Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Propaganda

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.

Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.

Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

ZNet Articles

ZMag Articles

ZCommentaries

ZAudios

ZVideos

Blog Posts

Books

ZStores

Propaganda

By Noam Chomsky at Jan 02, 2006

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version

Change Text Size a- | A+

Usage of the term "propaganda" is interesting. ...it's much like "terrorism." Before World War II, the term was freely used in English in its literal sense, and its use (by business and properly chosen governments) was considered highly meritorious. With the rise of Hitler, the term began to have negative connotations, and by WWII was restricted to use of propaganda by enemies. It's worth remembering that the Nazis were quite consciously borrowing Anglo-American propaganda, which they greatly admired, particularly business propaganda (advertising and other marketing devices). In other languages, the term is still used in its literal sense. Various methods have been devised to get around the problem. One is to refer to our propaganda as "public diplomacy," or "information." In Israel, there are two terms for propaganda: one refers to the propaganda of enemies, the other to Israel's own propaganda -- the term that is used means "explanation," the tacit assumption being that what Israel does is so obviously right that all that is necessary is to explain it to people. The terms "public diplomacy" (etc.) are based on the same principle. There was an amusing illustration recently with Karen Young's "I'm a mom" tour of the Middle East, to explain to its backward people that they don't understand how much we love them. Didn't work too well, for reasons described in a very revealing way in the press. What practice should we follow? Hard to say. Ed Herman and I have used the terms "propaganda," "terror," etc. in their literal sense, applying the same standard to ourselves that we do to others. That has its merits but also its disadvantages. In a deeply indoctrinated intellectual culture, it elicits fury and irrationality, and has to be suppressed in the mainstream, as is done very effectively. The suppression can be discussed elsewhere, but is next to taboo here. Britain's prestigious Review of International Affairs devoted a recent issue largely to a symposium on this specific topic, unimaginable here, where the existence of critique of media and other doctrinal institutions can be admitted, but only from the right. A recent illustration is several articles by media critic Michael Massing in the New York Review, showing that the right-wing critique is intellectually worthless (though significant because of its powerful backing). He and the editors know that there is a left critique which is very well developed and extensively documented (though of course without powerful backing). But it's hard to imagine articles in US journals devoted to that topic.

Comment On This Blog Post See All Comments (81)

Re: Propaganda

By Geray, Richard at Jan 20, 2008 18:38 PM

Unfortunatly The world as not change much since Charly Chaplin. He was denounciating the same matters in his movies

Reply this comment

Propaganda Clothing

By Kissenger, Clark at May 24, 2006 09:55 AM

I encountered a website, recently, that has a gallery of propaganda images on t-shirts along with detailed background information. As a fan of old propaganda posters/material, I found this to be quite interesting. The site seems to "stir" awareness on an odd medium.

www.beawareapparel.com

Reply this comment

Cartoon row

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 15, 2006 08:19 AM

The cartoon row has nothing to do with free speech. Most countries have restriction in their free speech laws that prevent people from spreading hatred or to calls for violence. This fits right into that category as Muhammed - muslims' most sacred figure, which should not be depicted - were cartooned as a bin Laden figure. The Danish cartoons made him a laughing stock. This has nothing to do with free speech. Debating pros and cons of cases is covered by free speech, enticing hatred is not. Jyllands-Postens "free speech mantra" didn't last long either. Picturing Muhammed as a terrorist was okay, but making similar cartoons of Zionists was not. After the guy that okay'ed the Muhammed pictures said the paper would print cartoons from Iran ridiculing Jews, the paper's editor stepped up and sent the guy on a forced vacation. Free speech is a one-street road I guess. Then there is the self-sencorship of Western papers that is quite astounding. You have a very limited range of issues "fit to print". Dissident opinions are very hard to come by, even in socalled liberal papers.

Reply this comment

Chomsky's hypocrisy

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 11, 2006 22:08 PM

While Muslim Imams around the world issue fatwas calling for the beheading of the Danish cartoonists, and editors of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons of Muhammed, where is the libertarian Chomsky? To recall, in 1980 Chomsky wrote a piece defending the right of a Nazi-sympathising Holocaust-denier, Faurisson, to publish his Holocaust-denial. Chomsky authorised Faurisson to use the piece as he wished, and Faurisson added the piece as a preface to his Holocaust-denying book. Despite various apologetic statements about Faurisson that Chomsky wrote in that piece that went beyond any “freedom-of-speech” issues (for instance denying that as far as he knew there was anything “anti-semitic per se” in the book), Chomsky and his clones take the official position that he was just taking a stand on free speech and against censorship. Today we are witnessing the greatest challenge to free speech in our times, and one wonders why the silence from Chomsky. Is it that, as Larissa MacFarquhar argued in a profile of Chomsky in the New Yorker, that Chomsky is a bully (she cites cases of him bullying students), hence prefers a cowardly “libertarian” defense of anti-semites since there are only 13 million Jews in the world, but 1.5 billion Muslims? Or is it just his craving for popularity that explains both his ostensible defense of Faurisson's free speech and his silence on Islamic fanaticism now?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 28, 2006 12:11 PM

I just read an extraordinary document on the BBC website that was apparently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It is a US Defense Department "Information Operations Roadmap" published in 2003 and approved by Rumsfeld. It speaks of "full spectrum control of the entire electromagnetic environment, the use of psychological operations against the "enemy", behaviour modification of entire populations (including presumably the US?), the designation of the Net as an enemy to attack, to control and to use as a weapon. Think about that for a moment in all its horrifying implications. And these folks are dead serious. Read it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf I would be interested in you thoughts.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jan 17, 2006 05:40 AM

"Isn't this forum supposed to be on the subject of propaganda?" Yes. As broad a topic as propaganda is, it still may have been lost here. On the other hand, let's not dismiss where this debate has taken us in spite of the drifting. What might at first glance appear as simply bickering, might in fact be the first steps awkward steps in understanding a remote point of view.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Cameros, Cameros at Jan 16, 2006 06:05 AM

Isn't this forum supposed to be on the subject of propaganda?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 16, 2006 04:37 AM

For someone who posts an apology one minute and the next flames my religion...well...you've baffled me. I owe you no apology nor am I convinced that I ought to accept your numerous insults and confabulations. Generally, when people disagree on something C they stick to a few points and argue accordingly. You are so all over the board it is difficult to find what it is I am supposed to argue with. You have accused me of posting disinformation and I would like to know exactly what you believe to be disinformative. Other than that I don't really have time to waste on countering your multiplicitous views aimed at derailing a legitimate conversation people might like to have regarding propaganda. In that you do provide useful evidence however as to how the mind of a propagandist works.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 15, 2006 04:00 AM

[quote] I've run into a hundred Cyranoos on the internet. They don't announce their PRE disposition and they usually rely on personal innuendo and then, all out attacks against (usually and in THIS case) muslims.[/quote] What did you do to the hundreds of cyranoos on the internet whoms disagreed with you calicos? did you send them to Guatanamo Bay ? :smirk:

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jan 14, 2006 21:56 PM

"Chomsky's writing is very biased, although I'm sure he considers himself accurate and objective. But you will not hear him say anything good about Israel or the US, or anything bad about Palestinians or Muslim terrorists." realpc: Statments like this reveal that you either don't read or listen to Chomsky, or that you are trying to fool someone here, in which case you are not... except perhapse youself.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 14, 2006 21:28 PM

colico said: [quote] Religious systems such as Islam are not open to viewing by non muslims.[/quote] nooo, you tell me, I wonder how Islamists promoted islam to non-muslims, did they just tell non-muslim that they'll be able to have four wifes if they converted ? Truly, I have read you in many posts, i can't figure out any meanings to what you said; nothing you posted made sens, although it just look like you pagliarized some documents here and there.. If I say " La iláha il Alláh, Muhammadan Rasúl Alláh, Alíyun Walí-Alláh, Wasíyu Rasulillah, wa Khalífa tuhu bila fasl."; does this make me a muslim or does this makes me a google pagliarist? psst, calico I give you an " A" for pagliarism and an "F" on ideology ( you know that F stand for republican and you know its more than your president got, don't you?)

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 14, 2006 07:39 AM

I've run into a hundred Cyranoos on the internet. They don't announce their PRE disposition and they usually rely on personal innuendo and then, all out attacks against (usually and in THIS case) muslims. Religious systems such as Islam are not open to viewing by non muslims. Commentators might suggest a thing or two and Karen Armstrong is quite reliable in her analysis of all three religions. I'm reliable because I am a muslim that prays five times a day. Cyranoo is nothing. He is something but we don't really know what other than he looks like several anti-muslim propagandists that one can find just about anywhere nowdays..they are a dime a dozen but I'm a dollar a gram. I speak the truth and don't hedge about it. So take your pick. This week in So Leb though the talk is of Civil War. Troubling. Oh...and another thing they do..when you ID them they start talking about their html tags alot.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 12, 2006 19:17 PM

I am still laughing, I may assure you , they must have lower the standard of being a genius and for being admitted at the UCLA!... ok I quote myself, a genius by the UCLA standard, this time with all appropriate spelling corrections.. [quote] Q. What will be the destiny of the palestinians after 10 more years of occupation ? A. We'll know soon enough![/quote] HELP PANGAEA, do you think I am also genius to come up with reflected answers like this or is it just a parsed sudden explosion of temporary intelligence?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 12, 2006 09:45 AM

its rather strange bernardo, are you denying that that japan was fascist ? what about the hitler-japan duo during WWII? ? I dont know this seem a little bit negationist, whats next? are you going to deny japanese soldiers buried chinese people alive around Nanjing ?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 12, 2006 09:00 AM

lol,dr. jared diamond does not seem to answer anything.. [quote]"Will our children and grandchildren have a world worth living in? We'll know, all too soon, the ultimate fate of human societies."[/quote]( I am falling off my chair)... this one is even funnier [quote]Dr. Jared Diamond applies what he's learned about the past to humanity's future. He's certain that his question is the world's question: How are we going to cope with our current human population explosion which we must consider in combination with today's enormously destructive technology? We can ignore what's going on, struggle through a terrible time when scarce resources fuel monumental conflicts made all the more horrific by advanced technology and, in the end, survive as we did 50,000 years ago. Or we can learn from our mistakes and survive as civilized society. The answer, according to Dr. Diamond, is up for grabs. And we'll know in 40 to 80 years.[/quote] bernardo, Your doctor does not answer anything, does not bring solutions.. Could you imagine Chomsky espousing the same line of thinking as dr. diamond? Q. What will be the destiny of the palestinians after 10 more years of occupation ? A. We know soon enough why not say :just after someone bright enough can perform their autopsy, we find out!

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jan 12, 2006 00:29 AM

Read, The Nobility of Failure by Dr. Ivan Morris the best English language history of Japan ever written, to clarify many of the illogicalities of Noam Chomsky on this subject, including his use of an Italian political party to describe Japanese events. Read, Collapse by Dr. Jared Diamond to understand the achievements of traditional feudal Japan with respects to the environment, that Chomsky dismisses as "traditional fascist order." Read, Nature and the Greeks by Dr. Erwin Schrodinger to understand Europe's comparative intellectual advantage, it was Watts steam engine that allowed the British Empire to conquer a larger and more populous country like India, does Chomsky think the steam engine is a bad idea? The Schrodinger book is written by a physical scientist so those used to the fluid inconsistencies of Chomsky's linguistic background will have to concentrate.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jan 11, 2006 23:26 PM

Chomsky say's that it was "murderous savagery" that gave Europe it's comparative advantage. How does he reconcile this opinion with Europe's intellectual advantage, in science for example beginning with the ancient Greeks, Democritus, Hippocrates, Aristarchus etc. I assume MIT knows about that. What does he mean by describing Japan's pre-world war II history as "traditional fascist order", he's completely ignorant of the Daimyo system of feudal Japan or the Taisho democracy in the twentieth century. So these uninformed nonsensical phrases of Chomsky's will have to be discarded along with a few other intellectual blunders he has made, like thinking any contemporary development is superior to any historical condition even to the 1960's. In fact the 1960's culture is immeasurably superior to anything going on today.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Chengcliu, River at Jan 11, 2006 09:35 AM

Can anybody direct me to a link to the "Karen Young I'm a mom Middle East tour"? I wish Dr. Chomsky would include links.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 10, 2006 10:49 AM

Thanks for the tips. I was wondering how it was done cause I couldn't find any info on it by ZNet. But it's not called PHP or CSS. PHP is programming server-side that deals with how webpages deals with text and databases etc. CSS deals with how webpages are laid out. For instance the width of the columns, what text-style etc. [/nerd] :lol: According to Chomsky the US was quite impressed with the Nazi propaganda, and have developed it further. In the past one were also more honest about it, and called it propaganda, not information, commercials, news or films, as we do today. People like victories, that is why it's essential for the US to win fast. This is also why they're getting in trouble because of Iraq, they can't have Vietnam-like wars anymore. Even with the extensive propaganda in the US, the people are against the war, and the sentiment is increasing as time passes. Just some tests... Bush is a warcriminal Blair should be tried for the ICC They both can't stand democracy Downing Street Memos Wikipedia under attack from the business community

Bush's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. (Noam Chomsky)

Hmm, it's

for quotes. That's HTML too then. Good to know :)

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 10, 2006 06:40 AM

I said apparently... I am trying to keep objective.. Its odd american propaganda will always be compared as

similar nazi germany

for the mere fact that Hitler borrowed his advertising style to the British. The US was able to be military successful past WWll mainly because it continued to make war on defenseless people like in south america..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 10, 2006 06:17 AM

Actually, there is two links on wikipedia about " propaganda", apparently chinese propaganda was more " balanced". link one ; propaganda link two : Propaganda_in_the_People's_ Republic_of_China

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 10, 2006 00:51 AM

Usage of the term “propaganda” is interesting. ...it’s much like “terrorism.”

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 23:53 PM

for bold I use and / to close the tag for quoting i use [quote] [quote] and the / to close tag [/quote] I didn't look for the rest but i think there is css tags you can use but i want to keep using a simple code just to format the text so its less confusing I use normal like this when i want to redirect to information. As well it is better to use the preview because you can't re-edit any corrections

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 23:25 PM

My downloads have been definetely slowed down too. I use ordinary html tags except the quote tag which is PHP.. for italics I use with the / to close the tag

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 09, 2006 22:06 PM

Think I got both those videos as I got quite a collection by now. Unfortunetely torrents don't work for me anymore since I'm at a uni network, and they've blocked it somehow :( Very good site though. Tried to upload some files, but that didn't work either. Is it normal HTML-tags you're using btw?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 21:59 PM

I would like to make some sort of apologies to Mrs Colico. I realize now that my comments may have been perceived as offensive in regards to the opinion she made that appeared implausible to me.. I genuinely wishes, however that she continue to participate with the discussion because I recognize that she is genuinely wanting to help find solutions to the conflicts under debate..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 21:35 PM

Best guess it was a short interview, I dont recall which TV station my TV was tuned. I saw the corporation, you can download the movie free from one of Chomsky web site, This is excellent documentary. I also saw CBC- the origin of aids.. some of the movies need rethinking and reformatting by an expert such as I.. to make it easier for computers.. at any rate the content is very informative..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 09, 2006 19:46 PM

Was that an interview wich Chomsky, a lecture or something else? Sometimes here are documentaries that shows some of the problems of the world. We've had one about American mercenaries in Iraq for instance. Most notably however was the documentary "The Corporation". This features Noam Chomsky for a few seconds, and is the only time I've seen or heard him in the media here in Norway. Some of the problems with capitalism is you have a very narrow spectrum of job opportunities. Want to work with economics, computers, sales? No problem. Want to work for peace, civil liberties, democracy, fair trade? You're in trouble. The only chance you can make a living out of honourable work like this, is if you have enormous knowledge of the field, and even then it's tough. Is this freedom?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 16:11 PM

[quote] you're not always ensured that those opinions are going to be heard and are going to matter within the scheme of the public discourse, and you are often marginalized altogether when the corporate culture feels threatened.[/quote] It take courage to speak up for civil liberties.. In Canada the establisment system is very much the same but sometimes guys like Chomsky, Romeo Dallaire stories see the light through the cracks in media television. Example, I saw Chomsky first time ever after 9/11 on TV. This got me really upset, because there were information revealed that I was lied upon about palestinians by the trusted medias next thing is you end up witnessing and unjust war with the occupation, the torture and oppression of two distinctive people in two different countries, for no valid reasons

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Fritzerbuster, Fritzerbuster at Jan 09, 2006 13:32 PM

[quote]" Very good rhyme" smirk hold on, let me try : get your head out the sand stop reading ayn rand before corporations cut your hands[/quote] ...and hurl your way a fusillade of homogenized rock bands!! [quote]Seriously think Chomsky describe America as a free country because he is somewhat very patriotic.[/quote] I think he's just being honest about a few of the things the American system got right. Political freedoms like that of speech are essential to the formation of any non-oppressive society, but while you can express your opinions without fear of retribution from the government in the United States, you're not always ensured that those opinions are going to be heard and are going to matter within the scheme of the public discourse, and you are often marginalized altogether when the corporate culture feels threatened. Though a person is left unhindered in the exercising of that liberty, the purpose of that liberty, to facilitate challenges to a potentially corrupt status quo, is prevented from being fulfilled by another mechanism, namely corporatism. So in short, Chomsky is in favor of the political liberties of the United States but stands against the controls that have been erected to keep those liberties in check.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 09, 2006 12:22 PM

"Chomsky himself said the US has more freedom than any other nation. [...] So if you admit the US is not the worst, and is the best in some ways, then how can you constantly portray it as evil?" (realpc) Chomsky says the US has many freedoms because freedom of speach is theoretically highly regarded in the US. It's not being done in practice, but that's a different matter relating to not having free medias. It is also regarded as very free compared to most nations because of the Freedom of Information Act. Chomsky gets a lot of info from declassified documents, and anybody can file a request to declassify material. I don't know of any other country where people can get so much information from the government. I think this is primarily what Chomsky refers to. There are many other domains where the US is not free or fair at all. You have two parties that do practically exactly the same, that is not democracy, in fact it's very close to a totalitarian system. The Patriot Act has demolished civil liberties, and I could go on and on. In Norway, where I live, we don't have the FOIA system, just like the UK for instance. Yet I regard it as a more free society than the US'. We have a much better political system, with 7 parties in 'Congress' for instance. Equality is much better, cheaper health system, educational system etc. The US is very privatized, which means the rich have freedoms, the poor do not.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 09:17 AM

fritzerbuster " Very good rhyme" :smirk: hold on, let me try : get your head out the sand stop reading ayn rand before corporations cut your hands Read who is Ayn Rand on wikipedia Seriously think Chomsky describe America as a free country because he is somewhat very patriotic.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Fritzerbuster, Fritzerbuster at Jan 09, 2006 07:45 AM

[quote][i]Could it be that the far left despises success and freedom? Free people tend to be individualistic and competitive, traits the far left disapproves of. And the more successful people become the less interested they are in participating in revolutions.[/i][/quote] I never realized that the mandates given to people by their employers actually stemmed from their own individualistic desires! Capitalism is a form of collectivism, plain and simple. If you can't find a way to fall into the favor of those economically empowered, then you'll be thrown by the wayside. The only way individual freedom could be realized in theory is through the transformation of society into a guarantor of well-being so that no one person will ever have to rely on another's whim for food, clothing, or shelter. We are the true individualists. You need to stop reading Ayn Rand and take your head out of the sand (I made a rhyme!).

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 07:05 AM

in my opinion american are being screwed over over by their corporate elite, what next are you going to kiss your corporate goverment for the bits falling off the table?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 09, 2006 06:31 AM

There I disagree with Chomsky, Canada are more freedom than the US, on top we don't even have a military. We are also more free because we are not living under real and pseudo threats from other countries. On top, the US freedom is eroding mainly because corporation constantly redesign US political parties to reflect the corporate agenda.. Your people democratic powers are eroding, I wond even talk about your electoral process.. In my opinion your gov entered into a global war against the poor, poor means american poor included.. Here in Canada we are more free , but again its a HARD fre world when we cant decide whatever we go for war or not.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jan 09, 2006 03:20 AM

Chomsky himself said the US has more freedom than any other nation. If we do have the most freedom, then you ahve to admit we are doing something right, if you value freedom. So if you admit the US is not the worst, and is the best in some ways, then how can you constantly portray it as evil? If the US is evil, it is only in the sense that all human organizations are to some extent evil. As the most powerful nations, the consequences of its mistakes can be serious. A small weak nation does not have the power to make the kind of mistakes the US has. Many contradictions and ironies can be found in leftism, and this is one of them. No one can deny the US is the most powerful and the most free nation on earth right now. Not even the far left can deny this -- Chomsky had to admit we are relatively free. Freedom can be defined in many ways, but we all agree it's a good thing. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the US. But the far left, with Chomsky as one of its leaders, trashes everything the US does, on every occasion. You take the side of our enemies, whoever they might be. Even though our enemies are always less successful and less free. Could it be that the far left despises success and freedom? Free people tend to be individualistic and competitive, traits the far left disapproves of. And the more successful people become the less interested they are in participating in revolutions.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jan 08, 2006 07:36 AM

realpc's comments symptomizes the subservient mentality of someone used to trying to dress up his total subordination to his masters with subjectivist delusions and solipsism's. He's like Alan Dershowitz denying that the mainstream journal Janes Defense Weekly exist's when Chomsky points to it as evidence. One can only present evidence, if the person is like realpc who doesn't think an objective universe exists outside of his muddled, enslaved mind it won't make any difference. Maybe the world is flat, and only a couple of hundred years old, and lo the blessed shall inherit the earth. Selah.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 08, 2006 07:31 AM

shhsihhh there is a huge difference in substance between racism and prejudice.. I did more than quibble at the statement, I fell off my chair... this was no predudice neither this was disbelief.. your quote :[quote]Its amazing how you can openly say (in essence)"I don't think this person is muslim because her views do not match my stereotype of what muslims should think" and then quibble over my use of "Racism" istead of simply "predjudice".[/quote] I did not imply that she was not muslim I implied disinformation because the staements are contradictory in nature.. its a bit like saying I AM PRO-BUSH because he is against TAX CUTS!

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jan 08, 2006 06:12 AM

" r4d20, american are not a "race"" Its amazing how you can openly say (in essence)"I don't think this person is muslim because her views do not match my stereotype of what muslims should think" and then quibble over my use of "Racism" istead of simply "predjudice". If you dont want people to point out your prejudice, please do not announce it.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 08, 2006 03:58 AM

shhs because I dared question her statements and she posts with a book of laments and poetry; Now you imagine if Chomsky would write a book of poetry each time Colico question mr. Chomsky statements ? Mrs Colico would go on to claim that mr. Chomsky's 'poetry is no good since he wasn't born in Québec.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 08, 2006 01:49 AM

r4d20 [quote] Perhaps if a person claimed to be a muslim and spouted "death to Amerikkka" you would not even question if he/she was a liar.[/quote] Depends R2, If that person was yelling " death to amerikkkkkkka " like you said and this person would have lost 15- 25 family members like many Iraqis in Fallujah, I would probably understand the grievance In the same token should such a person choose to rataliate against AMERICA, expalin to me why should I care and not to just look the other way while the pay back occur. According to what is being said, its none of my business, I am non-muslim, no-jew and non-american-terrorist..its not my conflict and my opinion shouldnt count.. r4d20, american are not a "race"

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jan 08, 2006 00:44 AM

"One minute she is an hezbollah muslim whom is anti-Arafat but is definetely pro-bush and supporting neo-con terrorism!" Perhaps itsa con-game. Perhaps if a person claimed to be a muslim and spouted "death to Amerikkka" you would not even question if he/she was a liar. Double check your own racist stereotypes.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 22:44 PM

In my opinion, calico is feeding us some disinformation.. One minute she is an hezbollah muslim whom is anti-Arafat but is definetely pro-bush and supporting neo-con terrorism!

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 07, 2006 15:54 PM

Part 2 (of 2): True, it's a big task to turn the US government into respecting human rights, and work for peace. But the fact that most americans have these values means it is far from impossible. All one have to achieve is greater democracy. Get rid of the "first past the post"-system. We'll see 3rd parties grow bigger, and with time grow influence over national policies. The biggest aggressor in the world (US and UK) has this form of electoral system. Coincidence? I think not. States with leadership with (close to) absolute power and relatively strong militaries tend to be aggressive and jingoistic. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the US and UK are aggressive. If they respected democracy they would not have gone to war against Iraq, and they would not be pushing their agendas (economic, political, cultural) down the troath of the rest of the world. The way to peace, fair trade, getting rid of easy treatable diseases , poverty and hunger is REAL democracy where the people as a whole decides the policies a country should undertake, not the rich and powerful elitist governments. As we know from history these governments has little, if any, respect for democracy and human rights, and is out of sync with the people. Propaganda is a big factor why we have the governments we have. The media is this propagandas channel. Getting democracy to the media is therefore an important task to undertake.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 07, 2006 15:33 PM

Part 1 (of 2): Unfortunetely this has spiraled into personal attacks. Being Muslim (or Christian or Jew etc) will make you more subjective when it comes to religious questions. Not being religous - as Chomsky for instance - will generally make you more objective in religious issues. Being religious, however, obviously gives more insight into whatever religion you're into. If calico lives in the Middle-East she'll have a lot more insight into the conflict than most of the rest of us. Western media have a very limited insight to the conflict, probably even ZNet. Chomsky on the other hand has been to the areas quite a lot, know a lot of people, and has access to a lot of info, knows many languages, read a lot and so forth. This should give him a lot of insight as well, and I think he is very qualified to have his opinion on the conflict. I too have my opinion on the matter, but as I don't live in the area or have first-hand accounts of everyday life there I can't tell how accurate my opinion is. Just as it's hard for Iraqis, Palestinians or Saudis to understand how life in Europe or the US are like. Western governments have been involved in huge atrocities all over the world. But the peoples of these governments are supposed to represent very different. Most people don't like war, are left-leaning, and would like peace whenever possible. If the people decided there would only be war in extreme cases.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Fritzerbuster, Fritzerbuster at Jan 07, 2006 14:42 PM

"Your understanding is no where near mine nor are you in any position to continue the fruitless battle of 'Whose side are you on anyway.' It's an old game and it is generalized and the underlying battle within Islam is FAR more important to us than whether or not Bush labels fundamentalists 'Saddamists' (a good choice). The idea that 'Islamists' as a whole see through the whole enchilada is what YOU should be concerned about. Chomsky is merely a commentator in a ring side seat, he is NOT a participant. You can't be unless you are a muslim." With all due respect, calico, while it is always important to heed the opinions of those intimately acquainted with and intimately affected by an issue with a level of concern you wouldn't feel compelled to initially devote to the opinions others, attempting to exclude some of Chomsky's observations on Muslims from the field of debatable perspectives for the sole reason of his not being a Muslim is not in practicing good logical reasoning and, quite apropos to the subject at hand, is propagandistic in its effect if not intent. Chomsky's conclusions will either be correct or incorrect and will be so regardless of his ethnicity or religious affiliation. If you feel some of his statements to be erroneous, then explain why you feel so in terms of how such statements betray the facts, not in terms of criticisms essentially ad hominem in their nature.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 10:22 AM

Well sure colico, the world is changing, just make sure you NEOCONS don't take down NY with you with your happychanges. [quote] Who knows the next terrorist or insurgent will probably not be as soft as moderated Bin Laden..[/quote]

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 09:51 AM

calico your language implies that since Chomsky is non-muslim he can't be a participant in discussing muslim and jews matters. [quote] Chomsky is merely a commentator in a ring side seat, he is NOT a participant. You can't be unless you are a muslim [/quote] you also asked : Since you are such an expert in all of this, why would being a muslim exclude me from an argument pertaining ONLY to muslims* and Jews*? Because You also implied that islamists cannot see, then later you say you are a muslim.. I merely answered your post. [quote] The idea that "Islamists" as a whole see through the whole enchilada is what YOU should be concerned about [/quote] Madame colico , the Israeli-palestinian conflict does not ONLY pertains to Muslim and Jews, Bin laden did not take down the Twin Towers accidentally, he knew that the US was the big Helpers with the added suffering of the palestinians.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 09:38 AM

I had an interesting debate with an Islamic scholar (he was gay, left the fold and converted to Orthodox Judaism because his lover was same). He noted that WWII pinup maidens were virtually the same as 72 virgins in heaven (some say grapes is the transliteration) when in reality...heaven is imagined by Hollywood (Truman Show to Heaven Can Wait) and we PAY for that propaganda which the Western Christendom and attached orthodoxies (Hellenistic Idealisms and their proxy, secularisms) deny the right to individuals to set their own goals, to establish their own levels (of tolerance) of obstruction/oppressions which are achieved via creative projectivism (the God Hole in your lingo) among other important things supposedly provided for in the Islamic State mentality which is in all reality, the CRUX of the issue no matter how you look at it. Neechay had alot to do with that as he remained relatively silent on the role of the Islamic Empire in the formulation of human ideals. Selah is all he said and that he hated Germans. Psychadelics? Well...in my world you don't need drugs to see paradise. All said and done though...I think GWB did a good job renaming the concerned parties in Iraq whereas some may have taken it as a Mein Kampf jingoism he was suggesting for us. It is only too bad that we've been ignored for so long. Looks like things are changing though doesn't it? How nice.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 09:01 AM

The fuel of the fire, man it said. Some of us listened and some of us were instructed by the melting stones appearing from the sky in strange, indefinite interims. We hoped to catch the brittle cracks between the smokes above our heads to no avail. We named the hopeless condition war and the fullness of our caves peace. Language a weak reminder for the darkness we thought to leave behind. Cyranoo...you are obnoxious, did you know that? Read between those lines. Trust me, your comments betray you. Since you are such an expert in all of this, why would being a muslim exclude me from an argument pertaining ONLY to muslims* and Jews*? Chomsky at least has that on his side. And I don't prefer Jews to be driven into the sea, it is a ridiculous rhetorical sentiment that is pure propaganda. If you can tell me that you are anything other* than a screen name, then perhaps your argument will begin to contain some validity. Peace on those that deserve it, Misogynists, Cyranoos and Muwaiyas included. *Neocons presumed as occupying forces or as we would say: Helpers.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 08:56 AM

Madame Calico, be honest, explain why no peace was signed within the israeli-palestinian conflict.. be objective will you ? You can't blame the palestinians for not negotiating there were nobody at the table to negotiated with..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 07, 2006 08:50 AM

Cameros I was perplexed by what Chomsky meant when he said that he and Ed Herman "used the terms 'propaganda,' 'terror,' etc. in their literal sense," after noting a post WWII connotation shift with the word "propaganda." Does the literal sense of a word include connotation? If not, the perplexity may be gone for me. "Literal sense" might be limited to denotation (which might change a little over time too, but probably nothing radical). But surely Chomsky and Herman know that the words "propaganda" and "terror" are not "scientifically precise descriptors," and are very emotionally charged. Chomsky sometimes seems to want to be both denotative-ly precise and objective, while using language that he knows carries heavy connotative and rhetorical force (his propaganda).

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 08:36 AM

The Dark Pages of Time It was half dark then. We walked when we were awake, hoping to find the everlasting day, warm and bright. The moon our lamp and we did not know why or how it got there nor why it was so stingy with us. Was a long time before the first fires, still longer until we took the leaves and branches and lit them up, threw off our heavy coats then stored the dried up brew from the massive cups of water we had to drink against our wills, our platforms sloshing, animals rutting and the draught too bitter to swallow. Still it was even longer before we said our graces so intent we were, on survival, our eyes glazed over at the flickers, no need for memory or prediction, which came next. Our pictures made of blood and boiled roots splayed lonely in the sooted caves once we left them but we hoped, we did hope for a companion who would search us out on our trek which we called with our tongue the bitter enemy or simply, the deliverance. Idiosyncratic stories cropped up and helped us to settle the places of reap and sow. Fighting began slowly over putrefying fats, black pools of no return that lit the way. Cess pools of death and destruction where each fire was a tiny star between fantastic distances, each star a little soul or a village. (continued in 20 lousy minutes)

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 08:29 AM

Hello calico, any body home ? your quote: The idea that "Islamists" as a whole see through the whole enchilada is what YOU should be concerned about. " ahh I see islamist can't see nothing GOD did not give them republican eyes.." Chomsky is merely a commentator in a ring side seat, he is NOT a participant. You can't be unless you are a muslim. " I am glad you agree Chomsky make a good commentator, Now if disgress you exclude him as a participant because he is no-muslim, let me ask did someone exclude you from THIS political discussion because you are a woman whom don't shave her legs? " madame, if i was going to apply your logic to the content of your posts, you being "Hezbollahian from lebanon and a muslim would disqualify you from seeing the whole thing through the enchilada just like the others.. ( Madame , are you taking psychedelics drugs to make such weird statements ?)

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 08:13 AM

Yes I realize that and I'm glad you realize it now too. Oddly enough...a simple question of Noam's turned into a "whose side are you on anyway" type of thing. Happens all the time in such cases. Must be hard to be Noam you know... Like I said, all speech is a form of propaganda. Ask any linguist if you don't believe me. The root word I believe is to propagate an idea. I am a professional propagator of ideas (and have been labelled a provacateur and once a person even accused me of being a paid propagandist (I only wished my work earned money as opposed to self confidence in my Islamic belief system, or, maybe not)). Money is only a pastime. We only know what we believe to be true. In the case of Noam's anti-Zionist activity I'm all for him. In the case that he blames Israel for everything I'd say nope. If he insists that he is always right I'd say, "how arrogant" for a non muslim to pretend to know what we think or feel about our brethren in our faith system. Sadly enough, most muslims aren't very clear on their own principles it seems so we've had to allow "helpers" in to do the job for us. US propaganda vs Islamic...well...everyone ought to be berry berry careful because the Koran filled us in on various details and on various liguistic levels as to the overall plan.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Cameros, Cameros at Jan 07, 2006 07:49 AM

J.D. Casten: "Chomsky's comments seem to be about the propaganda involved with using the word, "propaganda," or renaming the practice, to put a better spin on it. But what is the literal sense of the term, 'propaganda,' if it's meaning has changed?" We can understand the literal sense by looking at what propaganda DOES. Propaganda is the "stuff" or "substance" that is used to PROPAGATE a particular position. So, for instance, the quote above is propaganda propagating the proposition that "propaganda"'s meaning has changed and therefore we can't reach a "literal" meaning. I think we now can see that a literal meaning can, in fact, be reached.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 07:35 AM

First off, I'm a woman. I'm pro Bush (reluctantly so), so don't get your knickers in a knot. First, the Palestinians in my humble opinion fought the unfair fight. Secondly they have lost or will lose via the same type of fight. They know this and they did receive aid. Arafat was a crook and they know that as well. The Pals were guilty of war crimes in Lebanon. Yet, my party, Hezbollah supported them rhetorically and still do. Rhetoric is one thing, bombs another. Now, Sunni Al Qaeda operatives are launching attacks from So Lebanon. Any more questions? Your understanding is no where near mine nor are you in any position to continue the fruitless battle of "Whose side are you on anyway." It's an old game and it is generalized and the underlying battle within Islam is FAR more important to us than whether or not Bush labels fundamentalists "Saddamists" (a good choice). The idea that "Islamists" as a whole see through the whole enchilada is what YOU should be concerned about. Chomsky is merely a commentator in a ring side seat, he is NOT a participant. You can't be unless you are a muslim.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 06:42 AM

Mr calico, I am not interested to hear whatever Chomsky has bias in his opinions. what I would like to know is if you are taking "side" on the Israeli- palestinian conflict. I also would like to know the reasons why you think that their were no peace signed over there after 30 years. Then again may I ask, is it fair that all forms of support were cut off from palestinians while israel opressed this people under occupation for over 30 years.. Monsieur, the word "occupation" of another people could fit the definition of "state terrorism" since it is a criminal action aimed at gaining political advantage.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 06:35 AM

"MY writing is NOT biased, THEREFORE HE IS inaccurate and unobjective. But I hear him say GOOD THINGS about MUSLIMS or SYRIA, AND NOTHING GOOD about ISRAEL or JEWISH terrorists. I have no idea how accurate his statements are (I AM SAYING they are often inaccurate), BUT NEVERMIND ME. The things I neglect to say are NOT SIGNIFICANT. SAYING GOOD THINGS about the US ENEMY STATES strongly implies there is EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT THEM. Criticizing JEWISH TERRORISM implies ALL JEWS ARE BAD." Deconstructionism and word switch (perhaps the same thing) are useful tools in understanding why others find comments objectionable you see. See Wittgenstein for details. You end up passing over so much of what is actually there and that would be INTENTION. Chomsky is trying to understand the underlying causes and sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. Your generalization however says much more about your own propaganda than his. You've provided no details and this in the end is the downfall of all unclear argumentation.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 06:18 AM

sorry, they did publish his photo.. This political leader is truly at odd with the others, he is very smiley he has solid opinions with a good social back ground.. I over heard he was bicycling to City Hall when a councillor..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 07, 2006 06:14 AM

"Chomsky's writing is very biased, although I'm sure he considers himself accurate and objective. But you will not hear him say anything good about Israel or the US, or anything bad about Palestinians or Muslim terrorists. I have no idea how accurate his statements are (some say they are often inaccurate), but that is beside the point. The things he neglects to say are just as significant. Not saying anything good about the US strongly implies there is nothing good about it. Not criticizing Muslim terrorists implies there is nothing bad about them." Hmm. All speech is a form of propaganda...a poet knows this but this poster fails to see his own PROPAGATION of an idea at work here. As if there are only muslim terrorists and as if Israel hasn't terrorized the world into their way of thinking. Gee. TAkes one to know one as the old propagatory addage goes. My next post I'll use the old trick called the Word Switch. We'll see what I can come up with on the previous poster's propaganda technique. Eh?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 03:57 AM

oh yes, this I cannot agree more, The past two US elections are beyond shameful, I watched the debates and I found the topics were also well contained into a mainframe, Bush and Kerry were such in agreement about Iraq.. they were both lying. I would have made a news paper headline like this: PINCH YER NOSE BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE TWO! Well I am pinching my nose on canadian tele-evangelist political leaders too.. The closest socialist is greeny Jack layton.. I went to his web site and how strange, they did not publish his photo. The NDP (union) is bein cash strapped compared to the other " corporate" political party http://www.ndp.ca/jacklayton If he gets elected, I would not be surprised we'll get economic sanctions from the US..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 06, 2006 14:15 PM

I would say it's more accurate that Republicans need the religious votes to win, and even then they're in trouble. Bush lost the 2000 election, but got selected as president by the court, insain in a country that calls themselves "land of the free", but I digress. And there were some grave errors with the 2004 election, especially in Ohio. It's quite possible he lost both elections despite winning the religious votes. But I see your point, if the Democrats could appeal more to the religious people they would win elections. The policy would be pretty much the same, but they would use a softer language. It's ironic in the times of mass lies from the Republicans, that they are perhaps more honest than the Democrats. They both have the same agenda - US dominance on the world stage - but the Republicans are honest about it. The Democrats try to wrap it up in nice language. Bush has however been quite clever (WOW). He sees that he can win elections if he gets the Bible-belt on his side. So he proclaims to be en evangelical christian and talks like one, and put in fanatical 'values' in his policy. This attracts the religious votes, and he can stand a chance in elections even with disastrous policies for the great majority of americans. As we know propaganda is very effective. Bush still being in office (without strong calls for impeachment) is strong evidence for this.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 06, 2006 09:13 AM

When lawyers debates in court before a judge, the judge try to keep objectivities between the debates. Usually when a party to a conflict trows bias against the other party, the judge must try to keep the eye on the ball or the issues under debates.. Usually lawyers that keep with the issues make the cases easier to deal with. my personal experience is that when the other party resort to bias , its is because it is lacking arguments or it wants to lead new debates where it should not have any debates. Few months ago, I downloaded Bill Maher interview with Chomsky.on the last US election ( I still have the disk). Bill went into a debate with a senator and he asked the pertinent questions. I kinda though that Bill did not listen to the senator why democrats lost the elections( really). Bill appeared to have bias against the religious right( with reasons, I say) but the problem WAS that democrats need the RELIGIOUS vote to win elections.. So to a certain extend the senator was right when he says you can't poke fun of religious people and expect them to vote for you... Its a bit like saying, you can't bomb Badhgad and expect the citizens to vote for you..

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 05, 2006 23:58 PM

I don't think we'd want robot politicians; Chomsky too uses an emotionally charged vocabulary. Yes, "objectivity" (if there is an objective world "out there") should be striven for, IMO, but I don't think we can help but be emotionally invested in political issues, and people do try to use emotionally persuasive techniques to get their way in adversarial systems; hence, propaganda. Unfortunately, adversaries usually fail to put all their cards on the table, confess their weak points, concede that their opponents have a point too, and strive to reconcile conflicting objective facts and somewhat differing subjective values. Brilliant politicians, often re-frame an argument in such a way as not to blow away their opponent with arguments outright, but include their opponent's values in a comprehensive "compromise" solution.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 05, 2006 21:42 PM

r4d20 (as you quoted me): I basically agree with you. One should of course try to be objective, look at both/all sides, and then judge the stands or situation based on all available information. I was just saying that no-one can be completely objective as that requires you to look at all facts from every possible angle and envision all possible scenarios. That is simply impossible. If people tried to reason and argue as Chomsky we would have a much more sain world, we would debate issues and hopefully choose the best alternative. This I think is one of Chomsky's goals, and why he says that if he had the ability of being a great speaker, he would not use it, as it's better to be honest and straightforward instead of swinging people to your side by fancy language and soundbites. This could also explain why Chomsky says you would have to have a very good argument to go against the majority in a vote for instance. It's easy to envision such a case (for instance for or against gay marriage, most people aren't gay), but most people vote and think a lot more ethically than the elites/political leadership, hence his stand.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 05, 2006 21:06 PM

"He is permanently enraged, and everything that is not right, by his definition, just makes him mad as hell. And the things that are good about American do not cheer him up, not in the least." (realpc) I don't think this is correct at all. First of all Chomsky doesn't come across as "mad as hell" no matter how you look at the man. He has a straightforward message, and speaks and talks in a calm manner, even when 'attacked'. And he often praises things good in America, even actions by the elites. Recently he for instance praised that the US wants to look at the NPT, as it's somewhat outdated now. How it should be changed, however, is a totally different question, and "the US" and Chomsky probably disagrees. Chomsky often ends his speaks by mentioning good things. It can be developments historically, or movements etc in the US/World. True, he doesn't often praise the political leadership in the US, but they don't deserve it either, so I think that is just and reasonable. He often praises "the Other America" - the social movements, anti-war movements and so forth.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 05, 2006 08:11 AM

I do agree on this point,, most of our political leaders get elected on their "honest look", ( brreew that is scary).. We are kinda strange animals..some of us, rush to get home when we cross odd people, strangers on the street, we were taugh not to trust strangers. next best thing we go home, turn on our TVs and we see the next tele-evangelist ( another stranger) and because he looks honest, the next day we go vote for him ( that if you aint sending your beautiful $$$)

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 05, 2006 07:25 AM

Cyranoo: Although the consequences and trade-offs can be monumental, I think propaganda use is often more subtle than "blatant lies." Advertising, not so much as lying, builds images that may be irrelevant to the product itself, yet add an aesthetic element to it, that becomes part of the value of the product. People often desire the image as much as the product, politician, or idea themselves. Chomsky's image (which I like) may relevant to his product (which I like too) - but the two are not necessarily connected. Being plain, simple, genuine, and honest can also be an image - that does not mean that the truth is being conveyed.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 05, 2006 06:39 AM

r4d20: Perhaps inter-subjective agreement among people is so interconnected and for the most part stable and unchanging, at least on certain fundamental issues, that it itself could be called virtually and pragmatically "objective." Core values and structures of our ways of perceiving, if you will. Propaganda seems to reshape the unacceptable in terms that are already commonly accepted (those core values). This can be a harmful lie concealing ulterior motives, or it could be a lure into seeing things in a different manner (possibly the core values could be shifted, or expanded).

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jan 05, 2006 06:20 AM

"Every writer is informed by a perspective, there is no such thing as an "unbiased", "objective" point of view. As far as I know Chomsky never made such a claim." Bwong, But certainly there is still merit in TRYING to be objective. While there may never be "pure objectivity" there IS a real difference between those who at least try to be as objective as possible and those who simply say "why bother?" and immerse themselves in bias. We should not forget that this attack on objectivity cuts mnany ways - it is also at the heart of the attack on evolution. I agree that philisophically, there is no such thing as "objective". In reality, however, I find the argument is usually advanced by those who simply do not want to try. ""Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it... In summary, the idea is to give ALL of the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another." - Richard Feynman A lot of pople would rather hide the evidence that undercuts their theory - and the attack on objectivity is often a bullshit excuse to so exactly this

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 05, 2006 04:47 AM

I would say that the word propaganda applies when the advertiser uses blatant lies.. In the cas of the US this propaganda could be label as mental terrorism since it is aimed at the population for political purposes.. As far as I am concerned about Noam Chomsky what he says resume to his opinions and deliberations since he does not hold any political power. By all means the information he provides contradict lies you find inside political powers propaganda. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chomsky is a believable source of genuine opinion that can be the most surprising; as an example , he predicted the invasion of Iraq in 1998 by Americans, French and German forces,,, with the backing of the UN. H was barely wrong on 2 points, The American and the Bristish invaded with no UN consent while the French and Germans were trying to cook deals with Saddam Hussein.. I am not sure how much the fact that the french and german were there making deals with saddam hussein actually accelerated the INVASION and occupation of Iraq, Now the american does have some backing from the UN but it got it by cohersion.. What I like about Chomsky is that he does not go around bombing cities like Bahdgad and scream that murdering helpless civilians is a success. If you llok at the uranium bomb falling in Iraq, he does not say " made by Noam Chomsky", it says , this weapon of terror was United States of America, it is killing childrens".

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 05, 2006 03:37 AM

Chomsky's comments seem to be about the propaganda involved with using the word, "propaganda," or renaming the practice, to put a better spin on it. But what is the literal sense of the term, "propaganda," if it's meaning has changed? If the practice is not always bad, and the term has become pejorative over time, why not rename the practice? If the renaming is a lie, it seems to me that a community with robust interconnecting data should be able to expose the lie in short order.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 05, 2006 02:23 AM

Propaganda might be divided into the short term (spin, deceit, etc. that I believe don't last long, although the consequences might), and the long term: indoctrination. But what is indoctrination relative to? Some sort of absolute set of facts and unconstructed human values? Can we completely step outside of indoctrination, with some sort of "natural human sanity" from which to criticize the status quo? "Indoctrination" may be learning the state of the art of a world's complex competing values, abliet be lessons from a system that tries to maintain (and improve) itself.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Casten, J.d. at Jan 04, 2006 23:40 PM

Is propaganda possible? It seems to me that: 1)People want their opinions re-enforced, not changed; but there is some "play" or "leeway" where predispositions can be stretched. 2)"Spin" also demonstrates a "play" or "leeway" with the facts: getting the facts to fit with predispositions. 3)"Persuasive education" - Propaganda - I think tries to stretch the facts to pull public predispositions to a desired perspective. How far can facts and public opinion be stretched? Like any technique or tool, it can be abused, but can it be used with merit?

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jan 04, 2006 21:22 PM

"Chomsky can rarely be found singing the praises of America largely because there is such a significant number of people in the mainstream who do praise America." Yes I noticed that he rarely praises his country, and yes I understand there are many others who do praise it. So he feels he is correcting an imbalance, by focusing only on the negatives. But the result is that he gives the impression of being extremely biased, of actually despising modern civilization. Sure there is a lot wrong with it, and there always was, but that can be said of any civilization or culture that ever existed. We just don't have perfect societies, and never will. It's fine to complain about the problems, but always being angry, always being negative, means you do not accept the first most basic fact about life. The basic fact about life is that it is not "perfect." It can't be, because first of all one person's perfect is another person's hell. And also because what looks awful from the human perspective might be good in the long run. A deadly epidemic or tidal wave could be nature responding to over-population, for example. I am not saying we should be happy about bad things, but we can try to be just a little philosophical. Chomsky is not philosophical in that way. He is permanently enraged, and everything that is not right, by his definition, just makes him mad as hell. And the things that are good about American do not cheer him up, not in the least.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 04, 2006 18:16 PM

"Every writer is informed by a perspective, there is no such thing as an "unbiased", "objective" point of view. As far as I know Chomsky never made such a claim." Chomsky has never (to my knowledge) said he is biased. On the contrary he's said (quite correctly) that there is no "objective" or "unbiased" person, book, article out there. It is simply impossible to be totally objective. I think however that Chomsky is very often correct in his analyses of world events and educated guessings. A look into his sources should confirm that (unlike some he tries to use mainly mainstream sources). "I don't think Dr. Chomsky is anti-capitalist. He's a piece rate capitalist,just like every human that ever lived. You do work, you get paid. You do more work, you get paid more." Even if you equate "capitalist" with making money, that wouldn't be true. Perhaps for the western world, but not the world. I find examples daily on the mainstream media distorting or lying about issues, especially about issues of great importance. The more normal procedure however is to not talk about it at all. Some issues - like the Iraq war - has to be talked about, at least sometimes, and then it is being distorted or lied about. I firmly believe this will end, and we'll get back to the original quality of newspapers; bringing news of world events, discussing them etc in an honest and fair fashion. Compare wartime reporting from WWII to today's - it's quite disheartening.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jan 04, 2006 09:37 AM

"Chomsky's writing is very biased, although I'm sure he considers himself accurate and objective.." Every writer is informed by a perspective, there is no such thing as an "unbiased", "objective" point of view. As far as I know Chomsky never made such a claim. Indeed, the claim of objectivity often made by the "main stream", corporate media is a kind of propaganda itself. Being "biased" in reapc's sense means no more than taking sides. In that sense any historian who sympathizes with the Jews rather than the Nazis would be "biased".It would be absurd to say that it is the moral equivalence to Gobbels to take the side of Holocaust victims.I don't see how taking a side necessarily imply dishonesty. There is a subtle but important distinction.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Soldier, Union at Jan 04, 2006 07:06 AM

I don't think Dr. Chomsky is anti-capitalist. He's a piece rate capitalist,just like every human that ever lived. You do work, you get paid. You do more work, you get paid more. The problem he speaks against is based on the fact that Neocons are lazy slaveowners that never bother to even check the facts, much less, mind their linguistics. That's a pure and simple fact.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Kingcammi, Cameron at Jan 04, 2006 06:10 AM

"Chomsky is a propagandist for the far left." What does the "far left" believe? What constitutes a "far left" approach to thinking? I'm not intending to be offensive in asking that, but its a label used liberally and I think its important to understand what you think that means. I think Chomsky can rarely be found singing the praises of America, largely because there is such a significant number of people in the mainstream who do praise America. So really in my own biased opinion, I say read from the Right, read from the Left and make up your mind on it. In my own biased opinion, all other countries have affairs to be ashamed of, its just that the U.S government has such a well documented record of global destabilisation over the past 60 years, its a little hard to ignore completely.

Reply this comment

Re: Propaganda

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jan 04, 2006 01:17 AM

Everyone is biased. There is no "literal" meaning of anything. To a radical leftist, the slightest praise of the US sounds like propaganda. Chomsky's writing is very biased, although I'm sure he considers himself accurate and objective. But you will not hear him say anything good about Israel or the US, or anything bad about Palestinians or Muslim terrorists. I have no idea how accurate his statements are (some say they are often inaccurate), but that is beside the point. The things he neglects to say are just as significant. Not saying anything good about the US strongly implies there is nothing good about it. Not criticizing Muslim terrorists implies there is nothing bad about them. Chomsky said that since he is an American, his job is to criticize America, not other nations. He admitted that we have more freedom here than anywhere else. So why does he avoid mentioning that, and continue to complain about things that ended long ago, such as slavery? Chomsky is a propagandist for the far left. He may not realize it. He may not be aware that what you don't say is just as significant as what you do say.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post See All Comments (81)

Africa

Mideast

Iran

Iraq

Israel/Palestine

North America

US

Europe

Asia

Venezuela

Latin America

All Places

Activism

Politics/Gov.

Economy

Globalization

Ecology

Global Warming

Vision/Strategy

Parecon

Parsoc

Feminism/Gender

Culture/Race

Intl. Relations

Alternative Media

Media (Main)

Science

Social Policy

Pop Culture

Human Rights

2008 Election

All Topics

Blogs

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Recent Chomsky Content

ZNet Articles

ZMag Articles

ZCommentaries

ZAudios

ZVideos

Blog Posts

Books

ZStores

By Noam Chomsky at Jan 02, 2006

Re: Propaganda

Propaganda Clothing

Cartoon row

Chomsky's hypocrisy

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda