yesterday i met this young dude student. He had a lot of iterests and we got talking about this and that and tother. He mntoned Noam Chomsky who you could tell he wa really into. told me he'd been to his lectures etc
I aksed him if he'd heard the term 'Leftwing gatekeeper' and he said he hdn't. i told him it'd been said that Chomsky is aleftwing gatekeeper. he asked what i mant, and i briefly explained itmans somone APPEARS radical, but it is half arsed. i could tell his hackles wnt up when i said tat cause for him Noam is some kinda guru

Anyway, i thought it'd be interesting to talk about it here.......an example of Chomsky's only-going-halfway-ish-ism., which conpires in its own way to DE-FUSE radical dissent---------- he for example utterly utterly refuses to see any global conspiacy behind 9/11 etc as you will see from this article:
before a give you lnk---at a conference where someone asked him--in 2002--if hebelieved a government backing for 9/11 he replies:
"That's an internet theory and it's hoplessly implausible. Hoplessly implausible. So hoplessly implausible I
don't see any point talking about it."
hmmmm me thinks he protests TOO much

now link: http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Boards=conspire&Number=1171076&page=0&vie...
so anyhow, let me know yer reactions to what you read an ting:

helooooooo helooo)))))))anyone read it yet?...or are u all wallowing ina state of abject apathy....what?

I just finished reading it, Duendy, out of curoisity, and trust me - you don't want my comments. :D

Has Chomsky ever called for the end of Israel ? Has Chomsky ever justified Palestinian right of armed resistance ? His criticisms of Israel fall completely well within the acceptable guidelines of the America intellectual class . If you want an insight into his thinking on the Israel/Palestinian conflict read his Fateful Triangle if you know how to analyze what you read nowhere in that book does he justify Palestinian resistance . Chomsky only relates in his book what is already common knowledge about Israeli atrocities . You want to go further with this intellectual fake read his interview with David Barsamian ( secrets , lies and democracy=Odonian Press ) where he said Zionism wasnt racist and then went on to describe Arab nations as anti-semitic and racist .

Or read his book ' revisiting Camelot ' where he tries to prove Kennedy was really indeed building up for involvement in Vietnam . All the declassified documents Chomsky showed in the book about Kennedy clearly showed he was indeed pulling troops out Vietnam and was going to end US involvement in early 64 yet he was trying to argue elsewise that Kennedy had a secret agenda. He even spent 12 pages of the book debunking Assassination theories about Kennedy that he really was a victim of a lone nut ! That was the book that made me realize this guy was just what he was the acceptable face of intellectual criticism he knows clearly the guidelines and parameters of criticism and he knows not to cross them .

I have analyzed his views from his books on the problems in Central and South America to Sth East Asia . They are really a mass of quotes of cutting and pasting of articles from various sources and in-between he adds his comments accept it that man is a fraud . is already common knowledge what has happened in Central America nothing new comes out just that he has amassed a whole lot of information and put it all in one scrapbook . Again just a whole lot of information to read but no explanation and indictment .

I doubt duendy has read anything by Chomsky.

anyone read it yet?...or are u all wallowing ina state of abject apathy....what?Duendy, one of the essential features of a BBS is the fact that we each sift through the interesting things that we have encountered during our reading, and we report on them. That's why these are called bulletin boards. They contain bulletins.

It defeats the purpose if every single one of us has to go back and read the whole frelling article or whatever it was that you already read. You are supposed to take the time to abstract it, pull out its salient points, and present them to an educated, intellectual readership who don't need the entire original fifth-grade level text to comprehend it. That way we all (including you) have the time to keep up with a lot more information.

So no, I didn't read it. If I followed every URL that's posted on SciForums I'd be about two years behind.

Why do you think your teachers made you learn how to write book reports?

Anybody who claims that the evidence supports Oswald as a lone assassin after the 1978 House Committee on Assassinations report was released is either lying, uniformed, or blinded by bias.

I suspect Dan Rather of being a "Left wing gate keeper" because he was too deeply involved in the aftermath of the Kennedy assination to be believable as opinionated but misinformed so when he said in 2003 that all the evidence proved that Oswald was the lone assasin he blew his cover. Rather was the only Media person to see the Zapruder video tape in the first several years after the assasination and it is alledged that he lied to America about the motions of Kennedy's head and body as seen on the tape. Being the person who saw the tape may explain how Rather his National Media job. The CBS leadership in the early 1950s were involved in a then secret now declassified government run public perception management program.

In 2001 Rather launched the false fact "FEMA-Kennedy arrived in NY on Sept. 10th" which some conspiracy theorists incorporated into their 9-11 conspiracy evidence only to be easily debunked. Rather also gave his post 9-11 tearful we have to do what ever the president says now speach on ?Letterman. That attitude got us into Iraq.

Then Rather single handedly destroyed the young Bush was AWOL in Alabama story by using provably fasle documents. Retired LT Colonel Bill Burkett who had long been trying expose the Bush AWOL story was CBS new's source for the documents. Burkett insists that his giving of the documents to CBS was contingent on CBS getting them verified before they used them. CBS verification found them to be dubious but CBS used them anyway. Burkett says and Rather/CBS agree that CBS asked Burkett for the documents and that Burkett did not contact CBS about having the documents. I can not find out who told CBS that Burkett had the documents. Burkett refuses to say who gave him the documents.

For years Dan Rather, the New York Times, and the biased liberal media has been a consevative talking point that is used over and over again. Who made Rather the symbol of liberalism and why? Rather never chalanged corporate welfare or did anything other than oposing vietnam to earn his extreme liberal credentials. The New York Times also has been a reliable ally of Wall Street, the CFR, Neo Cons and most targets of conspiracy theorists for at least 50 years. I think the New York times might also be fairly called a "Left wing gate keeper".

Chomsky on the other hand, I doubt is a gate keeper. I heard him saying that his objection to the Kennedy assasination conpiracy theorists was not that they were wrong but rather that they were never going to be able to prove their case and their energy would be better used on provable issues. I other words Chomsky may consider the Kennedy Assasination buffs and the Palestinian rights buffs to be playing the role of left wing gate keepers by getting the left wing bogged down in causes that they can not win.

Chomsky's head is filled with facts on the history of US foreign policy but he can't know everything and fight every fight. Also, Chomsky is already dismissed as a lunatic fringe lefty by the main streme media despite his dry fact bases boring scholarly speaking style. If Chomsky embraced the most stereotypical left wing fringe causes (that shush, secret, just happen to be true) then Chomsky would lose what is left of his ability to be listened to by scholars. I don't know why Chomsky thinks that scholars can be swayed by facts and logic. I don't know why Chomsky thinks that winning over the scholars would win over America. Chomsky has a romatacized idea of scholarship. That's why he became a scientist. That's why he instinctively dislikes the wildness of conspiracy theorists.

Wild conspiracy theorists do more to discredit the work of good conspiracy theorists than the conspirators do.

I did not see a quote where Chomsky says that he believes Oswald is the lone assassin.

If you ignore the symbolic importance of Palestine/Israel then the disgusting unfairness of what the Palestinians have had to endure does not compare with the horror of what some other peoples have had to endure. The Israel / Palestine dispute does not fit the pattern of American efforts to achieve and maintain it's dominance over the world and help to give out favors to crony capitalists. Support for Israel has cost America more than it gained for America in the quest to dominate the world. The funding of the US arms industry via Israel could be done as easily in other areas that would benifit the quest for global domination more. I think the Jews are mostly responsible for USA's pro Israel position and therefore Chomsky is right to think Israel is not the right issue not which to oppose the overall US foreign policy which has nothing to do with Jews.

I don't think Chomsky fits as a gatekeeper.

I just finished reading it, Duendy, out of curoisity, and trust me - you don't want my comments. :D
obviously i ...errrr spose i do. why'd you think i started a thread?!

I doubt duendy has read anything by Chomsky.
why do you presume that?
so you like him then?
why?

why do you presume that?

It's just the impression I get. Am I right or wrong?

so you like him then?

I haven't read much of his stuff. From what I have read, he seems to be generally sensible. Also, I may agree with him on certain things, but that doesn't mean I have to like him. And if I disagree with him, it doesn't mean I hate him, either.

he is a very very intelligent man. too bad he's not on the good side :)

It's just the impression I get. Am I right or wrong?



I haven't read much of his stuff. From what I have read, he seems to be generally sensible. Also, I may agree with him on certain things, but that doesn't mean I have to like him. And if I disagree with him, it doesn't mean I hate him, either.

never siad i hate him. neitherdo i particularly love him neither

listen are you Christian? do you have tyo read the Bible from cover to cver to disagree with it? what you say

the gripe i have with Chomsky is tat his position is snide.....it APPEARS to SEEM radical, but is it. tus it acts as a diversion wouldn't you say, rom the real McCoy. namley the facist secret government

some have said he's workin for them. or a majhor tactic of teris is infiltrating dissenting movements and defusing real radical dissent....can yu dig that move?