| Interview of Barry Zwicker in August 2006. He asserts that Noam Chomsky uses propaganda techniques beginning at 41:03. His longstanding concern is that Chomsky has consistently opposed investigation of various murders - JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11. I do find it bizarre and disturbing that Noam Chomsky says that even if 9/11 were an inside job, which is of course absurd, there are worse crimes of state we should be concentrating on. He never says what those crimes might be. | |
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Sacred Cow Noam Chomsky gored by Barry Zwicker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Glad to see you're keeping this up.
I like your personal statement.
As far as Chomsky, I don't know what to make of him, I haven't spent much time on him. I certainly don't trust him and he's clearly wrong about 9/11.
Chomsky has a loyal following. He uses his influence to sell books and provide a "balancing view" that helps to sell the status quo. He's basically doing everything he can to keep us at war and to support Bush's version of a terrorist attack.
In fact, he's widely cited in Pentagon research. That should tell you something.
Instead of confronting the perpetrators of 9/11 he advocates "neighborhood anarchy" and other ideas that don't go anywhere.
Oh well.
He likes to pick on Israel too. I'm not sure what his good ideas are.
Thanks, Spooked. You're my hero!
I'm not sure about Chomsky, either. He has done great work and is entitled to his opinion. He does tend to support the status quo, as Fred says. For example, his critique of the Kosovo bombings rightly argued that the vast majority of deaths and refugees occurred after the bombing started, but still assumed that the Serbian government were engaged in atrocities rather than police actions against insurgents. Ultimately, he seemed to endorse the rationale for the bombings.
I just thought Zwicker's perspective was interesting, and you don't often hear Saint Noam criticized from his left flank.
Like I said, if he would just specify what those greater crimes are, I would allow him his opinion.
He seems to suggest it is the Iraq war, and ignoring problems like global warming. The former is related to 9/11, and I opposed the war before it started. The latter is hard to call a crime, and if it is, we are all complicit to some degree in not taking action on climate change.
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Berkeley. I have a very shallow view of Chomsky's work on Israel and Palestine, which is that he is critical of Israel, and is called "a self-hating Jew" for that. I realize that the fact of such criticism may have various meanings. I must admit to a shallow understanding of the entire issue, and I lean toward accepting the Israeli view of having their back against the wall, at the same time as being appalled by many things they are doing.
Could you please explain or give an example of Chomsky playing a "gatekeeper" role? Thank you.
Chomsky is a very intelligent person and he knows exactly what he is doing.
It doesn't matter how "correct" what a person says might be, if what he says does not lead to correct, timely and effective action.
Chomsky is trying to avoid just that - ACTION.
Barry is right, the guy is more dangerous than a military division, since he is putting to sleep not the minds of regular sheeple but people who are actively seeking the truth.
So, they get defited while thinking they have acquired something useful.
Its a shame that such a distinguished scolar is using his talant for such a low purpose.
I thought the interview was excellent. Chomsky's insidious role certainly extends to Australia. To quote Australian left gatekeeper Phillip Adams in a letter to an Australian 9/11 Truth seeker:
"Kim,you're in bed with some very sad and silly people if you really believe that 9/11 was a put up job.....my connections with political sceptics in the US- from Chomsky to Hitchens - and to umpteen pf the world's top scientists, investigative journalists and sundry enemies of the Bush administration is probably unrivalled by anyone in this country...and they ALL agree that this stuff is, yes, nuts ..."
In the 1990's he pronounced Jim Garrison a fraud and Oliver Stone who made the movie "JFK" a dupe of Garrison.
I can only assume that he got that from Chomsky.
Unfortunately I largely accepted Adams' word on Stone's movie until very recently.
I asked him to substantiate his claim about Garrison and Stone and if Chomsky had told him that Garrison was a fraud in an e-mail over a day ago and am awaiting his answer.
Post a Comment