Comments on: What is an “intellectual”?

By: JonJayRay

JonJayRay — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:13:51 +0000

O Just one: Just a little note in response to this:

“I also guess that you resent the fact that some of read Kant and Hegel and you can’t.”

I have a comment on a central article by Hegel here:

http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html See Appendix 2

I do read Marx, Engels and Hitler in the original German and I have in fact been the first one to offer online translations of some of Marx’s words. See the archives here:

http://marxwords.blogspot.com/

– which surprised me nearly as much as I am sure it surprises you

But I do confess that Hegel is too much for me in the original German. His prose is constipated enough in a good English translation!

By: JonJayRay

JonJayRay — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:59:34 +0000

My goodness! Justin sure is full of hate and anger. He’s been fuming here for a few days now.

Amusing that it seems to be the cartoon that he is arguing with. The link to an expose of what an academic fraud Chomsky is goes unmentioned

By: Basil

Basil — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:57:32 +0000

Wasn’t Chomsky talking about the NLF? The National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam?

You know, the Viet Cong.

Supported by North Vietnam.

Which was led by Ho Chi Mihn.

What, too many dots to connect?

But it’s really typical “trash America” nonsense from Chomsky. Consider what he said following the attack on Pearl Harbor:

On December 8, we struck back quite blindly, quite unthinkingly, and I’m not at all sure in retrospect that the world is any the better for it.

Chomsky is one of those that says American is always wrong.

You seem to be of the same ilk.

What what the heck was that crack about “people like you tried … to stop blacks from voting?”

People like me have never done any such thing.

People like Robert Byrd tried. But not people like me.

Oh and yes, I’ve read Mark’s Gospel.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:25:19 +0000

Again, you show that you spout lies. It is as simple as that. This is why you will never win because eventually people wise up, just look back at the civil rights movement. People like you tried their hardest to stop blacks from voting but guess what you lost.
If you can not tell the truth then what good are you? My guess is that you are nothing but a hatefilled little boy in a man’s body. I also guess that you resent the fact that some of read Kant and Hegel and you can’t.
When you have some truthful statements to make about Chomsky then be my guest and air them but if you are just going to spew garbage then ….. oh wait what was it that your man Jesus said about the food purity laws? Nevermind you wouldn’t know.
It is just a matter of time until you fanatics turn into wacko fundies and start offing people like the Muslims.
You are a joke and so are the people who give you support. I really hope that one day you have your rights stripped from you.
You put in so much work for such much intellectual garbage.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:33:44 +0000

First off what is the context of that quote? I know what where it came from but most readers won’t. Also that quote you produce has nothing to do with Pol Pot or Mao, so how does that fulfill my simple request? If you want to argue the about the use of violence to achieve political gains I am all for it but this debate, from 67, has nothing to do with Castro.
So again, will you please provide quotes from Prof. Chomsky that show him supporting any of those dictators.
If you can’t it shows you are pushing false garbage, which is fine. Again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

By: Basil

Basil — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:03:34 +0000

Justin:

You mean something like this, from Noam Chomsky’s official Website::

I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this — and I think we should — we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.*

Just wondering…

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:30:55 +0000

I think it is odd that you would make such accusations without proof. It is obvious to all of us that your accusations about Prof. Chosmky supporting the regimes of Pol Pot or Mao are just that, accusations. Prof. Chomsky has millions of words on record but you can not produce a single word supporting the dictators that you claim he supports. It would be interesting to see a cartoon with Uncle Sam at that chalkboard. You could show Suharto, Somaza, Pinochet, Sharon, Musharaf, the Sauds, Batiste, Saddam, Osama, Norigea.. et al.
You obviously have nothing to say about Chomsky’s linguistic work because it is above you intellect so instead you repeat charges that are decades old. Is this really all you people have? YOu really do hope that Americans are too stupid to think for yourself, don’t you?
I would imagine that Carl Sagan is one of those fake intellectuals but he is qouted as saying that extraordinary claims require evidence of which you can not produce. This show that you are intellectually dishonest at best or a complete liar at worst.