View Full Version : Hanoi Chomsky

02-13-2003, 02:42 PM
A revelatory speech, hitherto yet unknown, which Chomsky gave in North Vietnam in 1970. A direct look into his true feelings and loyalties.


02-13-2003, 02:47 PM
funny i was just on frontpage.

david horowitz said peace protesters were 'fifth columnists' and a great danger to america.

somehow i doubt chomsky ever visited north vietnam but i am willing to believe it if you cite a more neutral source.

02-13-2003, 02:54 PM
Why don't you investigate a little more before forming instant opinions?

In fact, while there are many sincere protesters amongst the anti-war movement today, much of its leadership has indeed been hijacked by ultra-radicals: Ramsey Clark, one major leader, serves as legal counsel for Saddam Hussein at present, and is leading a campaign to impeach Bush.

The VERBATIM transcript of Chomsky has been confirmed, and even loosely admitted to by Chomsky himself. This thread isn't about the anti-war movement--that's in other threads. Can you say "on-topic" please?

02-13-2003, 02:58 PM
my point is that the author of your piece is on the record as calling peace protesters of today a 'fifth column'.

if you will provide another source for chomsky's visit to n.v. other than that article (and the book it references) then i will agree with you.

but just because some crazy right winger trashes chomsky thats not enough in itself to damn him.

also our president and staff were in business partnerships with saddam did u know that?

02-13-2003, 03:04 PM
READ HIS OWN WORDS--that's what the thread's about--and more detail on verification, including Chomsky's own response--is available in Hanoi Chomsky II.

Get past the "source" block, brad, and I think there's hope for you yet (by the way, there IS a fifth column in the anti-war movement--along with lots of genuine folk hoping for peace--but that's another thread please).

Just because a "biased" site prints an article doesn't mean you can dismiss the facts in the article or the article itself wholesale--especially when the facts are subject to, and appear to have been, confirmed.

02-13-2003, 03:09 PM
cant you provide even one more source (so far you have one, maybe two if you count the book but proably i think book shouldnt count as seperate one since its probably written by same group)?

is that too much to ask?

if i post a link to a site that says jews put blood in cakes and they quote a rabbi as saying its an ancient ritual 'in his own words', would u believe it?

02-13-2003, 03:13 PM
Read the damn article--both of them--they GIVE outside confirming sources---that's what you want, right??? jeez--how can you be so thick...

02-13-2003, 03:33 PM
'I first came across a quote from this speech in the book "DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the Sixties", by Peter Collier & David Horowitz. I had '

ok thats his own book. i think youd agree that doesnt count as an additional source.

'so I kept looking. I found the primary source in the book "POLITICAL PILGRIMS: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society", by Paul Hollander. Then '

ok maybe but like i said it could have been published by same guys.

'Then, with the irreplaceable help of Stephen Denney, an archivist with the UC Berkeley Indochina Center, I was able to obtain a transcript of the entire speech, which I have provided above.'

i looked on there but couldnt find it.


so as famous (or infamous) as chomsky is, those are the only sources in the entire world that chomsky even took a trip to n.v. during v. war?

to reiterate, this is the only time ive ever heard that chomsky traveled to n.v.

to me this level of documentation is not sufficient to support such a claim. it seems to me i would be able to find somewhere else the fact that a prominent anti war guy like chomsky visited north vietnam. (i mean i did search on google and stuff)

02-13-2003, 03:36 PM

'Turning to your correspondent, he couldn't have cited what I said on
radio, because I never spoke on Hanoi radio. I did mention Le Duan in
print, once, in an article reprinted in _At War With Asia_, 1970, one of

two that described a visit to Laos and North Vietnam, where I was
in the atrocities that your correspondent so admires. You can read them'

well i dont know it looks like he did visit n.v. but denies the speech but this is predicated on this being an accurate transcript copied off zmag.

maybe ill go to zmag and look it up.

Chris Alger
02-13-2003, 03:44 PM
Verbatim? Really? Radio Hanoi broadcast Chomsky in English although hardly anyone North Vietnam spoke English? Why then would the transcript (as opposed to translation) have come from the U.S. government? Is it inconceivable that the Hanoi government took certain liberties with the speech when it came to praising the Hanoi regime, which elsewhere Chomsky has criticized?

Chomsky's reply: "I know nothing of any speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30 years ago, or ever." He admits that portions of the speech are similar to things he was writing at the time, but most of those that have read most of his work believe that it doesn't "sound" like what he usually says (it's too effusive, for one, and he's usually detached and sardonic; and he's a bitter foe of Marxism-Leninism and state or non-libertarian socialism).


So where has he "loosely admitted" it? Never mind. Let's just point out that in order to attack someone who's published hundreds of articles, speeches and books about US foreign policy, they have to hang their hat on an "official" transcription of a foreign speech given 30 years ago that no one can remember him giving. How very persuasive.

02-13-2003, 03:53 PM
see this quote in Hanoi Chomsky II:

Chomsky's own personal reply to the question about whether he gave the speech confirms that he did say and write such things at the time: "The passage quoted is reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the time, touching on the very same topics..."

02-13-2003, 03:54 PM
'Chomsky's reply: "I know nothing of any speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30 years ago, or ever." '

whered u get that, i couldnt find it on the link you had.

02-13-2003, 03:59 PM
you keep quoting the same thing trying to legitimize it more and more.

if its an attack piece then its an attack piece. assuming they manufactured or lied about radio interview why would a quote in same article be any more honest or whatever.

having said that chomsky is for the UN and gun control and so is grey at best, but still i think his ideas are good if looked at critically.

02-13-2003, 04:06 PM
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=I+know+nothing+of+any+speech+broadcast+on +North+Vietnamese+radio+30+years+ago,+or+ever.&hl= en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=36ACFD11.6247%40columbia-center.org&rnum=2

The short answer is that I know nothing of any
speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30
years ago, or ever. Hence can't comment, any more
than if you asked me about a speech I gave over
BBC 30 years ago. The passage enclosed is
reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the
time, touching on the very same topics, which are
easily checked -- hence not discussed. On
returning from Laos and North Vietnam, I wrote
articles in the NY Review of Books -- mostly on
Laos, where I found out a lot more than in North
Vietnam, including a lot that was new, and that is
still mostly suppressed, so that material is never
discussed. This material is reprinted with some
extensions in a book that came out in 1970: "At
War With Asia" (Pantheon). Anyone who happens to
have an interest in what I had to say about these
topics at the time can easily discover it. End of

so it seems to me that if you really want to nail chomsky on your 'charges' then you have to look at his writings of the period and if they are similiar enough to the 'radio interview' then i guess you are right.

but in any case it is not cut and dried.

Chris Alger
02-13-2003, 04:06 PM
Go down unti you see the paragraphs starting with "Voiced support for Communists in Hanoi." There's a link to this response:


02-13-2003, 04:08 PM
thank you.

Chris Alger
02-13-2003, 04:21 PM
Indeed much of it sounds like him then, but certain phrases don't: "the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny."

This would be a rare bit of optimism for him. Anyway, exactly what in the speech do you find offensive? Do you dispute that North Vietnam was a target of unprovoked U.S. aggression? Do you think that anyone who believes this is a traitor? What's your point?

02-13-2003, 04:33 PM
I never claimed it was cut and dried, and I only said that it "appeared" to be confirmed. At any rate I'm glad you've allowed the possibility that it might be legitimate, rather than dismissing it all out of hand.

02-13-2003, 04:42 PM
"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.


i find that to be pretty offensive. of course when patriot act 2 passes after the next terror attack they can 'infer from his actions' that a US citizen renounced his citizenship and ship him overseas to be tortured and stuff so maybe the author of that (who is not chomsky btw) was right after all.

my guess is he attacked chomsky cause some of us were using his ideas in our arguments.

while i agree with chomsky on some things i disagree on others, like gun control.