Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky, And Ron Paul : Each Have An Estimated Relatively High Level Of Intuition And Are Champions Of Peace Who, Like Mahatma Gandhi, Have Not Won A Nobel Prize

Prescription #9  of “Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals” is : Consider voting for candidates (e.g., President of the United States) based upon levels of intuition in addition to other areas you believe deserve consideration (see “The Voter Scorecard”, Healthy Change : Part Five — Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals, #1 ). One goal is to increase the use and usefulness of The Voter Scorecard  © 1988, 2011 to obtain good election outcomes. Toward that end,  The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates has been presented. Please note that the time period to receive free scoring report results on The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on each of the eight 2012 Presidential Candidates currently included in the scoring system has been extended until the end of January 2012 and can be accessed from a link in the sidebar. The author plans to develop The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 to enhance its use and usefulness as a method to obtain good election outcomes. Additional 2012 United States Presidential candidates may also be included. To help enhance the use and usefulness of The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011, a “Survey of The Voter Scorecard ©  1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 On Eight 2012 US Presidential Candidates” consisting of five questions was also presented for all readers to complete and can also be accessed from a link in the sidebar. A summary of the results will be sent to the e-mail address you provide at the end of the survey free of charge.

Level of Intuition has been examined in recent articles in The Hygiology Post. Only two of the presidential candidates examined, Ron Paul and President Barack Obama, Jr., appeared unequivocally Against The Use of Military Force Against Iraq as evidenced by verbal and/or voting behavior prior to the start of the Iraq invasion in March 2003. They were also, based upon the Estimated Level of Intuition, the two individuals with the estimated highest levels of Intuition among the nine 2012 Presidential Candidates examined in The Hygiology Post. While 2012 US Presidential Candidate Ron Paul had an Estimated Level of Intuition of Relatively High, 2012 US Presidential Candidate President Barack Obama, Jr. had an Estimated Level of Intuition of Relatively Medium to Relatively High in The Hygiology Post article dated November 18, 2011. The analysis was very basic, unscientific, and seemed to have a potentially large degree of error. The method was done in such a manner so that basically anyone could have done it without the benefit of ever interviewing/seeing the candidate in person (which many voters apparently do not). The results of the brief analysis suggested that Higher levels of Intuition appeared to be associated with a greater likelihood to be Against Use of Military Force Against Iraq prior to the March 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

Readers have been left to determine if Estimated Level of Intuition (or, Sensation-Intuition) would be a useful area to consider in “The Voter Scorecard” (© 1988, 2011  Louis DeCola, Jr.). A question raised from the analysis results was whether there was something about Estimated Level of Intuition per se that separated the 2012 United States Presidential candidates examined from being For The Use of Military Force Against Iraq versus being Against The Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The question posed was : Does Level of Intuition help to separate and/or help to explain behaviors of people in many apparently important areas including but not limited to social change, leadership, politics, influence, manipulation, and obedience ?

Using the same method explicitly used for the identified 2012 Presidential Candidates in previous articles in The Hygiology Post, both Erich Fromm and Noam Chomsky appear to have an Estimated Level of Intuition of Relatively High. In addition, they both appear to share other characteristics which may be at least partially understood in the context of level of intuition.

The year was 1984. The season was summer. It was just prior to the US Democratic National Convention. The author was listening to a song titled “Daddy, Don’t You Walk So Fast” sung by Wayne Newton. The author wrote these lyrics (“Ronnie, Don’t You Run” by Louis DeCola, Jr.,  Copyright © 1984) while listening to the aforementioned song and focusing on the musical composition :

Ronnie, Don’t You Run                                                  Louis DeCola, Jr.,  Copyright © 1984

 

The trust between the two of us was dying

And it it got so bad I knew you had to leave

Halfway through my workday

As I thought about my vote

I thought about the presidency

And I was crying

 

Ronnie don’t you run so fast

Ronnie don’t you win this cast

Ronnie slow down some

because you’re not the right one

Ronnie don’t you run so fast

 

Oh I knew that it was all so useless

Asking Ronnie to pull out then and there

But I thought about what he had done

To a person such as me

And I knew that it just wasn’t fair

And I was crying

Ronnie don’t you run so fast

Ronnie don’t you win this cast

Ronnie slow down some

because you’re not the right one

Ronnie don’t you run so fast

 

Well I though hard and fast about this country’s dilemna

And I knew that I had to do something  and do it soon

So I thought I’d write this song

To all my fellow citizens

And give to them just one heartfelt plea

And that is

 

Don’t allow Ronnie to run so fast

— the people are crying

Don’t give him another chance

Truly study the issues

And I believe you’ll see

The final crucial issue is we

 

Yes, you and me

Living with ourselves and the rest of the world in harmony

Ronnie don’t you win this cast

Ronnie slow some down

because you’re not the right one

Ronnie don’t you run so fast

Readers are asked to note :

“…Truly study the issues

And I believe you’ll see

The final crucial issue is we

Yes, you and me

Living with ourselves and the rest of the world in harmony…”

On March 23, 2010 Noam A. Chomsky was awarded The 2010 Erich Fromm Prize. The identified Editorial team of Jan Dietrich, Rainer Funk, and Helmut Johut wrote the following in an Editorial in Fromm Forum 14/2010 (English Edition) :

“…Both, Fromm and Chomsky, have the ability to grasp reality without cognitive deformations and to be aware of the distorting function of the ‘pathology of normalcy’ has in regard to our public opinions, political convictions, and by ‘manufacturing consent’…”

On March 23, 2010 Jurgen Hadek gave a “Welcome Address” which included the following (page 8, Fromm Forum 14/2010 [English Edition]) :

“Ladies and Gentlemen! We are honored and pleased to have the privilege of welcoming among us the most distinguished scholar and dedicated humanist : Professor Noam Chomsky. Dear Noam Chomsky, your analyses and arguments; the criticism you have been leveling at particular political and social conditions (more precisely especially in the U.S. and Israel) since the 1960’s – a criticism steeped in the spirit of the Enlightenment-; your unwavering battle against manipulation and disinformation which is but a logical result of your deeply humanistic and democratic mode of thought and feeling — it has been all of these that more than anything else moved and exhilarated the jury since each element is in keeping with Erich Fromm’s tradition of thought and action. We are delighted that you have accepted this prize and have joined us here today.”

On that same date, March 23, 2010, Lawrence J. Friedman gave a “Laudation for Noam Chomsky” which included (pages 11-16, Fromm Forum 14/2010 [English Edition]) on page 14 :

“Similarities between Chomsky and Fromm are much more striking, making Chomsky a perfect recipient for the Fromm prize…Escape from Freedom was of course a classic on authoritarianism, and one can see why it decidedly impacted Chomsky. Although authoritarianism had many aspects, Fromm saw it heavily rooted in sado-masochism. Of course, authoritarianism was antithetical to Chomsky’s disposition toward individual freedom and dignity. He has had a lifelong suspicion of the authoritarian potential of any government. Congruent with Fromm, he has considered authoritarian regimes to be at odds with the need of the individual for free deployment of his reason and full mustering of his feelings. For Chomsky, communities, governments, and other institutions had to be entirely answerable to the individual and citizenry-at-large. They were to sustain individual development and not to impair it. When governments failed on these accounts, they lost their legitimacy. Chomsky has been even more suspicious than Fromm had been that governments of any sort could do anything much for individual development. Like Fromm, Chomsky has never restricted his criticism to a single country or part fo the world. He has championed the rights and dignities of citizens everywhere.”

The “Prize Awarding” by Reiner Funk (page 23, Fromm Forum 14/2010 [English Edition]) included :

“…In the mid-70s, Fromm tried to promote political detente between East and West, and to dissolve mutual hate-influenced projections. Fromm and you both recognized how the great writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his fanatic hate of communism exerted a pernicious influence on the American public by preaching hate himself. You both felt the hate that motivated this writer.

It is this independence and originality of perception and feeling that distinguish you both and that make you both inconvenient and provocative contemporaries, independent of all public opinion and, as in the case of Solzhenitsyn, regardless of many a praise of the great writer. You see and feel something that becomes apparent and removed from a ‘pathology of normalcy’ and a manipulated and alienated public opinion. And, like Fromm, you do not hold back the facts and the reality you see…”

As an aside, readers of The Hygiology Post may find this background information useful :  “The Nobel Prize in Literature 1970 was awarded to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn ‘for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature’ “. (“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1970”. Nobelprize.org. 27 Dec 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970)

Noam Chomsky gave the “Erich Fromm Lecture 2010″ titled ” ‘The evil scourge of terrorism’ reality construction, remedy” (pages 27-34, Fromm Forum 14/2010 [English Edition]) which included  the following on pages 27-28 :

“The president could not have been more justified when he condemned ‘the evil scourge of terrorism.’ I am quoting Ronald Reagan, who came into office in 1981 declaring that a focus of his foreign policy would be state-directed international terrorism,…When George W. Bush declared a ‘war on terror’ 20 years later, he was re-declaring the war, an important fact that is worth exhuming from Orwell’s memory hole if we hope to understand the nature of the evil scourge of terrorism, or more importantly, if we hope to understand ourselves…

The reasons why Reagan’s war on terror has been dispatched to the repository of unwelcome facts are understandably informative – about ourselves. Instantly, Reagan’s war on terror became a savage terrorist war, leaving hundreds of thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses in the wreckage of Central America, tens of thousands more in the Middle East, and an estimated 1.5 million killed by South African terror that was strongly supported by the Reagan administration in violation of congressional sanctions. All of these murderous exercises of course had pretexts. The resort to violence always does. In the Middle East, Reagan’s decisive support for Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which killed some 15-20,000 people and destroyed much of Southern Lebanon and Beirut, was based on the pretense that it was in self-defense against PLO Rocketing of the Galilee, a brazen fabrication : Israel recognized at once that that the threat was PLO diplomacy, which might have undermined Israel’s illegal takeover of the occupied territories…

For the most part, victims of Reaganite terror were defenseless civilians, but in one case the victim was a state, Nicaragua, which could respond through legal channels. Nicaragua brought its charges to the World Court, which condemned the US for ‘unlawful use of force’ – in lay terms, international terrorism – in its attack on Nicaragua from its Honduran bases, and ordered US to terminate the assault and pay substantial reparations. The aftermath is instructive.

Congress responded by increasing aid to the US-run mercenary army attacking Nicaragua, while the press condemned the court as a ‘hostile forum’ and therefore irrelevant…Nicaragua then brought the matter to the UN Security Council, which passed two resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. The resolutions were vetoed by the US, with the assistance of Britain and France, which abstained…

…The Court rejected most almost all of Nicaragua’s case,…, on the grounds that when the US had accepted World Court jurisdiction in 1946, it added a reservation exempting itself from charges under international treaties, specifically the Charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States. Accordingly, the US is self-entitled to carry out aggression and other crimes that are far more serious than international terrorism. The Court correctly recognized this exemption,…”

In the last paragraph of the “Erich Fromm  Lecture 2010”, Noam Chomsky stated (page 34) after identifying many examples :

“In cases like these, the only rational conclusion is that the declared goals are not the real ones, and that if we want to learn about the the real goals, we should adopt an approach that is familiar in law : relying on predictable outcome as evidence for intent…” (Bold lettering was added by this author.)

Ron Paul wrote in “Liberty Defined” (Copyright 2011 © by The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, Inc. [FREE], Grand Central Publishing) in the Introduction, page XII :

“To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.”

On pages 317-318 in the aforementioned book on the chapter “Zionism” Ron Paul wrote :

“Meanwhile, within Israeli politics, there is a great deal of debate and diversity of opinion. The Liberal party in Israel often raises questions about the apartheid conditions that Palestinians are subjected to. Even newspapers in Israel are willing to discuss this issue openly, but it is essentially never permitted in the United States. Former President Jimmy Carter is now persona non grata for raising the question in his most recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. J. Street, a new pro-Israel Washington PAC, is challenging AIPACS’s monopoly control of the discussion of U.S.-Israeli relations in teh United States. The group Peace Now also strives to change the tone and essence of the debate.”

In the same aforementioned book and chapter, “Zionism”, on page 320, Ron Paul wrote :

“But first, we must see more admission of mistakes made as Ronald Reagan did after the Marines were killed in Beirut in 1983. In his memoirs, he admitted he did not realize how complicated Middle East politics were and that he had made a serious error. That is why he went against his own proclamation that he would never ‘turn tail and run,’ because he decided that it was in the best interests of the United States to change a failed policy.

If we were to stay out of the Middle East, militarily and politically, I’m convinced it would be most helpful, in that a ‘neighborhood’ solution solution would more likely occur without us stirring the pot and jeopardizing more Americans being killed in wars yet to come. This policy, I am certain, would be in the interest of Israel and the United States and world peace.”

If Ron Paul were to become US President he could (then) win (perhaps by “relying on predictable outcome as evidence for intent…”; please see the Noam Chomsky “Erich Fromm Lecture 2010” above) the Nobel Peace Prize like President Barack Obama, Jr. did : “The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama ‘for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’ .” (“The Nobel Peace Prize 2009”. Nobelprize.org. 26 Dec 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/) “Barack Obama is the fourth US President to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the last being Jimmy Carter in 2002.”  (“The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 – Press Release”. Nobelprize.org. 26 Dec 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/speedread.html)

It does appear that the path toward the Nobel Peace Prize for President Barack Obama, Jr. was made possible by his presidency which in turn was made possible by or at least significantly helped by his identified position on the Iraq War. On page 294 of “The Audacity of Hope” ( Copyright © 2006 by Barack Obama, Crown Publishers) he wrote about portions of a speech he made in the Fall of 2002 in Chicago’s Federal Plaza against a war in Iraq which included :  “What I could not support was ‘a dumb war, a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.’…”

Interestingly, Ron Paul also wrote in “Liberty Defined” (Copyright 2011 © by The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, Inc. [FREE], Grand Central Publishing) in the chapter titled “Four Freedoms” on page 131 :

“It’s pretty sad when President Obama can justify massively expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and justify his actions by referencing just-war theory, the greatness of Gandhi, and the nonviolent approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. Fear, war lies, all melted into a policy that expands the state while destroying our economy and liberties.”

On page 132 Ron Paul went on to write in the same aforementioned book and chapter :

“…It is disgraceful that President Obama, whom many believed to be the candidate of peace, could be handed the Nobel Peace Prize while carrying out senseless wars based on lies and continually expanding the war machine. It’s almost hard to believe.

The American People seem overly willing to accept war, economic sacrifice, and loss of liberty as long as the President, whether FDR, Bush, or Obama, claims his actions are well intentioned and are done to protect our freedoms. Any disagreement means that one does not share a love of freedom.

And that is exactly how fear works.”

The last few sentences above, independent of accuracy, remind the author of  the book, “Escape From Freedom” by Erich Fromm. Here is an excerpt (copyright 1941,  © 1969 by Erich Fromm, Avon Books) from page 37 – 38 :  “…This discussion will always be centered around the main theme of this book : that man, the more he gains freedom in the sense of emerging from the original oneness with man and nature and the more he becomes an ‘individual’, has no choice but to unite himself with the world in the spontaneity of love and productive work or else seek a kind of security by such ties with the world as destroy his freedom and integrity of his individual self.”

The 2012 United States Presidential Candidates themselves or their representatives are each invited to comment, make  recommendations, and/or add to the information in The Hygiology Post. Also, all of the 2012 United States Presidential Candidates are invited to be interviewed (for almost any purpose and in basically any format they choose to be interviewed) by and write an article for publication in The Hygiology Post.

The author plans to expound upon Prescription #9 (Prescription #9  of “Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals” is : Consider voting for candidates [e.g., President of The United States] based upon levels of intuition in addition to other areas you believe deserve consideration) with additional information in The Hygiology Post.

The Hygiology Post welcomes feedback from readers on all six parts of the series (individually and/or as a total package) upon completion of the series as to whether the articles help fulfill its vision and mission.

 

Louis DeCola, Jr.                                               Copyright © 2011 The Hygiology Post

 

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply