Charles "The Hammer" Martel
Purging the Islamic hordes from France has been done before.
View Full Version : Chomsky on French Intellectualism Versus American Pragmatism
Chomsky on French Intellectualism Versus American Pragmatism
As much as I love France and respect her history and accomplishments, I have to agree with Chomsky on this one. This is also for those who think Chomsky is an "America-hater".
Quoted from Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky, edited by P.R. Mitchell and J. Schoeffel, pp 96-97.
"...if you compare the United States with France -- or with most of Europe, for that matter -- I think one of the healthy things about the United States is precisely this: there's very little respect for intellectuals as such. And there shouldn't be. What's there to respect? I mean, in France if you're part of the intellectual elite and you cough, there's a front-page story in Le Monde. That's one of the reasons why French intellectual culture is so farcical -- it's like Hollywood. You're in front of the television cameras all the time, and you've got to keep doing something new so they'll keep focusing on you and not on the guy at the next table, and people don't have ideas that are that good, so they have to come up with crazy stuff, and the intellectuals get all pompous and self-important. So I remember during the Vietnam War, there'd be these big international campaigns to protest the war, and a number of times I was asked to co-sign letters with, say, Jean-Paul Sartre [French philosopher]. Well, we'd co-sign some statement, and in France it was front-page news; here, nobody even mentioned it. And the French thought that was scandalous; I thought it was terrific -- why the hell should anybody mention it? What difference does it make if two guys who happen to have some name recognition got together and signed a statement? Why should that be of any particular interest to anybody? So I think the American reaction [towards intellectuals] is much healthier in this respect."
Note that Chomsky is talking about over-intellectualizing things, not about having the general ability to think critically. And on this point of over-intellectualising, I think the French are guilty, or have been guilty in the past -- look at the political situation of 1940. If I remember correctly, part of the reason the French couldn't mount an effective defense against the Germans is because of all the political infighting that was taking place in Paris. Too many political parties, too many different philosophical positions, too much *thinking* and talking got in the way of actually *doing*.
But of course the opposite is also true, and is perhaps alive and well in the States. That is, not enough thinking can lead to just as much trouble.
Discuss?
Islamophobia: the rational fear of being beheaded.
Well, I’ll be dipped in shinola (sp?)! I never thought I would agree with Chomsky on anything but I definitely agree with him on this one.
Chomsky is not familiar with the terms introspection or irony.
The trouble with a lot of ‘intellectuals’ is that they don’t think critically, they form (or worse, adopt) an ideology, and view everything through that prism, regardless of how distorted or flawed that image is. Then they think that because their ideas are so complicated and ‘nuanced’ that they are superior to those that have been arrived at by simple unbiased observation and common sense. As George Orwell once said, ‘Some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them’...
Which French leader was it who tried to say the first two terrorism incidents in France were not related and not about Islam? Where’s that guy been?
A phobia is an irrational or unreasoned fear. There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about fearing those who are a physical threat to your safety and even your life.
Both over-thinking and un-thinking will lead to the situation of not seeing the forest for the trees. To see the forest and not just individual trees, I think, is to take a pragmatic approach. You have to keep in mind what the whole point of a given exercise is so that you don’t get lost.
We need to change the dialogue.
We need to call it QURAN INSPIRED TERRORISM, as that’s exactly what it is.
This eliminates the discussion about muslims, and how moderate or radical they may or may not be.
Focus on the source of the barbarism - it’s the teaching of the quran.
Pragmatism is OK until you remember the Pragmatists’ mantra:
“Damn the Absolute”.
The kind of relativism that idea has introduced into American morals has been very destructive.
Obama & The Left suffer from Truthophobia !!
If your not with Obama ,you get called names ,kindergarten stuff
It’s interesting the way socialists approach theological concepts but when it comes to Islam they are not the only ones who refuse to approach the issue. That even includes leading Christian clergy including Pope Francis.
Followers of Mohammed not only claim, but truly believe that God has authorized them to kill those who refuse to submit to their version of God’s will. That is a basic tenet of that religion. A claim which goes unchallanged. While it’s understandable for atheists which most socialists are, not to approach that claim on a theological basis. It’s bewildering why any Christian clergy refuse to admit it even exists and is a basic part of Islam creed and worse yet are unable to condem it.
The Koran and its enforcement of sharia law is a pseudo religious concoction using monotheistic selected texts taken and misconstrued from the new and old testaments. Both of which cite the Almighty has granted free will to accept or obey his laws and is the final judge not man. Sodom and Gahmora is a glaring example.
Yet followers of Mohammed under the severest of penalties are forbidden to read either which would refute that assertion in a creed which institutionalizes disgusting arab tribal views, observances,and customs. Claiming adhearants are authorized by our Creator to demand submission to it or suffer an ignominious death administered by followers of Islam.
http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
I heard some of the discussion about this issue on French news this morning. It was actually pretty refreshing.
The argument was that the the term “Islamophobia” was created by Islamists as a weapon to beat down their critics, that it’s a “medicalization” (illness) of a necessary, justifiable examination and criticism of political Islam.
The take away from the discussion was that “words matter,” and that using terms designed by one’s enemies (”pro-choice/anti-choice,” anyone?), whether by oneself or in the media, promotes the enemy’s agenda.
> French Prime Minister: ‘I Refuse to Use This Term Islamophobia’
Yeah, I don’t like the term either. It implies that I fear them, which I don’t. I prefer the term Islamoabhorent. I really do detest and abhor what they are inclicting on MY country.
Charles "The Hammer" Martel
Purging the Islamic hordes from France has been done before.
He's switched to "islamonausea?"
I think the aspect of pride that can be rightly considered a sin comes into this too. You aren’t going to be able to rationally think about your situation and surroundings if you are focused on your own vanity. Fashionableness is vanity I think, and fashions come in many, many flavors. It’s a hydra, like fear, probably because in both cases you are focusing on yourself.