Alex Jones needs to get slapped in the face

[bootleg42]

Noam Chomsky. Jones (a U.S. libertarian and conspiracy theorist NUTJOB who unfortunally has been getting alot of fans in middle class United States) had Noam Chomsky on his show and he interviewed him. Chomsky just dropped facts after facts and knowledge after knowledge and Jones didn't say shit. They finally disagree on the issue about guns (which Chomsky was right about) and Jones basically states some stats to which Chomsky did not know about (but was later checked and it looks like Jones was wrong, no wonder Chomsky never heard of those facts).

Then Jones ends the interview and only AFTER the interview ends does Jones go on to bash Chomsky and basically he called him a member of something he calls "the new world order" (which many of these middle class United Statians believe is a cult like group who rules the world). Listen yourselves and please comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXFX8bM6s8 <<<<part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctZBtf9Y4f4 <<<<part2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aygXdCsYO5s <<<<part3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwjK07gEpCM <<<<part4 <<this is when the interview ends and when Jones acts like a coward talking shit behind Chomsky&#39;s back and even claiming that he&#39;s smarter than him (laughable).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0APTn1EPg9E <<<<part 5 <<this is him continuing to talk shit


This all reminds me of a comrade here who basically said that Libertarians (the capitalist ones) will be the next thing we&#39;ll have to face head to head after capitalism. I think that comrade was right.

[Tatarin]

Yes, it is Alex Jones who started the modern day conspiracy mongering. He believes that both the right and the left wing of politics is controlled by the New World Order, a kind of group consisting of bankers and other international institutions like the United Nations (who he also believes are taking control of the US by declaring national parks a part of the UN protection thing).

Jones also takes his information from the mainstream media, and can seconds after stating an article say that the media is also controlled by the world order. He claims that the "rulers" of the world brag about what they are doing, so that is how he knows about it.

If anything, his strongest argument is that governments are behind terrorist attacks so that the people will let go of their liberty and freedom for state protection. For this he underlines Hitler, Mao and Stalin used it.

So, why conspiracy theories? That is understandable if you are angry at capitalism. Naturally, capitalism itself is never blamed. Just like nationalists in Europe is pointing the finger at immigration, the "thing" in the US is conspiracy theories - the United States isn&#39;t the problem, that group is, or aliens are, or reptilians, or ghosts - and so on.

If anything, recommend this movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1) for anyone thinking conspiracy. It literally points out every lie Loose Change mentioned.

So to make this thing short, conspiracies functions as the substitution for the problems of capitalism. Ever wondered why conspiracy theories are so out-in-the-open while any discussion about socialist alternatives are so restricted, if not non-existant?

[Pawn Power]

I sure hope I didn&#39;t become dumber from listing to that. :(

Does anyone listen to alax jones who isn&#39;t a 911 truther?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 09, 2007 05:15 am
Does anyone listen to alax jones who isn&#39;t a 911 truther?
Unfortunately yes, many.

[bootleg42]

Which is why I put things like this up. We need to try to face these things head on. We&#39;re literary looking at a "next enemy" and they literary make up shit out of their ass.

I&#39;m not joking either. These people think that communism was a conspiracy and that it was funded by wall street and you don&#39;t know how many people (particularly from the U.S. white suburbian middle class) believe people like him.

I mean you&#39;d think that most people who hear that interview can just see that Jones is a coward and that he&#39;s paranoid and a nut (I mean he could have debated Chomsky but chose to just talk all the shit about him and do a complete 360 AFTER he hung up).

[Tatarin]

Also, Jones is an avid Ron Paul supporter, and I think Ron Paul also believes there is a conspiracy of sorts.

[Red Terror Doctor]

I saw this several months back. What a loon Jones is&#33;

[darktidus]

The tantrum he puts on is quite laughable. Really, I mean he goes out of his way to look like an ass once he&#39;s bested by Chomsky. Why not just admit he was wrong, and carry on with the interview?

[Neutrino]

TBH, I was disappointed that Chomsky consented to an interview with Alex Jones. Made Chomsky seem much less credible.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:13 pm
TBH, I was disappointed that Chomsky consented to an interview with Alex Jones. Made Chomsky seem much less credible.
I dont see how he was made to look less credible. Many of us (that are active) will debate with complete nutters at protests, everyone from pro-war to conspiracy nuts. Chomsky did what any intelligent person would do, and that is to debate misinformation.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 09, 2007 01:02 am--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ November 09, 2007 01:02 am)
Pawn [email protected] 09, 2007 05:15 am
Does anyone listen to alax jones who isn&#39;t a 911 truther?
Unfortunately yes, many. [/b]
that&#39;s sad.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I dont see how he was made to look less credible.

I think he handled that task himself by supporting John Kerry in the 2004 elections and calling the U.S. the freest country on earth.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 10:45 pm

I dont see how he was made to look less credible.

I think he handled that task himself by supporting John Kerry in the 2004 elections and calling the U.S. the freest country on earth.
He&#39;s still the go to guy on U.S foreign policy.

Who cares about what he says on anything other than foreign policy?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 09, 2007 03:45 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad &#064; November 09, 2007 03:45 pm)
I dont see how he was made to look less credible.

I think he handled that task himself by supporting John Kerry in the 2004 elections and calling the U.S. the freest country on earth.[/b]
No. If you read anything beyond the news headlines you&#39;d understand his position on "lesser evilism" and why he was reluctant to "endorse" Kerry.

You&#39;ve been on a roll lately doing nothing but slander anyone you don&#39;t like as anti-communist, and in this case Chomsky as incredible.

His position on the &#39;04 elections was hardly worthy of labeling him bizarre.

UK Guardian
Matthew Tempest
Saturday March 20, 2004
The Guardian

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party&#39;s presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian&#39;s politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as &#39;Bush-lite&#39;, which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

He reserved his especial venom for the Bush administration&#39;s plans for the health sector: "The people around Bush are deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century no matter what the cost to the general population."
Source. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html)

Also please source the "freest country on earth" statement along with it&#39;s context, please.

[bootleg42]

Actually I believe Chomsky has said many times that there are many freedoms in the U.S. that is admirable but I don&#39;t think he was praising it as the freest on earth. I don&#39;t remember exactly. Can someone post some links or sources on it???

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Q: You have frequently stated in the past that you consider the USA as the freest society on earth in the sense, for instance, that (as a result of past struggles) the right of free speech is today more protected in the USA than in any other country on earth. Marxists used to to dismiss this kind of freedoms as a kind of formal freedoms, following Marx for whom “equal right is still a bourgeois right” in the sense that it presupposes inequality. On the other hand, some anarchists similarly used to dismiss such freedoms on the grounds that they are derived from institutions of power. In view of today’s absolute control of the mass media by economic and political elites, which you accurately described in Manufacturing Consent, what meaning can we assign to the right of free speech in the USA and particularly to the freedom of press when, at the same time, every really dissenting voice from the prevailing consensus is effectively denied access to the mass media and is silenced or marginalised? What do you think of the view that the freedom of press is in fact a fagade which, though arguably meaningless for the vast majority of people, is very significant for the elites in manufacturing consent and generally in covering their real role in reproducing the ideology of an exploitative and hierarchical society?

A: For clarity, we should distinguish freedom of speech from freedom of the press. Thus even if freedom of press were a facade, freedom of speech would be worth defending and expanding. And I think it is a fact, and an important one, that by comparative measures the US has achieved high standards in protecting freedom of speech.

As for freedom of the press, while there is no doubt that the extreme concentration of economic-political power has an overwhelming influence on the mass media (and every other aspect of life), I would not want to call it “absolute control.” Even in a totalitarian state or military dictatorship or slave society, control is never absolute. In societies like ours, freedom of press is far from just a facade. There are many possibilities to pressure the media, and there are openings within them. There are also many other options beyond the mass media, some of which have been exploited very effectively.

http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/...omsky_press.htm (http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/vol5/chomsky_press.htm)

That was one of the first results of a quick google search.. he&#39;s said it openly many times in the past, including on the radio in Cuba.


He&#39;s still the go to guy on U.S foreign policy.

I wouldn&#39;t go that far; but he is a good critic.


Who cares about what he says on anything other than foreign policy?

A lot of comrades here, unfortunately.


No. If you read anything beyond the news headlines you&#39;d understand his position on "lesser evilism" and why he was reluctant to "endorse" Kerry.

Lesser evilism is bogus. It has nothing to do working class politics.


You&#39;ve been on a roll lately doing nothing but slander anyone you don&#39;t like as anti-communist, and in this case Chomsky as incredible.

I&#39;ve always exposed anti-communism wherever it shows itself. I&#39;m not sure what that has to do with this though..

I&#39;ve simply pointed out that Chomsky, the left&#39;s favorite "celebrity anarchist," has shown himself to be nothing more than a petty-bourgeois intellectual, ready to join with bourgeoisie in its exploitation of the working class in the name of supporting the "lesser evil".


His position on the &#39;04 elections was hardly worthy of labeling him bizarre.

..or an &#39;anarchist.&#39;

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Man: Hi, professor Chomsky, I am under the impression there is a sort of internal American electoral motivation to appear to be against Cuba in order to keep carrying Florida or something, can you address the…. The various political parties want to try to keep winning Florida. Can you address the motivation for us to be so nasty to Cuba?

Noam Chomsky: I don&#39;t…. I mean, that&#39;s certainly a factor, but it&#39;s very minor. We are lucky that we are in a very free country, the freest country in the world. That means we have more information about what our government does, thinks and plans, than any other country in the world.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:VUHBr...lient=firefox-a (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:VUHBrV_N8kQJ:info.interactivist.net/article.pl%3Fsid%3D06/02/28/1756221%26tid%3D+chomsky+freest+country+on+earth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

[Dimentio]

Remember that the guy is a professor and dependent on the MIT for his wage.

Many persons in the establishment are left-wing culturally, especially those born in the 1940;s. Clinton for example burned an American flag when he went on a demonstration during his university years.

[Red Terror Doctor]

N.Y. Times

Look at the last response to the last question.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20031102.htm