Praising Noam Chomsky
- 09.10.2007 - 4:57 PMOsama bin Laden’s latest videotaped message, his first in three years, contains several pearls of wisdom. But the following is most apt:
This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn’t like those who give advice.
Two years ago, Chomsky was voted the world’s top public intellectual in a poll conducted jointly by the magazines Foreign Policy and Prospect, the latter a British publication (Vaclav Havel came in fourth). Chomsky is enormously popular on American college campuses, and loved especially by Europe’s chattering classes. And he is not just the favorite public intellectual of Osama bin Laden, but of Hugo Chavez, the caudillo of Caracas, as well.
Last September, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Chavez waved around a copy of Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, while denouncing President Bush as “the devil.” “The people of the United States should read this. . .instead of. . .watching Superman movies,” Chavez told the assembled dignitaries.
Given his views of America and the West in general, it comes as no surprise that the MIT professor’s greatest fans are the Venezuelan military despot and the man responsible for the death of 3,000 on September 11, 2001. And with fans like that . . .
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
September 10th, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Noam knows all about “Manufacturing Consent” with anti-American goons.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:21 PM
This article makes the obvious mistake of assuming that bin Laden and Chomskly share remarkably similar viewpoints, which is plainly not the case. As far as I know, Chomsky has never, ever said a single word of praise to Al-Qaeda. I know this because I’ve read enough of him. Nor is there evidence that he supports everything about Hugo Chavez, that he supported the Khmer Rouge. He merely pointed out that the United States has been undermining democracy in the world–which is a well-supported view. It should surprise absolutely no one that people from all over the world, including questionable characters, would endorse his essential points about American military expansion. They are accurate.
Perhaps most embarassing of all is the common misrepresentation that Chomsky supported the Soviet Union, even though, whenever the subject came up, he routinely referred to it as a system of tyranny.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:23 PM
since when has offering criticism of American foreign policy been seen as “anti-American”? Would any rational person say that about an Italian who had issues with Italian foreign policy; would you label them anti-Italian?
September 10th, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Wade,
As far as I know, Chomsky has never, ever said a single word of praise to Al-Qaeda. I know this because I’ve read enough of him. Nor is there evidence that he supports everything about Hugo Chavez
You’re kidding, right?
Supporting everything is the standard of measurement?
Last time I checked, NC and OBL seem to share in their criticisms of the US, capitalism, the West, Israel, the Jews, W. , etc. Shall I go on.
And yes, he did support the Khmer Rouge.
Just sayin’.
For those interested, here is a cogent post on the lies of Professor Noam: (via Oliver Kamm)
September 10th, 2007 at 9:47 PM
It is so sad that so many intellectuals all over the world are either misguided, or have emotional issues
that drive them to defend the obviously wrong side.
For me the wrong side is the side that uses terror to obtain discipline. This is practiced in all the countries
except the Western democracies. Whoever supports tyrants, even indirectly, even on partial grounds (you can find good things in everything and everyone, even the worst of it all), helps destroy the only free countries in the world. Chomsky is a hypocrite, because he knows darn well that he would be put to the sword if he directed his criticism (not to say venomous diatribe) against those governments he indirectly helps with his cleverness, if he lived there. They, on the other hand, are shrewd to use his words against the country that enables him to voice them.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:51 PM
But why would Chavez and Bin Laden support Chomsky’s views? Chavez and Bin Laden are both anti-democratic, and they would like to see the US follow Chomsky’s recommendations and act in a way that pleases him. If Chomsky is right that the US has been undermining democracy, and if he is offering ways to prevent this, then why would those that want to further undermine democracy see his views and recommendations as ways to further their own anti-democratic goals?
Chomsky may give lip service to being against tyrants, but the tyrants believe that his views support them.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:54 PM
And remind me again about Chomsky’s position on the Khmer Rouge? Didn’t he claim that tales of atrocities in Cambodia were imperialist propaganda? I’ve read a little Chomsky and while he may have once been a brilliant linguist I think his so-called political theories are over-written, paranoid, sophistry. Never have so many been so fooled by so little.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:25 PM
since when has offering criticism of American foreign policy been seen as “anti-American”? Would any rational person say that about an Italian who had issues with Italian foreign policy; would you label them anti-Italian?
Offering criticism of America is not anti-American of course.
If one thinks America is a great country for what it is, and what it is designed to be, that makes one a patriot.
If one thinks that America is not a great country because it is a capitalist nation and therefore by definition a great oppressor of people, both domestically and internationally, then they are anti-American.
The anti-American says that America is bad because of who we are, by definition of who and what we are.
In this, Chomsky is genuinely anti-American.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:36 PM
If one thinks America is a great country for what it is, and what it is designed to be, that makes one a patriot.
No. That makes the person a fanatic. There is nothing intrinsically “great” about any country. America has had a very very dark side to its history.
If one thinks that America is not a great country because it is a capitalist nation and therefore by definition a great oppressor of people, both domestically and internationally, then they are anti-American. Nobody has ever reasoned that:
America is capitalistic IMPLIES America isn’t “great” IMPLIES America is a “great oppressor” of people.
One needs a double digit IQ to understand Chomsky’s nuanced arguments - something which some of you evidently lack.
But why would Chavez and Bin Laden support Chomsky’s views? When did they support ALL of Chomsky’s views? The US allied with the Soviet Union in WW II. Does it necessarily mean that the US was pro-communism, or Stalin pro-capitalism?
For me the wrong side is the side that uses terror to obtain discipline. This is practiced in all the countries except the Western democracies.
What an incredibly bigoted statement. Pray tell us what “terrorism” Japan, or S. Korea, or Singapore, or India have done in the past 30 years to “obtain discipline”.
Whoever supports tyrants, even indirectly, even on partial grounds, helps destroy the only free countries in the world. This one is a gem.
Name one thing Pinochet, Suharto, Shah Reza Pahlavi, have in common? They were all American allies!
After WW II, there were only two wars which were fought for a good cause: The Vietnam war and the liberation of Bangladesh. In both cases, America was on the wrong side!
The regimes in the Islamic world that the US supports are those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - both under oppressive dictatorships.
The only two governments in the Islamic world come close to being democratically elected unfortunately, Ahmedinejad and Hamas!
September 11th, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Chomsky was not an apologist for the Khymer Rouge (read, “Manufacturing Consent” for example. He did, however, point out correctly that the Khymer Rouge would not have been able to come to power had not the US illegally carpet bombed Cambodia a very poor county) killing tens if not hundreds of thousands, thereby giving a previously obscure Pol Pot the support he needed. The US afterwards continued to support Pol Pot and teh Khymer Rouge after he had been deposed by the Vietnamese, to favor China and to oppose the Russian backed Hun Sen (who is still in power anyway!)
Chavez is not a despot despite what the media say. He has been repeatedly voted for with a huge majorities (the likes of which any US president could only dream of). Chomsky is not a fan of Ben Laden– as the most shallow glance at his work would show.
All around the world, the US, not some old man in a cave, is now known as the greatest threat to world peace.