“If [Bernie Sanders] were elected, I think he’d be the one, from the current candidates ... with the best policies,” the renowned linguist and activist recently told Al-Jazeera in an interview.
The Appeal of Noam Chomsky
Quote: (12-01-2015 06:15 PM)Kaizen Wrote:I was actually going to say that it's not clear he is a pacifist, for similar reasons. He has said he admired certain pacifists as deep and consistent thinkers, who live what they preach, but he doesn't agree with them. I always thought of him as critical of most wars, and the so called "moral justification" that was given for them, but that doesn't imply he thinks there is no instance when war is justified. For the most part, he thinks the alleged intentions historically given by governmental bodies to go to war are misleading, often disingenuous, or are not morally justifiable. That being said, I'm not sure what his views are about when violence or war are actually justified.
Chomsky's knowledge of history and world events is astounding. No one can really go toe to toe with him because they will be operating on a kindergarten level comparatively.
Even Ezra kept his volume a notch below his norm, knowing who he was interviewing. I thought Chomsky handled all the questions just fine.
He's actually not a pacifist. He just laments that force is used too often prior to available diplomatic avenues.
Regarding the interview I thought he actually had quite a few good points that are worthy to ponder, but I ultimately disagree with him. He seems like a reasonable guy, who is willing to engage with those who disagree with him, and I've gotta admire that. To say Levant asked leading questions though seems like a bit of an understatement.
From Politico
MIT professor and intellectual Noam Chomsky attributes Donald Trump’s success in the Republican presidential primary to “fear” and a “breakdown of society.”
In an interview published Tuesday, AlterNet’s Aaron Williams asked Chomsky for his thoughts on Trump’s “surprising progress.” After a second-place finish in Iowa, the billionaire has stormed to consecutive double-digit wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
“Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period,” Chomsky responded. “People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces that they do not understand and cannot influence.”
Chomsky compared the political environment that’s allowed Trump to flourish to the 1930s, when the U.S. was in the Great Depression. “Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater,” Chomsky said. “But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now, in large part because of the growth of a militant labor movement and also the existence of political organizations outside the mainstream.”
Trump and Hillary Clinton are leading in their respective primaries, but Chomsky demurred when asked who he thought would win the White House.
“I can express hopes and fears, but not predictions,” he said.
Chomsky has contributed to Bernie Sanders’ campaigns in the past but said he would “absolutely” vote for Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state.
In an interview last month, Chomsky praised Sanders but said the Vermont senator didn’t have “much of a chance” due to “our system of mainly bought elections.”
MIT professor and intellectual Noam Chomsky attributes Donald Trump’s success in the Republican presidential primary to “fear” and a “breakdown of society.”
In an interview published Tuesday, AlterNet’s Aaron Williams asked Chomsky for his thoughts on Trump’s “surprising progress.” After a second-place finish in Iowa, the billionaire has stormed to consecutive double-digit wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
“Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period,” Chomsky responded. “People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces that they do not understand and cannot influence.”
Chomsky compared the political environment that’s allowed Trump to flourish to the 1930s, when the U.S. was in the Great Depression. “Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater,” Chomsky said. “But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now, in large part because of the growth of a militant labor movement and also the existence of political organizations outside the mainstream.”
Trump and Hillary Clinton are leading in their respective primaries, but Chomsky demurred when asked who he thought would win the White House.
“I can express hopes and fears, but not predictions,” he said.
Chomsky has contributed to Bernie Sanders’ campaigns in the past but said he would “absolutely” vote for Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state.
In an interview last month, Chomsky praised Sanders but said the Vermont senator didn’t have “much of a chance” due to “our system of mainly bought elections.”
Thought I would give this thread a bump:
From Raw Story:
Noam Chomsky sees Donald Trump’s win as part of a worldwide movement toward “ultranationalist” right-wing parties, which he can’t help but to compare to Adolf Hitler.
“A look at the polls in Austria and Germany cannot fail to evoke unpleasant memories for those familiar with the 1930s, even more so for those who watched directly, as I did as a child,” Chomsky told Alternet. “I can still recall listening to Hitler’s speeches, not understanding the words, though the tone and audience reaction were chilling enough.”
From Raw Story:
Noam Chomsky sees Donald Trump’s win as part of a worldwide movement toward “ultranationalist” right-wing parties, which he can’t help but to compare to Adolf Hitler.
“A look at the polls in Austria and Germany cannot fail to evoke unpleasant memories for those familiar with the 1930s, even more so for those who watched directly, as I did as a child,” Chomsky told Alternet. “I can still recall listening to Hitler’s speeches, not understanding the words, though the tone and audience reaction were chilling enough.”
FWIW, I have come to the conclusion that the Chomster is an alpha dog leftist. Believe it or not, they do exist!
He has a comfortable university tenure based on his early research, which Tom Wolfe, of all people, has called this into question with a new book. Needless to say, the Choamites have gone into hyper-drive to defend their mumblecore prophet. One of the earlier posters pointed out that Chomsky drones on and on and never seems to directly answer a question, even when the interviewer nails him on an inconsistency.
His genius is to counter-attack every time someone calls him on the carpet. You write a thousand word article on how he indirectly supported the Khmer Rouge, he writes a ten thousand word article attacking you as a fascist. You try to corner him and he will produce a three hundred page book with self-referential notes that shows his views are sacrosanct. He's smart enough never to side with any group in power, but will gladly take money from the state. He'll agree to any interview so long as the interviewer will let him drone.
Its created an entire generation of glassy-eyed SJW's who use for quotes although they never seem to know anything about him.
He has a comfortable university tenure based on his early research, which Tom Wolfe, of all people, has called this into question with a new book. Needless to say, the Choamites have gone into hyper-drive to defend their mumblecore prophet. One of the earlier posters pointed out that Chomsky drones on and on and never seems to directly answer a question, even when the interviewer nails him on an inconsistency.
His genius is to counter-attack every time someone calls him on the carpet. You write a thousand word article on how he indirectly supported the Khmer Rouge, he writes a ten thousand word article attacking you as a fascist. You try to corner him and he will produce a three hundred page book with self-referential notes that shows his views are sacrosanct. He's smart enough never to side with any group in power, but will gladly take money from the state. He'll agree to any interview so long as the interviewer will let him drone.
Its created an entire generation of glassy-eyed SJW's who use for quotes although they never seem to know anything about him.
I saw him speak in Cairo a few years ago, in the midst of the post-revolution Morsi shit show.
The talk was supposed to have something to do with the Arab Spring; he rambled on like a senile old man about "the system" and the history of the U.S. military-industrial complex, Viet Nam (he went off on this like it was still happening), the Cold War, blah, blah, blah... in vague, intellectually masturbatory terms (same stuff he accuses the academics of in the video earlier in this thread). It was honestly hard to take seriously. Yet the audience sat there captivated and cheered like fools when he was done. They gave him a plaque and some kind of medal and a standing ovation and I just wondered if anyone understood a thing he said. I had a blank WTF look on my face and the Egyptian lady next to me and I turned to each other and she said to me, "He just made our lives worse, didn't he?" At least she seemed to get that he provided no insight into or lesson about anything that was actually happening there at the time (which was supposed to be a big deal.)
The Theory of Universal Grammar, his claim to fame as a linguist back in the 50s-60s, is also nonsense.
The talk was supposed to have something to do with the Arab Spring; he rambled on like a senile old man about "the system" and the history of the U.S. military-industrial complex, Viet Nam (he went off on this like it was still happening), the Cold War, blah, blah, blah... in vague, intellectually masturbatory terms (same stuff he accuses the academics of in the video earlier in this thread). It was honestly hard to take seriously. Yet the audience sat there captivated and cheered like fools when he was done. They gave him a plaque and some kind of medal and a standing ovation and I just wondered if anyone understood a thing he said. I had a blank WTF look on my face and the Egyptian lady next to me and I turned to each other and she said to me, "He just made our lives worse, didn't he?" At least she seemed to get that he provided no insight into or lesson about anything that was actually happening there at the time (which was supposed to be a big deal.)
The Theory of Universal Grammar, his claim to fame as a linguist back in the 50s-60s, is also nonsense.
Quote: (11-21-2016 03:14 PM)thirty-six Wrote:
The Theory of Universal Grammar, his claim to fame as a linguist back in the 50s-60s, is also nonsense.
His ideas in linguistics were intriguing and revolutionary, but every time someone would demonstrate he was wrong, Chomsky would dismiss the evidence, viciously attack the messenger or add more Ptolemaic epicycles to his models. His followers have taken over departments and they've basically ruined much of linguistics at this point. The old saw applies, the one about academics caring the most intensely about those things which matter the least. Anyway, it's interesting to note that he has demonstrated the same lack of ethics and character in his academic field that he has in his political machinations.
Quote: (11-21-2016 02:14 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:
FWIW, I have come to the conclusion that the Chomster is an alpha dog leftist. Believe it or not, they do exist!
Disagree. While he's not effeminate or bitch-like, his zero-fucks-given maverick reputation has more to do with him being a Jewish leftist. A leftist Jewish professor in academia is pretty much going to be free to say anything he pleases. Let's see a gentile professor say anything vaguely alt-rightish and not be fired or ostracized after vituperative attacks from all sides first before we start handing out Balls of Steel awards. Although, he is media-savvy and was able to make a career out of his political beliefs decades before the internet, so I'll give him that.
Quote:Quote:
He has a comfortable university tenure based on his early research, which Tom Wolfe, of all people, has called this into question with a new book.
There are plenty of people in such fields as Linguistics, Psychology, Neuroscience who dispute Chomsky's work in Linguistics. Which is not unusual. Who's correct? I don't have an opinion on that as I'm not well-versed in the field. The implication of some critiques against his work seems to be Chomsky doesn't care much about Linguistics as a discipline of learning as much as he likes to get his name out there as a political critic. Is that what Wolfe was getting at too?
Quote:Quote:
Needless to say, the Choamites have gone into hyper-drive to defend their mumblecore prophet. One of the earlier posters pointed out that Chomsky drones on and on and never seems to directly answer a question, even when the interviewer nails him on an inconsistency.
His genius is to counter-attack every time someone calls him on the carpet.
That's not genius, that's standard rhetorical technique. Lots of academics don't learn about Aristotle or Ancient Greek and Roman educational/literary methods anymore so they're hopelessly disadvantaged in a debate unless they're naturally quick-witted and aggressive in argument. Chomsky is quite knowledgable, yes, but his debate technique isn't anything special in itself.
Quote:Quote:
You write a thousand word article on how he indirectly supported the Khmer Rouge, he writes a ten thousand word article attacking you as a fascist.
1. Did he actually support the Khmer Rouge or did he criticize American policy towards the KR? I don't know, I haven't read anything about that particular debate. There's a subtle difference and it's not necessarily supporting the KR if it's the latter.
2. Again, going on the attack-- even if it's launching a straw-man argument-- when being criticized is a standard practice of rhetoric.
3. If Chomsky has in fact done just that-- accuse opponents of fascism for attacking his position-- that just makes him a smarter, more famous lame-ass invoking a version of Godwin's Law to attempt to silence people who disagree with him.
Quote:Quote:
You try to corner him and he will produce a three hundred page book with self-referential notes that shows his views are sacrosanct. He's smart enough never to side with any group in power, but will gladly take money from the state. He'll agree to any interview so long as the interviewer will let him drone.
Its created an entire generation of glassy-eyed SJW's who use for quotes although they never seem to know anything about him.
Again, he's a left-wing Jewish professor with lots of friends and partners in academia and the media world. He's got resources for days and people willing to take his word on anything based on his media reputation. He's not David fighting Goliath, but he's able to portray himself as someone who is speaking truth to power. Not a bad gig.
For his shit-talking about Trump and the rise of European Nationalism, I'm not really surprised at his lack of understanding about it. Someone earlier called his learning "astounding." No, he's not. Smart, yes. Tricky and clever in debate, yes. But really not that bright or insightful. Jewish/Leftist academics are full on what Nassim Taleb calls Intellectual Yet Idiot. To these academics it's confounding how Europeans and Euro-Americans are becoming more nationalistic. They are in their bubble and things and people outside that bubble are dismissed as irrelevant or unintelligent. Much like the media --who are themselves Jewish academics or gentiles trained by Jewish academics-- couldn't perceive why anyone would vote Trump or Brexit. The just cannot see what is in front of their eyes and most refuse to see any need for them to learn how.
Aw, leave Noam alone.
He is an old old dude.
I liked him when I first read him. . . in the eighties.
Like him or not, he has been railing against the elites just like we do here for years and years and years and years.
Before there was the internet, and back when the left really was trying to speak truth to power, at least on the lower levels, reading a Chomsky book was like having your eyes opened.
This is what I got from him when I was a newly graduated, I mean brainwashed college student in the seventies:
Reality isn't as you have been taught to see it. There is a small group of elites who really run things, and they have a massive network in place to sell their view of the world to you, from the politicians, to the intellectuals, to the corporate spokesmen, to the advertisers. You have to dig beneath the news to alternative sources of information to find out what is really going on.
Sound familiar?
And this was all before the internet, where you had to haunt alternative book stores, and find alternative newspapers and figure it out for yourself.
He inspired generation after generation to take up this search themselves, to try to figure out what was right, and then act on it.
With a brain like his, all of this political stuff is deadly dull to him. He is an old linguistics nerd, who would have been happy cloistered away in his office reading obscure journals for the rest of his life.
He was one of the first people to protest the Vietnam war, back before the hippies took that over, back when, as he has stated, you could only get about five people over to your house even to talk about it, and four of them would have been against you.
His wife went back to work in the early sixties since he figured he would end up in jail and little more for his protest.
Over all these years, and even today, Chomsky has tirelessly traveled the world, finding his information not only by reading between the lines in mainstream sources, but also by going directly to messed up countries and talking with the people there as well as those trying to help them.
I mean look at him, rumpled, awkward, pant cuffs too high. He is an introvert and a nerd and a dork, obviously uncomfortable in the presence of other people, and yet decade after decade he has been out there fighting his fight as he sees fit.
Yeah, he is an anachronism now, as the internet has made everything available to anyone, with far less effort. Just find a web page. You don't have to travel to South America to meet with dissident priests and nuns to get the facts anymore.
Come on though, dude is 87, talking slow and repeating himself, and slowing down in general.
He had his place in the history of ideas and politics though, and a lot of us will always be grateful that he was there, telling us that if you were willing to put in the effort, you could figure out the world, and you didn't have to be a genius (I had to puzzle out his generative grammar algorithms in college, so I get to call him a genuis) like him, only diligent and conscientious, and think for yourself.
I don't really care that now almost ninety he rambles and repeats himself and I don't agree with a lot of what he says.
Dude was pre-woke, and had his place in explaining and encouraging countless millions. He always sided with the downtrodden. Always.
To a fault now, it seems.
He may not be currently needed, but he has his place, like Hank Luisetti, the dude who invented the one hand shot:
![[Image: luisetti-148x300.jpg]](http://rushthecourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/luisetti-148x300.jpg)
When everyone else was still shooting like this:
![[Image: Bowers+(4).jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d6MHoDryXCE/TzA7AIBe9jI/AAAAAAAACXU/gTePi21n2zU/s1600/Bowers+(4).jpg)
There's no point in trashing him by saying he couldn't compete with guys like this:
![[Image: Steph-Curry-Jumper-in-Nike-Hyperfuse-2012-P.E..jpg]](http://sneakerhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Steph-Curry-Jumper-in-Nike-Hyperfuse-2012-P.E..jpg)
He had his place.
He is an old old dude.
I liked him when I first read him. . . in the eighties.
Like him or not, he has been railing against the elites just like we do here for years and years and years and years.
Before there was the internet, and back when the left really was trying to speak truth to power, at least on the lower levels, reading a Chomsky book was like having your eyes opened.
This is what I got from him when I was a newly graduated, I mean brainwashed college student in the seventies:
Reality isn't as you have been taught to see it. There is a small group of elites who really run things, and they have a massive network in place to sell their view of the world to you, from the politicians, to the intellectuals, to the corporate spokesmen, to the advertisers. You have to dig beneath the news to alternative sources of information to find out what is really going on.
Sound familiar?
And this was all before the internet, where you had to haunt alternative book stores, and find alternative newspapers and figure it out for yourself.
He inspired generation after generation to take up this search themselves, to try to figure out what was right, and then act on it.
With a brain like his, all of this political stuff is deadly dull to him. He is an old linguistics nerd, who would have been happy cloistered away in his office reading obscure journals for the rest of his life.
He was one of the first people to protest the Vietnam war, back before the hippies took that over, back when, as he has stated, you could only get about five people over to your house even to talk about it, and four of them would have been against you.
His wife went back to work in the early sixties since he figured he would end up in jail and little more for his protest.
Over all these years, and even today, Chomsky has tirelessly traveled the world, finding his information not only by reading between the lines in mainstream sources, but also by going directly to messed up countries and talking with the people there as well as those trying to help them.
I mean look at him, rumpled, awkward, pant cuffs too high. He is an introvert and a nerd and a dork, obviously uncomfortable in the presence of other people, and yet decade after decade he has been out there fighting his fight as he sees fit.
Yeah, he is an anachronism now, as the internet has made everything available to anyone, with far less effort. Just find a web page. You don't have to travel to South America to meet with dissident priests and nuns to get the facts anymore.
Come on though, dude is 87, talking slow and repeating himself, and slowing down in general.
He had his place in the history of ideas and politics though, and a lot of us will always be grateful that he was there, telling us that if you were willing to put in the effort, you could figure out the world, and you didn't have to be a genius (I had to puzzle out his generative grammar algorithms in college, so I get to call him a genuis) like him, only diligent and conscientious, and think for yourself.
I don't really care that now almost ninety he rambles and repeats himself and I don't agree with a lot of what he says.
Dude was pre-woke, and had his place in explaining and encouraging countless millions. He always sided with the downtrodden. Always.
To a fault now, it seems.
He may not be currently needed, but he has his place, like Hank Luisetti, the dude who invented the one hand shot:
When everyone else was still shooting like this:
There's no point in trashing him by saying he couldn't compete with guys like this:
He had his place.
“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”
Carl Jung
My thoughts on Chomsky are pretty simple. I treat him like Alex Jones. I don't agree with everything he says but when I do I really agree and for good reason.
"Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,— 'Wait and hope'."- Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo"
Fashion/Style Lounge
Social Circle Game
Team Skinny Girls with Pretty Faces
King of Sockpuppets
Sockpuppet List
Chomsky is either self-deluded or a fraud, or both. He has spent his entire career blasting (rightly so) warmongers (look at his writing on the neocons in the George W Bush administration), then turns around and endorses one of the biggest pillars of the War Party, Hillary the Cunt Bomber in Chief. He totally discredited himself when he went down that road.
John Michael Kane's Datasheets: Master The Credit Game: Save & Make Money By Being Credit Savvy
Boycott these companies that hate men: King's Wiki Boycott List
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value. -Albert Einstein
The professor has lost his mind. This is the only thing I can figure out. Or perhaps he is so full of hate he would like to see this country destroyed. Because now he's calling for Obama to open the floodgates:
From Alternet, of course-
Noam Chomsky’s Bold Request Before President Obama Leaves Office
“He should proceed to what is, in fact, an urgent necessity, to grant a general pardon to 11 million people who are living and working [in America], productive citizens… threatened with deportation by the incoming administration,” Chomsky insisted.
![[Image: tinfoilhat.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/tinfoilhat.gif)
From Alternet, of course-
Noam Chomsky’s Bold Request Before President Obama Leaves Office
“He should proceed to what is, in fact, an urgent necessity, to grant a general pardon to 11 million people who are living and working [in America], productive citizens… threatened with deportation by the incoming administration,” Chomsky insisted.
I've read one or two of his books (Profit Over People and Hegemony or Survival). He's smart as hell, and was once upon a time a genuine enemy of the establishment. I agree with pretty much everything that QC said.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
The appeal is that everybody wants to get a Noam gnome:
![[Image: 772723_orig.jpg]](http://www.justsaygnome.net/uploads/2/6/1/3/2613300/772723_orig.jpg)
Keeping Libs/ Demos/ Repubs aside..
He is how I came across the truth of US led CIA manipulation of Latin America for half a century..
He is how I came across the truth of US led CIA manipulation of Latin America for half a century..
The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
- Garry Kasparov | @Kasparov63
I have been watching some Noam videos. Yeah he has some insights but the overall theme is anti white. America/Britain/Russia is evil because of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. His hope for utopia where we all get along doesnt seem realistic. Dont Americans get tired of his complaining?
Quote: (03-19-2018 06:50 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
I have been watching some Noam videos. Yeah he has some insights but the overall theme is anti white. America/Britain/Russia is evil because of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. His hope for utopia where we all get along doesnt seem realistic. Dont Americans get tired of his complaining?
The overall theme is anti- period, which is the mantra of the SJW.
![[Image: complaining-about-a-problem-without-prop...060160.png]](https://pics.me.me/complaining-about-a-problem-without-proposing-a-solution-is-called-23060160.png)
Plus, in the same way conservatives may want to treat "the other" as the root of all evil, liberals blame "the self" as the actual root cause using house-that-jack-built hamstering. That's where I seriously part company with liberal thought, the sympathizing with terrorists and inner-city criminals. It's just steeped in GUILT, which accomplishes little.
Quote: (03-19-2018 06:50 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
I have been watching some Noam videos. Yeah he has some insights but the overall theme is anti white. America/Britain/Russia is evil because of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. His hope for utopia where we all get along doesnt seem realistic. Dont Americans get tired of his complaining?
Chomsky is as old as the hills, and was saying this stuff before anyone, back when the U.S. was rah rah nationalist.
No one is tired of him because there has been a mainstream media blackout on his books or any tv appearances for about fifty years. Mainstream publications don't review his books. The only way you would hear of him is to seek him out.
“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”
Carl Jung
What I dont understand is he makes America seem like Saudi Arabia or Stalins Soviet Union and yet people all over the world would swim across oceans to get there.
Plus his idea that America is responsible for poverty in South America and Haiti is Haiti because of the evil French is rather too simplistic and ignores racial and genetic factors.
Plus his idea that America is responsible for poverty in South America and Haiti is Haiti because of the evil French is rather too simplistic and ignores racial and genetic factors.
Quote: (03-19-2018 11:31 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
What I dont understand is he makes America seem like Saudi Arabia or Stalins Soviet Union...
The mindset of liberals is to be forever resentful of wealth/power imbalance. They're more concerned with the US/West having more power than innocent bystanders getting ripped to shreads by a nail-bomb at a Sbarros. The sympathies will forever be graced upon the underdog no matter how brutal and inhumane their actions. It's moral relativism gone amok.
Civilize the mind but make savage the body.
Chomsky deserves respect, he's an old man and he fought his fight, he was never afraid to speak his mind and although opinions may differ, I think everyone here realizes this man was speaking from his own analysis and not from some influential lobby group behind him, a rarity these days. No surprise to see that he is one of the very few (with name and reputation) who also dares to question the role of Israel.
I'd be more impressed with Chomsky if he had sufficient balls to apply his Propaganda Model of the media to post-2016 politics.
Chomsky's entrenched position - after 2 editions of Manufacturing Consent - is that the media without exception serves the financial elites, that stories are only permitted to emerge because they serve corporate interests, serve corporate aims, pander to corporate masters. He does not for a moment suggest that the media had a great awakening and decided to start pursuing Truth, Justice, and the American Way all of a sudden.
Given Trump's treatment at the hands of the media across the board, then, given Chomsky's own Propaganda Model, the institutional powers and elites of the West don't want Donald Trump in charge. There are, in short, powerful forces working against a sitting US President, something that, per Chomsky's own Propaganda Model, isn't meant to happen if the media is representing the elite point of view.
If Chomsky had any guts, he would have said so. Admitted so. Or he would've admitted his "model" (which is not scientific, but let's leave that aside: Chomsky likes to play word blender on a scale similar to that of Jordan Peterson now and then) is wrong. He doesn't. He can't. Because he's an old man with no scrotum left and he can't pivot to the Right now having flogged them unmercifully his entire career and accusing Trump's base as being composed of a group of extremists. He directly told people to vote for Hilary Fucking Clinton and said Trump's election would be the death knell for the species. He claimed he wanted the US to go back to democracy rather than plutocracy, and encouraged people to vote for pretty much the living avatar of American plutocracy and against pretty much the only serious shot the American people had at getting any element of their government back. Fuck him, he's an old hypocrite, and he's done.
As for his political position? He calls himself a socialist libertarian, by which I interpret that he's perfectly happy to have the government interfere in my life as long as it doesn't interfere in his.
Chomsky's entrenched position - after 2 editions of Manufacturing Consent - is that the media without exception serves the financial elites, that stories are only permitted to emerge because they serve corporate interests, serve corporate aims, pander to corporate masters. He does not for a moment suggest that the media had a great awakening and decided to start pursuing Truth, Justice, and the American Way all of a sudden.
Given Trump's treatment at the hands of the media across the board, then, given Chomsky's own Propaganda Model, the institutional powers and elites of the West don't want Donald Trump in charge. There are, in short, powerful forces working against a sitting US President, something that, per Chomsky's own Propaganda Model, isn't meant to happen if the media is representing the elite point of view.
If Chomsky had any guts, he would have said so. Admitted so. Or he would've admitted his "model" (which is not scientific, but let's leave that aside: Chomsky likes to play word blender on a scale similar to that of Jordan Peterson now and then) is wrong. He doesn't. He can't. Because he's an old man with no scrotum left and he can't pivot to the Right now having flogged them unmercifully his entire career and accusing Trump's base as being composed of a group of extremists. He directly told people to vote for Hilary Fucking Clinton and said Trump's election would be the death knell for the species. He claimed he wanted the US to go back to democracy rather than plutocracy, and encouraged people to vote for pretty much the living avatar of American plutocracy and against pretty much the only serious shot the American people had at getting any element of their government back. Fuck him, he's an old hypocrite, and he's done.
As for his political position? He calls himself a socialist libertarian, by which I interpret that he's perfectly happy to have the government interfere in my life as long as it doesn't interfere in his.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Kinda.
He's still interesting because he's what I call an "honest leftist" where they're "honest" insofar as being loyal and consistent to their espoused political ideologies rather than being mindlessly drones who imbibe whatever fetid juice the DNC shits out.
Him and a few others (e. g. Greenwald) are still important reading because they provide substantial and intelligent criticism of the American establishment from a left perspective... And highlight some interesting Points of agreement. For example both him and us find the US establishments policy of perpetual war for profit to be abhorrent.
He's still interesting because he's what I call an "honest leftist" where they're "honest" insofar as being loyal and consistent to their espoused political ideologies rather than being mindlessly drones who imbibe whatever fetid juice the DNC shits out.
Him and a few others (e. g. Greenwald) are still important reading because they provide substantial and intelligent criticism of the American establishment from a left perspective... And highlight some interesting Points of agreement. For example both him and us find the US establishments policy of perpetual war for profit to be abhorrent.
Chomsky plays by the same rulebook as the MSM ,albeit sometimes with slightly different motives.1. Lying by omition , 2. when my team does it , its ok and 3.spreading criticism unevenly .
Chomskey is eager to paint himself as a humanitarian and talk about slavery and its legacy in the United States. What he does not want to talk about (he is on the same page as the MSM on this) is current day slavery in the Muslim world.This , however is a straw man . Why waste time talking about slavery abolished 150 years ago when you could actually help free the over half a million slaves being held in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania ?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/w...index.html
This piece is CNN but the text was too long to paste here.
Chomsky was also a defender of the Pol Pot regime.Both communists so same team . makes sense. He famously said of the Cambodian refugees fleeing a genocide that ended up killing around 2 million people in less than a decade :
refugee stories about Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great care and caution. Refugees are frightened and defenseless and naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear.
I wonder if he thinks Palestinian refugees stories should be treated with great care and caution. Or does he think they should simply be believed . I wonder what standard he uses to judge refugees flooding the West. Do their tales also deserve great caution or should they just be accepted as truth .
There are thousands of events happening daily . The MSM chooses what to report and what to omit and what narrative to attach to the stories they choose to air . Chomsky does the same . Sometimes their interest overlaps and sometimes it doesn't.
Chomskey is eager to paint himself as a humanitarian and talk about slavery and its legacy in the United States. What he does not want to talk about (he is on the same page as the MSM on this) is current day slavery in the Muslim world.This , however is a straw man . Why waste time talking about slavery abolished 150 years ago when you could actually help free the over half a million slaves being held in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania ?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/w...index.html
This piece is CNN but the text was too long to paste here.
Chomsky was also a defender of the Pol Pot regime.Both communists so same team . makes sense. He famously said of the Cambodian refugees fleeing a genocide that ended up killing around 2 million people in less than a decade :
refugee stories about Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great care and caution. Refugees are frightened and defenseless and naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear.
I wonder if he thinks Palestinian refugees stories should be treated with great care and caution. Or does he think they should simply be believed . I wonder what standard he uses to judge refugees flooding the West. Do their tales also deserve great caution or should they just be accepted as truth .
There are thousands of events happening daily . The MSM chooses what to report and what to omit and what narrative to attach to the stories they choose to air . Chomsky does the same . Sometimes their interest overlaps and sometimes it doesn't.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)