28
29

Meet Noam Chomsky, academic gatekeeper (youtu.be)

an_outstanding_user が 投稿

全 11 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]qwerty_asd 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

I know Noam Chomsky doesn't endorse the most popular conspiracy theories, but anyone who has read/listened to the man beyond a few clips like this must see that he is legit. He's a full time friend of the people and enemy of the powers that be.

Just listen to some of his talks from 10+ years ago. No one else more clearly lays out the modern structures of propaganda and control. If anything, I believe Noam demonstrates how to intelligently and respectably discredit established power in the world today.

This video is a collection of cherry-picked clips to turn /r/conspiracy type people off to Noam. Please listen to a random selection of his talks with an open mind and make your own judgement of the man. Not every one of our allies in the fight against the powers that be is an outspoken 9/11 truther.

[–]an_outstanding_user[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

(I copy paste this from another thread:)

I can tell you, he doesn't believe the official narrative, he's intelligent and curious enough to inform himself.

I could understand how he decided to not defend and disagree against JFK narrative, he was young and not so important, he had much to loose, even his life, if they killed the president and dozens of witnesses had "accidents".

But, now he's old, rich, with reputation and nothing to loose, things have changed.

OK, don't do anything. But you don't attack those who try to make the truth and the culprits public. He even used the same manipulation and ridiculization tactics he denounced in his books against msm.

When you talk to old people, most of them are reckless, they don't give a fuck about impressions, they say whatever they want, even if it's rude. He decides he wants to keep appearances, how revolutionary

When you talk to any anarchist, any, will tell you JFK and 9/11, the most known false flags, are lies. But what a coincidence, the only anarchist allowed in msm ever, agrees with the government

Take down your pedestals and idols. There are many better and integral journalists, writers and political analysts, none will appear in tv, WSJ, NYT...

He has become antiquated too, in the sense that he knows nothing about new alternatives that could make obsolete and replace the government/msm. He even has to get all his reading material printed (maybe because of his sight too). He knows nothing about internet manipulation tactics (the new press manipulation he wrote about), or about possible new alternatives like electronic democracy, cryptoanarchism, free markets like openbazaar, programmable money (like bitcoin) that could replace the petrodollar economy...

If I were in his shoes, and I wanted people to think about me in the future, I would be outspoken about conspiracies, tell the truth no matter the consequences in the short term. "In an age of deception, truth is the most revolutionary act"

I imagine the people the future thinking how gullible we were believing all those false flags to enter wars, like we would think of Nero burning down Rome and accusing the Christians

But he would stand as a rational person in the literature from this era against the powers that shouldn't be, instead of covering their lies

I recommend you the movie "shadowring" from freemindfilms

[–]qwerty_asd 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Let's try to see eye to eye here. We are both free thinking people who agree that we are systematically lied to about hugely important historical and current events. We agree that the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 are total bullshit, and the people who are truly guilty of these crimes have gone unpunished.

So I'll take the time now to defend my support of Noam Chomsky. First, please don't judge him as he is now. He's an old man now and it shows. The Noam Chomsky I am advocating for has already finished his work.

It took a bit of searching to find, but please give this a listen: Noam Chomsky - Necessary Illusions, Thought Control in Democratic Societies. It's a set of talks from 1988 which breaks down the mechanisms of propaganda so clearly. If you have an open mind, I would so strongly encourage that you give it a listen.

He was never a mass media fixture--in fact quite the opposite. All his videos are talks given in auditoriums posted to youtube with only a few thousand views. The lecture I link to above includes a talk which is the sharpest discrediting of the major American newspapers I have ever come across.

I agree that he is not relevant when it comes to the internet and everything born of it, but I don't look to people born in the 1920's for such insights.

So why do I care so much to defend the man if he is antiquated and has nothing more give in the fight against the powers that be? I care because his words from decades ago include the most damning rock-solid analysis of established power in our world. He has hours of recorded interviews and lectures where he starts with the assumptions such as:

  • The USA is not a Free Society
  • All modern American presidents are war criminals
  • Israel and the US are rouge terrorist states

then expands on this worldview. I care to defend Noam Chomsky because his old analysis of systems of power and control in our society is too valuable to be ignored. His work is from a time before the internet, but it not totally irrelevant. The Powers that Be from 30 years ago are still The Powers that Be, and understanding the methods of controlling society back then could be a tremendous source of insight into the methods of controlling society that we are combatting in the internet age.

I'm bothering to write this because this is a huge forum of people who know we are fed propaganda by the spoonful and are hungry for truth and change. As a long time redditor of /r/conspiracy, I'm begging you guys to listen to the series of talks I link to above in this post before judging Noam as shill.

tl:dr; Whether or not you trust and respect Noam Chomsky, he is arguably the most prolific anti-establishment author and speaker of the last century. For free thinkers who oppose the Powers that Be, it would be foolish to write off such a person without giving him a fair chance.

[–]hashmon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

All that, but he's spent his career lying through his teeth about the JFK assassination and who JFK was. He then subsequently mislead people about 9/11. These subject haven't been back burner issues for Chomsky; he brings them up to knock them down all the time. In the case of JFK, he's just blatantly lying. Read James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and why it Matters." Chomsky says JFK was a standard Cold War hawk who the establishment would have had no reason to kill. Bald-faced LIE.

Also check out Chomsky's extremely sketchy linguistics career, which was funded by the Pentagon early on. This article nails it. Seriously worth reading if you want to understand who Chomsky is:

https://libcom.org/history/noam-chomsky-politics-or-science

I don't trust Chomsky; I think he's working for the other side. Of course 90% of what he says is true, otherwise he wouldn't get cred on the left. His job imo was to infiltrate the left and control its discourse.

[–]qwerty_asd [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Throughout everything I've heard from Chomsky, I've never heard him perpetuate the official 9/11 and JFK stories except when specifically asked about the subjects.

Aside from brushing off the most popular smoking guns conspiracy subjects, I have every reason to believe he is on our side. I'm a broken record here, but please try to give the long radio show I link to above a listen with an open mind. He does more in those talks to discredit the US media and expose the truth of US military actions than any 9/11 truth documentary.

[–]parakeetsuite 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well said. Like I replied below, most people on this sub don't realize that Chomsky has taken positions far more controversial and against the powers that be than being a 911 truther. Some of his writings on US foreign policy throughout the 20th century and capitalism/corporatism in general are absolutely scathing. He's clearly not a gatekeeper, or afraid of taking a controversial stance on issues. Too many so called "open minded" folks on this sub don't seem to like to listen to anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, even when it's someone as distinguished of a political dissident as Noam Chomsky.

[–]qwerty_asd [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thanks dude. The 2 topics I've argued repeatedly about on /r/conspiracy despite popular disagreement are the Moon Landing and Noam Chomsky.

I wasted a lot of time arguing in favor of skepticism regarding the Apollo missions. Every time, the top replies were the same nonsense. "The Russians would have called us out." Attempts to continue my argument consistently ended in threads of middle-school caliber personal attacks on my intelligence, "Were you dropped on your head as a child? Sorry you don't believe in science, you can see the landing sites through a telescope."

I think I will give up on defending Noam Chomsky here too if these posts go the same way they always do. No matter what I say, redditors here disregard everything I write because they saw a 5 minute clip of Noam saying it is absurd that 9/11 was an inside job.

While it's so good to get the odd comment from someone like you who has actually taken in Noam's criticisms of US foreign policy, I think it would be wise for me to stop wasting my time contributing here. It seems I can't impact a single person's mind on this forum. Whether people agree or disagree with me, it's never a meaningful discussion.

I should try to take some advice I've heard from Noam repeatedly, and focus on uniting the people immediately around me. While internet forums with millions of readers are no place for serious discussion, the people I talk to in real life are much more open to actual discussion. I suppose I don't blame people for disregarding the writings of old faceless /u/qwerty_asd.

[–]lucycohen 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If he speaks out against 9/11 he'll be dead within the week, and he knows that

[–]parakeetsuite 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or, it's possible that 911 wasn't a full fledged false flag and that the US government simply facilitated/allowed it to happen easier because of all the resulting benefits. In fact, if you've read Chomsky's material, you'd find that he has taken positions that are far, far more controversial and against the powers that be than being a 911 conspiracy theorist. It's clearly not about keeping quiet for protection.

[–]hashmon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Definitely not far far more controversial than 9/11, which is the ultimate controversy. If people knew 9/11 was an inside job, that would flip the paradigm and potentially spur a revolution. What Chomsky's saying does not.

[–]parakeetsuite [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe "far, far" was a little much, but some of the things he has said are extremely controversial. Like saying that Reagan was an "extreme racist" who created the drug war as a sole means of keeping the black male population "enslaved," or saying that if the US was going to bomb oppressive regimes in the middle east, why don't they bomb Israel? Or that all of the US covert endeavors in Latin America and the far East were primarily to prevent socialist libertarian movements from gaining ground and support and eventually making those places un-ideal for US corporate exploitation, or even spreading to the US.

I think part of it comes from him being an academic, that even though he may have a hunch about something, he never makes claims without cold hard evidence, usually released in government records that no one else has the time to examine. He never writes or speaks about things that might not be true, which is the nature of a conspiracy. In other words, if a shred of real evidence saying 911 was orchestrated by the Bush administration, released by the US government, came out in the future that remained relatively well hidden, Chomsky would be the first to write about it.