Skip to comments.Noam Chomsky: Unhinged Nitwit
Posted on 03/24/2011 4:55:12 AM PDT by EllisWashingtonReport
For years I have followed the controversial career of Noam Chomsky, MIT professor of Linguistics and prolific writer on political philosophy. A self-described "libertarian socialist," in my view an oxymoronic political philosophy, he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power.
Fifty years since publishing his work on transformational grammar, "Syntactic Structures" (1957), Chomsky is viewed as a demigod among the progressive left and a demagogue to the conservative right. According to reconstructed '60s radical David Horowitz's definitive article on Chomsky, this MIT professor is the patron saint of "the legions of '60s radicals who have entrenched themselves in American universities to indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds. The New York Times calls Chomsky 'arguably the most important intellectual alive,' and Rolling Stone which otherwise does not even acknowledge the realm of the mind 'one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world.'"
His pioneering work in linguistics
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Just another communist trying to prove it works.
This nut refers to anyone who opposes big government as a “fascist”? Contradiction after contradiction.
I highly doubt that a world renowned linguist doesn’t know the meaning of the word “fascist”.
This guy isn’t stupid, he’s just an evil bastard who wants to be a god-like member of the communist elite.
Ain't that the truth. Let me count the ways starting with Van Jones, Anita Dunn and 0bama himself stating publicly and completely ignored by the press wants single payer healthcare.
Some reviews of his books at Amazon:
The Islamo-Fascists Murderers thank Professor Chomsky!, August 6, 2006
Reviewer: Raymond P. Keen - See all my reviews
Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing. His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S. and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the “underdog,” even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah.
Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the “overdog” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day.
Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State.
If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America.
God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money.
Agitprop from the master himself, February 16, 2006
Reviewer: Michael Hanson (Lansing, Il United States) - See all my reviews
Chomsky main failing in this work and it appears to be a recurring theme in his 40 year career as a propagandist, is he begins with a typical theory: America is bad and all that it does is bad, finds information to corroborate this through a creative process of distorting sources or failing to mention them all together, and ignoring anything that might deconstruct his theme. Despite Chomsky’s belief that Bin Laden’s attacks were driven by US foreign policy, all one has to do is go to the source, whom Chomsky believes can be taken at his word, to realize the goals of Bin Laden.
All actions taken by Bin Laden and his organization have this specific and narrow goal: to re-create the Islamic Caliphate that existed centuries ago and basing it on Shari’a. It is driven by a chauvinistic belief that “Dar es Harb” does not deserve its prosperity and “Dar es Salam” deserves to take its rightful place of power on the world stage. Realistically, the only thing standing in the way of the recreation of the Caliphate is the United States and the force it can project to prevent this, and that’s why Bin Laden believes it needs to be destroyed. One does not even have to stoop to Chomsky’s level of vile intellectual dishonesty to make this point, Bin Laden’s own words are very clear on this.
“the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan”
This is Bin Laden’s reason for 9/11, everything else from the Palestinian issue to Iraq, to Saudi Arabia is a pile on to garner him mainstream support, but his core ideology a, Shari’a governed Islamic Caliphate, is what motivates his backers, allies. and foot soldiers.
Chomsky confidence that he understands everything that motivated Bin Laden, is more a projection of his own beliefs, ideology and motivations for wanting to see America destroyed than Bin Laden’s motivations. Chomsky on September 11th is like someone who, upon hearing that Reagan was shot, immediately launches into a ten-minute tirade about the Contras, Cuba, Palestine, Vietnam (etcetera), only to be told that was all about Jodie Foster.
His analysis, if that’s what one could call this tripe, about Bin Laden also repeats the often told lie that Bin Laden was involved with the US during the 80’s in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were split into 6 different factions , three of which were hardliner Islamists : Islamic Party , Islamic society , Islamic Unity and three moderate factions : Islamic Revolutionary Movement , National Islamic Front , and National Liberation Front . None of these factions were led by Bin Laden and not all them were supplied by America, the hardliners were supplied by Pakistan , Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Don’t believe it, look up Rober Fisk’s interview with Bin Laden in 1988 where Bin Laden categorically denies that he took any assistance from the US during the Afghan Jihad.
If you want to know who Bin Laden is read Michael Scheuer, if you want to know what drives him, read Daniel Pipes, and if you want a poor alternative for toilet paper read Chomsky. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704878/posts?page=346#346
The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
by Keith Windschuttle
Theres a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they cant understand it.
Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003
Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the far more extreme terrorism of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomskys own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.
..The pathological narcissist imagines hes giving you milk when hes actually feeding you poop; in short, hes not a bountiful breast but a toxic a$$hole. Once you get a feel for this, you can really appreciate the ubiquity of the dynamic. Ever wonder how Noam Chomsky can be so prolific? Because the large intestine never sleeps. Likewise, mass culture is a sewer. Literally. ...”
Noam Chomsky: “GOP election victory amounts to ‘death knell for the human species’”
“Noam Chomsky, MIT professor of Linguistics and prolific writer on political philosophy. A self-described “libertarian socialist,” ..., he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power.”
..... Except, of course, in the case of the Khmer Rouge, whose industrious extermination of several million fellow Cambodian citizens was somehow “justified” in the contorted mind of this intellectual hypocrite and sophist.
Mr Chomsky will some day pass from this earth. May he be permitted to take the express lane to rejoin his comrade Howard Zinn in the lower precincts of Hell.
I went to see Noam Chomsky speak twice back in college in the 80’s. He made NO sense whatsoever. His topics were a hairball of complicated conspiracies, all going back to whoever was in the headlines at the time (usually Ronald Reagan). I realized even during those young years that guys like Chomsky can ONLY survive in universities. Otherwise, he would be living under a bridge somewhere
One of my lifes most fervent hopes is that I run into Mr. Chomsky one day. It'll be worth whatever sentence the Judge hands down.
Mohandas Gandhi is another such mentality:
".....The moral retardation of so many leftists just astonishes me. And it is literally retardation, for just as one may be mentally retarded but a decent person, one may be intellectually brilliant but a moral imbecile, as so many leftist professors prove (not that they're so brilliant, either). Violence is good or bad, depending entirely upon the uses to which it is put.
Which gives rise to an immediate corollary that even many religious people don't appreciate: that love can be good or bad, depending upon the use to which it is put -- or, to be more precise, the object to which the love is directed. For just as there is profoundly moral violence, there is profoundly immoral love, for example, the kind of corrupt and immoral love expressed by one of the most overrated human beings of all time, Mohandas Gandhi. Just as knowledge that knows falsehood is not really knowledge, love that improperly loves evil (for there are properly severe ways to love the evildoer) is a kind of hatred.
Regarding Gandhi's immoral pacifist-aggression, Richard Grenier notes that he wrote to Hitler and attempted to convert him to the ways of nonviolence. "'Dear Friend,' the letter begins, and proceeds to a heartfelt appeal to the Fuhrer to embrace all mankind 'irrespective of race, color, or creed.'" Gandhi naively thought that "Hitler's heart would be melted by an appeal to forget race, color, and creed, and... was sure the feelings of the Japanese would be hurt if they sensed themselves unwanted."
Yes, fighting fascists will only create more fascists! Until we kill all of them.
At a particularly dark time of the war, "when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, [Gandhi] wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: 'This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man....'"
In fact, The Great Soul also composed an open letter to the British people, "passionately urging them to surrender and accept whatever fate Hitler' had prepared for them": "Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds."
He also had good advice for the Jews, really no different than today's leftists who compare the fence to keep murderous Palestinian savages out to the wall that kept decent people from escaping communist tyranny:
"All Jews sitting emotionally at the movie 'Gandhi' should be apprised of the advice that the Mahatma offered their coreligionists when faced with the Nazi peril: they should commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for 'ages to come.' If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a 'rich heritage to mankind.'" Even after the war, when the unprecedented extent of the massacre became known, Gandhi callously insisted "that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly."
Could Gandhi be as stupid as Jimmy Carter? It's possible.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- "Gandhi's monstrous behavior to his own family is notorious." You'll have to read the article to find out how, but the point is how similar this is to the rank and foul Hollywood leftist, the kind of person who loves mankind but detests actual human beings. I am quite sure that this is one of the main appeals of radical environmentalism, because it allows the preening, self-absorbed narcissist to imagine he is a morally superior person merely by hectoring other people about their energy usage.
[snip] bttt On the Repressed Violence of the Nonviolent
Back when conservative leaders TOOK ON liberals.
I urge ANYONE who is interested to watch "Firing Line" interviews on youtube or you can buy DVDs of them on AMAZON for only $10.
Buckley was a GIANT in the conservative world, and I fear his intellect and boldness may be forgotten.
I think the building was finally torn down in the late 1990s.
For some reason I really like the descriptor: nitwit. In its own vague way it succinctly describes the pinhead chomsky.
I really think that the typical leftist believes that if they can’t understand what a person is saying, but that person uses big words, then they think that person is brilliant.
They don’t stop to think that true brilliance and communication skill is to be able to make things work and to be able to communicate in a way that most people can understand you.
Making hard subjects easy to for the majority to understand.
Honestly, it doesn’t say much about the intelligence of a leftist to concede that someone is smarter because they don’t understand them.
I'd like to see a simple explanation, such as when somebody finally
revealed why Larry Tribe was once held up as a "great"
constitutional scholar: It turned out that he was the last guy to
write a text book on the subject.
My question to you is: how did you manage to stay awake? I've tried to listen to Chomsky prattle on C-Span several times, and it's really a struggle to keep my lids open. Seriously, leftists, Chomsky etal, all have the same narrative: capitalists are evil, greedy bast...s who stole the money that the poor had amassed. Or they got to the big pile of wealth that just magically appeared and refused to share it with anyone. I've actually heard leftists argue those last two points.
Now their narrative is that there is a wealth gap (like there wasn't one before), and the rich have too much money. Unsaid is how much the so-called "unrich" have. There are millions of Americans, like my family, whose children grew up in poor families where several siblings now have wealth in the millions category. Not superrich, but very well off compared to their younger days.
You know as well as I do that there is a liberal, incestuous, love affair going on between liberals in academia and the literary world. I remember when I was a lot younger reading book reviews and other forms of literature where a particular lib would be awarded the genius label...by other liberals. When I finally realized that practically everyone in the literary world was a leftist-lib, it all made sense. That's why an idiot like Cornel West who spouts gibberish at every occasion is called a genius, and Thomas Sowell is virtually unknown to most Americans.
I miss William F. Buckley.
I'm convinced Chomsky's "success" (if that's what we'll call it) is from the fact that he speaks in measured tones, is grammatically correct, and can cite history. Each of his sentences on their own sound plausible. In sum - he learned early on to speak, and look like, an "academic."
His logic is absolutely convoluted though. Everything rests on completely unprovable leftist assumptions and the typical leftist cliches. In sum, his Leftism is his RELIGION.
You make an important point IMHO.
While individuals like Gandhi may have made historic achievements in their lives, it is important to keep in mind the fact that such accomplishments do not necessarily qualify them as infallible demi-gods whose every word on any subject must be taken as gospel wisdom.
I agree. Thanks for your comments!
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.