portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

The Sad Decline of the Establishment Left: On Chomsky and friends

This was a response written in a debate regarding Chuck0's latest "anti-conspiratorialist" rant. Naturally, it boiled down to Guru Chomsky and his dogmatic following!
Chomsky -- Decline of the Establishment Left
Tyrannosaurus Chomsky? 8:58pm Sun Dec 8 '02
comment#37243

In our disguised fascist system Noam Chomsky plays an important role: he helps maintain the facade of democracy. To the American elite, Chomsky is a virtual asset. Here's why:

1. Chomsky has become a walking, talking, lecturing contradiction—-and it helps to confuse people. Confusion is one way to sow insecurity and instability in groups already alienated and marginalized from the current modes of action:

- He calls the education system a "system of imposed ignorance" and then accepts honorary degrees all over the place (including one from University of Toronto not long after George Bush Sr. accepted the very same degree!!!!!), therefore reinforcing its perceived importance in society. Which one is it going to be Chomsky, imposed ignorance and therefore institutionalized oppression that demands our condemnation, or a system to venerate and seek status/recognition from?

- In the past, he has referred to the state as "institutionalized violence" and has stated that corporations cannot be reformed of democratized. To our utter dismay he is also known for preaching that hope exists within our government institutions...you know, those very institutions brutally and violently oppressing the world's poor.....those very institutions that co-exist and are part and parcel of the corporate system.

- Despite his past discussions on the contradiction between freedom of speech in the media and the lack of access to the major networks (which demand absurd time constraints on issues of global importance); despite his past discussions on media distortion, censorship and the 'manufacturing of consent'; despite the people suffering in jail for having spoken the truth a little too boisterously and passionately; despite the assassination of influential activists; despite the third-world conditions, including third-world-like police repression, in African-American ghettos; despite all of this, Chomsky still boasts that the American system and government provides a commendable amount of freedom to engage in various positive—falling short of revolutionary—actions. He rarely, if ever, admits that any action truly harming U.S. corporate interest and exposing the extent of corruption is immediately subdued, often very brutally.

- He has frequently dismissed attempts at discrediting his work as "conspiratorialist" with the retort: "it's an institutional analysis". Now we find him dismissing 9/11 skeptics, offering their own 'institutional analyses', with the very same ignorance and arrogance with which right wing hawks have attacked him! At one point he even referred to the alternative 9/11 information on the Internet as "an internet conspiracy theory" without offering any further analysis.

- Despite the plethora of facts proving irregularities in the official media version of 9/11 and proving the existence of a great deception being carried out on the world, Chomsky patently refuses to acknowledge this form of alternative journalism at a time when it is so drastically needed. So much for Mr. Manufacturing Consent and his 'outstanding moral integrity', for he is showing intellectual elitism in his will to bend to left side of a fascist system!

- Although he has lectured extensively on the role of oil in geopolitics and war, since 9/11 Chomsky has been focusing on trivial semantic arguments to downplay the role of oil in this present surge towards war. He now draws the distinction between "control over" and "access to" oil, as if control doesn't inherently imply an indirect or direct access to the mid-east oil supply; as if control over oil diminishes its role in the drive for geostrategic economic control through brute military force and "regime change". He is completely ignoring the writings of vile and powerful policy makers, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who discussed the selling of this new war for geostrategic control over oil (FOUR YEARS BEFORE 9/11 in his book The Grand Chessboard) as requiring a Pearl Harbor-like event to convince Americans of the unthinkable: namely, a war with practically the entire world.

2. As an enormously influential figure to the American left, Chomsky's positions effectively determine the direction of mainstream political dissidence. This fact, combined with his increasingly submissive takes on what is seen by many as a new rise in global fascism, helps to subdue the strength and effectiveness of the anti-capitalist/anti-war movement.

What does this mean?

Faced with increasingly totalitarian "anti-terror" laws and Orwellian government intelligence networks, the left is witnessing the preparation for the total criminalization of alternative grassroots political action. New Nazi-like immigration policies alone have resulted in the kidnapping and abuse of thousands of non-white immigrants since September 11th. Yet as he tours the continent speaking out against American foreign policy--as if nothing has changed in the past decade--Chomsky scarcely gives mention to the urgency of these times. His disregard for the growing police state in America and the rest of the Western countries is leading the left towards a cliff. You cannot successfully struggle against a system that continues to deceive you and condition your reactions. It is high time for people to admit their bad faith and open their eyes to the fascism that is American imperialism.

Our questions for Chomsky should be: how can someone who has been so openly critical of the American system for decades, suddenly fall in line with the mainstream media-accepted 'doves' of the American intelligentsia? What makes you suddenly seek acceptance within this brutal and hypocritical system?

ATTN NOAM 08.Dec.2002 23:04

FORMER LIBERAL

Attn. Noam Chomsky:
MIT was the 10th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force contracts during the 1999 fiscal year and the 12th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force contracts in the 2000 fiscal year. And, coincidentally, between 1993 and 1997, MIT Professor Sheila Widnall was the Clinton Administration's Secretary of the Air Force. In addition, an MIT Corporation Chairman of the Board, Paul Gray, has sat on the board of directors of Boeing in recent years. With $345 million worth of U.S. Air Force contracts, MIT received a larger amount of Air Force contracts than did IBM or General Dynamics in 1999. And in 2000, MIT's $339 million worth of U.S. Air Force contracts was a larger amount of Air Force contracts than either Rockwell, Littleton, Carlyle or Textron received in 2000. MIT & The Air Force by Bob Feldman
MORE HERE >  http://questionsquestions.net/docs0209/1112_mit.html



HTTP://ADAP2K.FREESERVERS.COM

Anti-conspiracy rant? 09.Dec.2002 17:14

Chuck0 chuck@tao.ca

Are you guys smoking too much weed out there in Portland? My essay on Indymedia was not "anti-conspiratorialist." The essay is NOT about conspiracy theories posted to IMC websites. In fact, I've become more tolerant of conspiracy research in the past year and have posted some of this stuff to Infoshop News.

I suggest that you re-read my essay.


Sadly I Agree with "Tyrannosauras Chomsky" 09.Dec.2002 20:04

gerry

I've come to the same sad conclusion as Tyrannosauras Chomsky about Noam Chomsky, who has in fact become a sort of dinosaur. He, Zinn and others have done great and important work in the past, but in these most urgent times they seem to be moving backward. How anyone with vision, conscience and a human heart still beating in his chest can utterly dismiss the work of 9/11 "conspiracy" journalists like Mike Ruppert and Jared Israel (the Emperor's New Clothes) is unforgivable.

Ya we have, weed is good for us 09.Dec.2002 21:00

pot-head conspiratorialist

Weed is probally why we can draw conclusions that you are incabable of Chuck.

BTW, your attempt at hiding your anti-"conspiratorialism" with ligitimate concerns for Indymedia will not slip by us "pot-heads".

From your post: "I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements)."

You're full of shit Chuck. It's so obvious what you are saying here. I particulaarly object to the broad assumptions you make, such as: "there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content".

I'm sure that this is only partly true. You simply cannot, in good faith, say that this statement doesn't attempt to paint the very legitimate alternative journalism with regards to 9/11 with the same brush as this nonesense anti-semitic crap.

There is a big difference between the two and you don't draw that distinction.

Furthermore, we've all heard your anti-"conspiratorialist" rants before and we know that you have been ignorantly dismissing very intelligent and informative journalism with regards to the 9/11 inconsistencies.

Like the Chomskyphiles, You're Obsessing... 10.Dec.2002 00:18

johnny applecore

From the looks of the article, it sounds like the author of this post is simply mad that Chomsky won't affirm Rupert's conspiracy theories.
The first point about confusion... If anyone is going to hang on every word Chomsky puts out to a point where they are paralyzed with confusion I have to outright question their critical thinking abilities in the first place. Luckily I don't think that this is true of anarchists or other radicals in general. As for Chomsky's actions- We live in a capitalist society. I really get tired of people pining over the actions of other people, giving them a political litmus test every 5 seconds. I could probably find a billion hypocrisies in anyone's life. Sitting around worrying about other people's lives is a hobby and doesn't amount to much. Yes Chomsky is a professor at a university that is less than perfect. Every institution of higher learning is going to be tainted in one way or another. His position allows him to engage and share his ideas with others. If you disagree with him tacitcally, so be it, but that doesn't mean he should be written off by every radical or that his idea are automatically useless. By accepting those awards he wins credibility among mainstream news and thinkers. This isn't something to actively seek out, but by simply accepting them he is able to build his reputation. That's bullshit, right? Who wants a reputation from those blasted elites? Well, it's the work of people like Chomsky and Zinn that I can refer to and have people actually listen to me, unlike someone like Mike Ruppert. You can stay in the anarchist ghetto if you'd like, but I'll stay in the real world myself.
The second point actually has some validity and substance
"As an enormously influential figure to the American left, Chomsky's positions effectively determine the direction of mainstream political dissidence." It might be an exaggeration, but if it's true then the movement is the one with the problem, not chomsky. For a movement, especially and anarchist one, to be directed by one man is dangerous and downright stupid.
Unfortunately, the second point just resumes to more pouting about Chomsky dismissing the rise of global fascism. Well yeah I don't blame him. If you look at international politics from an institutional perspective then it's a bit more complicated than that. The word "fascism" gets thrown around way too much. I'm interpreting this is as some new world order (something conspiracy theorists love to espouse to). So where is this NWO coming from? Some say the UN. I doubt it, they simply make suggestions that the US and other countries ignore. Corporations are certainly gaining strength and this is certainly dangerous and of course unjust. This is however an economic and political trend, not some group of elites plotting to take over the world and rule supreme. That's essentially impossible. As we see now, the US empire is beginning to struggle because it has become too large. And this empire could hardly be considered global fascism. There are economic and political reasons for globalization and by simply calling it a new world order of elites people miss the point.

Most of the originaly post ends up losing its focus and returning to the disappointment that Chomsky et al. won't buy into the conspiracy theories. I'm sure if they did agree with Rupert and friends this post would be a lot different. But instead they are villains that will destroy radicalism. To find out why these folks don't believe people like Rupert and the folks at Emperor's New Clothes or waste their time refuting specific theories read this article.
 http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

I take issue with... 10.Dec.2002 00:33

profrv@(nospam)fuckmicrosoft.com

...this
>>> Well, it's the work of people like Chomsky and Zinn that I can refer to and have people actually listen to me, unlike someone like Mike Ruppert. You can stay in the anarchist ghetto if you'd like, but I'll stay in the real world myself. <<<

This implies something laughable and idiotic and I don't buy it for a second.No anarchist I know quotes Mike Ruppert,(who he?)
Many quote Chomp and Zinn.So where is this anarchist ghetto at?
This 'article',this half baked rant got on the main wire somehow,what is it a slow news day?
The idea that Chomp is holding up the evil empire by opposing it in a reasoned way is pretty funny.
Has T pox thought about a career in entertainment journalism?
Not that I give 2 shits but if you want to attack Chomp,you better start by telling us who you are?
And if not why not?
Don't be shy.

for christ's sake 10.Dec.2002 01:04

dj tubesteak

We're actually attacking Noam Chomsky? I guess it's your prerogative if you want to do so, but I'm wondering what exactly you think we stand to gain. As I read your comments, your complaints basically boil down to the following:

-Chomsky refuses to engage in some sort of dramatic, spectacular renunciation of the institution which provides the position from which he propagates his ideas.

-He observes that some means still exist by which government can be used to offset abuses by those wielding social power, rather than adopting a simplistic worldview that sees only a single vaguely-defined 'corporate system' without any interior complexities that might allow for the employment of systemic devices in pursuit of public-oriented social and political goals. Similarly, he acknowledges that residents of the United States possess a certain degree of political freedom. You would prefer he conclude that the presence of domestic political repression necessarily means that no Americans have any freedom whatsoever, again apparently because you view any attempt to examine complexities in the system which might allow for citizen political action as a failure to adopt a view of the U.S. sociopolitical system as unchallengeable, monolithic, and completely rigid across all social sectors and strata.

-He does not seem to believe that the Bush administration represents an unprecedented development in the expansion of government and corporate power to apocalyptic extremes.

_He suggests that there might be motives and driving forces in American foreign policy that are more complex than a simple desire to acquire a specific economic commodity.

-He has referred to reports theorizing that a group of individuals cooperated to commit a crime (what's the word for that, again?) that have been published on the internet as an 'internet conspiracy theory'.

My thoughts:

Simply accepting academic awards is not the same thing as seeking out prestige within the academic community, and even the latter does not necessarily imply a compromise of principles. Chomsky is an academic by profession and is quite accomplished in his field, to the point that organizations in that field see fit to bestow awards. I'm not sure what this proves.

Unless you think he's somehow maintaining his position with an institution by compromising his integrity and his political views, of what significance is the fact he holds that position? If anything, wouldn't holding a position of status that affords him the opportunity to disseminate his views more widely make him that much more valuable to the movement?

This 'rise in global fascism' has been going on for decades. Bush really hasn't advanced it significantly further than Nixon, Reagan or Clinton. Chomsky has been talking about U.S. imperialism for years, maybe the reason he's not acting like the apocalypse is coming is because he realizes that the current American and geopolitical status quo is not all that new. Frankly, your comments almost seem to reflect the influence of Democratic party propaganda designed to paint Bush's administration as some kind of unprecedented crisis in order to promote the idea that dissidents should vote for right-wing Democrats.

I happen to think Chomsky's right about the 9/11 'conspiracy' question. Call me a cynic, but does it really matter who's actually responsible? Even if it was all planned and covered up by the Rockefellers and the Mossad, is any of that information ever going to reach any but a small fraction of the general public? The significance of the event is the usefulness of the official version as a pretext for domestic repression and global military aggression, thus those of us opposed to repression and aggression need to deal with that reality regardless of what other information we might have. Ruppert's work is commendable journalism, but is it going to stop the war?

chomsky isn't right--and he's rude 10.Dec.2002 04:26

institutions are made up of individuals

Q: Could you say something about connivance and the role of American Secret Service:

A: I don't quite understand the question. [!] The attack was SURELY AN ENORMOUS SURPRISE TO THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF THE WEST, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES.

-Chomsky, 911, pp 17-18.

================================================




Ashcroft Flying High
"the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." --CBS, July 26, 2001
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

Newspaper: Echelon Gave Authorities Warning Of Attacks
--WP, Newsbytes, September 13, 2001
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170072.html



San Francisco Gate Chronicle - Suspicious Profits Sit Uncollected
Airline investors seem to be lying low:
Pt 1 - September 19, 2001
 link to www.sfgate.com
Pt 2 - September 21, 2001
 link to www.sfgate.com
Pt 3 - September 22, 2001
 link to www.sfgate.com
Pt 4 - September 29, 2001
 link to www.sfgate.com


Willie Brown Got Low-Key Early Warning About Air Travel
For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.
--San Francisco Gate Chronicle, September 12, 2001
 link to www.sfgate.com

NY Times ADMITS Scrubbing 9-09 Warning
--Democrats.Com, 21 February, 2002
 http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6021

Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack

Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.
--Washington Post, September 27, 2001
 http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%
22Instant%2BMessages%2BTo%2BIsrael%2BWarned%2BOf%2BWTC%
2BAttack%22,%2Bwashington%2Bpost

=============================================

Could It Have Been Stopped? -CBS, May 08, 2002
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/08/60II/main508362.shtml

Agent: Moussaoui 'could fly ... into the WTC' -CNN, May 14, 2002
 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/12/inv.moussaoui.fbi/index.html

Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11 -CNN, May 15, 2002
 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/inv.fbi.terror/index.html

Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers - Washington Post, May 16, 2002
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23188-2002May15.html

What They Knew Before Sept. 11 - CBS, May 16, 2002
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

Democrats Say Bush Must Give Full Disclosure - NewYorkTimes, May 16, 2002
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/politics/17CONG.html?
ex=1022299200&en=7a689a94d366cef6&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

Prior hints of September 11-type attack - CNN, May 17, 2002
 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/17/bush.sept.11/index.html

F.B.I. Knew for Years About Terror Pilot Training - NewYorkTimes, May 17, 2002
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/politics/18FLIG.html

Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes - The Guardian, May 18, 2002
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,1609,718312,00.html

Bush is still running from 9/11 - Salon, May 18, 2002
 http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/05/18/comeclean/index_np.html

Poll: Americans Want Probe Into Intelligence Failings - Newsweek(MSNBC), May 18, 2002
 http://www.msnbc.com/news/754067.asp?cp1=1

Cheney Rejects Broader Access to Terror Brief - NewYorkTimes, May 19, 2002
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/20/politics/20POWE.html

Unheeded Warnings - Newsweek(MSNBC), May 20, 2002
 http://www.msnbc.com/news/751100.asp?cp1=1

Five Questions Bush Must Answer - Business Week, May 20, 2002
 http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2002/nf20020520_3078.htm

Ashcroft drawn into row over September 11 -Guardian, May 21, 2002
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,1609,719231,00.html

Bush told in August of specific threat to US - Independent (UK) May 21, 2002
 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=296628

When W. Came In, Our Luck Ran Out - Newsday, May 21, 2002
 http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/ny-
livit212714785may21.column?coll=ny%2Dhomepage%2Dmore%
2Dbreaking%2Dnews%20

WhiteHouse Admidts Latest Terror Warnings Deceptive - Globe&Mail, May 21, 2002
 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?
tf=tgam/common/SearchFullStoryPrint.html&cf=tgam/common/GenericSearch.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=doug%
2Bsaunders&option=&current_row=4&start_row=4&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1


***Coleen Rowley's Bombshell Memo -Time, May 21, 2002***
 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html


There's a lot Cheney feels we don't need to know - PostGazette, May 22, 2002
 http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020522gene0522p1.asp

Agent Rowley: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request - AP, May 24, 2001
 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=
716&e=1&u=/ap/20020525/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_moussaoui_23

President's Stance on 9/11 Inquiry Bucks Tradition - NYT, May 25, 2002
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/politics/26COMM.html

Moussaoui Memo Says FBI Stalled Probe After Attacks - LA Times, May 27, 2002
 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-052702terror.story

Ex-Agent Had Key Data - Stock scam charges have eerie link - Newsday, May 29, 2002
 http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyfeds292724422may29.story

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11- SFGate Chronicle, June 03, 2002
 http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/

Sept. 11 Attack Quotes - Statements then and now - NYT/AP, June 08, 2002
 link to www.nytimes.com

What Did The Press Know, and When Did They Know It?--BartCop
 http://www.bartcop.com/051702cal.htm

the anarchist ghetto 10.Dec.2002 11:41

johnny applecore

I think you misinterpretted the statement >>> Well, it's the work of people like Chomsky and Zinn that I can refer to and have people actually listen to me, unlike someone like Mike Ruppert. You can stay in the anarchist ghetto if you'd like, but I'll stay in the real world myself. <<< It was not meant to be an attack on the anarchist community, but of individual purer-than-though anarchists whose ideas do not reach anyone outside of their circle because they don't want to get their hands dirty with the real world.
Most (or atleast a good number of) anarchists do quote chomsky and zinn and this is my point. Those are indiviuduals (Chomsky, Zinn, Albert, etc.) who have successfully brought forth radical ideas and help broaden the movement. The reference to the anarchist ghetto is that it can be a tendency within the movement, not a description of what the movement is. Conspiracy theories that fail to see the complexity of society and institutions simply push others away and perpetuate that anarchist ghetto. People that believe them and insist others should too are also perpetuating this ghetto of thought.
It sounds like we're on the same page...just a miscommunication.

Response 10.Dec.2002 16:31

Chuck0

>>From your post: "I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements)."

>>You're full of shit Chuck. It's so obvious what you are saying here. I particulaarly object to the broad assumptions you make, such as: "there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content".

There was circumstantial evidence that the right wingers were posting this content along with other stuff in an attempt to change the nature of the IMC-Global newswire. I know, because I compared the time stamps between posts on IMC-Global and other websites. Extra conspiracy content would be posted at the same time as right wing content. The right wingers were trying to tar Indymedia as a less serious media source because of the conspiracy content. I see little problem at this point with conspriacy content on Indymedia, as long as newswire moderators are vigilant about preventing reposts of the same content.

>>I'm sure that this is only partly true. You simply cannot, in good faith, say that this statement doesn't attempt to paint the very legitimate alternative journalism with regards to 9/11 with the same brush as this nonesense anti-semitic crap.

No, my statements simply pointed out what the right wingers were doing to Indymedia newswires. The main point of my essay was about anti-semitic and racist content on the newswires.

>>There is a big difference between the two and you don't draw that distinction.

Sure.

>>Furthermore, we've all heard your anti-"conspiratorialist" rants before and we know that you have been ignorantly dismissing very intelligent and informative journalism with regards to the 9/11 inconsistencies.

Sorry, but I've changed my position on this in the past 6 months or so. Sorry that I didn't inform everybody about this change in my thinking. I guess if I had advertised it people wouldn't be comparing me to David Corn. I had a talk with a trusted friend about Michael Ruppert's work and he convinced me that there was much of his work that was right on target. I then started posting more of this content to Infoshop News.

Sorry if my rants before were too rigid. I was pretty concerned about what right wingers were doing to our newswires that I got a bit carried away.

Demise 11.Dec.2002 00:16

The Redcoat

The news of IndyMedia's demise is highly exaggerated.

CHOMSKY'S LANGUAGE THEORIES IN PART TO BLAIM 11.Dec.2002 11:10

A POST TOSTIE (POSTSTRUCURALIST)

When Chomssky used (in the 1980's) to get cornered into debating European progressives (like Derrida) and anarchists (like Foucault) the astonishing conservatism of his good-ol-boy white phallogocentric linguist theories came out boldly. In a thumbnail sketch: he holds to a Cartesian worldview in which the priveledged human "subject" makes progress over an essentially dead "real-world". Needless to say his Cartesian and boldly Hegelian dualism and dialectics (in which the primary contradiction must always be wage labor vs. capital) leaves no room for such ephemera as animal rights, feminism, or maginality like French anarchism.

As I said before, I like his rants against imperialism. He knows nothing about language. Sounds like he's also a little dogmatic about 911.

Oh, c'mon gang 12.Dec.2002 18:59

gramps

There's nothing to be gained by this divisive squabbling over personalities. Either Chomsky or Zinn would tell you that THEY are not the story here. In fact, every bit of persuasive energy used to natter back and forth over these two academics is energy that is desperately needed in other venues.

The internal squabbling of the left has always been money in the bank for the powerful few. In determining whether the Historian or the Linguist has a view that encompasses all things at all times, we risk dimming the light on the real issues even further. If you have a better, more relevant analysis that improves on C or Z, by all means get it out there. We're listening.

Gramps

YourFathersChomsky&amp;Zinn 23.Dec.2002 21:01

Naoum Odnopozov

You, Americans, anarchists or bourgois, have never been grateful to your parents, maybe because the majority did not deserve your respect.
You pass now your personal family problems to the pensioned rebel who by pure magic have not been thrown from the new American jet into ocean.
Chomsky opened eyes to many who needed his punctual, factual information on the state fascisation of the mental racist anti-Human Zionazism in Israel and KuKlunazism in the other Zio-American states.
He, Zinn and other progressives have added a substantial portion of knowledge to the organisation of different forms of social antifascist struggle.
Yes, he was clever. Today he is pensioned. He deserves to have a few months of a peaceful rest now when we have been trained (it's what he thinks) to use our brains ourselves.
On 9/11 - unfortunatly, his brain is not a brain of a cartoonist. He is an academician, a prof. He needs the
fingerprints.
Your father cannot be young forever. It's your time.
Stop Zio-American fascism breaking the neck of the Republic of Venezuela. Help Europeans and Russians of Jewish origin lured to Israel and stucked there with airtickets or arms.
Make a human shield around each ex-Jewish family trying to escape from Israel. Make human shield around Baghdad.
Forget for a month-two your old father Chomski with his linguistics.
Action!