Chomsky talking about ron paul (new video)

[Conza88]

Hard for me to listen to all this Chomsky hate from my fellow Paul supporters and not chime in. I consider both Paul and Chomsky to be my two major political influences (they are the ones who continue to fuel my fire, so to speak). Those who are dismissive of Chomsky should really give him an honest chance. Watch/read Manufacturing Consent or check out his debates on YouTube (like the one with William Buckley). I don't know how anyone could not have a ton of respect for people like Chomsky, Zinn, Paul, etc. They have been fighting for the people and against establishment for so long and all worthy of high praise in my mind.

I literally came from Chomsky's side. I found out about Ron Paul whilst watching a Chomsky video on youtube, someone had spammed "Ron Paul: America's last hope".

I have written Noam Chomsky a letter, and he responded.

He is economically ignorant to a massive extend. I respect those who are intellectually honest and open to reason. He is not in this regard, and as such - gets none.


And yes, Chomsky is a statist, see: Conflation of Political and Economic Power Leads to Statism

• “Regardless of any anarchist posturing or antiauthoritarian pretensions to the contrary, the equation of economic and political power, and the belief that hierarchical business enterprises are “private tyrannies” leads directly to the support of statism, and here Chomsky is no exception. In a revealing passage, the “anarchist” Chomsky[11] states,
  
  
  
  I’m not in favor of people being in cages. On the other hand I think people ought to be in cages if there’s a saber-toothed tiger wandering around outside and if they go out of the cage the saber-toothed tiger will kill them. So sometimes there’s a justification for cages. That doesn’t mean cages are good things. State power is a good example of a necessary cage. There are saber-toothed tigers outside; they are called transnational corporations which are among the most tyrannical totalitarian institutions that human society has devised. And there is a cage, namely the state, which to some extent is under popular control. The cage is protecting people from predatory tyrannies so there is a temporary need to maintain the cage, and even to extend the cage.[12]
  
  ​
  It is especially revealing to note that Chomsky does not state who is to hold the keys to his allegorical cage. However, despite his silence on this issue, the answer is clear enough — for if he allowed those people allegedly being protected by the cage to hold the keys, he would have to admit their ability to leave the cage and to choose to deal with the saber-toothed tiger, which he clearly does not. Only the philosophy of free-market capitalism allows a person to leave the cage of government if he wishes — if he sees the supposedly dangerous saber-toothed tiger as benign, he may let himself out to pet it and play with it.”
  

 

[SurfsUp]

NOAM is another israel firster and fuck america for israel loser. He deserves to be thrown into a slam dance pit back in the 80s. haha

 

[wsc321]

I literally came from Chomsky's side. I found out about Ron Paul whilst watching a Chomsky video on youtube, someone had spammed "Ron Paul: America's last hope"...

Appreciate your postings on Chomsky. This is timely for me, as I just finished watching "Manufacturing Consent" this morning. I thought the film was a net positive. Thought provoking. Chomsky may wildly disagree with the solutions our movement would support, but the fact that he critiques the media machine the way his does is a good thing, and an obvious overlapping interest.

I also thought the brief clips of his debate with William F. Buckley made Buckley look like a shill for the government. Buckley sounded like Bill O'Reilly in suggesting those who question their government's policies or storyline "hate their country".

 

[Epic]

http://mises.org/daily/1132

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If a doctor tells a dying man he won't help him without an insurance card, he shouldn't be a doctor IMO.

 

[Travlyr]

People have such a hard time with honesty and truth. It is too bad and sad.

 

[Marky]

NOAM is another israel firster and fuck america for israel loser. He deserves to be thrown into a slam dance pit back in the 80s. haha

He’s been pretty critical of Zionism. I think you might be mistaken on his views on that issue.

 

[impaleddead]

Cognitive dissonance much, Noam?

I know right? He already knows Paul is right and he doesn't even know it.

 

[onlyrp]

Appreciate your postings on Chomsky. This is timely for me, as I just finished watching "Manufacturing Consent" this morning. I thought the film was a net positive. Thought provoking. Chomsky may wildly disagree with the solutions our movement would support, but the fact that he critiques the media machine the way his does is a good thing, and an obvious overlapping interest.

I also thought the brief clips of his debate with William F. Buckley made Buckley look like a shill for the government. Buckley sounded like Bill O'Reilly in suggesting those who question their government's policies or storyline "hate their country".

It's a good film to watch, because the book is incredibly boring.

 

[onlyrp]

He’s been pretty critical of Zionism. I think you might be mistaken on his views on that issue.

yeah, seriously. There's only 2 intellectual Jews in this world that are not Zionists, Chomsky and Finkelstein. It's become common cliche.

 

[milo10]

One of the posts in that thread was so good that I am quoting it intact:

Chomsky rhetoric is to shift the blame of Zionist action to the United States as IF the problem is that U.S. is "ordering" Israel as if Israel is a "proxy" of "U.S." hegemony when if fact Zionism is an INTERNATIONAL movement. It is NOT "U.S. policy that is being implemented in the Middle East. It is ZIONIST policy that is being implement THROUGH the U.S. political economy. This is a much different analysis and one that Chomsky suppresses. The harshness in Chomsky tone has more to do with the timing of his presentation being in 2007 -- one year AFTER the Israel Lobby revelations by Mershiemer and Walt which Chomsky himself REFUTED. Chomsky then put out a hastily written book, Failed States to reaffirm that Israel is taking order from the United States in order to divert attention away from Mershiemer and Walt contention that there is an pro-Israel lobby operating in the United States that dominates U.S. foreign policy and works AGAINST American interests. The analysis by Mershiemer and Walt totally CONTRADICTS the Chomskyite narrative. It made Chomsky look like an APOLOGIST (which he is) for Zionism.

Chomsky is a master propagandist and a master of deception. In 2004 he supported pro-Israel warmonger Democrat John Kerry over the anti-war candidate and their third party run of Ralph Nader which would have provided a credible opportunity for the Left to contest against the Democrats. Chomsky and his late "junior partner" Howard Zinn supported Kerry under the disguise of "anybody but Bush". This deliberate political sabotage totally regressed the political Left in the United States but what it did do was to weaken the opposition to such a degree that it created a huge political vacuum for Obama to fill.

 

[cartemj06]

Noam chomsky is much better at smelling bad eggs than laying good ones.

 

[green73]

What a stooge. It's guys like this that go far. The establishment finds them and fosters them along.

 

[CUnknown]

I love Chomsky. He's one of my favorite dissident voices out there and I think he's brilliant.

But he just doesn't get this movement at all. He simply doesn't understand it. If he thinks RP's policies are off the wall, what does that make Obama's policies of assassination / endless war?? I think that is where the real savagery is, it doesn't come from the government leaving us alone.

He's sort of a brilliant relic who doesn't get the youth and why we want what we want.

 

[fightfortherepublic]

What always amazes me about critics is when they say that Ron wants people to die or he'll leave them out in the streets or the free market absolutely can't take care of them and government needs to intervene.

It seems as if they have lost faith in people. I just wish Ron would say that. "Don't lose faith in people.. Because eventually they do the right thing"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Refuted Chomskys previous bs here. This time - 0 references to the actual principles.

Strawman with the medical healthcare question.

I am reminded of a talk given by Frank Chodorov many decades ago. Chodorov was being very critical of government welfare programs in general, and was asked by a listener: “but what will happen to sick, elderly people?” Chodorov replied: “they’ll be left to die in the streets the way they used to.” The listener retorted: “when did that ever take place?,” to which Chodorov answered: “exactly."
— Butler Shaffer

+rep

 

[pacelli]

In Chomsky's argument.... substitute the words, "free person" for "uninsured" and for the most part you will have no problem refuting it.


Chomsky is an amateur.

Saw him speak live in 2000. Half the room was asleep.

 

[ericthethe]

I respect Chomsky very much and always enjoy hearing what he has to say. I even wrote a report for an English class about propaganda and those who expose it (primarily focused on Chomsky) and got an A.

He and Dr. Paul are both libertarians. However, Chomsky doesn't support anarchy or a complete lack of state. He looks more at examining authoritarian structures and dismantling those that have unjustifiable power. He's a libertarian socialist so he believes in some sort of state function for basic needs. He thinks the people should have direct democratic control over these institutions and not giant corporations or government bureaucracies.

Sometimes he does use words that aren't the best description. I think calling a lack of socialized healthcare "savagery" may be overdoing it (he uses this word a lot to describe things he disagrees with). He probably disagrees with Paul's justification for a lack of healthcare. Paul argues that churches and charities will comes to the aid of those in need, correct? Chomsky would probably argue those institutions are not reliable enough to handle something as significant as people's well being.

Honestly, Paul's views are a bit too utopian. He thinks everything will magically work together in a stateless society and people will help others out of their good nature. Isn't this what Karl Marx believed would occur after a proletariat revolution?

 

[VegasPatriot]

I lost any and all respect for Chomsky when he said "who cares" when asked about a possible 9/11 conspiracy and a JFK conspiracy. Who cares? Huh, I do.


http://youtu.be/m7SPm-HFYLo?t=7m9s

 

[specialK]

Yep, he actually is critical of Israel.

Chomsky is a left wing anarchist basically. This is why when it come to capitalism and free markets, he`ll flip. He believes in an anarchist system, European model as he calls it where people work together for common good and where money is no object(no need for money).

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand briefly describes such anarcho-socialist society as she was very familiar with it from Russian politics. Many Russians philosophers were basically the parents of social-anarchism.
When Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden go in that quest to find the high tech engine, they find this village where people didn`t use money and only exchanged stuff among them. Everything was damp and lifeless. That`s the kind of society Chomsky would like to see.

In fact, he was denied entrance into Israel on a fairly recent visit there for being critical of them. Israel denying entrance to a Jew.