From: blancw@pylon.com
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 94 23:15:35 PDT
To: jamesd@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Chomsky (Thread from Hell)
Message-ID: <199409260616.XAA16173@deepthought.pylon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Responding to msg by James A. Donald:

>He implies that democratic control of speech and ideas  
>would be a vast improvement in our civil liberties, 
>that  it would make us more free.

	But who pays attention to what Chomsky thinks (say, by 
comparison to others similarly inclined).

>In other words he is perverting the language so that 
>for  him "freedom of speech" is democratic control of 
>speech and  ideas by the people.  

	Then who is going to understand what he really means?

>He continually describes (and wildly exaggerates) the 
>problem  using language that implies that only a 
>collective, rather than  individual, response to 
>misinformation can make us free. 

	He isn't the only one who ever has, or ever will, advocate 
such things.  He's not on the board of directors of the NII, is 
he; or  how does he exert influence?

>. . . .Chomsky fans show a notable lack of 
>tolerance  for other forms of speech, as is most 
>noticeable on the  net.  

	So is it Chomsky, or his fans who are the problem?  And how do 
they succeed in making themselves influential?

>Since there are clearly a great many people who seek 
>and  desire totalitarianism, with their group at the 
>top,  we  should hardly be surprised to see large 
>number of people  seeking to achieve this through means 
>that are workable  and feasible, rather than through 
>means that are absurd  and impossible.

	This type of person is interchangeable:  they could follow 
someone (like Chomsky) today or someone else tomorrow.  It 
should always be possible to recognize the difference between 
one thing and another - one kind of idea or social system or 
another - just as you have, by seeing the contradictions and 
actual relations in the expressed statements, proposals, 
methodologies, etc.  
	It looks as though you are simply fighting the ideas which 
many people have always found to their advantage to believe, 
but I can't see where Chomsky is the only & most important 
reason why they are willing to think as they do.  So -  those 
are my comments on Chomsky, about which I will write no more, 
as he doesn't sound interesting at all to pursue.

Blanc