|4||charles 2001-11-10 08:01:27|
warren writes:i would love to see other examples of totalitarian "intellectuals."
Chomsky, Zinn, Sontag, just off the top of my head. Please note; I didn't say they were totalitarian themselves. (Although I shudder to think what might happen if Noam were to somehow gain real political power.)
Sorry if the term "intellectual" didn't meet with your approval. How about "over-educated, over-privileged, megalomaniacal academics writing outside their fields of expertise?"
|294||Charles 2009-04-25 21:11:07|
re: #291 jmmejzz
Point taken but their seems to be a wide variety of titles for sale from paratrooper songs, Jewish heroes in German history, to 4 Noam Chomsky titles, to how incompetent the CIA is to how the CIA was behind 9/11. Stereotyping is a risky business.
"Stereotyping?" This is a joke, right? Or maybe you missed the dozens and dozens of links to other evidence of Manfred Rouhs' Nazi associations in this thread, and in the other posts on the subject?
|4||charles 2001-10-25 07:24:16|
Wow. Did you think that piece would change my mind?
Sorry, Mike, but I couldn't even finish it. Nobody denies that Chomsky is an intelligent man, but the most "lucid" thing about him is his agenda: to portray the US as the world's greatest source of evil, and Israel as the second greatest.
I don't have time to really take this piece apart, but it's so full of straw men and non-issues and distractions that I'll quote two right near the start:
Quote:Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts. The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned.
This statement is so obviously untrue that I believe Chomsky is deliberately lying here. I have never seen so much discussion of the reasons behind Islamic extremism, in the popular press, the alternative press, television, radio, weblogs, people on the street, everywhere. I see the US making a great effort to understand. Chomsky's disdain for the great unwashed is obvious, but it's a completely phony argument, and I think contemptible.
Chomsky makes numerous omniscient-sounding references to "US mistakes," when what he's really talking about are complex issues that aren't so easily broken down into his either-or polemics. And in doing so he exposes his biases most nakedly. Example:
Quote:Like others in the region, [bin Laden] is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year...
The truth is that before his recent statements, Bin Laden evinced absolutely no interest in the plight of the Palestinians. But this doesn't stop Noam the godlike one from evoking his other favorite theme. Notice the subtle use of the term "brutal military occupation." If you believe the situation in Israel can be reduced to such simple terms, with no context or history, then we'll have to agree to disagree here.
|2||charles 2001-10-21 08:45:11|
You don't have to be a Falwell follower to be disturbed by Chomsky's moral equivalency, and to feel that his flat statement that the US is a "terrorist" state is unjust.
He was/is a great linguist. But his politics have always been offensive to me (and to lots of other people, I think). His statements have always seemed more like deliberately outrageous publicity grabbing stunts, clever intellectual constructions that use any issue at hand to justify tirades about "US crimes," a theme he returns to over and over and over, ad nauseam.
I don't find Chomsky "lucid, informed, and transparent." Not at all; I see him as incredibly biased, almost obsessed. And in our present circumstances, pretty damned irrelevant.