Inside the Mind of a Chomskyite

Or, more precisely, how does an anti-Americanist’s mind think and work?

July 1, 2005

By Avi Green

There are many reasons one could criticize what they find wrong with United States policy. Even I have my reasons for doing so, if I do.

But there’s a difference between what’s right and what’s wrong in how you do so, and while I usually try to look for the right reasons to critique US policy, the problem with many anti-Americanists, both think-tanks and individuals, is that they almost always seem to ignore the right reasons for attacking US policy, and only go with what they personally consider the reasons worth slamming the US for.

If there’s any reason I have for taking US policy to task, it’s for continuing to view the PLO as legitimate, but not just simply that – I also find it angering that even now, they continue to ignore the genocide that takes place in Africa by Arab/Muslim slave traders in the Sudan.

Anti-Americanists, as I’ve noticed, never seem to attack the US for the kind of reasons that people of my standing do. Rather, it seems as if they’d prefer to look for all sorts of nigh-farcical reasons to do so.

One case in point that I can recall was when, at the time that the now disappointing Hero Realm had a forum for world affairs discussions in 2004, a very selfish-minded teenager whose name was “Brett E Version 0.1”, purporting to be from western Australia, posted a topic asking, “Bush legalizing ‘slave force’?”

The subject was in relation to Dubya’s proposal to give Mexican workers more legal visas for working within American borders without having to worry about immigration laws, a proposal that was being discussed with Mexico's president Vicente Fox for at least two years during that time. It was a very childish topic that the boy was raising, making a mountain out of a molehill, and something that’s totally the unemployed Mexican citizen’s freedom of choice to either accept or reject. I was almost ready to laugh at how easy a road young Mr. E was taking. And then he had the sheer silliness to say “I’m a capitalist.”

A better question for a world affairs topic might’ve been, “Bush ignoring slave mongering?” Since even the administration of George W. Bush has been largely oblivious to the subject of slavery in the Sudan, which I by contrast do and always will – consider an important subject that requires considerable scrutiny. It’s utterly horrible as to how millions of blacks in the Sudan have been enslaved and murdered by Arab/Muslim slave traders, and these murders and enslavements go on almost every day, and nothing is done about it.

The problem is of course, that when it comes to anti-Americanists, which, I suspect, is what the young teenager in question was, they do not seem to deem modern day slavery or terrorism as important, nor the legitimazation of a terrorist outfit like the PLO by the US State Department. This problem can be termed as selectivity, when they’re willing to take another country to task for one thing, whether it makes any sense or not, but are unwilling to take them to task for reasons that make more sense, perhaps because the more ideal reasons contradict what they hold dear?

I honestly cannot say for sure. But it sure does look that way, doesn’t it?

This farcical teen lunatic also tried to come up with excuses in an argument about the war in Iraq that the US was invading a sovereign nation’s borders. As if they really were legitimate, given that Iraq has not only experimented in chemical weapons and slaughtered thousands of innocent Kurds, but also harbored terrorists within its borders, including one of the masterminds of the Italian cruise liner, the Achille Lauro, in the mid-1980’s, and just plain spoken in obscene terms against virtually every democratic country, Israel included, on the map. Well, to be more precise on that part, it was Saddam who did.

This kind of pathology is what’ll eventually end up destroying Europe in the end, which is apparently what the deluded teenager I speak of, and even an early 20s student who had his mind all made up regarding the plane hijackers during 9-11, were influenced by. Some Europeans, whether they be British, German, Spanish, Norwegian, and other such countries, also seem to have quite a problem with “ignorance is strength”, and are unwilling to pay any attention to detail on a lot of these important subjects.

As mentioned, a 22-year-old student, whose family name, of all things was “X-treme”, also took part in such arguments, and in a fairly lengthy discussion on the Iraq war (involving former US State Department envoy Richard Clarke), he had his mind all set regarding the backgrounds of 15 of the hijackers on 9-11, who were of Saudi Arabian backgrounds (and, as revealed in a book by senator Bob Graham, had ties to the Saudi government), but he didn’t want to think that: rather, in his prearranged opinion, they were just Syrian (and even he didn't seem to have any concern over the nightmare in Sudan). More precisely, this wasn’t just simply what he believed, but rather, what he wanted to believe.

Which, in fact, is what the 19-year-old Mr. E Version 0.1 wanted to do when it came to a question of whether or not the US had discriminated against black soldiers during WW2, by forcing them to undergo chemical experiments worse than the Syphilis study conducted by the US government in the early 20th century, when students at the university of Alabama were tricked into offering blood donations for some stupid experimental science study. This was in a topic regarding Marvel Comics’ abortive miniseries, Captain America: The Truth, Red, White and Black (also spoken about here), and Mr. E had his mind all set in the first place about where he stood on the subject. Yet it was not out of altruism that he set his position, but rather, out of arbitrariness and anti-Americanism that he did. Or at least, that’s what he seemed to be doing.

He also seemed very anti-military, and averse to minority group members. Not to mention that he seemed to have an 85% lack of interest in women, or he certainly didn’t seem very respectable of them, to say the least. And, he was also very arrogantly in favor of UK-born writers such as Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Paul Jenkins, Warren Ellis, etc, to the point of resorting at times to hatefully quarreling with those who dared to speak against them. Unless it was someone like Chris Claremont (who once travelled to Israel and resided on a kibbutz for a time), John Byrne, or even Alan Davis, to say the least. Writers and artists like them, whether good or bad, are apparently not good – or bad – enough for him to commit hatred in their name.

But I digress from that for now. Another noticeable problem he had was being adverse to FOX News, and at one point said such a thing as “the kind of patriotic BS that comes from FOX News…” in the same topic where he was asking if Bush was coming up with a supposed slave force. And at another point, he claimed that the report they did on the BBC, one of the worst anti-Israeli news outlets in Europe, “was unbelievable.” What he didn’t mention, however, was what FOX was talking about in regards to BBC: they were reporting on a misrepresentation that a BBC newsman by the name of Andrew Gilligan had given to a government scientist, and the resulting smear drove the man to suicide. Which points out another fatal flaw in a lot of people who try to attack FOX: they don’t actually explain why.

If there’s anything I’ve noticed about a lot of anti-Americanists, it’s that they seem to maintain, whether by knee-jerk reaction or by own position, the same positions on a lot of subjects: in other words, if they’re against the war in Iraq, then they’re also “FOX-ophobes”. The term “FOX-ophobe” is surely a new one that I myself must’ve coined, for, as you can probably guess, describing people who’re more or less afraid of the leading news channel in the US. Whether or not it’s been used elsewhere remains to be seen and confirmed.

And most intriguingly enough, when recalling the scene over at Hero Realm, it would seem as if some of the people reading Grant Morrison’s work on X-Men are of the anti-war crowd too! And are also Fox-ophobes.


Not necessarily. Realizing what the political positions are for writers of Morrison’s and even Warren Ellis’ standing (and, lest we forget, even Paul Jenkins, Garth Ennis, and Mark Millar), it shouldn’t have to be that surprising that anyone who reads their work would also be an anti-war advocate, and even hostile to news outlets who don’t go with the flow.

These anti-war and anti-Americanists, in case I didn’t quite mention, can be and are very anti-Israelist as well (and have no interest or concern regarding the PLO's carrying out the massacre of Jewish athletes in Munich in 1972), and the young Mr. E Version 0.1 pretty much indicated that he was of this kind of pathological standing, if anything. In a discussion involving Paul Jenkins’ "Countdown" storyline in the now cancelled Spectacular Spider-Man (which I once wrote to Jenkins about and tried to discuss the subject with, and the response I got was disappointing, if not surprising), he ignored even any part involving the US diplomats slain by the PLO in the mid-1970s, those being Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore (see this page for information), and went on to just one-sidedly defend Jenkins as if nothing had ever happened. His approach was self-serving and self-righteous, to say nothing of being in classic know-it-all form, and you could very well say that Mr. E was simply trying to break his arms to pat himself on the back. Which is typical of only so many self-appointed spokespersons for freelancers they’ve probably never even met in person themselves.

The biggest irony, in case I didn’t mention, is how Bush opponents of the anti-Americanist/anti-Israelist kind would oppose the Bush administration in spite of the fact that they advocate a standing more or less the same as theirs – which is bias against Israel and favoratist positions towards the PLO. But it most certainly does suggest that anti-Americanists and anti-Israelists do have a “tissue-paper” policy of their own. In other words, they support a policy by an administration without showing any thanks whatsoever for supporting what they do.

While we’re on the subject, here’s a link to an article on anti-Israelism and anti-Americanism together.

Most interesting of all about this teenager though, was when he revealed, during a discussion regarding drug abuse, that he was in favor of legalizing drugs, and had this to say about himself:

“I smoke weed on occasion. There are times when I’ve passed on sessions with my mates out of personal choice.”

“Weed”, of course, is slang for cannabis/marijuana. And not only did he favor legalization of dangerous and deadly drugs, he even admitted to hanging out with a very questionable crowd as well, which is why he may have tried to keep his real name secret. He may not have been from western Australia either, although, while the validity of his personal and family name are in question, it should be noted, if anything, that his actual name sounded very Hungarian. Why anyone would want to pose under a name that could probably be Hungarian is anyone’s guess.

That he used a pseudonym, as one would probably expect, was no doubt because anyone who knew who he was and where he lived could report him to the drug enforcement authorities. And it wouldn’t surprise me if his world location was also false information, since, were he to have given out his real place of residence, that too could get him into trouble.

Anti-Americanists also tend to ignore the now notorious Oil-for-Food scandal perpetrated by the United Nations and their Slavery-is-Freedom advocating representatives, which severely hurt the people of Iraq. And then they claim to be on the Iraqis’ side! Nope, they’re on the side of Saddam, pure and simple, not the peoples. There is a difference.

If anything, by looking for easy excuses – not hard ones – to lambast the US, the anti-Americanists are pretty much implying their true nature, and what their ideologies are like. And that’s why it’s a very good idea to keep your distance from these very unreliable individuals.

And if there’s anything that really amazes me, almost to the point of hilarity, it’s how anti-Americanists can be of precise and specific positions, and that includes politically correct ones too, on the subject of war, news outlets, and even comic book writers too!

In fact, while we’re on the subject, one of the administrators too, I might add, more or less implied that he for one might’ve been a Chomskyite, after he went into the same topic on the war in Iraq I mentioned earlier that focused on Richard Clarke's awkward facts about Iraq's terror ties, and, perhaps for the sake of shock, but still very tasteless, he went and argued that, “we [the US] invaded the country of a leader who maintained control over his people far better than we could over our own.”

The most amazing thing about such a person, to be quite honest, was how he seemed to be going out of his way to be biased almost deliberately, and all for the sake of sounding tasteless on purpose.

One more reason, I figure, that I no longer wanted to waste any of my precious time on that website.

Ariel Sharon’s hostility towards his “own side” wasn’t new

I looked over on Israpundit, and this article that I found there from Israel National News was quite a shocker. Or was it?

Back in the mid-1940s, it appears that the Israeli prime minister who has gone so far in recent times as to violate democratic laws, and even encourage the police/army to do the same, went and assaulted members of the Etzel movement, as former activist Ben-Ami Zamir has revealed in a startling testimony, reported on Israel National News in the article I linked to above:

"One of these towns was Kfar Malal, home to young Ariel "Arik" Sharon. "One Motzaei Shabbat [Saturday night], a truck arrived at the cafe, and out of it jumped a group of uniformed Haganah men, led by Ariel Sharon holding a hoe-handle. We knew him in the area as someone who always holds a hoe-handle to catch Etzel and Lechi people. They tried to break into the cafe, which was still closed because of the Sabbath. I came close to him, and he said, 'Give me some soda,' and pointed to a box of drinks on the ground. I bent down to the bottles, and then he picked up his arm and smashed me with all his might with the hoe-handle. My head was covered in blood, which dripped down all over me."

Zamir said that a fight ensued, and "for ten minutes, they destroyed everything they could... The next morning, I went to the Sharon home... His mother came out, saw me all bandaged up and immediately realized what was going on. I asked where Arik was, and she said he wasn't home. I said that if I would see him, I would get him. Later people in Kfar Malal told me that he was afraid to go home. We didn't see him again in Magdiel."

Zamir said that this was not the only violent incident against Etzel people in which Sharon was involved. He noted specifically the case of someone named Hayuma, who died six months ago, whose arm [had been] broken by Sharon's gang.

Zamir's story was publicized 15 years ago by Yediot Aharonot reporter Shlomo Nakdimon. That article also quoted similar testimony by Etzel member Daniel Basamnik. "Sharon threatened to sue [following Nakdimon's article]," Zamir told Arutz-7's Cohen, "but for his own reasons decided not to."

He was wiser not to, but foolish not to pay compensation for aggravated assault, if he didn’t.

But either way, this pretty much shows that Ariel Sharon is not new to this act of hostility he’s been showing his own voters in the past year, in an attempt to mimic what the Labor party tried to do in the past decade, by acting violently hostile to the public’s right to protest against his policies, and it’s a step lower than how he’s been doing it for the sake of trying to stave off an indictment by the district attorney for his son’s involvement in the “Greek island” scandal of about two years ago, which is now the subject of a new fact-based book by two left-wing news reporters.

Most interesting of all is how he was willing to take the risk of being ostracized by his own home town by assaulting a resident who lived in more or less the same area as he did, and affecting his relationship with more than enough people there even then. Could the elite rulership of the time have offered him a fortune that enabled him to move out and live elsewhere?

For the record, here’s what former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon had to say about Sharon’s stupidity.

Recommended links:
Yoni4Knesset: First-Hand Testimony: "Sharon Beat Up Etzel Fighters"
Sharon refuses to testify before Knesset State Committee
Giladis conflict of interest
Poll: Support for Disengagement Plan Drops
Anti-disengagement Information Hotline
Israeli Prison Authorities commit abuse of inmates
GushKatif-Gate - Israel's Watergate

Special thanks should go to my Australian counterpart, Arthur Chrenkoff, for giving me some ideas on how to put this essay together.

Copyright 2005 Avi Green. All rights reserved.

Home FAQ Columns Reviews Links Favorite Characters Special Features Politics Blog Comics Blog Food Blog