CDR: Niiice kitty....
Another addition to my expanding .sig file quote collection. Personally, of course, I think Chomsky something of a brilliant yutz, politically, :-). Nonetheless, the Churchill quote below is especially apt in describing the USA's current geopolitical situation. Here's hoping the US fares better in its own version of the 20th-century British tiger-ride. Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text
--
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's book on Kosovo and came across this quote from a Cabinet note written by Churchill in January 1914 explaining the need for increased military expenditure (taken in turn from Clive Ponting's Churchill, 1994, P 132):
"We are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources. Chances are you will be unable to find his alleged source. In the unlikely event that you are able to find it, it will not say quite what Chomsky claims it said. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG x0mHawqf6qCPceEVKqvbMFm+dlud44bypomUe7yL 4fNdHawWLRaiwAZBTwUDBTep99D3yN2eWM3SZs4Xc
At 8:10 PM -0700 on 10/1/00, James A.. Donald wrote:
<snip>(taken in turn from Clive Ponting's Churchill, 1994, P 132):
<Snip>
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources.
Chances are you will be unable to find his alleged source. In the unlikely event that you are able to find it, it will not say quite what Chomsky claims it said.
While I would expect that Dr. Chomsky didn't "manufacture" some "consent"
of his own here, I wouldn't be surprised, given his fetish about same, and,
since it's pretty trivial to prove or disprove, I'll get back to you when I
get around to looking it up. Someday.
If you're in a hurry to actually back up your assertion, however, you're
welcome to do so sooner, if you would like. :-).
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, James A.. Donald wrote:
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources.
Do you have some past examples at hand?`
Sampo Syreeni
At 08:10 PM 01/10/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources.
Chances are you will be unable to find his alleged source. In the unlikely event that you are able to find it, it will not say quite what Chomsky claims it said.
Are there any examples of this documented anywhere, preferably on the web? Reese
-- At 07:49 AM 10/2/2000 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: If you're in a hurry to actually back up your assertion, however, you're welcome to do so sooner, if you would like. :-). How can I prove Churchill did not say this? The problem is the curious absence of evidence that he did say it. The words sound more Chomskian than Churchillian. As with so many remarkably Chomsy sounding quotes the source is so vague that failure to find it can never be held as proof that Chomsky made it up. If Churchill really said such a thing, we would have some source better than Chomsky for it, and if Churchill really did say it, Chomsky would have given us a source that was possible to verify. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG szxxNSRTF2hqGokTe4pEi1HN0v7ML+gJClXW1Vcu 4i2EZSRU++C5ilvvAmDcHPpIjAAdRwU9+ndWqhck2
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Reese wrote:
Are there any examples of this documented anywhere, preferably on the web?
I'm not aware of any overt instances. I
Ok, let's try that one again.... I think my machine is digitaly hallucinating... Anyway. I 'm not aware of any overt instances. I did some checking of resoruces when I read "Deterring Democracy". All of them (maybe a dozen) checked out and the quotes were reasonably represented. I'd be very interested in any verifiable instances myself. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- At 08:10 PM 01/10/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources.
Chances are you will be unable to find his alleged source. In the unlikely event that you are able to find it, it will not say quite what Chomsky claims it said.
At 03:49 PM 10/2/2000 -1000, Reese wrote: Are there any examples of this documented anywhere, preferably on the web? No one has been able to disprove any quotes or citations by Chomsky, (at least none that cannot be explained away as Chomsky giving improbable paraphrases or interpretations of other peoples words) but his works are tightly packed with remarkable and improbable vaguely sourced quotes and citations that somehow no one has ever been able to actually verify: For example: : : To continue, high US officials cited by the : : highly-respected Asia correspondent of the (eminently : : respectable) Far Eastern Economic Review predicted that 1 : : million would die as a consequence of the US bombings. US : : aid officials leaving Phnom Penh when the KR took over : : predicted that two years of "slave labor" would be : : necessary to overcome the effects of the bombing. : : provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have : : studied the full range of evidence available, and who : : concluded that executions have numbered at most in the : : thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited : : Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where : : brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of : : starvation resulting from the American destruction and : : killing. These reports also emphasize both the : : extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war : : (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries : : that massacre reports were false Presumably the "at most in the thousands" is a highly imaginative interpretation of Nayan Chanda, who said nothing of the kind. As to where "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false" comes from, no one has ever been able to suggest a source, although Chomsky clearly leads the reader to believe that the source is the Far Eastern Economic Review. Obviously however it is not the Far Eastern Economic Review, which failed to report any such discoveries, so presumably it is Chomsky's fertile imagination. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lOZVJf2FnXr1XSCfVIrBPFZtIfqj/mnVwLjf0flm 4cZ2yI3bqXz2LWRu63XeD6HZovh1aXML0NYP3IBP2
"James A.. Donald" wrote:
If Churchill really said such a thing, we would have some source better than Chomsky for it, and if Churchill really did say it, Chomsky would have given us a source that was possible to verify.
But if Chomsky were in the habit of making up or "massaging" quotes, perhaps he wouldn't give full reference information even for real quotes. That way, when he did make up a quote, the lack of full cite wouldn't count as a datum supporting the "made up" hypothesis. Double-thinkingly yours, SRF -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
At 10:41 PM -0700 on 10/2/00, James A.. Donald wrote:
How can I prove Churchill did not say this? The problem is the curious absence of evidence that he did say it.
Weirdly enough, I may actually be working on it. A friend of friend may be
able to lay hands on the source documents. Wouldn't that be strange?
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Weirdly enough, I may actually be working on it. A friend of friend may be able to lay hands on the source documents. Wouldn't that be strange?
I'd call it 'justice'. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
James A.. Donald wrote:
: : To continue, high US officials cited by the : : highly-respected Asia correspondent of the (eminently : : respectable) Far Eastern Economic Review predicted that 1 : : million would die as a consequence of the US bombings. US : : aid officials leaving Phnom Penh when the KR took over : : predicted that two years of "slave labor" would be : : necessary to overcome the effects of the bombing.
: : provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have : : studied the full range of evidence available, and who : : concluded that executions have numbered at most in the : : thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited : : Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where : : brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of : : starvation resulting from the American destruction and : : killing. These reports also emphasize both the : : extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war : : (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries : : that massacre reports were false
Presumably the "at most in the thousands" is a highly imaginative interpretation of Nayan Chanda, who said nothing of the kind. As to where "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false" comes from, no one has ever been able to suggest a source, although Chomsky clearly leads the reader to believe that the source is the Far Eastern Economic Review.
Actually it isn't clear if this is what he implies, because you have left out the middle of the quotation. You also haven't said where you're quoting from - a title and page number would let the rest of us check that you haven't just stuck two unrelated passages together to prop up your argument. mike.
The quote it attributed to Clive Ponting's book on Churchill. So all anyone has to do is check that. Ponting is a reasonably well-known author it should be possible to find the book and check page 132. Whether Ponting was telling the truth is another matter - but he isn't Chomsky. Nor is he a socialist of course. Chomsky is a left socialist anarchist so JAD assumes that anything he says has to be a lie, with or without evidence. Ken
If Churchill really said such a thing, we would have some source better than Chomsky for it, and if Churchill really did say it, Chomsky would have given us a source that was possible to verify. 4i2EZSRU++C5ilvvAmDcHPpIjAAdRwU9+ndWqhck2
As Winston Churchill observed in a paper submitted to his Cabinet colleagues in January 1914,
"we are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves...an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
To be sure, such honesty is rare in respectable society, though the passage would be acceptable without the italicized phrases, as Churchill understood. He did make the paper public in the 1920s, in The World Crisis, but with the offending phrases removed.{Clive Ponting, Churchill (Sinclair-Stevenson 1994), 132.}
-- At 11:26 AM 10/3/2000 +0100, mike d wrote:
Actually it isn't clear if this is what he implies, because you have left out the middle of the quotation. You also haven't said where you're quoting from - a title and page number would let the rest of us check that you haven't just stuck two unrelated passages together to prop up your argument.
These are two infamous, passages, from two very different but equally infamous documents. I tend to foolishly assume that everyone is as familiar with these endlessly repeated Chomsky debates as I am and will recognize these infamous quotes on sight. One document is Chomsky conforming to the post 1979 Soviet orthodoxy on Cambodia, one is Chomsky, with equal veracity, conforming to the pre 1979 Soviet orthodoxy on Cambodia. The latter quote comes from Chomsky's infamous Nation article, quoted in full at http://www.jim.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm It serves my purpose of demonizing anarcho socialists better than the former quote, since the pre 1979 orthodoxy is now so wonderfully politically incorrect. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6e1SkGRRzBiT0RVevQocjqwX3A8pSroNyXabpQg3 4GSg98I6PZcb+D1s7uIOIUrBNuIZ5phKaE7IVyxRZ
-- At 02:23 AM 10/3/2000 -0400, Steven Furlong wrote:
But if Chomsky were in the habit of making up or "massaging" quotes, perhaps he wouldn't give full reference information even for real quotes. That way, when he did make up a quote, the lack of full cite wouldn't count as a datum supporting the "made up" hypothesis.
Chomsky gives what sounds like full reference information for citations, but often these citations turn out to be unverifiable or highly misleading. My favorite example is of course "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false". (No one has been able to find these discoveries) Charles Kalina's favorite example is Chomsky's fabricated quotes supposedly from Shawcross attributing ridiculous views to Shawcross. However I am not much interested in those. Charles Kalina seeks to argue that Chomsky is a cult leader, not a legitimate scientist, so the example of a lie that has the effect of libelling those of Chomsky's fellow leftists who failed to follow Chomsky's leadership serves Kalina's purpose well. My purpose is different from Kalina's. I seek to show that "anarcho socialists" are for the most part merely Marxists who have escalated the rhetoric about the state withering away, so the example of a lie that has the effect of serving the then Moscow line serves my purpose well. Chomsky's pre1979 lies on Cambodia serve my purpose particularly well because the Moscow line on the Khmer Rouge changed abruptly in January 1979. Since nearly all today's anarcho socialists are incapable of issuing a statement that differs from the Moscow line as it was in 1987, they are severely handicapped in defending Chomsky. They cannot say that what he said then about the Khmer Rouge was true, since after 1979 it became officially untrue. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z53ZKZUN3B2Ev4r0h6bnHrb16EHfH+WcY8O6DvZC 4/CssZ9J/joHF24TL2z55D2+xp6uWfYgChGl4yeyb
A quick compare and contrast: Chomsky said:
: : and repeated discoveries : : that massacre reports were false
James A. Donald said:
As to where "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false" comes from ^^^ and: My favorite example is of course "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false". ^^^
The first one means "reports of a significant number of massacres were discovered to be false". The second and third ones means "it was repeatedly discovered that all of the reports of massacres were false". "fabricates or falsifies quotes" eh? mike.
participants (8)
-
James A.. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
mike d -
R. A. Hettinga -
Reese -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Steven Furlong