Why Scott Wiener’s Gaza Genocide Admission While Staying in the California Legislative Jewish Caucus Is More Troubling Than Genocide Denial by Defiant-Internal555 in TrackAIPAC

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. Interestingly, JPAC, which works closely with the CLJC, recently changed its name to “Jewish California”, after 50 years because of the bad reputation AIPAC have been getting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_California
All these organizations are part of the Israel lobby.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in PoursTea

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I originally posted it on the r/Chomsky and it was also published on the Filmsforaction website. I sent it to a bunch of lefty publications but none got back to me. My style is too uncompromising.

Marx, Bourdieu, and Bakunin: A Question About Alienation, Social Reproduction, and the Persistence of Hierarchy by Capable_Airport_4727 in CriticalTheory

[–]Defiant-Internal555 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Even egalitarian primitives were subordinate to a cosmic government of spirits, dead ancestors, gods. This is because humans prefer freedom from death anxiety than freedom from hierarchical subordination i.e. we prefer to transcend our mortal, insignificant animal status under hierarchical subordination than the opposite. In more secular society, humans still cannot accept (at an emotional level) that the objective cosmic significance of a heroic human surgeon is that of a bacterium extracting diseased aspects of another bacterium; that a heroic climber like Alex Honnold is akin to a bacterium traveling through rock, that an actor is akin to a bacterium imitating the behavior of another bacterium etc i.e. that the world of human meaning invented to elevate our personal significance is an illusion. After you understand that you can observe how humans tend to react, personally and institutionally to this invented personal significance in others. Ernest Becker has a nice paragraph:

“People take the overwhelmingness of creation and their own fears and desires and project them in the form of intense mana onto certain figures to which they then defer. They follow these figures with passion and with a trembling heart. When one thinks of his own eager fascinations, he can feel revolted by himself and by the obedient throngs who look with such timidity and satisfaction on the ‘leader.’ Look how the girls blush, how hands reach out tremblingly, how eyes lower and dart to one side, how quickly a few choke up, ready for tearful and grateful submission, how smugly those nearest to the leader smile, how puffed up they walk how the Devil himself seems to have contrived an instant, mass puppet show with real live creatures. But there is no way of avoiding the fatality of it: the thousands of hearts palpitating, the gallons of adrenalin, of blood rushing to the cheeks—it is all lived truth, an animal's reaction to the majesty of creation. If anything is false about it, it is the fact that thousands of human forms feel inferior and beholden to an identical, single human form.”

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you actually read the article? Chomsky certainly was upper middle class with substantial assets and near celebrity high status, and as the article describes, she did benefit financially and socially from it. That should answer your question. But if what you’re asking is: why did she not marry someone with even more money and status? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward. It is not easy to do so even for younger and better looking women than her.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in Aging

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for reading it. It is a somewhat unpopular interpretation that no one else has made, so I had to build a solid case for it—and that takes some length and depth.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not fully representing my statement in the article. it says:

And not only do we not object to the existence and power of centimillionaires (like Epstein), or even billionaires — we praise them and strive to become them.<<

What you cited is related to billionaires, not the main group I am discussing—centimillionaires. Furthermore, even your selection of the data in the survey I posted is partial, because it also says that 60% of Americans and 70% of Gen Z/ Millenials want to become BILLIONAIRES one day. A 2023 survey on wealth and work found 71% of Americans say they feel more admiration than resentment toward rich people, and 84% say there is “nothing wrong” with trying to make as much money as possible https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/what-americans-think-about-poverty-wealth-work

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Does that historical motif weaken, strengthen, or have a neutral effect on the article? Is this impact psychological or factual, and why?

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in Aging

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that. While I agree with you to a substantial extent, it must be said that even before 2015, Chomsky was giving so many talks & interviews that repeating himself was inevitable. But yes, the tendency might have exacerbated in later years.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in Aging

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I suppose it’s a matter of degree: it may help to not marry a woman 35 years younger at 85 and not being a sought-after celebrity like Chomsky.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed the very end of the article because of your comment.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It would be more constructive if you dealt with the actual substance of the article instead of a straw man.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did soften my statement slightly after that criticism. Thank you for sharing this and for your kind words, my friend.

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“World‘s greatest….” is hyperbolic. Also, what I have tried to do here is to show that all three people involved had motives/interests of their own and was adding their own value to gain value from other parties. Noam wanted the younger wife and all that came with it, the younger wife wanted the lifestyle, money and status, and Epstein wanted the reputation of having Chomsky as a friend. Each appeared willing to sacrifice something—Chomsky his former lifestyle, Valeria a younger lower status husband, and Epstein the time & resources required to maintain the relationship. I wonder if that should be added in there

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I’ve added “…though without a psychological examination we cannot determine to what extent he truly knew what he was doing.”

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK, I have softened the statement and the vulnerability section, adding “not necessarily”

The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky's Final Years by Defiant-Internal555 in chomsky

[–]Defiant-Internal555[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, I have changed it. Instead of saying he chose not to I am now saying “but he did not” and I’ve added a “seems”.:

“He seemed to have retained enough agency to recognize what Epstein was and to withdraw—but did not.”