So when the americans committed another war crime by bombing North Korean dams in the 50s...

Yeah, like with Nazi propaganda. You argue intensely and earnestly that Jews are not conspiring to control all forms of political discourse, and provide evidence and good arguments, and generally jump through all the hoops like a good untermensch.

Oh wait.

Should he not exist or work in a capitalist system or buy or sell stuff to not be a hypocrite too, where do you draw the line with him, you should email him to tell him where your line is.

Well he could give them away for free. He's not obligated to take part. You seem to be missing the point.

He gives lectures and answers emails for free. Most of what he writes can be found in free internet articles, lots of them on his own website.

>who rules the world?
>it's not the jews
>by jew

hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist

The guy is a piece of shit. Classic case of "do as I say not as I do."

>Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.

>Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

>a Jew
>profits from war
Really makes you think

He also risked being lynched by cautioning against war hysteria after 9/11

'žek was always superior

Go listen to this

reuters.com/article/us-warcollege-26apr-idUSKBN17S2CB

North Korea has two completely different propaganda machines. One for export/foreign use (US is a bully and we are traumatized by the bombing of libya?) and one for domestic usage (America is full of cucks and they would never actually bomb us if the population of Seoul is on the table. Once they get nuclear weapons, they seek a grand bargain: give up bombs, US removes all troops from S. Korea. Then confederation, then unification under Northern hegemony.

Also this, his biggest cheerleaders say this book is trash

nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/09/a-case-against-america/

...

>unification under Northern hegemony
You obviously have a weak grasp of geopolitics. I suggest reading an author named Noam Chomsky to remedy this.

did you listen to the podcast?

>Myers is a professor of international studies at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea. He’s visited the north, speaks the language, and reads the literature and propaganda alike. He takes Pyongyang at its word when it says it wants to reunify the peninsula and he’s not hopeful for the future.

If N. Korea got a nuclear weapon, it couldn't use it to threaten the US into leaving the peninsula. Instead it would be a deterrent to a US invasion. And even if the US left the peninsula, why would the South submit to Northern domination? The South has a military and economy that dwarfs the North by many orders of magnitude.

You are not considering the (as always) pathetic dribbling yearning of the S. Korean left, who want the US out and detente with the north.

Detente with the North isn't the same as becoming a client state of the North. Besides, if that is what S. Korea wanted (it's not but if it were) that is their business.

That's a very pretty picture but I am the south asian kind.

That isn't what an apologist is...

I assume you have someone in your life who agrees with your Chomsky stance.

>risked being lynched
No. Stop hyperbolizing

>Don't benefit from the system you critique

You've never read any Chomsky.
You've never read Marx outside of Communist Manifesto....

In fact, where'd you get your opinion? You should read Chomsky and you'll probably find out. He's the polymath of our time. To attack all of his actions is to cast a net far too broad.

Did you actually live through9/11? People who publically called for restraint, people like Congresswoman Barbara Lee who voted against the aumf, were showered with death threats.

>Chomsky critics go this far to find a flaw in his work
Sad!

>He's the polymath of our time.

Stop mythologizing those with whom you agree.

This is hilarious.

Still, like a true Jew, he plays both sides.

it doesn't try to find a flaw in chomsky's work but it points out the hipocrisy of the one who writes it.
maybe this cannot demonstrate the flaws in chomsky's reasoning but he could have called for an actual anarcho-syndicalist movement instead of making theorical approaches to the question while benefitting from capitalism.

I listened to NPR that day. Someone called in calling for restraint, and a guest called them "a traitor to the motherland"

>polymath
Politics doesn't really count and linguistics is such a recent field that it's the only way to be a polymath.

He is also a fine philosopher.

...

...

I don't have to agree with him to recognize his importance. Stop projecting, figgy.

What are his links to big pharma?

I am not sure, but I would guess Chomsky has invested in mutual funds that include pharma companies in its portfolios.

Chomsky? You mean Noam Chomsky Who Rules the World?

well then that's not evidence.

>not supporting big pharma
so you support no pharma or medical devices - cool

Karl Marx - His mom said, "Jeez Karl I wish you'd stop talking about money and make some!"

lol...where'd you get YOUR opinion from?

BOOM this.

It's the equivalent of someone going to extreme lengths to criticize eating meat, the health benefits of not eating meat, villainizing those that do...then still investing in factory farming and enjoying burgers. Then hididng behind "critique the ideas not the person"

Chomsky also contradicts himself when speaking about issues of class struggle. He describes himself as a ”socialist” whose goal is a ”post-capitalist society,” calling capitalism ”a grotesque catastrophe” .. ”crafted to induce hopelessness resignation, and despair.” He speaks in terms of ”us” vs ”them” with ”them” being the top 10 percent of taxpayers, despite Chomsky being among the top 2 percent in the United States in net wealth, and the location of his primary residence being in an extremely affluent and exclusive wooded suburb of Lexington, Massachusetts.(15) He has also set up trust funds and assigned copyrights to others in his family to keep his wealth from being taxed despite being a strong proponent of estate taxes and income redistribution.

— Chomsky has been critical of private property rights as well, claiming them only to be a tool for the rich (contrary to the views of American statesman such as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams.) He also claims that intellectual property rights should only be thought of in negative terms such as ”protectionism”,(25) however his works are clearly labeled with warnings about copyright infringement, it is usually necessary to pay a fee to download information from his website, and he gives opportunities to ”sub-license” the material for a fee.(26)

— Despite Chomsky being strongly outspoken about corporations being ”private tyrannies,” he has invested in all sorts of businesses that he rails against including oil companies, military contractors and pharmaceuticals, rather than opting for other investment options such as money market funds or government bonds which do not have as high of a return.(29) When asked about his investment portfolio issues, he responded ”Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” suggesting that there is just no way around making unethical investments.

>He has also set up trust funds and assigned copyrights to others in his family to keep his wealth from being taxed despite being a strong proponent of estate taxes and income redistribution.

What a piece of shit.

Not celebrating uncle Noams day in your bus instead of the false christian god who puts you in chains.

do conservatives believe this stuff makes sense? 'if you dont support trump go and live in iran?'

Well why doesn't he go live in Montana? If le capitalism is so evil why does he live in fucking Lexington lmao?

There's no denying he's a huge hypocrite but those are so common on the left that maybe it isn't such a meaningful criticism after all.

p.s. Trump was the working man's candidate and Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street.

>Lexington, Massachusetts

Its nothing special. Just another majority white town.

>sixth wealthiest city in the US
>nothing special

Pick one.

>There's no denying he's a huge hypocrite but those are so common on the left that maybe it isn't such a meaningful criticism after all.
It really, really isn't. Champagne Socialism was the original state of Socialism, Marx's significant contribution to the political theory was to shift the focus to the proletariat. At least, to superficially give them a voice.
Remember the American Democratic Party was built on the backs of aristocratic plantation owners who believed their treatment of the Negro was tantamount to special privilege.

>Just a majority white town

That's pretty special, and growing more so every day.

>blacks bitch about young whites gentrifying their town
>old whites bitch about blacks urbanizing theirs
Hurrr

One group has cause to complain and the other does not.

>'if you dont support trump go and live in iran?'

This is obviously extreme, and i wouldn't expect something like that from Chomsky either (like him living in a cabin in montana like he says). I wouldn't begrudge any anti-capitalist interacting with the system and making a living, but there is obviously a points where it just becomes a farce. Like him raising his speaking fees, or his investments when there are other options. He's not making a living, he's making a fat load of profit. It's hypocritical as fuck.

My point was that the change is cyclical, though I agree with you

In one scenario, crime goes up. In the other, crime goes down.

It's almost as if people are happiest with de facto segregation.

Whether Chomsky is a hypocrite or not doesn't undermine the validity of his ideas. I'm not particularly invested in his work, but I'd prefer to see it being debated - instead of his character.

>”Should I live in a cabin in Montana?

some of the richest investors in the world live in cabins in Montana

> one town gets expensive, business returns in the form of art galleries, start up coworking space, coffee shops; needles and vials disapear from streets
> one town loses its tax base and the caretakers of its public property; bikes are stolen

whose library would you rather visit in 5 years

Noam Chomsky™© is my favourite intellectual!

I agree. Some people are more important as researchers than activists. Chomsky isn't Bakunin or Kropotkin, living in exile and giving the Okranka the slip. He is from a Jewish working class family, but he never joined the other working class Jewish men who fought in the Spanish Civil War. So what? Chomsky never picked up a gun for the cause of anarchism, but he introduces and defends those who did. Most activists and radicals and everyday people with a conscience have had their assumptions and vocabulary shaped by Chomsky. Ask people who took the step from being a liberal to becoming a radical, and every other person will name Chomsky as a defining influence. That's what is behind all this character assassination.

Look pal, when leftists expend metric shittons of printer's ink defaming the characters of their enemies on the right, you don't get to act all principled and complain when the right turns around and does the exact same thing to you.

Chomsky is a rich guy who lives in a rich neighborhood for rich white people. He's not a radical, he's a tenured professor who probably drives a volvo sedan and drinks organic coffee.

>Ask people who took the step from being a liberal to becoming a radical, and every other person will name Chomsky as a defining influence.

qui vult decipi, decipiatur

How is he a hypocrite?
Does anarchism forbid you writing books?
Or do you object to him making money from those books?
Anarchism is about workers controlling the means of production, about applying democracy to the workplace and society
How does profiting from your work conflict with this?
Now as for shares, is that something he has pursued or part of is colleges retirement plan?
And furthrr, does anarchism prevent people from investing? Would I be forbidden from investing money into a workers co-op?

How do you know what he does with his money?
He doesn't toot his own horn
But I know for a fact that in the 1970s he paid for several East Timorese get out of the Indonesian occupation and took them found various newspaper offices trying to drum up media attention

Why do you have this more radical than thou affectation?

Sould a workers co-operative factory give away the products they have made?

Where does he say not to pursue your interests?
The anarchism he is talking about is all about people not being compelled by financial requirements, to be able to freely inquire and create, to have democratic control over the means of production
For the workers to benefit from the sweat of their labor, not merely being tools of management

>retirement fund sought to maximise profits for its customers
Shocking

Opposing bombing any brown people that fit the bill was an extreme position to take in the days after 9/11

>chomsky is a hypocrite because he violates my standards

That's not how it works bro

If you’re a serious revolutionary, then you are not looking for an autocratic revolution, but a popular one which will move towards freedom and democracy. That can take place only if a mass of the population is implementing it, carrying it out, and solving problems. They’re not going to undertake that commitment, understandably, unless they have discovered for themselves that there are limits to reform.

A sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits, for two good reasons. First, because the reforms can be valuable in themselves. People should have an eight-hour day rather than a twelve-hour day. And in general, we should want to act in accord with decent ethical values.

Secondly, on strategic grounds, you have to show that there are limits to reform. Perhaps sometimes the system will accommodate to needed reforms. If so, well and good. But if it won’t, then new questions arise. Perhaps that is a moment when resistance is a necessary step to overcome the barriers to justified changes. Perhaps the time has come to resort to coercive measures in defense of rights and justice, a form of self-defense. Unless the general population recognizes such measures to be a form of self-defense, they’re not going to take part in them, at least they shouldn’t.

If you get to a point where the existing institutions will not bend to the popular will, you have to eliminate the institutions.

>my evidence is that I guess

That's not how evidence works

I love watching leftists squirm like a slug in salt when one of their idols gets tarnished.

Oh fucking waah. Anonymous death threats are asymptotically, approaching 100%, never an actual issue. I've received more death threats from posting on Veeky Forums than most people ever will, where's my big goddamn party to declare me a brave hero?
If your position is not worth defending in the face of adversity, fucking abandon it.

>chomsky isn't quitting his job and giving away his earnings and living in a shack in Montana so he is a hypocrite to criticise capitalism
No
>unsourced claims, or a two or three word quote
Lolno

I agree that America shouldn't be in the Korean peninsula but Chomsky is a hack.

Can you give me an example of one (1) actual lynching of someone expressing anti-war sentiments?

That's how they think
Its really bizarre when someone says something they don't like - you know, free speech - and the response is go try and say that in X

What does that mean?

You wouldn't be able to be critical of the government elsewhere so you shouldn't be here?

How is he a hypocrite?
You have to contradict and violate YOUR OWN standards and values to be a hypocrite
Not someone else's
He has never said to go and reject work and the benefits and rewards of your work and to exit from society

>having successfully constructed and then demolished a Chomsky strawman
>consisting of accusations of hypocrisy for not adhering to standards I demand of him
>without ever once addressing what he says
>I can now dismiss him
Good luck with that

Incidentally Harlan Ellison actually has copyrighted his name
And all his works are copyrighted to the Kilimanjaro Corporation rather than himself to reduce taxes

It's common knowledge that he lives in Lexington, the sixth wealthiest city in the US. Why doesn't he move somewhere more affordable and donate the extra money to poor little refugees or something like that? If he expects rich Americans to give up their wealth, why doesn't he do the same? It's a case of textbook hypocrisy.

Compare Chomsky to Eric Hoffer, who never even quit his day job until he was literally too old to be a longshoreman anymore.

Yeah seriously he basically bombed the Koreans himself. What a pompous ass.

>but he never joined the other working class Jewish men who fought in the Spanish Civil War.
Chomskys dob: 1928
Spanish Civil War: 1936-1939
>Chomsky first turned his back on working class Jews when at the age of 8 years old he failed to join the Spanish Civil War
Really makes you think

>leftists
>believing in free speech

Now I've heard it all. You're arguing against a strawman, by the way. Nobody says he should go live in Iran, people are simply stating that if he is against capitalism, he shouldn't live in an upper class neighborhood and invest in military contractors' stock. I know, what a shocking argument!

>Look pal, when leftists expend metric shittons of printer's ink defaming the characters of their enemies on the right, you don't get to act all principled and complain when the right turns around and does the exact same thing to you.
You haven't attacked anything
You made up a strawman
>Chomsky doesn't adhere to these arbitrarily demanded standards
And 'demolished' it
And never once addressed the content of what he has to say
You've won first prize in a retard race

Nah, there is merit in using oppressive systems against themselves. These systems aren't all-encompassing oppression anyway, they have foundations that differ to this application, i.e. American liberty.

That was fast.

>asking critical questions
>you're squirming! Look at the squirmer squirm!
Do you notice that you didn't answer one of my questions?
Instead you changed the subject

Chomsky has had to have police protection and his mail checked because of death threats from zionists when talks have been given on the Israeli occupation of Palestine
He was also on the unabombers death list

Someone shitposting on Veeky Forums isn't the same as real mail and phone calls

It's not arbitrary though, it's literally basic morality. Chomsky doesn't get to invent this magical moral standard that only applies to himself, he's judged like all men are judged.

You weren't responding to my posts, those were someone else's. We're anonymous, remember? You sound mad by the way.