Posted on 05/03/2005 8:14:36 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Dan Flynn discusses more than a dozen intellectual morons in his book, including Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Margaret Sanger, and Alfred Kinsey. Of all the figures discussed in Intellectual Morons, which one has had the more pernicious impact on our world and why?
My college education seems to have included a reading, at one time or another, of a who’s who of Dan Flynn’s intellectual morons. Whether it was the application of Michel Foucault’s sexual theories to Victorian literature, an exploration of Alfred Kinsey’s findings in psychology, or an all-star lineup of thinkers like Sanger, Friedan, or Du Bois in political theory, these elites constantly appear throughout higher education and contemporary politics. Of these thinkers and others, however, nobody’s influence seems to have been as destructive as that of the left’s demi-god, Noam Chomsky.
As the title of Flynn’s book suggests, "Intellectual Morons focuses on cognitive elites who embarrass themselves by championing idiotic theories, beliefs and opinions…Ph.D.s, high IQs, and intellectual honors are not antidotes to thickheadedness.”[1] For his own radical “thickheadedness,” Noam Chomsky has earned himself the reputation of America’s preeminent anti-American; to dismiss Chomsky as a fanatic outside of the political discourse, however, would greatly diminish his treacherous influence. Whereas “womyn” whose methods consist of eccentric rants devoid of any traditional values can be dismissed as radical feminists, or race demagogues who insist on race-bating can be recognized as such, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor has the benefit of power and prestige. Chomsky carries the distinction of being the most oft-quoted person on the planet, ranking with “Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities” of all time.[2] Liberals have hailed Chomsky as the “conscience of the American people”[3] and “a major scholarly resource” so important that “not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance.”[4] Even the “newspaper of record” identified Chomsky as “arguably, the most important intellectual alive.”[5] From what is no doubt a cushy tenured position at MIT, Noam Chomsky has garnered for himself the reputation as one of the radical left’s most globally-famous figures through decades of anti-American, anti-capitalism speech and slander.
As Flynn explains, Chomsky has left several devious legacies that have been absorbed into leftist and liberal political cultures.[6] One of Chomsky’s techniques involves equating greatly disparate crimes of ideological allies to those of ideological enemies in order to justify those allies’ actions or demonize the enemy. For example, after September 11, 2001, Chomsky famously equated the terrorist attacks to President Clinton’s bombing of Sudan in 1998,[7] furthering his own claim that America is naturally the aggressor and the world’s leading terrorist state. Further, Chomsky posits that all evil in the world results from the United States. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? America refuses to solve it. [8] Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda? America created the terrorist organization.[9] The first U.S. president, George Washington? A product of American propaganda.[10] Chomsky serves as the de-facto leader of “blame America first”, a philosophy hostile toward fostering national unity, useless for having forward-thinking discussions, and disinclined to work toward solutions for actual problems. Any selection of his political commentary showcases how he defends and excuses nearly every ideological enemy of the United States—including, but not limited to, regimes in Panama, Guatemala, China, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Sudan, and the Soviet Empire—and convicts any ideological allies of the U.S., particularly European democracies and Israel. Lastly, Flynn demonstrates how Chomsky manipulates facts and situations as he pleases in order to serve his causes. For example, the MIT academic states, “it’s pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn’t permit people to have guns.”[11] Unless if by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” Chomsky discusses the constitutional entitlement to birth certain anatomical limbs, the Second Amendment seems to “literally” and unmistakably convey the right of “people to have guns.” Then again, a distinguished professor of linguistics is probably better suited to explain how straightforward language should be construed to mean something completely opposite, and—for that matter—perhaps he should delve into what the definition of “is” is. Reality and the truth are relative to Chomsky, and therefore dependent on how they vindicate his theories; as such, his scathing judgments about America have never changed, but narrations and predictions are instead adapted to fit his ideologically-driven historical pattern.
As with each of Flynn’s intellectual morons, if Chomsky were some burned-out 60’s hippie, his nefarious theories would be harmless outside of those unfortunate people who meet him and consequently suffer retinal damage from uncontrollably rolling their eyes. But alas, Chomsky’s prominence ensures that rational Americans must deal with his anti-American theories, either in and of themselves, or as they have trickled down to various protestors, radical students, and others with sub-par cerebral capabilities. Chomsky has become a treacherous force by combining these tactics with his superstar persona and unrelenting effort to penetrate deeper into the political fray. While there is a distinction between the “left” and liberals in American politics,[12] what is most distressing about Chomsky is the ability to see how many of his arguments have been absorbed into the liberal political culture.
Chomsky’s rhetoric and theories provide the basis for much of the rhetoric and theories of the contemporary liberal movement. All in one breath, Chomsky denounces missile defense, the undermining of social programs, the destruction of the environment, and the lack of attention for health insurance so as to reward corporations and increase military power[13] in a manner that seems taken directly from Democratic playbooks. When Chomsky states, “the nicest thing you can say about Reagan is he may not have known what the policies of his administration were,”[14] the statement is eerily reminiscent of the way the media portrayed Reagan during his presidency, or the way George Bush is described now among liberals. Chomsky’s protests and elocutions concerning the Vietnam War could have been (and possibly were) spoken by Senator John Kerry; his denouncements of “imperialism” and the war in Iraq are matched by Senators like Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, as the latter stated that American troops are “part of the problem” in the Middle East; perhaps Dean’s “hate” for “Republicans and everything they stand for”[15] equals Chomsky’s abhorrence of all things American. These are statements of the leaders of America’s modern liberal movement, to say nothing of what one hears from less-tempered liberals found at universities, in demonstrations, or on the New York Times editorial board.
To be sure, none of these leaders has fallen to the level of Chomsky, and surely each is distinguished from him inasmuch as they want to work for a better America. However, the rhetoric and trends of liberals—particularly as an opposition party—provide cause for concern, especially as foreign policy has recently become more prominent. Of even greater concern is Chomsky’s fame among college students to whom anti-Americanism has never looked so chic; impressionable young minds often searching for political meaning may be the area where the professor can do the most damage on the future. The morphing of Chomsky’s leftist ideology and tactics into liberal politics—which is in turn accepted by millions as conventional liberal or Democratic doctrine—radicalizes and skews the political discourse. It is the compilation of these reasons and this legacy that earns Noam Chomsky, among all of his other accolades and distinctions, the designation of having the most malicious impact on the world of today and tomorrow.
List of referenced footnotes on web page.
http://www.yaf.org/publications/Contests/intellectual_morons.htm
BTTT!
Chomskey et al's intellectually deep political philosophy: Take money from person A, and give it to person B in return for political power. What's so complicated about that?
My vote's on Michael Foucault for sheer perniciousness. He gave moribund Marxist class theories new life and made an indelible smudge on liberal arts academia through the obscurantism of Postmodernism.
I am a socialist libertarian. That is, I believe that everything should be shared, but I don't want the government to do it; I want everyone to do it freely. And they will once they're all educated to see that Marx was right about everything except, as it turns out, the whole "revolution" part. You see, I was finally forced to admit that whenever there's a Marxist revolution, it turns into a massive bloodbath followed by a government that becomes more and more entrenched rather than "withering away" like it was supposed to. So we'll have to bring about the revolution by simply enlightening people that it's wrong to seek individual economic security and property ownership. Of course, I admit to being a massive hypocrite as I've feathered my own nest nicely and don't have the slightest inclination to give up 3/4ths of my salary and donate it to, say, the groundskeepers here at MIT to bring about equity in wages.
In a nutshell. Bravo. Great, concise analysis. Thanks for your comment, Bill!
Char :)
ping for coffee
You did a damn fine job - if Noam believes what you wrote, he has been damn successful in infecting a whole bunch of Seattlites with the same idea.
Immigrants who come to America with the dream of owning an SUV and a high definition TV will NEVER give a rat's ass about what Noam Chomsky thinks. As long as they come here legally, it's in our best intest to keep letting them in. They're our best defense against winding up like the Socialist Europeans.
You see, nobody wants to move to Europe. So the people who have lived there for scores of generations are more likely to sour on their own culture. I'm sure that there's lots of 10th generation Americans who have renounced Capitalism as well. I'm sure many of them are left wing college professors.
New blood prevents inbreeding and the intellectual deformities that it produces.
Elegantly phrased. You certainly have a point. It's just that we can't absorb millions per year, as we've been allowing for the past decade.
Char :)
BTTT!!!
Ghome Chumpski
Unfortunately, a lot of them come here with the dream of making "the rich" BUY them that SUV and HDTV.
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.