Noam Chomsky

[Scottish_Militant]

Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order (http://www.marxismonline.com/modules.php?name=Universal&op=ViewItems&vid=30)

This is food for thought for the supporters of Noam Chomsky.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order

This is food for thought for the supporters of Noam Chomsky.

I will say that I read the first part of the article up to CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission and the conclusion. I found the article pretty absurd. The writer from what I can tell seems to have a conspiracy fetish.

After reading this little, I have already found some really daft statements -


He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

I have never met a leftist who thinks of Chomsky in this way. Many consider him a fine intellectual of the left, however most also consider there to be views that Chomsky holds, that are at best, debatable.


Chomsky's role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.


How the fuck is Marx the servant of the elites, who presented a a false liberation ideology?

This kind of statement regarding Marx is plain daft. Especially as the left movement today, is primarily influenced by Marx. Wouldn't some on the left worked this out? Even Anarchists, possibly the least dogmatic group on the left, consider Marx's work to be worth wile and relevant.

Add to this, Chomsky is an Anarchist who has a less than supportive view of Marx. And he definitely dislikes Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Also if you take the 9-11 conspiracy stuff, Chomsky's arguments are rational and logical about the left becoming obsessed with the conspiracy theories, which in all likelihood are false.

All in all, I think this article is bullshit. Written by the type of person who wears foil on his head because he thinks "the man" is listening in on his thoughts.

[Severian]

Ultrarightist, semi-fascist if not crypto-fascist conspiracism. Probably LaRouchite, going by its idosyncratic mention of the "Tavistock Institute", a favorite bogeyman for the LaRouchites.

That "Marxism Online" site has apparently become the successor to E-G as the home of Stalin kiddie semi-fascism.

Kalashnikov, I notice you started another thread linking an article from the "American Almanac" - a LaRouchite publication. So, have you become a LaRouchite sympathizer or are you just completely clueless?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The New World Order? Give me a fucking break. That was the sound of Marxism Online's credibility completely disappearing.

[Scottish_Militant]

That "Marxism Online" site has apparently become the successor to E-G as the home of Stalin kiddie semi-fascism.

What do you base this on?


Kalashnikov, I notice you started another thread linking an article from the "American Almanac" - a LaRouchite publication. So, have you become a LaRouchite sympathizer or are you just completely clueless?

Any articles on the site are not necceserally "my position" or "our position" (as we are not a party or group anyway) they are simply opinions of the authors. If articles are of interest to socialists or anti-imperialists they are sometimes posted on the website, that dosent mean anyone/everyone agrees or disagrees with them, it's all about thought/discussion provoking.

Some of the angry reactions here are a bit over the top.

[Le People]

Who ever wrote that is a Jack ass. I like Chomsky, but there are somethings I don't agree with with him.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:48 AM

That "Marxism Online" site has apparently become the successor to E-G as the home of Stalin kiddie semi-fascism.

What do you base this on?
The fact they're hosting LaRouchite articles.



Kalashnikov, I notice you started another thread linking an article from the "American Almanac" - a LaRouchite publication. So, have you become a LaRouchite sympathizer or are you just completely clueless?

Any articles on the site are not necceserally "my position" or "our position" (as we are not a party or group anyway) they are simply opinions of the authors. If articles are of interest to socialists or anti-imperialists they are sometimes posted on the website, that dosent mean anyone/everyone agrees or disagrees with them, it's all about thought/discussion provoking.

Some of the angry reactions here are a bit over the top.

An evasion.

Why do you feel LaRouchite fascist propaganda is "of interest to socialists or anti-imperialists"? So much so you post two of their articles within a short time?

In any case, "Marxism Online", like E-G.com, is free to host all the fascist material they want. But the policy of this board is that fascist propaganda is not allowed. I'd encourage you to follow that.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. I also said that yesterday, but I changed my mind. This is it.

This is proof that humanity will ultimately blow itself up. Idiots like this person.

They clearly haven't read ANY Chomsky. Chomsky does not blame everything on vague things like 'america" and "corporations". he researches amazingly well and writes very deeply, and occasionally uses very large words that i haven't bothered to look up yet.

he is not some random guy who spouts random leftist crap. thats why we have leninists.

[Scottish_Militant]

Severian,

You are completely hysterical. Like I say, any articles that appear on the site are there mainly out of the interests of discussion and debate. I get the impression that you believe political websites and discussion forums should be based on censorship, I’m not too keen on that, I’d rather see things openly discussed and debated, that’s why I like to see these articles viewed and commented on. Your ‘outraged’ comments do nothing for me at all.

The is also nothing 'fascist' about any of these articles, you clutch at straws by linking them to a person who has been accused of being “fascist” before, whatever your thoughts of him (I’m no fan of him either) he isn’t even mentioned or relevant to any of the topics. It’s like saying Hitler was a socialist, completely irrelevant.

[PRC-UTE]

:lol:

I've posted things I don't agree with before just to stimulate debate. Severian, you constantly post or link to articles that are bourgeois sources. Does that make you bourgeois? Of course not, but that's the line of thought you're pursuing here.

Kalashnikov is a Trotskyist, and I'm a follower of Connolly so your constant rants about marxismonline being stalinist come across as hysterical indeed.

[RedStarOverChina]

Chomsky's role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.


Wow. This is perhaps THE most reactional thing I've ever heard that has the word Marxist contained in its web address.

Sounds like a huge fraud to me.

Chomsky might be a bourgeoisie leftist, but he is no CIA agent.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:03 AM

Chomsky's role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.


Wow. This is perhaps THE most reactional thing I've ever heard that has the word Marxist contained in its web address.

Sounds like a huge fraud to me.

Chomsky might be a bourgeoisie leftist, but he is no CIA agent.
In the writer's defense.... Marx DID advocate such things.

[danny android]

How so?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:08 PM

The is also nothing 'fascist' about any of these articles, you clutch at straws by linking them to a person who has been accused of being “fascist” before, whatever your thoughts of him (I’m no fan of him either) he isn’t even mentioned or relevant to any of the topics. It’s like saying Hitler was a socialist, completely irrelevant.
Bullshit. You started another thread to highlight an article from the American Almanac, which is a supplement to the New Federalist, which is a LaRouchite publication. I could be wrong about this article being LaRouchite, though I doubt it...but it's definitely fascist. Others have pointed out its content.

I've seen posts elsewhere with E-G people saying they're going over to Marxism Online. And certainly we see it's willing to host fascist material in the same way it hosts "Marxist" material. I have zero patience with anything that allows the slightest confusion between those polar opposites.

And you didn't link this article to say, "Look at this fascist bullshit" or "Hm, what are these people up to" or anything of the sort. You posted it as being positive "food for thought", as if its conspiracist, veiled Jew-baiting attack on Chomsky and Marx was valid. Am I wrong? Then why don't you say what you think of it.

You wouldn't have to be so evasive - refusing even to mention LaRouche's name! - if you didn't have something to hide.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm certain Kalashnikov has no fascist tendencies - Severian, why do you assume everyone who's not American must know who this larouche guy is??? I had no idea. I think K just didn't read over the article carefully enough.

I've never seen him argue fascist causes - he's always working to support what's going on in Venezuala. Most of the theories he argues for are Marxist / Trotskyist. His blog is the least fascist thing I've ever seen.

[Luís Henrique]

veiled Jew-baiting attack on Chomsky and Marx

Yup. The "criticism" of a supposed "New World Order" that includes an "International Central Bank" is almost certainly a token to rally covert antisemites (the American Central Bank, aka Federal Reserve, was founded by a Jew).

I don't know if they are fascists - I have read that bullshit from "libertarians" also, even in Bradnarick's platform - but they certainly belong in the far, far right.


From the article:
The creation of the Federal Reserve, owned largely by the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild interests has eluded the "radical" Chomsky. Furthermore he does not discuss the proven role of the Fed in creating recessions and depressions in order to purchase assets at a fraction of their value.

The old Jewish-Communist-Capitalist conspiracy theory, completed with the idea that recessions and depression do not result from the intrinsec contradictions of capitalism, but of the machinations of half-a-dozen financial conspirators (aka Jews).


Or perhaps Chomsky fears discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that runs the world economy.

Any doubts about the "real hidden hand" that writes such drivel?

Luís Henrique

[viva le revolution]

I have read into Chomsky extensively. As far as critique of american policies go, he is brilliant. But his alternatives are just a loose set of general guidelines. It is the alternative he proposes that is not clear and some would say, utopian. But an excellent read by the way.
However, that being said, i find his critique of leninism being rather excessive, relying too much on western perceptions, with no real specific arguements against it.

[Severian]

Well, gee, Oglach, everybody else who glanced at that article recognized its political character in 5 seconds. And Kalashnikov refers to "a person who has been accused of being “fascist” before" so apparently he does know who LaRouche is.

But I'm not proposing or taking any administrative action against Kalashnikov, so your defense of him personally is unnecessary.

Unless he does it again.

Oh, and I don't care what ideological label somebody uses. "Trotskyist", especially, carries no actual political meaning in the world today.

[Scottish_Militant]

To be honest, I posted the article, despite disagreeing with much of it, as a means of provoking discussion without fully realising the nature and history behind it. It was a rash thing to do, and after re-reading it, and taking on board these comments, I must admit to you all that I made a mistake. I would like to apologise to all comrades here. I am not a fascist, and I have never tolerated fascism in any way.

The article is inappropriate for a Marxist website, and therefore I think its best that I remove it.

Again, I apologise for any offence caused.