Do you guys agree with Chomsky?

[AmericaFyeah92]

I don't mean in general, I mean this quote specifically...


"MF: Was that more about some form of academic freedom than artistic freedom? Are they more or less the same thing?

NC: There are always attacks on academic freedom, but I think it’s better protected now than it has been in the past. There is repression and [there are] bad things that happen, but if you look over time it’s nothing like what it’s been in the past. I mean, take surveillance, let’s say, bad thing. What was in the ’60s? The FBI was all over the place, the Army had surveillance systems, the CIA had surveillance, way more than what it is now. Now you can do things with electronic surveillance, OK, big deal. I was active in the resistance and took for granted that the phone was probably tapped, but it never constrained us. If you had to do something that you didn’t want the FBI to hear, you did it privately. Everybody knew that whatever group you were in was infiltrated, and you could usually guess who the infiltrators were, but if you wanted to do something serious, say help a deserter, you did it with an affinity group. If you think about repression, as bad as it may be today, it doesn’t even come close to COINTELPRO. That was running through four administrations—mainly Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, where it was stopped—and it went all the way to political assassination. Is that happening now?

MF: Depends on who you ask, I guess.

NC: And [Woodrow] Wilson’s Red Scare made it all look tame. So, sure, bad things are happening, but we shouldn’t exaggerate. There have been a lot of gains."

[Vessol]

The fact that Chompsky refused to support Ron Paul, even though he was the only candidate that spoke about actuality ending the foreign wars abroad that Chompsky himself has railed against is proof enough to the fact that the man is a complete fraud and a sellout who is all talk and no action.

[Kludge]

The fact that Chompsky refused to support Ron Paul, even though he was the only candidate that spoke about actuality ending the foreign wars abroad that Chompsky himself has railed against is proof enough to the fact that the man is a complete fraud and a sellout who is all talk and no action.

Read the first sentence of the OP?

[QueenB4Liberty]

I agree with that quote.

[Vessol]

Sorry..was debating someone on Chompsky lately.

As for the quote, no I don't really agree with it. I think the surveillance and loss of liberty has only increased more so then back in the 60's. The government has refined it's techniques.

I'd like to hear what kind of "gains" we've made, as far as I'm concerned, Chompsky sold out years ago to the Corporate Military Industry.

[freshjiva]

I am in complete agreement with that quote by Chomsky, and I think Ron Paul would be too.

Even though I disagree with Chomsky's solutions, I do like to listen to what he has to say. Besides, anyone who is anti-State, like Chomsky, is an ally to the Liberty movement. We share more things in common with Chomsky's anarcho-socialist ideas than not.

[jake]

if something akin to COINTELPRO was running RIGHT NOW, would it not be a secret? that's the whole purpose of such an operation, no? so unless Mr. Chomsky can prove his assertions I see no reason to believe "there have been a lot of gains"

[silus]

The fact that Chompsky refused to support Ron Paul, even though he was the only candidate that spoke about actuality ending the foreign wars abroad that Chompsky himself has railed against is proof enough to the fact that the man is a complete fraud and a sellout who is all talk and no action.
He wasn't the only candidate that spoke about ending those wars. And not supporting Ron Paul does not make you a fraud... You need to rethink your McCarthyist mentality.

[AmericaFyeah92]

But I don't think Presidential administrations openly declared the right to torture captured prisoners or assassinate American citizens in the 1960's...or even during the worst parts of Wilson's reign.

[Vessol]

I am in complete agreement with that quote by Chomsky, and I think Ron Paul would be too.

Even though I disagree with Chomsky's solutions, I do like to listen to what he has to say. Besides, anyone who is anti-State, like Chomsky, is an ally to the Liberty movement. We share more things in common with Chomsky's anarcho-socialist ideas than not.

Chompsky is not an anarcho-socialist in the least. They at least recognize the dangers of the State. He's been a huge advocate of the idea of the social contract for awhile.

[freshjiva]

Chompsky is not an anarcho-socialist in the least. They at least recognize the dangers of the State. He's been a huge advocate of the idea of the social contract for awhile.

Not sure which Noam Chomsky you're thinking of, but he has established himself as one of the strongest intellectual proponents of socialism implemented in the absence of the State. Refer to Rudolf Rocker's book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, which Chomsky wrote the preface for.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Not sure which Noam Chomsky you're thinking of, but he has established himself as one of the strongest intellectual proponents of socialism implemented in the absence of the State. Refer to Rudolf Rocker's book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, which Chomsky wrote the preface for.

Never read the book, but I knew he was an anarcho-socialist.

[YumYum]

I like Chomsky. He is a principled leftest activist, not a phony liberal.

[TheConstitutionLives]

The fact that Chompsky refused to support Ron Paul, even though he was the only candidate that spoke about actuality ending the foreign wars abroad that Chompsky himself has railed against is proof enough to the fact that the man is a complete fraud and a sellout who is all talk and no action.

That's proof that he's a "fraud"? Riiiight :rolleyes:

[LibertyVox]

Chomsky is right and wrong.

Right in that maybe, the government officials would not be as open or as bold o do things such as wire taps internment camps, political witch hunting as the period which preceded the present.

Wrong because those things are carried out with much more sophisticated rhetoric, bureaucratese, and away from the public eye than before. The reason it doesn't happen in the open as before is because the public itself after being exposed to that period has learned (though some may argue it hasn't) the evils and needless heartache an aggressive government can cause.
Both right and wrong also because the standards of threshold of tolerating government excesses have also significantly changed both globally but especially domestically. So it isn't entirely accurate to compare the public standards of today to one of yesteryears and decades; one has kinda adjust for it just as one adjusts for inflation.

[StilesBC]

Chompsky is not an anarcho-socialist in the least. They at least recognize the dangers of the State. He's been a huge advocate of the idea of the social contract for awhile.

Hard to have a credible opinion on someone if you can't spell their name properly. Just saying...

[paulitics]

Yeah, because naked body scanners, no fly lists, cameras on every corner, forced innoculations, COINTELPRO, citizen assasinations, wiretapping, reading of electronic mail, sneak and peak, is so much more freedom.

Give me a break, it takes about 10 seconds to refute Chomsky's bullshit.

[Jace]

I don't mean in general, I mean this quote specifically...


"MF: Was that more about some form of academic freedom than artistic freedom? Are they more or less the same thing?

NC: There are always attacks on academic freedom, but I think it’s better protected now than it has been in the past. There is repression and [there are] bad things that happen, but if you look over time it’s nothing like what it’s been in the past. I mean, take surveillance, let’s say, bad thing. What was in the ’60s? The FBI was all over the place, the Army had surveillance systems, the CIA had surveillance, way more than what it is now. Now you can do things with electronic surveillance, OK, big deal. I was active in the resistance and took for granted that the phone was probably tapped, but it never constrained us. If you had to do something that you didn’t want the FBI to hear, you did it privately. Everybody knew that whatever group you were in was infiltrated, and you could usually guess who the infiltrators were, but if you wanted to do something serious, say help a deserter, you did it with an affinity group. If you think about repression, as bad as it may be today, it doesn’t even come close to COINTELPRO. That was running through four administrations—mainly Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, where it was stopped—and it went all the way to political assassination. Is that happening now?

MF: Depends on who you ask, I guess.

NC: And [Woodrow] Wilson’s Red Scare made it all look tame. So, sure, bad things are happening, but we shouldn’t exaggerate. There have been a lot of gains."

Obama has made it policy to assassinate American citizens. The CIA taps our phones. The FBI murders Bruce Ivins to cover up for the real anthrax killer. Reporter Mark Pittman takes on the Fed and drops dead from a massive heart attack at a young age. We are murdering people all across the Middle East.

Chomsky is COINTELPRO. His whole purpose is to make Americans take the blame for Israel's crimes.

He is a multi-millionaire leftist hypocrite.

YouTube - ‪9/11 Truth - David Ray Griffin on Noam Chomsky‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQPG3QxXy98)

[Vessol]

I like Chomsky. He is a principled leftest activist, not a phony liberal.

Yeah, just like Kucinich.

And to those who think I'm some kind of red screaming McCarthyist..I think I've proven time and time again on these boards that I have just as much disdain for the Right as I do for the left.

Simply put Chomsky is a a hypocrite. He's a somebody who used to be something. I'll admit that a lot of his earlier work was excellent attacks against corporate America and the foreign wars abroad, but that isn't what he is now.

[low preference guy]

I like Chomsky. He is a principled leftest activist, not a phony liberal.

what is leftest?

[FrankRep]

Chompsky is not an anarcho-socialist in the least.

Noam Chomsky is a noted libertarian socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Overview

[TheConstitutionLives]

Chomsky is COINTELPRO. His whole purpose is to make Americans take the blame for Israel's crimes.



Which group of aliens are controlling him do you think? I'm going with the Greys. Yeah. They're the evil ones pulling the illuminati's strings.

[Imperial]

I would and would not agree. As far as the exercise of powers of surveillance, it is far less than what it would have been in the past as Chomsky describes. On the other hand, the GWOT shows that the ability is there and probably in greater degree than ever before. And so while the effort isn't as widespread (focused mainly on suspected terrorists), the potential exists greater than it ever did in Chomsky's younger days.

[YumYum]

what is leftest?

A leftest is an activist who lives by what he/she preaches. A person that is a leftest never deviates or flip-flops on their beliefs for personal gain. If they are an environmentalist, they remain an environmentalist all their lives; using solar energy, recycling trash and maybe growing an organic garden. Al Gore did not live by what he preaches. He is a phony liberal, not a leftest.

A leftest stands up to the government and demands change that will benefit mankind; not hurt our fellow citizens. They demand that government by fixed; not destroyed. They are willing to face jail and they practice civil disobedience when necessary. Ralph Nadar is a leftest, so is Amy Goodman.

A liberal, on the other hand, is a self serving, self promoting hypocrite. They flip-flop on issues if it suits their political agenda and demand that government give more and more; they are not interested in fixing corrupt government, just growing it bigger.

My favorite example of a phony liberal is Hillary Clinton. Hillary was a feminist who was pro-abortion. She was the biggest proponent of abortion. When she ran for president she changed her position on abortion to appease blue-collar democrats, claiming "Government shouldn't be involved in deciding abortion." Why didn't she say that when the Supreme Court passed down Roe vs. Wade? She was only a liberal because it suited her politically. Now she supposedly is a "moderate".