Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper (video)

10/28/20138 Comments

Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndicalist or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn’t care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn’t think about.

CLICK HERE for the mp3 audio of this podcast.


Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 02:54


Chomsky: Obama Worse Than Bush
Time Reference: 03:13


‘Drone strikes a terror-generating machine’
Time Reference: 10:02


Noam Chomsky to RT: Bush torturer, Obama just kills
Time Reference: 10:48


Chomsky On Obama’s Election Campaign
Time Reference: 11:05


Chomsky on US Foreign Policy
Time Reference: 11:33


Manufacturing Consent – Noam Chomsky and the Media
Time Reference: 14:54


Noam Chomsky Loves the Federal Reserve
Time Reference: 19:13


Noam Chomsky and the JFK Assassination
Time Reference: 26:43


Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
Time Reference: 35:24


JFK and the Unspeakable
Time Reference: 35:48


Noam Chomsky discusses 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
Time Reference: 38:25


Chomsky on 9/11: “Who cares?”
Time Reference: 42:52


Truth in the Academy?
Time Reference: 47:28


Time Reference: 47:37


After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 54:34


Rethinking Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 55:48


Reggae Noam Chomsky Classical Old Skool Hip Hop Groove – Oh YES
Time Reference: 35:48

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ks says:

    rrrrrrright. youve just patronised me on twitter for not understanding what the word ‘gatekeeper’ means. i am a little disappointed my assumed intelligence is so low, but lets clear something up. i am well aware of what *you* mean by gatekeeper. you are saying he is co-opted ‘intelligentsia’ so now im going to debunk what is basically the only real thing i disagree with you on. 9/11 and chomsky. when i watch you talk of chomsky – i get this weird feeling. its the one subject where you seem personally invested in the argument. you look annoyed with him, somethings not right.

    why attack an old man whos done so much in his life? an old man who started off my personal political awakening. (so y slightly biased) OK – the thing that you seem most upset about is the ‘who cares’ 9/11 comment – after much thought and years of research on all this stuff ive come to the conclusion that yes ‘who cares’ ?

    why do you care so much about this one guy and what difference will it make to anything if he comes onboard with the whole truther thing. i would be willing to bet my hands that even if chomsky got on the whole 911 boat and started using megaphones to pronounce it in the street, it would make not one blind bit of difference to anything. this guy has done SO MUCH in his life, so so much that to pick on one subject he doesnt want to get into really late in his life, is like a bit weird. who cares? who cares what chomsky thinks ? why does chomsky *have* to conform to what you want him to think ?

    OK ignoring his massive political activism since vietnam, lets focus on the 9/11 thing itself. why do i think that chomsky wouldnt make any difference to this debate ? simply: JFK – since JFK was shot in 1963 how many people who really perpetrated the crime have been brought to justice ?????? NONE. and how many WILL be brought to justice ? NONE will the case ever be re-opened? NO – so educating yerself on the truth or investigating the event itself is good, but basically you arent ever going to catch or facilitate catching the real people that did it. and exactly the same goes for 9/11 – in my internet travels, i have seen hoards of people OBSESSED over 9/11, spending a lot of their life trying to spread information about it and ive seen every theory available from the nanothermite to the noplane theory to blahblahblah every single angle you can think of. its a fact the intelligence services spread disinformation on the internet so i imagine a fair portion of this is direct from the government. and what better way to engage people and to stop people doing something that will actually change things than to tie them up in years of research that will never get them anywhere at all.

    nobody is EVER going to be brought to justice for 9/11 and i worry for you if you really believe this will ever EVER happen. i believe this is the reason he doesnt want to get into it and i believe hes right. i am absolutely sure the official story is a total load of shit but i would like to focus on building new communities and letting government simply fall away rather than banging my head against a brick wall.

    • Corbett says:

      I am not being patronizing. I genuinely believe you don’t know what the term ‘gatekeeper’ means. No, it does not mean “co-opted ‘intelligentsia’.”

      Perhaps this question can help to clarify. It is a serious question. Please answer.

      Who is the more effective gatekeeper? One who is:

      a) wrong about almost everything


      b) right about almost everything?

      • ks says:

        regardless of your definition of ‘gatekeeper’ which i think we both know we both know what it means :) – my argument still stands. and may i just say i dont love you any less for this discussion, this is probably one of the few things we dont agree on, but i did feel that you were patronising on twitter. but tbh i get so much abuse on there on a daily basis its nothing :)

        interesting question tho….

        so in my understanding of your definition of gatekeeper – what you mean is what chomsky calls the ‘intelligentsia’ the intellectuals sway public opinion by framing a debate within carefully policed boundaries. ie setting what are the acceptable arguments and thereby setting the arguments that arent even mentioned. but do fill me in if im totally off the mark.

        and i would go for b) in this definition because you are more likely to believe the person if other things they have said correlate to your reality. however, i dont see what this has to do with my point.

      • Corbett says:

        Gatekeeper has nothing to do with intelligentsia or intellectuals per se. It is anyone who uses a position of authority or influence to dissuade people from looking into certain fields of inquiry. If you re-listen to this episode, you will notice that 9/11 is merely one of the issues that Chomsky is gatekeeping.

        Regardless of what you feel will or will not happen with regards to 9/11 truth, Chomsky with a single pronouncement could persuade tens of thousands of his followers (at a minimum) to examine the issue of how false flag events are used to shape public opinion and lead us into war time and again. If you do not see the utility of that then you have not understood the raison d’etre of this website.

        You pick the correct answer in the multiple choice question, of course, but fail to see its relevance to your original Twitter comment? “This stuff doesnt sound very gatekeepery.” You explicitly argue that because he is right on a certain issue that he is not a gatekeeper. That shows a lack of understanding of the role, nature and definition of the term ‘gatekeeper.’

  2. ks says:

    welll, to be fair tho, chomsky’s followers are very unlikely to have never heard nor accept the idea of a false flag. im not sure i agree that chomsky could enlighten or even has a responsibility to enlighten a significant amount people on proven historical false flags and im not sure what that would do anyway if he did – i mean in pure terms of 9/11. obv educating people on facts is always good.

    i think you are putting this idea on chomsky that he must ascribe to every single opinion you do. but he doesnt have to! hes just a guy just like you and me! i did want to focus on the 9/11 issue particularly but the fed thing as well – hes spot on! it *would* have been a massive depression if they didnt bail out the banks – only what he didnt say was the countries sovereignty would be retained if they had and after a few years of chaos it would have been back to normal. but he does say ‘within a capitalist system’ and he does mention overthrowing it, i think he gets misunderstood often. *shrugs i dunno im just a guy, but i think hes old now, hes not going to be making sense for much longer and hes done so many good things in his life he deserves special treatment. personally i love the guy. i will relisten tho and see if i missed anything – tbh i switched it off after the 9/11 thing cos i was so offended :D not really offended realllly but i did make up my mind to take this up with you. took me several weeks but there yer go ;)

  3. ks says:

    plus may i also say that link you posted me i clicked off in disgust – was like a desperate and i mean desperate hit piece gluing together crap that noam said over 50 years or so! if you took something i said last week and stuck it with this week it would probably make me a hypocrite ! flux is the nature of the universe ;)

    one thing tho, he is totally up his ass over JFK – but then i forgive him for that because he wrote the fateful triangle. hes not going to stop anyone investigating anything.

    chomsky aint right all the time – but painting him like this is just wrong.

  4. ks says:

    ok – right at the beginning you mention not building straw men and not name-calling then make up this word ‘gatekeeper’ and call him it :) i think the problem i have with it is that you imply he is doing this on purpose for some reason. you mention the gatekeeper in the video and say ‘of course… a gatekepepers function is not to spout lies all the time…’ which also implies that we should know the definition of this word, which it seems you just made up. fair enough :)

    ‘one or two topics you HAVE to skirt around…. with credibility’ – again implying he is doing this on purpose and for a particular purpose or master…. no. i dont believe that in the slightest. these ‘gatekeepers’ are going around building their entire lives up around facts they get right purely in order to slip a bit of disinformation because you know they are really bernankes robots :D not buying it.

    and your argument on the fed is kinda ridiculous tbh, firstly you ignore the proviso he says right at the beginning about actions *within* a capitalist system and then compare these actions to what an anarcho-syndicalist would generally want. now thats not an argument thats taking what he said completely out of context. and the way you deliver it also implies we should be suspicious of this non-argument. no. not having that ;) his chat was about the best way to organise an economy within a capitalist system. so i really had a problem with that bit.

    JFK: he just doesnt want to get into it obv. and so what ? perhaps he feels that there isnt enough evidence to really get behind it. perhaps he feels that whatever he says nothing can be done (which i agree with) who knows – perhaps he just doesnt want to say publicly what he thinks because he doesnt have enough hard evidence to back it up. its quite obv 9/11 and JFK were serious planned attacks and that the official stories are utter utter crap, but i dont find anything suspicious about him not wanting to get into it. im just not buying this gatekeeper word. but then in the same way as i dont blindly bleat and accept everything chomsky says i also dont accept everything you say, which im sure youre very glad about! be bloody boring if i did! one thing i didnt know was that the northwoods docs came out of this. interesting… the JFK thing was quite obviously a high level conspiracy or as bill hicks said totalitarian take-over of democracy. altho i dont believe its over vietnam, i think the secret service were involved and it was a threat to them. i dont agree with chomsky here or these words ascribed to him anyway :)

    41.20 ish is really the crux of what im saying. i agree completely with what hes saying about 9/11. 9/11 was the scar on our collective consciousness that changed everything. however, its never going to be solved. so now what should we do ? carry on watching hours and hours and hours of videos about nanothermite etc ? tell everyone we know to watch hours and hours and hours of conspiracy videos ? or should we go out and try and help and convert our communities into sane societies ? internet youtube conspiracy vids or real life progress ? you know what im saying. like he says ‘its diverting from real issues’

    i think the ‘who cares’ statement comes from a place of being tired of hearing people bleating on about stuff they dont really understand. and i agree again. back to first point on that, it will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER go anywhere. so now what?

    so you got three points here, three negative points about chomsky and that makes him this ‘gatekeeper’ thing youve made up. but then – at the beginning there are more than three points you agree with him on. so why so negative about him ? this is a gross misrepresentation dripping with sarcasm ( which is not a good look ) and i just dont goddamn like it, but i do however love you and pretty much every single other one of your videos and podcasts (lots) which are such high quality and you are brilliant reporter and a brilliant mind. full respects. kris

  5. teal says:

    I am very, very happy to see someone defending Noam Chomsky, without whom the world would have been a poorer place. In the early days after 9-11, I agreed with his position that it was a waste of time to worry about “solving” that crime against humanity. Now I find myself morbidly fascinated by it, and, in keeping with ks’s worst fears, have wasted waaay too much time learning details that make no difference. I would be pleased to hear Chomsky say, “It was them what dunnit” – but realistically, rather than him inspiring thousands to investigate it, I think he would immediately be marginalized. To my mind, his demurral is justifiable.

    I do think he adequately qualified his comments about the Fed. I hope that we on the fringes are allowed to disagree about priorities once in a while. To label Chomsky as a gatekeeper is to foster divisiveness in a way that, ultimately, serves the Powers That Be. I realize that gatekeepers exist and are a serious problem, but their misinformation can be addressed without naming names, without mounting what appears to some to be a personal attack.
    In my opinion it is more important to put information out there than to focus on individuals. And even if Chomsky were consciously trying to protect the status quo (which I don’t believe), he would have contributed more to the debate than the vast majority of humans just by virtue of having produced this: “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.”
    Chomsky is, imo, in a league with Corbett.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top