The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky (Part I & II)

Front Page Magazine ^ | October 2001 | By David Horowitz

[VetoBill]

I love the fiction involved in Chomsky like deconstruction methods.

Perhaps someone talented enough here could present Noam's rise to his MIT position, his writing methods, and his supporters in the same light he uses against America.

I wonder how he would like his methods used on him.

Sometime along this line

The following is my opinion only and meant as a parody

After all this is nothing more than Chomsky's attempt at suppressing other liberal writers; to embolden his ego, increase his fame, destroy rivals legitimate questions, and increase sales of tapes and literature, after creating a one man hegemony, that herds the populace into consuming his mass produced literature while blinding the same to other valid or alternative viewpoints.

[antivenom]

Thanks for the PING...was duly bookmarked...Oct 18 marked on calandar...

[tcostell]

I'm sorry, I don't think much of Noam Chomsky either, but what exactly is a "libertarian socialist" according to you?

In my mind that's like calling someone an "athiest christian".

[general_re]

I'm sorry, I don't think much of Noam Chomsky either, but what exactly is a "libertarian socialist" according to you?

Not that CJ needs my help, I'm sure, but unfortunately you'll have to ask Chomsky himself what the hell a "libertarian socialist" is - that is, believe it or not, how he refers to himself. If you have the stomach for it, you can read about the "precepts" of "libertarian socialism" here...

[tcostell]

OK, I get it, he's trying to promote marxism without the centralized planning and politicized authority that comes with it.

I guess the idea of individual liberty is appealing to him, so long as everyone is free to agree with his positions.

And if not, I guess it's the gulag.

Thanks guys.

[general_re]

Somebody up the thread referred to it as an oxymoron - I myself prefer just plain old "moron" when talking about Chomsky ;)

[EveningStar]

ping

[jejones]

Now, now--bogus as Chomsky's political writings are, he's far from a moron. In other threads you claim knowledge of computing, so surely you're aware of his work in formal language theory, which has been the basis of a great deal of software. (You have it to thank for most current programming languages being easier to parse than, say, FORTRAN or COBOL, whose design wasn't influenced by formal language theory and whose syntax is perverse and irregular. For that matter, I've seen people say they wish that Stroustrup had used a parser generator when he wrote cfront, so that perhaps C++ wouldn't be the ghastly mess it is now to parse.)

This seems to happen to some people who do outstanding work in one field--they turn into crackpots in another field. Vide Chomsky, Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson, Isaac Newton. Even Joseph Weisenbaum, whose contributions are mediocre compared to the above list, went off the deep end into anti-AI rants.

[general_re]

I know, I know - I just couldn't resist the pun ;)

You have it to thank for most current programming languages being easier to parse than, say, FORTRAN or COBOL, whose design wasn't influenced by formal language theory and whose syntax is perverse and irregular.

How quickly we forget John Backus's important and independent work in formal languages ;)

[EveningStar]

In the unlikely event you have not already read this... :)

[jejones]

How quickly we forget John Backus's important and independent work in formal languages ;)

Yeah, but...to quote a biography of Backus,

After FORTRAN, Backus turned his focus to other elements of computer programming. In 1959, he developed a notation called the Backus-Naur Form.

What a difference it would have made had it been the other way around! (DO 100 I = 1.10, anyone?)

[general_re]

What a difference it would have made had it been the other way around!

Ah, but you see, that's the mark of true intelligence - learning from one's mistakes. Unlike Chomsky, who's been making the same mistakes for thirty years now ;)

[GummyIII]

Great articles, eh? These have been posted before, but we need to be reminded, I think! If one isn't aware of what this man is, do a search for all the articles on the atrocities of this man on FR.... ( this will get one started). Thanks for the heads up.

[EveningStar]

I posted this on other boards. It appears that Chomsky does have a few libertarian/Libertarian supporters. Bizarre.

[Ridgeway]

About Gehlen.

Gehlen was not a Nazi, and he was not head of Nazi intelligence in Eastern Europe. He was commisioned in the Reichmar of the Wermacht in 1937. The Nazi's sure were the political party controlling Germany, but the Wermacht, which still shares responsible for the horible condition of the German state and World War 2, had it's allegiance to Germany. The Abwehr(which tried to assinate Hitler in 1944, and whichw as subversive throughout the war)was it's intelligence agency. The Waffen SS was independent of the Wermacht and had it's allegiance not to Germany but to Hitler. For example only after the July 20th 1944 Bomb Plot to kill Hitler, did Wermacht soldiers start the "Heil Hitler" thing, before it was just the traditional right hand military salute. Gehlen was never in the SS' intelligence agency in Eastern Europe, but he was in the Abwehr, which like I said was the Wermacht's intelligence agency. Gehlen was not a Nazi, period. He was also not head of "...Nazi Intellingence in Eastern Europe...", he was head of German Intelligence in Eastern Europe. Sure the Wermacht was subject to propaganda and the orders fromthe Nazi's but they were not ideologues, just soldiers.

You have to seerate the Wermacht from the SS,they were two entirely different armies and had different intelligence agencies. One fought for Germany, the other for Hitler, plain and simple. Both are toblame in history for the war,but please make the designation.