fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed
Is the suggestion here that what they are reporting on did not occur? What would be "not buying into it"?
deleted by creator
That he's a salaried agent or whatever is hyperbole, but the idea that he ultimately has served a propaganda purpose as the furthest acceptable left position in the US is something that predates the Epstein connections being revealed.
Plus that doesn't really change the fact that this is a new step in a series of escalating documented Chomsky and Epstein connections that have been revealed and that Chomsky has downplayed angrily when questioned about, the pattern suggests this probably isnt the full extent either.
Wether or not the WSJ is reporting on this as a way to attack the left, what would "not buying into it" mean in this case except to question or disprove the connections(something Chomsky himself has not convincingly done)? Can't exactly honestly suggest it should be ignored.
When questioned about it he said some shit about how "Epstein paid his time and we live in a free society so that's good enough. Like WTF
Ok but that's a teensy bit different from
It is, but someone yelling fed over and over as a probable joke isnt a reason to start scolding people for "buying into" this reporting as some sort of attack on leftists.
No I think it is. I've seen this shit play out too many times. In six months people are going to call manufacturing consent a psyop because all they know about what happened is "chomsky fed"
So whats the response here that is "not buying into" the WSJ reporting on financial connections between Chomsky and Epstein that Chomsky has attempted to conceal?
I think its more than a little weird to be more annoyed that someone would call Chomsky a fed over this rather than someone accusing people of "buying into" Chomsky having personal and financial connections to literally Jeffrey Epstein.
It's not "fed fed fed fed . . ."
Personally, I think all of this is an interesting window into how Epstein operated, built a vast network, ingratiated himself to people, and made sure to do favors and have dirt. But that's about all I can really say from what's there so far.
I think that's taking it very easy on Chomsky, since this isn't the first thing to have been revealed about him and Epstein, and at every step of the way he's deflected, downplayed and denied further connections.
He should be very aware of how having any connection to Epstein looks in his position, and if it really is incidental stuff that comes with being in those circles, then detailing it is really the only way to clear himself. And people clearly have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why would a book that is used to steer people away from opposition to US hegemony be likely to be consodered a psyop?
:hahaha:
whilst gnomes seminal work is useful in deciphering US propaganda, he is on a similar level to adam curtis in regards to what is acceptable within the overton window
he's probably not a fed, but this type of behaviour shows that he has more in common with the upper levels of society than the downtrodden
deleted by creator
He said Epstein helped him organize a talk with Ehud Barak, feels pretty fed adjacent at least
deleted by creator