Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.” (page 388).
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
A ‘communist’ suggesting fascist take-over, I always thought that it was nearly the same thing… or has he always been a fascist?
How did you find this? I would never read, let alone buy a Chomsky book.
EM Smith’s (Chiefio) latest post is about Mussolini fascism, from recently translated documents, but is a long read.
Wow, that’s disappointing, thought Chomsky was better than that.
The problem with philosophy that doesn’t test it’s notions against the objective reality of Nature is that the philosopher, in this case Chomsky, becomes disconnected in their thinking from the objective reality of Nature.
What Chomsky is saying is that a great evil can only be averted by another great evil, in this case the soothsayers perceived CO2 doomsday is so important to avoid that even the evils of “fascism” is preferable to solve it.
Of course Chomsky forgets to pose the opposite future where there is no problem at all from CO2 and in which CO2 actually benefits plants and there by life on Earth as CO2 is an essential planet and plant nutrient. In this scenario, which is the null hypothesis scenario yet to be disproven by anyone, it is insane to propose what Chomsky is proposing.
Context is everything.
The key is how does one tell which future of the infinitely possible futures is the one that is unfolding? Verifiable facts.
Now Chomsky and many others believe they have the facts. The thing is that they are resting upon “belief” and not verifiable science. That is they “accept” and “trust” those that soothsay CO2 doomsday and that is their mistake.
With such an important difference in futures – fascism to prevent doomsday, or nature is just fine as it is and CO2 is our friend – those that “believe” upon “faith” in the scientists really need to ask the tough questions of those alleging Catastrophic AGW doomsday claims. The tough questions all have to do with proving their claims using the OPEN and VERIFIABLE process known as the scientific method.
That is what is missing from Chomsky’s analysis. Verifiability.
The other day I debated a philosophy professor who is currently teaching at a university in the USA. The exact same flaw in his thinking was apparent, a lack of connecting his philosophical notions to the objective reality of Nature with all it’s magnificence and all it’s stark horrors by using the scientific method that demands open verifiability or refutation of all claims made. It’s ironic and a very sad state of affairs that a computer scientist needs to educate a philosophy professor about the philosophy of science.
If I get the opportunity to educate Chomsky I’d take it just as I did with this other professor.
Those who espouse philosophies or belief systems that lack verifiability of any and all claims made by their philosophy or belief systems are endarkening their minds and taking our civilization back to the bronze dark ages.
Using the scientific method in a verifiable and refutable manner has succeeded in bringing an age of enlightenment to humanity because at it’s heart the scientific methods says to ask questions and don’t give up asking questions, not even when you “know” the answers, not even when you can verify the knowledge with experiments or with data observations, or with cogent analysis, but to keep asking and to keep educating others and enabling them to test your claims against the objective reality of Nature so that they don’t have to trust you at all, so that they can learn the ways of the power of the enlightening side of science.
Science accepted and science believed is not science, it’s just another form of religious dogma and it can infect even potent minds such as Chomsky. The good news is that by asking questions of all the claims one can shine the light on the facts of life in the objective reality of Nature and slice away unnecessary and mistaken beliefs or philosophies or lines of thinking that have failed to be tested against the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not real: the objective reality of Nature with all it’s magnificent beauty and all it’s stark horrors!
May you choose the path to enlightenment using the scientific method in all aspects of your life.
I’m a linguist. That was Chomsky’s original field.
He made his reputation in linguistics with a couple of theories.
His theories were, like all social science, totally unverifiable. They were just his brainstorms, prettied up with fancy words and scientific looking formulas. He created a notation system for his “grammar,” and he created many more scientific looking trappings.
Like all social sciences, his theories were actually personality driven. The strongest personality builds up a cult following, and his theory is the “science” du jour.
But just like the other cult theory “sciences,” Chomskyism faded as stronger personalities arose with their theories. Freudianism, Marxism and Chomskyism are peas in a pod.
So it is no surprise to find the faded cult-leader tagging onto the lastest fake science cult–, Gorist-Mannist-Gaiaism.
The bottom line with all of the social “science” cults since 1917 is that their core goal is to destroy traditional America. The heart of Gorist-Warmism is its goal of taking away our energy–what better way to destroy the country?
A great book, due out in early May, but a free pre-publication preview available now, explains how the anti-American cult of Political Correctness came to be: Willing Accomplices: KGB covert influence created PC and destroyed America.
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the combination of linguist, philosopher, and cognitive scientist caused people to believe their own propaganda, no matter how much askew of reality it was. Would anybody really care ?
These misanthropes need to be taken out and beaten behind the woodshed. He sounds like a teenager dreaming of being stranded on a desert island with Miss America. Paraphrasing … “Even I’d have to agree to my wet dream of a communist workers autocracy to save the planet.”
Chomsky is very lucid when picking apart government/corporate motives in far flung countries, but can’t manage to elaborate the most obvious conflicts of interests of the far left in his own back yard. I wonder why?
Lucid? Full of crap is a better term.
I’ll give him his due regarding exposing motives behind the particulars of US policy and corporate manuevering. IMO, you have to be a turd to be a “successful” bureaucrat or CEO. You’re looking to make money regardless of the human cost. But where he goes wrong is not blaming individuals responsible or the corresponding turds in whatever country he’s talking about. He’s got an axe to grind and is only telling half the story while dreaming of his communist paradise.
He’s like a butcher telling you your cow might have hoof and mouth and he’ll save you the trouble of finding out by buying it for 1/2 the going rate.
So I guess I could agree that he’s full of crap and has the occasional bout of lucidity when it suits his needs.
Thomas Sowell says he creates his own market for what he sells:
The nonsensical Chomsky.
Few people pay any attention to Chomsky anyway.
The West managed to beat Fascism in WWII without resorting to fascist methods.
A trace gas cannot be more dangerous than the combined power of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.
A sense or proportion is not a bad thing to have. Put Chomsky out to grass.
It’s true: when life conditions become hard, people turn hard.
If you’re starving and your family is not safe from local violence, you’ll support somebody, anybody, who can take charge (by force) and rule (by force) to create stability. Everyone here would “vote” for that if they’d been living in a violent and starving nation for decades. We adapt our morals to suit the life conditions.
This is what is so insidious about the environmental global warming movement: they are knowingly creating a crisis myth, with the aim of scaring people into becoming “good” (better planetary citizens), but scaring people with disasters doesn’t make them good — instead it makes people “bad,” it tells people, “life is going to become very hard,” a condition which simply HARDENS people.
From a lefty point of view, Bush played on the fear and terror of 911 to gain support for invading Iraq (wrong country wrt 911) and that worked, people who were softer turned hard and started saying, “we need to bomb somebody!”
Well, what’s the difference? The greenies are playing on fears of global warming to get people to do what? They’ll just turn hard. It’ll promote wars, not peace. It’ll promote fascism, not freedom.
People care about fuzzy cute things when people themselves feel safe. When people themselves feel threatened then all they care about is themselves. Gee, Africa is developing… better stop that, can’t have too many of them spewing CO2 that could melt the ice caps and change the pressures in the Earth and set off that giant volcano under the USA. “We must save the planet!” ie. OURSELVES.
There is a reason that free society accompanies affluent economies — it is because everyone is fed and safe and so can afford to be caring about other people’s rights. But if you are not safe and not fed then things get real ugly.
The greens are marching us in exactly the wrong direction if they want to save Nature.
What a wacko….These loonies are everywhere… a senior Green stooge who is… get this “Head of Ethics” at Australian National University proposed the “suspension of the democratic process” to deal with climate change…. Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red in the middle… and now when you cut the fruits open their seeds are arranged in the shape of a Swastika…..
The reason communists hate fascists? Sibling rivalry. Never forget that NAZI was the National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party. Only difference is how they salute and what they call their dear leader.
But it is nice to see them getting out into the sunlight, the little cockroaches.
Communism/Fascism? Two sides of the same coin.
The EU has been working on this very basis since its inception. Its totally unaccountable and undemocratic system of govt has gradually taken away powers from democratically elected national govts largely by capitalising on people’s fears.
The original concept of course was to prey on people’s fears of another war. Global Warming is just another alarm on the list to justify more erosion of democratic rights.
Facism (totalitarianism) is A Solution for everything for Chumpsky and his buds on the left.
I like what Sacha Baron Cohen (aka, Borat) doing one of his characters named Ali G says to Chomsky, “….my main man, professor Norman Chumpsky.” Then he goes on to have a little fun at Chomsky’s expense
I think those one is much more fun;
we have another leftist twit spouting bullcrap.
So many leftist twits abound these days.I wonder if there is a twit virus going around?
If someone told Chomsky that burning Jews in crematoriums was the only way to “Save the Planet”, he would volunteer to start rounding them up himself as soon as possible.
And yes, I know his heritage. That wouldn’t make any difference at all to him.
Don’t put this through….
Change the title to Fascism…I sent this to Drudge
Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 601
Bring back the ovens Chompsky! Why not just go for the whole ball of wax before you kick off! You really are one evil bastard.
Are you people serious?? Did anyone bother to read the quote before commenting?? It’s a reference to how Fascism comes about, by authoritarian institutions providing answers to legitimate greivences. Answers that people believe to be the only solution in front of them. He’s not “promoting” Fascism, he’s commenting on the power of unqualified authority, propaganda and the gravity of ignoring problems that require attention.
Then again, I guess I am speaking to a bunch of people who believe that climate change is no big issue, a hoax, and far from the realm of science. I guess 90% of the world’s scientists from every field of natural sciences are wrong and have no research to back up what they say. Companies, Corporate-sponsored politicians and rich people who benefit from things that harm the environment have nothing to gain from dispelling the “myth” of climate change. 2 camps on this issue. Scientists on one side, rich people and politicians, who are funded by rich people, on the other. Makes perfect sense to dismiss the scientists. Right.
And to the person who claimed that “The West managed to beat Fascism in WWII without resorting to fascist methods.” lol, go and actually read history, you’ll find that anti-Fascist movements across Europe were the first to be attacked once the Allies won. Greece was told that it’s parliament would vote as the American government directed it too or it would be replaced. Saddam, Noriega, Suharto, Ceausescu, Pinochet, Mohammad Reza. And that’s just the tip of the iceburg, the famous dictators that you should all be familiar with. Explain again how the “west” hasn’t resorted to Fascist methods. I’m not even going to mention the quotes from beloved “western” leaders praising hitler before he decided to move independantly. You can talk all you want about this “socialist” party and that “socialist” party, but names are just names. A murderer will call himself a defender. Hitler also claimed he was “defending” Germany when he order the deaths of millions, doesn’t make it true. The U.S. can call itself a Democracy all it wants, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a Republic, not a Democray. If you don’t know the difference, you should do yourself a favor and look it up. Might do you some good. You might then understand what unqualified authority and Fascism actually mean.
said the Fascist.
I think most of us have missed the main argument. What Professor Chomsky wanted to say was that global warming and criminal negligence from this collective responsibility, especially by the developed Western industrialized nations, would ultimately take us to a point from where onwards it will not be possible for all human beings to exist on this planet. Then, the stronger, the super powers, will deprive the weaker countries of the right to exist. Their population will be forcefully reduced and only selected ,a few, will be allowed to survive. The stronger will not let the unwanted survive. Same as the ‘Fascists’ did.
Such an obvious attempt of deception by quote mining; this is why context matters. But even if one just tries to understand the quote without context, it becomes pretty clear, that he’s talking about the desolate state of popular movements. He tries to underline it, by saying a fascist dictatorship would be – assuming the absence of popular movements – the only solution people could think of, once they face concrete global danger. So, given the hypothetical choice between extinction and fascism, what would you choose?
“Said the fascist”
Do you realise that after a reasoned argument you just resorted to name-calling?
Why might that be?
Said the cotton-headed ninny muggins.