Post: #1

It's something I have never been able to understand. I've endured this man for well on forty years. He's a fossil the Left wheels out every time they start losing the argument. He's a distinguished speaker and sends SJW's into orgasms. Yet, he's written the introduction to a Holocaust Denial book AND supported the Khmer Rouge. Every word he mutters is treated as Holy Writ by the Left.
I started to think about him again while watching one of the few critical interviews with the old man on Rebel Media. I was amazed, as the interviewer has also talked with Master Roosh and many other interesting people. Here's the interview if you can endure it:



The interviewer starts out by asking leading questions and the Chomster responds by changing the subject. This bizarre discussion rambles on for a good half hour. At one point the interviewer, asks Chomsky if he even understands the definition of "dissident". Chomsky gets irritated because he doesn't!
However, this interview isn't half as strange as the comments. The bulk of them are on the level of "You're big poopy head!" to the interviewer because he has made their guru look bad.
The next time someone goes into a trance over Chomsky, ask them if they can explain his philosophy. Because I have yet to find one.

Post: #2

I like Chomsky, unlike most leftists he's actually quite intelligent. Here's some reasons (1) He's a rational speaker, unlike most leftist he's open minded and willing to consider all points of views. (2) He calls out all the BS on the left: postmodernism, postructuralism, french philosophy.(3) He's familiar with Rush Limbaugh and Ron Paul and agrees with them at times. (4)He has a really good sense of HISTORY, he has studied everything from 1776 up the present. (5) He has live for a long time, therefore, he has first hand knowledge of all the events denouncing the CIA's crimes.(6) Good terminology when describing regimes for instance, he distinguishes between state capitalism and communism, and radical statism and capitalism. (7) He proposes anarchism as opposed to communism. Anarchism is a philosophy similar to libertarianism.(8) He appeared on the Alex Jones show. Showing his willingness to participate in alternative media.

Post: #3

Chomsky is a great man, and a good one.

His political philosophy is basically anarchist-libertarian. In practice, he is a big opponent of organized state power.

I totally disagree with his personal and political philosophies on the vast majority of issues, but he is a sincere and conscientious man. And that is a rare quality.

He is also a key figure in modern linguistics.

He's one of the few American intellectuals who has the balls to speak out against the establishment, against corporate power, and against Israel.

I personally don't find his politics to be realistic or even good on many issues, and I despise pacifism.

But I like this guy, and he serves an important function.

Post: #4

(12-01-2015 05:00 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  It's something I have never been able to understand. I've endured this man for well on forty years. He's a fossil the Left wheels out every time they start losing the argument. He's a distinguished speaker and sends SJW's into orgasms. Yet, he's written the introduction to a Holocaust Denial book AND supported the Khmer Rouge.

You're being disingenuous with your accusations of him. You're using the same arguments against him that the cultural elite used to attempt to tarnish his reputation. The introduction he wrote was something he wrote a long time before, and the author of the book asked him if he could use it without telling him what it would be used for. This stirred up a huge controversy, and despite tarnishing his reputation, he stated that while he thought those who question the holocaust have lost their humanity, he supports free speech above all else. While I'm by no means the biggest Chomsky fan, I can at least respect that he stands by his principles, a rarity among the left.

He did not support the Khmer Rouge. You are making a strawman. He illustrated the disparity between media coverage of the Khmer Rouge with media coverage in East Timor, which were very similar events as a % of their respective populations, and happened at the same time. This pointed out the obvious bias in media coverage, where Khmer Rouge (communist regime) was condemned, but coverage of East Timor (Ethnically cleaned by pro-western regime) was almost totally absent. He condemned them both. Whether it was machiavellian of him to use genocide as an opportunity to illustrate media bias is another thing, but don't misrepresent it.

He is intelligent, fair and sticks to his principles. However, his ideas strike me as naive. He grew up in an anarchist universalist secular Jewish household, and encourages others to question where their motives come from, while proposing an anarchist universalist secular Jewish political system. It is the height of irony. For all his intelligence, he fails to understand the reason why anarchistic or libertarian societies never materialized on a large scale. His far leftist upbringing makes him preferentially condemn reactionaries, yet he is eerily silent on 20th century communism, which has the blood of hundreds of millions on its hands.

Some of his ideas are useful, though. Watch it with a grain of salt, but his documentary "Manufacturing Consent" is mandatory for understanding how modern democracies work. Along with Propaganda by Bernays, they are some of the most insightful works on how the levers of power function in our societies.

Post: #5

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.

Post: #6

His work on media propaganda is superb, and so is the critique of US foreign policy. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that he often speaks out on behalf of the "oppressed" and yet works and lives in one of the most privileged areas of the country. He also writes often about how the US is controlled by a business elite (true) but doesn't delve into who exactly is part of that elite. A lot of his work in this area can be classified as 'antiwhite' if you read it closely. Given his background, that is a very predictable outcome.

Nevertheless, there is no question that the man is an intellectual GIANT. He just obliterates any argument with a stream of facts and reason. I actually was a big fan in my teens until, you know, reality hit.

Post: #7

Interesting clip OP.
I agree with previous posters about his intellectual greatness and immense historical knowledge but his comments on the jihadi attacks in Europe are staggering.
His need to side with the supposed underdog overrides any sense of rational thought on this point.
His claims that there has been massive condemnation of the Paris attacks by the Muslim community are absolutely laughable.
His dishonesty on this issue is incredible.

Post: #8

I know his output isn't what it used to be, but I expect he will be increasingly dismissed or conveniently forgotten by the social justice crowd that now dominates campuses.

Despite the fact that he most likely shares the majority of the same views as them, we know that anything less than 100% compliance with the progressive agenda is considered traitorous (i.e. Germaine Greer).

His focus on liberty also falls on deaf ears for a coddled generation eager to give up privacy, free speech, etc. for an increasing sense of comfort through authority.

I can't imagine students from the "safe space" club endorsing quotes like this:

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

"Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist."

His focus on the nature of corporations is also a hard sell when so many people are in love with Apple, Facebook, etc.

Not only are consumers addicted to the products, through PC branding, various corporations become firmly entrenched as "the good guys" when you get to change your profile picture to a rainbow overlay, or have publicly gay executives.

Post: #9

I agree with the previous posters here, but here is a lovely gem from the old fart on feminism

Post: #10

Take a look at his discussion with Bill Buckley. Buckley comes across as extremely intelligent, Chomsky reminds you of one those know-it-all kiddies at school that would regurgitate talking points like it meant something. This man is king of the SJWs. I'm suprised he doesn't give interviews in pyjamas with a cocoa mug.

Post: #11

(12-04-2015 10:24 AM)Jesus Christ Wrote:  Take a look at his discussion with Bill Buckley. Buckley comes across as extremely intelligent.

Post: #12

(12-01-2015 05:00 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  It's something I have never been able to understand. I've endured this man for well on forty years. He's a fossil the Left wheels out every time they start losing the argument. He's a distinguished speaker and sends SJW's into orgasms. Yet, he's written the introduction to a Holocaust Denial book AND supported the Khmer Rouge. Every word he mutters is treated as Holy Writ by the Left.
I started to think about him again while watching one of the few critical interviews with the old man on Rebel Media. I was amazed, as the interviewer has also talked with Master Roosh and many other interesting people. Here's the interview if you can endure it:



The interviewer starts out by asking leading questions and the Chomster responds by changing the subject. This bizarre discussion rambles on for a good half hour. At one point the interviewer, asks Chomsky if he even understands the definition of "dissident". Chomsky gets irritated because he doesn't!
However, this interview isn't half as strange as the comments. The bulk of them are on the level of "You're big poopy head!" to the interviewer because he has made their guru look bad.
The next time someone goes into a trance over Chomsky, ask them if they can explain his philosophy. Because I have yet to find one.

Chomsky is a complete moron.

I went to a movie about him with some friends once and left after 10 minutes and went to a bar to pick up chicks. The stupidest drunk slut in that bar had more intelligence than Chomsky.

Post: #13

Not sure why the OP associates Chomsky with the left. He has more in common with Pat Buchanan than anyone on the left. The reason why the left mentions him is because of his 100% correct stance on calling out Neocon policies and the Israeli lobbyist machine. For awhile after the Iraq war the academic left aligned with Chomsky on several issues.

However, Chomsky is not a darling of the left by any means. The SJW left doesn't like him because he doesn't toe the liberal mainstream media line on most issues and cuckservatives absolutely loathe him.

Post: #14

(12-04-2015 04:09 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 10:24 AM)Jesus Christ Wrote:  Take a look at his discussion with Bill Buckley. Buckley comes across as extremely intelligent.

Buckley had curious mannerisms, but the man was a genius. Great respect for him.

Post: #15

(12-04-2015 09:20 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Not sure why the OP associates Chomsky with the left. He has more in common with Pat Buchanan than anyone on the left. The reason why the left mentions him is because of his 100% correct stance on calling out Neocon policies and the Israeli lobbyist machine. For awhile after the Iraq war the academic left aligned with Chomsky on several issues.

However, Chomsky is not a darling of the left by any means. The SJW left doesn't like him because he doesn't toe the liberal mainstream media line on most issues and cuckservatives absolutely loathe him.

Chomsky explicitly favors workers owning the means of production. There can be no doubt that he is a far leftist.

Chomsky has an incredible command over the facts of the 20th century. His highly informed, clear and straight to the point style makes his work perfect to introduce people to how the ultra-rich establishment has been running the world and involving itself in foreign governments over the past 70+ years. I don't know if that banned poster above was just trolling, but the Buckley debate is definitely worth a watch, Chomsky makes the man look like a fool. He's also incredibly principled. He famously defended the rights of a prominent French holocaust denier. Imagine a darling of the left taking such a principled, impolitic stance today.

Post: #16

^^^

Great point.

To be honest, Chomsky is in a class by himself. He's "left" in the sense that he opposes the establishment, but on the other hand, he opposes all forms of indoctrination and thought control.

So, as I see it, he has more in common with the Enlightenment traditions of the eighteenth century (belief in Reason, belief in individual responsibility, belief in the responsibility of intellectuals, belief in the progress of mankind) than he has with anything in the modern era.

As I said earlier, I don't find his political philosophy (anarcho-syndicalism) to be realistic or desirable.

But as a critic of state power, he serves a very important function.

There's really no one out there like him.

Post: #17

Has Chomsky ever described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? I was unaware he's ever tried to formulate any kind of political philosphy.

Post: #18

I was in Cambridge visiting a friend and actually asked Noam Chomsky a question.

That place is filled with a vast number of people who are smarter than dirt. The night I was there there was a choice of a Harvard astronomer explaining the Big Bang theory or Chomsky holding a talk on I don't remember what exactly.

The lecture was in a plain classroom, and somehow the subject of Cuba came up. I think I asked something like why were we bothering to boycott Cuba when we were in bed with all sorts of other monsters. I thought it was due to Republicans wanting to win Florida in the presidential elections, but he said it was because there were all sorts of bureaucrats in the USA , even at that time (1990s) who just personally resented the hell out of Castro for not kowtowing to the USA. It was a personal vendetta thing according to him.

I am not knowledgeable enough at all to offer an opinion.

Post: #19

(12-07-2015 12:28 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Has Chomsky ever described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? I was unaware he's ever tried to formulate any kind of political philosphy.

Yes, he has. I've read a number of his books a while back. And I've also read many of his interviews.

You can verify it pretty quickly by doing some Google searches, I would imagine.

Post: #20

Confusion about his affiliations with the Left also comes down to the Left changing positions, so it depends which 'Left'- which period of time. The American Left is no longer anti-establishment, anti-state power- they desire more and more state power, more supervision, more thought and speech police, and want the state to have more control- so long as they agree with the position.

The topic reminded me of article from Reason Magazine from 2001, an interview with Christopher Hitchens wherein he talks about the changes on the Left. (and an interesting part on how some basic assumptions regarding Marx are still misunderstood)

Reason - Free Radical

Quote:...In my memory, the demand of the student radical was for the university to stop behaving as if it was my parent, in loco parentis. They pretend they’re your family, which is exactly what we’ve come here to get away from. We don’t want the dean telling us what we can smoke or who we can sleep with or what we can wear, or anything of this sort. That was a very important part of the ’60s.

Now you go to campus and student activists are continuously demanding more supervision, of themselves and of others, in order to assure proper behavior and in order to ensure that nobody gets upset. I think that’s the measure of what I mean.

...But there is no such thing as a radical left anymore. It's hopelessly compromised by selling out to Clintonism. It became, under no pressure at all, and with no excuse, and in no danger, a voluntary apologist for abuse of power.

It couldn’t wait to sell out. It didn’t even read the small print or ask how much or act as if it were forced under pressure to do so. I don’t think they’ve realized how that’s changed everything for them. They’re not a left. They’re just another self-interested faction with an attitude toward government and a hope that it can get some of its people in there. That makes it the same as everyone else -- only slightly more hypocritical and slightly more self-righteous.

-------------

...Marx’s original insight about capitalism was that it was the most revolutionary and creative force ever to appear in human history. And though it brought with it enormous attendant dangers, [the revolutionary nature] was the first thing to recognize about it. That is actually what the Manifesto is all about. As far as I know, no better summary of the beauty of capital has ever been written. You sort of know it’s true, and yet it can’t be, because it doesn’t compute in the way we’re taught to think. Any more than it computes, for example, that Marx and Engels thought that America was the great country of freedom and revolution and Russia was the great country of tyranny and backwardness.

But that’s exactly what they did think, and you can still astonish people at dinner parties by saying that. To me it’s as true as knowing my own middle name. Imagine what it is to live in a culture where people’s first instinct when you say it is to laugh. Or to look bewildered. But that’s the nearest I’ve come to stating not just what I believe, but everything I ever have believed, all in one girth.

Post: #21

(12-07-2015 01:03 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:28 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Has Chomsky ever described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? I was unaware he's ever tried to formulate any kind of political philosphy.

Yes, he has. I've read a number of his books a while back. And I've also read many of his interviews.

You can verify it pretty quickly by doing some Google searches, I would imagine.

Took me five seconds:

CHOMSKY: Let me just say I don’t really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I’m a derivative fellow traveler [of anarchism], let’s say. Anarchist thinkers have constantly referred to the American experience and to the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy very very favorably. You know, Jefferson’s concept that the best government is the government than governs least, or Thoreau’s addition to that, that the best government is the one that doesn’t govern at all, is one that’s often repeated by anarchist thinkers through modern times.

However, that interview was from 1976. He seems to change his course ever so often.

Post: #22

In that excerpt you posted, I suspect Chomsky is attempting to either distance himself from being put into the same basket as mainstream anarchist thinkers, or is attempting modesty by not wanting to be considered a 'leader' of anarchist thought.

In the documentary I posted, I recall him saying that he was an anarchist. The interviewer asked him why he thought anarchism hasn't taken hold anywhere, and if he could give an example of how he could see it being implemented. He said that it had taken hold in some communities (without acknowledging they were either extremely high IQ, low time preference, small homogeneous populations, or pre-stone age), and that the reason they haven't caught on is because true anarchism has never been attempted. A "no true Scotsman" argument if you ask me.

However, I think you're splitting hairs at this point. Sometimes people are able to effectively call out a problem without proposing a viable solution. The value of Chomsky is his ability to analyze the levers of power in a democracy, and expose them with clarity and eloquence. His proposed solutions may be naive, but his ability to shed light on the reality of our society is invaluable.

Post: #23

(12-05-2015 10:27 AM)chagataev Wrote:  Chomsky explicitly favors workers owning the means of production. There can be no doubt that he is a far leftist.

You're right but I should have specified that it's the mainstream left which he has little in common with.

Some interesting things about Chomsky is that he's usually way ahead of mainstream public awareness when calling out foreign policy too. I don't think i've ever seen him take on an anti-war cause for purely moralistic reasons but usually there's some actual principle and logic behind his stances on these issues.

He's also called out zionism enough times that the mainstream left and the establishment has tried to tar and feather him with the "self hating jew" moniker several times. Whenever someone is getting attacked with this insult I always try and pay close attention to what they are saying. It's usually something factual that is scary to the establishment AND the mainstream left which is why they don't want you to hear it.

Post: #24

(12-07-2015 12:28 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:03 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:28 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Has Chomsky ever described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? I was unaware he's ever tried to formulate any kind of political philosphy.

Yes, he has. I've read a number of his books a while back. And I've also read many of his interviews.

You can verify it pretty quickly by doing some Google searches, I would imagine.

Took me five seconds:

CHOMSKY: Let me just say I don’t really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I’m a derivative fellow traveler [of anarchism], let’s say. Anarchist thinkers have constantly referred to the American experience and to the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy very very favorably. You know, Jefferson’s concept that the best government is the government than governs least, or Thoreau’s addition to that, that the best government is the one that doesn’t govern at all, is one that’s often repeated by anarchist thinkers through modern times.

However, that interview was from 1976. He seems to change his course ever so often.

There is a Wikipedia entry entitled "Political Positions of Noam Chomsky". Here it is, and it clearly states what his orientation is. You can look it up, but here it is:


Political positions of Noam Chomsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Noam Chomsky is a widely known intellectual, political activist, and critic of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism, and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left-wing of US politics.[1]

Post: #25

(12-04-2015 09:05 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 05:00 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  It's something I have never been able to understand. I've endured this man for well on forty years. He's a fossil the Left wheels out every time they start losing the argument. He's a distinguished speaker and sends SJW's into orgasms. Yet, he's written the introduction to a Holocaust Denial book AND supported the Khmer Rouge. Every word he mutters is treated as Holy Writ by the Left.
I started to think about him again while watching one of the few critical interviews with the old man on Rebel Media. I was amazed, as the interviewer has also talked with Master Roosh and many other interesting people. Here's the interview if you can endure it:



The interviewer starts out by asking leading questions and the Chomster responds by changing the subject. This bizarre discussion rambles on for a good half hour. At one point the interviewer, asks Chomsky if he even understands the definition of "dissident". Chomsky gets irritated because he doesn't!
However, this interview isn't half as strange as the comments. The bulk of them are on the level of "You're big poopy head!" to the interviewer because he has made their guru look bad.
The next time someone goes into a trance over Chomsky, ask them if they can explain his philosophy. Because I have yet to find one.

Chomsky is a complete moron.

I went to a movie about him with some friends once and left after 10 minutes and went to a bar to pick up chicks. The stupidest drunk slut in that bar had more intelligence than Chomsky.

+1
That video with him and Ezra Levant is well worth watching. I have followed Chomsky for decades. Chomsky is very pro free speech, when it is the "right free speech." He will just repeat himself over and over again in a dull monotone voice, until his opponent gets tired of him and moves on.

Chomsky is an interesting political animal...because he is responsible for much of the rise of the left in academia, yet claims to hate totalitarian thought and group think. He is the master of having it both ways, and has profited handsomely.

One of Chomky's most honest books on his political position is: "Understanding Power." This book was published in 2002, so it should be widely available in libraries.

On another note... his documentary of "Manufacturing Consent" is still worth watching. It was made in 1989... and he took a more critical look at how the media worked (and still works).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj1DR0FZ...F97849612A