1. Death for apostasy?

Comment #270348 by Xenocratic on October 24, 2008 at 4:44 am

So I believe Fanusi Khiyal has stopped posting on this forum. It's about time that miserable miscreant was vanquished from this "clear-thinking oasis". Can't believe this disgusting racist and totalitarian scumbag wasn't vanquished sooner, which says something about the sort of people who post on this website. Glad there were at least a few people who took a stand against his idiotic, vile, hate-filled rants so that he no longer feels welcome in this supposed haven for rational thought.

Al-rawandi, your comment that "All of the Islamic resistance was created by Muslims. At the very end the US decided to give them some weapons" is sheer bollocks, as any half wit with even an iota of historical knowledge should know. I'm glad godspot provided the necessary background to the US funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, from a top level planner no less, but I wonder how many people are aware that the Israeli government created Hamas? This is not to mention the concerted effort by successive US administrations to undermine secular Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East since World War 2, most significantly in Iran and Egypt, which had the predictable consequence of radicalising generations of Muslims. I suppose it is always difficult for a certain type of American to realise the extent of their government's phenomenal perfidy and terroristic inclinations.

2. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #195475 by Xenocratic on June 18, 2008 at 9:46 am

The first poster got it right on the money when he said Tony Blair is a war criminal. Anything he says about faith, freedom, democracy, or any other lofty concept that comes to mind, can, as with that other contemptibly egregious mass murderer George W Bush, be dismissed with unceremonious ruthlessness.

3. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135485 by Xenocratic on February 29, 2008 at 2:57 am

So glad Sokal admits what any halfwit(though strangely not a number of misguided visitors to this website) should have been aware of regarding the War on Iraq, namely that

Globally, the Iraq war has helped recruit a new generation of militants for al-Qaida; in the Middle East, it has strengthened Iran. All of this could easily have been predicted before the war. And of course it was: not only by leftists, but also by those few conservatives who had not succumbed to the hubris of overestimating their own power.

No doubt verminous entities who regularly post their despicable drivel, such as Fanusi Khiyal and Keith, will find a way to spin their way out of the all too obvious "reality" that has long been apparent to rationalists everywhere.

4. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90431 by Xenocratic on November 25, 2007 at 6:00 am

I see Fanusi has crawled out of his slimy swamp. The following statements uttered by this despicably diabolical and dilettantish dumb bell on this website and others tells us all we need to know about him:

"Right that is it. I am officially coming out of the closet. When the whole war with Iraq started, I honestly though that if America took down someone who was killing them in the hundreds of thousands, at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of _american_ lives, the Iraqis would have, oh I don't know, a little gratitude.

Silly me, I actually thought that the reason for Islamic radicalism was the failed states of the Middle East. I now see that it was the other way around.

Let me point out that when _my_ Fatherland was under the control of a bunch of maniacs (and, gee, is the Ba'ath party a cheap knockoff of the Nazi party? Yup!) America flattened every major city and thoroughly beat the enemy into the ground. Now, am I complaining? No; I have always praised America for that. And did the Germans, being freed from the Nazi yoke, decide to start a civil war? No. Did they, in fact, rebuild? Yes. And did any have the infernal indecency to complain when the bastards were hung, one and all? No.

Whatever else one can say, I think that the Iraq war has taught a lesson everyone needs to learn, and that includes many on the right. That Islam is completely incompatible with freedom, and the savages of the Middle East are about as capable of it as a tribe of barbary apes are of piloting a shuttle.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014640.php#more

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 01.01.2007 @ 02:01

"Finally_ someone gets it. Finally someone gets that the only way to deal with Muslim fanatics is to just fight them head on, no holds barred. No gitmo, no "minimizing casualties", just hammer the bastards into the ground.

Yo, Bush, Blair, Olmert? Take few weeks in Ethiopia to see how it's done right.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get more booze for the Munchkins.

*ding-dong, the witch is dead…*

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 27.12.2006 @ 23:16"

"Woot! Go Ethiopia!

Hell, if this is what they can do, imagine what is possible for the West when the Muslims finally push their luck that bit too far, and the gloves come off permanently.

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 27.12.2006 @ 10:22"

"From now on, not a penny of mine, nor a second of work will go to any Muslim anywhere on this planet if I can help it.

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 19.12.2006 @ 06:51"

All of these obtained from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: HQ of the Rottweiler Empire, An affiliate of the VRWC. It was named the "MOST ANNOYING RIGHT-OF-CENTER BLOG OF 2003".

"an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised"

Comment #53916 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 6:45 am in response to the article 'Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women' by Christopher Hitchens, Slate posted on richarddawkins.net

Anyone who can take such sentiments seriously, let alone utter them, is completely beyond the pale and deserves to receive nothing but harsh obloquy for every comment he utters on this or any other subject. Fanusi exemplifies the sort of person Morris is warning us against, a radical extremist of another stripe who fancies himself "liberal" and "secular" (though doesn't know the first thing about those two terms) and has the idiotic audacity to tar everyone with the same brush.

5. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90401 by Xenocratic on November 25, 2007 at 3:00 am

Martin Amis is one of my favourite writers, but it's a great pity that he's become so obsessively enamoured with the facile new trend in Western circles commonly known as "Islamophobia", the last frontier where hatred of the other is still permitted and even encouraged. Ironically those individuals who hope to introduce some moderation into the discussion are routinely derided as apologists for "Islamofascism", another new catch word in the modern Western lexicon, by people who fancy themselves defenders of democracy and secularism. A rather uncomfortable irony, I'd say.

No doubt the Muslim bashers on this website will take Chris Morris to task for an excellent article, one which makes it clear that grouping all Muslims under a single banner is still bigotry, regardless of the intellectual contortions people use to justify their generalisations and contempt for an entire group of people.

I hope it wouldn't be too much to ask for the irrational bigot brigade to heed Morris' words:

It is culturally dim for us to form confident opinions about people based upon how they look and what we've heard they think. It is also against our interests. Nonsense abounds on the causes of terrorism but it is hard to argue that alienation doesn't channel potential foot soldiers towards radicalisation.

I also agree that "distinctions" between different approaches to Islam "matter because the way out of this mess (and it is a mess, fuelled by ignorance, stupidity, prejudice and weapons) is to clarify and discriminate rather than hurl abuse at anything that goes near a mosque."

I am quite certain that the "rationalists" on this "clear thinking oasis" will tear into my views, and fully expect a vituperative outburst from the usual suspects.

6. How condescension benefits terrorism

Comment #90398 by Xenocratic on November 25, 2007 at 2:17 am

Glad to see that the British government, ever the staunch defender of secular values, has plans to "send public money to radical Islamist groups in the Middle East". Reminds one of the US government's ongoing support for Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic regime in the world, or Israel's creation of Hamas to divide the Palestinians. Not to mention the US arming, funding and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which would later enable the Saudi multi-billionaire Osama Bin Laden to assemble a crackpot team of suicidal maniacs to fly planes into the World Trade Centre Towers. As Chalmers Johnson and others have pointed out, "Blowback" can be a real bitch.
With "liberal secularists" like the US and UK governments, no wonder Islamic extremists pose such a threat to the West...

7. Evolutionary comparison finds new human genes

Comment #88963 by Xenocratic on November 19, 2007 at 9:24 am

I concur heartily with your sentiments, konquererz. Dawkins has also pointed out that, because each human being represents one particular alternative out of around 40 trillion genetically unique possibilities, there are more people who haven't been born than there are atoms in the known universe. How wonderful to marvel at the utterly mind boggling uniqueness of each person who has ever existed. And all thanks to scientific knowledge!

8. Evolutionary comparison finds new human genes

Comment #88897 by Xenocratic on November 19, 2007 at 6:29 am

First for the first time ever!!!

9. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87815 by Xenocratic on November 13, 2007 at 8:29 am

Steve99

I never wrote the following:

One left-wing city mayor sending a limo over for al-Qaradawi (while ignoring his homophobia) is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different from the Queen [...] sucking up to, giving diplomatic support to, and arming, the House of Saud.

That is from one of Rtambree's posts, #111 on this thread.

The US and the UK never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq, regardless of what Neocon shills like Hitchens say. The very fact that he's the person you specifically referred to leads me to discredit this touchingly naïve belief because, after all, a loudmouth apologist for the war would most likely distort the facts to bolster his own case. On certain points I am quite sure of myself, and this is one such case because I actually paid assiduous attention to the build up to one of the worst war crimes in recent history.

I explained why I used terrorism in the way that I did, yet you still persist in accusing me of a "scattergun hyperbolic use of the term". Bonzai is quite correct that Chomsky " applies the definition consistently", something which you should try and do, Steve, and not be fooled by a leader's supposed "democratic" credentials, as if that has any relevance to his or her foreign policy. The fact that you're struggling to apply the term terrorism to the actions of the US and UK government indicates that Chomsky's analysis of the Western mindset was very astute as he has consistently shown that people in the West don't seem to apply to themselves the same standards that they apply to others, calling people terrorists who are responsible for a few dozen deaths yet lauding their own elected governments who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Calling Hamas a terrorist group while referring to the Israeli Defence Force as liberators or a purely defensive agency is the really "scattergun hyperbolic use of the term" terrorist, to use but one recent example, so that's why I never use it so selectively.

Keith

You accuse Windweaver and I of adopting a "tactic of evasion", yet despite refuting virtually all your arguments against Chomsky you insist on making the same ones over and over, and it has taken you the entire thread to finally admit what we knew all along, namely that you "have read almost nothing by Chomsky".

The fact that you trust my views on Chomsky is a great compliment, though I don't even trust my own views on Chomsky. Even though it was "rammed down [your] throat" by me, as you claim, you should still have tried to read some of his actual writing. As far as I'm concerned that's just logical if you actually want to have an informed opinion about someone, and not some second hand distortion, which is possible even with those who praise his work.

I am afraid that you cannot judge Chomsky based on two articles by people who have biases against him. You also cannot presume to judge Chomsky when you have been proven to deliberately distort what little of his writing you have actually read. To adequately criticise anyone you would have to read more than a simple exchange which contains none of their more thorough or elaborate thinking. To actually have an appreciation for Darwin one should at the very least read The Origin of Species. I will concede that one can have an opinion on someone else not having read their key texts, but it won't be a particularly meaningful opinion. You seem to think that merely having the ability to form an opinion, "a view on [people's] views", however misguided, is good enough for that opinion to actually count. Would that kind of thinking pass muster if you had to write an essay about Chomsky for the London Review of Books, or for an academic essay? Hardly, and I'm sure you know why, yet when it comes to people whom you desperately want to discredit the rules of thorough engagement are conveniently foisted out the window by the likes of you and that perennial embarrassment Fanusi Khiyal.

In a previous thread when I had the displeasure to encounter Fanusi Khiyal for the first time he made it known just what a diabolical and bigoted pro-American ideologue he was so that's why I felt perfectly justified in lashing out at him in this thread. Sorry if my justified attacks against Fanusi offended your sensitivities, considering that both of you share such naïve delusions about the world and have a real penchant for dishonesty, but let me remind you yet again what he once wrote:

an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised

The only way to treat someone who holds this view, even someone who simply entertains it, is with utter contempt. Your silence on this quote speaks volumes for your own moral character.

The fact that you accuse me of "dishonesty" after finally admitting your lack of knowledge of Chomsky, and after I've proven you to be a deliberate dissembler, is nothing short of shocking, though I really shouldn't be surprised considering the childish and underhanded attacks you've used against me and others throughout this thread.

You keep harping on about what Windweaver has claimed about accepting Chomsky at his word about whether or not he made certain statements, whereas Windweaver simply quoted from an interview with Chomsky. To recap, here is the excerpt from the interview Windweaver quoted:

Question: Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.

Chomsky: If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their metier.

Now I am going to break this down for you one last time, Keith, because if you don't understand it after this explanation you will never grasp what has actually been written in the above extract. Chomsky has not been asked to defend any particular statement that he made but rather the implications that people have inferred from his statements. The interviewer states quite clearly that "some of your positions…have led people…to suggest that". Notice the terms "have led" and "suggest". In other words these "people" have been inspired to conclude that he thinks the following, in this case that "no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it". That last quoted statement isn't what Chomsky is accused of saying but what others have "suggest[ed]" his statements indicate about his belief.

Perhaps a more mathematical approach will serve to more clearly illustrate the nature of the above exchange. Let's say Chomsky's earlier statement is X. Now in the interview he is nowhere asked "you have been accused of saying X". What he has been asked is the following, in language that hopefully even Keith can understand: "some people think that because of saying X you believe Y". So here it should be clear once more that Chomsky essentially has to defend himself not against what he said(X), but rather what others think his statements mean(Y). Now since when do we have to defend ourselves against what other people think our actions or statements mean? In the real world people only have to defend what they've done or said, not what others think they have. Imagine the justice system actually worked like this so anyone could infer anything from anyone else's statements or deeds and be hauled to court because of this interpretation, rather than actual words uttered or deeds committed. We would have the most ridiculous society in the world, and the most libellous by far.

Despite the obvious clarity of what Chomsky was asked to refute, namely what others assume Chomsky's statements mean, Keith insists that Chomsky is defending what he actually said and because we only have his word to go on we shouldn't trust him. Firstly, this is patently absurd coming from someone who openly admits to having read "almost nothing by Chomsky" yet has seen fit to waste all our time denouncing the man using sources he has deliberately manipulated in order to make his case. Secondly, this perverse accusation proves yet again that Keith is totally incapable of accurately parsing the simplest English sentences, thereby further undermining any credibility in his arguments as almost all his interpretations stem from earlier misinterpretations.

I don't know why I wasted my time typing up this comment, because as Rtambree, and lately Windweaver, have noted, debating Keith is surely a monumental "waste of time".

p.s. I'm the one who's not "lucid"? What a laughable buffoon you are…

Tribalypredisposed

Anyone who accuses people of hating the Jews because they criticise the state of Israel doesn't deserve even to be acknowledged in a debate on this issue. To continue to refer to me as "racist" means I can't take any of your claims seriously as this is a woefully well worn and pathetically facile tactic to discredit critics of Israel. Also, to further go on blathering about "self-hating Jews", and actually be serious in your use of this term, you simply continue to make the case for being dismissed as a zealot of the lowest order. Why are you on an ostensibly anti-religious site when the State of Israel only makes sense from a religious perspective? Furthermore, why do numerous Orthodox Jews, who have been attacked by young hooligans within Israel itself, make the case that a Jewish state is expressly against the Torah?

The war of 1967 was a war of aggression, and I've already quoted to you from a book in which Israeli generals involved with the combat operation at the time acknowledge this fact. The Israeli historian Ilian Pappe even makes the case that what the Israelis did to the Palestinians in 1948 constitutes genocide. Oh, but I almost forgot, he must then be a "self hating Jew", rather than an honest historian, right? You claim that there were all these sources for the Wikipedia article, well for every one source in that entry Chomsky would provide two dozen from a dazzling array of sources, as is evidenced in his exhaustive book on the Israel-Palestine conflict, The Fateful Triangle, which I highly recommend, though of course being the close minded propagandist for Israeli state terror that you seem to be, you will most likely never bring yourself within spitting distance of the real world.

10. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87727 by Xenocratic on November 13, 2007 at 1:35 am

Keith,

Xeno I can forgive because I'm really not convinced that he's completely normal and it's clear from his posts that he doesn't know his arse from his elbow

Now that I've made a fool of you and totally discredited your claims regarding Chomsky you resort to cheap shots. Very mature there, Keith. I may not know my "arse from [my] elbow" but at least I know enough to not make judgements about someone's vast body of work based solely on a brief exchange, an exchange, I might add, which you in any case distorted to mean the opposite of what Chomsky actually wrote. Brilliant going!
I never stated that I wasn't launching a vitriolic attack against Fanusi, but only that there was a slight inflection of humour, but as is typical of your literal minded simplicity, you can't seem to appreciate nuance.

Steve99

I'm not about to get into a semantic dispute with you, but it is merely a doctrinal convention to use the word "terrorism" to apply to suicide bombers or other non state entities. The United States government was condemned in the World Court in 1986 for "unlawful use of force" because of their support for the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua which could be translated as terrorism. Your use of the term "major democratically-elected world governments" is a typical dodge strategy to avoid the real nature of their foreign policy. It isn't a contradiction at all that a democratically elected leader such as Bush or Blair (though in the former case this claim is rather dubious), could still operate as a completely lawless terrorist on the international stage. The US/UK invasion of Iraq didn't receive a mandate from the UN and, as I've repeatedly pointed out, to invade a sovereign nation was declared the supreme international crime at the Nuremberg trials after World War 2. The "misuse" of language is in its selective application to groups who oppose us, one of the standard techniques of subtle indoctrination which the MSM practice so effectively.

11. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87528 by Xenocratic on November 12, 2007 at 11:29 am

Steve99

You state that "We have varying reports of what he has stated" and that "We have claims that he has changed what he has stated", but whence have these reports emanated? In the Windschuttle essay he simply states that Chomsky has supported the likes of Che Guevara, Pol Pot and the Soviet Union, and provides no substantiation. You must understand that Chomsky has long been reviled by the media establishment because he has been the bringer of uncomfortable truths, namely that they are part of a propaganda machine. The reason why I appreciate the scientific method, more than any single fact revealed by scientists, is because I appreciate how information about the natural world is arrived at. Chomsky has been an invaluable intellectual source for me not merely because of the alternative facts he has exposed me to, but why media systems in the Western world operate as they do. His propaganda model, which he conceived with Edward S. Herman, is a brilliant interpretive tool to understanding why some news is seemingly never "fit to print" in the mainstream media while other types of stories constantly make the news. The reporting on the Palestine-Israel conflict is a glaring case in point, but there are countless others. I can categorically state that Chomsky has never for a moment supported the Khmer Rouge as his point from the beginning, aka the mid-70s, was the vast disproportion in the media attention paid to East Timor and the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia, which occurred at exactly the same time.
So you don't think that a government that has invaded two sovereign nations and in the process unleashed conflicts that have claimed more than a million lives should be dubbed as a "major international terrorist" entity? Why is it so extreme to call people who have committed the supreme international crime of invading a sovereign state terrorists? Imagine Saudi Arabia invaded England, would it then be "extreme" to refer to the Saudis as terrorists? Of course it wouldn't, and it just goes to show that Chomsky is certainly on to something when he classifies the West as subscribing to double standards in international affairs. You have accused him of being inconsistent yet he consistently expects his government to apply to itself the same standards that it applies to others.
Furthermore, the list of US atrocities committed against other nations in the last sixty years is beyond extreme, it is utterly and despicably atrocious. That Great Britain has often assisted the United States in their imperial activities is completely shameful and can only be excused if one subscribes to the most blatant hypocrisy. If you saw your family destroyed by B52 bombers, as what happened in Vietnam, or massacred by people armed and trained by the United States, as happened throughout Latin American and Indonesia and Afghanistan and many other places throughout the world, calling the US government "terrorists" would probably be a euphemism, and not "extreme" in the least. There's a reason why Chomsky is so severely critcised in the developed West but perfectly understood in the Third World, because as he pointed out, "if you kick someone in the face you might not remember, but they will" and if you want to be really honest with yourself you should acknowledge that Europe and its American satellite has been kicking what we call the Third World in the face for centuries, an exploitative relationship which still continues...

12. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87515 by Xenocratic on November 12, 2007 at 10:46 am

Steve99

Why do you insist on either misreading my views or, in the latest instant, infer from them notions I never meant? It's not about what I "think are Chomsky's views", but what he has stated about a particular issue. As I also noted in post #135, we should pay even those we don't agree with the same courtesy, namely to try and find out what their view is on any particular issue. If Chomksy calls the Khmer Rouge "mass murderers", which he has done and which I quoted in that long post of mine, then to say that he supported them is a falsehood, and by the act of quoting Chomsky on this I'm not declaring what I personally think Chomsky meant but what he actually has stated. I have read Chomsky extensively, and am constantly trying to read more widely on a range of topics so I'm already following your advice. I also don't "filter" people out because they're "capitalist lackeys", but whether or not they are accurate in their assertions or they can cogently argue their points. I repeat that I am not some simple minded and slavish devotee to Chomsky's views as there are a number of stances he takes which I take issue with, so I certainly regard myself as a sceptic with regard to Chomsky, as indeed I am sceptic with regard to all the writers and thinkers I have been exposed to.
You are clearly not going to budge an inch on the Livingstone issue, and I've made my views known so there's little point in continuing this debate. I don't think it was wise for him to associate with a Muslim reactionary even if this move was, as you acknowledge, "well intentioned", but I also think totally discrediting all the positions he's ever taken on anything because of this mistake is just plain silly. I also refuse to see him as part of the problem when Labour have completely sold out their ideals and still insist on "cosying" up to those major international terrorists who occupy the White House, with all the attendant carnage which continues to ensue from this "special relationship". Livingstone "honouring" Al-Qaradawi was a terrible blunder, but I'm really not prepared to obsess over it while there are far bigger criminals out there who need to be stopped.

13. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87502 by Xenocratic on November 12, 2007 at 10:08 am

Steve99

I can see why you agree with Keith about Chomsky, because you have a similar propensity to deliberately misrepresent what people write. I wrote that should Wheen accuse "Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot, then [he] is simply a liar", whereas you interpret that to mean that if "he disagrees with [me], he must be wrong". It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, but accurately representing Chomsky's views. If he accuses Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot, and I'm not saying that Wheen has done this, he is being dishonest because there is no statement by Chomsky where he states this. He's wrong if he attributes to someone a position that they've never taken, whether this is Stalin or Chomsky or anyone else you care to name. I thought that should be plainly obvious to a five year old.
That second quote of mine is also very selective, and "worryingly so" because I included a key qualification earlier on, namely that Livingstone is ultimately still a politician who will, as a result, be forced to ally with people who he might personally find dubious but will nonetheless establish a relationship with, if you could even call it that, to achieve a particular end. You glibly assert that he is "cosying up to reactionary clerics" without considering why this might be so, or why the gay and lesbian community still supports Livingstone despite this so-called "cosying up". By acknowledging the fact that Livingstone has fraternised with this "reactionary" how was I ignoring it? I was merely pointing out that by doing this Livingstone wasn't killing or oppressing anybody, either directly or indirectly, whereas the British government's diplomatic and military dealings with the Saudi government will most definitely ensure that the Saudi Royal family retains power and will continue to perpetrate horrendous oppression against their own people. Actions should be measured by their consequences, not merely because they may offend our delicate sensibilities. The fact that you can't differentiate between a possible publicity stunt and a crime against humanity is rather "appalling". I agree with you that he shouldn't have come anywhere close to someone like Al-Qaradawi, but on the scale of "vile" actions this hardly even registers,considering that, as I indicated in my last post, Livingstone doesn't endorse any of the cleric's repulsive views nor does he even remotely advocate them.

14. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87492 by Xenocratic on November 12, 2007 at 9:27 am

Steve99

Please tell me how exactly "Keith has done rather well"? He has distorted what Chomsky has written in that response to Hitchens and had the temerity to pronounce on Chomsky's perspective on world affairs when he has surely not read even a single article or book by him. This perspective which Keith maintains Chomsky subscribes to, devoid of any specific reference to any of Chomsky's statements, seems to assume that his constant criticism of his own nation amounts to "blaming" the United States, and the West more broadly, for all the world's ills. This is exactly what Chomsky never does as one of his guiding principles, often repeated, is that people are responsible for the "predictable consequences of their own actions". As an American citizen he sees it as his duty to expose his government's malfeasance and in so doing to improve his country by attempting to stamp out these practices. Chomsky has repeatedly noted that railing against the crimes of other nations will have exactly zero impact because we cannot be responsible for the actions of other people and that our actions have relevance to the degree that they actually have an impact on the real world.

You state that Keith "has put forward points that have not been refuted", but what do you think I did in my last post? I have both refuted specific claims Keith has made with regards to the single response by Chomsky he keeps referring back to, and dismissed his claims about the larger points Chomsky is making apropos the US and the West, the latter because it is plainly evident that Keith simply hasn't read much of Chomsky's oeuvre.

You have also distorted Chomsky's views by invidiously calling him a "man of faith" who blindly supports his "beloved Serbs", both of which are complete fabrications as he has condemned the Serbs and Milosevic, as pointed out by windweaver in an earlier post. To actually take seriously the term "anti-Americanism" indicates that you have completely missed what Chomsky's criticisms of his country actually amount to. You mention that I am "ignoring others on this thread who agree with Keith's assessment", but who are these mysterious "others"? As far as I can tell you're the only one, and you also share with Keith a tendency to make glibly dismissive statements about the man without backing them up with much evidence. Perhaps you're the real "man of faith", Steve.

In an earlier post you wrote this:

I can't pin it down precisely, but Chomsky seems to me to share with others (such as Galloway and Pilger) a kind of distorting lens through which they view both current events and history. Everything they write and say seems reasonable in and of itself, until you compare them with historical facts, then it seems to me that the bias becomes apparent.

Which "historical facts" are these that Pilger seems so out of touch with? Have you actually read any of his books and carefully examined the myriad sources he refers to in any book he's ever written? Or are only the "facts" which are convenient to your worldview deemed to be worthy of recognition? And I'm supposed to be the one being "so selective" and "attempting to define 'meaningful'" in my "own way". It's an inescapable truism that history is written by the victors, so most "official" history books reflect Western triumphalism.

I have never stated that I would only accept evidence from sources I approve of, but rather sources who at least attempt to be reasonably honest. I have never read anything by Francis Wheen, but if, as Fanusi Khiyal intimated earlier, he accuses Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot, then Wheen is simply a liar because Chomsky never did this. Considering that Fanusi referred to Wheen's book, and that Fanusi is a sanctimonious scoundrel and a deeply dishonest delinquent, I am already dubious of Wheen's work. I'm not saying that he is necessarily dishonest, just that I will measure his claims about the man against what I know Chomsky has actually written, a courtesy we should extend to even our enemies. I am not "closing [myself] off from the real world", but merely demanding that people who make claims about others be honest.

I have read numerous articles critical of Chomsky and have often found them wanting because of the outright lies regularly pedalled by people to discredit Chomsky. For instance, an article on Chomsky appeared in a Canadian journal a few years back written by a guy who would probably also describe himself as left wing or even a "socialist" (whatever that means). In this article he quoted a passage which supposedly appeared in Manufacturing Consent in which Chomsky had expressed the view that the North Vietnamese rebels who killed rich landowners were justified in their actions. I had yet to read Manufacturing Consent so I gave the author of the article the benefit of the doubt and very slowly read the book so that I could find this passage. Needless to say, it was nowhere to be found. The author, no right wing loon like Horowitz or Oliver Kamm or Keith Windschuttle, had lied outright in an elite journal published in a considerably liberal country. This has made me very circumspect of all Chomsky's critics and, as repeatedly demonstrated on this thread, when it comes to him people will either lie about what he has written or mischaracterise his actual words. As already noted, I have a number of serious reservations about Chomsky's worldview and analytical approach, but I'd like to think that I give the man his due by actually reading what he has written and trying to understand his perspective. Due to Keith's obvious lack of exposure to the man's writing, how can he possibly presume to make an accurate assessment of his work? This has nothing to do with not tolerating or not wanting to be exposed to another opinion, but rejecting the flawed means of arriving at a particular opinion.

The criticisms levelled against Livingstone on this thread aren't particularly meaningful, Steve, because in case you haven't noticed, Ken "the Red" is a politician who sometimes has to make strange bedfellows for strategic reasons. If the best you can do is to refer to him fraternizing with a Muslim cleric then you have some way to go to convince me that he's bad for the left or not a real socialist. As others have noted, Livingstone doesn't share Dr Al-Qaradawi's views on women or homosexuals. By your logic of condemnation, because I am friends with a number of Christians that magically transforms me into an apologist for Christianity.

This supposedly "meaningful" evidence is also certainly not nearly enough for him to approach the status of "vile". If we start glibly bandying about this word to categorise the likes of Ken Livingstone then we'll have to devise a new dictionary of obloquy to describe the House of Saud, George Bush or Tony Blair. Speaking of which, besides his very notable crimes, one of the last actions he took before stepping down as Prime Minister was to stop a probe into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Now what is worse, selling arms to one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, or sending a limo to pick up some powerless Islamic cleric? This isn't moral relativism, or hypocrisy, but simply rationality, and if you can't see that these two acts are orders of magnitude apart I'm afraid there's little hope for you.

Even though London is a significant city, being the mayor there still isn't a particularly powerful position, at least not compared with a head of state. Livingstone's influence is thus not a fraction as great as the prime minister so if you're really interested in improving society don't harp on about the minor imperfections of a man who is only mortal (as are we all) but rather devote your energies to exposing the vast crimes that the British state is responsible for.

15. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87411 by Xenocratic on November 12, 2007 at 3:47 am

Keith

You really are a slimey toad, aren't you Xeno.

So by your estimable logic anyone who expresses admiration for another's writings, whether this be an article by Sam Harris or a book by Richard Dawkins, is automatically deemed to be "a slimey toad"? That must mean many people who regularly write comments of praise on this website are to be similarly categorised. You really are a childish git, aren't you Keith? H.L Mencken once wrote that the "great masses of men" are "immortal vermin…They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble". Now I would never be so cynical as to declare that most people fit this bill, but in Keith's case the description is most apt, particularly the "immortal vermin" part.

I agree with Windweaver who accused Keith of seeing Chomsky as "a despicable human being who distorts the truth, manipulates statistics, and lies for his "cause"", as is clearly evidenced by the lengths to which Keith will go to distort what little of Chomsky's writings he has been exposed to (and I hesitate to qualify a short response to someone else as his "writings"). You also knock windweaver for comparing you to a creationist, but that's exactly what it seems like to me as you resemble exactly those people who have never read anything by Dawkins, or perhaps only a snippet of an article, and use that to condemn his entire oeuvre.

Nevertheless, I think it's finally time to put paid to the sorry saga of Keith's comments. The example of Chomsky's perfidy seems to lie in the fact that he accuses Hitchens of being a racist in that exchange Keith is so obsessed with. To prove yet again, as though we didn't already have oodles of evidence, that Keith purposefully distorts what other people write, or at least that Keith struggles desperately with basic English, he makes Chomsky out to say the opposite of what he actually wrote, much as Hitchens did. Chomsky wrote that Hitchens "must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply". The word "unaware" is the key here, because by using it Chomsky is expressly making it clear that although what Hitchens had written could be construed as racist, Chomsky is in fact giving him the benefit of the doubt. By adding that Hitchens "cannot intend what his words imply" he is making the point even clearer. He is thus defending Hitchens from accusations of racism, rather than calling him a "racist", a point which Keith completely misses either because his loathing of Chomsky is, as I have always suspected, completely irrational, or, in the more innocent alternative, because his grasp of the English language is genuinely wanting.
In just the letter that Keith constantly refers to, but seems not to have read, Chomsky quotes three sources in the mainstream press who gave information on the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, not merely "government sources". For the record here are the excerpts from the three articles Chomsky quotes:

A year after the attack, "without the lifesaving medicine [the destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise.... Thus, tens of thousands of people--many of them children--have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases.... [The factory] provided affordable medicine for humans and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan. It produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products.... Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible to import adequate amounts of medicines required to cover the serious gap left by the plant's destruction.... the action taken by Washington on Aug. 20, 1998, continues to deprive the people of Sudan of needed medicine. Millions must wonder how the International Court of Justice in The Hague will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, Boston Globe, August 22, 1999).

"The loss of this factory is a tragedy for the rural communities who need these medicines" (Tom Carnaffin, technical manager with "intimate knowledge" of the destroyed plant, Ed Vulliamy et al., London Observer, August 23, 1998).

The plant "provided 50 percent of Sudan's medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of choloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria," but months later, the British Labour government refused requests "to resupply chloroquine in emergency relief until such time as the Sudanese can rebuild their pharmaceutical production" (Patrick Wintour, Observer, December 20, 1998).

Windweaver quoted the following in one of his posts:

Question: Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.

Chomsky: If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their métier.

Keith attempted to critique this statement by proffering another interpretation which was, to say the least, woefully wide of the mark. His comment was that "surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID", which is simply not true at all. In case you missed what the interviewer actually asked, let me attempt to clarify. He wasn't referring to what Chomsky had said, but rather what other people had INFERRED from his statements. As someone who has actually read a lot of Chomsky's work, unlike you Keith, I can categorically state that Chomsky has never stated that "no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it", or even anything close to this. He has been asked numerous times, in different ways, whether this is what he thinks and he has always denied it, which is consistent with what he has written.

Keith's analogy that what Chomsky was saying was akin to declaring oneself innocent of a murder merely by one's word alone is laughably inept and typically inaccurate. A correct analogy would be if I were to write that "I am against the US government's invasion of Iraq" and an interviewer were to ask me "some people have accused you of being anti-American". Quite a big difference there, don't you think, Keith? My first statement referred to the US government which was acting on behalf of the richest 2 % of US society, rather than the majority of the population. Now perhaps in your universe the wealthy elites of a society represent the entire country, but I'd like to think that Bush and Co, and their corporate backers, don't represent "America" so any criticism against the government can never rationally be correlated to the population at large, hence when Chomsky criticises the government he is not declaring an anti-American bias, which, as he has pointed out, never applies anywhere else in the world accept for the United States.

Until such a time as Keith can actually prove that he has read more from Chomsky than simply a hastily written missive, his opinions on Chomsky are virtually worthless. Just as people on this site correctly dismiss articles written by people who haven't actually read The God Delusion yet criticise Dawkins' take on religion, we should similarly confine Keith's views to the oblivion they deserve. In short, pay him no more mind, windweaver and Rtambree, because he is not only incapable of an honest appraisal of what people write, he has also seemingly read nothing by Chomsky besides an exchange with someone whose morality pales in comparison with his own. Oh, and he dares to call Ken Livingstone "vile", which as others have pointed out on this thread, isn't merely despicably excessive, it's not based on any meaningful evidence. What then, dear Keith, do you think about George W Bush? Or Dick Cheney? Or Tony Blair who assisted in invading a sovereign nation which is the supreme international crime and that could now have claimed more than a million civilian lives? Or are people only "vile" to the extent that they don't live up to your godlike ethical standard and don't actually condemn all Muslims as dangerous savages, like Christopher Hitchens and Fanusi Khiyal?

I also don't appreciate you constantly referring to me in posts ostensibly directed at other people because you attribute sentiments to me which are completely bogus, but then again as we all know by now, honesty has never been your strong point, so perhaps I'm asking you in vain to desist from your cowardly and scurrilous attacks.

16. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87051 by Xenocratic on November 11, 2007 at 5:33 am

I was going to respond to Steve99, but you made all the points I was going to, Rtambree. Thanks again for your astute posts.

17. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87043 by Xenocratic on November 11, 2007 at 5:10 am

Another brilliant post, Rtambree. Your thoughts are lucid, incisive and superbly apposite. I couldn't concur more with what you wrote. Also glad you pointed out that New Labour (who are more akin to Old Conservatives) are thoroughly right wing in all but pretence. I particularly enjoyed this paragraph:

It's cowardly, impotent and hypocritical to only criticise soft targets where it has no consequences and can't improve anybody's life. It's a waste or your time, and ours. In fact, it's counter-productive, because you are inadvertently defending whatever the status quo happens to be and whatever atrocities that do take place. Not very admirable.

Well said!

18. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87040 by Xenocratic on November 11, 2007 at 4:33 am

Excellent point, Rtambree. Saudi Arabia's "human rights abuses" are in fact far more excessive than Iran's, as indicated by Amnesty International reports and other human rights groups. The Saudi regime is quite possibly one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. It's amazing to me that the same people, such as Steve99, who want to take the moral high ground and constantly accuse others, such as Galloway or Livinstone or Chomsky, of being hypocrites are quick to ignore the flagrant hypocrisy which exists in bucket loads at the other end of the political spectrum. The left may not be perfect (anyone who thinks that is just plain ridiculous), but at least there is an attempt to behave decently towards others and to take ethical standpoints on most issues. The right wing ethos, however, is always and everywhere inherently dishonest, pandering as it does to selfishness and greed. Just read Fanusi's last post for further proof of this fact, or watch Fox News, or read The Economist, or the positions taken by so-called conservatives, or the principle s which govern the operations of big corporations.

If we forget for a moment the actual direct military interference in other nations, the United States supplies more arms to repressive governments than any country on earth, yet people still think that they are a force for democracy in the world? Truly astonishing. But then again Bush Jr did assure the world some years ago that "America has a calling from beyond the stars to spread freedom across the world", so it must be true, I suppose.

19. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87012 by Xenocratic on November 11, 2007 at 1:57 am

Once again we have very clear evidence of the supposed opponents of the Chomsky worldview. Keith states that Ken Livingstone, probably London's best mayor ever, is "vile". The evidence for such an assertion? As usual, zilch. Is it perhaps because he's a real socialist and doesn't just mouth off empty platitudes about freedom and democracy like those terrorists Bush and Blair, but actually acts to improve the world? Is it perhaps because he denounces the IMF and the World Bank, and has expressed pro-Palestinian viewpoints?
Well, Fanusi, you imperialist warmonger, you've also shown yourself yet again to be an apologist for colonialism and despicable right wing zealotry. By stating that the "nationalisation" of a country's resources is "stealing" you show yourself allied to the self deemed "masters of the world" who think that they own the entire globe. No wonder you love the United States so much, because that is a concept deeply embedded in their psyche. Needless to say this exposes yet again the deplorable hypocrisy that inhabits your twisted, warped mind. Imagine someone told you that the resources on your land belonged to them simply because they've got bigger guns and if you don't give it to them they're going to kill you and your family. That's ostensibly what the colonial project has always been about, and your instinctive acceptance of such a grotesquely unfair system indicates that you are the real "mindless zealot" and not the intelligent people who can actually think outside the Western box and understand what Chomsky is saying.
I know that complex ideas aren't your strong point, but it is perfectly possible to be a very free country and still be one of the world's biggest terror states. Terrorism needn't be limited to the domestic population, and, in the case of citizens of the United States, it most certainly isn't. Chomsky has repeatedly stated that the United States is one of the freest countries in the world, yet that doesn't stop him from criticising his own government. You seem to be of a starkly totalitarian mindset so I know what I've just written will be almost impossible for you to comprehend. I admire European culture immensely, but that doesn't mean I think Europe, or the United States, or any nation, has the right to destroy other people merely to steal from them or to impose their own values on them.
What a joker you are, Fanusi, though you obviously don't realise how much. You write that "these days 'right wing' is what anyone gets called who has some regard for truth and accuracy and doesn´t believe in shilling for tyrrants". Do you actually read over what you type up, or is it all done in a blaze of deluded stream of consciousness propagandistic rhetoric? The right wing and "truth and accuracy" have about as much in common as good syntax and George W Bush. Oh, but of course, it all makes sense now, you are one of those people who actually believe Fox News' tagline that they are "Fair and Balanced". To take just one example of your disgusting dishonesty, and one very relevant to your own views apropos Iraq, why is it that you dismiss people who denounced the UK/US invasion of this country four years ago as those not willing to stand up to a tyrant, yet the very people who brought him to power and supported him through his worst atrocities, and instituted and maintained an embargo that killed more people than he ever did, are seen as liberators? You may accuse Chomsky of "shilling for tyrants", a complete lie of course, but why is the Bush Administration, which supports Pakistan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia to the tune of billions of dollars each year, not classed in this category? The United States government doesn't just "shill" for them, of course, as they actually create these "tyrants", just as they created Osama Bin Laden, General Suharto, the death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala and Columbia, Augusto Pinochet, Mobutu Sese Seko, and so on and so forth.
Although I can't actually do anything to you in a physical sense, seeing as though you are a coward who hides behind the safety of internet anonymity, I can continue to expose you as the fantasist and fabricator that you are. All the accusations against Chomsky that you've made I've already rebutted, as noted by everyone on this thread, so to continue to make these assertions renders you even more pitiful and foolish than you already are, which is admittedly rather difficult considering how you've already embarrassed yourself trusting discredited sources who themselves know nothing about Chomsky. So if you're up for a challenge, Fanusi, why don't you actually quote me from Chomsky himself where he defends any of the groups or people you accuse him of defending. You obviously won't do this, nor can you considering you haven't read anything by him. Another interesting point to note is that your hero Hitchens defended Chomsky against the accusations that he was supposedly sympathetic to Pol Pot in an essay entitled 'The Chorus and Cassandra'. Google it, and you should be able to find it easily enough. But of course, as is amply evidenced by your posts on this thread and others, "truth and accuracy" have never been your strong point.

20. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86862 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 10:45 am

Finally, Keith's true colours emerge, someone who admires "honesty" even when it reveals depravity and who thinks it's easy to be "brave in a Jesus Christ kind of way". So are we to believe that you would uphold any strong convictions (which I doubt you have) when threatened with death or even mild discomfort? Strange as this may seem to a cynic like you, Keith, some of us appreciate "selfless" people who are "always thinking of others". People who travel to Palestine to live with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to use one of many noble examples, are among the bravest people in the world. In my opinion Rachel Corrie, who was killed when she tried to stop a bulldozer destroying a Palestinian home, is one of the bravest Americans the country has produced in the last few decades. What right do you have to say that someone with "this kind of self-image doesn't really need to be brave"? The reason most people admire the likes of Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Ghandi is because they showed tremendous self sacrifice and determination against brutal oppression. They didn't merely sacrifice to prove a point, or because they were "self-satisfied or self righteous", but because they wanted to liberate their people from harshly destructive systems. It's called having values, Keith, not being "smug". Maybe you should try and develop a few values and then you might actually know why people like myself, and millions throughout the world, actually look up to Chomsky and others similar to him.
The most cowardly thing in the world is to support a war, as Hitchens did, when you know that you'll never be the one to face the falling bombs. It takes real bravery to speak out against it when the overwhelming majority supports the invasion, and much more bravery to go to Iraq as human shield. It takes bravery to challenge the status quo, to talk out against what's wrong when very few will. It takes bravery, Keith, to actually have strong values and act on them. It doesn't take bravery to expose yourself as an immoral twit. To find it "refreshing" when a politician speaks their mind and to "respect" them for this suggests to me that you have very skewed ideas about who deserves "respect". You are obviously one of those smug, arrogant, brazenly hypocritical types who sit in smug detachment from the horrors of the world and pronounce judgement on those who are actually determined to change the world for the better. Most of us admire people who are better than ourselves, whereas you seem to admire people just as abjectly cynical and self-centred as yourself. Your views are beneath contempt, Keith, and nothing you say with regards Chomsky has any merit anymore, not that it ever did in the first place considering your sole knowledge of the man appears to be his brief correspondence with Christopher Hitchens, a pathetic barometer of anyone's work if ever there was one. Imagine reducing Darwin's entire oeuvre to a few letters he jotted off to an enraged colleague. What a misguided means to achieve an accurate judgement of someone's work!
That you can actually write that the likes of Scott Atran, Ken Livingston and Noam Chomsky make you "shudder" makes me realise that your ethical orientation is truly abysmal. Nevertheless, thanks for letting us in on what type of person you are so in future we know whence your criticism stems, and can thus treat it accordingly, that is with disdain.

21. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86834 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 9:13 am

Keith

My patience really is wearing thin with you, Keith, and I'm desperately trying to remain civil, which is really difficult considering your childish tone. As I stated in my last post directed to you "until such time as you prove yourself capable or willing to rise to the level of basic critical honesty, there is little reason to further debate with you". Your last post confirms that you are intent on misreading what I actually wrote by fixating on this word faction, used in two distinct contexts, and insisting that they somehow prove a contradiction.
I am also not prepared to explain every little point to you. I thought you were a reasonably intelligent guy, but I'm starting to have my doubts as you don't seem able to grasp the simplest of concepts. Isn't English your first language? If so, and I'm sure it is, the statement apropos Hitchens and Harris should be clear to an eight year old, so I don't quite know what's so inscrutable about it. How have you gotten through life with such a limited grasp of basic language? Or are you being intentionally difficult just to annoy me or because you have this obsessive loathing of my person, or as you would say, my "ideas"? What would the point be of explaining what I wrote in any case because you'd simply find some other means to defame me and distort what I write? So, no thank you, Keith, I'm not prepared to play this endlessly circular and pointless little game.
"Persecution complex"? What are you talking about? When did I ever make reference to my own persecution in that excerpt? Or indeed anywhere else except where I've had to defend myself against your irrational attacks. To follow your logic if I point out that some politician is wasting tax payers' money, let's say, I'm manifesting a "persecution complex"? Does that apply to any criticism levelled against anyone at all times? How am I being persecuted because other people are hypocrites? Care to explain that ridiculous inference from what I've written, oh sagacious one?

22. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86755 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 4:43 am

Excellent post, Windweaver. I have never heard that quote by Hitchens, though I'm not surprised. I find it amazing how someone who was once so outspoken about the rights of the Palestinians and the generally terrible treatment of people in the Third World by Western powers should have transformed himself into such an unabashed apologist for US imperialism. Utterly amazing, though it seems to be going around as his friend and former New Statesman colleague, Martin Amis, has also become a darling of the Muslim-bashing brigade. There seems to be a deep double standard on many of these threads because some of the things that both Sam Harris and particularly Christopher Hitchens have written and said would have inspired harsh condemnation had they emanated from Chomsky. I wonder why this could be? Is it perhaps because when it comes to Muslims anything goes, even the most repulsive bigotry? This is what Fanusi Khiyal wrote on another thread:

an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised

Apart from the shocking nature of his sentiments is the fact that no one on that thread or this one responded to what he wrote. Just imagine that we substitute the word "Moslems" for any group you care to think of, such as Jews or blacks or White Evangelical Christians, and try and imagine how that would sound. I am beginning to suspect that many people assume that being anti-religious is a nice cover for harsh generalisations and deleterious discrimination.

23. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86750 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 4:00 am

Hi again, Rtambree

I hadn't read your post #71 when I posted my last comment, but I felt I just had to congratulate you on a brilliant distillation of Chomsky's central contentions over the years. In particular I agree wholeheartedly with the following points

- Chomsky emphasises that people judge an institution by its consequences and actions, rather than its declarations or intentions. Consequentialism?

- He distrusts all concentrated power - whether it is government, corporate, media or theocratic.

- He's not a pacifist, but he subscribes to the view that the onus is on those who advocate violence to justify it.

- The reason why he concentrates on American atrocities is that he is a citizen of the USA. All citizens should criticise their own governments first and foremost as that's where it will have most effect if they genuinely care about reducing violence and suffering in the world. It doesn't have to be exclusive criticism, but seeing as governments and media already do a good job at pointing the fingers at other states, one more voice in the din isn't going to be as effective. If you want analysis of enemy atrocities, go to the "Foreign Policy" journal or the Washington Post, who employ a battalion of correspondents cataloguing others' crimes. To accuse Chomsky of not spending enough time criticising other regimes is silly - what would a 10,001st voice add?

- Above all, Chomsky's main contribution, imho, is to burst the bubble of western exceptionalism. We should apply the same standards to ourselves as we apply to others. It's that simple.

If people miss what underpins Chomsky's writings, which will usually only emerge once you have read a fair bit of his work, much of what he writes, being so radical from a mainstream Western perspective, will seem completely outrageous. You clearly know your Chomsky, Rtambree, which is more than I can say for most of the people on this thread who think they can hurl around empty accusations without backing it up with any substantial evidence. This is supposed to be a website devoted to "science and reason"?

24. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86745 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 3:48 am

Hi Bonzai

Thanks for pointing that out. So you did manage to access the article though? I think the problem arose because I referred to the site at the end of a sentence so the period became appended to the URL. So just for the record here is the correct one for those who have had the same problems as Bonzai: problemshttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php

Hello Rtambree

Your post #74 was excellent, and very elegantly made the point I should probably have made early on in this 'debate'. Your reference to "a variation of confirmation bias" was particularly pertinent as the debaters in this thread clearly manifest such a bias against Chomsky with whom they "disagree", as he evidently "must be perfect in every pronouncement ever made, otherwise the whole edifice crashes down like a house of cards". The Monbiot quote also hits the nail on the head with regards to people not wanting to change a particular interpretive paradigm, and yet accuse others of this, which is what Steve99 and Keith accuse Chomsky of doing. I wonder how many articles and books by Chomsky the people who deliver such acute attacks against him have actually read? I know that Fanusi hasn't read anything by him and trusts his fellow right wing zealots to deliver an accurate appraisal of Chomsky.
Not to brag, but I have read quite a number of his books, so while I am not claiming to be an expert, nor am I a complete slavish devotee despite what Keith may think, I do believe that I have a fair grasp on his perspective on various issues. If they haven't done so I would recommend people read, among others, 'Understanding Power', which is a kind of large primer on his work delivered in a very readable conversational style, 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (co-authored with Edward Herman), 'Deterring Democracy', 'Year 501: The Conquest Continues', 'Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance', 'Failed States', 'Middle East Illusions', ' Culture of Terrorism', 'American Power and the New Mandarins' and his exhaustive account of the Palestine-Israel conflict, 'Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians', which the Boston Globe, no fan of Chomsky, described as "an awesome latter-day work of forensic scholarship".

25. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86733 by Xenocratic on November 10, 2007 at 3:20 am

Keith

It would appear as if you've set an ingeniously inescapable trap for me. On one hand you declare that I'm essentially a persona non grata whose dishonesty knows no bounds, yet you oddly still expect me to at least try and defend myself despite this venomous bias which clouds your perception of everything I write. Furthermore, you insulate yourself from any accusations that you may have manipulated my meaning by making it clear that should I raise this point it will be perceived as a dodge on my part. Basically, your last post made it clear that whatever I choose to write has already been deemed to fail so there's really no point in actually asking me to defend myself.

You have fixated over a meaningless semantic point which you have given false relevance to by placing two passages alongside each other that are from two distinct posts, which is the only way that your "checkmate" could possibly be achieved. This further goes to show that you are simply not a fair or honest discussion partner, so until such time as you prove yourself capable or willing to rise to the level of basic critical honesty, there is little reason to further debate with you. In any case, as you've made abundantly clear in your last post, whether I respond or not, or actually attempt to point out that your accusations against me stem not from what I've written but rather what you infer I have, you will simply run roughshod over anything I write to pursue this strange vendetta against me, which I find rather hard to comprehend. Congratulations then, Keith, you've defeated me before the battle has even begun because on your terms you've won no matter what I do. So the victory is yours, though it is a cheap one, much like that which is achieved by the faithful who refuse to be swayed by the most convincing evidence that evolution is a reality or that the world is older than 6000 years old. You are clearly very certain of your moral and intellectual superiority so who am I to challenge this self conception? It wouldn't matter even if I tried, right Keith? Because you seem to have made up your mind about both me and yourself.

p.s What exactly what do you want me to tell you about 1948? That the State of Israel was found after the expulsion of 750 000 Palestinians from their homes and the annexation of 80 % of British Mandated Palestine? Perhaps you want me to note the terrible irony that in the same year as the establishment of Israel, the National Party, who instituted Apartheid, were elected to power in South Africa? So in a single year two of the most ultra-nationalistic, sickeningly racist regimes of the post-War era were established. The difference, of course, is that South Africa's Apartheid has officially come to an end while the Zionist project of ethnic chauvinism continues unabated, and largely unopposed even by many of the world's so-called liberals.

One last thing – you thought it was strange that I seemed to struggle to find other intellectuals who support Chomsky's views. Here's a list of some of the figures who have expressed appreciation for Chomsky, or whose work has strong affinity with his:
Harold Pinter, Howard Zinn, David Barsamian, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, Arundhati Roy, Lewis Lapham, Tariq Ali, Alexander Cockburn, Jean Bricmont, Milan Rai, Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Norman Finkelstein, Amy Goodman, Eduardo Galeano. Before he lost himself to Neo-conservative hypocrisy, Christopher Hitchens was also an admirer of Chomsky's work. See his essay, The Chorus and Cassandra [http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html]. The Boston Globe has called him "a 20th century Rousseau", the New Statesman, in their special '12 Thinkers of Our Time', wrote that "For anyone wanting to find out more about the world we live in…there is one simple answer: read Noam Chomsky". The Nation have written that "Chomsky…is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance".

tribalydisposed

Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a serious source of knowledge can be dismissed as someone who clearly doesn't want to be taken seriously as a scholar. No good university in the world recognises Wikipedia as an acceptable academic resource. I basically just skimmed through your post once you raised the abysmally infantile canard of equating being anti-Israel, that is the particular manifestation of the state in its current form rather than the idea of a Jewish state which I completely support, with being anti-Jewish. Just so you know I have had a lifelong appreciation of Jewish culture and many of my heroes, ranging from those in the entertainment field to the intellectual arena, are Jewish. In case you've also missed the rather startling phenomenon of Jewish critics of Israel, let me just assure you there are plenty. Hirst is Jewish and Chomsky is also Jewish, as is Norman Finkelstein, as is Howard Zinn, as is Ilian Pappe (Israeli Jew) as is Amos Oz (another Israeli Jew), and on and on and on. I'm sure you'll reply, as is typical of you blind ideologues, with that other tired accusation that they are merely "self hating Jews". Did you know that within Israel itself, forget about what happens in the Occupied Territories, there are Jewish only beaches and Jewish only sports clubs? Sound familiar to you? An apologist for the State of Israel in its present manifestation is an apologist for terror, racism and despicable brutality. I'd like to think your own perspective is based more on ignorance than actual blind hatred, because if you knew half of what I do about the treatment of the Palestinians you would be sick to your stomach, or at least I hope you would.

26. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86321 by Xenocratic on November 9, 2007 at 1:44 am

The reason you ignore me, Fanusi, is because I take you head on with facts and information which you are unable to respond to, because you're a fabricator and distorter of the highest order. You call me a "liar", which is rich coming from someone like you, but I dare you to actually read the books which I've quoted from, or even just the pages that I mentioned in my long post, and you will be able to confirm that all the excerpts indeed appear where I indicate they do.
Fanusi Khiyal a "political libertarian"?!!! What a joke! This coming from a guy who knocks Chomsky's morality, yet calls Muslims "savages", supported the war in Iraq, trusts people like Keith Windschuttle, an apologist for the Vietnam War and an all round right wing dissembler and Fanusi earnestly stated that the United States is "the least imperialist power in human history". Hate to break this to, Fanusi, but your sentiments are more extreme than most Neocons, you nitwit twerp. You're a fundamentalist right wing nutjob at best, possibly the furthest thing from a "respectable leftist" I've yet encountered on this site, which says something considering the surprisingly high number of supposed "liberal freethinkers" who are supposed to be lurking around here.
Maybe I won't sway any of you on Chomsky's morality, so let me quote Sam Harris in 'The End of Faith' who writes that 'He [Chomsky] appears to be an exquisitely moral man'(page 139 of the Free Press edition). I know how much Fanusi bows down to Harris, so isn't it interesting that despite Sam's brilliance and rationality he actually suggests that in certain circumstances it may be justifiable to kill people for their beliefs and spends time in his book discussing the situations when torture could be justified. Now if Chomsky had written anything remotely akin to that the likes of Fanusi, and various other anti-Chomskyites on this thread, would have had a field day. Yet when the shoe is on the foot of one of your gods, Fanusi, you politely look away. Now because I've never subscribed to the school of thought that elevates people to the status of gods I am well aware of Chomsky's shortcomings. I often criticise him myself and have problems with a number of his contentions and his approach to analysing human motivations, but that doesn't mean, however, that I dismiss 90 % of what he's written because maybe 5 % (to use an arbitrary figure) may not quite make sense to me or accord with my own ideas.
Even though I've just pointed out the failings in Sam Harris' generally excellent book, I actually admire him quite a lot and think that he's critiques of religion are wonderfully devastating, many of which I have used to try and argue with the faithful. Similarly, I enjoy reading articles by Hitchens and watching his debates with the religious camp, but that doesn't mean I condone his contention that it is "obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you", which is the same as condoning the wholesale massacre of all Muslims, which he disgustingly suggested at the Freedom from Religion Convention reported by PZ Meyers. His report on the event is available at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php.
Difficult as it may be for the extremists of this world like Fanusi to realise, one phrase or statement, in the case of Chomsky either distorted or simply fabricated, shouldn't be enough to dismiss any person's body of work. If we took this approach we wouldn't be left with anyone with whom we could agree. I thought this was a pretty rational point but it seems to have been forgotten by a fair number of people who want to use any slip up or short-sightedness on Chomsky's part to reduce the man to the status of an apologist for mass murder. Even Sam Harris acknowledges that there is much merit in Chomsky's views, despite providing a very facile and inaccurate critique of Chomsky's argument in '9-11' in 'The End of Faith'.
I probably shouldn't respond to tribalypredisposed as he states that "Chomsky is biased and dishonest" without providing any evidence, except for an article which in no way proves Chomsky displays these traits. Anyone who can honestly state that the "'67 war was clearly not one of aggression" is no longer worth paying much attention to. Have you read 'The Gun and the Olive Branch' by David Hirst? Here's an excerpt from this very well researched book that should put paid to the oft touted illusion about 67:

"Great, then, were the fears of the outside world for little Israel on the eve of war. So they were, too, among the general public in Israel itself. It was only to be expected that the Israeli government, Zionists and sympathizers everywhere, should foster the world's alarm. None of them, at the time, would have challenged the Israeli premier when he told the Knesset just after the war that 'the existence of the Israeli state hung on a thread, but the hopes of the Arab leaders to exterminate the Israel were brought to nought'. But there were those, the generals, who knew that the real situation was the exact reverse of the apparent one, that David was not merely a match for Goliath, but hopelessly outclassed him. They knew that, whatever the politicians might say and the people believe, Israel's survival was never at stake, that even if Nasser actually intended to go to war he had no chance of winning it. General Mordecai Hod had a profound confidence in the air force which he commanded. He and its real architect, General Ezer Weizmann, unruly nephew of Chaim Weizmann, had for a decade or more been perfecting their master-plan for the destruction of Arab air power. Their men were trained for every eventuality. They had pored over scale models of every possible target; it was with astonishing precision that in the first few hours of the 1967 War the pilot of a Mirage fighter machine-gunned, at close range, what he knew to be King Hussein's study at the Basman Palace in Amman…It was not until five years had passed, when the Israelis were basking in an unprecedented sense of their own strength, security and achievement, that General Matitiahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli victory, committed what, to an outraged public, seemed nothing less than blasphemy. But in the so-called 'annihilation controversy' which followed, and in spite of pleas to keep silent for the sake of Israel's reputation in the world, none of his military colleagues seriously contested his central thesis. 'There is no reason', he said, 'to hid the fact that since 1949 no one dared, or more precisely, no one was able, to threaten the very existence of Israel. In spite of that, we have continued to foster a sense of our own inferiority, as if we were a weak and insignificant people, which, in the midst of an anguished struggle for its existence, could be exterminated at any moment'. 'True', General Peled went on, Arab leaders may have sounded menacing, 'but it is notorious that the Arab leaders themselves, thoroughly aware of their own impotence, did not believe in their own threats…I am sure that our General Staff never told the government that the Egyptian military threat represented any danger to Israel or that we were unable to crush Nasser's arm, which, with unheard-of foolishness, had exposed itself to the devastating might of our army…To claim that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of anyone capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is an insult to Zahal [the Israeli army]'. Not only did Nasser lack the means to take on Israel, he did not have the intention either. The generals were well aware of that too. Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff, was frank about it: 'I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it'."

(2003: 336-337)

I wonder who these "vaguely honest historians" are who would not "claim it was so"? Are they perhaps the same ones who consistently apologise for the British Empire and contend that the US is a force for good in this world? You seem "strongly committed to" your "group", tribalydisposed, which seems to be the terroristic Zionist faction. People with the moral calibre of Desmond Tutu have unfavourably compared the state of Israel with Apartheid South Africa, and Jimmy Carter has even written a book where he makes this comparison more explicit. How about the Israeli historian Ilian Pappe who claims that the Israeli State was founded on genocide? But of course I wouldn't have expected most people in the West to comprehend the uncomfortable truth about Israel which seems to be a blind spot for people who usually consider "rational thought and facts" to be important. Why not read John Pilger's chapter on Palestine in 'Freedom Next Time' for a sickeningly eye opening account of what life in the Occupied Territories is really like, in other words not filtered through the distorting prism of the BBC, CNN, Fox News, or most mainstream newspapers in England or the United States.
Keith, you seem to have some petty, cynical agenda against me so there really is no point engaging in any discussion with you because you'll simply mock, ignore or distort whatever I have to write. I will address one point, however, namely your implied belief that Democratic presidents aren't right wing. As Gore Vidal and others have pointed out, the United States isn't a two party state, but rather a one party state, namely that of the Business Party, with two factions – the Democrats and the Republicans. Indeed all US presidents since WWII have been war criminals, with no exceptions. Just look at who is leading the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination. Is it Dennis Kucinich who proposes a radical overhaul of US society? Or even John Edwards who wants to challenge the authority of corporations, particularly the big pharmaceutical companies? No, it's the extremist Hillary Clinton whose presidency, should it become a reality in November next year, will hardly be any different to the reign of George W Bush. The fact that you don't realise this about the Democratic Party, particularly those who have held power in its name, indicates to me how out of touch with reality you are. The United States is a corporatocracy, which should be obvious to anyone who is serious about examining who holds the real power in this society.
The reason I was referring to right wing Americans was because I know this specimen the best, but being right wing is an ethos which manifests itself in similar ways throughout the Western world. Australia is a different society, and far less powerful so it cannot assert itself in the same global way that the US can, but conservatives or right wingers in Australia (witness John Howard) aren't markedly different to their conservative counterparts in even liberal countries such as Canada or France. I thought this point should have been obvious, but once again I have to explain every little insinuation to you.
Your last post is so patently ridiculous and completely erroneous with regards to what I have actually written, that I'm simply going to ignore it because you seem intent on purposefully falsifying and childishly belittling my contentions.

27. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86124 by Xenocratic on November 8, 2007 at 7:50 am

Most journalists in the mainstream Western media, "respected or otherwise" are just that. For them to even occupy these positions they have been subjected to subtle brainwashing because that's the only way one can function within the corporate structure. Of course we can't call it brainwashing in the free world, but certain values are so entrenched through education that after a number of years in elite institutions, such as the top universities, there are certain things that one simply doesn't see anymore. Orwell has written about this phenomenon with regards the English media. The same is true for any number of jobs in the world. Newspapers and television stations are first and foremost business operations. They aren't merely information services, despite what naive people may want to believe. They propagate a certain ideological orthodoxy. These systems are by no means as totalitarian as they would have been under the Soviet Union, but the very subtly of the brain washing makes it so effective as it tends to work at a level below recognition. That's one of the reasons so many people can't even comprehend what Chomsky is saying because he constantly explodes this myth of a free press.

28. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86115 by Xenocratic on November 8, 2007 at 7:17 am

That's why I specifically said not to refer me to "right wing loons" with a personal ideological agenda against Chomsky. If you can point me in the direction of "respected journalists" then I will certainly take a look at their articles, however there are many "respected journalists" out there who are merely corporate servants to power. The New York Times has hardly said a kind word about Chomsky for decades, yet they are supposed to represent the 'liberal' end of the mass media spectrum and are staffed by many "respected journalists". One of the world's best journalists, John Pilger, is an avowed admirer of Noam Chomsky so I don't exactly know what you'll prove about the contents of someone's argument based merely on a perception that they are "respected". In which circles?

29. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86107 by Xenocratic on November 8, 2007 at 6:54 am

Keith

If I remember the last time we had an exchange you managed to be more civil, so something has perhaps happened in the interim to turn you so sour, but what's more concerning is your inability to actually read what I've written. By referring to Chomsky as a "famed linguist" I was merely stating an objective fact. Yes, I admire the man, but Hitler is also famous, as is George W Bush, so by your logic by referring to them as such I would be indicating how much I "idolize" them.
If I also recall from the last exchange we had some months ago, you were deeply deluded about a number of aspects about the real world, and I can well understand why, considering you take the strategy of "picking paragraphs at random" and assuming that my "whole post was just more of the same". It's pretty much a truism that you'll never learn anything about the world unless you confront certain uncomfortable facts, so until you're able to do so, and actually read what people (not just me or Chomsky) have written then be prepared for people who do actually make the effort to read widely to dismiss you as a dweller in a fog of befuddled ignorance.
As for the accusation that I've lifted the phrase 'petty little conservative lapdog' from Marx, well, that's news to me. I haven't read much Marx so I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it, but I am interested to know where he uses this exact phrase, or did Marx somehow coin the word 'conservative' or 'lapdog'?
The reason I didn't make any comments regarding Windschuttle's refusal to accept that the white settlers committed genocide against the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia is because I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that most people reading that information would immediately draw the conclusion that almost nothing Windschuttle says can be taken seriously. Just to spell it out to you, Keith, denying that genocide was committed against the Aboriginals is akin to denying the Holocaust. This is a matter of historical fact, and not just "typical of a mindset that finds the victims are always in the right". Are you aware, Keith, that there were 'whites only' bars in Australia up until the 1960s, and it is rumoured there might still be some in various small towns in the Outback? You also probably don't know that throughout the 19th century and up until the 1960s the federal government of the 'Lucky country' used to hand out licenses to allow people to hunt Aborigines?
The fact that he is right wing and writes for "right wing journals" should further have alerted most people to the dubious nature of his character. In case you have missed most of recent history, let's limit it just to the last fifty years in the United States, the right wing has always been the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice. Always will be, always has been. I could list the amount of atrocities and distortions that the American right have been responsible for in the last decade alone, but I'll need to write a couple of books to do adequate justice to the topic. Speaking of which, you may want to read Al Franken's brilliantly funny and very well researched book 'The Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'. The book isn't particularly short, but even Franken can only cover a few juicy targets in depth.
That last line you quoted from my post was actually intended to be somewhat humorous. You see in an earlier thread Fanusi and I had a bit of a standoff, though typical of him he didn't respond to any of the numerous quotations I included in my posts as he dismissed them all as lies (typical of the religious mindset), and I put him right about Chomsky as well as warning him not to "mess with me on Chomsky". I thought it would be quite apposite to use the same words again. The interesting thing about that exchange, when the subject of Chomsky came around, was that once I actually corrected his distortions Fanusi didn't challenge what I had written. Yet here he comes along and spouts the same inane lies and falsehoods gleaned from people who, like Fanusi, have probably never read an article, let alone a book, written by Noam Chomsky.
So I'm "a bragging schoolboyish twit", am I? I could come up with some choice insults to hurl at you, Keith, but I'd rather not lower myself to your sophomoric level, a level which can't even bother to address anything substantive in my post and rather relies on meaningless mockery and tired ad hominem attacks. What are your own views on Chomsky? Have you actually bothered to read any of his writing? Please do tell us who these "critics" are who criticise Chomsky for "not being even-handed in his dealings with his opponents". You seem to think that there are always two equal sides to every story. So perhaps we should be fair towards the Nazi policies during the 1930s which saw the German economy grow substantially and try and balance that against the elimination of political opponents, the banishment of homosexuals, gypsies, Communists and, of course, Jews to concentration camps. Would you take anyone seriously who honestly demanded that we be "even-handed" when dealing with people who would propose this reading of history? I could go on and on in this vein, with the basic point unchanged. Most of the mainstream mass media in the United States and even Great Britain constantly spin out apologetics or outright lies about Western atrocities. Anyone who is an apologist for terror, who tend to be Chomsky's staunchest "critics" don't deserve to be treated with "even-handedness", but rather contempt, just as Fanusi treats with contempt people who apologise for the atrocities of Mao or Pol Pot, which Chomsky actually never did despite the lies spun by the Right.
I am also very sorry that my "pompous" style should so offend you. Next time I'll try and write like the average fourth grader, so will that satisfy little Keith who just can't handle those pesky big words or my nuanced argumentation?

Steve99

In which ways isn't Noam Chomsky "intellectually honest or consistent". Examples please! And no, I don't mean referring me to articles by right wing loons who hate Chomsky merely because he criticises the United States. I mean actual words or sentiments Chomsky himself has uttered when matched against other sentiments one is able to parse dishonesty. There is an article from a 1976 edition of the New Statesman wherein Christopher Hitchens finds much to admire in Saddam Hussein's regime. Now while I'm no admirer of Hitchens' political views, even I will concede that he has a right to change his mind once he knows more about a particular country. Isn't that one of the aspects of the scientific method that makes it so effective for uncovering the truth, namely the ability to build on one's knowledge to develop a more accurate picture of the world? In the particle instance that I've just referred to I wouldn't call Hitchens dishonest or inconsistent with regards his later denunciations of Saddam's regime, just as Chomsky's comments about China in 1967 were made, as even Keith Windschuttle acknowledges in the essay Fanusi referred us all to (which I had already read and found pitifully wanting),