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.
Coincidence?
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
http://www.dis-engage.org/blog/_archives/2005/6/22/963826.html
Poll:
Support for Disengagement Plan Drops
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=84590
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