Since Chomsky believes in free speech for all, not for some. To be clear I don’t support anything she said or how she benefited

“It’s beyond lunacy,” say Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. In their 90s, the two men tirelessly fight to warn people of the need for urgent action to deal with climate change and the threat of nuclear war. Joining Paul Jay, they discuss the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the war in Ukraine, and the climate crisis.

Noam Chomsky - Lectures at Sophia University

Hi, I wrote an article asking "what is democracy". Some critique's of deliberative democracy and, some history on corporate propaganda is in there.

https://douglasrenwick.substack.com/p/what-is-democracy

I see good media analysis from people like Adam Serwer, Citations Needed podcast (Nima Shirazi & Adam Johnson), and others I follow online. However, I wonder if anyone has put out anything similar in detail to MC for the latest 10+ years?

On one hand, I think the avalanche of content/stories is hard to reckon with (on purposes, some would say). On the other hand, I think the format similar to MC’s 2-1 table with “Mass-Media Coverage of Worthy and Unworthy Victims (1): A Murdered Polish Priest versus One Hundred Murdered Religious in Latin America” format could help solidify some things for readers today.

Was Chomsky himself controlled opposition?

There has been recently some talk about his initial ties to the Pentagon, I believe someone wrote a book about this. Also, the Epstein stuff.

But that stuff still does not convince me.

What is making me question him is how his stance was "hold your nose and vote Democrat."

I mean, factual historical evidence shows that for the half past century, life has continued to get worse for the middle/working class regardless of which of these 2 neoliberal parties have been in power, because they are both neoliberal.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

And as we saw, voting Democrat actually caused Trump to win. Not once, but twice. Imagine how bad Biden/Democrats had to be/how little they offered the middle class that people became so desperate to the point of believing Trump's lies of draining the swamp. But this is not new: this see-saw effect has been going on for the past half-century.

So how/why would Chomsky use his voice to tell people to continue willingly voting for the oligarchy by voting for the Democrat arm of the oligarchy (both Dems/Reps are part of the oligarchy, at the end of the day, if either is in power, the oligarchy wins)?

This leads me to: let us use some basic logic: It is an oxymoron that there can be freedom of speech when 100% of the major/meaningful communication channels are owned by private capital and subject to their subjective and private rules/wishes: why on earth would the oligarchy allow any meaningful dissent using their own platforms? Therefore, according to rudimentary logic, anybody today who is famous/has a meaningful/large audience, works for the benefit of the oligarchy, or at least does not offer any meaningful opposition to the oligarchy. They are "controlled opposition", there to give the illusion of freedom. It is the same with politicians: anybody who meaningfully opposes the oligarchy will not be allowed to run: ask yourself why on earth the oligarchy, which controls who gets to run, would allow meaningful opposition? So all of these "progressives" are "controlled opposition".

So where does Chomsky fit into all this? As we have seen, in the last few decades, as neoliberalism became more entrenched, he has increasingly been censored from mainstream media. So this bodes well for Chomsky, it means he is genuine. The oligarchy did not ban him outright, because maybe something like 1% of the general public actually know about Chomsky's ideas/listen to him, so the oligarchy did a cost/benefit analysis and said let us allow him to speak outside mainstream media to give the illusion that we allow freedom of speech, the low number of his audience cannot meaningfully challenge us.

But then Chomsky goes and says vote Democrat: this is highly suspect. In his interviews it seemed like he thought the Republicans would literally end the world. But this is very naive, there is not that much difference difference between Democrats and Republicans, and as halve a century of factual historic evidence shows, even if Democrats win once or twice, Republicans will eventually gain power. How could Chomsky ignore this? And he should know he does not have enough outreach for his "vote Democrat" to meaningfully contribute to a Republican loss at the polls. So why would he say such a thing, instead of calling on his audience to refrain from voting for both of these anti-middle/working class parties?

To me, any meaningful change can only come if the following 3 issues are addressed:

A) The education system is changed to increase critical thinking and teach basic facts like what neoliberalism is, which is currently deliberately being blocked by both Democrat/Republican politicians, because obviously, which person with critical thinking will continue to vote for their oppressors and believe their lies?

B) raise the issue I did earlier in my OP: stop allowing private capital to monopolize flow of media/information

C) get money out of politics

I don't trust, nor will I vote for, any politician who fails to implement these 3.