CHOMSKY -- THE *LIBERAL*! And "leftists" are actually going to pay money to see this guy??

-

THURS, Oct 1st: Noam Chomsky, KALW, 91.7fm, 11:AM-Noon, Your Call show (also archived)
by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA
Thursday Oct 1st, 2009 11:23 AM

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/01/18624048.php

-

I guess the sheep pay money to hear Noam b/c they like being herded by their gate-keeper. Like the Black Knight in Monte Python and the Holy Grail, Noam bellows "None shall pass", i.e. thou goest no further left than I. Good job, Joseph!

(right along with the U.S. Republican party) is one of the most violent organizations on the face of the earth!

Noam Chomsky opposes the 9/11 Truth Movement and supports the government's lie of the lone assassin in the JFK assassination when in fact it was the US military that perpetrated the 9/11 Inside Job and it has been proven in a court of law that the CIA murdered JFK, not Lee Oswald, although that was obvious as it happened. Oswald said he did not murder anyone on November 22, 1963 and he was just a patsy and that was correct. As to the 9/11 Reichstag Fire, no air defense means it was an inside job, and if you need more, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, should do it. Chomsky also opposes the Bolshevik Revolution, which had nothing to do with Stalin's counter-revolution, and everything to do with eliminating the capitalist profit motive, the only hope for humanity and the planet. Noam Chomsky is REACTIONARY.

Have most people over a certain rather young age, anymore, ever come out of a Chomsky lecture knowing anything that they didn't really, common really, know when they went in (other than his substituting country y for country x)? For example, an actually novel way of looking at something political, or an actually new conceptualization of something political, or a much more insightful, incisive and effective articulation of some political issue or controversy? Does anyone ever hasten to immediately jot down some sentence, phrase or idea that he says, thinking to themselves, "Yeah I've got to remember how he put that!"? Or think to themself, "Wow I never thought of that!"? Or exclaim to themselves, "I didn't know that...!"? Has Chomsky ever led anything? Other than his sheep, by the nose?

-

How can all those high leftist icons and pundits *scoff at* and *chide* the white working-class for "repeatedly and continually voting (for the Republicans) against their interests"...

when those same leftist icons -- and they tell us to -- do (voting for the DemoPublicans / RepubliCrats) _the very same thing_ in this 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' elite governing class system.

The left has a low self-esteem co-dependent relationship with the over-all Democrat leadership, like a chronically abused wife has with her chronically abusive husband: to keep her from leaving, after every serious abuse, he keeps promising her, over and over again, that he'll do better, with a few more sweet words ("Baby you know I'm yourrrs...") -- and, no matter what, how he takes her for granted ("What else are you gonna *do*...?", he says) or abuses her again, she keeps staying with him.

No wonder the Democrats, as a whole, don't respect us, but just humor and smooth talk us when necessary.

-

of course, to continue the abusive husband analogy, to leave for the republican party is like taking up with an abusive boyfriend. the relationship is based on sickness.

You learn to have some self-respect and recognize, get out and stay out of abusive relationships, Democrat or Republican, altogether, and don't look to them for your validation, and learn to build _NEW_ mentally and politically _HEALTHY_ relationships with someone else.

What's with all this name-calling? There are a lot of more constructive ways of of making arguments. Let's quit worrying about whether Chomsky is so and so or this and that. He has views like anybody else. It's peoples actions that we should be worrying about...you can find plenty of examples direct your energies of criticism towards.

Whoever is the author(s?) of this thread, what do you propose? It would be nice to hear an actual proposal or argument.

And in terms of Chomsky inability to provide "new conceptualizations" or "novel ways" of thinking, there are plenty of theorists/technocrats all throughout history who have dressed up their ideas in polysyllables and jargon, and you can coop yourself up in a library reading all about them. Flowery theories have the tendency to discourage people and make it seem like the issues and problems of the world are beyond the average person's understanding.

Enough sectarianism. We're human beings.

Views, by Sir, Saturday Oct 3rd, 2009 2:53 PM:

"What's with all the name-calling? ...Let's quit worrying about whether Chomsky is so and so or this and that. ...you can find plenty of examples [to] direct your energies of criticism towards."


THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS, SO WHY EXCLUDE *NOAM CHOMSKY* IF THE INTELLECTUAL AND/OR MORAL CRITICISM IS LEGITIMATE?:

WHY IS SOMEONE (CHOMSKY'S GROUPIE SHIELD) *ALWAYS* TRYING TO STOP LEGITIMATE AND VALID INTELLECTUAL CRITICISM OF *NOAM CHOMSKY*?


That sounds like the very definition of turning someone into a *cult figure* or *deity* -- which is exactly what Chomsky's star-struck fans/acolytes have done to him. That means that he is above intellectual, political, and moral criticism???...

When people mistakenly "label" Chomsky as "a leftist icon", let alone an Anarchist, in the supposedly intellectually or politically serious sense of the phrase -- instead of what he actually is -- a smart *liberal* who is good on *certain topics*, but *NOT* on others -- too many people take his word as a command from on high (i.e., a deity or cult figure): "one *must* repeatedly and continually vote for imperialist and/or neoliberal, especially, presidential, candidates in swing states; one *musn't* do BDS against Israel; ignore the Israel lobby and deny it has any power; don't condemn Zionism"; etc... Why?: "Because *CHOMSKY* said so, and everyone knows he's a genius!" This is actually *ANTI-INTELLECTUAL*.

This cult/deity/hero-worship isn't helping to build any kind of radical alternatives; rather, it is *hindering* -- or downright *working against* -- it. That's certainly not how we develop and intellectually, morally or politically advance, a movement. And it leads to, and has led to, intellectual and political stagnation on the left. That's why, as I wrote in my casual Indybay article above (I hope to find time to polish it for the Daily Planet, etc.), that the only __"**mmasss mmilllitant dirrect grrassrroots acction in the strreets**"__, that leftists are always calling for, so far, is, as I said above, from *THE RIGHT-WING MASSES* (who obviously want their demands met more than the left wants its)!

The terms "liberal" (which in itself is just a *political* label, based on common/standard criteria of the political definition); or "racist" (applied to Zionism and Israel, or Chomsky and Finkelstein et al, which can be *objectively* and *lexically* demonstrated); or "hypocrisy" (which can also be *objectively* and *logically* demonstrated) all have objective meaning. If all I did was call Chomsky (or Finketstein or any of those other -- supposedly leftist-- 'anti-Occupation' Zionists) names without intellectually/analytically substantiating it, my accusations would be pretty meaningless, and people wouldn't be paying any attention to them at all, positively or negatively, or sometimes (for those who do take exception) even attempting to intellectually/morally argue/debate with me. (Of course, their arguments are very easily defeated by anyone with the ability for deeper critical analysis -- and who is not star-struck by Chomsky, Finkelstein et al -- who will and has the time to write formal articles, and can politically afford to go public with such articles.) My articles certainly wouldn't get published at places like DissidentVoice, or BlackCommentator, or other news, literary or political publications of some national repute.

Of course there is value in "labeling" (you deflectingly call it "name-calling") -- I would say "identifying" -- Chomsky as a liberal: *not* --and *VS.*-- what he *CALLS* himself and *CLAIMS* to be. Not because one can't *hypothetically* "respect" someone personally (which, as someone, myself, who comes from an oppressed minority [and, guess what?: Jews are *not* oppressed in America] I *don't* repsect Chomsky/Finkelstein ) -- which really is *IRRELEVANT* to my intellectual and moral critique/criticism of Chomsky --as it isn't fundamentally personal at all (only, as someone who comes from an oppressed minority, my value judgement about Chomsky's positions and actions when it comes to other oppressed people) -- because I don't even know the guy personally -- but because that person's ACTIONS and PUBLICLY *STATED POSITIONS* -- and/or WHAT SHOULD BE *GLARING* INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL *CONTRADICTIONS* --on issues demonstrate *WHERE THEY ACTUALLY AND IN FACT AND/OR PRACTICE STAND*, ideologically and politically. OR DO YOU JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER SOMEONE *CLAIMS* TO BE? -- BECAUSE, IN THE *REAL* WORLD, THAT'LL GET YOU SUCKERED PRETTY FAST.


While there might be some disagreements on certain aspects, there are at least certain mutually agreed-upon and reasonably settled (standard), intellectual and political *criteria* and *core beliefs* -- the legal profession calls them "facts/issues not in dispute" -- that *define/constitute* categories or subcategories of what a Marxist, or Communist, or Anarchist, or Socialist, etc., or alternaely, a capitalist, or economic neoliberal, or imperialist, or what characterizes a political "liberal" or Democrat (since they actually have party platforms that define the body of their beliefs, and domestic and foreign policy positions and programs) is.

You didn't see me *accuse* Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama, or the Clintons of being a, so-called, "liberal" (or Democrat, or capitalist) because that's what they call themselves! They make no secret of it. And Obama and Clinton are not hiding the fact they they are continuing Bush's foreign policy (that any standard political definition objectively calls a form of imperialism): even numerous mainstream media pundits, both Democrat and Republican, have explicitly acknowledged that on the air. Pelosi, Obama and the Clintons *don't* call themselves Marxists, or Communists, or Anarchists, or anti-imperialists. So, I'm not just arbitrarily or willy-nilly slinging around labels with regard to Chomsky: in fact, *Chomsky's* the one who seems to be arbitrarily calling himself an "Anarchist".


Btw, speaking of *further* hypocrisy, Chomsky (or Finkelstein) never hesitates to engage in simplistic or more sophisticated name-calling or get personally quite nasty (which is something I never do) against *others* whenever they (Chomsky/Finkelstein) want to, or otherwise label, and in very ad hominem terms -- with people who intellectually and/or morally disagree with them -- or against those whom Chomsky/Finkelstein somehow disagree (like when Finkelstein, speaking of "labelling", calls Berkeleyans who disagree with him "old hippie, pie-in-the-sky, armchair Marxists"; or (Finkelstein) insultingly dismissing others that they disagree with as engaged in "Starbucks debates"; or when that rather privileged white man *racistly* called Cornel West "a minstrel" [or not even that? ] and, out of academic jealously I supppose, called Michael Eric Dyson "an irresponsible [do you understand the historical racial bigotry in the gratuitous and actually unfounded occupational use of that label?], jet-setting, class[room] canceller"). But then Chomsky (Finkelstein get all haughty about "not engaging in ad hominems or personal motivations" whenever anyone intellectually backs them into a corner or makes, however legitimate, intellectually and morally unflattering historical comparisons about their *actual/true* political positions in practice.)

Contrary to what people like Finkelstein (and perhaps Chomsky) -- especially from/to people in the ivory tower -- think are merely theoretical "Starbucks debates" (as he *dismisses and personally insults* any intellectual and moral criticism of his *positions*) these represent literally LIFE & DEATH issues for, especially, poor, working-class people, and otherwise oppressed people -- as they obviously *don't* for Chomsky -- the multimillionaire, senior, tenured, titled, "University Professor" at MIT and the leafy avenues and vintage stately homes of the professor neighborhood of Cambridge -- or Finkelstein, who's at least a very affluent, constant, national and international celebrity traveller. That's why I'm so *SERIOUS* about these issues. Which is why I can't avoid using CAPS -- purely for emphasis (not "shouting") -- and asterisks in debates about such issues, like *HYPOCRISY*, *OPPRESSION* and *RACISM*: these are *NOT* merely theoretical "Starbucks debates" to people like me.

I, being a *SERIOUS* African American intellectual leftist, and for other oppressed people, DEAL IN THE *REAL* WORLD OF *LIFE* AND *DEATH* AND *OPPRESSION* AND *SUFFERING* -- OR *OPENLY* OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS THAT WILL, AS A MATTER OF *ACTUAL POLICY* (not merely "a few bad apples" or "a few cops that got out of hand"), *SYSTEMATICALLY SHOOT* YOU DOWN IN THE STREETS, or *UNABASHEDLY* TORTURE AND KILL YOU -- not in the ivory tower, or pedant world, &/or just the rather affluent/privileged world of white progressive politics. So, with people like me, this is where theory -- and especially *HYPOCRISY* -- meets and hits THE *REAL* WORLD and have to survive, or *not*, CONTACT WITH *REALITY*. And when confronted with intelligent people IN THE *REAL* WORLD of *ACTUAL* LIFE & DEATH, of course we won't stand for such *BLATANT* -- TO US -- *CONTRADICTIONS* and *HYPOCRISY*. THOSE CONTRADICIONS ARE NOT MERELY *THEORETICAL* TO US.


It is important to be able to make the distinction between Marxists, or Anarchists, and people on the left versus mere liberals/reformers. If you can't make that distinction, then:

(1) You don't really understand Marxism/Anarchism, or significant aspects/points of it, in the first place -- even I (certainly no expert) dare say [which is sometimes, and has been, my sense of many people who call themselves "Marxist", which is why you see me put the claim in dubious quotation marks a lot];

and

(2) You will find yourself led down the garden path by liberals/reformers or 'Pied Pipers' -- in Marxist/Anarchist drag -- who might make "stirring speeches" and write lots of "good books", but who invariably steer people away from things that are "too radical" and/or Marxist/Anarchist principles and core beliefs, and otherwise steer them to a practical dead end (just like where Chomsky and Finkelstein would, and successfully have long tried to, stear the American pro-Palestinian human rights and liberation movement) -- because such people don't actually want anything leading to real change to be accomplished, because they are happy/pleased/invested with essentially the current and fundamental conditions (like, in Chomsky, Finkelstein, Bennis, Avnery, Harper, Zunes, and other closet/"left" Zionists' cases, a ideologically Jewish state on 85% of historic Palestine, while tossing millions of indigenous Palestinians some trifurcated bantustan "state" in name only), while, otherwise, they 'talk a good leftist/"Anarchist/Marxist/Communist/Maost" game'.

And since Chomsky, and for that matter Finkelstein, vehemently oppose criticizing the very colonialist and imperialist white-supremacist ideology that oppresses the Palestian people, and that has directly led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and the indirect deaths of over a milion people in the Middle East, and the displacement of millions more, and since they oppose even historically proven nonviolent resistance support to the people that ideology has immediately oppressed for well over a half-century, it is Chomsky who has diligently worked to *decrease/elminate* political space for others on the left.


What is important today is breaking away from the liberal, "lesser evilism" ideology that gets us nowhere. Chomsky, because of his cult status and the religious weight his pronouncements are given on the white left, poses a barrier -- even an *opposition* -- to making actual progress on the left (and, from that perspective, in American politics), and therefore a critique of Chomsky is also *critical* -- something any true leftist ought to be participating in, not opposing it. It is not "name-calling" or a personal attack: it is part of the necessary work of intellectually and morally pointing out the grand statue's clay feet so that leftists can begin to critically think for themselves, instead of relying on the pronouncements, from on high, of a cult/deity/celebrity, critically "unquestionable" figure.

-

Sir: "And in terms of Chomsky['s] inability to provide "new conceptualizations" or "novel ways" of thinking, there are plenty of theorists/technocrats all throughout history who have dressed up their ideas in polysyllables and jargon... Flowery theories have the tendency to discourage people and make it seem like the issues and problems of the world are beyond the average person's understanding."

Malcolm X provided "new conceptualizations" or "novel ways" of thinking. And he didn't tell us to vote for imperialist, neocolonialists [today we call it economic neoliberalism], warmongering, corporatist presidents. And Malcolm spoke in very down to earth words, very novel and new conceptualizations, and immediateldy englightening language (even single sentences), and new ways of thinking (ever heard of "decolonizing your mind"?), about the issues and problems of the world, that indeed *reached* a LOT of average people's understanding.

(Ever head of Malcolm X's communications edict about, "making it plain"! Ever heard of, "Colonialism is the perpetration that tries to make the wolf look like the lamb and the lamb look like the wolf"? Makes you immediately understand Christian white-supremacist colonialism in Africa, and Jewish white-supremacist colonialism in historic Palestine. Ever heard of, "I'd rather walk among rattlesnakes, whose constant rattle warns me where they are, than among those … snakes who grin and make you forget you're still in a snake pit." Makes you immediately understand the loudmouth, brash and boorish Republicans vs. the "I feel your pain" Democrats like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and even Christian Zionist Jimmy Carter.)

And after almost 45 years, Malcolm's words still strongly hold true. In fact, on issues of war and major foreign policy, he said that Democrats, as a whole, were essentially no different than Republicans: they both continued the same major foreign and economic policy, just under different management. Malcolm (and later King) was a threat to the system (which is why he was assassinated); Chomsky is *NOT* (in fact he reroutes the left back into it, which is why he was allowed to grow old, at 80 and counting, and rrrrich, become at the least a millionaire, and an elite-entitled, senior, tenured professor at MIT).

The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic

http://www.sott.net/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php

"Chomsky has been the doorway for so many people to become involved in politics. They read Chomsky, and they become excited about political work. And it is only later, if they are fortunate, that they discover that Chomsky not only opens the door, he closes it as well!"

--Jeffrey Blankfort, anti-Zionist Jewish-American progressive journalist-writer-activist

Dear Comrades,

I listened to an extended excerpt of Chomksy's speech at the Paramount Theater in Oakland (I think about maybe 20 minutes on KPFA, around 6:35am this morning) and (probably in part because I'm Black and his style just wouldn't cut it with a Black audience), first, he really *really* drr-rronnned on in *perfect* Chomsky style (okay I guess that's to be expected, although this excerpt was *really* drrroney) but, second, IT JUST SEEMED TO BE A DRONING WARMED-OVER *REHASH* -- LIKE A MISH-MASH MEDLEY (you know, like those sappy Las Vegas stage show musical medleys, not that I know first-hand) -- OF OLD CHOMSKY SPEECHES OR WHATEVER HE'S SAID ON "DEMOCRACY NOW" -- or political punditry that you could even hear from a liberal-left Democrat pundit on Bill Moyer's Journal or, in general, on some other PBS roundtable show!

(You can hear the Chomsky speech excerpt on KPFA this morning at the *KPFA.org* [not Democracy Now] audio archives, where Amy was helping to pitch for fundraising this morning. KPFA will probably play it again and/or more of it on other shows for their fundraising segments, and eventually play most/all of the entire speech at some point soon, maybe on some show after the fundraising is over. Btw, KPFA is extending the fundraising into this week because they said they were $200,000 under their goal!: gee, I wonder *why*?...)

Actually, *seriously*, even though I don't care for Chomsky much anymore, I wondered (Amy said it was a packed Paramount Theater [of at least 3,040 seats]) if the people attending thought they got ROYALLY RIPPED OFF! Unless I, hypothetically, were just a Chomsky fanatic, I can't help but think I'd be sitting there disappointedly shifting in my seat and thinking, "Awww, hhhelll nahttp://www...!: is this what I spent *$32* -- minimum (well, *$22* for "lower income") -- to come hear!!???" He didn't say anything *new* (at least not from that extended audio excerpt)!

Unless the $50-&-above ticket holders were just glassy-eyed Chomsky superfans (and at that price they probably were), I could otherwise imagine that they were *really* pissed! For $32-$50 (or $100), you could go hear some great music concert (or for $100 get *2* tickets and go with a friend/girlfriend/boyfriend) and **really** enjoy yourself!

For $32 or less you could hear a jazz headliner at Yoshi's (and maybe get a nice glass of wine too); for $50 you could hear a jazz headliner, plus a couple of drinks and apetizers at Yoshi's; or, just a really nice dinner out in the Bay Area (for $10 more, a prix fixe dinner at Chez Panisse on Mon/Tues/Wed); and for $100 you could go splurge on yourself, anywhere, or treat someone to a very nice dinner date in San Francisco!

Hell, since it was a fundraiser for MECA, I'd have preferred that MECA just have some gala catered dinner party (I mean, they already have *really nice* hors d'oeuvres, cheese, fruit and wonderful dessert spreads when they only ask $10/$15 for an event. Just imagine what they could do for $32/person!?: they could have a linen table cloth & napkins, wine crystals, catered gala reception & (at least buffet) dinner, have a few speeches by Baraba and local Mideast travelling notables and hire some good political comedian -- *plus* hire a live instrumental soft acoustic background music group!!!? Hell, I'd easily go for *that*!

For *$50(I'd even go for *that*!)-$100/person*, MECA could hire a big black stretch SUV/limousine to pick those people up from their homes (undoubtedly in the Berkeley/Oakland/Albany/Kensington/etc./Orinda hills), or maybe from a central hotel gathering place (like the Sheraton Palace, the grand Marriot or Embarcadero Hyatt in San Francisco) and drop them back off afterwards!! And for *$250/person*, MECA could have the limo driver pull down the back of your suit pants, or pull up the back or of your dinner party gown, and kiss your bare ass just before and afterwards at your house, while they serve you a glass of champagne and an appetizer on a small crystal dish on the way over to the event!

Shit -- from that excerpt I'd say that -- those people at the Chomsky speech got *ripped*!!: He was the equivalent of progressive political *muzak*!

In solidarity,

Joseph


-

I just heard that Chomsky said *nnothing* about the Godstone Report in his big Oakland, CA, speech: I guess because it didn't blame the *U.S* WASP goy "ruling class", U.S. imperialism, or world capitalism -- but *Israel* itself!

JA: "(Amy [Goodman] said it was a packed Paramount Theater [of at least 3,040 seats])"

Report: "I heard the house was only about 2/3 full and he said nothing new..."

-

Quote: "Noam Chomsky's comments on the USS Liberty (it was all just a big mistake - the Israelis thought it was an Egyptian freighter, so of course it was alright to bomb it)"


I didn't know that about Chomsky! Geee!: why should I not at all be surprised...? This is what I would say: a la Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy at the Senate Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954:

"Alas, Mr. Chomksy..., let us not assassinate those lads on the Liberty any further -- any further than Israel already has... You, Mr. Chomsky..., have done enough. ...Have you, Mr. Chomsky, no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency left? Is *nothing* too tragic for you to not find a way to deflect from and ultimately defend the state of Israel?": this is what I would ask Noam.

-

Just like Noam Chomsky,Joseph Anderson celebrated the election of Barack Obama on KPFA radio,even though he 's now trying to distance himself from both.
Actually Joseph Anderson went even farther:He made the point to attend Ralph Nader's events to disrupt them;at Nader's presentation at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland he had to be restrained by Nader's security and was thrown out of the place.
This conduct by Joseph Anderson can only be explain by his racial solidarity with Obama since Joseph Anderson doesn't have any identifiable ideology other than being a racist of color or ,perhaps?, an agent provocateur at the service of some agency since he's being thrown out of many events for disruption,among others:at the presentation of Norman Finkelstein in Berkeley.