Thank you to everyone who took the time to read the article and listen to or read the interview before knee-jerk–reacting to the mere mention of Chomsky. I realize he is an incendiary figure, particularly for those of us whose isolation and coercion through societal deprivations he advocated for.
As I write in “You Can’t Cancel Me”:
“I may quote or reference someone you disagree with;
“I may quote or reference someone *I* disagree with.”
The point of this essay and conversation is not to idealize Chomsky but rather to glean wisdom from his past words, which serve as a “Remember thou art mortal” whisper in our ears and a lesson to forever guard against the cognitive biases and menticidal manipulations Chomsky himself has succumbed to.
If you are tempted to outright reject everything Chomsky (or anyone, even those you generally disagree with) has said simply because he has made other statements you find heinous, ask yourself if you are practicing a form of ideological Cancel Culture that prevents you from being able to find truth wherever it happens to exist.
If you find yourself reaching for ad hominems, consider taking a step back and examining the content of his words quoted in this piece. Do you agree or disagree with what he said about free speech—why or why not?
Those of us who are truth-seekers aim to rise above partisan divides and instead engage on the level of ideas, respectfully refuting them with logic, reason, and evidence if we disagree.
When we find ourselves falling into the trap of attacking those we disagree with, we risk becoming like those who name-call us because they have been propagandized to fear views that counter their brainwashing.
I encourage everyone to listen to the TED talk Mickey cited (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8) and ask whether you are living as a soldier or a scout. Do you seek to defend your beliefs at all costs, or do you seek clarity about reality?
Chomsky serves as a cautionary lesson that it is easy to slip into the role of soldier, even if you once sought to live as a scout.
I strive to practice the latter, and my sense is that if you are here reading this, you do, too.
I won’t be able to respond to every comment individually due to time-sensitive deadlines but wanted to post this comment to encourage respectful discussion of the ideas captured in Chomsky’s quotes and my conversation with Mickey rather than being triggered by the lightning-rod figure of Chomsky himself.
Again, thank you all for being here and for caring about truth, freedom of speech, and humanity 🙌🤗
MIT professor emeritus and political activist Noam Chomsky said he believes that while unvaccinated people have the right to refuse a COVID jab, they should “have the decency to isolate” from the community for the safety of others. Chomsky was asked in an interview whether the COVID vaccine should be required when he made the remark. A clip of his response has garnered 1.9 million views on Twitter and been met with mixed reactions.
Noam Chomsky doubles down on his previous call for the state to segregate The Unvaccinated from society: "How can we get food to them? Well, that's actually their problem."
Comment: An open critic of Chomsky, Thomas Sowell: "Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields."
I link to that video at the beginning of the article and condemn his discriminatory stance. That said, it is not accurate to say he is the King of Forced Injections. This is what he actually says in the interview:
“People who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to but rather to insist that they be isolated.”
Reprehensible, yes, but not literally for forced injections (all but).
In our household, Thomas Sowell is known as “Saint Thomas,” so thank you for that gem of a quote among a treasure trove of thousands.
Coercion is force. He was not for forcing the needle into someone’s arm, only forcing them to isolate from society, work, food, until they agreed to it. It’s a distinction without difference. And someone as smart as Chomsky knows it.
But it is interesting to see how his recent public stances fly in the face of earlier positions. He gave them all up when faced with fear.
In China we “INSIST” on your isolation by welding a steel bar across your front door. What does old Noam mean by “Insist?” Not that it actually matters what he means. The guy has been on Kool-aid drip since 9-11 and it shows. Doesn’t he still buy the story about guys with box cutters and fire-proof passports did 9-11? Now he is sharing his wisdom about “vaccines.” LOL!
I knew you would come back with this reasoning but this guy has a storied past when it comes to ideology - either you TAKE THE SHOT or we will place you on an island.... and THESE THINGS ARE NOT VACCINES!!!
COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy..
mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters, as you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for.
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies.
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices. SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
You seem to have missed the point of the article and my pinned comment and are preaching to the choir on mRNA and mandates, so there’s not really much to argue about, as much as you would like to ;-)
What you’ve got to do—is learn more about the person you’re communicating with. Read some of Margaret Anna’s archived articles. She’s likely forgotten more about this stuff than most of us have ever known!
Forced vaccinations may not be the exact equivalent of the Holocaust, but it is those same steps that led to the Holocaust. And if we don't stop this erosion of our rights & freedoms it is almost certain that we will be facing another Holocaust or much worse. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Fascist.
We are already in another holocaust. I would say, "It has begun", but it began three years ago when the mRNA was rolled out and practically force-injected into us. Belief in it, and cooperating with it, certainly was "force-injected into us" by the 24/7/365 constant barrage of false propaganda, terrorizing and shaming into getting injected.
We are in what I've been calling for awhile, the neo-holocaust (the new holocaust). One of the most important things to look at and face at this point, even if we get falsely called "anti-Semitic" for doing so, is to recognized that the top leaders of global(ist) government (the "Fourth Reich") and their organizations are almost all, if not all, Ashkenazi "Jews". Then add to that the fact that officials of the Israeli government, which is run by the Ashkenazis, have stated that the Israeli government not only believes in eradicating all Palestinians and Muslims, but also believes that ALL non-Ashkenazim must be eradicated as well (and they are doing it right now with the mRNA holocaust). And then add the fact that these people are the ones responsible for the neo-holocaust.
This is an uncomfortable truth to face because it goes against all kinds of Ashkenazi conditioning against facing this truth, but we must know who the enemy is, and we must name them. I, just as much as yourselves, don't want to believe that it is so, but it is slapping us in our faces constantly, calling us to face up to this uncomfortable fact.
What is Klaus Schwab? Ashkenazim. What is Bill Gates? Ashkenazim. What is George Soros? Ashkenazim. What is the Rockefeller family, of which Bill Gates is a relative? Ashkenazi. What are the top eight globalist, international bankster families who literally run the entire world, and its governments, of which the Rockefeller family is one of the eight, which are seeking to "totaliterrorize" and "totalitarianize" the entire world and bring it under absolute global(ist) enslavement? Ashkenazi. And the list of Ashkenazim in charge of this mass-eradication of humanity goes on and on and on.
Thus, if we're being objective and completely honest with ourselves and others, we must "out" the enemy, and the enemy right now is primarily the Ashkenazi "Jews" and their minions. Unless we completely deny this fact, it is incontrovertible. Again, I too wish it wasn't so, but it clearly is. So, we've got to stand up against this ENTIRE enemy, not simply the global(ist) government leaders without naming who they are. Whether we like it or not, this present neo-holocaust IS an Ashkenazi conspiracy to exterminate most of the human race.
So tell me - how do you figure that you being labeled an anti-semite would be false? I'd say it's pretty accurate. You not only label the Jewish people as the "Jews" showing the reprehensible christiansplaining of Jewish roots, but all those you consider to be part of the conspiracy have now in your twisted little Jew-hating brain are now all fantasized as Jewish. I guess that's what passes for logic for bigots - these are awful people; therefore and ergo, they must be Jewish. Don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your genocidal fantasies against those who have the audacity to be different from yourself.
To be anti-semitic you have to be against about one third of the earth's population. Semitic has to do with those who descended from Shem, one of three recorded sons of Noah. Israel descends from Shem, and Judah was an ancestor of Jesus.
One can be anti-Jewish in saying things about the Jews but anti-semitic is misleading and silly.
And only someone completely blind would miss the fact that a very large proportion of those in charge of the USA, the banks and media for example are Jewish (allegedly), And they are pushing the vaccines and other Covid nonsense.
But as I keep saying there are Jews who say they are Jews but are not but are the synagogue of Satan.
Sounds to me like another CIA sockpuppet. The lengths they go to in their Divide and Conquer / Poisoning The Well strategy. It's getting a bit ridiculous to tell you the truth. I've seen it so often now it usually just elicits a big yawn.
"It is written, thus says the Lord [God the Father through Jesus the Christ, the Word(s) of God and the Maker / Creator of all things except evil]...":
"...Get... behind (Jesus the Christ), Satan[ist(s)]..."! "...You are of your (lord and master) the devil, and the lies of your (lord and master, Satan) you... do (perpetrate)..."! "...Repent, for the kingdom of (God and of) heaven is (very near) at hand..."! [Matthew 16:23, John 8:44 and Matthew 4:17; clarification(s), emphasis and/or paraphrasing provided by me.]
In Jesus the Christ's name, be gone, Satan[ist(s)]!
High time Noam was wrapped up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell on the Secure Ward and left to chew adenochrome and rave to himself until Satan comes to take him home.
It's occurred to me that Chomsky's about-face could be some form of dementia. I learned about Chomsky during a linguistics class while attending the University of Washington in Seattle many years ago. I was immediately smitten with his words. Years later, while visiting in Brookline I learned he'd be speaking that night at the local movie theater along with someone named Howard Zinn. I was so excited at the idea of hearing Chomsky speak I hung around for hours waiting for the event. It cost $2.00 to attend and Zinn spoke first. I was done with Chomsky the minute I heard the much-missed Howard Zinn speak. And now Chomsky is a shadow of who he was and I do think it could be age related.
Chomsky along with Howard Zinn was really always about as credible as Che Guevara or Joeseph Goebbals. But if it's any comfort to you, I was sucked in by the bullshit by him and about him, too..
Reject what he's said in the past and you'll be throwing out one of the bigger baths and babies. The man was clear-sighted and has much to teach. I'm so glad you posted this article :)
I lost all respect for Chomsky after his apologia for the Cambodian democide. He's pretended that he didn't "really know" what was going on, but he's in print saying that the early reports of the Cambodian democide was just a "right-wing plot".
Just like a whole slew of professions and professionals, he has proven, beyond doubt, to have not meant his fancy words or claimed morality, not when he was actually tested.
He buckled immediately, just like all the (long depressing list goes here). So you are basically asking us to nod and appreciate the great man, when he was spouting total bullshit he did not actually mean, while ignoring the fact we've all seen his true colors?
“So you are basically asking us to nod and appreciate the great man, when he was spouting total bullshit he did not actually mean, while ignoring the fact we've all seen his true colors?”
No, quite the opposite. Read the article, interview, and my pinned comment. I am saying he is an object lesson in humility for us all as he demonstrates how easily someone who is aware of the propaganda machinery can still be bamboozled by that very apparatus, but we can still appreciate the truths he articulated about free speech and propaganda. Being able to separate the words from the man is one of the characteristics that distinguishes a truth-seeking scout from a belief-defending soldier.
When faced with a differing perspective, that the lying scroat never really believed his own words, now it's all about the words and not the man at all?
He was aware of the propaganda for sure, but more like controlled opposition than an actual champion of freedom. When called upon he wasn't bamboozled, he was just forced to make a choice, and he chose the side of the elites, not humanity as a whole.
He revealed what he really is, as did many other people and entire industries. I give him absolutely no slack, and I'm not giving you any either.
The title is “What Noam Chomsky Can Teach Us About Freedom of Speech.” I then proceed to cite numerous quotes from him about free speech and censorship—in other words, his words.
Do you agree or disagree that there is value in those quotes? Do you think society would be better or worse off if it embraced those values instead of Cancel Culture and censorship?
I have loudly denounced his subsequent words against the unvaccinated and critiqued his hypocrisy and “degradation of principles and intellectual rigor” in response to the quote Denis shared. I described his views as reprehensible and agree with you that he absolutely made the wrong horrific choice by siding with the elites over humanity.
I’m not sure where the misunderstanding is as we are in agreement about our assessment of his character. I am just showing that we can still learn something from his past words *and* from his sad trajectory from being a proponent of civil liberties to a proponent of fascist policies.
I cannot draw any conclusions about him being controlled opposition as I try not to speculate without evidence, but I can assess his words and actions and have given credit where credit is due and demerit where demerit is due.
I’m not asking you to give him (or me) any slack. I’m just asking that you base your conclusions on the content of the article rather than your understandable misgivings about the man, which I concur with.
"I am just showing that we can still learn something from his past words *and* from his sad trajectory..."
I feel the biggest lesson is to not trust any famous people, because what they say and what they do under real pressure are so often very different. I don't accept the 'Oops, bamboozled' bit. He was just exposed as an asshole.
Yes, the pretty words were great, and if anything you're not going far enough in separating the asshole from the words. Your article suggests a freedom-loving freedom fighter, wearing freedom pants and a freedom cape hand-stitched from Freemium(tm), tripped, slipped and slid into a stinky pile of bullshit.
In fairness I'm not sure how you could write an article about the asshole without mentioning the asshole, but for sure I'd write it as "Bullshitting asshole exposed as saying what we wanted to hear, without really meaning it."
Maybe that wouldn't be such a fun story?
"credit where credit is due" - no credit is due to an exposed asshole, sitting in a pile of his own bullshit.
You ask where we disagree? We disagree because you give the bullshitting asshole credit, for the period where he was getting away with bullshitting us. That's like finding your friend stealing from your purse and giving her credit for all those times she got away with it.
Thank you for clarifying, Bigs, and I have a better understanding of your perspective and objections now.
I agree with you about not trusting celebrities and that their true mettle is revealed under pressure.
“In fairness I'm not sure how you could write an article about the asshole without mentioning the asshole”
Perhaps you missed this paragraph?
“I’m not talking about the authoritarian, enemy-defining, menticided Chomsky who in 2021 advocated for the isolation, stigmatization, and deprivation of those who exercise their right to refuse an experimental injection.”
Regarding your statement about the “without really meaning it” part, again, I have no evidence of that, and the social, cultural, and academic lambasting he received for years over defending the free speech rights of a Holocaust denier seems to suggest he meant it enough to suffer slings and arrows for that principled stance.
Granted, those principles went out the door when the leaders brought him to their bidding Goebbels-style, so his mettle was ultimately tested and failed under the proper conditions, which again was partly the point of my article.
I don’t have time to continue back-and-forthing but appreciate your elucidating your point of view.
Chomsky unfortunately later said that unvaccinated people should lose their basic rights. This was the end of Chomsky as an intellectual and philosopher
He also idiotically said that finding out the real truth about 9/11 and who was really responsible for it is not important. So did Howard Zinn. Even such people who stood for truth have greatly compromised truth. Even they were fooled by the official conspiracy theory and false propaganda.
I agree with you, Alex. I don't need to know what the former Chomsky wrote or thought. We cannot be fellow travelers on this earth. I do not want to go where he has gone, into the abyss of intolerance for individual rights. No other writers can apologize for him, he has to apologize to everyone himself and that won't happen.
No, what he got, because he rejects Jesus the Messiah (John 14:6), the Word(s) of God (John, Chapter 1), and the Creator of the universe, is what is coming to all those who do so, they get taken over by evil.
What a great term, vintage Chomsky! I had to give up on Chomsky when he interviewed with Russell Brand and said that, although he was an anarchist, only big governments could stop climate change. I wrote about my disillusionment here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-is-the-problem. But I loved vintage Chomsky! Before I did Substack, I did this YT on Manufacturing Contempt, about how they got people to despise the unvaxxed: https://youtu.be/Z7SJoMQVIVE.
It is big government that is the cause of anthropogenic climate change and it is big government that is ensuring it will continue. And worse. If only Chomsky knew a bit about the subject he wouldn't make those erroneous statements.
Haha. But my point is that he's not an anarchist at all. I write about anarchy meaning rule by rules, not by rulers. The word means an- without and archons, who were the Greek landowners. Russell and I are anarchists (and I'm more consistent than him, who wants to impose a liberal agenda of 'values') but not Chomsky.
Thank you. I keep looking at anagrams. Archons anagrams to this one word, 'anchors'. If without could be abbreviated to 'w' we would have what exactly? :)
Really the problem with most hierarchical societies is that they are top down instead of bottom up. When those who are responsible for managing the framework of society do so as truly humble and obedient servants then they are bottom up.
And when their bottoms are up they can be kicked in the bottom if they start being silly!
You are hilarious, but I really shouldn't encourage you.
And yes on hierarchies although that word literally is the inheritance order of the archons. But in my book, in the section on system change, I quote Donella Meadows on nature having central points that serve the wider network, not the reverse. So chaos isn't natural, order is. But as you say, one in which the center serves the periphery.
Sitting at home during the early lockdown I stumbled on documentaries from Media Education Foundation. Ironically, watching their docs on other subjects made me realize the Covid hoax. Hard to listen to the video on propaganda you included because I think it is the woman from Democracy Now. I used to respect their platform. And then when they advocated for the stripping away of rights - when attorney groups advocated for the stripping away of rights - I realized Civil Liberties for the left are only when they fall within the approved dogma. Professor Miller writes that Chomsky made excuses for anyone he had sympathy for.
I was shocked to see outfits like National Review and journalists that I formerly respected brazenly cheerleading for the tyrants. Those clowns wanted my subscription dollars back. I sent them a scathing response. NEVER again. And now Reason attacking RFK. Done with them forever as well. Substack and podcasts are the only way. Everything else is a joke.
I've always been a skeptical person but the post COVID era has taken me to a new level. I'm now completely cynical of all narratives. I don't reject narratives because they are popular (that is also a mistake), I reject them because I can find no evidence in support of them.
Jul 22, 2023Liked by Margaret Anna Alice, Mickey Z.
"For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover—with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now." Chomsky, 1990s
Source: “Undertanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky”, by Noam Chomsky, edited by Peter Mitchell and John Schoeffet, The New Press, NY, 2002; at page 388, in Chapter 10 “Turning Point – Based on discussions in Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland in 1994 to 1996 and 1999”, ISBN 1-56584-703-2.
Thank you for being here, Denis, and for contributing this illuminating (and chilling) example of Chomsky’s further degradation of principles and intellectual rigor.
As Hermann Goering stated:
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked [substitute climate change, COVID, etc.] and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
So did we need "a fascist takeover" to stop Nazi Germany & Japan. Democracy, elections, free speech continued. A bad flu or bad words or not believing in Climate Change Hysteria is cause to suspend all of that, according to numbskulls like the new servile Chomsky.
If a large asteroid was heading for the Earth, governments would take action without needing any such Draconian abdication of basic human rights.
Noam Chomsky was a big influence on my early life and one of the first "anti establishment" thinkers I ever encountered. I heard many of his talks and had "Manufacturing Consent" and one more on CD back in the 90s.
As I got older and my picture of the world and postwar history started to broaden I started to wonder where Chomsky's voice was on the big events of the 60s like the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK and I was shocked to find that he basically towed the establishment line. Same thing with 9/11 later on-- it didn't make any sense. It was really disenchanting because I can only imagine what difference a dissenting voice as prominent as his could have made to turn the tide and bring the truth of the Kennedy assassination (or any of those other events) into the open. The coup de grace for me was his behavior during Covid and I'm now convinced he's been a fake the whole time...like some sort of elaborate controlled opposition.
"We can learn that no matter how awake we think we are, how aware we are of the tricks used to propagandize us, how skeptical we remain of media and the State, or how knowledgeable we are about history, there but for the grace of God go we."
Amen to that.
One suspects his age affected his judgement and by that I do not mean dementia but self preservation fears
add joni mitchell, neil young, howard stern, gene simmons to the list of formerly radical free thinkers who bought the covid propaganda hook, line and sinker. i won't even go as far as sean penn who may not be recoverable.
I remember thinking as far back as 2015-2016. OMG They have all gone silly! Finally. Sane minds are entering back into the picture. Thank you Substack. My hope is that they don’t all get scared away again.
If I remember correctly, his Covid comments related more to complete body autonomy than freedom of speech. I wonder if he still believed an unvaxxed person had the freedom to spout their beliefs while they were being denied food?
Great post, MAA! I love it, having been a huge fan of the 'old' Chomsky, if that can actually mean anything. I heard his rationalising the lockdowns with an argument so weak it would have embarrassed the old Chomsky into the grave. All that came to mind was that his brain wasn't firing on all cylinders either because of old age, poor diet, or having been injected or...
It struck me as interesting, too, as a kind of corollary, that JBP also got jabbed. What!? The person who, besides Chomsky, may be *the* anti-tyranny spokesman who spotted the tyrannical wedge that gender pronoun laws are, was one of the 'leading intellectuals' who specialised in the practices and manifestations of tyranny, failed to see the covid narrative for the Nazi-Germany mechanism it was is... astounding. Astonishing? Or maybe typical of 'true' intellectuals who are in such deep thought that the immediate events are fuzzy anachronisms.
And your article is a synchronicity for me. It has timed itself perfectly with me and my next essay where I am looking to explore how we are able to choose to not see what is true. In part this inspired by an old Chomsky comment, his response to the question of why the people within the false-news making world, knowingly lie. Paraphrased, Chomsky replied, 'It isn't that they *knowingly* lie. People are generally very uncomfortable lying and so what happens is that they simply stop seeing the truth.'
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read the article and listen to or read the interview before knee-jerk–reacting to the mere mention of Chomsky. I realize he is an incendiary figure, particularly for those of us whose isolation and coercion through societal deprivations he advocated for.
As I write in “You Can’t Cancel Me”:
“I may quote or reference someone you disagree with;
“I may quote or reference someone *I* disagree with.”
(https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/with-thanks-to-you-you-magnificent#%C2%A7you-cant-cancel-me)
The point of this essay and conversation is not to idealize Chomsky but rather to glean wisdom from his past words, which serve as a “Remember thou art mortal” whisper in our ears and a lesson to forever guard against the cognitive biases and menticidal manipulations Chomsky himself has succumbed to.
If you are tempted to outright reject everything Chomsky (or anyone, even those you generally disagree with) has said simply because he has made other statements you find heinous, ask yourself if you are practicing a form of ideological Cancel Culture that prevents you from being able to find truth wherever it happens to exist.
If you find yourself reaching for ad hominems, consider taking a step back and examining the content of his words quoted in this piece. Do you agree or disagree with what he said about free speech—why or why not?
Those of us who are truth-seekers aim to rise above partisan divides and instead engage on the level of ideas, respectfully refuting them with logic, reason, and evidence if we disagree.
When we find ourselves falling into the trap of attacking those we disagree with, we risk becoming like those who name-call us because they have been propagandized to fear views that counter their brainwashing.
I encourage everyone to listen to the TED talk Mickey cited (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8) and ask whether you are living as a soldier or a scout. Do you seek to defend your beliefs at all costs, or do you seek clarity about reality?
Chomsky serves as a cautionary lesson that it is easy to slip into the role of soldier, even if you once sought to live as a scout.
I strive to practice the latter, and my sense is that if you are here reading this, you do, too.
I won’t be able to respond to every comment individually due to time-sensitive deadlines but wanted to post this comment to encourage respectful discussion of the ideas captured in Chomsky’s quotes and my conversation with Mickey rather than being triggered by the lightning-rod figure of Chomsky himself.
Again, thank you all for being here and for caring about truth, freedom of speech, and humanity 🙌🤗
CHOMSKY 2021 - KING OF FORCED INJECTIONS!
MIT professor emeritus and political activist Noam Chomsky said he believes that while unvaccinated people have the right to refuse a COVID jab, they should “have the decency to isolate” from the community for the safety of others. Chomsky was asked in an interview whether the COVID vaccine should be required when he made the remark. A clip of his response has garnered 1.9 million views on Twitter and been met with mixed reactions.
Noam Chomsky doubles down on his previous call for the state to segregate The Unvaccinated from society: "How can we get food to them? Well, that's actually their problem."
Comment: An open critic of Chomsky, Thomas Sowell: "Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields."
I link to that video at the beginning of the article and condemn his discriminatory stance. That said, it is not accurate to say he is the King of Forced Injections. This is what he actually says in the interview:
“People who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to but rather to insist that they be isolated.”
Reprehensible, yes, but not literally for forced injections (all but).
In our household, Thomas Sowell is known as “Saint Thomas,” so thank you for that gem of a quote among a treasure trove of thousands.
Coercion is force. He was not for forcing the needle into someone’s arm, only forcing them to isolate from society, work, food, until they agreed to it. It’s a distinction without difference. And someone as smart as Chomsky knows it.
But it is interesting to see how his recent public stances fly in the face of earlier positions. He gave them all up when faced with fear.
In China we “INSIST” on your isolation by welding a steel bar across your front door. What does old Noam mean by “Insist?” Not that it actually matters what he means. The guy has been on Kool-aid drip since 9-11 and it shows. Doesn’t he still buy the story about guys with box cutters and fire-proof passports did 9-11? Now he is sharing his wisdom about “vaccines.” LOL!
I knew you would come back with this reasoning but this guy has a storied past when it comes to ideology - either you TAKE THE SHOT or we will place you on an island.... and THESE THINGS ARE NOT VACCINES!!!
COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy..
mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters, as you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for.
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies.
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices. SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/16/mrna-vaccine-gene-therapy.aspx
You seem to have missed the point of the article and my pinned comment and are preaching to the choir on mRNA and mandates, so there’s not really much to argue about, as much as you would like to ;-)
point is - Chomsky is a walking paradox... i read plenty on him years ago..
and now if i challenge that, to you its me looking for an argument.. please!
What you’ve got to do—is learn more about the person you’re communicating with. Read some of Margaret Anna’s archived articles. She’s likely forgotten more about this stuff than most of us have ever known!
Possibly not the most reputable of sources or author, but still germane to the conversation:
Miles Mathis: "Noam Chomsky Is And Always Has Been, A Spook" http://www.whale.to/c/chommathis.pdf
Forced vaccinations may not be the exact equivalent of the Holocaust, but it is those same steps that led to the Holocaust. And if we don't stop this erosion of our rights & freedoms it is almost certain that we will be facing another Holocaust or much worse. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Fascist.
We are already in another holocaust. I would say, "It has begun", but it began three years ago when the mRNA was rolled out and practically force-injected into us. Belief in it, and cooperating with it, certainly was "force-injected into us" by the 24/7/365 constant barrage of false propaganda, terrorizing and shaming into getting injected.
We are in what I've been calling for awhile, the neo-holocaust (the new holocaust). One of the most important things to look at and face at this point, even if we get falsely called "anti-Semitic" for doing so, is to recognized that the top leaders of global(ist) government (the "Fourth Reich") and their organizations are almost all, if not all, Ashkenazi "Jews". Then add to that the fact that officials of the Israeli government, which is run by the Ashkenazis, have stated that the Israeli government not only believes in eradicating all Palestinians and Muslims, but also believes that ALL non-Ashkenazim must be eradicated as well (and they are doing it right now with the mRNA holocaust). And then add the fact that these people are the ones responsible for the neo-holocaust.
This is an uncomfortable truth to face because it goes against all kinds of Ashkenazi conditioning against facing this truth, but we must know who the enemy is, and we must name them. I, just as much as yourselves, don't want to believe that it is so, but it is slapping us in our faces constantly, calling us to face up to this uncomfortable fact.
What is Klaus Schwab? Ashkenazim. What is Bill Gates? Ashkenazim. What is George Soros? Ashkenazim. What is the Rockefeller family, of which Bill Gates is a relative? Ashkenazi. What are the top eight globalist, international bankster families who literally run the entire world, and its governments, of which the Rockefeller family is one of the eight, which are seeking to "totaliterrorize" and "totalitarianize" the entire world and bring it under absolute global(ist) enslavement? Ashkenazi. And the list of Ashkenazim in charge of this mass-eradication of humanity goes on and on and on.
Thus, if we're being objective and completely honest with ourselves and others, we must "out" the enemy, and the enemy right now is primarily the Ashkenazi "Jews" and their minions. Unless we completely deny this fact, it is incontrovertible. Again, I too wish it wasn't so, but it clearly is. So, we've got to stand up against this ENTIRE enemy, not simply the global(ist) government leaders without naming who they are. Whether we like it or not, this present neo-holocaust IS an Ashkenazi conspiracy to exterminate most of the human race.
So tell me - how do you figure that you being labeled an anti-semite would be false? I'd say it's pretty accurate. You not only label the Jewish people as the "Jews" showing the reprehensible christiansplaining of Jewish roots, but all those you consider to be part of the conspiracy have now in your twisted little Jew-hating brain are now all fantasized as Jewish. I guess that's what passes for logic for bigots - these are awful people; therefore and ergo, they must be Jewish. Don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your genocidal fantasies against those who have the audacity to be different from yourself.
To be anti-semitic you have to be against about one third of the earth's population. Semitic has to do with those who descended from Shem, one of three recorded sons of Noah. Israel descends from Shem, and Judah was an ancestor of Jesus.
One can be anti-Jewish in saying things about the Jews but anti-semitic is misleading and silly.
And only someone completely blind would miss the fact that a very large proportion of those in charge of the USA, the banks and media for example are Jewish (allegedly), And they are pushing the vaccines and other Covid nonsense.
But as I keep saying there are Jews who say they are Jews but are not but are the synagogue of Satan.
Sounds to me like another CIA sockpuppet. The lengths they go to in their Divide and Conquer / Poisoning The Well strategy. It's getting a bit ridiculous to tell you the truth. I've seen it so often now it usually just elicits a big yawn.
"It is written, thus says the Lord [God the Father through Jesus the Christ, the Word(s) of God and the Maker / Creator of all things except evil]...":
"...Get... behind (Jesus the Christ), Satan[ist(s)]..."! "...You are of your (lord and master) the devil, and the lies of your (lord and master, Satan) you... do (perpetrate)..."! "...Repent, for the kingdom of (God and of) heaven is (very near) at hand..."! [Matthew 16:23, John 8:44 and Matthew 4:17; clarification(s), emphasis and/or paraphrasing provided by me.]
In Jesus the Christ's name, be gone, Satan[ist(s)]!
You do know, of course, that Jesus was Jewish. He lived and he died as a Jew, the son of the Jewish god.
Well said. I only realised this was the case in 2020. I call them Jews who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/covid-19-summary/
High time Noam was wrapped up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell on the Secure Ward and left to chew adenochrome and rave to himself until Satan comes to take him home.
It's occurred to me that Chomsky's about-face could be some form of dementia. I learned about Chomsky during a linguistics class while attending the University of Washington in Seattle many years ago. I was immediately smitten with his words. Years later, while visiting in Brookline I learned he'd be speaking that night at the local movie theater along with someone named Howard Zinn. I was so excited at the idea of hearing Chomsky speak I hung around for hours waiting for the event. It cost $2.00 to attend and Zinn spoke first. I was done with Chomsky the minute I heard the much-missed Howard Zinn speak. And now Chomsky is a shadow of who he was and I do think it could be age related.
Chomsky along with Howard Zinn was really always about as credible as Che Guevara or Joeseph Goebbals. But if it's any comfort to you, I was sucked in by the bullshit by him and about him, too..
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 Thank you for this important addition, MAA!
Reject what he's said in the past and you'll be throwing out one of the bigger baths and babies. The man was clear-sighted and has much to teach. I'm so glad you posted this article :)
Possibly not the most reputable of sources or author, but still germane to the conversation:
Miles Mathis: "Noam Chomsky Is And Always Has Been, A Spook" http://www.whale.to/c/chommathis.pdf
I lost all respect for Chomsky after his apologia for the Cambodian democide. He's pretended that he didn't "really know" what was going on, but he's in print saying that the early reports of the Cambodian democide was just a "right-wing plot".
I'm afraid that 'that' Chomsky is neither 'that' Chomsky.
E.g.
https://archive.is/U8A3l#selection-715.212-729.543
I just feel sorry for him......how incredibly sad.
And it is the old who have lived most who cling to life so strongly...
not the young.
About on a par with feeling pity for Gollum (a multiple murderer and a cannibal)...
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Just like a whole slew of professions and professionals, he has proven, beyond doubt, to have not meant his fancy words or claimed morality, not when he was actually tested.
He buckled immediately, just like all the (long depressing list goes here). So you are basically asking us to nod and appreciate the great man, when he was spouting total bullshit he did not actually mean, while ignoring the fact we've all seen his true colors?
No.
“So you are basically asking us to nod and appreciate the great man, when he was spouting total bullshit he did not actually mean, while ignoring the fact we've all seen his true colors?”
No, quite the opposite. Read the article, interview, and my pinned comment. I am saying he is an object lesson in humility for us all as he demonstrates how easily someone who is aware of the propaganda machinery can still be bamboozled by that very apparatus, but we can still appreciate the truths he articulated about free speech and propaganda. Being able to separate the words from the man is one of the characteristics that distinguishes a truth-seeking scout from a belief-defending soldier.
Well said. Exactly.
Your article was about the man.
When faced with a differing perspective, that the lying scroat never really believed his own words, now it's all about the words and not the man at all?
He was aware of the propaganda for sure, but more like controlled opposition than an actual champion of freedom. When called upon he wasn't bamboozled, he was just forced to make a choice, and he chose the side of the elites, not humanity as a whole.
He revealed what he really is, as did many other people and entire industries. I give him absolutely no slack, and I'm not giving you any either.
“Your article was about the man.”
The title is “What Noam Chomsky Can Teach Us About Freedom of Speech.” I then proceed to cite numerous quotes from him about free speech and censorship—in other words, his words.
Do you agree or disagree that there is value in those quotes? Do you think society would be better or worse off if it embraced those values instead of Cancel Culture and censorship?
I have loudly denounced his subsequent words against the unvaccinated and critiqued his hypocrisy and “degradation of principles and intellectual rigor” in response to the quote Denis shared. I described his views as reprehensible and agree with you that he absolutely made the wrong horrific choice by siding with the elites over humanity.
I’m not sure where the misunderstanding is as we are in agreement about our assessment of his character. I am just showing that we can still learn something from his past words *and* from his sad trajectory from being a proponent of civil liberties to a proponent of fascist policies.
I cannot draw any conclusions about him being controlled opposition as I try not to speculate without evidence, but I can assess his words and actions and have given credit where credit is due and demerit where demerit is due.
I’m not asking you to give him (or me) any slack. I’m just asking that you base your conclusions on the content of the article rather than your understandable misgivings about the man, which I concur with.
"I am just showing that we can still learn something from his past words *and* from his sad trajectory..."
I feel the biggest lesson is to not trust any famous people, because what they say and what they do under real pressure are so often very different. I don't accept the 'Oops, bamboozled' bit. He was just exposed as an asshole.
Yes, the pretty words were great, and if anything you're not going far enough in separating the asshole from the words. Your article suggests a freedom-loving freedom fighter, wearing freedom pants and a freedom cape hand-stitched from Freemium(tm), tripped, slipped and slid into a stinky pile of bullshit.
In fairness I'm not sure how you could write an article about the asshole without mentioning the asshole, but for sure I'd write it as "Bullshitting asshole exposed as saying what we wanted to hear, without really meaning it."
Maybe that wouldn't be such a fun story?
"credit where credit is due" - no credit is due to an exposed asshole, sitting in a pile of his own bullshit.
You ask where we disagree? We disagree because you give the bullshitting asshole credit, for the period where he was getting away with bullshitting us. That's like finding your friend stealing from your purse and giving her credit for all those times she got away with it.
No.
Thank you for clarifying, Bigs, and I have a better understanding of your perspective and objections now.
I agree with you about not trusting celebrities and that their true mettle is revealed under pressure.
“In fairness I'm not sure how you could write an article about the asshole without mentioning the asshole”
Perhaps you missed this paragraph?
“I’m not talking about the authoritarian, enemy-defining, menticided Chomsky who in 2021 advocated for the isolation, stigmatization, and deprivation of those who exercise their right to refuse an experimental injection.”
Regarding your statement about the “without really meaning it” part, again, I have no evidence of that, and the social, cultural, and academic lambasting he received for years over defending the free speech rights of a Holocaust denier seems to suggest he meant it enough to suffer slings and arrows for that principled stance.
Granted, those principles went out the door when the leaders brought him to their bidding Goebbels-style, so his mettle was ultimately tested and failed under the proper conditions, which again was partly the point of my article.
I don’t have time to continue back-and-forthing but appreciate your elucidating your point of view.
Ah.. I see The Red Pill is beginning to take effect...
Chomsky unfortunately later said that unvaccinated people should lose their basic rights. This was the end of Chomsky as an intellectual and philosopher
He also idiotically said that finding out the real truth about 9/11 and who was really responsible for it is not important. So did Howard Zinn. Even such people who stood for truth have greatly compromised truth. Even they were fooled by the official conspiracy theory and false propaganda.
I agree with you, Alex. I don't need to know what the former Chomsky wrote or thought. We cannot be fellow travelers on this earth. I do not want to go where he has gone, into the abyss of intolerance for individual rights. No other writers can apologize for him, he has to apologize to everyone himself and that won't happen.
He got bought or blackmailed. Same as most of the collaborators. What happened to Caitlin Johnstone during the Plandemic?
No, what he got, because he rejects Jesus the Messiah (John 14:6), the Word(s) of God (John, Chapter 1), and the Creator of the universe, is what is coming to all those who do so, they get taken over by evil.
What a great term, vintage Chomsky! I had to give up on Chomsky when he interviewed with Russell Brand and said that, although he was an anarchist, only big governments could stop climate change. I wrote about my disillusionment here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-is-the-problem. But I loved vintage Chomsky! Before I did Substack, I did this YT on Manufacturing Contempt, about how they got people to despise the unvaxxed: https://youtu.be/Z7SJoMQVIVE.
It is big government that is the cause of anthropogenic climate change and it is big government that is ensuring it will continue. And worse. If only Chomsky knew a bit about the subject he wouldn't make those erroneous statements.
“It is big government that is the Fattest Snake Oil Salesman of (the) anthropogenic climate change SCAM.” There, I fixed it for you.
Interestingly his full name anagrams to 'ammo ok VMS anarchy' so maybe he was destined to be an anarchist.
Haha. But my point is that he's not an anarchist at all. I write about anarchy meaning rule by rules, not by rulers. The word means an- without and archons, who were the Greek landowners. Russell and I are anarchists (and I'm more consistent than him, who wants to impose a liberal agenda of 'values') but not Chomsky.
Thank you. I keep looking at anagrams. Archons anagrams to this one word, 'anchors'. If without could be abbreviated to 'w' we would have what exactly? :)
Really the problem with most hierarchical societies is that they are top down instead of bottom up. When those who are responsible for managing the framework of society do so as truly humble and obedient servants then they are bottom up.
And when their bottoms are up they can be kicked in the bottom if they start being silly!
You are hilarious, but I really shouldn't encourage you.
And yes on hierarchies although that word literally is the inheritance order of the archons. But in my book, in the section on system change, I quote Donella Meadows on nature having central points that serve the wider network, not the reverse. So chaos isn't natural, order is. But as you say, one in which the center serves the periphery.
Thank you and I especially like your last sentence, I will remember that.
Check this out
https://archive.is/U8A3l#selection-715.212-729.543
Sitting at home during the early lockdown I stumbled on documentaries from Media Education Foundation. Ironically, watching their docs on other subjects made me realize the Covid hoax. Hard to listen to the video on propaganda you included because I think it is the woman from Democracy Now. I used to respect their platform. And then when they advocated for the stripping away of rights - when attorney groups advocated for the stripping away of rights - I realized Civil Liberties for the left are only when they fall within the approved dogma. Professor Miller writes that Chomsky made excuses for anyone he had sympathy for.
I was shocked to see outfits like National Review and journalists that I formerly respected brazenly cheerleading for the tyrants. Those clowns wanted my subscription dollars back. I sent them a scathing response. NEVER again. And now Reason attacking RFK. Done with them forever as well. Substack and podcasts are the only way. Everything else is a joke.
Listening to the interview you linked. Really enjoy the exchange.
Yes, definitely check what Prof Miller writes about NC. sorry I got no links for anything today
I've always been a skeptical person but the post COVID era has taken me to a new level. I'm now completely cynical of all narratives. I don't reject narratives because they are popular (that is also a mistake), I reject them because I can find no evidence in support of them.
You just did not understand. It's always been like this but it was easier to not notice. TV is a weapon.
"For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover—with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now." Chomsky, 1990s
Source: “Undertanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky”, by Noam Chomsky, edited by Peter Mitchell and John Schoeffet, The New Press, NY, 2002; at page 388, in Chapter 10 “Turning Point – Based on discussions in Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland in 1994 to 1996 and 1999”, ISBN 1-56584-703-2.
Thank you for being here, Denis, and for contributing this illuminating (and chilling) example of Chomsky’s further degradation of principles and intellectual rigor.
As Hermann Goering stated:
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked [substitute climate change, COVID, etc.] and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Brilliant share. Shows how Chomsky is wrong on many issues. Thank you, Denis.
So did we need "a fascist takeover" to stop Nazi Germany & Japan. Democracy, elections, free speech continued. A bad flu or bad words or not believing in Climate Change Hysteria is cause to suspend all of that, according to numbskulls like the new servile Chomsky.
If a large asteroid was heading for the Earth, governments would take action without needing any such Draconian abdication of basic human rights.
Noam Chomsky was a big influence on my early life and one of the first "anti establishment" thinkers I ever encountered. I heard many of his talks and had "Manufacturing Consent" and one more on CD back in the 90s.
As I got older and my picture of the world and postwar history started to broaden I started to wonder where Chomsky's voice was on the big events of the 60s like the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK and I was shocked to find that he basically towed the establishment line. Same thing with 9/11 later on-- it didn't make any sense. It was really disenchanting because I can only imagine what difference a dissenting voice as prominent as his could have made to turn the tide and bring the truth of the Kennedy assassination (or any of those other events) into the open. The coup de grace for me was his behavior during Covid and I'm now convinced he's been a fake the whole time...like some sort of elaborate controlled opposition.
I'm sorry, Chomsky has such a sordid history of being all over the map... I can't endorse anything he now says.
Doesn't mean I don't appreciate your writing.
"We can learn that no matter how awake we think we are, how aware we are of the tricks used to propagandize us, how skeptical we remain of media and the State, or how knowledgeable we are about history, there but for the grace of God go we."
Amen to that.
One suspects his age affected his judgement and by that I do not mean dementia but self preservation fears
If you are brainwashed... how would you know?
Perhaps a less intimidating question would be:
If you are wrong... how would you know?
The problem we face today is that none of these answers are taught in school, when they should be the cornerstone upon which education is built.
Indeed. Intentionally not taught, of course.
add joni mitchell, neil young, howard stern, gene simmons to the list of formerly radical free thinkers who bought the covid propaganda hook, line and sinker. i won't even go as far as sean penn who may not be recoverable.
Start with Laurel Canyon and go from there. All your 'peace and freedom' heroes have been carefully curated by the government for your consumption.
I remember thinking as far back as 2015-2016. OMG They have all gone silly! Finally. Sane minds are entering back into the picture. Thank you Substack. My hope is that they don’t all get scared away again.
Sometimes one can be so smart they’re stupid .
i almost didn't read this because I'm so disappointed with Chomsky. His 1970s/80s talks were amazing. Now I feel like I was hoodwinked.
If I remember correctly, his Covid comments related more to complete body autonomy than freedom of speech. I wonder if he still believed an unvaxxed person had the freedom to spout their beliefs while they were being denied food?
So convicting...to uphold freedom of speech of all ppl, that we don’t like or agree with
Unfortunately, they do not feel the same about us. They want us dead.
Great post, MAA! I love it, having been a huge fan of the 'old' Chomsky, if that can actually mean anything. I heard his rationalising the lockdowns with an argument so weak it would have embarrassed the old Chomsky into the grave. All that came to mind was that his brain wasn't firing on all cylinders either because of old age, poor diet, or having been injected or...
It struck me as interesting, too, as a kind of corollary, that JBP also got jabbed. What!? The person who, besides Chomsky, may be *the* anti-tyranny spokesman who spotted the tyrannical wedge that gender pronoun laws are, was one of the 'leading intellectuals' who specialised in the practices and manifestations of tyranny, failed to see the covid narrative for the Nazi-Germany mechanism it was is... astounding. Astonishing? Or maybe typical of 'true' intellectuals who are in such deep thought that the immediate events are fuzzy anachronisms.
And your article is a synchronicity for me. It has timed itself perfectly with me and my next essay where I am looking to explore how we are able to choose to not see what is true. In part this inspired by an old Chomsky comment, his response to the question of why the people within the false-news making world, knowingly lie. Paraphrased, Chomsky replied, 'It isn't that they *knowingly* lie. People are generally very uncomfortable lying and so what happens is that they simply stop seeing the truth.'
Again, thank you. Love it.