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.
I should have been more specific.
Within his own discipline, Chomsky's theories are largely discredited, but a disproportionate amount of time and effort are spent studying his work.
But among generic academics and collegians, the vast majority of whom only have a vague idea about linguistics as a science, Chomsky is seen as a great mind from an area so much more intellectually intimidating than their own field, which is usually polisci, lit or "cultural studies."
BUMP for later
Chomsky ia one of the most boring speakers I have ever heard. Slow, no emotion - probably why some take him more seriously than they should.
In regards to Afghanistan, Chomsky stated (before the troops arrived) that millions of Afganies would die of starvation. He was wrong, as usual, without a scratch on his reputation by the fawning radicals that follow his every word.
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.
***
Okay, that's two out of how many? But even those are suspect. I feel bad for the East Timorese, but how did that harm the U.S.? And I suspect his beef with the NY Times was that they were too conservative. So I guess you could file them under Broken Clock Right Twice A Day.
"How much education does it take to make a person stupid enough to believe him?
I wouldn't be bragging about a college degree these days."
***
God are you ever right! Fr. John Neuhaus likes to say "What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?"
The laws of physics keep that from happening-- it's a matter of density.
;^) ;^)
Chomsky's books are for those who didn't find Marx's writing to be boring enough.
>> It's hard to believe that some people buy into this character's evil thoughts. Last week (think it was Friday) some 19 year old female named Michaela called Sean Hannity and immediately launched into a diatribe quoting Chomsky as she went. Sad to say, Sean gave her and her father about half an hour of his valuable air time. One of the few things that I criticize Hannity about is his penchant for being overly fair to people with radical ideas.
Absolutely. My wife and I became so angry with Sean's accomodation with that nutcase (and her so-called 'father') we turned the radio off and missed the remainder of the program. In fact, we have done that on several occasions where Sean became too 'diplomatic' with left-wing psychotics.
---My sister fell for this evil Pied Piper long ago.---
I can remember being mystified by Chumpsky's magic show. For instance: the reason news is propaganda in this country is that we're all following the leader, the reason news isn't propaganda in totalitarian countries is that they're all following the leader.
My best friend handed her mind over to this minion of evil--any one want to compare common denominators?
You can't debunk any of their hero's...the extreme left is not wired for truth.
---Since the 1960s, when he parroted Vietcong propaganda and ignored mass executions, Chomsky's star has continued to rise.---
Rather like that Kerry fellow!
My daughter was taking an english class at our community college and tried to stick it out. The reading list featured Chomsky and the like, with no balance of right wing authors. She finally quit in disgust. Whe has finished two years there and lacks a degree because she dropped this course. Talk about indoctrination, how can an English professor get away with this? His English course was essentially a bullypulpit for his left wing agenda. This is what passes for education in broome county. Thank goodness she is squarely right wing conservative and Republican -- we raised her right.
Or they would repeat Sean's question back to him verbatim, with an "excuse me?" tone at the end. Particularly the daughter, she clearly had never had anyone challenge her core beliefs before - all she could say to Sean in response was to mockingly say "Wow! Isn't it interesting that I'm 19 years old and I'm making you mad!"
The knucklehead father reminded me of John Walker's father - remember the "American Taliban"? His father said that he'd let his son explore ideas on his own - everything is relative, don-cha know. No clear-cut right vs. wrong. Look what happened to the kid.
"You can't debunk any of their hero's...the extreme left is not wired for truth."
Boy you got that right. What I see as a consistent trait between my sister and her lefty-loosey comrades is that they want a soapbox to stand on, something to make them look important and apart from the rest of us, and this intellectual blowhard gives them just what they think will prove their own higher intelligence by agreeing with him.
"Back where I come from we have Universities, seats of learning where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts, and with no more brains than you. But they do have one thing you haven't got: a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the power invested in me by the Universitatas Committiatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer unto you the honorary degree of Th.D....that's, uh, Doctor of Thinkology".
How can I ever thank you enough?"
"Well you can't."--The Wizard of Oz
When the worker's paradise collapsed the left lost all legitmacy in terms of offering hope to mankind. The only thing they have is hatred of America (the strongest and purest manifestation of Western Civilization) and mass graves. So they have done what lefties always do when they are caught red-handed, they say "well everybody does it" or "both sides are equally guilty".
"The Soviets killed millions but whites stole the land from the Native Americans." Now we all are supposed to be ashamed of ourselves and hang our head low. What they won't do is put the story in correct context. At that time, if a population could take land from another it did. That didn't go out of fashion until America became the baddest dude on the block. If we hadn't taken the land from the Indians, the Japanese or the Russians or the Mexicans or the Canadians or the French or the Britsh... you get my drift. Then we might have had a hostile power on our western borders.
The whole story just doesn't fit into the "America is evil" propaganda, so they conveniently leave it out.
Yup--Chomsky is on the losing side of the age-old battle of Good vs Evil, and he's taking as many as he can with him.
Any info out there?
bttt
Chomsky thinks everyone everywhere is to conservative. Nader is more of a moderate to him.
One of the things people don't get about Chomsky is that he really is a warmonger who talks the pacifist talk.
If he had his way, we'd be invading every country on gods green earth and imposing socialist/communist systems, he would still blast us as being evil, but would (after stripping the military bare of course) involve us in every hell hole conflict on earth for "humanitarian" reasons.
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.