/lit/ - Literature

>>19239086
well "bugman" means somebody who eats bugs, a person who takes the "you must eat bugs instead of beef to save the environment" at face value (i.e. some sort of transcendent truth about "Our Project" instead of just another cynical ploy to force people to change their habits for the benefit of, ugh, the bourgeois let's say)

one does not eat bugs to save the world, because the idea that you can revolutionize a culture via the consumerist habits of the proles etc. on their end is absurd (i am a vegan and the shift to bugs over beef, pork and so on would at least be "progress" to me, but that's another discussion). the fact is these things start at the top, not the bottom, and so chomsky falls victim to the optimism that plagues many leftists, a remnant of christianity (for that is what socialists and anarchists are, crypto-christcucks who believe themselves to be free thinkers unleashed from the chains of historical propriety) where they imagine the future as some post-racial, post-religious, post-fucking everything society of men who are liberated by the euphoria of their own intelligence. that is not what the world is, not what it has ever been, and so you can say that these people are delusional in their naive optimism. chomsky and his cohorts imagine the human being as a relative tabula rasa and from that basis they extrapolate all kinds of stupid shit. people are not blank slates, because if you removed every single environmental factor from a person's identity, they wouldn't even be a person anymore. note that I am not arguing against the blank slate in the usual sense: I don't care about genetic determinism or about being racist so much as the fact that culture might as well be genetics. and that's what these people don't get. genetics aside, you will still have the barrier and in fact the very *need* for culture to form a whole person, while these reddit fucks think there is some pure, positive seed of goodness in the average person. this flies in the face of actual christianity (because it is pessimistic in its most sincere practice, as seen by "extremist" puritans) but it is the popular christianity of the last couple centuries.

I could rattle on about this horseshit all day and I'm half-drunk but whatever, the point to this rambling is that chomsky is 1) a fool optimist and idiot who thinks humans are inherently good but spoiled by their environments, 2) that culture and history are mere burdens, and that if we all just put on fedoras and became enlightened beings of pure reason, everything would be okay, and 3) the overall globohomo project is a good thing and not a poorly disguised, same old type of racialist/nationalist/chauvanist/bourgeois project on behalf of certain interest groups that has always been the driving force behind any political movement endorsed by the mainstream. he's not mean spirited, he's barely even blinded but just enough to be dangerous, and for that reason i hope he dies in a fucking car crash.

>>19166277
>it's not His plan
>he lets this happen because it fits His plan

big think

If you are a woke neolib type (I know some of you faggots are lurking here) then give me a book that will convert me to the "inject kids with tranny meds and worship blacks" camp. I'm genuinely curious and this thread is not /pol/ bait.

The reason for this thread is that some otherwise intelligent people IRL I respect are like this, and I want to exampine such a viewpoint with an open mind and see if there truly is something I am missing. So if you are let's say an "anti-4chan" type, what would you say that I start reading today?