Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
mmm, no, not exactly, but I basically think Chomsky should've stuck to linguistics. He's too much of a statist to have any coherency in his political writings. I can't take his politics seriously given he's gone from denouncing"manufactured consent" to being one of the manufacturers.
Nowhere did I say that I endorse everything Chomsky ever said or wrote. Hell, I have quoted Goering for truth (in particular on getting the populace behind a war), and I am as far as one can get from a national socialist.
The German MIC which eventually put Hitler in power, many of whom later wanted him arrested or killed (but could never pull the trigger, and many of these plotters were executed later) talked about replacing him with Goering (who was open to peace).
War Presidents always go insane (must be a requirement to wield that Power). It's not limited to Germans.
I never said you endorsed him either! I didn't mention you in my response, just Chomsky. I feel you. Chomsky is interesting to quote because he has forever nominally been anti-censorship and "manufactured consent."
OK so Noam Chomsky drank some of the omnipresent Kool aid, he's paid his dues. Now Harris and DeGrass and other "intellectuals", that's another matter.
It's how the consent is manufactured - anyone who disagrees doesn't get promoted. The ones who tell the bosses what they want to hear has a bright future.
The difference being that Carlson represents an existential threat to the Uniparty and the Elites behind all this bullshit. Lemon is a punchline at best. An inconsequential blip whose absence no one will notice.
Carlson did a rant against Pharma and their government advertised, taxpayer funded, vaccine experiment. Go against Pharma and that'll get a guy removed real quick. They are nasty buggers.
If anybody tried to be honest, they would be shown the door and we all know it.
Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
http://scratchindog.blogspot.com/2015/07/transcript-of-interview-between-noam.html
Chomsky... idk... talk about a guy who lost any remaining creditibility by going all in for the vaxx apartheid. Sam Harris + senescence=Chomsky
So if someone is wrong about one thing, or they say something that you disagree with, you just write them off? The man is giant.
mmm, no, not exactly, but I basically think Chomsky should've stuck to linguistics. He's too much of a statist to have any coherency in his political writings. I can't take his politics seriously given he's gone from denouncing"manufactured consent" to being one of the manufacturers.
Hilarious.
Chomsky is great. He's wrong on 9/11 and he's wrong on the vax, probably other things too.
Nobody's perfect.
Nowhere did I say that I endorse everything Chomsky ever said or wrote. Hell, I have quoted Goering for truth (in particular on getting the populace behind a war), and I am as far as one can get from a national socialist.
The German MIC which eventually put Hitler in power, many of whom later wanted him arrested or killed (but could never pull the trigger, and many of these plotters were executed later) talked about replacing him with Goering (who was open to peace).
War Presidents always go insane (must be a requirement to wield that Power). It's not limited to Germans.
I never said you endorsed him either! I didn't mention you in my response, just Chomsky. I feel you. Chomsky is interesting to quote because he has forever nominally been anti-censorship and "manufactured consent."
"Nominally"?
Which books have you read?
Cover to cover only manufactured consent and language and politics. What two or three would you suggest?
Sorry for my snark.
Any of the ones mentioned here as they are on topic. His lectures online a great resource too.
https://substack.com/profile/18802120-bill-owen/note/c-15244771
Thanks, Bill, no worries
Chomsky is a fraud.
So you claim.
Now prove it.
OK so Noam Chomsky drank some of the omnipresent Kool aid, he's paid his dues. Now Harris and DeGrass and other "intellectuals", that's another matter.
Fake intellectuals.
It's how the consent is manufactured - anyone who disagrees doesn't get promoted. The ones who tell the bosses what they want to hear has a bright future.
We saw that yesterday- Tucker Carlson (though they did get Don Lemon right).
Don Lemon is out because he put himself above his masters.
Tucker is out because he put America ahead of them.
That's a beautiful thought. And very true. Thank you.
The difference being that Carlson represents an existential threat to the Uniparty and the Elites behind all this bullshit. Lemon is a punchline at best. An inconsequential blip whose absence no one will notice.
Carlson did a rant against Pharma and their government advertised, taxpayer funded, vaccine experiment. Go against Pharma and that'll get a guy removed real quick. They are nasty buggers.
Exceedingly vengeful
Happened just yesterday at Fox