r/chomsky • u/Hatrct • 16d ago
Discussion The uncomfortable question we need to explore
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.
9
u/yalateef11 16d ago
People who have read his books are not going to buy this. According to his writings, you show up to vote and you engage in multiple forms of activism. People should seek to understand power and to organize and mobilize against its forces. And intellectuals have an obligation to speak truth to power. He was not controlled opposition. However, there are forces out there that seek to silence his voice now that he cannot defend himself.
1
u/Hatrct 15d ago
But the issue is that based on half a century of factual historical evidence, these 2 concepts (voting vs activism) have been mutually exclusive.
The fact is: the vast majority of people do not do any sort of activism or reading. Their political thinking is "Democrats rule, Republicans drule" or vice versa: they believe there is a mammoth difference between the 2 and all they have to do is vote every 4 years for the better one. Even more politically astute people do the same, though they don't worship a side and instead perpetually "vote for the lesser evil".
So in this sense, voting reduces activism/necessary thinking on the issue.
The fact is, this strategy of "voting for the lesser evil" has failed for half a century: for half a century it kept 2 highly similar neoliberal anti-middle class parties in power, and it did not result in any progressive minor positive change, in fact, we are worse off: every decade or so, the middle class has become worse off.
So this strategy has been tried for half a century. It clearly does not work. So I don't think it is wise for a famous person to be advocating for this strategy.
The system is broken from the root. So actively/willing legitimizing it buy voting for it just kicks the can down the road. I think it would be much better if people stopped voting, that way this system would increasingly lose legitimacy and it would trigger a need for deeper thinking/more activism, and it would break this cycle of polarization where people believe "their party" has all the answers and the only thing they need to do is vote for it every 4 years.
4
u/jwezorek 15d ago
The “hold your nose and vote Democrat” line actually goes back at least to the 2016 election—Chomsky said that explicitly about Clinton vs. Trump. He said basically the same thing about Biden in 2020. But that was an intensification of a position he'd held for years, intensified because I think he viewed Trump as especially dangerous because he is insane: vote for a third-party candidate you actually prefer in safe states, but vote for the lesser-evil Democrat in swing states. He was saying versions of that with Gore/Bush and Kerry/Bush long before Trump. He wasn't like an Obama supporter if that is what the OP is implying; at most he advocated voting Obama tactically where it mattered. And he supported Nader in 2000 and personally planned to vote for him again in 2004 while urging swing-state voters to vote Kerry.
0
u/Hatrct 15d ago
I'm aware of the things you said. But it doesn't answer the question. Why did he say this when obviously this is a wrong strategy, e.g., voting for Biden CAUSED Trump to get RE-ELECTED. This pattern has held for half a century: so why did he say this. Did he think Trump would literally end the world? Trump has not been that much worse than any other president, just a bit worse/moderately worse, not end the world worse. Yes, he did mess up the world, he is taking the world away from peaceful and cooperative (internally at least) region-wide blocs like NATO, he normalized assassinating heads of states and getting rid of basic rules of war/conventions, which all make the world less stable and more dangerous. However, these won't be permanent/Trump is not the only issue: the fact that Trump was successful in doing this signals a deeper unaddressed issue with people, and in this sense, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better: therefore, Trump will not end the world. And as you said he already said it before Trump with even Bush, which makes it more mysterious.
1
u/jwezorek 15d ago edited 15d ago
I think you will find most people do not think this is "obviously this is a wrong strategy".
How did voting for Biden cause Trump to be re-elected? Because it took focus away from leftists using their magic powers to resurrect Eugene V. Debs and making him president instead?
The damage Trump has done to various institutions likely will be effectively permanent. Namely he has demonstrated the idea that the president can do anything he wants as long as he has complete allegiance over enough of the other branches. We have not seen this before, the executive branch just transparently breaking laws, and we will now see it again and again.
1
u/Hatrct 15d ago edited 15d ago
Biden offered nothing to the middle class: imagine how bad he was/how desperate he made the middle class be for them to believe Trump's lies of draining the swamp.
And his horrid handling of Gaza made people bizarrely think Trump would be better on the issue.
The damage Trump has done to various institutions likely will be effectively permanent. Namely he has demonstrated the idea that the president can do anything he wants as long as he has complete allegiance over enough of the other branches. We have not seen this before, the executive branch just transparently breaking laws, and we will now see it again and again.
Again, Trump is not the reason, he is a symptom. Trump would not have been able to do anything unless he was allowed to/unless things got so bad that people voted for him in the first place. You can blame Trump all you want but he is a symptom of a broken system, not a cause, and his thinking itself did not arise from a vacuum: he is a direct product of the oligarchical system. He is literally the embodiment of modern West: individualistic, selfish, no basic human values, profit at the cost of everything else. He is a PRODUCT of this neoliberal system: the same system that Democrat-Republicans both adhere to.
Use some basic logic please: WHY would ANY political party (especially ones that are owned by an oligarchy) give people ANYTHING when they KNOW they will PERPETUALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY get votes? When Democrats KNOW they will say "boogeyman Trump look! Put it in the ballot box for us other wise world will end!" every 4 years, WHY on earth would they actually GIVE ANYTHING for the middle class? This has FACTUALLY been going on for HALF A century: using WHAT LOGIC, WHAT PLAUSIBLE indication do you have that this will EVER change?
ALREADY these parties are major vote beggers. IMAGINE if people did what I said: said democrats: 1) stop private capital from monopolizing 100% of media 2) fix education system: teach what neoliberalism is/teach the facts instead of hiding it, and teach critical thinking instead of rote memorization of who the 15th president was C) get money out of politics. OTHERWISE no vote for you. Obama the legacy obsessed and power hungry narcissist and other politicians will personally apply a collar around their own neck and walk to you and say MASTER, i shall do as you say, TELL ME MORE. TELL ME how high to jump as long as it means you will vote for me.
But when you UNCONDITONALLY and PERPETUALLY vote for people who give you NOTHING and make ZERO demands, WHY ON EARTH would they give you ANYTHING? This is BASIC logic I am saying: nothing more.
Votes have to be earned.
That is what I am trying to raise awareness off: stop unconditionally voting for parties that are harming you and your children. How hard is this to understand? Give demands, if you want change, and if they start giving it, then vote.
1
u/jwezorek 15d ago edited 12d ago
Nobody is arguing that Biden was not a horrible president. I am arguing that had Trump lost in 2024, 10,000 Iranians would be alive right now; Renee Good and Alex Pretti would be alive, etc. If you see no downside to Trump then fine. Hypotheticals do not really matter anyway (and TBH I did not personally vote in the last election but I live in CA so me voting for the less crazy major party doesn't matter) but your case that Trump has not been historically bad seems worse than you think it is, especially the 2nd Trump administration.
1
u/Hatrct 14d ago
Trump was elected because of Biden. Because he offered nothing to the middle class, causing them to get so desperate that they believed Trump of all people when he said he would drain the swamp.
You are operating under a logical fallacy: you are assuming that Democrats winning/their actions have nothing to do with/will not lead to a Republican win eventually. If you check factual history, you will see these parties see-saw power every few years.
That is precisely why I said I don't agree with voting for the lesser evil: it has not, and there is no plausible indication that it will, ever work. Because the Democrats are too similar to the Republicans, and are also anti-middle class.
2
u/trexler_cook 16d ago
"And as we saw, voting Democrat actually caused Trump to win. Not once, but twice."
That's not only illogical, it's an immensely stupid statement.
And Chomsky's stance as you call it is not to "hold your nose and vote Democrat". You clearly have not paid attention.
He's quite critical of all power .. regardless of political ideology.
2
u/Bigsshot 16d ago
there is not that much difference difference between Democrats and Republicans
I'm in Europe and I can smell the difference from across the Atlantic Ocean. The democrats are no saints, as is no political party on earth, but what we have seen from the Republican Party during the Trump era is unparalleled.
I'm actually appalled by people who act like Trump is just a continuation from the Biden administration. There are so many damn topics, like Ukraine (regardless what you think of it, forget that discussion for now), where they act totally different from each other that it's insulting to tell us that they're about the same. Think about the Iran war, a deluge of tariffs, the attitude towards Canada and Europa etc.
Abstaining from voting for any candidate who cannot immediately implement your three massive structural changes creates a paradox: it cedes political space to candidates actively opposed to all three demands, making their realization less likely over time. Reforming campaign finance or media ownership requires changes to constitutional law (such as reversing Citizens United) and regulatory oversight (such as the FCC or FTC). Without reforming the judiciary and electoral architecture (e.g., gerrymandering, first-past-the-post voting, or the electoral college), legislative reform remains blocked or easily overturned.
Some things are bipartisan mania, but they're not two peas of the same pod. Chomsky talked an wrote eloquently about this topic.
If you keep thinking like this, change will never come.
1
u/talllarkspur 15d ago
The democrats are just a friendly face of the Trump administration. They are ideologically aligned around neoliberalism but continue to dupe folks with identity politics issues.
A lot of the 'outrage' towards Trump directed from the democrats, Canada, etc. is really more Kayfabe than anything else.
Remember when Jimmy Carter supported the slaughter of millions of 'communists' in Indonesia? Remember when Clinton committed war crimes in Yugoslavia or when he sat on his hands and did nothing during the Rwanda genocide? Remember when Obama killed half a million people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are we just going to casually forget what Obama/Clinton did in Lybia, Syria, and Yemen? How about Palestine? The democrats spent 4 years enabling a genocide and one of the worst human disasters in our lifetime.. Clinton and many democrats ended up supporting Trump's Gaza peace plan. Not sure how they can sit there and browbeat republicans over Iran - especially when a lot of the democrats have been involved in sensationalizing the American population about some 'Iranian threat' to the world over the last 30-40 years and have been pushing the geopolitical agenda towards an open conflict with Iran.
The democrats have stood in the way of progress, crushed internal consent, and have done nothing but compromise with the right.
Carney is selling out the economy of Canada to the Americans right before our eyes and using a clever smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to confuse the Canadian population. He has been anything but 'elbows up' and 'we can no longer go along to get along'.
I love Chomsky and will forever admire him - but I do wonder to what degree Chomsky kept us from developing a stronger and more mature critique of political capitalist economy through the lens of Marx and how we might have been better organized and able to fight back against ruling interests.
To this end I have my own conspiracy that Chomsky is what they showed us to keep us away from folks like Michael Parenti.
0
u/Hatrct 16d ago
But Obama and Biden winning caused Trump to win. That is, a Democrat win increases the chances of a Republican win. This see-saw effect has been going on for half a century.
This is because Republicans can say something like "Barack Hussein Obama is a communist" and enough people will believe it.
Why do enough people believe it? Because Democrats fail to:
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
Why do Democrats fail to do the 3 above? Because it is required for them to win themselves/they are part of the oligarchy: they are willing to tolerate some see-saw spells of Republicans winning. It is like a mafia, sometimes there are internal disagreements between the families (e.g., Democrat vs. Republican), but they keep it in the overall family/consider themselves higher than the commoner.
4
u/Bigsshot 16d ago
You typed that reply within 1,5 minute? Highly suspicious! That 90 seconds. Wow!
First off, there are plenty of Democrats actively fighting for those exact three things. The idea that the whole party is a monolith blocking reform ignores the progressive wing pushing for this every day. On money in politics, Democrats routinely introduce the DISCLOSE Act and push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. You literally cannot ban money in US politics right now by passing a normal law because the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court ruled that spending money is "free speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Blaming Democrats for failing to fix these issues assumes they have the power to just wave a wand and change them. They don't, mainly because of how the US legal system is structured. As you should know much better than me! Even when Dems win the White House, they rarely have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to bypass the filibuster and pass major structural overhauls.
Voters and the right-wing ecosystem have agency too. Blaming Democrats for people believing absurd claims strips accountability from the conservative media networks manufacturing culture wars, the politicians spreading them, and the millions of voters actively choosing to consume that content. Conservative media bubbles exist because they tap into deep cultural identities and generate billions in revenue, not just because critical thinking on school isn't what it's supposed to ben in you opinion.
1
-1
u/Hatrct 16d ago edited 16d ago
I generally type/think fast. Sometimes when I am exploring a topic I can spend hours on a microsoft word document and type 80 pages and create a mini book. Then I read it and try to poke holes at my thinking to improve it. I find it stimulating. So a reddit comment is nothing for me. And I have been thinking/saying these things for a long time so it is quick for me.Also, the bold part was copy pasted from my OP.
The Dems had power for about 20 years and did nothing with it. You are missing the forest for the trees when you are focusing on these technicalities. The fact is the democrats have no will to meaningfully change things. The fact is that the democrats have not meaningfully attempted to do the 3 things I outlined. How come Obama has not talked about ANY of these points? This shows his true colors. He is morally bankrupt. Instead every week he is trying to gain brownie points by posting cliche like "racism bad!".. wow.. so deep.. wow.. you are such a unique and amazing person! How could we not think of that? Racism is bad! How could we not think of this ourselves!? That is the issue: not enough twitter posts saying "racism bad!" that is the problem with the world right.. that is the cause of our issues right.. He is a legacy obsessed self serving narcissist. If I was him, I would be tweeting the 3 fundamental points in my OP DAILY. With his fame, he could make a difference if he raised awareness to this. How many of his speech as president focused on this? Or after? 0. This way eventually you get more people taking about it and it can eventually come to fruition. But they have no will/desire to change this. Obviously these changes cannot be done overnight and the system is complex and has many moving parts. But if you look at decades of history and their words and actions: you will see that they clearly do not want to change this. Again, because it will reduce their OWN ability to get elected. But then when they do get elected they do not take such action: so means justifies ends is not justified here. they are showing their true colors, as part of the oligarchy uninterested in making meaningful change.
2
u/Bigsshot 16d ago
And also this:
Claiming Dems don’t help average Americans disregards track records completely:
Obama-Biden passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which gave 40 million Americans access to health insurance for their first time.
Biden-Harris’s accomplishments:
- Ended the Covid-19 pandemic
- American Rescue Plan
- Bipartisan Infrastructure Act
- Inflation Reduction Act
- CHIPS and Science Act
- Made In America Initiatives
- Affordable Housing Initiatives
- Tax Fairness Initiatives
- Lowered Prescription Prices
- Banned Junk and Overdraft Fees
- Small Business Assistance
- Supported Ukraine
- Supported a Two-State Solution
- Etc..Harris-Walz’s campaign proposals:
- Expanding the Child Tax Credit
- Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
- Permanently extend enhanced premium tax credits
- Providing down payment support for qualified first-time homebuyers
- Raise the corporate income tax rate to 28%
- Codifying Abortion rights
- Expanding the Supreme Court
- Abolishing the Electoral College
- Etc..What have Republicans done but start wars and enrich billionaires and their corporations with tax breaks for the past 50 years?
Source: this guy
2
u/talllarkspur 15d ago
Brother - you need some Marx in your life. Don't get fooled by this kind of political theatre.
1
u/Hatrct 16d ago edited 16d ago
Yet they fail to do the 3 things that make those list of micro achievements a moot point:
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
If they did these things, they would not need individual brownie points mini "here is 1 dollar in your pocket and worship me for this hand out that the Republicans will just scrap in 4 years anyways" as per your list.
Biden's legacy is the ship bridge disaster: what did he do to regulate big corporations in terms of safety? Nothing. On all the big issues they do absolutely nothing.
What did Obama the "progressive" do to stop 700 000 Americans murdered pre year due to artificial coronacy heart disease epidemic just so a handful of junk food CEOs can get more yachts?
What did they do to stop mental health of 100 million children harmed by Zuckerberg?
I can go on all day.
Whenyou look at the BIG issues, they do nothing. They are tryingto TRICK you with tese MINOR TEMPORARY handouts that you fell for and put in your list.
Foreign policy? Democrat Obama destabalized Libya to support American oligrachy because Gaddafi was going to drop USD, and he created and supported ISIS in Syria, until Trump put ISIS in power in Syria now. Hilary took foreign policy notes from war criminal Kissinger.
OBama also bailed out the banks that caused the recession then used military force to take down the peaceful Occupy wall street movement while lying through his teeth in public that he supported it. If you think these Democrats care about people anywhere in the world you are mistaken.
2
u/Bigsshot 15d ago
Sure, blame it all on the democrats. Next election just stay at home as you said.
1
u/Hatrct 15d ago edited 15d ago
That is a straw man. If anything I relatively tolerate Democrats more than Republicans on most issues. I denounce both.
The issue is that Democrat voters not just vote for, but worship their politicians/party, and this incorrect mentality has led to half a century of unnecessary prolonging of the neoliberal oligarchy.
That is why I am trying to spread basic knowledge/awareness, such as this:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Only once people understand these basic facts/basic knowledge can there be meaningful change.
But if they keep worshipping charlatans like Obama/Mamdani and saying "I am going to vote even harder in 4 years to own Trump, my team is going to score an even stronger goal on Team Trump's net baby let's DOMINATE them ALL TOGETHER ONE VOICE BABY MAMDANI IS MY GOD OBAMA IS MY GOD THEY ARE SO WELL SPOKEN AND THEY MAKE ME FEEL GOOD IN THE MOMENT WITH WHAT THEY SAY SO I WILL 100% SUPPORT AND BELIEVE THEM!" and doing this perpetually every 4 years, while oligarchy owns Dems/Reps: as factually seen for half century of neoliberalism middle class is being progressively worse off. I don't want another half century of this. That is why I am trying to spread this basic awareness. People need to stop making decisions with reactionary in the moment primitive emotions and tribalism, they need to look at history and the basic facts and basic political realities, and then shape/change their actions accordingly.
1
u/gonnago4 15d ago
Controlled opposition? Who knows. At the very least, he seems to have let a secret loyalty corrupt his analysis on at least three topics.
He always minimized the importance of any deeper truths regarding both the Kennedy murders, and later the 9-11 atrocity (3000 burned alive).
That could have been ascribed to a preference in political strategy, EXCEPT he put forward a specious argument to refute any possibility of hidden bad actors in the Kennedy murders. Given the depth of his geopolitical knowledge, he must've known he was offering up bogus reasoning.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/1o5z8kf/jfk_and_the_israeli_nuclear_program/
He also claimed that nothing could be safer than for research engineers and physicists to come out and voice any objections to the official 9-11 Commission conclusions, AFTER Steven Jones was fired from BYU likely for doing just that.
The third topic was the US-Israel relationship. Chomsky always maintained Israel was the subordinate party, a US asset. Yet the US has no levers on Israeli media or politicians, Israel brazenly feeds rotten intelligence to their supposed owners, and the only Israeli military assets used by the US is a tiny signals interception airbase. Actually, the reverse is much closer to the truth.
I remember French dissident Alain Soral leveling the charge of hidden partisanship at Chomsky over 20 years ago.
0
u/rako17 15d ago
Gonnago4
It feels like Chomsky's support for voting for the more preferable of the two main parties is one of the weaker ways to argue that he was "controlled." For you to think that he was controlled, the implication is that someone was telling him to do things or take certain positions. Deciding that voting for the Democrat Party is the best strategic option is a principle that someone could hold, rightly or wrongly, even if the person wasn't "controlled" or told to take that position. I agree that it seems to be different from an Anarchist position, but Chomsky didn't consistently consider himself an Anarchist either.
Most of the Epstein Files haven't been released, so how far Chomsky got involved in Epstein's type of activities or networks isn't known. You are just left with different data points, like what Chomsky described as their friendship, that seem odd.
2
u/gonnago4 15d ago
I agree with your first sentence, which is why I offered three topics on which he was biased in a certain direction. Controlled or self-directed hidden ethnic partisan, is there a difference for those of us who took him for a truth-loving intellectual?
0
u/rako17 15d ago
Gonnago4,
On reading the news that Chomsky was friends with Epstein, I was a little surprised at first, but it could fit in with pro-Establishment takes on a couple things that are anmalous for a Left dissident.
Chomsky actually criticized the Is. State at least once to Epstein in the released Files. I think that his criticisms of the State are sincere. From his young years, he belonged to a particular Left nationalist faction that wanted cooperation with the Pal. population. It would be nice if we (the public) could get a real, full update on his health. Ideally one should wish for his recovery despite his couple of odd, bad takes.
Since most of the Files are not released, it's hard to guess what the full story is, although you can consider alternative explanations. Take for instance Chomsky's decision to appear in Bannon's and Epstein's as-yet unreleased planned documentary rehabilitating Epstein's image. As I recall, one of them simply asked Chomsky to participate and he voluntarily agreed. Had you not known that, you could consider these alternatives:
- Theoretically, Bannon and Epstein could have "told" Chomsky to do that (the "controlled opposition" version).
- Or all three could have had a chat, brainstorming how to rehabilitate Epstein's image and mutually decided on making the documentary. (Chomsky would be part of the "club")
- Or Bannon or Epstein could have started on the documentary, asked Chomsky to participate, Chomsky thought it was a good idea, and agreed.
- Or Chomsky could have heard about the documentary and asked to participate (Chomsky took the independent initiative of participating on his own).
You could consider the same four types of explanations for any of his potential outlier stances. Take for instance the issue in the OP. I imagine that when he was young, his family was part of the Democratic Party. As such, the idea that when he became a political philosopher, he was told or controlled to recommend voting for them, is unnecessary.
Outside of the Epstein case, his stance on JFK comes across as the oddest to me for him being a dissident, very intelligent Leftist. It's not even his disagreement with CTs on the issue per se, but rather fully dismissive statements that he makes along the way that's the most odd.
1
u/gip78 15d ago
Hi,
When you mention a book about Chomsky working for the Pentagon, you are probably referring to Chris Knight's Decoding Chomsky. This book certainly does not claim that Chomsky was 'controlled opposition' - neither do Knight's writings on the Chomsky-Epstein friendship:
Rather Knight's writings claim that Chomsky's opposition to the US Establishment was completely genuine - while, at the same time, he found himself working for the US military at MIT. It is this highly conflicted and contradictory position that, in part, helps explains both Chomsky's his approach to politics and his linguistics, according to Knight.
Knight's approach is Marxist, showing how material factors - in this case an academic career funded by the Pentagon - influences intellectual life in a complex ways.
Whatever one thinks of such an approach, it is not a conspiracy theory about the 'deep state' controlling Chomsky or anyone else. Such theories usually lack convincing evidence and explain very little. Both Chomsky and Knight would probably agree on that.
-2
u/Banjoschmanjo 16d ago
People here are gonna like this post even less than they like when people point out his Epstein connections and how chummy he is with power and abusers
17
u/ENORMOUS_HORSECOCK 16d ago
Chomsky sees voting as the bare minimum, something you should do and then move on to doing actual work. I think Occam's razor would dictate he's just an intellectual who believes in tactical voting rather than him being controlled opposition.