Posted on 07/19/2004 10:36:51 AM PDT by To Hell With Poverty
Give Noam Chomsky credit for consistency. For nearly half a century, he has unfailingly praised the world's most brutal totalitarian regimes, even as he has slandered democracies. In 1970, Chomsky — a leading opponent of the Vietnam War — visited North Vietnam and wrote admiringly of the "high degree of democratic participation at the village and regional levels." The Hanoi leadership he termed "flexible and intelligent." Later in the 1970s, reports of the Khmer Rouge's bloody atrocities surfaced; the MIT linguistics professor dismissed them as products of "the U.S. propaganda system."
Chomsky has become one of the all-stars of the radical Left because he embodies that distinct vitriolic passion, the paranoia of the self-hating Westerner. He reserves his criticism mainly for America and Israel. The Middle East might achieve peace, he tells us, if not for Israel's commitment to "Jewish dominance throughout the region"; he references the "genocidal texts of the Bible" as sources of this Zionist drive for imperial rule. It's not too surprising that neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers are among his supporters.
His approach to current events is rife with bias and distortion. After 9/11, for example, he asked: "Why did [the terrorists] turn against the United States? Well, that had to do with what they call the U.S. invasion of Saudi Arabia.... That's the home of the holiest sites of Islam." Never mind that the Saudis welcomed U.S. aid in defending against Saddam Hussein's 1990 aggression. Chomsky also avoids mentioning the homicidal intent articulated by America's Islamist enemies. His recommendation to America for ending global terrorism: "Stop participating in it."
Chomsky's words fall on receptive ears, particularly on liberal campuses across the nation. His influence is pervasive, and a systematic rebuttal is long overdue. It has now arrived: The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a masterpiece of Chomsky debunking. Editors Peter Collier and David Horowitz have assembled a collection of nine essays (by nine writers) refuting the aging professor's wildest claims.
"Today, as throughout his long career," writes Collier, "America's peril is Chomsky's hope." After terrorists murdered thousands of American civilians on 9/11, Chomsky fretted about a predicted "silent genocide" caused by U.S. retaliation in Afghanistan. He remains "committed to the idea that America had it coming for a history of misdeeds stretching back at least to 1812, the last time foreigners attacked the homeland, but really to 1492, where the nightmare began," according to Collier.
In an essay on the Vietnam War, Steven J. Morris of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins analyzes Chomsky's view of American imperialism. The U.S. effort in Vietnam, Chomsky alleged, was part of a "long-term effort to reduce Eastern Asia and much of the rest of the world to part of the American-dominated economic system"; anti-Communism was merely a convenient device for garnering support for the war. But, as Morris points out, Chomsky's contention was at odds with the facts. Chomsky's willingness to whitewash the Vietnamese Communists as earnest, idealistic peasants — as well as his studied avoidance of the terms "Leninist" and "Stalinist" — demonstrates that he was unwilling to face important truths about the ideological dimension of the Vietnam conflict.
In an essay on "Chomsky's War Against Israel," Paul Bogdanor contrasts Middle East reality with Chomsky's reverence for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. It is "quite clear," wrote Chomsky in The Fateful Triangle (1999, foreword by Edward Said), that the PLO "has been far more forthcoming than either Israel or the U.S. with regard to an accommodationist settlement." Chomsky ignores the inconvenient truth that the PLO's charter still calls for "the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, militarily, politically, culturally, and intellectually." Meanwhile, the bloody outbursts of PLO terrorists continue. Chomsky passes over these atrocities and points the finger at Israel, which, he says shares "points of similarity" with the Third Reich.
Since the 1960s, when he parroted Vietcong propaganda and ignored mass executions, Chomsky's star has continued to rise. Supporters of a freedom-based global order must contend with this intellectual spinmeister for hearts and minds around the globe. The Anti-Chomsky Reader performs a service to the whole world, by exposing Chomsky as one of the most damaging charlatans ever to ride the wave of campus adulation.
Chomsky's book on 9/11 was required reading for an American Politics class at my university as of last year. This guy still has tremendous sway amongst the collegiate intelligensia and his propaganda is still a valuable tool of indoctrination for them.
One of the few things that I criticize Hannity about is his penchant for being overly fair to people with radical ideas.
But then, I remember being an idiot myself when I was about that age. Guess she's just as entitled to idiotic thoughts as I was.
Sean or anyone else confronted with a Chomsky-ite can defuse them with one simple question:
In the endless predictions Chomsky has made, what was he ever right about?
I heard that Hannity segment too - the girl's father was just as nutty. Makes me think the fruitcake didn't fall too far from the tree...
It is this academic credibility which earned him the kind of fawning respect from people who should know better. He is no Abbie Hoffman - he is a well-published PhD.
It's interesting that academics who disagree with his linguistic research and the "Minimalist Program" that he has articulated to support it, are frightened to challenge his linguistic work because they know his political influence on campus may hurt their careers.
The girl (and the father) had the typical emotional 'warble voice' of a liberal.
As if they were about to break into tears.
In believing they are right,
and that there is only one way to think,
one truth,
The shock of having someone say "Nope, I don't agree" is more than they can handle.
My son had a one semester intro to Psych course at his (non public) high school last winter and of all things there was an entire section praising Chomsky. Now, I have a minor/near major in Psych, so I expected to see familiar names from that time period. None. Just Chomsky. I did mention it to the teacher at conference time. He wasn't too pleased.And my son, already familiar with Chomsky and his 'views', heard more of my opinion and also the facts about Chomsky and how he continues to poison minds in our society. It's little wonder that the college's are so radically liberal.
Anti-Chomsky bump
I have always viewed Chomsky's career with a mixture of wonder and disgust - he's a seminal linguist who has parleyed a gift for debate and a penchant for off-the-wall conspiracy theories into a career in nutjob politics, a field in which he has otherwise never shown any particular facility. I can see a certain entertainment value in watching someone with a talent for getting a rise out of one's political opponents - that appears to be Michael Moore's sole attraction - but that's a long, long way from serious intellect. What a waste.
Add to that the fact that many can do no more than quote word for word (almost cultlike) the 'teachings' of their esteemed ones. Don't ask for opinions or critical thinking. They can only quote. No independent thinking allowed. And that's what the socialists are counting on.
And of course, (I never tire of this!) if you do disagree or ask them to explain, you get the famous whine, "You just don't get it....". (It's almost too easy and fun, too.)
I hope the writers chronicle well the gaseous nature of his melodies. As to what impact the truth and facts will have on his lemmings, well, they were not following truth or fact to begin with so........my bet is they will just close the door and breathe deeply.
The danger lies not with the bubblemeisters in our midst, but in the pandemic of emotionally anemic people that are willing to supplant truth, logic, history and objectivity to inhale spheres of sophistic solace.
Here is my take on it (from observing a couple of super-libs in a group of mine).
By 'caring' about the rest of the world, they don't have to get their hands dirty by caring for people right here, up close and personal.
Like the chick I know who is all about human rights violations in third world countries. But when I ask her if she will volunteer at the local nursing home, she looks shocked and horrified.
She might actually have to see suffering first hand, poor thing. >8<
At the university I attended back in the '70s I actually saw the opposite happening. At that time, Chomsky's "Generative Syntax" theory was being replaced by "Generative Semantics". I was minoring in theoretical linguistics at the time and remember my professors complaining that Chomsky was fighting against any theories that were an improvement on his own.
He still is.
Geez Mobilemitter you gotta way with words. Gave me a good guffaw!
My tagline says it all.
He was right when said that the policy of Ford and Carter aiding the Indonesian Moslims slaughtering the East Timorese Christians was an evil policy that would come back to bite us. He was right to point out that the liberal media, the NYT in particular was manipulating the news.
Chomsky used to be a little unpredictable, but in recent years he has just turned "bitchy". E.g., his response to a well reasoned argument of Chris Hitchens was to call him an alcoholic, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.