/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15163866]

mmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.15163888]

>>15163866
So who is forcing this cool new meme?

[Anonymous No.15163891]

WHERE ARE CHILDREN FORESKIN I NEED THEM I'M AGING FAST HERE

[Anonymous No.15163896]

>>15163891
Oh I think I can guess now.

[Anonymous No.15163906]

notice how all these major public figures in the last few years have stuff like body shaking, eyes bleeding, looking like the guy that drank the wrong grail cup in indiana jones etc

is there a glut in the child sacrifice supply chain?

[Anonymous No.15163910]

>>15163906
You might want to check the meanings of words before you use them dimwit.

[Anonymous No.15163932]

1/4

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are “trying to help suffering people.”

Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those “open to being ‘commodified’—that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.”

Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.

Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches—for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you 79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.

[Anonymous No.15163937]

>>15163932
2/4

But books are Chomsky’s mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O’Hare of Pluto Press explains: “All we have to do is put Chomsky’s name on a book and it sells out immediately!”

Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: “If you look at the things I write—articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever—they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.”

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

He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press. His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the pushlisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.

Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. “When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most,” Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn’t have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, “have to do with protectionism.”

Protectionism is a bad thing—especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky’s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you’d better keep your hands off.

[Anonymous No.15163940]

>>15163932
>After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000
So there's a reason his net worth was so low and it's because he's been extremely generous with the book money.

[Anonymous No.15163943]

>>15163937
3/4

Go to the official Noam Chomsky website (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: “Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.” However, the website does give you the opportunity to “sublicense” the material if you are interested.

Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.

Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children’s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.

In October 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled “Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy.” Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of $15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another $35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you.

During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, “A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.” After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this “free, independent, and inquiring” reporter needed to pay $35 to get into the private reception.

Corporate America is one of Chomsky’s demons. It’s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the “unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.” He has called corporations “private tyrannies” and declared that they are “just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.” Capitalism, in his words, is a “grotesque catastrophe.”

But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.

Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

[Anonymous No.15163949]

>>15163943
4/4

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a “what else can I do?” defense: “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises. They just don’t yield the maximum available return.

[Anonymous No.15163950]

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

[Anonymous No.15163953]

>>15163866
This new old age filter looks good

[Anonymous No.15163955]

>>15163932
>>15163937
Whoever wrote that is literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.15163962]

>>15163949
>There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises.
Imagine being this naive and imbecilic.

[Anonymous No.15163977]

>>15163955
crying?

[Anonymous No.15163995]

>>15163977
No idea, but he was definitely drooling on himself when he wrote it.

[Anonymous No.15164001]

Hmm, I bet Chomsky would aid the revolution against his self-interest and not just turn out to be another liberal turncoat...! LOL!

[Anonymous No.15164019]

>>15163866
thinking about them dems again

[Anonymous No.15164024]

>>15164001
Explain the point you're trying to make and then you will see how dumb you are.

[Anonymous No.15164038]

>>15164024
Chomsky never fails to advocate voting for democrats.

[Anonymous No.15164055]

>>15164038
Because they are obviously better than Repubs, idiot. Not by much, but by enough.

[Anonymous No.15164064]

>>15164024
Class warfare is not a warfare of ideals but of circumstances. Chomsky is a beneficiary of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15164073]

>>15164055
>be Chomsky
>have an entire debate on justice and morality with Foucault
>go on to support 1/2 of the warfare corporate state
>tfw your "better of two evils" are Beelzebub or Lucifer and you think you're so woke for it

[Anonymous No.15164233]

>>15163940
>>15163955
>>15163962
NOOOOOOOOOOO, I CAN'T BELIEVE MY ANARCHIST IDOL IS LITERALLY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE INVESTOR WITH A HISTORY OF WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE, NOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Anonymous No.15164249]

>>15164233
Blatant lying isn't helping your cause, libshill.

[Anonymous No.15164256]

>>15163950
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15164257]

>>15164073
What?

[Anonymous No.15164259]

>>15164233
>>15163866
>>15163891
>>15163932
>>15163937
>>15163943
>>15163949
>>15163950
>>15163977
>>15164001
>>15164019
>>15164038
>>15164064
>>15164073

[Anonymous No.15164328]

>>15164249
No lies were told. He has millions, he has investments, and back in the day he was paid by the American government to do his researches. Well then.

[Anonymous No.15164333]

>>15164328
>and back in the day he was paid by the American government to do his researches
An academic getting government grant money shock horror.

[Anonymous No.15164343]

>>15163932
wasnt this written by a journalist who got fired and hasnt found work since

[Anonymous No.15164346]

>>15164328
So your thesis is that every branch of US government is a part of the CIA?

[Anonymous No.15164351]

>>15164333
There's nothing wrong with any of what he did.

The problem is the hypocrisy. Imagine Taleb getting paid by Monsanto. It would be ultimate hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.15164360]

>>15164351
Chomsky is in favor of government investment in science, not opposed.

[Anonymous No.15164370]

>>15164333
He was apparently employed by DoJ/DARPA through MIT in an offsite campus during the 60s but that's not the strange thing. The strange thing is that he completely denies even to this day his involvement in it even though the records are freely available for people to look up.

[Anonymous No.15164382]

>>15164370
That would be pretty typical for anyone in linguistics at the time,

[Anonymous No.15164399]

>>15164346
US intelligence isn't just the CIA. If the US paid Chomsky, it's because it thought that maybe it could use his researches to further its political purposes, not because of any ''love for knowledge''. At any rate, he worked for the US - whether it was for its intelligence or its unintelligence is irrelevant.

I can't imagine, for instance, Taleb accepting payment from Monsanto. Or Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens from the Templeton Foundation. Or Peter Singer from Burger King.

Basically everyone has more integrity than Chomsky, because he uses his ideology as a way of rationalizing his behavior. All problems are structural in his view, and therefore he's allowed to do anything he wants because ''what else can I do? Go to Montana?'' Well, guess what, it's precisely this type of thinking, this self-concern amidst structural chaos, that leads to the very political systems he criticizes so much.

The whole metoo movement in Hollywood is due to that type of thinking. Big millionaire perverts thinking that, just because they are progressive and support the right causes, they can act as they want in their private lives.

There's no integrity on this world any longer. People have substitute private virtues for public displays of anti-system criticisms. And, of course, the alternatives they provide are even worse than the current systems we have, but when it fails they can just say it wasn't done correctly.

[Anonymous No.15164405]

>>15164360
He should have worked for the Cuban government, then. Or any other country. France. Sweden. Italy. Ireland, which also speaks English. New Zealand. Literally any country other than the US.

[Anonymous No.15164407]

>>15164343
Shame, since he completely blew the cumbbrain the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.15164417]

>>15164407
You seem to think this, but he didn't, some of the points made even don't support his conclusion, most of the others are appeal to vagueries or misconstrued facts.

[Anonymous No.15164419]

>>15164405
>>15164399
He lived in the US, you weird fuck. You can’t expect him to move out of a country just because he doesn’t like its government. Also you were blatantly lying about him working for the CIA when what you really meant is that he got government grants for research, which is typical of almost all researchers.

[Anonymous No.15164426]

>>15164399
You are too enmeshed in the capitalist worldview to understand that individual action is completely irrelevant here.

[Anonymous No.15164428]

>>15163866
Belongs on the end of a rope, along with his shitblood kids.

[Anonymous No.15164441]

>>15164419
Yes, I can expect that. It's what a shitload of people do. For instance, in my country during the military regime a large number of artists and intellectuals fled to Europe, even though they weren't actually being persecuted. Furthermore, Chomsky could find a job anywhere in the world, and he even did move to Israel once.

>>15164426
Yeah, whatever you say to rationalize your idol's actions...

[Anonymous No.15164450]

>>15164441
>Yeah, whatever you say to rationalize your idol's actions
It's the same as saying people who think the government should raise taxes should instead personally pay more tax voluntarily. Pure idiocy.

[Anonymous No.15164461]

>>15164441
Chomsky did live in a kibbutz for a while.

[Anonymous No.15164467]

>>15164382
>at the time
Yeah but he still denies it. Why would you refuse to even acknowledge it 60 years later?

[Anonymous No.15164485]

>>15164399
>a Jew takes money for actively advancing Liberalism
Color me absolutely fucking shocked. Who ever could have foreseen such a thing?

>>15164461
>a Liberal Jew that makes money out of conning goyim into acting against their own interests retreated to Israel and lived on a Kibbutz to make connections
I'm just absolutely floored, these new developments are coming out of nowhere! There was no way to predict these things could occur!

[Anonymous No.15164486]

>>15164370
Source?

[Anonymous No.15164494]

>>15164467
The man still denies the Khmer Rouge engaged in mass killings. Self awareness is not something Jews are good at, and indeed they must actually be terrible at it in order for the entire system to work.

[Anonymous No.15164507]

>>15164494
Debunked millions of times.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.15164515]

liberalism is good.

[Anonymous No.15164537]

>>15164507
What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on... well I don't think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let's look... I remember when he defended this demonstration of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that." And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me. It was that "No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn't yet know enough, so... you know." But I totally reject this line of reasoning.

For example, concerning Stalinism. The point is not that you have to know, you have photo evidence of gulag or whatever. My God you just have to listen to the public discourse of Stalinism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that something terrifyingly pathological is going on there. For example, Khmer Rouge: Even if we have no data about their prisons and so on, isn't it in a perverse way almost fascinating to have a regime which in the first two years ('75 to '77) behaved towards itself, treated itself, as illegal? You know the regime was nameless. It was called "Angka," an organization -- not communist party of Cambodia -- an organization. Leaders were nameless. If you ask "Who is my leader?" your head was chopped off immediately and so on.

[Anonymous No.15164752]

>>15163932
>>15163937
>>15163943

TL;DR

[Anonymous No.15164914]

>>15163866
>mmmmmmuhanarcho-syndicalismmmmmm

>mmmmmvotebidenmmmm

[Anonymous No.15164922]

>>15164752
Chomsky BAD

[Anonymous No.15164936]

>>15164537
There's no denial about the material facts, simply about the conclusions which were drawn.

[Anonymous No.15165579]

>>15163932
>When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren

[Anonymous No.15165610]

>>15163943
>Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.

that´s what you get for being a puppet of the establishment...pic related

[Anonymous No.15165626]

>>15164073
>>tfw your "better of two evils" are Beelzebub or Lucifer and you think you're so woke for it

[Anonymous No.15165641]

>the rich guy employed by MIT is totally a radical and transgressive figure
yeah ok kek

[Anonymous No.15165719]

The only thing anti-Chomskyites say against him is muh cambodia genocide denial, despite that itself being wrong (he didn't deny anything).

The right hate him, the left hate him = worth reading.

[Anonymous No.15165930]

>>15165719
He’s a traitor and a sellout who supports the system he criticizes

[Anonymous No.15165957]

>>15165610

>Professors .... are suckers for the system's trick

Oh boy the system sure tricked them into an interesting career, financial security and a prestigious position.
Yep think I'll blow some things up and go live innawoods instead. Sound philosophy Ted. Much better alternative.

[Anonymous No.15165994]

>>15165957
He's talking about professors who larp as being anti-system. If they were genuinely subversive then they couldnt have their 'interesting career, financial security, and prestigious position'.

[Anonymous No.15166049]

>>15165957
That’s how you know he’s not a midwit, all that money just to say “vote biden”

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.15166209]

voting for biden is extremely trivial and not worth discussing. you might be a retard if you think this is some kind of bad thing.

online radicals have some common and fundamental bad philosophy in their thinking. it's more of a form of entertainment rather than serious reckoning with social change.

[Anonymous No.15166225]

>>15166209
So it takes a pandemic for you to find time for us again huh? What are you up to?

[Anonymous No.15166256]

>>15165957
holy fuck you're really butthurt about the fact that your leftie guru has been exposed

[Anonymous No.15166294]

>>15166256
He flashed his winky?? Any pics???

[Anonymous No.15166922]

>>15165957
Academics fetishise rebellion and project it into everything that doesn't have it, ignoring or attacking it where it does exist.

[Anonymous No.15166933]

>>15166256

I think Chomsky is a hack. I just think saying he fell for a trick is retarded. He's more successful and respected than uncle Ted ever will be.

[Anonymous No.15166953]

>>15163949
>>15163943
>>15163937
>>15163932
>four posts worth of Ad Hominem
jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.15166982]

>>15164064
>you claim to not support exploitation but you have money
>therefore we shouldn't change or oppose anything

[Anonymous No.15167013]

>>15166982
Why doesnt he donate his extra money instead of giving his children an unfair advantage over the lower classes?

[Anonymous No.15167562]

>>15167013
Why don't you?