It has been an enigma for me and others that Noam Chomsky seems to be blind to the covert war against Syria. One would normally assume that any Chomsky follower could see the US (and allies) hand behind the 'Arab Spring'. Chomsky had described the basic blue print. After investigating, for me, the only possible explanation for Chomsky not joining the dots in regard to Syria relates to his close friendship with Robert Fisk: Is Chomsky deferring to Fisk on matters related to Syria?
My political activism began in the late 1960s when my brother became a draft resister and a founding member of SDS in Melbourne. I also joined SDS. One critical aspect of the anti-war efforts carried out by SDS was the printing and distribution of well-researched articles For example, my brother once wrote a paper on the secret US bombing of Laos, and I remember its long reference list. Noam Chomsky was always referenced.
In November 2011, Noam Chomsky visited Melbourne and he gave a talk at Deakin University (see link here). He spoke about the US game plan for the Middle East and Africa. I had no problem accepting the points Chomsky made in that talk. However, I was very disappointed he didn't acknowledge that the US had been involved in covert action in Syria since 1949, the year the CIA orchestrated its first successful military coup. That covert action continued into the 1950s.
In his talk at Deakin University, Chomsky refers to the problem in the eyes of the US of 'successful independent nationalism' and how it can inspire other countries to pursue the 'same course', so you have 'a virus spreading contagion'. (24 mins onwards) Chomsky went on to explain how the 'virus' was destroyed by the US in Indo-China and South East Asia. He gives Indonesia as the most important case.
With Chomsky's insight into the US actions in Asia and Latin America and with his predictions for future US actions in Africa and the Middle East, I didn't understand why Chomsky couldn't recognise America's hands behind the 'Arab Spring', particularly in Syria. (I was a teacher in Damascus for two years. I arrived in 2003 when Syria was seen by George Bush and the neo-cons as belonging to the 'Axis of Evil', so Syrians were expecting the US to attempt to destroy Syria as it was destroying Iraq, but we weren't sure how it would do it.)
What was a shock to me was that Chomsky supported the so-called 'revolution' in Syria
despite Syria being a successful independent country that the CIA had targeted as early as 1949 (see here for a scholarly reflection on the lessons that should be have been learnt from US covert action in Syria in 1957);
despite the 'revolution' in Syria being supported by hawks in the US, notably John McCain and Hillary Clinton,
despite the 'revolution' being supported by US allies in the ME, particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia
despite the extremist clerics in Qatar and Saudi Arabia (Sheik Adnan Arour and Sheik Yousef Qaradawi), who issued fatwas directed at the 'regime' and stirred up sectarian hatred, (in his talk at Deakin Uni, Chomsky speaks about how the US and Britain have used radical Islam to undermine 'secular nationalism', the undermining of Nasser, being a key example of this. -54mins. He notes the importance of Israel's role in 1967 and how this shaped US-Israeli relations.)
despite Al-Jazeera's reportage of events in Syria being unreliable; it was owned by the Qatari royal family and reflected the foreign policy of that country (Al-Jazeera reporters started resigning in protest against its biased reporting on the 'Arab Spring' in 2011; Ghassan Bin Jeddo was one of the most prominent, another was Ali Hashem who resigned in 2012. Hashem was outspoken about his reasons for resigning. See here.)
despite the dirty role played by the then US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford (in 2011, a US journalist wrote that he had been involved in recruiting Arab/Muslim death squads, presumably to spread terror much as the US had done in Nicaragua with the Contras. The link between Robert Ford and a key US official involved in clandestine activities in Latin America has been noted. ).
I had to look for an explanation for Chomsky seeming to be blind to the covert war against Syria. I assumed any Chomsky follower could see the US (and allies) hand behind the 'Arab Spring'. Chomsky had described the basic blue print.
For me, the only possible explanation for Chomsky not joining the dots in regard to Syria related to his close friendship with Robert Fisk: Chomsky was deferring to Fisk on matters related to Syria.
Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, I have asked myself, 'who is Robert Fisk?' I ended up writing a pretty scathing article in response to that question. I still don't know who Fisk is, and so I read anything he writes on Syria with a very critical eye. His close friendship with the Lebanese Druze leader and former warlord Walid Jumblatt may help explain why he can be fickle and cryptic on Syria. Jumblatt's stand on the 'revolution' in Syria conflicts radically with that of the Druze in Syria. (Wikileaks cables reveal Jumblatt's alliance with Saudi Arabia .)
My reference points for understanding events in Syria include Chomsky's basic outlining of the US history of crushing independent nationalism and its game plan for Africa and the ME. My reading of the history of western interference in Syria in the 20th century is also a reference point. I wrote an article about that titled, Anzacs and War - Considering a Syrian Perspective. However, in the end, the people of Syria must be the key reference points for an understanding of their country. I am forever presenting their images on the blogs I manage. See this latest page of photos.
As an anti-war activist these past 5 years, I have noted that there is a very small core (about 3) of Syrian Australians in Melbourne who lobby for the 'revolution' in Syria. They can be recognised for their support for the Muslim Brotherhood because they invariably mention the crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982. However, they fail to give any information about the terror that led up to that crack down or information about the backers of that Muslim Brotherhood 'rebellion'. Important US allies in the ME supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, for example, Saddam Hussein and the King of Jordan, who later apologised for the role he played. Ref: Patrick Seale, 'Assad;The Struggle for the Middle East', (page 336)
Patrick Seale quotes Hafiz Assad as saying the following about Saddam Hussein:
The hangman of Iraq was not content to kill tens of thousands of his own people. He came to Syria to carry out his favourite hobbies of killing, assassination and sabotage. That man has been sending arms for the criminals in Syria since he took power.
I think people will find that those members of the Muslim Brotherhood who fled Syria in the 1980s and their children are the key Syrian lobbyists for the 'revolution' today. A 1982 CIA report, Syria: Muslim Brotherhood Pressure Intensifies, highlights the critical role played by propaganda, and goes on to conclude:
The Syrian dissidents modus operandi will continue to be terrorism, particularly bombings and assassination. .. The covert war is unlikely to stop.. though there may be periodic lulls in the struggle.
Although one must read a CIA report with a critical eye, it is interesting to note that according to the report the total casualties for the "Hama incident numbered about 2,000" (page 7 of the report). This figure contradicts dramatically with that usually given by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
There is so much to consider when trying to understand Syria. I hope that people will have a chance to hear the views of sober Syrians who maintain support for their secular army and state against the efforts of Syria's enemies to destroy their country. In 2013, I recorded an interview with Syrian dissidents in Damascus, who present common sense reasons for supporting the national army, while at the same time being very critical of the security apparatus.
See also Charmaine Narwani, a modern day 'Noam Chomsky' on the Middle East, which refers to the narratives that have been used to sustain the US-led destruction of Syria.
Noam Chomsky, a supposed US dissident, in fact, uses his influence amongst progressive people to convince them of ideas that serve the interest of the same US elites he purports to oppose. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration of former US President George W Bush as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.
Of the overwhelming evidence which contradicted the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who murdered President John F Kennedy in 1963, Noam Chomsky said:
"I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?" (See YouTube broadcast "The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers")
Chomsky insists that Oswald, acting alone, murdered President John F Kennedy, but also says that even if it was not the case, and he was, indeed, murdered by people within the US administration, why should it matter?
The answer should have been obvious. If it was purely bad luck that Kennedy was murdered, then other political figures, opposed to the establishment, would have little to fear. People such as Barack Obama who were (once) thought to pose a threat to the US corporate elites would have had little reason to fear that those corporate elites would be so ruthless and so unconscionable as to conspire to have him killed, contrary to what many of his supporters openly feared would happen. Strangely, even people such as Australia's Phillip Adams, who refuses to consider JFK and 9/11 'conspiracy theories', expressed this fear for Barack Obama before he was elected.
If, on the other hand, there was a conspiracy to murder JFK as many credible people argue, because he posed a threat to powerful vested interests who wanted to escalate the Vietnam War, then surely others, who stand opposed to those vested interests, should also fear assassination.
Clearly it must matter whether or not a gunman acting alone murdered JFK and Chomsky could not possibly have been so stupid as to not have understood that. The only possible reason why Chomsky would choose to insist that it does not is to allow him to avoid having to openly defend the lone crazed gunman theory, which has happily peddled on other occasions.
In fact, in the same decade, three of the other most charismatic and effective leaders opposed to the US establishment also met violent deaths in suspicious circumstances that were never properly investigated - Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy.
In all cases, Noam Chomsky insisted that there was nothing suspicious. Almost certainly, because of the influence he wielded amongst progressive circles, many who would have otherwise followed the trail that would have led to the killers of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK were dissuaded from doing so.
Thus the left of the 1960's was decapitated and those responsible were never unmasked and brought to justice.
Shortly after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 Chomsky pronounced that Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had indeed master-minded the attacks, just as George Bush had insisted. Those who questioned the official account and pointed to the glaring contradictions and absurdities of the official account of 9/11 were dismissed by Chomsky as conspiracy theorists.
Once again, many, who held Chomsky in high regard, were dissuaded from questioning the official 9/11 fiction, thus leaving unchallenged the huge propaganda advantage that made it possible for the US rulers to overcome public opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous attacks on civil liberties and democratic freedoms in the West.
During my participation in the protest movement against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I never personally doubted the official 9/11 explanation nor was I aware of anyone else who questioned it, such was the influence of the likes of Chomsky on the anti-war movement in Australia.
how Noam Chomsky is a practitioner of the 'bait and switch' technique. The 'bait' is his many scholarly works which show up many of the crimes of the US rulers (although rarely accompanied by practical suggestions as to how to prevent these crimes). The 'switch' are ideas that serve the interests of the US rulers. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.
Postscript: (19 July) In spite of the damning critique of Noam Chomsky by Zwicker, and Chomsky's failure to acknowledge, let alone respond to that critique, many progressives, even amongst those aware of the truth of 'false flag' attacks such as 9/11, still accord Chomsky credibility that he clearly does not deserve. One of many possible examples is the publication of the article "The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East" also republished by Information Clearing House. Whatever may be the merit of that article, the fact remains that Chomsky has done enormous harm to the causes he claims to support and will continue to harm those causes until more people are able to see him for what he is.
Appendix 1: Online forum discussion about influence of Noam Chomsky in Australia
So, far, on two occasions, when I have participated in online forums, my detractors have referred to my low regard for Noam Chomsky as expressed in this article in attempts to discredit the views I had put to those forums. The following are recent posts to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion about 9/11:
Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.
They'll link to some complex document that has a lot of equations and fancy theories that explains how such a freak occurrence is possible and there’s nothing untoward about it happening three times on one morning in one place. There’s citations of various experts who've written debunking articles but those I've read can’t explain it either.
Can you? Can you understand? Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.
And it’s interesting that people who've read books by both men somehow play the game they’re describing. By all means ban Daggett. S/he’s obviously crazy.
My comment: Whilst Chomsky was cited in my defence here, I felt most anxious that the undeserved credibility given to Chomsky not be left to stand. I was helped somewhat in this, when further along, one of my detractors wrote:
Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.
To be fair, Adrien, this happens even when you don’t ask the free-fall question.
As to Chomsky, Daggett will explain to you that Chomsky is a phony, because he accepts the “official conspiracy theory”. [see] http://candobetter.org/node/1286
That is convincing proof of just how vast and pernicious the cover-up is, wouldn't you say?
Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out above (on LP)) to defend ground which accepts that terrorists, from the region in which our armies are now fighting wars that they say they oppose, did launch 9/11, 7/7 the Madrid bombings, Bali, etc, but refuse to even contemplate examining evidence that would enable them to shift to ground which I would have thought would be much easier to defend, that is, the ground on which it is maintained that the US government itself committed the crimes which it has knowingly and falsely blamed on so-called Muslim extremists. (Words self-plagiarised from earlier discussion on Online Opinion about the movie 'Balibo'.) Why, instead of calmly asssessing the evidence to determine whether it just might be true, do so many on the supposed left of Australian politics, instead, spill bucketloads of electronic ink personally attacking 9/11 Truthers?
Noam Chomsky
Of course, part of the reason, but only part, must lie with the influence of Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as an unquestionable guru by many in Australia. In spite of the fact that Noam Chomsky has written some good ideas as Missy Higgins pointed out, I am, nevertheless, convinced that he is a fraud.
In fact, Noam Chomsky, himself, has acted contrary to many of his own good ideas.
Very shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he produced an article which essentially accepted the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy and has spent much of his energy since then attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.
This, together with Chomsky's absurd insistence that there was nothing suspicious about the murders, in the 1960's, of all four of America's most charismatic and effective political leaders who were prepared to stand up to America's oligarchy -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK -- has resulted in some, including an erstwhile protege, Canadian Barrie Zwicker to question Chomsky's true motives.
I would be most interested to know if GregM concurs with Chomsky's view:
I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?
I consider Chomsky's ludicrous position on Cambodia, which he inexplicably held on to even as late as early this century to be a component of his overall disinformation effort.
Sometime earlier this decade I heard an interview of Chomsky by fellow left gatekeeper Phillip Adams. In that interview he accused the media of being hypocritical for focusing on Cambodia in the late 1970's instead of on East Timor. It may well be that for a while some of the media was hypocritical, but his point seemed ludicrous. If anything, the Cambodian genocide was an even greater crime than Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.
Sadly, some on the left had an emotional need to deny that those who had 'liberated' Cambodia in 1975 were gencocidal killers, but surely years after the Khmer Rouge had been used as a tool by the West against the Vietnamese who removed that genocidal regime, that emotional need should have long disappeared.
However, the greatest harm that is done when Chomsky effectively apologises for Khmer Rouge crimes, is not to himself, but to others who oppose US foreign policy, whom the broader public assumes to share his views.
The publication of a particularly unoriginal and unremarkable 10 minute video "America is not a Democracy," featuring Noam Chomsky on information Clearing House, attracted, so far 56 comments, many of them highly critical. Here are some, including a response from myself:
I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.
Chomsky offers an analysis that only considers part of the factors. He picks and chooses to suit his preordained conclusion. In real science, that is not acceptable. Chomsky knows this. When you skew the analysis to fix the results, you end up being no different than a propagandist or a crook. It's dishonest. It prevents real solutions to problems being pursued. It makes the problems worse. He may provide valuable information sometimes, but there is always important pieces missing from the story. Important parts whose absence prevents a person really understanding what they are up against and making workable personal choices to work on turning things around. I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.
Anonymous and chumpsRus wrote: "I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs."
You've stolen my thunder.
It is striking how little useful advice Chomsky has ever had to offer, in over four decades, to those who may want to build an alternative to the political system he ostensibly denounces.
I thought his attempt to diminish those who fought to reverse the rorting of the 2000 Presidential elections was particularly low.
Yes, obviously the alternative to Bush was far from ideal, but how can Chomsky then conclude from that, that when Fox News and the whole US oligarchy acted in concert to ensure that their chosen glove puppet was installed rather than Al Gore, the candidate who legally won those elections, it was of no concern?
That stolen election laid the groundwork for 9/11 and well over 1 million deaths in wars that 9/11 was used as a pretext for, but of course, as noted by others, Chomsky refuses to speak the truth about the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack and, before that, the murders of JFK. Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.
The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.
The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.
The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information. Chomsky may sound good and he may have many good facts but anyone who shilled for token Obama must be called out as a political liar. Obama has been a disaster so far for USA and the rest of the world.
The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information.
Just like the bible says you have to be very careful of wolves in sheep clothing. this Chomsky is a very skilled and highly trained intelligence asset. If he wasn't why would he be allowed to criticise government for all his life while holding government posts? After all it would be pretty easy to neutralise him.
Editorial comment on previous comment: I think the concluding paragraph is largely correct, but, in a way that was probably unintended, it could be seen as an excuse, if not for obvious US Government shills like Chomsky, at least for academics who remain silent about crimes committed by the US Government.
If Chomsky had spoken the truth about the assassinations of JFK, etc. back in the 1960's, then, obviously he would have faced retaliation. Anyone who sincerely opposes an unjust status quo has to be prepared to pay a price for doing so.
However, there is no automatic guarantee that such retaliation would have succeeded. Had Chomsky been sacked or obviously victimised in some way, there would be every reason to hope that the American public would have rallied to his support.
Furhermore, there is every reason to expect that the efforts of people like Jim Garrison to bring to justice the murderers of JFK would have succeeded. They, and those who protected them within the US state and the corporate sector would have been unmasked, tried and, at least, jailed for the rest of their lives. The hold of the Invisible Government over US politics would have been broken, the Vietnam war would have been ended years sooner, sparing millions of lives in Indo-China and tens of thousands of US lives and the course of history of the latter half of the 20th century would have been altogether different.
However, instead, Chomsky used the considerable prestige he enjoyed amongst most progressive people, to cause Jim Garrison to fail. Consequently, the history of the late 20th century and early 21st century world history turned out the way it did, largely thanks to Chomsky.
Editorial comment: whilst the above interview contains useful material to counter lies against Syria from the mainstream media and phony anti-war activists in the mould of Noam Chomsky, I take exception to a supporter of Syria needlessly giving ammunition to enemies of Syria with claims that Syria needs to be 'reformed'.
Whilst no country, particularly one which has fought foreign aggression for almost 3 years as Syria has done, can claim to be perfect, many aspects of the Syrian system are vastly better than those of most other countries, particularly countries whose governments are hostile to Syria. Examples include: free education all the way to tertiary level and free medicine. Rather than advocating 'reform', supporters of Syria should make known to the wider world how the Syrian government helps its ownpeople and campaign for their own governments to emulate Syria's fine example.
1.↑ If you follow this link, you will notice on the top left-hand an image and a caption which implies that the plane which struck the South Tower was a holographic image (as of 29 Aug 09). The image shows Flight 175 plunging into the South Tower with the comment, "Real planes don't do this." From that distance at that instant Flight 175 appears to be flying through South Tower as if either the South Tower was not real, Flight 175 was not real real or both were not real. This has led some to claim that the flights which hit the Twin Towers were holographic images.
In fact, it is hardly surprising that it should appear thus given that passenger airlines such as the Boeing 767-222 which was used for the doomed Flight 175 are constructed of light weight aluminium and that the much of the material comprising the outer walls of the Twin Towers were not of great strength, unlike the inner core of the buildings.
That some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have seized upon this to claim that Flights 11 and 175 must have been holographic images is unfortunate. Undoubtedly, many working to to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement on behalf of the US Government give such people every encouragement. Other ludicrous claims made by ostensible 9/11 Truth activists include that the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers were, in fact, caused by by mini-thermonuclear bombs (i.e. mini hydrogen bombs) or that the Twin Towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Such claims have been repudiated by serious knowledgeable 9/11 Truth activists.
In spite of that unfortunate image caption on 'Ningen's blog' on which the interview with Barrie Zwicker is embedded, the video is well worth the 45 minutes it takes to watch. The direct link to the video is here.
This article was first posted as a comment to an article by Tim Murray, but I decide to turn it into my own blog entry after it was pointed out that the size of this comment caused Tim's article to be dwarfed.
"The former Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, once offered Australia a choice. It could sustain jobs and economic security by using its brains, by being a smart economy, by adding value to the products it produces and by transforming manufacturing. Or it could continue to be a 'lazy Australia' that depends on job growth simply by driving up population numbers and depending on the growth you get by building homes and shopping malls. And that is indeed what is it has done, adding a third to its population in less than three decades."
These words point to the essence of the problem.
Population growth is an 'easy' way for those, who have guided this country's destiny for at least the last three decades, to enrich itself. But, the evidence, not to mention, common sense and basic intuition, tells us from the point of view of this society as whole, we can only become poorer and not richer as a result. Firstly, the access of each one of us to our natural resources must necessarily be reduced on average, and secondly, although, less intuitively obvious, increasing population size, once an optimum population size has been passed, creates dis-economies, rather than economies of scale. It costs more per head of population as our cities become more packed, to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary to provide, transport, water, electricity, health care, education and other essential services. However, paradoxically, as we become poorer an average and as we steal ever more wealth from future generations, a small elite become wealthier.
The way to become wealthier as Carr implied was to build up a manufacturing and science base using the talent we already have within our shores. This indeed happened, when Australian had a population of only 7 million between the First and Second World Wars. Although not a well understood fact Australia, as a result became largely self-sufficient and, through the strength of its manufacturing base able to sustain a navy and air force and an army with eight fully-equipped divisions by July 1942, was able to deter the Japanese from persuing their plans to invading Australia in March 1942, even before their defeat by US forces at the Battle of the Coral Sea. This country was a world leader in technology. This is the thesis of Andrew Ross's "Armed and Ready - the industrial development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945" of 1995. Although largely ignored since 1995, it has yet to be challenged bay any comparable work. This was the subject of a discussion on Online Opinion and I made use of it in an article "The myth of the Howard Government's Defence Competence" of 21 November 2007.
Had Australia maintained that technological lead, I believe that we would have been a more prosperous nation as well as a more equitable and democratic nation and we would have stood a greater chance of achieving sustainable technological base. However it seems that it appears that it suited an elite within our society which has come to guide our destiny to throw all that away in order to be able to enrich itself at the expense of the rest of us and this process continues today.
Notwithstanding Bob Carr's very apt comments, I just cannot accept that he was ever sincere. Of course, he always sounds sincere, but his actions, and even his words, on other occasions belie these words.
Listen to Bob Carr's moving words, at an ABC sponsored public 'forum' on 18 September 2008, about how we were all warned as far back as the 1970's about the perils of global warming and then ask yourself how a man with this knowledge could have then been responsible for the massive expansion in NSW open cut coal mining which is not only helping to fuel global warming, but also destroying NSW's own environment.
Although this was supposed to be a 'forum', in the typical style of Bob Carr who, throughout his career has avoided critical scrutiny even more determinedly than the fabled Count Dracula avoided sunlight, limited question time to 10 minutes.
However, the written comments at the end of the page give an overwhelmingly damning verdict of his legacy. Here are some:
"Bob Carr should have done a lot more reading when he was in office -- reading the reports about the shocking state of the health, education, transport and infrastructure of NSW. Then perhaps he would've done something about it. Or perhaps he would have arranged a succession plan when he vamoosed out of politics before it came crashing down.
"Or perhaps he should've spent less time reading job offers from banks with connections to road-building firms.
"Bob Carr has always had pretensions of gravitas, but we don't have to prop up his delusions.
We are paying for his superannuated retirement, so could we give no public air time to his irrelevant ponderings -- his actions mean that his mental meanderings have no credibility."
This drew a defence:
I don't find Carr enormously stimulating, but you clearly don't have anything coherent against him - apart from his unsatisfactory chin. Harold Bloom - he of the Western Canon - paid tribute to Bob Carr as the only senior politician whom he respected as an intellectual: www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/2890398.
... which, in turn drew a further response:
"I'm not searching for deep intellectualism in my politicians. If I were, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott would rank well ahead of Bob Carr on sheer intelligence (although I know intelligence is not the same as intellect). I would say Harold Bloom didn't get around enough if he really thought Bob Carr was the only senior politician whom he regarded as an intellectual, or maybe he never met Edward Kennedy, Sir Edward Heath, Enoch Powell or dare I say it, Edward Whitlam 1 (what is it with Edwards?).
"You are being disingenuous when you say we complain only of Mr Carr's chin. We are complaining about his sale of public assets, his close relationship with businesses that profitted under his government, and the general ineptitude of his government."
Further comments:
"... Then was the disgraceful Workers Compensation Reform. Instead of making those who caused the problem pay he made the workers and community pay. ...We do not deserve these indecent preaching pratts but we have them."
"The collective disdain toward Carr in this blog gives me a glimmer of hope in humanity. There are actually people out there who are switched on to just how ridiculous this country has become. Our governments consist of individuals that could be considered criminals by any rational court."
"Give me a break. 'Human Decency' would demand an apology from this 'retired', at great public expense, ex-professional politician that never had real job or a degree from the university of life and probably the worse leader ever of this state, to the long suffering taxpayers and people of theONCE great State of NSW, for what he and his party have done to us. He should have the "Human Decency" to apologize. Tsk, Tsk ..."
"This is the man who recently gave his full moral support to Morris Iemma's and Michael Costa's attempt to privatise their electricity assets of NSW in spite of the fact that Iemma had ruled that out prior to the 2007 elections and in spite of the fact that 79%-86% of NSW residents opposed privatisation - all quietly forgotten, at least, that is what he no doubt hopes.
"It is most strange how Carr seems so much more passionate about events in other times and the politics of other lands than he ever was about the political and events in the time and place, where as state Premier and potential federal Labor leader and, hence, potential Prime Minister, he could have made a lasting and positive impact on Australian and, possibly, world history. Of course, it is a matter of record that he did not and his administration will be remembered as one of the most inept, secretive and anti-democratic in the history of this county.
"I wonder if Bob Carr has ever contemplates how figures like himself are likely to be viewed in future times by people trying to understand this age through the fictional and non-fictional works of our time." - James Sinnamon
"It is sad indeed that Australian political life is so reduced that Bob Carr passes as 'interesting' and an 'intellectual'. In general Australian politicians lag about 20 to 30 years behind informed opinion on matters outside of their field of interest - personal power and privilege."
"Bob didn't show much human decency when he sold off Prince Henry Hospital, when before he was elected he promised he would save it.
"Long term illnesses, such as aids, mental illness and long term heart recovery, just to name a few, had this beautiful position on the coast to recover in. But he sold it off under the pretence of changing the laws to protect coastal lands, which actually just gave him the power to do what he wanted.
"Medical teams were disgusted and sad, because they knew they would never have such great teams and means for recovery again.
"Where is the decency in that? So I guess we have answered the question."
"Demonstrably, Mr Carr must have only a theoretical interest in human decency.
Practically, he squattered the housing boom in NSW during the 10 years that he was Premier with the result of infrastructure breakdowns, health meltdown, etc of essential services.
"Pity that a well read man such as Bob Carr only make sounds which practically signify nothing in what he did.
"There are basic flaws in a political system that rewards such hypocrisy."
"He is giving himself credibility but NSW knows bob the builder of tolls and tolled tunnels and fire sales of Acer Arena lowest bid wins and Sydney Showground foxy giveaways
"We get to pay the pension indexed to their former self served salaries... in addition to an office with staff a minder and a travel expense free ride....
"Parasites never leave the host until the host is totally consumed.
"If they have obviously stitched up a consultancy job in the private sector with prior intimacy ... then the perks should be suspended until they are needy.
"It would be 'humanely decent' if they gave up the perks until they are retired at 65 with a pension closer to the average wage and fund their own office and staff and carr transport.
"Take the Ted Mack pledge not to drain our Treasury for the purpose of supporting the people not the servants of the people... Ted was decent, nobody else has the decency he walked the talk and left no toll for his life's work."
"Bob carr.
"Decency?
"Why this man isn't in gaol is unfathomable.
"I notice that the very bank who owns the toll roads in sydney is now his employer.
"If this man is a letter of letters then the best place he should be writing his comments and memoirs should be behind a locked door. It is people like Bob Carr who have become a gnawing cancer in society, from their actions they encourage more illegal activity, thus throwing Australian society into the depths of the developing world. ..."
I could write pages more about Bob Carr's many other crimes against the environment, democracy, accountability and social justice. Whilst his environmental accomplishments were substantial in his early years, particularly his massive extension of NSW's National Parks, I think those accomplishments and all his fine words about population control should more properly be regarded as 'bait' to cause people environmentalists to forgive him for a massive slew of other pro-business and anti-environmental policies. To get an idea how 'bait and switch' is used , view Barrie Zwicker's deconstruction of the phony US dissident Noam Chomsky in the YouTube broadcast "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Left gatekeepers". I think Carr is a kind of fake-Malthusian variant of Noam Chomsky.
Footnotes
1.↑ Edward Gough Whitlam is more widely known as 'Gough Whitlam'. Bob Carr has repeatedly spurned the legacy of Gough Whitlam, but had Gough's Government retained power, he would have prevented the population growth that Carr claimed to be against. Furthermore the Department of Urban Planning (or something with a similar name) which was abolished by Malcolm Fraser would have constrained the damage that developers were able to cause to our cities. For all of his flaws Gough Whitlam is an intellectual giant in comparison to Carr as the poster pointed out. Moreover, unlike the do-nothing government of Bob Carr, Gough's Government implemented far greater number worthwhile reforms (although most have been, sadly, subsequently dismantled).
It has been an enigma for me and others that Noam Chomsky seems to be blind to the covert war against Syria. One would normally assume that any Chomsky follower could see the US (and allies) hand behind the 'Arab Spring'. Chomsky had described the basic blue print. After investigating, for me, the only possible explanation for Chomsky not joining the dots in regard to Syria relates to his close friendship with Robert Fisk: Is Chomsky deferring to Fisk on matters related to Syria? 
I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.
Recent comments