a single act of President Bush contested by the Democrats was ever shown to be anything other than a dispute about policy. That issue seemed to come as revenge for asking for a list of those who attended Hillary’s health-care Task Force; whose names were required to be made public by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
It has been a modus operandi of the left to attempt to criminalize Republican presidents for actions which are within the purview and responsibility of those presidents and are no more than policy differences. In this way, these Democrats hope to neuter a president whose policies they oppose.
Part of the reason for that is that they believe they can give all Republican presidents the stigma of being tools of corporate interests, and delegitimize their administrations and the actions taken during them.
Another part is to serve as a warning to anyone who would aspire to the office on that side of the political spectrum to think twice, and consider other career options.
Another part is to “get even;” RE Clinton since he was brought to the bar (and de-barred in Arkansas for 5-years) for an actual illegal (criminal) act, lying under oath to a Federal judge.
So you are totally within your rights to think anything you like about President Bush, but IMO you have been a victim of totally biased reporting, which illustrates once again why we have work to usurp and completely replace the MSM, and that is happening as we speak
Bush, who ducked his fight in Vietnam, went one step further by claiming the attack could happen on any given day, in other words--the attack was imminent.
A big problem Chicken George would face if he ever faced prosecution for the murder of over 4000 US service members is that six days earlier the CIA had supplied him with its National Intelligence Estimate for 2002.
"Page 8 clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him.
"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him...We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie..."
So says Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor and author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
Vincent makes for a wonderful Monday Morning Quarterback.
His quote from "Page 8" clearly shows that the CIA's 2002 NIE thought Iraq had WMD:
"the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."
Now, let's suppose, that shortly after 9/11, which the CIA did not prevent, and the Invasion of Kuwait, which took the CIA by surprise, and the gassing of Kurdish Iraqis, Bush came on TV and said:
RELAX! The CIA says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared America was about to attack him."
Given the context, the CIA's opinion of whatever Hussrin would do with WMD isn't terribly credible.
