One of my favourite books of the past ten years has been "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. I found his central thesis to be fascinating and his supporting structure to be well-crafted. It is, however, in my opinion, a flawed book since it contains a number of non sequitures, while some more radical conclusions are poorly supported by logic and reason. But this does not mean that it is not a valuable, enriching and thought-provoking read.

By way of contrast, I have just finished reading "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky and found it to be another stimulating book. On an issue of style I often became irritated by his use of irony. And just like Diamond's publication, it is also flawed in content. While I did find a few points that were just plain wrong, I was impressed that, on a number of occasions where I thought he was incorrect, further probing proved him to be vindicated. Chomsky makes this task relatively easy because, unlike Diamond, his text is extremely liberally laced with references.

Whereas Diamond receives criticism but is almost always praised in the same text, Chomsky is often vilified by his detractors. On a recent occasion I followed a trail of links to arrive at one which offered “America’s dumbest intellectual” described as “An excellent brief introduction to Chomskyism”. Contrast this with the New York Times description of Chomsky as “arguably the most important intellectual alive.”

Indeed it seems to me that Chomsky falls into the "love him / hate him" group of researchers/writers, along with Benny Morris, Edward Said, Michael Moore, Norman Finkelstein, and even Jimmy Carter. Any others spring to mind?

It is relatively easy to see why Chomsky provokes such extreme ends of reaction. He is the libertarian’s darling because he does not shirk from poking fingers in the eyes of the US and Israel, even though he is a US Jew and professor at a prestigious American university. For the same reason his is the devil incarnate for the right wing.

So, other than the unwelcome juvenile pastime of calling him names, what do those forum members who have read his works think of Chomsky, especially regarding the weight of evidence for his main contentions?

I find it ironic that the man who writes "manufactured consent" is so obviously in the business of manufacturing opinion, which he does at great length finding fertile ground for his incredibly unoriginal observations among the bobble heads of the left. He is the doyen of a brand of political fundamentalism every bit as rigid and hypocritical as its right wing counterpart.

As far as I'm concerned, he is as responsible for killing liberalsim as a viable political movement in this country as anybody on the right, since his brand of invective has created such legions of anti-liberal leftists that for all intents and purposes the left is now associated with his illiberal, authoritarian views.

Oh, and I don't particularly care for the man, either.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

I think the trouble with Chomsky is that he has a bit too much of an ego and he tends to have too much of a smug character. The result is that when people challenge him or poke holes in his arguments, they do so with zeal and tend to appear the hero.
No one likes a smug egocentric.
I also think he tends to stretch his ideas a bit too far. The guy is a linguist more than an expert on anything in particular. As a result a lot of his ideas are based in intangible elements and overlook a lot of more tangible elements. That's not a bad thing... but it becomes bad when most of his theories are "Grand Theories".
This causes a lot of his work, while it is well done, to have the flavor (and often the practical use) of conspiracy theory.


I love that book as well.
That book slays racists.

And it's all based in very tangible fact, some of which few would have thought of. Only a biologist could make a lot of the connections he does- that's why it's so important to take multi-disciplinary approaches.

He makes a few radical statements that are a bit more contraversial than helpful... such as his assertion that New Guineans would have helicopters eventually... or his assertion that New Guinean tribes are actually smarter than us (I think he says that kind of half-jokingly).
But aside from that I think the book is solid.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Really, he didn't stop talking about the New Guineans for even a small part of the book.

But it was still a great book.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Preface to the 1994 Edition

The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky

Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis

Is it a Matter of Freedom of Speech ?

From Marlen to Faurisson

The Alleged "Documentary" Basis of Anti-Zionism


Avram Noam Chomsky, a famous linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is known for his Left-wing politics. It is the gravamen of this book, however, that these politics derive as much from the extreme right wing ­­particularly right-wing anti-Semitism­­ as from the rhetoric of the American Left.

The whole Book or just your favorite chapters listed above at:
http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
-

__________________

Werner Cohn is an idiot. The guy is so full of lies and smear it's laughable.
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

you will have to explain yourself on this. I've studied much Chomsky and I know he's exaggerated a few times but to call observations unoriginal even though he was saying things years before anyone else picked up on it it is daft. He does a lot more researching than anyone on the right could even dream of. Also how is he illiberal?

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Chomsky recently met with Nazralah the Herzbollah leader and described him as a pratical man of high intellect

You have to hand it to Good OLD Noam Chomsky

He must be geeting underneath the skin of his own kind.

Remember folks Israel opposses free speech - you only have to look at the banning of Fincklestein recently when he wanted to enter Israel. I wonder why that was?

Chomsky is one the ALL time most cited author - EVER.


Not bad for someone who BELESERTI detests. Or is jealous of.

beleserti, why dont you like one of your own in Noam Chomsky? It must be very scary for you hey to think that one of your own is exposing your propaganda!

beleserti, Maybe you can marginalise and demonise Chomsky by labelling him an anti-semite

OOOOPS - I mean a "SELF-LOATHING JEW" (whatever the hell that means)

Chommsky is a proflific thinker. He has the ability to absorb data, and produce a narrative on the framework of world power that goes behind the wizard's curtain, so to speak.

9.11 was dead on. His claim is not that what makes the event historically significant is not the atrocity itself, but that the guns were pointed at us, for the first time ever, really.

And, at a time when all the lesser thinkers and pundits claimed "everything would change" he postulated, quite correctly, I would say, that the event changed very little, and only reinforced tendencies and arguments that were already there.

Noam Chomsky - Irrelevant Idiot

Oh, how I wish someone would post a thread like that. I'm so tired of leftists who suck their opinions off of Chomsky's enfeebled socialist teats.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.