6 ms·

Right. Watching the Noam Chomsky documentary, Manufacturing Consent, on YouTube really opened my eyes to this phenomena. Based on what I have observed recentl

Right. Watching the Noam Chomsky documentary, Manufacturing Consent, on YouTube really opened my eyes to this phenomena. Based on what I have observed recently, I think the decision was made some time ago on this, and we're being told what to think.

mc32 9y ago
It's good to be skeptical but I think when you have preponderance of evidence in one way, it's not unreasonable to reach a conclusion. Remember Noam was the same guy who for political reasons did not want to believe Pol Pot was mowing through millions despite large amounts of information filtering out of the country corroborating the atrocities others claimed were taking place. Additionally, there is no need to "manufacture consent" as only a very small minority would object to any action against N Korea at this point in time.
- 1001101 9y ago
  Did people think highly of Saddam in 2003?
  - quakeguy 9y ago
    Some did, but not in the western hemisphere iirc.
  - mc32 9y ago
    There was lots of skepticism but in the end because of lack of good humint a lot of weight was placed on his behavior (his continued pretense/bluffing for the purpose of not disclosing weakness to Iran), the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion. With regard to DPRK S Korea has great humint and we have multiple defectors corroborating each other (whereas Iraq there was basically one guy feeding intelligence services lies) so I would say it's not the same. In addition, the regime provides all the evidence necessary (not just boastful claims) we sample the atmosphere as well as have seismometers corroborating their claims of nuclear development. There is no question as toward their progress nor their intentions.
    - _jal 9y ago
      > the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion. This is drifting rather far off-topic, but that is an exceptionally anodyne description of how that particular chain of events came to pass.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      "the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion" Mistakes can happen and be forgiven but deception is seldom forgotten. It didn't go down quite so innocently as you portray. It appears painfully obvious that there were/are many parties with economic and other interests who were behind what turned into a giant expensive catastrophe and killed hundreds of thousands. No one has even been reprimanded much less punished. A lot of them are still around trying to beat war drums for Syria. Trust was broken. The effects of that will go on for a long time and they aren't good. re. North Korea "There is no question as toward their progress nor their intentions." Fully agree. Very much unlike Iraq (or even less Iran and Syria) NK is truly dangerous and leaving them to continue their present course doesn't seem wise. Supporting almost no military adventures the US has engaged in over the last 30 years I would fully support any action necessary against NK. But hopefully it doesn't come to that. It's a shame someone has been calling wolf every few years for economic gains and now when a real wolf is at the door lots of people won't listen. Look at the comments on this thread. People don't trust. And with very good reason. But in the case of NK I think they are mistaken. If there is a place a germ or technology comes out of that kills half the globe it will be there. ISIS are a bunch of circus clowns in comparison.
      - mc32 9y ago
        There is lots of blame to go around with re Iraq. Our intelligence, Saddam himself (calling a bluff he could not possibly win, the cat-mouse game, in addition to just being a tyrant), opposition, Shiites, many western countries (but curiously Russia opposed) etc. It may not seem like it from the way I write, but I was utterly devastated when the congress approved the plans. But I take one incident at a time. I try not to color unrelated things.
    - 1001101 9y ago
- random314 9y ago
  > Remember Noam was the same guy who for political reasons did not want to believe Pol Pot was mowing through millions http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tru... If the best criticism of Chomsky is from 40 years ago, and about Pol Pot - a person Chomsky believes is a mass murderer, I think Chomsky is doing quite well. > Additionally, there is no need to "manufacture consent" as only a very small minority would object to any action against N Korea at this point in time. Consent has already been manufactured!
  - mc32 9y ago
    >If the best criticism of Chomsky is from 40 years ago He's a politically, nay, ideologically motivated individual --i.e. he presents his version of a story to which there could be multiple sides with multiple interpretations, but his is "right". You can witness the same again when he more recently shrugged off 9-11 because he said, oh, well, the US committed similar atrocity by bombing a pill factory in the Sudan. He can be downright intellectually lazy when it's opportune. Oh, and he also sympathized with Milosevic. Why? Oh, well, because he saw him as the one guy in the Balkans who was anti-American. Yup, he sympathized with Milosevic. that's your Chomsky. >Consent has already been manufactured! If you call that manufactured consent then that term has lost all meaningful distinction.
    - random314 9y ago
      > He's a politically, nay, ideologically motivated individual > He can be downright intellectually lazy > He also sympathized with Milosevic. Ad-hominem is all well and good, but is there any specific objection that you have to any claim by Chomsky. The only specific objection anyone has is that he did not fully believe the scale of atrocities by Pol Pot as reported by US authorities in 1975. Reports that he subsequently accepted - Chomsky later stated, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." It is hard to take any criticism of Chomsky seriously if it always devolves to comments about what kind of person he is and what he always likes to think, instead of specific objections to any claim he has made. This is Chomsky's take, what is your specific objection? https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse > Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan. That aside, if the U.S. or Israel or England were to be the target of such an atrocity, what would the reaction be? In this case we say, “Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let’s go on to the next topic, let the victims rot.” Other people in the world don’t react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even among those who despise and fear him; and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric. > Though it is merely a footnote, the Sudan case is nonetheless highly instructive. One interesting aspect is the reaction when someone dares to mention it. I have in the past, and did so again in response to queries from journalists shortly after 9-11 atrocities. I mentioned that the toll of the “horrendous crime” of 9-11, committed with “wickedness and awesome cruelty” (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton’s bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998. That plausible conclusion elicited an extraordinary reaction, filling many web sites and journals with feverish and fanciful condemnations, which I’ll ignore. The only important aspect is that single sentence—which, on a closer look, appears to be an understatement—was regarded by some commentators as utterly scandalous. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at some deep level, however they may deny it to themselves, they regard our crimes against the weak to be as normal as the air we breathe. Our crimes, for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk deep in the memory hole. All of this is of great significance, as it has been in the past. also https://chomsky.info/200601__/ https://chomsky.info/200601__/ You also managed to miss Chomsky's comparison of 9/11 to the 9/11 of 1973. https://chomsky.info/20110906/ https://chomsky.info/20110906/ > Unfortunately, it is not a thought experiment. It happened. The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office. The goal, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the “virus” that might encourage all those “foreigners [who] are out to screw us” to take over their own resources and in other ways to pursue an intolerable policy of independent development. In the background was the conclusion of the National Security Council that, if the US could not control Latin America, it could not expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world.” >> If you call that manufactured consent then that term has lost all meaningful distinction. What?
quakeguy 9y ago
Exactly my thoughts.

mc32 9y ago

It's good to be skeptical but I think when you have preponderance of evidence in one way, it's not unreasonable to reach a conclusion. Remember Noam was the same guy who for political reasons did not want to believe Pol Pot was mowing through millions despite large amounts of information filtering out of the country corroborating the atrocities others claimed were taking place. Additionally, there is no need to "manufacture consent" as only a very small minority would object to any action against N Korea at this point in time.

1001101 9y ago
Did people think highly of Saddam in 2003?
- quakeguy 9y ago
  Some did, but not in the western hemisphere iirc.
- mc32 9y ago
  There was lots of skepticism but in the end because of lack of good humint a lot of weight was placed on his behavior (his continued pretense/bluffing for the purpose of not disclosing weakness to Iran), the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion. With regard to DPRK S Korea has great humint and we have multiple defectors corroborating each other (whereas Iraq there was basically one guy feeding intelligence services lies) so I would say it's not the same. In addition, the regime provides all the evidence necessary (not just boastful claims) we sample the atmosphere as well as have seismometers corroborating their claims of nuclear development. There is no question as toward their progress nor their intentions.
  - _jal 9y ago
    > the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion. This is drifting rather far off-topic, but that is an exceptionally anodyne description of how that particular chain of events came to pass.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    "the international community with the US at the lead reached a faulty conclusion" Mistakes can happen and be forgiven but deception is seldom forgotten. It didn't go down quite so innocently as you portray. It appears painfully obvious that there were/are many parties with economic and other interests who were behind what turned into a giant expensive catastrophe and killed hundreds of thousands. No one has even been reprimanded much less punished. A lot of them are still around trying to beat war drums for Syria. Trust was broken. The effects of that will go on for a long time and they aren't good. re. North Korea "There is no question as toward their progress nor their intentions." Fully agree. Very much unlike Iraq (or even less Iran and Syria) NK is truly dangerous and leaving them to continue their present course doesn't seem wise. Supporting almost no military adventures the US has engaged in over the last 30 years I would fully support any action necessary against NK. But hopefully it doesn't come to that. It's a shame someone has been calling wolf every few years for economic gains and now when a real wolf is at the door lots of people won't listen. Look at the comments on this thread. People don't trust. And with very good reason. But in the case of NK I think they are mistaken. If there is a place a germ or technology comes out of that kills half the globe it will be there. ISIS are a bunch of circus clowns in comparison.
    - mc32 9y ago
      There is lots of blame to go around with re Iraq. Our intelligence, Saddam himself (calling a bluff he could not possibly win, the cat-mouse game, in addition to just being a tyrant), opposition, Shiites, many western countries (but curiously Russia opposed) etc. It may not seem like it from the way I write, but I was utterly devastated when the congress approved the plans. But I take one incident at a time. I try not to color unrelated things.
  - 1001101 9y ago
random314 9y ago
> Remember Noam was the same guy who for political reasons did not want to believe Pol Pot was mowing through millions http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tru... If the best criticism of Chomsky is from 40 years ago, and about Pol Pot - a person Chomsky believes is a mass murderer, I think Chomsky is doing quite well. > Additionally, there is no need to "manufacture consent" as only a very small minority would object to any action against N Korea at this point in time. Consent has already been manufactured!
- mc32 9y ago
  >If the best criticism of Chomsky is from 40 years ago He's a politically, nay, ideologically motivated individual --i.e. he presents his version of a story to which there could be multiple sides with multiple interpretations, but his is "right". You can witness the same again when he more recently shrugged off 9-11 because he said, oh, well, the US committed similar atrocity by bombing a pill factory in the Sudan. He can be downright intellectually lazy when it's opportune. Oh, and he also sympathized with Milosevic. Why? Oh, well, because he saw him as the one guy in the Balkans who was anti-American. Yup, he sympathized with Milosevic. that's your Chomsky. >Consent has already been manufactured! If you call that manufactured consent then that term has lost all meaningful distinction.
  - random314 9y ago
    > He's a politically, nay, ideologically motivated individual > He can be downright intellectually lazy > He also sympathized with Milosevic. Ad-hominem is all well and good, but is there any specific objection that you have to any claim by Chomsky. The only specific objection anyone has is that he did not fully believe the scale of atrocities by Pol Pot as reported by US authorities in 1975. Reports that he subsequently accepted - Chomsky later stated, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." It is hard to take any criticism of Chomsky seriously if it always devolves to comments about what kind of person he is and what he always likes to think, instead of specific objections to any claim he has made. This is Chomsky's take, what is your specific objection? https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse > Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan. That aside, if the U.S. or Israel or England were to be the target of such an atrocity, what would the reaction be? In this case we say, “Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let’s go on to the next topic, let the victims rot.” Other people in the world don’t react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even among those who despise and fear him; and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric. > Though it is merely a footnote, the Sudan case is nonetheless highly instructive. One interesting aspect is the reaction when someone dares to mention it. I have in the past, and did so again in response to queries from journalists shortly after 9-11 atrocities. I mentioned that the toll of the “horrendous crime” of 9-11, committed with “wickedness and awesome cruelty” (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton’s bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998. That plausible conclusion elicited an extraordinary reaction, filling many web sites and journals with feverish and fanciful condemnations, which I’ll ignore. The only important aspect is that single sentence—which, on a closer look, appears to be an understatement—was regarded by some commentators as utterly scandalous. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at some deep level, however they may deny it to themselves, they regard our crimes against the weak to be as normal as the air we breathe. Our crimes, for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk deep in the memory hole. All of this is of great significance, as it has been in the past. also https://chomsky.info/200601__/ https://chomsky.info/200601__/ You also managed to miss Chomsky's comparison of 9/11 to the 9/11 of 1973. https://chomsky.info/20110906/ https://chomsky.info/20110906/ > Unfortunately, it is not a thought experiment. It happened. The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office. The goal, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the “virus” that might encourage all those “foreigners [who] are out to screw us” to take over their own resources and in other ways to pursue an intolerable policy of independent development. In the background was the conclusion of the National Security Council that, if the US could not control Latin America, it could not expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world.” >> If you call that manufactured consent then that term has lost all meaningful distinction. What?

quakeguy 9y ago

Exactly my thoughts.