Do you think this is a sufficient answer from the world's leading intellectual...

>posts the hottest new Veeky Forums meme philosopher

Pls go back to Stirnerposting

>Sodomizing a strawman that hard
Disgusting.

Why don't you send him another email and have a conversation?

They weren't, they were clearly imperialists, while pretending to be nationalists. The stuff about taking back ethnically German land was always just a stepping stone. Which is why they're so full of contradictions. They'd go on about the purity of the German race, while at the same time preparing to rule an empire of mostly non-Germans. That's why they ended up handing out honorary Aryanism left and right.

Anyway neo-conservatism is just pure imperialism, no different than the Soviet kind.

Sorry, but Nick is actually very interesting and in no way a one-trick pony like Stirner.

I'd also unironically say Zizek is much, much more interesting than Chomsky could ever be. Not to speak of Graham Harman and the rest of the OOO guys.

If Zizek, Chomsky and Land are intellectuals then the word intellectual pretty much became a synonym of retard.

Big Chomsky fan, but no, I don't think this answer is sufficient. He is partially correct about the nationalism, but you made some good points about other possibilities and he just doubled down on the radical nationalism and made some weak analogies.

Of course, this is a simple email reply to your question, and from what I know Chomsky gets a lot of emails like this, so he was probably beong lazy. Also, I hate to say it, but he is approaching 90 years old so I wouldn't be surprised if his intellect seems to be getting sloppy.

You have never read Nick Land.

Nor Zizek for that matter.

And I never will because I'm not a pretentious virgin retard like you. Philososhits should get their own board and stop polluting Veeky Forums.

>already a slow board
>noone is forcing you to click on philosophy threads
>you still do it and complain
Clearly the best solution is to fracture and redirect traffic away from this board, you're right.

>any traffic is good!

Philosophy is explicitly on-topic.

>I wouldn't be surprised if his intellect seems to be getting sloppy.

Bruh Foucault exposed his ass decades ago.

Chomsky has always had a talent for asking good questions, but coming up with retarded answers, particularly when it comes to politics.

It is entirely relevant that the neocons were once Trotskyites. They combined the tactics and rhetoric of Trotskyism with the political philosophy of Leo Strauss and the foreign policy of Scoop Jackson.

Either way, it's a completely insufficient answer because Chomsky conveniently neglects to identify which doctrines make them "radical nationalists."

I agree that Foucault made an extremely devastating criticism of Chomsky's belief in the possibility of a universal morality and justice. However, Chomsky's criticisms of US foreign policy and his media criticisms are fairly sound (although he is really wrong on the Cambodian Genocide).

can you guys redpill me on foucault

i realize his stuff kinda defies being summarized

youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU

>However, Chomsky's criticisms of US foreign policy and his media criticisms are fairly sound
So many people have done this already and done it better.
Even Zizek was able to fluster Chomsky about the Cambodian genocide. I also think Chomsky's rebuttal of Cambodian Genocide where he says the US created the conditions for the Khmer Rouge is insufficient, because it doesn't change the fact that Chomsky was a supporter of the regime.

also
>It was the best information at the time!
>I was just going off the facts!
>The average Cambodian could tell you things were absolute shit but muh data told me otherwise!

Leading intellectual by prestige/fame, not merit.

I decided to respond to him just because I have fun thinking about these types of things, if anyone wants to see his response I'll post it but I doubt this thread will last that long.

Yes post it, I'm very interested

I admire his speed of replying, but disappointed by his answer.

I feel that he tends to greet any questioning of what he says with gib answers, as if such criticism is beneath him, and the person talking to him is either a fool or a shill for not agreeing with his initial argument.

Its a horrible attitude for an intellectual

I've always felt that way too, even seeing him in debates back in the 60s he seems. Uncoincidentally it's the same type of air of superiority or snark right-wingers often accuse liberals of having.

That and he seems to feel that everyone on the right has deeply impure motives.

automatically assuming your opposition is stupid or evil is a pretty simplistic way of looking at the world, yet many smart people seem to still dabble in it

>the world's leading intellectual

wew lad

...

Nit picking with a 90 year old man to feel important.

This is nothing but sad.

HHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

I can honestly never tell when people are shit posting here.

>Yeah I agree with you they're wrong, but they probably have a point right... haha?

Think for yourself, he has more important concerns.

you're not going to be getting an in depth reply from him due to the huge amount of mail he likely receives every day. probably best just to drop it.

try to understand he might not necessarily be trying to be snarky with the short answers- it might just be how he has to respond in order to get through the traffic that is his inbox.

The goal would ostensibly be, the establishment of a pro-U.S puppet state in the center of the Middle East, which would subsequently be supplied with lucrative arms deals and oil contracts with American companies.

Oil
Military industrial complex growth
Regional muscle flexing
Stabilize trade route
Establish foothold

There's more geopolitical endgoal than that, but it gets too complex at this point.

>pls lord Chomsky I know you are busy but please share a few seconds of your valuable time with me, an unworthy peasant

You sound like an absolute cuck.

Even Stalin said they betrayed nationalism in favour of imperialism.

>not realizing that subtle jab
Get better reading comprehension.

90 year old man shouldn't be considered an expert on anything but linguistics. Capitalist shill posing as an anarchist.

From the wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism):
> In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:[78]
> Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

Chomsky is like that old crazy grandpa who you can't help but love even though he's full of shit

You made me search for this for an hour so you better read it.

>smirkingchimp.com/thread/6460