Noam Chomsky: GOP Is "Literally A Serious Danger To Human Survival"

If Chomsky thinks that the frontrunners on the republican ticket are GOP establishmentarianists... Well... Heh... His position is somewhat amusing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievements.2C_awards.2C_and_honors

"Academic achievements, awards, and honors

"By 2005, Chomsky possessed around thirty honorary degrees, awards, and prizes.[258] In early 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town,[259] in 2011, the Rickman Godlee Lecture at University College, London,[260] and many others.[261]

"Chomsky has received honorary degrees from many colleges and universities around the world, including from the following..."

Why would you not pay attention to arguably the most most important public intellectual alive?

 

Gnome Chumpsky - the same guy who says "there is no such thing as the New World Order.

Gnome - the police are more dangerous too, boy local LA news channels REALLY buried a story about Sheriff Lee Baccas Dept. had a little database of fabricated charges and prosecutions done by him and his officers NBC News reported last year. The police would take suspects and fabricate charges from a database and prosecute innocent people! This link only scratches the surface, it was buried and the news reports failed to directly connect Bacca but it was looking REALLY bad.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-county-sheriff-corruption-scandal-20150514-story.html



http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-grand-jury-20150111-story.html

 

An "Honorary degree" doesn't amount to a bucket of warm spit. If I want to read about economics, I'll read it from the view point of an economist, not a linguist. He talks about things he has no training for because people like you then heap praise on him, well if he worked on what he was actually trained in only about a dozen people would know his name. So NO I don't have anymore of a reason to pay attention to a linguist about economics or politics, then I would asking a biologist about astronomy or paleontology.

 

Chomsky is a loony radical on the far, far left. No one takes him seriously.

How foolish to quote him.

 

No, he doesn't. he still blames the US for a man who was a lifelong Communist and whose road to power was prepared by North Vietnam and China. They armed him, they paid his bills and Nth Vietnam destroyed the Cambodian military for him. What was Chomsky doing while this was going on? Making propaganda visits to Nth Vietnam while it occupied the soil of Laos & Cambodia (something it had been doing since the late 50s). Anyone stupid enough to believe his crocodile tears for the fate of Cambodia shouldn't be on the net without adult supervision.

Chomsky should apologize for teaching generations of leftists that not only is lying OK in a 'good' cause, but that it isn't even lying. It is clear that if he ever knew the difference he has long since lost the ability to tell & so have legions of Chomskybots. They are a cancer within progressivism & one that undermines much of the good it can do by robbing it of a moral centre.

Chomsky should be shunned by civilized society.

Kissinger shouldn't hang. He should be chained to the floor of a dark, airless cell & fed scraps until his worthless existence comes to an end. There should be a few others chained up in adjacent cells.

 

A falsehood that is the gravest imaginable insult to the many thousands of public intellectuals who actually attempt to inform & enlighten.

Having a cultlike following does not make a person an 'important public intellectual'.

 

Do you know the word "polymath?"

""The Responsibility of Intellectuals"[1][2] is an essay by the US academic Noam Chomsky which was published as a special supplement by The New York Review of Books on the 23 February 1967.

"The article was written during the then ongoing Vietnam War, as news of human rights abuses started to return to the United States, and as the war had increasingly become seen as a quagmire.

"The article is an attack on the intellectual culture in the U.S., which Chomsky argues is largely subservient to power. He is particularly critical of social scientists and technocrats, whom he believed were providing a pseudo-scientific justification for the crimes of the state in regard to the Vietnam War.

"He notes that those who opposed the war on moral rather than technical grounds are 'often psychologists, mathematicians, chemists, or philosophers...rather than people with Washington contacts, who, of course, realize that 'had they a new, good idea about Vietnam, they would get a prompt and respectful hearing' in Washington.'"

What do you know about the US intellectual culture's subservience to power that Chomsky doesn't? Who would you read to learn more?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Responsibility_of_Intellectuals

 

There are two paths of thought....the liberal and the sane.

 

Yup. Yet Chomsky does not have a degree in anything but linguistics. He is not an economist, not a political scientist, nor a political philosopher. He is a linguist. Had he continued solely in what he was trained in no one would know him, so now he tries to argue against trained professionals in these fields, and people like you cheer him because you agree with what he's saying.

He's no different then any other commentator, he's even less qualified then some of them because he has no training in those fields. There is nothing special about him. Sorry to break your heart.

And if you want to do the whole "dueling banjos links" thing, which seems to have taken over actual political discussion on this forum. I'll give you a book I've actually read.

Intellectuals and Society If you'd rather buy it.

 

It is not ad hominen it is quite accurate And well documented

 

Do you agree with this:

"I]t does not require very far-reaching, specialized knowledge to perceive that the United States was invading South Vietnam. And, in fact, to take apart the system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality [is] not a task that requires extraordinary skill or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and willingness to apply one's analytical skills that almost all people have and that they can exercise."
Chomsky on the Vietnam War"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Anti-Vietnam_War_activism:_1967.E2.80.931975

Chomsky was marching against the the US invasion of South Vietnam during times when the police were present to protect the marchers from being beaten to death by enraged patriots.

Those early protesters were outnumbered 5:1.

Who did more than Chomsky to draw America's attention to its crimes in Vietnam?

 

Sounds like crazy old Noam Chomsky is afraid that Trump's going to win.

He should be.

 

I should have guessed.
"ntellectuals and Society is a non-fiction book by Thomas Sowell.[1][2] The book was initially published on January 5, 2010 by Basic Books"

Really?

 

Ah your a racist who believes people of color can't have opinions different then you. Good to know, now I know I never have to respond to you again. Bye.

 

I spend far too much time in proximity to refugees from the former South Vietnam to allow myself the luxury of such fantasies. The American military was all that stood between an independent South Vietnam an the Communist dictatorship that eventually invaded it. North Vietnam could have chosen to stop at any time and the killing & dying would have stopped.

Chomsky chose to align himself with the aggressors and against the millions of South Vietnamese who wanted a peaceful and/or non-Communist future. He got what he wanted - a Communist dictatorship covering the whole of Indochina. Of course, he & his supporters are constitutionally incapable of accepting the logical outcome of their behaviour, so they deflect, blame & cover up.

Chomsky attacked people who were trying to expose the Khmer Rouge genocide while it was going on. If this was someone trying to cover up or excise the holocaust while it was happeing we would have no trouble understanding the foulness of the behaviour, yet Chomsky not only gets a pass, he gets treated like a hero.

Plenty of people, most of them far more worthwhile in every respect. None of them have become the focal point of cults or the subject of decades of the sort of fawning admiration you seem so keen to provide an example of.

 

If nut job Chomsky is against Trump that means Trump is the best candidate out there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Bibliography

"Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.[292]

"Chomsky was voted the world's leading public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll jointly conducted by American magazine Foreign Policy and British magazine Prospect.[293] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time."

Chomsky has a cult in the same sense Einstein and Newton had cults.

 

The US prevented reunification in Vietnam in the same way as Korea at the end of WWII. The refugees you claim concern for would never have been forced to leave absent the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam. "Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World, remember?

"In July 1954, France and the Viet Minh (later the Viet Cong) agreed at the Geneva Conference that the State of Vietnam would rule the territory south of the 17th parallel, pending unification on the basis of supervised elections in 1956. At the time of the conference, it was expected that the South would continue to be a French dependency. However, South Vietnamese Premier Ngô Đình Diệm, who preferred American sponsorship to French, rejected the agreement. When Vietnam was divided, 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese, mainly (but not exclusively) Roman Catholics, sailed south as part of Operation Passage to Freedom due to a fear of religious persecution in the North."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam

 

I don't agree with everything Chomsky has to say, naturally so, but I do agree with him that the GOP is dangerous. However, when describing dangerous political parties, it is disingenuous to not included the Democrats too.

 

You are clearly delusional. The refugees I encounter fled the Communist takeover of their nation just as hundreds of thousands fled the North in 1954. I have met people whose parents fled the North and they themselves fled the Communist takeover in 1975.

So, a brutal colonial power makes a deal with the Communist Viet Minh (not for the first time) that condemns others to death & repression without their consent being sought. The Paris Accords were dead before the ink even dried. The DRV was already violating the terms & continued to do so. There was no reasonable expectation that a vote would be either free or fair. At the moment the deadline for elections passed the DRV was busy killing off tens of thousands of its own people in a failed land reform program - it barely raised a protest about the election. Too busy. Those who wished to live under a Communist regime had the opportunity to move north - virtually none did. Those who hoped to avoid Communism fled south - close to a million despite the DRV illegally impeding the movement of people.

It never ceases to amaze that people who claim to be standing up for 'oppressed' people cheer from the roof tops when they are oppressed by forces who happen to be anti-US. That is the alpha & omega of Chomskyism - the West is always wrong and the only people whose views or actions really matter are white people. Non-whites are either victims or collaborators, not actual people.

BTW, I've spent decades studying the conflicts in Vietnam up to PhD level, have had several refereed articles published & I am sitting to a dozen bookshelves groaning wiht books on the topic & a filing cabinet full of other material. Wiki doesn't impress me. Neither do self-brainwashed Chomskybots. Like trying to discuss evolution with a hardcore fundamentalist Christian.

 

Einstein & Newton had achievements to justify the plaudits. Chomsky was once a respected linguist. he is now a left wing version of David Irving, with the two exceptions that Irving wasn't excusing the Holocaust while it happened, and he was & is extremely skilled in his particular discipline of historical research, he just chooses to put those skills n the service of the most evil ideas. Oddly people have no trouble seeing Irving for what he is, yet fawn over Chomsky. Amazing what people will overlook when they agree with someone.

 

Exactly. Chomsky is a linguist telling economist, and political scientist what to think. He does this because if he stayed as just a linguist very few would know about him. It's always a money maker to insult the US. Unfortunately.

Einstein and Newton stayed in their fields, and became famous for it.

 

I know the bullet points of Chomsky and don't agree with him on everything. But he is 100% correct here. The GOP is turning in to a group of Hitler's. Very dangerous ideas backed by zero science. It's actually pretty scary times.

 

Do you realize in your 6400+ posts you've only ever said 4 things. Every single post is one of 4 things.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I agree
4. I disagree

Every single one of your posts can be simplified to one of those 4....every....single...one.

You offer no justification, no thought, nothing to respond to, literally nothing at all. I'm surprised there isn't rules against your types of posts.

So my response to your riveting post is a simple one.....Noam Chomsky is wrong.