T Nation

Noam Chomsky Is an Idiot

Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.[/quote]

I would take what Chomsky (a jewish, marxist, anarchist, linguistics professor at MIT) says with more than a grain of salt. He is intellectually dishonest.

Interesting little Chomsky tidbit. Back in the early 80s I dated the daughter Harvard trained psychotherapist. Her father had a house on Avon Hill Street in Cambridge, a house on Marlborough Street (next door to the Atlantic Monthly magazine) in the Back Bay of Boston, and a “cottage” in Wellfleet on the Cape. The next door neighbor in Wellfleet was none other than Noam Chomsky. On Chomsky’s property lines were signs saying “No Trespassing - Private Property”.

Private property? Not very marxist of him.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/chomsky_anarchism_marxism.html

Chomsky is one of those that a particular type of person feels very intelligent about themselves, and they think others will be very impressed, from their citing him.

It helps define one as being part of a certain “in” crowd. One of those odd phenomena.

Isnt he one of the left’s poster children?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? [/quote]

Probably.

But then again, Dubya got elected twice in that great country of yours.

Challenging orthodox views is laudable.

But if you’re one of those inquisitors, I suggest you make it a criminal offense in the USA to go against the ‘two-party’ line.

Where?

He tries to balance the pervasive bias in the American media and establishment.

Because…he opposes Zionism?

Professor Chomsky is a Jew himself. Just not one of those that believe in the Chosen People crap.

[quote]He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it? [/quote]

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

Chomsky was (and still is) opposed to American interventionism. The Vietnam war killed millions of people, and American bombings of civilians areas was bound to give a bump to the popularity of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The US media were echoing Washington’s line, and it’s in that context that Chomsky wrote that piece. To claim lies or dishonesty without proof of voluntary deceit on his part is gratuitous slander.

This from the man using ad hominems (not to mention taking an ‘AP gov’t class’).

Chomsky is a world renowned scholar. He is an active dissident and a prolific writer. Considering him as infallible is as “stupid” as considering him an ‘idiot’ or ‘dishonest’. He is not an authority on The Truth, nor does he claim to be.

History is we know it, is not much of an exact science. Politics is obviously not something on which all people are going to agree. Find specific quotes that were used in your class and we can discuss their validity or lack thereof. But rejecting a prolific and insightful intellectual’s work on the basis that he ‘lies’ and is ‘an idiot’, says more about your lack of character than anything else.

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

I would take what Chomsky (a jewish, marxist, anarchist, linguistics professor at MIT) says with more than a grain of salt. He is intellectually dishonest.

Interesting little Chomsky tidbit. Back in the early 80s I dated the daughter Harvard trained psychotherapist. Her father had a house on Avon Hill Street in Cambridge, a house on Marlborough Street (next door to the Atlantic Monthly magazine) in the Back Bay of Boston, and a “cottage” in Wellfleet on the Cape. The next door neighbor in Wellfleet was none other than Noam Chomsky. On Chomsky’s property lines were signs saying “No Trespassing - Private Property”.

Private property? Not very marxist of him.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/chomsky_anarchism_marxism.html

[/quote]

Chomsky is typical of the liberal elitists: Do as I say, not as I do. Robert Kennedy, Jr. champions enviromentalism and wind power, yet went to court to stop windmills from being built near his home, fearing it would spoil the view. The list goes on. But they don’t want tax breaks! NO! When you get so effing rich…you can afford to be santimonious.

[quote]lixy wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot?

Probably.

But then again, Dubya got elected twice in that great country of yours.

He’s a historical revisionist

Challenging orthodox views is laudable.

But if you’re one of those inquisitors, I suggest you make it a criminal offense in the USA to go against the ‘two-party’ line.

who claims to search for truth.

Where?

He tries to balance the pervasive bias in the American media and establishment.

Seems to hold many anti semitic views.

Because…he opposes Zionism?

Professor Chomsky is a Jew himself. Just not one of those that believe in the Chosen People crap.

He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

Chomsky was (and still is) opposed to American interventionism. The Vietnam war killed millions of people, and American bombings of civilians areas was bound to give a bump to the popularity of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The US media were echoing Washington’s line, and it’s in that context that Chomsky wrote that piece. To claim lies or dishonesty without proof of voluntary deceit on his part is gratuitous slander.

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

This from the man using ad hominems (not to mention taking an ‘AP gov’t class’).

Chomsky is a world renowned scholar. He is an active dissident and a prolific writer. Considering him as infallible is as “stupid” as considering him an ‘idiot’ or ‘dishonest’. He is not an authority on The Truth, nor does he claim to be.

History is we know it, is not much of an exact science. Politics is obviously not something on which all people are going to agree. Find specific quotes that were used in your class and we can discuss their validity or lack thereof. But rejecting a prolific and insightful intellectual’s work on the basis that he ‘lies’ and is ‘an idiot’, says more about your lack of character than anything else.[/quote]

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

[/quote]

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?

[quote]lixy wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot?

Probably.

But then again, Dubya got elected twice in that great country of yours.

He’s a historical revisionist

Challenging orthodox views is laudable.

But if you’re one of those inquisitors, I suggest you make it a criminal offense in the USA to go against the ‘two-party’ line.

who claims to search for truth.

Where?

He tries to balance the pervasive bias in the American media and establishment.

Seems to hold many anti semitic views.

Because…he opposes Zionism?

Professor Chomsky is a Jew himself. Just not one of those that believe in the Chosen People crap.

He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

Chomsky was (and still is) opposed to American interventionism. The Vietnam war killed millions of people, and American bombings of civilians areas was bound to give a bump to the popularity of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The US media were echoing Washington’s line, and it’s in that context that Chomsky wrote that piece. To claim lies or dishonesty without proof of voluntary deceit on his part is gratuitous slander.

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

This from the man using ad hominems (not to mention taking an ‘AP gov’t class’).

Chomsky is a world renowned scholar. He is an active dissident and a prolific writer. Considering him as infallible is as “stupid” as considering him an ‘idiot’ or ‘dishonest’. He is not an authority on The Truth, nor does he claim to be.

History is we know it, is not much of an exact science. Politics is obviously not something on which all people are going to agree. Find specific quotes that were used in your class and we can discuss their validity or lack thereof. But rejecting a prolific and insightful intellectual’s work on the basis that he ‘lies’ and is ‘an idiot’, says more about your lack of character than anything else.[/quote]

This seems… reasonable.

[quote]Otep wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?[/quote]

Yeah. The one that the liberal idiots of the 1940s did not want us to be involved in, even after Pearl Harbor. The same people who were telling us not to “intervene” in Europe since Germany did not attack us (although they declare war on the U.S. most agree that in 1942 Germany was in no position to wage war against the US on US or neutral soil. I recommend you read a book. One not written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.[/quote]

I don’t know Zep, to dismiss him as a scholar because you find one of your peers annoying seems like a fallacy to me. His work, “Syntactic Structure” is pretty important to the field of lingustics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a6a_b-CXYAkC&dq

Say what you will about his politics his ideas about language are pretty influential.

However his groupies, if I may call them that, employ his name in matters having nothing to do with linguistics. For example, that seems likely to be the case with regard to this AP Government class.

The latter, I agree with you: undoubtedly he has been a very major figure in the field.

If someone employs his name with regard to linguistics, I wouldn’t assume for a second that that is out of being a groupie, name-dropping, feeling intelligent by using his name, etc. It would be on account of being entirely relevant and in fact being a relevant source.

But that almost undoubtedly wasn’t the case with regard to the OP’s question.

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
lixy wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot?

Probably.

But then again, Dubya got elected twice in that great country of yours.

He’s a historical revisionist

Challenging orthodox views is laudable.

But if you’re one of those inquisitors, I suggest you make it a criminal offense in the USA to go against the ‘two-party’ line.

who claims to search for truth.

Where?

He tries to balance the pervasive bias in the American media and establishment.

Seems to hold many anti semitic views.

Because…he opposes Zionism?

Professor Chomsky is a Jew himself. Just not one of those that believe in the Chosen People crap.

He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

Chomsky was (and still is) opposed to American interventionism. The Vietnam war killed millions of people, and American bombings of civilians areas was bound to give a bump to the popularity of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The US media were echoing Washington’s line, and it’s in that context that Chomsky wrote that piece. To claim lies or dishonesty without proof of voluntary deceit on his part is gratuitous slander.

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

This from the man using ad hominems (not to mention taking an ‘AP gov’t class’).

Chomsky is a world renowned scholar. He is an active dissident and a prolific writer. Considering him as infallible is as “stupid” as considering him an ‘idiot’ or ‘dishonest’. He is not an authority on The Truth, nor does he claim to be.

History is we know it, is not much of an exact science. Politics is obviously not something on which all people are going to agree. Find specific quotes that were used in your class and we can discuss their validity or lack thereof. But rejecting a prolific and insightful intellectual’s work on the basis that he ‘lies’ and is ‘an idiot’, says more about your lack of character than anything else.

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.
[/quote]

Bad thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWI.

How interesting: it is not your country, which ignited the whole conflict, that is to blame for the outcome of WWI – it is the United States.

Of course.

Why didn’t I realize it?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Say what you will about his politics his ideas about language are pretty influential.[/quote]

I don’t care about his ideas wrt to language I care about:

"The Lie: ?This [9/11] is certainly a turning point: for the first time in history the victims are
returning the blow to the motherland.?191

The Truth: The terrorists were not ?victims? of America before 9/11: they had already tried

to kill 250,000 Americans in the World Trade Center and they had massacred hundreds in
their attacks on American targets in Kenya, Tanzania and elsewhere.192"

"The Lie: ?They [i.e., the terrorists] are carrying out enormous atrocities in response to the real
atrocities for which we?re responsible and which continue to this day? It may matter little to
us here, and virtually no one in the West cares. But that doesn?t imply that it doesn?t matter to
the victims.?193

The Truth: They commit enormous atrocities because they are totalitarian fanatics.194 Islamic
extremists have committed mass murder in Muslim countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq and
Sudan, and in non-Western countries such as India and the Philippines."

“The Lie: ?It is acceptable to report the ?collateral damage? by bombing error, the inadvertent
and inevitable cost of war, but not the conscious and deliberate destruction of Afghans who
will die in silence, invisibly ? not by design, but because it doesn?t matter, a deeper level of
moral depravity? People do not die of starvation instantly. They can survive on roots and
grass, and if malnourished children die of disease, who will seek to determine what factors lie
in the background??202
The Truth: America had been the largest supplier of food to Afghanistan for a decade and
provided two-thirds of food aid after 9/11, saving the country from famine.203 The UN Global
Ambassador on Hunger wrote that there was ?no starvation this winter in Afghanistan,?
thanks to ?a humanitarian assistance budget wisely provided by the Bush administration.?204
The head of the World Food Program in Kabul said that ?it was clear that a possible famine
had been averted.?205
198”

"The Lie: ?I have already mentioned the devastation of Iraqi civilian society [by US-backed
sanctions], with about 1 million deaths, over half of them young children, according to reports
that cannot simply be ignored.?212

The Truth: Genocide scholar Milton Leitenberg pointed out: ?All alleged post-1990 figures
on infant and child mortality in Iraq are supplied by the Iraqi government agencies.?213 Iraq denied UN requests to admit independent experts to assess living conditions.214 Post-invasion,
Iraqi doctors denounced the ?propaganda campaign,? stating that ?sanctions did not kill these
children ? Saddam killed them? their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the
government.?215"

Want more? I have at least 200 and I’ve even checked some of the sources.

I don’t disagree with all his politics, but he most definately not honest enough be be considered a reliable source.

"The Lie: ?Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered tens of millions of people,
or that he ?intended? that any die at all.?20

The Truth: Mao spoke of sacrificing 300 million people, or half of China?s population. He
warned that the policies he later adopted would kill 50 million people. Grain exported by the
communists was sufficient to feed the numbers who starved to death, which they privately
estimated at 30 million.21"

"The Lie: ?There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China;
one also finds many things that are really quite admirable? [In China] a good deal of the
collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place
after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.?16

The Truth: The communists reduced 550 million peasants to slavery. They forced at least 90
million to work on furnace-building projects alone. When famine resulted, they cut the food
ration and used mass terror to stop the peasants eating their own harvest. Victims, including
children, were tortured, buried alive, strangled or mutilated.17"

"The Lie: ?[Regarding] China?s actions in Tibet? it is a bit too simple to say that ?China did
indeed take over a country that did not want to be taken over.? This is by no means the general
view of Western scholarship.?12

The Truth: The Chinese invasion provoked massive popular uprisings. Mao welcomed the
Tibetan resistance because it could be crushed by force. State terror and man-made famine
had killed up to 500,000 Tibetans by the mid-1960s.13"

"The Lie: ?Internal [Soviet] crimes abated [after 1945]; though remaining very serious they
were scarcely at the level of typical American satellites, a commonplace in the Third World,
where the norms of Western propriety do not hold.?5

The Truth: In 1947, the Soviets withheld food from famine victims, causing up to 1.5 million
deaths.6 During 1945-53, there were over 300,000 officially recorded deaths in the Gulag; by 1953, the slave population exceeded 5.2 million.7 No American satellite ? whether in Europe
or in Latin America ? was guilty of anything even remotely comparable."

"The Lie: ?Western norms require that we compare Eastern and Western Europe to
demonstrate our virtue and their vileness, a childish absurdity? Elementary rationality would
lead someone interested in alternative social and economic paths to compare societies that
were more or less alike before the Cold War began, say Russia or Brazil? Such comparisons,
if honestly undertaken, would elicit some self-reflection among decent people??3

The Truth: In Russia, Lenin?s food confiscations inflicted famine on over 33 million people,
including 7 million children, and left 4-5 million dead; Stalin?s assault on the peasants killed
another 8.5 million, half of them children.4 Brazil experienced nothing of the kind."

anyone willing to argue?

A proper extreme leftist has a love affair, an intense love affair, with any who are leftist dictators, murderous dictators, enemies of America, or any combination of the above. Therefore all of Chomsky’s statements are completely explainable as those of a love-besotted individual.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
How interesting: it is not your country, which ignited the whole conflict, that is to blame for the outcome of WWI – it is the United States.

Of course.

Why didn’t I realize it?[/quote]

We declared war on Serbia after they killed our heir to the throne, the mechanics of the treaties that lead to the great European war was set in place long before.

Insofar all five great European powers royally fucked up and Austria-Hungary was one of them, yes.

That however does hardly mean that the US entering WWI was a good thing and that was all that I posted.

And yes, without the US we would have won the war and since that would very likely have prevented WWII and the Holocaust that would probably have been a good thing.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant man who makes a lot of good points in many of his books. He’s certainly not an idiot… just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he’s stupid.

You guys sound like fourth graders.

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
Otep wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?

Yeah. The one that the liberal idiots of the 1940s did not want us to be involved in, even after Pearl Harbor.

The same people who were telling us not to “intervene” in Europe since Germany did not attack us (although they declare war on the U.S. most agree that in 1942 Germany was in no position to wage war against the US on US or neutral soil. I recommend you read a book. One not written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. [/quote]

That’s not true. I think only one person voted against a declaration of war against Japan, and our “liberal idiot” president had been helping England with everything short of sending troops until Pearl Harbor.

Many wars in Europe have been looked at as “Just another European war” up to that point, and I think that the majority of people did not want to be involved in a war again so quickly after the carnage of WWI.

I recommend you read a book. And make sure it’s right side up this time.