Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Chomsky : Being anarchist is more lucrative than working

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by ungovernable, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    I knew it. I could smell from kilometers away that you were another of those damn chomsky fanboy who believe in freedom of speech for hate speech. You are a dumbass. We already had this debate on another post and i am not going to start it again.

    ALL revolutions in the history did not tolerate this kind of freedom of speech (for the fascists, negationists, and other assholes). Disinformation is not information, and hate speech is not freedom of speech. If you say we are fake anarchists then all anarchists in the history are.

    Making shitty theories about tolerating everyone is very easy, but when the revolution comes and those peoples start fighting against you, none of you will be able to give them their freedom of speech

    So i will second punkmar77 : go fuck yourself.
  2. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Ah no Moron calling people childish and elitist is insulting them, don't split hairs and try to act innocent now douche-bag, that's why I told you to fuck off and I will tell you again, fuck off. Now go back and read the rest of the posters on here who disagree with my point of view....notice how I don't tell them to fuck off, notice how their posts offered a dissenting point of view without being condescending and insulting. And like I said before, once again, I don't have to argue with every new poster who worships at Chomsky's teat, it becomes redundant...do the fucking research yourself, if you have the open mind to do it.
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    It is so ironic how this idiot start critising us for insulting him, yet since the beginning he is calling us elitist, religious, fascists, etc...

    We are elitist because we don't agree with everything chomsky said !!! I'm probably also an elitist because i'm against Makhno's platformism, because i'm against Prudhon's sexism and Prudhon's mutuellism, or Kropotkin's support to the world war 1....

    Fuck off!
  4. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member




    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 42 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    only stupid bastard support noam chomsky's wallet.
  5. sponsoredwalk

    sponsoredwalkMember New Member




    Jun 18, 2010
    You mean you took that article seriously? :lmao:

    Oh boy...

    First off, Chomsky's official site: chosky.info does not charge for his lectures to be downloaded - they are free to be downloaded along with plenty of videos and articles. ;)

    Second, you are seriously condemning him for putting money aside for his children & grandchildran? What kind of nazi's are you? Seriously, what parent doesn't want to do that? This is a sick inditement & the fact that you read that propagandizement of a piece of journalism just shows how easily swayed & seduced you are by something that even slightly agrees with your internalized confirmation bias.

    Third - if chomsky did not protect his writings on copyright grounds, as the article lambasts him for doing so, people would slanderously change it, or use it out of context, or do anything they could to discredit him - just like you are falsely attempting to do now...

    What is this, 3 big problems I've found in 5 seconds, how did this escape you?

    Fourth - Why shouldn't Chomsky get paid for working? Why? You do know his main job is as a linguist, not as a political commentator or speaker? Why should he just go for free to talk about these things when his main interests are in linguistics?

    Fifth - (this is important!) Why are you using anti-semetic material, which goes against your charters own policy :lmao: , to fight this point?
    All these problems with your arguments :lmao: You've even gone against the grain of your own websites policies on using anti-semetic material.

    But I bet you'll all still attack me :lmao:

    A bunch of anarchists using lies to condemn someone, go figure...

    So, to make you happy he should move out of his house, give up his retirement pension that professors get, give up his money put away for his children all because some people on the internet read an anti-semetic article, believe it as fact despite gross lies, and then scream loud that he's a hypoctie.

    One would have thought anarchism teaches critical thinking, if you had even read the article closely you could have gone to chomsky.info and seen if the author was lying about charging for mo3 lectures :lmao:

    Is there any merit to anything you can say about Chomsky after this?

    Do I deserve an apology after being attacked? No, I questioned your lies so I'm the fool
  6. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    You think we cited just one source? We were talking about many different sources including at the time French anarchist sources who were picketing against Chomsky on his E35,000 a stop speaking engagement tour throughout Europe, what the fuck are you on about antisemitism? I never even used that source other than to scan for the amount of over 2 million he has put away for his 'grandchildren' in stocks which are supporting the War-machine he so vehemently cries out against. On that tour last year alone he was reported to have profited over $500,000 speaking out against capitalism. At E35 to E65 per person. If you don't see any fault in this then you are blind against his rhetoric. Nobody faults him with making a decent living as a professor, I find fault in his greed and I find it negates his posturing on anti-capitalism.
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Did you even read the article ?? That's all you understood from it ?? Once again you prove that you are an elitist chomsky fanboy who can't question anything because we are attacking your idol.

    Article says:

    Protectionism is a bad thing—especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky’s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you’d better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky website (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: “Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.” However, the website does give you the opportunity to “sublicense” the material if you are interested.

    Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children’s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.


    Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches—for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you 79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.

    Yeah right, having two millions in your bank account and putting money in shares supporting war industry, oil industry, and everything the anarchist are fighting against is totally normal...

    Now i am a nazi !!! how funny

    He already earns enough money with his high-society job to put money aside for his children, dumbass.

    Oh yeah right, so copyrights are so good... Thank you to capitalism !!! So basically you are saying that in an anarchist society we would need copyrights and private proprety.... Because there would still be a danger of peoples putting things out of the context and changing the texts !!! In fact, we should also put copyrights on anarcho-punk music.

    How do you explain that all litterature by other anarchist philosophers are not under copyright ??

    Once again your argument is bullshit. Total bullshit.

    You are a liberal who support capitalism and private proprety.

    You really make me puke...

    Anarchism is not a job, you are fighting for it because you believe in something, not because you want money. I'm not asking a single dollar for all the time i spend fighting for anarchism.

    He already have way enough money from his job. If he still want more money, thats because he is a greedy bourgeois and he is exactly what he critize.... Do you really think thats how it would work in an anarchist society ???

    Your arguments are so stupid...

    Start by understanding the text before quoting it. You probably didnt even read it.

    This article is bullshit and it is obviously written by a chomsky fanboy like you. it quotes word for word your shitty argument, just like we cant critize someone unless we dont buy anything from any companys and blah blah blah blah.

    I dont care who written this article, you are seriously trying to find any stupid reason to prove me wrong. Jew cartoons, woah. So maybe i should stop quoting Prudhon and Marx because they are anti-semitist ??? Your arguments are bullshit.

    You are just trying to create a smoke screen to dodge the arguments against chomsky. And then you critize us because we talk about chomsky's attitude instead of centering on the facts and on what he written. You are a joke.

    I'm not even the one who posted the article, i just pointed it to you because you can't read. It has been posted in the first page of this topic, but you didnt read because you were too much in a hurry to come defend your heroic idol.

    And the arguments of this article is bullshit. I dont know hoover institute but seriously, they say that the chomsky cartoon is anti-semitist. what a fucking joke.

    please explain me where the fuck is anti semitism in this carricature.

    they say that this website publish other jew hating cartoons. Well, if the link with anti-semitism is as big as the link between this chomsky carricature and anti-semitism, i say it's big bullshit

    Prove it is lies. You only talk, you defend your hero without being capable of providing arguments because you have none. You blindlessly follow him, you are brainwashed.

    You still didn't understand. I don't care how much money and what he does with his real job. But i care about someone who sells anarchism out and makes millions out of it

    And it's not because some people on internet think he's contradictory, it is because what he believes in is contradictory with what he does.

    You really can't read. Get yourself a brain. You keep talking about other's age but you aren't even old enough to be able to read.

    The article says Alternative Tentacles is in charge of the mp3. And YES not only they charge for mp3 lectures but they also don't allow others to distribute it for free. They asked us to remove everything on their label because they want to make money with it.

    Maybe you are also going to tell me that my arguments about his last conferrence in France a couple of days ago is also lies ? or maybe i have read that in an anti-semitist journal ??? You are so stupid. He got 25,000 euros from a 1-hour conference and you still try to find arguments to defend him

    Oh and its funny to see how you ignored 75% of my arguments of my last posts. Stupid liberal.
  8. sponsoredwalk

    sponsoredwalkMember New Member




    Jun 18, 2010
    Yes I did read it, did you?

    You do know this man has made his career on
    hounding Chomsky & Chomsky still talks to him anyway,
    he even admits it in his article that he is in
    contact with Chomsky.

    Still, you've quoted the article but that doesn't change
    the fact that he's lied. Did you go to the chomsky.info
    media section of his website, there is a list of over
    a hundred lectures & videos free for you to download.

    He has signed onto Alternatic Tentacles, Jello Biafra's
    label in case you didn't know, (if you don't know who
    that is find out), but that is not Chomsky's website.

    The speeches sold on that site go to
    organizing events amongst the many speakers
    Alternative Tentacles support & helping bands get signed
    to their alternative label.

    Did you even check up on that part? No... You use the
    fact that they charge to help out a community of
    people against him because you have ulterior motives
    and are afraid of the truth.

    Check out alternative tentacles music too, and the
    history of that label, and maybe even some of Biafra's
    spoken word tours - if you don't mind contributing to
    Chomsky's bug fat pocket in this conspiracy to bloat
    Chomsky and his rich children... :/

    Nevermind that he lies about this being chomsky's site,
    you just plow on...

    So you're still arguing that he is filthy rich...

    Does the fact that what he is valued on is mainly
    the cost of his house not show you how foolish you are?

    When you deduct away the house price what is
    he left with?

    Chomsky obviously makes more than that but the
    fact that it's not included in his net worth is because
    that he gives it to activist causes.

    I've heard this plenty of times before
    and I asked you already,
    how do you know that Chomsky gets paid for all those
    lectures? How do you actually know?

    Also, you calculuated yourself with horrible math
    skills that maybe $1,000 would be taken out of it
    after security and flights, are you joking?

    That is to pay for the security guards that guard the
    doors alone when you've got a crowd that big. What
    about the entire security team? What about renting out
    the building? What about paying the organisers who set up
    the event? What about all of the people that travel with
    him as he tours?

    You are joking me with how foolish you act questioning
    everything as if you even deserve to know. Nobodies
    private life is your business yet hounds like you
    constantly snoop out celebrities private lives...

    Also, why the hell, if he is so fithy rich, would
    he need to invest his money in a retirement fund?

    To get richer? Well why is he giving all of his money
    away to activist causes? To get richer...?

    Did you read the article?

    You'd rather him live in the cabin just to satisfy your
    pseudo-moral rage.

    All the while;

    You'd gleefully sell out so long as you weren't wearing your anarchist hat that day :lmao:

    Maybe to you anarchism is something you can pick and choose, selling your novel for hundreds of thousands is no problem, but not when you wear your anarchist sheepskin clothing, then your hardcore \m/

    The difference here is that Chomsky actually has made a living of touring & giving money to activists looking to further bring people together, you sit around thinking about selling out in one part of your life so long as it's not interfering with your anarchist fantasy

    Chomsky telling this liar that he needs to invest in
    order to have a future makes Chomsky a liar how???

    How does not taking the money he gives to activist causes
    for himself make him a hypocrite?

    How is investing rather than taking money from activists

    Where did I say that? What's wrong with you?

    Where did I say that?

    I said that Chomsky must put copyright protection on his
    work because people would slanderously mischaracterize
    his work to further their lies about him.

    This is under a capitalist system, in case
    you hadn't noticed...

    I've said nothing about what it would be like under an
    anarchist system so there's no 'basically' about it.

    Get your facts straight...

    I hope so, sometimes it's hard to stomach medicine ;)

    You sound like a child, how many times do I have to
    say it, he is not rich. He even admits it in your
    article you love so much when he says he has to
    invest... I've also asked you why would he invest
    unless he needed the money - he gives most of it
    away to pay for his house & to activism.

    Why are you still talking about an anarchist society?

    I'm talking about here and now...

    Yes, under an anarchist society, which Chomsky basically
    supports if you've ever read anything he's written, he
    would not own as much as he owns now.

    He'd be happy to give that up, if you'd read any of his
    work you'd know that.

    You're stuck in a fantasy land, applying anarchist
    principles to people living under a capitalist society.

    Maybe the reason I've never heard of all of your valiant
    efforts for anarchism is because you haven't got a clue
    about how the world works is why I've never heard of you
    and why I've heard of Chomsky...

    So evidence means nothing to you, that's great.
    Nevermind that the article points out that
    Chomsky's main money goes to his house and activism,
    you just say "blah blah blah" because it answers the
    lies of you and your anti-semite article...

    What... Marx was born Jewish!!! What kind of an argument
    is this?

    I haven't read one quote of Chomsky's from you in this
    entire thread, why are you still lying?

    You gave this article as proof of your views, you also
    claim I didn't read the first page. What did I answer to?

    I answered that Chomsky doesn't keep all of the money
    you stupidly assumed he does because you asked some
    people at the talk.

    Still though, I haven't insulted your broken English so
    don't go off telling me I can't read.

    So you don't think that a Jewish man with a
    really big cartoon Jewish nose hugging a bag
    of money is an anti-semetic characterization?


    You still didn't understand. I don't care how much money
    and what he does with his real job. But i care about
    someone who sells anarchism out and makes millions out of

    He doesn't make millions out of it for himself, he gives
    it to activists - you know, those people who actually
    make a difference instead of focusing on when Eminem
    went from being hardcore to a sellout like some childish
  9. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member




    Sep 8, 2009

    Your first post starts:
    yet you deemed it appropriate to label all those posting on this site both 'elitist' and 'childish'. A rather large act of speculation considering your self-noted ignorance to the political debate which occurs on other threads on this site. Please save your accusations until you actually know what you are talking about. There are a wide variety of ppl who post on this site, both young & naive punks to older anarchists and punks with years of political organising experience.

    Moreover, as noted above, you throw around accusations of us being 'childish' and 'elitist', this would seem like a contradiction in terms no? Are we armchair 'scientific socialist' university intelligentsia or politically naive teenagers? You seem unsure. I propose that this is largely due to the intentions of your posts, which do not attempt to engage in political debate but rather use incendiary polemic to flame this thread and provoke hostile reactions from other users. But wait! I forget, we're the immature ones aren't we?

    You note:
    This is fucking stupid in the extreme. What is your understanding of anarchism? You seem to be struggling with the fundamentals. I do not accept my boss' right to exploit me; I do not accept my politicians as my legitimate representatives; I do not accept my union leadership when they are constantly selling me out; I do not accept racists, and the violence they use to enforce this racism, in my community. Yes, i wish to fight against these people, i wish to confine their ability to oppress me and my class. Anarchism is not about 'accepting' people, rather building social relationships that are non-coercive, non-hierarchical and directly democratic, this may require not accepting those unwilling to agree to these aims.

    As for Chomsky, well I just think his politics are a bit shit, although his investigative work on the impact of US imperialism is incredibly informative.

    Moreover, it may be worth noting that being a lecturer at MIT (or at any tertiary educational institution) pays pretty fucking well. On top of that his books are international best-sellers. i hardly think he has to worry about paying the bills. It follows that a critique of the cost of admission to his lectures, and especially due to his anti-capitalist rhetoric, is worthwhile to look at. Who is he appealing to? Who can afford to attend? To me, this speaking tour points to his desire to preach to the middle class. This is no doubt problematic in the extreme. Although, considering how little I understand about Anarchism, you may care to critique this view. Please feel free to explain to me how the middle-class are fundamentally at the vanguard of the revolution (double points if you don't mention Lenin).

    yrs comradely
  10. sponsoredwalk

    sponsoredwalkMember New Member




    Jun 18, 2010
    I was talking about the comments in this thread exclusively, I'm not out to insult everyone left, right and center.

    If someone starts a thread complaining about Chomsky calling him a hypocrite, claiming he keeps all of this money for himself
    along with millions that he throws into supporting the U.S. war and then uses an article of Chomsky, Jewish as he is, hugging
    a bag of money while the whole article is talking about him hoarding money & lying to do so how do you not expect somone
    to call foul... Note that I didn't insult anyone, I called the views elitist & childish - namely those of focusing on figures about
    someones wealth as if they just come from a vacuum along with complaints about university educated people,
    about bands selling out etc...

    Then I'm subjected to fuck you's and all this for challenging them, they can't hack being challenged, it's not my problem.
    All these tired cliche's, it's all utter nonsense. All of the points about Chomsky were easily accessible online, if there
    was any honest self-criticism the posters would have checked out whether or not their idea's about someone were bogus.

    You could just go to the guys f'ing site & read some of his papers, or watch some of the stuff on youtube, to find out how
    false some of the charged in this thread were. Take, for example, what was claimed about Chomsky and what he says about
    elites. Do you know what he says about elites? It's not what was claimed here, that's for sure.

    But I'm a liberal Chomsky lover because I choose to use basic facts about the guy to defend him from slander?

    It's like me saying Aristotle had a green foot & if you deny what I say then you're just some Platonic nut who is
    angry because of what Aristotle says about Plato's teachings and therefore you don't believe in my god and you're crazy...

    With regard to music; this idea of not selling out is the kind of elitist view that wants to keep musicians in crappy bars because it's seen as
    being 'real' or honest, i.e. poverty is honest, & not get their music out to more people because of some idea that
    they've gone against their roots... What is the point of playing music in gigs unless you get people to hear you?
    If you were really serious you'd play anywhere for no money, money wouldn't be an issue.
    If these people were so serious they'd play gigs in the evening after their jobs, but no - playing music is about
    making money so that you can survive, but being given the opportunity already disqualifies you from some people's radar
    because they've gone against their roots/sold out. How can you win with such childish methods of thinking...?

    Now, as for attacking Chomsky based on the hearsay of protesters going mad because they hear lies about Chomsky's pay and
    an anti-semetic article that feeds the confirmation biases of some people,
    that doesn't make it all true. I've given plenty of reasons but they don't matter, it's just insults & anti-capitalist rheteoric/cliche's
    about the revolution coming...

    Also, I don't think any of the people reacting to what I'm saying have read much Chomsky, more like they've read ABOUT Chomsky.
    But, the fact that you would bandy about the idea that him sticking up for a holocaust denier as being so foreign to your radars,
    while not even picking up on the right-wing anti-semetism in your sources, just speaks about ideological blinkering.

    That and using the website's authority to ban all discussion of ant-semetism, no matter how stupid holocaust denial is, just flatly contradicts
    all the idea's of anarchism, especially when you use their literature as your source material, and just stinks of reverse fascism.

    I just have to ask, where is this puritanical anarchist commune that you hack your free internet & electricity from while condemning all
    others who do not follow your doctrines religiously, surely you don't work, because that'd be just like Chomsky - contributing to the
    capitalistic system we live under. Surely you give most of your money to activists at least :/
  11. sponsoredwalk

    sponsoredwalkMember New Member




    Jun 18, 2010
    I don't think there can be any fundamental change in society until all populations are united, poverty is next to nil, & people are able to get past bickering over trivial isues like who's punk enough, who has long hair, who eats this or that etc... & all of the world's population are able to work out some new form of living that is better than all previous theories. South America is striving towards this, Africa still seems far off but could be better if people fought for it more intelligently i/e/ not sending aid to dictators & supporting any people with gunds pretty much.

    My personal view is that anarchism and marxism hold a lot of these idea's in their theories but there is no sense in rigorously adhering to either of them.

    They should be subjected to constant revision, just like the scientific method, & should allow people to freely choose how they want to act/what they want to like.

    I also think that if people would work within the capitalistic framework to bring all populations together & capable of self determination that the entire world could grow & advance beyond our current semi-slavery to natural forces, let alone the machine at the hands of man.

    Basically, we are still in a growing phase & arguing against everything instead of advancing in ways to change the future for the better is not the way to go, in my mind. Screw Lenin and Marx etc... some of them had great idea's, we should try to make them better & without violence/bloodshed.

    Oh, and even if Chomsky was totally hypocritical, if you were one of those people who actually read his work, it wouldn't matter because he has a tendency to look at the key issues in a way that you wont find, or will be hard pressed to find, in most news outlets.
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    fuck off, i wasted enough time with you, you are a liberal piece of shit (not because you defend chomsky but because the way you do it, saying he has the right to make a lot of money while not caring about the others is defending individual liberty against collective liberty, a typical liberal point of view) and an hypocritical

    stop trolling this forum, get the fuck out, fucking mindless fanboy.
  13. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha what a fuckin' douche, how much mouthwash does it take to wash the taste of Chomsky's nutsack from your mouth? :lmao:
  14. Bunny

    BunnyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member




    Mar 13, 2010
    Thanks for that punkmar, I needed a good laugh today :lmao:
  15. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States

    Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela

    By James Suggett

    * Colombia-Venezuela Relations
    * Noam Chomsky

    Mérida, August 27th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) -- U.S. author, dissident intellectual, and Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology Noam Chomsky met for the first time with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas and analyzed hemispheric politics during a nationally televised forum on Monday.

    Chomsky is well known in Venezuela for his critiques of U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive political changes underway in Venezuela and other Latin American countries in recent years. President Chavez regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes widely publicized recommendations of Chomsky's 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

    "Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or Barbarism," and referred to Chomsky as "one of the greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest pioneers of a better world."

    Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

    During Monday's forum, which was broadcast on the state television station VTV, Chomsky pointed out that the ongoing coup in Honduras, which began on June 28th, is the third coup the United States has supported in Latin America so far this century, following the coup against Chavez in 2002 and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.

    The nearly finalized deal to allow the U.S. to increase its military presence on Colombian bases "is only part of a much broader effort to restore Washington's capacity for intervention," said Chomsky.

    According to Chomsky, the region has the capacity to unite and form a "peace zone" in which foreign militaries are forbidden to operate. "Venezuela can help to advance this proposal, but it cannot do it alone," he said.

    "The transformations that Venezuela is making toward the creation of another socio-economic model could have a global impact if these projects are successfully carried out," said the renowned author.

    Aporrea.org, a popular Venezuelan news and pro-revolution analysis website, described Chomsky as oriented toward "libertarian socialism" and "vehemently anti-Stalinist" in an introduction to a recent interview in which Chomsky said U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy will be similar to that of the second administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

    Chomsky addressed this issue during Monday's conference as well, commenting that Obama "could have much to offer Latin America if he wanted to, but hasn't given any signals that he does." He cited the U.S.'s indecisive posture toward the coup in Honduras as evidence.

    Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. "In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations... and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression," he said.

    Chomsky said the growing disappointment with the Obama administration in the U.S. was predictable because the corporate media marketed Obama's presidential candidacy on the slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" but omitted concrete proposals for effective changes, and the Obama administration has since shown an incapacity to institute such changes.

    Chomsky was accompanied in Caracas by the co-founder of South End Press and ZMagazine and system operator of ZCom, Michael Albert, and the co-founder and editor of Venezuelanalysis.com, sociologist Gregory Wilpert.

    Published on Aug 28th 2009 at 11.30am

    This looks like a very cozy relationship to me, it remains to be seen how far Chavez will take his power and to what extent he is willing to use force to counter dissidents. Of course I realize the tremendous pressure the US and others are exerting on his administration and his standing up to Yankee Imperialism is commendable but not at the cost of turning into a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
  16. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    And here is a link to very interesting Chomsky quotes with references...including this little gem:

    “I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
    (Quadrant, Australia, October 1981)

  17. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Off topic but relevant to Chomsky and his belief in freedom of speech:

    Venezuelan President Chavez Makes Threat Against the Open Web

    Venezuela, already under watch from the likes of Reporters Sans Frontieres for jeopardizing press freedom, appears to be edging closer toward the type of restrictive governmental Internet interference as seen in Cuba, China and Iran.

    Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has called for greater regulation of the Internet (Internet) this weekend, with the following statement, as reported by Reuters:

    “The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms.”

    Chavez is said to have singled out one website as an example where such an “open” policy has troubled him. Noticierodigital had a post up for two days suggesting that Diosdado Cabello, a senior minister and close aide of Chavez, had been assassinated.

    “We have to act. We are going to ask the attorney general for help, because this is a crime. I have information that this page periodically publishes stories calling for a coup d’etat. That cannot be permitted,” Chavez said.

    Twitter (Twitter) and Facebook (Facebook) are also said to have come under criticism from Chavez, with the president reported to have complained “that people use such sites to spread unfounded rumors.” Recently, he called Twitter messages a “tool of terror.”

    Chavez has already moved to control TV and radio networks in the country — in August last year 34 broadcasters were closed down on “administrative grounds” while Chavez’s own lengthy presidential broadcasts are now aired compulsorily across both terrestrial and cable TV stations.

    Chavez expressing such negative interest in the online world will no doubt be met with great concern by those who oppose him, as well as in the wider world.

    Chavez’s comments serves to remind all of us — regardless of nationality — about the importance of a free and open Internet. When it ceases to be such, it’s no longer the world wide web but a poor imitation propagated by repressive regimes.

    Sounds great doesn't it? :ecouteurs:
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    hahahaha and the douchebag said he isnt friend with Chavez... Yeahh right!!

    Chavez is acting like a dictator, everyone knows that except the chomsky fanboys... Internet censorship how great!! Another contradiction with chomsky who supposedly support free speech for everyone

    ahahahahahahah.... actually i hesitate between laught and disgust... usually i hear this kind of quotes from the mouth of white power, nationalists, or negationists. what a shame
  19. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member




    Sep 8, 2009

    yeah that picture sure is pretty fucked up.

    Chomsky defending the 'right' to free speech for holocaust deniers is an established fact. One that he himself openly admits to. From memory this is covered in the film 'Manufacturing Consent'.

    BTW, who is this 'you' you refer to? Me? Another user? Please clarify who you are talking to, you are currently implying that I use 'right-wing anti-Semitic ' sources, which I have not done. Largely because I have (until this point) not used any sources at all.

    This comment only serves to illustrate the difficulty you seem to have in understanding anarchist politics.
    This online community has a clearly defined constitution, one that all users agree to (voluntarily) when joining this site. If they wish to defend holocaust denial, they are free to do so elsewhere. It is an aim of anarchism to facilitate the political practise of workers' and community self-management, freely federated together in solidarity with one another while retaining autonomy on questions where they disagree. It is fundamentally anarchist to have points of unity in place which people freely agree to, deal with it.

    Further, there is nothing in the user agreement text that bans discussions on anti-Semitism, rather it states this site is not a platform for nazi apologism. How about this: The picture of Chomsky with a bag of money is a pretty blatant case of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. See? One can speak freely about these things.

    Moreover, your accusation of 'reverse fascism' is not only idiotic, but also highly offensive. It is not 'fascist' in any way to work towards creating an environment in which fascism is not tolerated; which works towards building an open, inclusive and non-racist online space. Fascism is inherently a violent and exclusionary politics, it must be combated and not tolerated in our community. This may be better described as 'anti-fascism' rather that 'reverse-fascism', no?

    BTW, my previous question:
    Was me being a smart-arse and attempting to provoke a hostile response from you. You seem to have missed the absurdity of this question and responded to it at face value, the consequences of which are twofold:
    1. I'm pretty amused.
    2. Maybe it is time for you go put the kettle on, make a cuppa tea and read a book.

    I say point 2 largely because you have, on multiple occasions, appointed yourself as an expert on all things 'anarchist'. It may be worthwhile learning something about the topic you are now an expert on methinks.

    Moreover, in response to this question, you outline some strange and incoherent version of 'leftie' Liberal 'why can't we be friends?' political rhetoric. It may be worth noting the following:
    However, it should be noted that this is a statement taken from an organised anarchist group. This is obviously a false statement now because you, the expert, disagree. I repeat, you appear to be struggling to understand anarchist politics, get back to me when it makes sense and I'll give you a lollipop.
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member




    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada