Noam vs. The Good Doctor

by matttbastard

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul:

He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

[…]

[H]is form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

As they say, read the whole damn thing

h/t Dandelion Salad

Related: Ron Paul: Evoloution is “a theory, and I don’t accept it”.

Fuck it–the “most sane” Republican is now officially “none of the above”.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Noam vs. The Good Doctor

  1. Of course, anyone with teh Google and a bit of gumption could have found out about this stuff months ago, so it’s becoming more and more of an annoyance whenever my so-called “progressive” friends start to speak about Ronnie-boy as a viable candidate (BUT HEZ ANTIWAR!!11!!1 they say). As soon as Mr. Paul started being billed “the sane Republican,” as you point out, I looked into his not-so-hidden past and found he dilly-dallied a bit with white supremacists and, in fact, continues to do so.

    This guy is anathema. Chomsky is, of course, right on the money.

    Like

  2. Yup–I’m in the same boat with a lot of my progressive friends, too. A lot of them have taken to calling themselves “libertarians”, because apparently “libertarian” is the new South Park Republican, or something. (Trying to explain the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism is usually an exercise in futility.)

    (BUT HEZ ANTIWAR!!11!!1 they say).

    Yeah, so are David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Oh, and antiwar.com? Definitely not progressive.

    He’s less a libertarian and more a neo-confederate paleo-con, as evidenced by his recent appearance on Meet The Press (further explored by The Edge of the American West and Big Media Matt). As Chet Scoville noted today, (and I’ve also contended in the past) “what Ron Paul and his supporters are actually interested in is no less than the repeal of the entire twentieth and twenty-first centuries.”

    In other words, if you are a capital-P Progressive who likes Ron Paul, you are essentially throwing your support behind a man and a rEVOLution trying to undo everything that you supposedly stand for.

    Although pointing this out apparently makes one an objectively pro-Hillary “neocon”.

    Remind me to email you some of the posts I’ve done on Paul @ my home away from home, Comments From Left Field.

    (Yes, I was called a pro-Hillary neocon. Several times.)

    Like

  3. I’ve been called both a “pro-Hillary” phony progressive and an “anti-Hillary” knee-jerk rejectionist by various camps. Truth be told, if I had to vote in the US election, I haven’t a sweet clue who I’d vote for. Is “none of the above” an option on the ballot? I dunno, maybe Cynthia McKinney, if she runs for the Greens.

    Anyway, the only other thing I have to add to what you said is “effing A.” Lotta use I am.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s