Monday, March 5, 2012

freemansfarm response log 2

Succeeding this.

Will Silber accomplish anything (in the macro sense of accomplishment we seem to be discussing)?  Probably not.  Will Greenwald/Chomsky?  Probably not, except that they'll get more famous and make more money.

Greenwald and Chomsky do not have a "sober analysis."  It is not sober to consider mass murderers of children in a calm and gentle way.  Vile killer-tyrants like Hitler/Saddam/Obama/Dubya should spawn a healthy reaction of anger and disgust.  No, Silber isn't out there lobbing molotovs at state security forces, but at least he's angry.  Greenwald and Chomsky are calm and composed in the face of, say, any ten thousand dead children of your choice.

So, which is the better, healthier reaction?

Silber likely is angry in the defeated, whiny way, which isn't optimal, but it's far closer to healthy than Greenwald's pitiful, "reasonable" discussions of the foreign policy of killing ten thousand babies.  If we're looking for the spark of humanity, it's more easily found in Silber, where Greenwald has moved closer to imperial automaton.

What has it gotten him?  As much effect on the world as Silber, except 1) he's less honest in a moral and historical sense, and 2) he has a better job and is considered more respectable by American intellectuals.

Which #2, above, is like being more in favor with the Nazi Party instead of less in favor.  It's not good to be more in favor with this child-killing scum.

This isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.  Silber isn't perfect, and his flaws should be pointed out regardless of Greenwald's greater flaws.  But using Silber as a strawman to make apologists like Greenwald/Chomsky look better is inappropriate.

The notion that Silber is "some sort of great organizer" isn't coming from this one.  You'll note this one's decided unpopularity with Floyd's cheering section, as well as the peanut galleries almost anywhere.  And, Silber personally detests this one--don't make the mistake of likening Arka to Floyd just because a few errors in your take on Silber are being pointed out.

Why might we not use nukes against Iran?  Iran has a stronger army than any we've "faced" in recent times.  And if we did use nukes, would it be admitted?  Who would know?  We have little tactical ones now, and the capability and legal precedent to keep anything reporter-like away from any venue where they might report on their use.  Who's to say we haven't already used them?  Plenty of people still don't accept that America burned off little kids' skin with white phosphorous in Fallujah.  Plenty of people still don't think "DU" is radioactive, or that it matters.  Who's going to believe or care if nukes were/are being/will be used?  Probably only the comment section on this blog, so to speak.

You should be interested in what you call "science fiction scenarios."  Our children's children--again, so to speak--will be dealing with them.  You don't know what sort of nasty weapons governments are brewing up right now, and you don't know when they might decide to release them, or if they already have.  These are the worst sort of people, and now equipped with the worst sort of weapons, and a gigantic budget of stolen tax money to keep making more, off the books.

freemansfarm quoted directly on Silber:

"He does none of the hard work of documenting and historicizng, he simply stands on a platform with a bullhorn mouthing obscenities."  
There is a value in "documenting," but any human perspective is also valuable.  We live in the era of a very advanced MiniTru, and major publishing houses control almost all (absolutely all?) the information we're allowed to have.  Silber does occasionally link to articles from these publishers, as does Chris, but if humans come to rely so heavily on their preapproved, corporate-backed information sources that they will not hear anything not delivered via citation, we'll all just be a bunch of Fox News or NPR adherents.

Which, by and large, we are.  Ugh...

Consider how we're discussing this issue right now--we're discussing your criticisms of Silber without requiring you to cite to every single time he uses an obscenity or grandstands.  Silber can discuss America's campaign of genocide without needing to "cite" to a corporate media source for everything he says.  Citing is great, but in the land of the elites' profiting media machines, it's not the sum of wisdom.


  1. I love this quote from freemansfarm:

    "He does none of the hard work of documenting and historicizng, he simply stands on a platform with a bullhorn mouthing obscenities."

    Because then I get to ask - "What does that mean? And why does that even matter?" Is there some kind of tiered hierarchy of righteous indignation out there? Because I seemed to have missed why anyone should care about that.

    1. If only he'd return! The problem with relying on claims that people "need to cite" is that it devolves into the traditional historian's discussion (which is by and large shelved now, as academics go) as to what sources are reliable.

      For example, "Is the New York Times reliable?" To which the follow-up question is, "Did Iraq have WMD?"

      Or, "were the 'founding fathers' of America honest, moral men?"

      Sources are good, but relying on them tends toward antilife: binding to the past, classification, etc.

  2. Those "freemansfarm" posts at Chris Floyd's were satire... weren't they?

    No, honestly, I don't think they were. They looked like Supersmug SuperPwog stuff, fully invested in Lesser Evilism, informed by Ostrich With Buried Head perspective.

    The battle of "sources" is the battle of PowerNoggins -- see my blog for the definition of PowerNoggin. It's like high school cliques arguing over which Popular Person is truly the Most Popular. It's all about Greatness By Affiliation. If "freemansfarm" can cite sources that he believes are The Best Sources, he gets to denigrate others who don't use the same sources, and he's denigrating because of the source difference and NOT because of analytic flaws, or problems with unsupported assumptions.

    All this is due to a lack of critical thinking skills, and a general tendency among many Americans, but especially Pwogs, to defer all forms of critical thought and deem such thinking beyond their own capacities. "Oh I couldn't possibly weigh in on National Security. I'm not privy to the State and National Secrets that need protection!"

    Because Silber regularly dissects and renders impotent this deference to "experts" and "intelligence" possessors, folks like "freemansfarm" feel that Silber is bogus, or third-rate, or whatever. What really is going on is that Silber's arguments -- which tend to be pretty airtight even if not extensively footnoted -- pretty well cut off folks like "freemansfarm" at their knees.

    Which means "freemansfarm" has to consider Silber as irrelevant. Or suchlike.

    1. (Have tried to find your blog as requested, but your profile isn't listed as public. E-mail if you have directions.)