Noam Chomsky and the Manufacturing of American Dissent: 2 videos

[Paul Rigby]

Paul - fundamentally you seem to believe that differences of interpretation are the result of malign influences.

Fundamentally, John, er, no. But I do so admire ad homs, they're so much more interesting than stuff like evidence. Which, I have to say, you're very wise to avoid.

Yes, difference of opinions are to be expected and it should not be assumed that they are the result of CIA meddling.

A generality of quite surpassing banality. I thank you for it.

Some of the opinions expressed about Chomsky in this thread are reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy who saw communists everywhere.

Copyright Leslie A. Fiedler, circa 1955. Always nice to Encounter a blast from the passe.

I do not believe that there is a CIA agent under every bed, and do not believe that they are influencing every opinion that I do not agree with.

Nor do I. Nor, I suspect, does any sane individual. But as a straw man, it does, I suppose, have a crass kind of utility.

George Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" mentality should not be the criteria against which a writer's opinion should be evaluated. Many board member would no doubt agree with many of his views regarding US foreign policy and other issues relating to corporate power, so let's not write him off and label him just because he does not care about conspiracy theories.

Revisit the above paragraph, it makes no sense. I assume the second half refers to Chomsky, not Bush, but that's only a guess.

Paul

[Mark Stapleton]

[quote=Dawn Meredith]"Who cares?"

The perfect - only - fitting epitaph for his career, Dawn, a career of deception and deceit in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A career based on deception? This man has written more than most about US imperialism, corporate deception, and the facade of US foreign policy. He has spent a lifetime exposing, writing and speaking about the excesses of corporate power and the lies told by the American corporate media. Yet he disagrees with the conclusions of conspiracy theorists; this does not make him a "left gate-keeper" or any other label you wish to attach to him. He has a difference of opinion, and that is all there is to it.

John

Yeah right.

So when Chomsky says to an audience of 9/11 researchers 'who cares', that's perfectly understandable. We'll forgive the great man this minor and trivial indulgence, shall we? The fact that 9/11, along with Dealey Plaza, were the most significant and history changing deep political events in our lifetime is a mere bagatelle, right John? Just because he refuses to criticise Israel or recognise the Zionist regime's malicious influence over the US and other western countries is nothing to be worried about. He's just a little myopic, shall we say?

I know its a little off topic, but what's your opinion of Israel, John?

[Mark Stapleton]

Jan:

I agree. Chomsky may not care about the Kennedy assassination and he must have his own reason for doing so.

He certainly does---he's a committed Zionist. Which means he cares more about Zionism than JFK or 9/11, and like all his fellow Zionist travellers, he doesn't care a rat's ass about America.

[Mark Stapleton]

Some of the opinions expressed about Chomsky in this thread are reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy who saw communists everywhere. I do not believe that there is a CIA agent under every bed, and do not believe that they are influencing every opinion that I do not agree with.


John

The McCarthyist defence, modified to accomodate Zionists, without the guts to mention them by name.

No soap. I don't know of any victims of McCarthyism who exercised total control over US foreign policy and the US media, not to mention possession of a massive stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Chomsky was and is a dangerous Zionist tool who has done more harm than good to our understanding of modern history. Vile excrement. The antithesis of a great American.

[John Kowalski]

[quote=John Kowalski]Paul - fundamentally you seem to believe that differences of interpretation are the result of malign influences.

Fundamentally, John, er, no. But I do so admire ad homs, they're so much more interesting than stuff like evidence. Which, I have to say, you're very wise to avoid.

The perfect - only - fitting epitaph for his career, Dawn, a career of deception and deceit in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Paul:

What is your evidence that he is a CIA asset? You know this for sure? When you reply, provide evidence. The fact that he disagrees with JFK or 9/11 conspiracy theories is not evidence that he is working for the CIA. Provide concrete evidence: a document, testimony, anything that proves that he is trying to influence conspiracy opinion on behalf of the CIA, the government or any other organization.

John

[John Kowalski]

George Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" mentality should not be the criteria against which a writer's opinion should be evaluated. Many board member would no doubt agree with many of his views regarding US foreign policy and other issues relating to corporate power, so let's not write him off and label him just because he does not care about conspiracy theories.

Revisit the above paragraph, it makes no sense. I assume the second half refers to Chomsky, not Bush, but that's only a guess.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Paul:

I compared your comments regarding Chomsky to Bush's statement because Bush’s statement puts a label on anyone who disagrees with him. If you disagree with Bush, you are terrorist, if someone disagrees with you, they are a CIA asset.

John

[John Kowalski]

[quote=Dawn Meredith]"Who cares?"

The perfect - only - fitting epitaph for his career, Dawn, a career of deception and deceit in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A career based on deception? This man has written more than most about US imperialism, corporate deception, and the facade of US foreign policy. He has spent a lifetime exposing, writing and speaking about the excesses of corporate power and the lies told by the American corporate media. Yet he disagrees with the conclusions of conspiracy theorists; this does not make him a "left gate-keeper" or any other label you wish to attach to him. He has a difference of opinion, and that is all there is to it.

John

Yeah right.

So when Chomsky says to an audience of 9/11 researchers 'who cares', that's perfectly understandable. We'll forgive the great man this minor and trivial indulgence, shall we? The fact that 9/11, along with Dealey Plaza, were the most significant and history changing deep political events in our lifetime is a mere bagatelle, right John? Just because he refuses to criticise Israel or recognise the Zionist regime's malicious influence over the US and other western countries is nothing to be worried about. He's just a little myopic, shall we say?

I know its a little off topic, but what's your opinion of Israel, John?

Mark:

The problem with Chomsky is that he is a celebrity of sorts and his opinion, even when wrong, will unfortunately influence people. That is unfortunate for people like us on this board who want the conspirators in the Kennedy assassination exposed, for all Americans and the world to see. However, I will not disparage a man like Chomsky who has done so much in providing the public with an alternative point of view, than that which is offered by the corporate controlled media.


Regarding Israel, it is off topic and does not belong here.


John

[Mark Stapleton]

Regarding Israel, it is off topic and does not belong here.


John

Israel is not off topic. Gets your facts straight please. My request for your opinion re Israel was beyond the scope of the thread and you are entitled to refuse that request, just as I am entitled to draw my own conclusions from that refusal--which I have.

Israel is definitely part of this topic as Chomsky's love for Zionism, introduced into the thread in an earlier post by Paul, explains his disinterest in the truth behind 9/11 and JFK.

In future, don't try telling me black is white.

[Paul Rigby]

So when Chomsky says to an audience of 9/11 researchers 'who cares', that's perfectly understandable. We'll forgive the great man this minor and trivial indulgence, shall we? The fact that 9/11, along with Dealey Plaza, were the most significant and history changing deep political events in our lifetime is a mere bagatelle, right John? Just because he refuses to criticise Israel or recognise the Zionist regime's malicious influence over the US and other western countries is nothing to be worried about. He's just a little myopic...

I say, sir, well put. There is, of course, a smidgeon of that indispensable aid to digestion, critique Zionist, but only as a light and deceptive topping.

[Paul Rigby]

Provide concrete evidence: a document, testimony, anything that proves that he is trying to influence conspiracy opinion on behalf of the CIA, the government or any other organization.

Would you like the forthcoming signed confession mailed or scanned? These shifty CIA intellectual secret policeman give them out like confetti, you know.

Time for a timely little reminder of what a ridiculous shill for the US Establishment the Gnome is.

The Fiction of Continuity

In Rethinking Camelot, Chomsky advances the bizarre claim that LBJ’s accession saw continuity, not rupture, with Kennedy’s Vietnam policies. This nonsense is a “truth” which manifestly eluded observers in late 1963, not least those writing in the pages of the New York Times. On the morning following his murder in Dallas, the NYT ran a lengthy piece entitled “Death Came as Kennedy Sought to Shape a New Foreign Policy…”(1). A month later, Defense Secretary McNamara travelled to Saigon to deliver the military junta a “message” that “in effect…eliminated the previously announced goal of withdrawing” US military advisers “by the end of 1965” (2)

(1) NYT, November 23, 1963, p.15.

(2) Hedrick Smith, “U.S. Drops Plans for 1965 Recall of Vietnam Force,” NYT, December 21, 1963, pp.1&5.

One could go on, but you get the drift.