Stefan's lack of integrity with Chomsky interview

[FreeEach]

This is an "open letter" written to Stefan concerning his recent interview of Noam Chomsky:

 

Hello Stefan

 

I value your work greatly, so keep it up and get it out.

 

HOWEVER! Ouch! I just yesterday, Dec 31, saw your recent video with Noam Chomsky, jeez!, what a disappointment. What were you thinking…or, rather, not thinking but emoting?

 

I would like to know why you had Chomsky on your program and did not in anyway challenge this man’s irrational philosophy and his shameful public record that proves his hypocrisy.

 

Having viewed a number of your videos (up to this Chomsky one) I find very little in your content I disagree with (although your style for my tastes veers too often into patronization especially when you get younger/less status persons on your show), so I am assuming you are as capable as I am to analyze the irrational bases of the oxymoronic, collectivist brand of anarchism.

 

I further assume you have read enough of Chomsky to know he espouses a “Libertarian Socialism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) which is against private property and the free market and believes in using the State to defeat the State—therefore, are as capable as I am of analyzing the sophistic doublethinks and ploys of Chomsky and calling him out on these.

 

I know you have criticized aspects of the leftist anti-capitalist mentality so I am nonplussed that you would have Chomsky on your show and not debate him on his public ideology that is so at odds with the one you (and I) hold.

 

As to the public record of his hypocrisy, I am hoping you have not yet seen the film Do As I Say or read the book of same title the movie is based on. Because if you have seen the film or read the book’s section on Chomsky…then I certainly question your lack of moral integrity on treating Chomsky as you did on your program.

 

So I would like an explanation please of why you had Chomsky on your show and gave him the praise you did (to the point of fawning) let alone not taking him to task for all his wrong-headed thinking and immoral hypocrisy. In the past you have a fine record of debunking the Wolves-Sheeple’s setup heroes such as Gandhi and Mandela, so why have you not done this for an equally mendacious Emperor-with-no-clothes Chomsky?

 

There is a large literature on the negatives of Chomsky as mentioned above but I suggest you start with the non-ideological hypocrisy of the man that best expresses his immorality and for that you only need to go to the book “Do As I Say (Not As I Do)” by Peter Schweitzer and the film of the same name by Nicolas Tucker and Lucas Abel.

 

I will be pleased to be on your show to debate you if you want to continue to uphold Chomsky as a person that anarcho-libertarians should emulate or even side with except for clearly defined politically tactical reasons.

 

By the way, I know you have appeared on Alex Jones’ show a number of times—are you aware he has called Chomsky out for his hypocrisy and sophistic double-dealings?

 

Cheers, Jack in Beijing, China

 

 

 

 

reviews-Do As I Say - Home.pdf

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf

DoAsISay.pdf

[Stefan Molyneux]

Thanks for the feedback, it might be premature to accuse me of lacking integrity without understanding the purpose and limitations of the conversation. My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse. I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share. I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom!

 

I had a little over 20 minutes, which is not enough for any kind of substantial debate, and also, I had asked for an interview, rather than a debate, which is very important. If you ask someone for a debate, they must spend a lot more time preparing, and actually debating, which would have probably resulted in not having access to him at all. I don't like to ask for an interview, and then spring a debate on someone who is largely unprepared for my perspective, I consider that quite impolite, and certainly don't like it when that kind of ambushing is done to me.

 

I am certainly interested in reaching out to left-leaning anarchists and libertarians, just as I am to right-wing libertarians who remain statists, and I haven't noticed a lot of people criticizing me for having minarchist libertarians on my show, without criticizing them for supporting the state.

 

I would really like for those interested in Chomsky's views to get interested in this podcast, I think it would be really helpful for them to hear the argument for anarcho capitalism.

 

I hope that helps at least explain my thinking on the matter, I don't think that I have lacked courage or directness when engaged in a debate, but that was not the format of my conversation with Dr. Chomsky.

[P. Mason]

One of the issues I have debating left libertarians is they complain about issues that are not force. That's fine but it gets confusing when the issue of "what will be done about it" comes up since either I get no clear answer or I get more complaining. When I see Chomsky in you tube videos complain that capitalism and property rights are the worst thing to happen to humanity I have to question if the man ever read a histroy book, specifically about Stalin, Lenin, Mao etc.

 

I too was disappointed you did not nail him on property rights issues but then I see you had time constraints. Plus you don't want to scare big names off your show. I would have loved a challenge of his distinction of US vs EU libertarians. US libertarians are most certainly concerned with liberty restriction when its non-force. Its just in the big red book of bad things happening a gun to the face is on page one and some moron not baking a cake for a gay wedding is on page 100. When I debate left libertarians they'll make some snotty comment about how they are the libertarians who want fairness and equality while "right" libertarians want gov out of the way so we can loot everything.

[freemankind]

Interesting! I saw this interview too.

 

I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom!

 

Stefan, as I understand it, you see the politics as an expression of what happens in the family. Why not here? Don't you think Noam Chomsky would initiate force on his children? Wouldn't an anarcho-socialist "government" be a result of the way people like Noam raise their children?

[FreeEach]

Hi Stefan

 

Thanks for your quick response and explanation. I will address your response  directly below with my words in italics.

________

 

Thanks for the feedback, it might be premature to accuse me of lacking integrity without understanding the purpose and limitations of the conversation.

 

Point taken…but note…I wrote “I certainly question your lack of moral integrity on treating Chomsky as you did on your program”, with the preface “As to the public record of his hypocrisy, I am hoping you have not yet seen the film (emphasizing my qualifier) Do As I Say or read the book of same title the movie is based on. Because if you have seen the film or read the book’s section on Chomsky”…thus, I recognized that you might not have the necessary information to make what I consider the correct anarcho-libertarian judgment of Chomsky and treated him accordingly. Also, in a previous paragraph I wrote: “I further assume you have read enough of Chomsky to know he espouses a “Libertarian Socialism”…thus, I thought I had sufficiently qualified my statement of “I question your lack of moral integrity” which, perhaps, now in hindsight, I ought to have further softened or qualified…and perhaps, I should have not used the heading I did in my post which I did to flag the topic…sorry for a bit of the red flag to the bull, my impishness has been exposed!

 

However, I based my judgment of you on Chomsky according to what I know of your writings and broadcasts and with what I considered your rather encyclopedic range of knowledge on the intellectual topics being discussed here…therefore, I made the judgment that you had at least a basic knowledge of Chomsky’s ideology if not his hypocrisy. And to me, with a person of your demonstrated grasp of anarcho-libertarianism, it came as a shock to me you would have Chomsky on your program without having an adequate understanding of his ideas and actions (Please read below as continuation of this thought.)

 

My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse.

 

This continues the thought from above. I hold you to a different standard, obviously, than I would a person I did not know knew what you did. I do not think I expect too much of you to have at least an elementary grasp of the ideas of what many consider to be the leading intellectual “anarchist” of the past say 20 years. For example, would you have had Mandela on your program and praised him with no caveats as you did Chomsky because he was against apartheid and not hold him to just criticisms of his ideas, policies and actions that resulted in the atavistic bloodbath that is South Africa after his leadership—which your recent broadcast on Mandela admirably exposed?

 

I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share.

 

If by “universalization of ethics” you mean the only thing I can understand you to mean, the Kantian version whereby whatever idea I uphold and action I take, should be able to be undertaken by any other person under any other situation and justice would result—then, Chomsky certainly will not fit this description. Just read the book, “Do As I Say” and any number of works exposing his hypocrisies, and you must conclude that if others acted as duplicitously as Chomsky did and does, the world would be a worse place.

 

I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result.

 

Again, I hold you responsible for doing at least a basic level of “homework” on the most famous (mislabeled) “anarchist” of modern times who is the public political guru to many unformed, uninformed or ill-formed minds and therefore should be at least minimally understood before making any decisions to publicly (however unintentionally) endorse him as you have done in your program. There are many examples of Chomsky’s writings and transcripts of his speeches to show us his position on a “stateless society”, e.g. (Chomsky quote underlined): “Chomsky is scathing in his opposition to the view that anarchism is inconsistent with support for 'welfare state' measures, stating in part that: ‘support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc.’” (Wikipedia, Noam Chomsky’s political views)

 

I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom!

 

Again, I think you need to take responsibility for doing at least a cursory Google search on Chomsky’s position on such topics as “initiation of force” and here is only one quote of more that can be adduced on his non-acceptance of the NAP (Chomsky quote underlined): “I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this— and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.” (The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?, December 15, 1967)

 

I had a little over 20 minutes, which is not enough for any kind of substantial debate, and also, I had asked for an interview, rather than a debate, which is very important. If you ask someone for a debate, they must spend a lot more time preparing, and actually debating, which would have probably resulted in not having access to him at all. I don't like to ask for an interview, and then spring a debate on someone who is largely unprepared for my perspective, I consider that quite impolite, and certainly don't like it when that kind of ambushing is done to me.

 

I certainly agree with you here! My only point, reiterating what I wrote above, is that I think you should NOT have invited him on for an interview without checking his credentials and at a minimum ok’d it with Chomsky that you were going to question his responses critically in some pre-agreed fashion and not simply have agreed with everything he said.

 

I am certainly interested in reaching out to left-leaning anarchists and libertarians, just as I am to right-wing libertarians who remain statists, and I haven't noticed a lot of people criticizing me for having minarchist libertarians on my show, without criticizing them for supporting the state.

 

I have not watched enough of your debates or interviews to comment on this since of the maybe dozen or so shows of yours I have watched most of these were not directly on political subjects especially those of an anarchist sort but on mental illness, the economy, etc. The only political ones I watched of this sort were the excellent exposes on Gandhi and Mandela, and the debate you had with Peter Joseph where you rightly took him to task for his evasive sophisms and torturous (and tedious!) language and logic…which in fact are exactly the tactics Chomsky uses.

 

I will add this though: I assume (hope!?) that with any minarchist libertarians you interview on political themes such as anarchism, you would be MUCH more concerned than you were with Chomsky to get enough background on their ideology to be able to at a minimum ask some penetrating questions and politely disagree rather than simply asking unchallenging questions and agreeing with everything they say.

 

I would really like for those interested in Chomsky's views to get interested in this podcast, I think it would be really helpful for them to hear the argument for anarcho capitalism.

 

 I don’t think by doing the interview you did that you will change the minds of any but a very few of those who currently bleat to follow their Shepherd Chomsky, but good luck! I do think that you might change many more minds if you were to do a proper expose of the intellectual shoddiness and total hypocrisy of Chomsky as you have done with Gandhi and Mandela.

 

I hope that helps at least explain my thinking on the matter, I don't think that I have lacked courage or directness when engaged in a debate, but that was not the format of my conversation with Dr. Chomsky.

 

I agree with you that in the few debates of yours I have seen your substantial intelligence was matched by your courage—which is one of the main reasons I like you.

 

 

_______

 

It is an odd happenstance that before I came upon your Chomsky interview a few days ago I had wondered to myself why you had not squelched the flames of this hot air balloon (btw, Chomsky vociferously believes in AGW!) since you had done so well at this with the likes of Joseph, Gandhi and Mandela…so I want you to have some idea of the shock I felt at watching what I consider turned out to be an endorsement of Chomsky, an ideologue who is not at all concerned with the truth but rather only his hatred for the United States (see his past endorsements of Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, et.al.).

 

I hope my critique on Chomsky will see you in the future taking more responsibility for knowing the ideological background of those you interview with the sense that your having someone on your very popular show without a critical enough format can perhaps do more harm than good to promoting the anarcho-libertarian way of life.

 

It is my belief that Chomsky is a Wolf in a Sheep’s clothing and is thoroughly imprisoned inside the cage of his obviously schizoid mind (e.g., his hypocrisy of owning shares in companies that supply the American military and setting up tax shelters for his family members). Walter Kaufmann’s warning most definitely applies to Chomsky: “To those whose minds are not liberated, wars, revolutions, and radical movements will never bring freedom but only an exchange of one kind of slavery for another. That is one of the most tragic lessons of the twentieth century.”  I feel certain Chomsky would have been happy to sit on the right hand of Lenin after the revolution! Take a lesson from Camus’ critique of Sartre here.

 

Cheers from China which is many ways is a freer place for the average person than in America or Canada!

 

FreeEach, Every Man Jack of All Trades in Beijing

[freemankind]

I took some time to research this. In this old podcast Stefan shows how he knows more about Chomsky than he says here (about domestic policy). He also mentions another podcast where he called him a "crazy lefty"...

 

Stefan, could you explain? Listening to this podcast it was clear to me that you know he endorses the initiation of force (in the form of social programs) which he only denies due to his defence of his family and Jewish roots:

 

 

 

87. Cultural Blindness Posted: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:20:00 GMT

Play Now

The beam and the mote... Chomsky and state violence

 

 

My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse. I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share. I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom!

 

Interesting! I saw this interview too.

 

 

Stefan, as I understand it, you see the politics as an expression of what happens in the family. Why not here? Don't you think Noam Chomsky would initiate force on his children? Wouldn't an anarcho-socialist "government" be a result of the way people like Noam raise their children?

[FreeEach]

ah, thanks freemankind! 

 

interesting!

 

i hope this does not mean what i could interpret and which has occurred to me and which would make my suspicions of stefan's lack of character integrity look correct!

 

wow! 

 

i just listened to part of this podcast, amazing!

 

so, STEFAN MOLYNEUX you have been OUTED!!!! hoisted/hosted on your own petard with a hole blown through your wholeness! 

 

ouch! so listening to this I must conclude you are not a man of integrity, not whole, you still have pieces at war within you that need integrating...not unusual...so i hope you can grow through this?

 

well, stefan, let's see if you love the truth more than your need to be right and to grow your show, which it seems this is why you had chomsky on...you are a CHUMSKY for CHOMSKY! ah, alpha apes dressed as philosophers!

 

stefan, i suggest you read The Guru Papers and face your fears as we all must do...quick quote apropos here:

P.253

We have no easy fixes to offer. Seeing the nature of division in oneself, including how both sides need each other to exist, begins to defuse the power of each. The inner battle depends on the dynamics between the two selves remaining unconscious, and so the more conscious one is of the split and its ramifications, the easier it is not to be mechanically driven by it. The problem is that much of personality is built upon this division so that when both sides lose power, it can feel empty, and perhaps even a bit like dying.

Becoming interested in seeing the nature of the game brings a crucial shift in awareness that allows one to discover for oneself the workings of one’s own inner battle. Replacing the reactiveness of each side with curiosity and a respect that acknowledges the importance of each can be the beginning of a more healthy inner dialogue. 

 

awaiting your response

 

CHeers from CHarming and always CHaotic CHina, FreeEach

[Marcus Clarke]

so, STEFAN MOLYNEUX you have been OUTED!!!! hoisted/hosted on your own petard with a hole blown through your wholeness! 

 

ouch! so listening to this I must conclude you are not a man of integrity, not whole, you still have pieces at war within you that need integrating...not unusual...so i hope you can grow through this?

 

 

At this point, your conversation has moved into a personal attack, which is not only an insult to philosophy, it is an insult to truth and falsehood.  I want to also point out that you are crafting a statement in a warlike way, which is frustrating considering that war is immoral.

 

well, stefan, let's see if you love the truth more than your need to be right and to grow your show, which it seems this is why you had chomsky on...you are a CHUMSKY for CHOMSKY! ah, alpha apes dressed as philosophers!

 

Again, you are using words that (I theorize) are intended to entice other FDR readers to say things that are anti-philosophical (which is what you might find in other forums).  However, many of us can now see the words fashioned by bullies and tormentors as empty and null.  Those are the words you add to this anti-conversation.

[FreeEach]

my quick response to your words are the quip: "truth is hatespeech"...if you fear the truth then you label it as you have here "personal attack", "insult to philosophy", "insult to truth and falsehood", "warlike", etc.

 

interesting! it seems you are a defender of your guru? meaning stefan? so i am a "bully and tormentor", "empty and null"?... hmmm... so your words here are words of non-judgment, peaceful, address the facts/charges I have made? hmmm... seems to me you are not using your own mind but it is being used by another...

 

think for yourself...

 

another reminded phase, ron paul: truth is treason in the empire of lies...

 

CHeers from CHarming CHina, FreeEach

[Kawlinz]

my quick response to your words are the quip: "truth is hatespeech"...if you fear the truth then you label it as you have here "personal attack", "insult to philosophy", "insult to truth and falsehood", "warlike", etc.

 

interesting! it seems you are a defender of your guru? meaning stefan? so i am a "bully and tormentor", "empty and null"?... hmmm... so your words here are words of non-judgment, peaceful, address the facts/charges I have made? hmmm... seems to me you are not using your own mind but it is being used by another...

 

think for yourself...

 

another reminded phase, ron paul: truth is treason in the empire of lies...

 

CHeers from CHarming CHina, FreeEach

Yep - you got us all.

[FreeEach]

Hello Listeners 

 

I have listened carefully to the 2006 Podcast 87 – Cultural Blindness and from this I conclude that my earlier concern that Stefan was perhaps lacking  (moral—the only kind so far as I am concerned) integrity concerning the Chomsky show has now I think been shown to be the case—most certainly.

 

Here is copy directly from the transcript of the Chomsky interview:

0:00

Hi, everybody. It's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio. I am extremely pleased, of course,

0:03

to have the illustrious Noam Chomsky who, I'm sure for my listeners, needs no introduction.

0:09

A fellow anarchist, a great thinker, an ethicist, study of language and so on.

0:15

Thank you so much, Dr. Chomsky, for taking the time today.

0:18

Glad to be with you.

0:20

So one of the things that I've always admired in your analysis, particularly of foreign

0:25

policy, is your statement that for a moral principle in particular to have any validity

0:29

it must be universal.

 

__________

 

Then here is what Stefan wrote in reply to my first post:

“Thanks for the feedback, it might be premature to accuse me of lacking integrity without understanding the purpose and limitations of the conversation. My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse. I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share. I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom!”

___________

 

Here is from the end of the podcast in 2006:# 87 – Cultural Blindness (around 37:50) “I can stand by my thesis that he’s a crazy lefty! It’s nothing against Noam Chomsky, he’s a victim of a particularly brutal kind of cult…Judiasm.”

 

I invite anyone to listen to the podcast in full and then make up their own mind as to whether Stefan in this situation being discussed here has shown actions that any reasonable person would consider to be out of character for a person of integrity. In the podcast you will hear Stefan critique Chomsky as he should be critiqued, although he did not mention his hypocrisy.

 

After listening to this podcast, I think most would agree with me that Stefan DID KNOW and had come to a JUDGMENT about Chomsky’s ideology and was HIGHLY CRITICAL of it; and therefore, to have Chomsky on his show and praise him without a single instance of criticism is an act of moral contradiction showing a lack of integrity. It seems he put considerations of Chomsky’s fame for growing his audience ahead of his professed principles.

 

Make up your own mind.

 

 

We all make bad choices that compromise our integrity and moral worth. My hope is that Stefan will admit his doublethink/selective-memory here and learn from this and do a program on Chomsky that is as effective on debunking him as his programs on Mandela and Gandhi were.

 

Cheers from China, FreeEach

[kcq]

@FreeEach: you must very well understand that criticising stefan's character in this domain will only result in *summon random stefan followers* to direct their fangs at you. The context of what you say could be very well true, but the delivery is too straightforward that it will look like an attack, and in this part of the internet where stefan is held highly, you have to be cunning in delivery.

[FreeEach]

Hi KCQ

 

Thanks for your concern...but I will continue to speak the truth as directly as possible with politeness but also humor...it will be interesting to see if there will be any others like the Clarke fellow!

 

From your comments here I guess Stefan has a rather standard (semi-?) Sheeple following which I think happens with almost any relatively strong personality. I would recommend to you and all of his more emotionally attached followers what is probably the two best books on understanding the "vatic" power of charismatics: The Ghost Dance by Weston LaBarre and The Guru Papers by Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad.

 

Now something for all here (I hope)

 

 

Hey FreeEachers: here’s something to discover Chomsky’s (and other left activists) Hypocrisy and not be a Chumpsy!

 

Here’s a wonderful book and movie you must read and see that deflates, debunks and delegitimizes all the leftwing turkey-hawks out in HolyWood such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky, Barbra Streisand, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, and more.

 

First, the book on Chomsky’s capitalistic hypocrisy—an excerpt from Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer:

“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.””

More by this author on and from his book:

http://old.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T61VmqjEYsk

 

I think the most succinctly accurate and relevant assessment of Chomsky comes from Keith Windschuttle’s The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky (dhttp://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm):

“Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.”

 

The movie: Do As I Say by Nicholas Tucker and Lucas Abel

See 31:50 for where the Chomsky expose begins.

Their website: http://www.doasisaymovie.com/index.php

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuMakmo0e5A

Full movie free to watch or download: http://watchmovies.to/movies/163253-do-as-i-say

 

Enjoy FreeEachers! For anyone interested here is my website:

www.LinkageForLife.com and my Google + with many links to me:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/113839538521098310072/about/p/pub

My virtual classroom: http://www.wiziq.com/jack2382606

My email: [email protected]

[Soren]

I don't get how Stefan listening to an unknown audio book by Chomsky 7+ years ago where Chomsky mentions somthing about domestic policy. Is firm evidence that stefan had intricate knowlege of Chomskys other intrest subjects?

Could just have as well turned him of investigating futher and just focus on the valuable parts.

Also I don't understand how its a moral problem?

Soren

[Wesley]

He has interviewed many political or economic experts and not talked to them about foreign policy.

 

He has talked to many foreign policy people and not brought up economics.

 

He has talked to those people and not brought up relationships and personal history.

 

With the relationship and spanking people he doesn't bring up politics.

 

With any of those people, he rarely brings up atheism.

 

Almost no one is perfectly consistent with their principles and that doesn't mean they do not have information of value to bring up.

 

Most of all, you need to understand that Stefan is almost never talking to the person he is talking to, at least exclusively. Experts are invited on when Stefan often knows exactly what they are going to say, but he wants to relay the information to the audience. Debates occur, not because he wants to win the debate and change the other's mind, but because he wants to put the logical arguments forward toward the people. He goes on other people's shows sometimes to talk to the hosts and pass information, but more to talk to that show's audience in order to grow his audience while also providing an interesting show that their audience so that they can grow as well.

 

Thus, I see no problem not talking about every possible topic or issue as it is an impossible standard, and also it is very little about the actual interview/debate and much more about bringing what he is good at to his audience and bringing some Chomsky fans to the FDR show.

 

No matter what Stefan said, it is nearly impossible that Chomsky would change his mind. Thus, the best way to serve the audience is not to use the limited couple minutes to do something that is a waste of time and instead tell his audience the good stuff and "poach" a little of the Chomsky audience.

[Jer]

That word you keep using, integrity, I do not think it means what you think it means. In a conversation you can be friendly, find common ground, and still maintain integrity.

[SirJamesIII]

So basically OP is saying that if someone with an alternative viewpoint isn't debated against on the show, then Stef doesn't have integrity even if they talk about the things they do agree on. 

 

Although I guess I didn't care much for the reference to the Spanish anarcho-statists 

[freemankind]

I understand the purpose of interviewing people like Chomsky and not debate them; it is a very valid thing to do and does not question your integrity. However, please note that Stefan's old opinion and everything regarding podcast 87 contradicts what he has said on this thread, as FreeEach and I quoted.

 

I think this is very unfortunate, and hope Stefan will explain why his position seems to have changed so much.

[Carl Green]

Here is copy directly from the transcript of the Chomsky interview:

0:00

Hi, everybody. It's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio. I am extremely pleased, of course,

0:03

to have the illustrious Noam Chomsky who, I'm sure for my listeners, needs no introduction.

0:09

A fellow anarchist, a great thinker, an ethicist, study of language and so on.

0:15

Thank you so much, Dr. Chomsky, for taking the time today.

0:18

Glad to be with you.

0:20

So one of the things that I've always admired in your analysis, particularly of foreign

0:25

policy, is your statement that for a moral principle in particular to have any validity

0:29

it must be universal.

 

Which of these statements is Stefan agreeing with Chomsky's anarcho-socialist views on, and thus reducing his integrity?

[Marcus Clarke]

my quick response to your words are the quip: "truth is hatespeech"...if you fear the truth then you label it as you have here "personal attack", "insult to philosophy", "insult to truth and falsehood", "warlike", etc.

 

interesting! it seems you are a defender of your guru? meaning stefan? so i am a "bully and tormentor", "empty and null"?... hmmm... so your words here are words of non-judgment, peaceful, address the facts/charges I have made? hmmm... seems to me you are not using your own mind but it is being used by another...

 

think for yourself...

 

 

I do understand your thought that a fear of the truth could result in an accusation of a personal attack, and that could apply in other cases.  Please note that the only quotations that I made in my prior post involved you using the words "chumsky" and "alpha ape" to describe a person.  I did not say anything about your argument against Stefan Molyneux's integrity in the conversation with Chomsky.

 

@FreeEach: you must very well understand that criticising stefan's character in this domain will only result in *summon random stefan followers* to direct their fangs at you. The context of what you say could be very well true, but the delivery is too straightforward that it will look like an attack, and in this part of the internet where stefan is held highly, you have to be cunning in delivery.

 

You are using the word "fangs" to apply the idea of animal-like or non-thinking behavior to other people.  This is not fair.  Did anyone call you an animal?You say that you have to be "cunning" to deliver the truth.  Well, that is not true.  If you have the truth, then all you need is to be consistently nice.  If the truth was that Stefan had a lack of integrity, you present great argumenation, and you stayed consistently nice,  then you could bring the truth to people.  Once anyone starts to call people names, the conversation is destroyed.

 

Thanks for your concern...but I will continue to speak the truth as directly as possible with politeness but also humor...it will be interesting to see if there will be any others like the Clarke fellow!

 

From your comments here I guess Stefan has a rather standard (semi-?) Sheeple following which I think happens with almost any relatively strong personality. I would recommend to you and all of his more emotionally attached followers what is probably the two best books on understanding the "vatic" power of charismatics: The Ghost Dance by Weston LaBarre and The Guru Papers by Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad.

 

You said that you "will continue to speak the truth... with politeness", but you did not do this previously.  Therefore, the word "continue" is not true.So, you use the word "sheeple" in an attempt to apply the idea of mindlessness and non-thinking to a group of people.  It always bothers me when people, including libertarians, that use this word to describe the majority of people in the world.  The word "sheeple" is used by an intellectual bully to make themselves feel superior to others.  That superior feeling may feel real, but it based on nothing.  Everyone is an individual, and to try to attack their self worth or person hood is just wrong.  Please stop.  I might have appreciated your recommendations to the books that you listed if you were not insulting people in the same paragraph.

 

 

I would like everyone to stop for a moment, and think about their next possible response.  While you are writing it, if you are calling any person a name in any way, then delete that sentence, and move on.  You can not figure out whether a person has integrity if you do not keep your own.

[powder]

I agree with Marcus Clarke there FreeEach.  You make a valid case I think and all you have to do is present evidence support the 'truth' as you see it, without the adjectives  - 'Chumsky', 'Sheeple', 'alpha ape' are not facts or evidence or 'truth' - using terms like that only makes me feel there is a lack of integrity on your part.  

 

I know almost nothing about Chomsky and his personality or arguments and am not in a position to make a judgement on Stef's inconsistent behavior.  That said, Stefan has introduced me to what is for many of us a radical social concept of ostracizing those who do not share your values.  I have heard him say on several occasions that he will only hang with people of virtue that share his values, so no statists for sure.  If Chomsky does not share the same philosophy as Stefan and he brings him on the show for marketing reasons, or out of ignorance of Chomsky's views, then I find that problematic.  

 

He has steered clear of the Ron Paul campaign and rightly criticized its policies, and there is a large audience for Stef's perspective over there, heck, I came to Stef by way of the RP stuff.  

[LovePrevails]

I fully endors Stefan's response to this criticism

 

 

As a leftist Chomsky has done more to advance the cause of human freedom and expose state crimes than the vast majority of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists

[SirJamesIII]

I understand the purpose of interviewing people like Chomsky and not debate them; it is a very valid thing to do and does not question your integrity. However, please note that Stefan's old opinion and everything regarding podcast 87 contradicts what he has said on this thread, as FreeEach and I quoted.

 

I think this is very unfortunate, and hope Stefan will explain why his position seems to have changed so much.

 

Ok let me try to understand your position. Stef said:

 

I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society.

 

And in podcast #87 he critiques Chomsky. If Stef accused Chomsky of advocating the initiation of force in his critique , then Stef is contradicting himself. So did he? Does "crazy lefty"= advocate of force? Whenever Stef criticizes someone, must it always be on the grounds of NAP violation? I think that is a stretch, but I haven't heard the rest of the podcast.

 

So far I still find the premise of the thread to be off base, but at least freemankind made an attempt. OP was just name calling. 

[freemankind]

 

 

So did he? Does "crazy lefty"= advocate of force?

 

Yes.

 

Whenever Stef criticizes someone, must it always be on the grounds of NAP violation?

 

No. He can criticise anyone about anything he wants, but this is a show about the NAP being valid – and "lefties" being violators of it – no?

 

 

at least freemankind made an attempt. OP was just name calling. 

 

I don't understand why people here focus so much on the name calling. I am new to this forum, but I am quite surprised. I always thought philosophical people would focus on the arguments and ignore the rest.

For someone who cares about the truth, "2+2=4"  is the same as  "2+2=4, idiot", no? If Chomsky is a crazy lefty, then surely it's ok to call him a crazy lefty...

[Wesley]

I don't understand why people here focus so much on the name calling. I am new to this forum, but I am quite surprised. I always thought philosophical people would focus on the arguments and ignore the rest.

For someone who cares about the truth, "2+2=4"  is the same as  "2+2=4, idiot", no? If Chomsky is a crazy lefty, then surely it's ok to call him a crazy lefty...

On a forum that focuses on personal relationships and integrity, putting "logical" in there does not mean that people have free reign to be assholes. It actually means someone is far more likely to be called out on it.

 

Logical is not a bind for the listener where I am supposed to ignore all the irrational stuff and stick to the logic. Rather it is a "bind" on the person presenting the argument, for if you are not logical I will be unlikely to listen to you.

[freemankind]

I fully endors Stefan's response to this criticism

 

 

As a leftist Chomsky has done more to advance the cause of human freedom and expose state crimes than the vast majority of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists

 

Would you say the same if this was about an interview with Mandela? Mandela also did a lot to expose state crimes... 

Chomsky may call himself an anarchist, but we all know what is required in order to get people to give up their property rights. He may not call that "the state", but for anarcho-capitalists that's just about the same thing.

 

 

Honestly, people, why does everyone seem to ignore Stefan's main argument (the state is in the family) whenever the topic gets political in nature – let alone Stefan himself?. Surely what he said in podcast 87, etc. means that he knows Chomsky advocates the initiation of force, just like he honours his jewish upbringing.

 

If it's ok to interview Chomsky, then why not Obama, another crazy lefty? All Stefan would have to do, is avoid criticizing Obama's statist beliefs and focus on his knowledge of everything he has in common with FDR – would be excellent publicity for sure!

[SirJamesIII]

 I always thought philosophical people would focus on the arguments and ignore the rest.

 

Exactly why we don't take kindly to name calling. FreeEach wasn't being very philosophical despite the walls of irrelevant text criticizing libertarian socialism.

 

Anyway, a "libertarian socialist" society can exist without the initiation of force. 18th century communist utopias in America are examples. These societies didn't have the greatest living conditions and they often employed extreme rules of exclusivity through religion and other unsavory social norms to compensate for an extremely homogenized lifestyle (eugenics was quite popular in these communities). Ultimately Mises' calculation problem holds these societies back. These societies had to maintain free-trade in order manage costs efficiently (much like the Soviet Union needed to stay connected to external markets). So they ultimately still depended on markets. The Shaker's, for example, made furniture. 

[freemankind]

On a forum that focuses on personal relationships and integrity, putting "logical" in there does not mean that people have free reign to be assholes. It actually means someone is far more likely to be called out on it.

 

Logical is not a bind for the listener where I am supposed to ignore all the irrational stuff and stick to the logic. Rather it is a "bind" on the person presenting the argument, for if you are not logical I will be unlikely to listen to you.

 

Logic is a bind for anyone making a truth proposition. And addressing truth propositions – not the name calling – is a bind for any philosopher whose integrity depends on it.

Exactly why we don't take kindly to name calling. FreeEach wasn't being very philosophical despite the walls of irrelevant text criticizing libertarian socialism.

 

Anyway, a "libertarian socialist" society can exist without the initiation of force. 18th century communist utopias in America are examples. These societies didn't have the greatest living conditions and they often employed extreme rules of exclusivity through religion and other unsavory social norms to compensate for an extremely homogenized lifestyle (eugenics was quite popular in these communities). Ultimately Mises' calculation problem holds these societies back. These societies had to maintain free-trade in order manage costs efficiently (much like the Soviet Union needed to stay connected to external markets). So they ultimately still depended on markets. The Shaker's, for example, made furniture. 

 

Again, you seem to be blind to the fact that societies are made of people who were once children.

[P. Mason]

my quick response to your words are the quip: "truth is hatespeech"...if you fear the truth then you label it as you have here "personal attack", "insult to philosophy", "insult to truth and falsehood", "warlike", etc.

 

interesting! it seems you are a defender of your guru? meaning stefan? so i am a "bully and tormentor", "empty and null"?... hmmm... so your words here are words of non-judgment, peaceful, address the facts/charges I have made? hmmm... seems to me you are not using your own mind but it is being used by another...

 

think for yourself...

 

another reminded phase, ron paul: truth is treason in the empire of lies...

 

CHeers from CHarming CHina, FreeEach

Ah the whole guru thing. So is that what your comments are about. You see Stefan as some cult leader? Yeah so you're the guy going to expose the guru and that's what your comments are really all about. Well you fail as much as a 10 year old chanting "nyah nyah" on a play ground.

[cynicist]

Dude, you do understand that Stefan had Chomsky on as a guest right? And that you can admire some aspects of a person while not respecting others? The idea that you invite someone on the show in order to sit there and call him a crazy lefty makes no sense, even if he is, because he might have some valuable things to say about other topics that FDR listeners are interested in. You're acting as if he had a murderer like Mandela on the show....

[FreeEach]

Hello Stefan

 

I am directing this to you, Stefan, as I would like a response to what I have written here so far in response to your first and only response to my first post here.

 

You can read the comments here.

 

I began with making a claim upon you to explain yourself, which in your first and only response, you, to me, have not done to my satisfaction.

 

Then, in my subsequent entries here, I accused you on displaying a lack of moral integrity and gave you details to back up what I meant.

 

I would like a response here.

 

And further, depending on your response here, we can consider engaging in an exchange between us to examine some of the obviously contested issues at stake here in this ongoing event I have started.

 

Sincerely

 

FreeEach, Every Man Jack of All Trades, China

[SirJamesIII]

Again, you seem to be blind to the fact that societies are made of people who were once children.

Stef criticized Chomsky for being an opponent of peaceful parenting? Peaceful parenting and libertarian socialism are incompatible? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

[freemankind]

Stef criticized Chomsky for being an opponent of peaceful parenting? Peaceful parenting and libertarian socialism are incompatible? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

 

Yes, and yes. In order to instill "cultural blindness" (the name of podcast 87) or false moral beliefs into a child you need to initiate force (neglecting a child you take responsibility for is also the initiation of force). 

[SirJamesIII]

Yes, and yes. In order to instill "cultural blindness" (the name of podcast 87) or false moral beliefs into a child you need to initiate force (neglecting a child you take responsibility for is also the initiation of force). 

Well I'd like to see solid evidence of Stef making that criticism before you put the words in his mouth. So far you've resorted to mental gymnastics to try and say that what Stef said implied all these things.

 

Libertarian socialists have false moral beliefs? Didn't I just point to examples showing why the initiation force is not a requisite for such societies? Although having false moral beliefs sure made it a lot easier for these societies to accomplish their ends, but it wasn't intrinsic to their system IMO. In an Ancap world I'd bet there'd be a bunch of commie cranks dying to homestead some newly state forfeited land and it can all be done peacefully. 

[waywardvariable]

Whoa... I also watched that interview and I saw nothing that would call Mr. Molyneuxs integrity into question, what I saw was Stefan Molyneux speaking to someone (Chomsky) that he disagreed with in principle yet respecting the fact that Chomsky's viewpoint was based on his own internal principles. What did you expect ? a Stallone action movie, with blood, guts and @ss flying every which a way ?

 

Personally I thought Mr. Molyneux handled himself EXCEPTIONALLY well and served as a role model of disagreeing without being disagreeable ...