 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Chomsky saw through the thinly veiled attempt to discredit the left and thereby make the right more appealing - better.
See how that works?
Suppose Chomsky didn't sweep the political hack job under the rug and instead of answering the question by qualifying the answer with a specific rejection of the label, what would have happened if Chomsky illuminated the attempted political game?
Interviewer:
"So is it a failure of the left then in the United States that war is not avoided?"
Interviewed:
"That depends upon what you mean by the left. If your version of the left and my version of the left are two different things, then what is the purpose of confusing the two?
Interviewer:
"What do you mean?"
Interviewed:
"If the left you have in view is a group of organized criminals who use law as a cloak so as to perpetuate their crimes, the label you use actually hides their crimes behind some nebulous legitimacy..."
Interviewer (cutting in):
I don't mean that...
Interviewed (cutting in):
"Really; then tell me exactly what you mean, give me some names, places, actions, motivations, etc., and not simply the speeches that claim to communicate motive; offer me the true reasons behind the actions."
Interviewer:
"That is going a little to far into specific details, I just meant the group of people who are democrats, not republicans - that left."
Interviewed:
"That is my point, then, so I'll go on with my point, if you don't mind. Is this a sound bite?"
Interviewer:
"No, no, go ahead with your point - please."
Interviewed:
"Thanks. The point is to point out how evil and only evil is served by this confusion of labels. If you ask a question about the left and that left is some ambiguous phantom, in your own mind, while I can clearly measure it as legal criminals who commit legal crimes upon their helpless, ignorant, and power-less innocent victims, and if your "left" (legal criminals) is confused with the left I intend to communicate, where my version of left is nothing more or less than people who don't plan on and then execute crimes upon innocent people, if now the two opposites are confused as being one and the same thing, both are "The Left" (when in reality there are two separate and opposing groups), what happens?"
Interviewer:
"What do you mean by 'what happens?'?"
Interviewed:
"You don't even know, and that is part of my point. What happens is that the good group (the left that doesn't plan on and then follow through with the plan to willfully and pre-meditatively injure innocent victims) is in a lose/lose situation. Do you see this now?"
Interviewer:
"Please just go on."
Interviewed:
"I can see your reluctance to take responsibility, to won this, this parroting of the political falsehoods that so well serve the legal criminals. Be that as it may, I can go on."
Interviewer:
"Lose/lose situation..."
Interviewed:
"Exactly; in a measurable way: the good people are now suspected of failure, of wrong doing, of being like the left that you have falsely associated with these good people. That is a negative for the good people, they lose power, they lose confidence, they lose momentum, they suffer libel, bad press, negative reinforcement occurs. The good people are grouped in the same group as the bad people and the mud sticks to them."
Interviewer:
"That may be true..."
Interviewed:
"But that is half the story, one side, and this has at least four sides, as such:
1a. Good people lose by gaining negative exposure by false association with bad people
1b. Good people lose by failing to promote positive exposure; in direct proportion to the opportunity having been stolen by false exposure.
2a. Bad people win by diluting their evil, having a false association with good people makes bad people look better, the good thoughts and good deeds of the good people are falsely attributed to the bad people.
2b. Bad people win by deflecting and avoiding the negative exposure by clogging up the air time, the bandwidth, with falsehood, confusion, misdirection, behavioral modification, response conditioning.
Interviewer:
"Isn't that somewhat convoluted?"
Interviewed:
"That is the point, yes, and who does it serve, and therefore who is most likely behind the process - if not the beneficiaries?"
Interviewer:
"Are you suggesting that I have something to gain by asking you a question concerning the left, and their failure to avoid wars?"
Interviewed:
"Did someone make you do it? Are you acting against your will, or your knowledge?"
Interviewer:
"I just wanted an answer to the question asked."
Interviewed:
"And you don't like the answer, it is too convoluted, where the confusion between a criminal left and a non-criminal left just so happens, perhaps "coincidentally", to benefit the criminals and injures, and removes power from, the innocent victims. Is that all just a coincidence to you, as you take your part in it?"
Interviewer:
"I just asked a question."
Interviewed:
"What exactly to you mean when you define this thing that you call the "left"? If...
Interviewer:
"Everyone knows..."
Interviewed:
"Please let me finish, although your interruption speaks for itself."
Interviewer:
"Go on."
Interviewed:
"If your answer doesn't accurately discriminate the precise difference between people who organize and pool, or collect, their power in the willful process of injuring innocent people and those who do no such thing, then your answer, your "left", doesn't accomplish something that is specifically important in the process of avoiding crime, or war when war is a crime, so who, who exactly, is responsible for not avoiding criminal wars - wars for profit - and what exactly is the extent of their failure, in a measurable way?"