Noam on Iraq

[The Czech Republic 0]

The anti-semite bit is just stupid, he's a Jew who taught Hebrew school in his youth and was a member of several zionist organizations. He lived on a kibbutz and has described zionism as being the main interest of his youth. But, yeah, anti-semitic to the core, really. Find me any place where he denies the holocaust, I'd love to see that.

 

Finally, though it's totally irrelevant, Chomsky regularly condemns both modern American "liberal" intellectual culture and communist atrocities.

Yes, he is a Jew, however

He has further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism.

 

You're right, Chomsky goes after the traditional left as well. He doesn't really fall on the traditional political spectrum. I don't think he falls on the Nolan chart either. He's off on his own planet or something.

[Guest MikeSC]

Moss "exaggeration" UNDERSTATED the horror of the Khmer Rouge regime. Saying that his interpretation of the slaughter (which was actually VERY conservative in scope) was a "creation" is flat-out stating that it is not happening.

 

You really have no clue how bad they were.

 

And, please, feel free to provide the "proper context". Try to explain why it took him over 10 years to even ACKNOWLEDGE that it happened. Read his reviews of three books on the Khmer Rouge from the 1970's. 2 are critical of the regime, one praises.

 

Care to guess which one Noam liked?

 

In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor

>of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report"

>which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's

>intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total

>revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its

>Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million

>people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is

>Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian

>weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a

>million died during the war, and that the population had been

>7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places

>some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does

>Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result

>of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a

>war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of

>starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York

>Times creation.

 

Since you're the type who enjoys reading things in context, and following up, you'll find that while Chomsky has admitted to initially underestimating the Khmer Rouge atrocities, his main concern at the time was to point out the American involvement in laying the base for the Khmer Rouge takeover, and to contrast the intense media coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities with the total lack of coverage of comparable atrocities in East Timor.

 

 

 

 

 

You are aware that the context only makes Moss look worse.

Oh, you'd like him. He's insane, a vile anti-Semite (despite what his equally-insane followers argue) who, as Mike's sig demonstrates, has a history denying that various monstrous atrocities such as the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge ever happened, all of the while blaming America for....pretty much every evil thing that happens in the world.

 

The anti-semite bit is just stupid, he's a Jew who taught Hebrew school in his youth and was a member of several zionist organizations. He lived on a kibbutz and has described zionism as being the main interest of his youth. But, yeah, anti-semitic to the core, really. Find me any place where he denies the holocaust, I'd love to see that.

One can be anti-Semitic and not deny the Holocaust.

 

However, Chomsky has said the Jews don't need a "second homeland" since they already own New York City. He bitched about a Jewish-run media. He wrote a glowing endorsement for an incredibly anti-Semitic tract Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994, by Israel Shahak) where the author states that Jews need to "Atone for all of their sins" and they should applaud the "popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past".

 

And, again, look up the name Robert Faurisson. He's a neo-Nazi in France. He's also a good friend and collaborator of Noam. Faurisson OPENLY denies the Holocaust

 

Again, Faurisson and Chomsky are CLOSE. Real close.

You know how some hard-right conservatives throw out the label "anti-American"? Most times it doesn't fit, but with Chomsky, it fits like a goddamn glove.

 

This is perhaps the most ridiculous of arguments. It's like saying if I passionately despise my own representatives,and will criticize no matter who's in power, I must be anti-Canadian!

If you were to constantly compare Canada to totalitarian regimes with atrocious human rights records --- and come to the conclusion that Canada is worse consistently --- yeah, you'd be anti-Canadian.

Finally, though it's totally irrelevant, Chomsky regularly condemns both modern American "liberal" intellectual culture and communist atrocities.

Umm, WHEN?

 

10 YEARS AFTER THEY OCCUR?

Mud-slinging - so much more fun than real arguments.

Fantasy - much more fun than reality

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

If you're talking about "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression", Noam was mainly commenting on the fact that people are allowed to say what they want, basically as an extension of some of his linguistic views, that language is a part of us and it can't be restricted. Chomsky was mainly supporting his right to put forth his ideas instead of getting jailed for what he said.

 

Faurisson denying the Holocause doesn't make him a neo-nazi per se, because he's a guy who speaks of the heroic insurrexion of the Warsaw ghettoes and praises people who fought against naziism and said they were part of the right cause.

[Guest MikeSC]

If you're talking about "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression", Noam was mainly commenting on the fact that people are allowed to say what they want, basically as an extension of some of his linguistic views, that language is a part of us and it can't be restricted. Chomsky was mainly supporting his right to put forth his ideas instead of getting jailed for what he said.

 

Faurisson denying the Holocause doesn't make him a neo-nazi per se, because he's a guy who speaks of the heroic insurrexion of the Warsaw ghettoes and praises people who fought against naziism and said they were part of the right cause.

Brian, I've had to read Faurisson's stuff for a course on Nazism (Dr. Herzstein thought it would be wise to show students what Holocaust denial looks like).

 

He basically dismisses Holocaust survivors as being all liars and stating that it didn't happen.

 

He truly is an anti-intellectual crank of the highest order.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

Ignoring that, Chomsky isn't defending the guy on that front.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ignoring that, Chomsky isn't defending the guy on that front.

The guy has been a close political friend of his for years and has written exclusive pamphlets for his organization in France, which specialized in Holocaust denial literature.

 

And he openly praised Faurisson's Holocaust denial, signing a petition criticizing people for criticizing him for denying it happened.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

The petition was that he shouldn't be jailed or fired for what he said, because he had that right.

 

I don't know of any collaboration between the two, except that Faurisson used the Chomsky essay in his defense without his permission.

[Guest MikeSC]

The petition was that he shouldn't be jailed or fired for what he said, because he had that right.

 

I don't know of any collaboration between the two, except that Faurisson used the Chomsky essay in his defense without his permission.

Chomsky has written, repeatedly, for Faurisson's group in France, La Vieille Taupe. Chomsky gave this little hate group legitimacy by publishing Political Economy of Human Rights through them rather than through a commercial firm, right at the time they were ostracized by the right and the left for its Holocaust denial. He wrote Some Elementary Comments Concerning the Right of Free Expression in France as a defense of Faurisson, stating he was not a Holocaust denier (which Faurisson undoubtedly is).

 

This was the "preface" that was used "without" his (Chomsky's) permission --- even though he wrote it and submitted it willingly. And he changed his mind and stood by it after he waffled for a week.

 

In fact, he was given a chance by the head of VT to actually distance himself from their Holocaust denial, to claim that his cricitism of Israel was not along the same lines as Holocaust denial --- and the only thing he chose to dispute was VT's claim that Noam was less popular in the 80's than he was during the Vietnam War.

 

The ties to Holocaust denial were immaterial to Noam. His ego was a big deal.

 

In fact, Noam has stated he sees no Holocaust denial in Faurisson's work --- a conclusion impossible to grasp.

 

I could ALSO unload on his actual record as a linguist, if you'd like.

-=Mike

...A cunning one, he ain't...

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with his work in linguistics. I think he makes some good points.

[BUTT 0]

When I first saw this thread, I thought it said NORM on Iraq. Thus, I was very excited to see what Norm MacDonald has to say about the War on Terror. How disappointed I was to see it was fuckin' Chomsky.

[bob_barron 0]

When I first saw this thread, I thought it said NORM on Iraq. Thus, I was very excited to see what Norm MacDonald has to say about the War on Terror. How disappointed I was to see it was fuckin' Chomsky.

Norm is very much in favour on the War on Iraq going as far as to say he didn't want to be known as a Canadian anymore since they didn't join the war. He's a big supporter of Pres. Bush

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with his work in linguistics. I think he makes some good points.

Let's start with what is likely his most important work, Synactic Structures. He argues, basically, that for every transitive sentence of the form:

[nominal1 verb nominal2]

 

there exists a corresponding passive of the form [nominal2 is verb + en by nominal1].

 

His book was published in 1957.

 

In a book he wrote in 1955 ---and not published until 1975 --- he CONTRADICTED himself directly, stating that there are "instances of actives with no corresponding passive".

 

Or, in simple terms, he KNEW what he wrote in 1957 was factually inaccurate, as he HIMSELF demonstrated in The Logical Structure of Linguistic Study (written 1955, published 1975). He wrote a rule that he knew was not accurate. This isn't a slight oversight --- it's blatant disregard for the truth.

 

John Robert Ross in Constraints on Variables of Syntax, an MIT dissertation that Chomsky directed, disputed Chomsky's A-over-A principle and Chomsky had to admit that Ross was actually correct.

 

It's just a shame he STILL tries to claim that the principle is true, even while it demonstrably is not. He has continued claiming its voracity, even though he has known since at least 1967 that it is not.

 

He claimed the existence of Deep Structure (first discussed in 1965) until the 1990's, even though it was shot down by linguists in the late 60's. He held on to it as a passable theory well beyond the point other reputable linguists did so. And when he decided to "drop" Deep Structure, he never once mentioned the names of the linguists who disproved its existence, including his former student Ross.

 

His refusal to acknowledge the work of other linguists in disproving theories that he now disbelieves, in a purely technical sense, is not dramatically different than what Michael Bellesiles did with his study of gun ownership in America.

 

At this point, Chomsky's only real defense for his study is that live sciences are not any better, in his view.

 

Few of Chomsky's "discoveries" actually exist and the people who disproved them so thoroughly that Noam himself had to drop them have never been given any attribution by Chomsky for their work.

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Here's a study of Chomsky's anti-semetism and association with Holocaust deniers, done by a University of British Columbia sociology professor. Everything Mike says is expanded on in greater detail:

 

http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

[Jingus 0]

I got a perfect score on my SAT Verbal, but you guys are just making my head hurt reading this thread. Ow.

[Guest BDC]

The guy's a linguist, right?

 

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS that talk outside of their field of expertise get stuff wrong, so why the HELL would I trust a LINGUIST to be credible on INTERNATIONAL POLICY?

[SuperJerk 0]

The guy's a linguist, right?

 

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS that talk outside of their field of expertise get stuff wrong, so why the HELL would I trust a LINGUIST to be credible on INTERNATIONAL POLICY?

Well, linguists *do* have to understand other cultures in order to decipher their language.

[Guest MikeSC]

The guy's a linguist, right?

 

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS that talk outside of their field of expertise get stuff wrong, so why the HELL would I trust a LINGUIST to be credible on INTERNATIONAL POLICY?

Well, linguists *do* have to understand other cultures in order to decipher their language.

Chomsky freely admits to not understanding American culture.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

The guy's a linguist, right?

 

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS that talk outside of their field of expertise get stuff wrong, so why the HELL would I trust a LINGUIST to be credible on INTERNATIONAL POLICY?

Well, linguists *do* have to understand other cultures in order to decipher their language.

Look, I know professors that studied Greek and didn't understand the "Greek Love" practiced by Spartans. You make a good point, but I'm not buying.

[cbacon 0]

Chomsky has written, repeatedly, for Faurisson's group in France, La Vieille Taupe. Chomsky gave this little hate group legitimacy by publishing Political Economy of Human Rights through them rather than through a commercial firm, right at the time they were ostracized by the right and the left for its Holocaust denial. He wrote Some Elementary Comments Concerning the Right of Free Expression in France as a defense of Faurisson, stating he was not a Holocaust denier (which Faurisson undoubtedly is).

 

This was the "preface" that was used "without" his (Chomsky's) permission --- even though he wrote it and submitted it willingly. And he changed his mind and stood by it after he waffled for a week.

 

In fact, he was given a chance by the head of VT to actually distance himself from their Holocaust denial, to claim that his cricitism of Israel was not along the same lines as Holocaust denial --- and the only thing he chose to dispute was VT's claim that Noam was less popular in the 80's than he was during the Vietnam War.

 

The ties to Holocaust denial were immaterial to Noam. His ego was a big deal.

 

In fact, Noam has stated he sees no Holocaust denial in Faurisson's work --- a conclusion impossible to grasp.

 

I could ALSO unload on his actual record as a linguist, if you'd like.

 

Who's living in a fantasy world here?

 

Robert Faurisson is not associated and has never been tied to any neo-Nazi organization. While his views on the Holocaust and the supposed falsities he purports in much of his work is pretty much just wrong (that's all there is to it), he has never denounced the Jews as a people, he has never released any material that is pro-Nazi or anti-Jew except perhaps in the context of presenting false information relating to Auschwitz and other death camps. In none of his work has he endorsed any hatred toward the Jewish people or attempted incite any pre-conceived notion toward them. The term neo-Nazi infact, means "New Nazi" in the context that the ideology of the Nationalist Socialist Party is being held by the individual in question in an attempt to establish that ideology again, which Faurisson has never done.

 

The Faurisson Affair, as pertaining to the supposed writings by Chomsky in support of Faurisson are grossly misinformed and poorly presented by you. You claim that Chomsky stated that he "sees no Holocaust denial in Faurisson's work." Do you have a source for that wild accusation? In the essay that you are supposedly referring Chomsky actually says:

 

"Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence."

 

Also, you claim that Faurisson and Chomsky are "CLOSE." What? Since when? This is just a lie. The first thing Chomsky ever said about Faurisson, the very first sentence is:

 

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history")."

 

In fact, in the same essay he mentions that he does not even know his work very well, what is his description of Faurisson? "As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." Does this wording indicate two very close people as you have indicated.

 

The overarching view of the entire Faurisson affair, from the mainstream press as well, is that Chomsky was attacked simply for the fact that he was willing to defend Faurisson's freedom of speech and expression, despite the fact that Chomsky had views opposed to his.

 

Chomsky never submitted the essay in the context that you have purported. In fact, he presented the essay to be used "for any purpose." Serge Thion then used the essay without Chomsky's knowledge, when Chomsky found out, he requested that the essay be removed, as it was being presented in a context he didn't intend for it to be, but the book had already gone through the publication process.

 

What strikes me here, is that it's pretty goddamn clear you haven't even read the essay or that you read it and have pretty much the worst reading comprehension in the world. This isn't an essay that can be misinterpreted, he's a linguist for godsakes (and please, seeing ridicule of his linguistic work in here aside, he's the leading linguist in the world, that's a fucking fact), any supposed assertation you've made about the essay is either completely false or a gross misinterpretation of the work.

 

*sigh*

 

 

Umm, WHEN?

 

10 YEARS AFTER THEY OCCUR?

 

Um, well, there's this thing called "research," now since you've made it pretty clear you don't understand that concept - here's the gist of it. Okay, what you do is, you look for facts and things that happened and documentation to those facts. In some cases those facts can take a long time to find or legitimize, especially in the case of say, I don't know, some countries who held these records in confidentiality even past the Cold War. Sometimes, that time period can be 10 years! WOW! And then after you find the facts, you have to write the book, and then it has to go through a lengthy publication process. Is that a clear explanation?

 

Regardless, that's not even what's important, why does it matter when he makes a condemnation of a nation that doesn't even exist anymore, when these atrocities aren't happening anymore?

 

Here's a study of Chomsky's anti-semetism and association with Holocaust deniers, done by a University of British Columbia sociology professor. Everything Mike says is expanded on in greater detail:

 

http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

 

Cohn is a loon. And your right, it is pretty much everything Mike says in greater detail, which is why it can't be taken seriously as I outlined above.

 

An accurate summary of the Cohn's claims regarding Chomsky:

 

Allegedly an investigation of Noam Chomsky's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, "Partners in Hate" relies on guilt by association to "prove" its case. The case itself is rather simple: in the late 1970s a professor - Robert Faurisson - of twentieth century French literature at the University of Lyon in France was fired for questioning the Holocaust publicly. In 1979, a French friend of Prof. Chomsky, Serge Thion, asked him to sign a petition supporting the freedom to express opinions without persecution (Faurisson had been harassed and beaten up for expressing his views.) Chomsky signed it, as did 500 others, but the French press called it "Chomsky's petition" and accused him of Holocaust denial. In response, Chomsky wrote an essay on the difference between freedom of speech and supporting someone's cause, giving Thion the right to print it wherever he saw fit. Thion made it the preface of Faurisson's 1980 book about his anti-Holocaust findings. This action put the nail in the coffin to people who had never read Chomsky (who has repeatedly called the Holocaust a crime against humanity and has never denied it happened.) During the whole affair, Chomsky never met Faurisson and claimed he never read any of the Frenchman's writings, writing in the essay that Faurisson was an "apolitical liberal." From 1980 this pseudo-debate rambled on, until Werner Cohn produced the now long out of print "Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky" in 1988 and then retitled it "Partners in Hate" in 1995. Whatever the title, this work claims that Chomsky is a crypto-Nazi based on the fact that he stood up for Faurisson, that he has alleged contacts with an French cypto-Nazi outfit called "The Old Mole" (La Vielle Taupe), that some of his books were sold by a pro-Nazi publishing company called "The Noontide Press" and that he is an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. I checked Noontide Press; the only item of Chomsky's they were selling was a recording of one of his speeches, probably released by Alternative Tenticles, the only label which releases Chomsky material. Cohen's evidence concerning the Old Mole was in French with no translation; I don't read French, so it's useless. The Faurisson angle has been debunked, which only leaves the criticism of Israel, which is a simple case of "freedom of speech for those who say what we like." Like the endless investigation of President Clinton, Cohn piles on charge after charge, hoping that one will stick.

 

[Prior to writing this book,] Cohn was a professor of English at a Canadian university whose only non-Chomsky book was a small ethnographic study of the Rom (Gypsy) people written during the Nixon administration. Chomsky had over twenty books under his belt by the time Cohn came on the scene with "Hidden Alliances..." and the "controversy" was obscure enough so that somebody could latch on to it for their own purposes and promulgate their own version of what happened for American readers. Interestingly enough, this was Cohn's last book and apparently the only work printed by Avukah Press, named after a pre-WW II Left-Zionist organization long defunct (which Chomsky was a member of!)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's insane, a vile anti-Semite (despite what his equally-insane followers argue) who, as Mike's sig demonstrates, has a history denying that various monstrous atrocities such as the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge ever happened

A progressive's Pat Buchanan? Holy crap.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, this guy's said stuff that seems harmless and agreeable when on national TV, but has a kooky edge to him.

 

Then again, look at Pat today....

[SuperJerk 0]

I looked at the title of this thread, "Noam on Iraq", and got an idea.

 

We could do a whole series.

 

"Noam on Politics"

 

"Noam on Wrestling"

 

"Noam on Sports"

 

"Noam on Decorating"

 

"Noam on Film"

 

"Noam on Noam"

 

Then, for each episode, MikeSC and C-Bacon could debate the merits of what Chomsky might say on each topic.

For example:

 

MikeSC: Obviously Noam a fucking crackpot because he denies that orange curtains clash with green painted walls.  This is just a silly liberal fantasy world he's living in and I hope he dies.

-=Mike

 

C-Bacon: Mike, you don't know what you're talking about.  Chomsky never said anything about orange curtains, and if you'd actually read his book, you'd know that!

 

MikeSC:  I had to read "Why Curtains Supress the Sociolinguist Paradigm of Capitalist Society" my junior year.

-=Mike

 

C-Bacon: But he clearly states on page 5776 of that book that those curtains could not have been orange because they matched his couch, which was brown!

 

MikeSC:  Well, they certainly weren't red, because if they were, he'd never be able to see himself in them!

-=Mike

 

This might work.

[cbacon 0]

 

Alright, i'm down for that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Who's living in a fantasy world here?

 

Robert Faurisson is not associated and has never been tied to any neo-Nazi organization. In none of his work has he endorsed any hatred toward the Jewish people or attempted incite any pre-conceived notion toward them.

VT IS one, like it or not. They published The Myth of Auschwitz amongst other lovely tracts. Their magazine featured translated articles from California Neo-Nazi journal Journal of Historical Accuracy. When Shoah opened in 1985, Pierre Giulliame (the HEAD of VT, mind you) was outside of theatres, handing out pamphlets decrying the "political-financial" swindle of those who claim that Nazis killed Jews.

 

But, yeah, they probably aren't neo-Nazis. Just a misunderstanding. Of course.

While his views on the Holocaust and the supposed falsities he purports in much of his work is pretty much just wrong (that's all there is to it), he has never denounced the Jews as a people, he has never released any material that is pro-Nazi or anti-Jew except perhaps in the context of presenting false information relating to Auschwitz and other death camps.

Shame the group he is associated with, VT, has few qualms about it.

The term neo-Nazi infact, means "New Nazi" in the context that the ideology of the Nationalist Socialist Party is being held by the individual in question in an attempt to establish that ideology again, which Faurisson has never done.

And VT is BLATANTLY anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi.

The Faurisson Affair, as pertaining to the supposed writings by Chomsky in support of Faurisson are grossly misinformed and poorly presented by you. You claim that Chomsky stated that he "sees no Holocaust denial in Faurisson's work." Do you have a source for that wild accusation? In the essay that you are supposedly referring Chomsky actually says:

 

"Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence."

And his "lack of knowledge" of Faurisson's work is an open lie. He is more than familiar with Chomsky, given that they corresponded regularly.

 

Source: ROBERT FUCKING FAURISSON.

Also, you claim that Faurisson and Chomsky are "CLOSE." What? Since when? This is just a lie. The first thing Chomsky ever said about Faurisson, the very first sentence is:

 

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history")."

 

In fact, in the same essay he mentions that he does not even know his work very well, what is his description of Faurisson? "As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." Does this wording indicate two very close people as you have indicated.

And his comments and actions in France CLEARLY contradict his statements here. And you have to a special idiot to defend a man when you have no clue what you're defending him from.

Chomsky never submitted the essay in the context that you have purported. In fact, he presented the essay to be used "for any purpose." Serge Thion then used the essay without Chomsky's knowledge, when Chomsky found out, he requested that the essay be removed, as it was being presented in a context he didn't intend for it to be, but the book had already gone through the publication process.

And changed his mind on that about a week later. Giulliame called him and he decided to stand beside it.

What strikes me here, is that it's pretty goddamn clear you haven't even read the essay or that you read it and have pretty much the worst reading comprehension in the world. This isn't an essay that can be misinterpreted, he's a linguist for godsakes (and please, I remember seeing a ridicule of his linguistic work earlier in here, he's the leading linguist in the world, that's a fucking fact)

His STUDENT disproved his biggest linguistic "accomplishments". Feel free to ignore that.

 

Chomsky has.

 

For decades now.

 

He is the Bellesiles of the linguistic circuit.

any supposed assertation you've made about the essay is either completely false or a gross misinterpretation of the work.

 

*sigh*

It's actually quite accurate. You're the one horribly misinformed as to reality.

Umm, WHEN?

 

10 YEARS AFTER THEY OCCUR?

Um, well, there's this thing called "research," now since you've made it pretty clear you don't understand that concept - here's the gist of it.

Calling the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge a fabrication when there was MOUNTAINS of evidence stating that we had no ability to fully grasp how bad it was WHEN HE SAID IT is, at the best, intellectually dishonest.

 

At worst, it's a clear blindness to Communist atrocities. Which is something he has long had a problem with.

 

Funny that he had no problem discounting them in 1977, isn't it?

Okay, what you do is, you look for facts and things that happened and documentation to those facts.

Odd that he DISCOUNTED the stories, no? Odd that he found the only book that chose to blame the Khmer Rouge reign on the aftermath of the US presence in Vietnam to be accurate --- a book that was laughably weak, with NO interviews done of refugees, NO on-site investigation being done. Simply taking reports from French Communist Radio as reality and doing no independent research.

 

And the two considerably BETTER researched books that started going into how bad the Khmer Rouge was? Why, Chomsky discounted those. Stunning. I mean, they only interviewed refugees. What the fuck do REFUGEES know about what is going on, right?

In some cases those facts can take a long time to find or legitimize, especially in the case of say, I don't know, some countries who held these records in confidentiality even past the Cold War.

Again, doesn't explain why he referred to one book as, and I quote, keeping "closely with the version of events offered by the U.S propaganda system" and that the author couldn't be believed because he was "untrustworthy".

 

The book in question?

 

Cambodia: Year Zero by Francois Ponchaud --- only one of the most important books on the Khmer Rouge ever written. It's been pretty damned widely respected since its publication --- well, by people OTHER than Noam Chomsky, who thought the author was not trustworthy and played loose with the facts.

 

Chomsky, rather than blame Pol Pot, decided to blame a "US supported counter-revolution" for the violence and then claim that the liquidation of Cambodian cities was not a centralized effort.

 

Bizarre what he considered reality, isn't it?

Sometimes, that time period can be 10 years! WOW! And then after you find the facts, you have to write the book, and then it has to go through a lengthy publication process. Is that a clear explanation?

Notice his nice comments about Ponchaud's book?

 

He, somehow, didn't find it necessary to do any research, whatsoever, before considering the author untrustworthy.

 

Weird.

Regardless, that's not even what's important, why does it matter when he makes a condemnation of a nation that doesn't even exist anymore, when these atrocities aren't happening anymore?

He DENIED they happened. He DENIED it when stories came out and IMMEDIATELY proclaimed the reports as US "propaganda" and not the FUCKING REALITY it just so happened to be.

Here's a study of Chomsky's anti-semetism and association with Holocaust deniers, done by a University of British Columbia sociology professor. Everything Mike says is expanded on in greater detail:

 

http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Cohn is a loon. And your right, it is pretty much everything Mike says in greater detail, which is why it can't be taken seriously as I outlined above.

Try finding a copy of The Nation from June 25, 1977, where Chomsky's review of Cambodia Year Zero was printed.

 

And, then come back and remind me how Chomsky waited ten years to come to a conclusion, even though he clearly took a side immediately.

 

As for how distant he was from Faurisson, you might want to ask the LEADER of VT, Pierre Giulliame. Giulliame states that Chomsky GAVE VT legitimacy in the left AFTER the Faurisson fiasco.

 

We KNOW Faurisson and Chomsky have corresponded more than a few times --- simply because FAURISSON TELLS ANYBODY HE CAN FIND ABOUT IT. He has no problem showing the letters they have exchanged.

 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

Not just in terms of Chomsky, mind you.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's another one...

 

C-Bacon: Chomsky brilliantly explains why JBL's title reign reinforces the capitalist paradox of competition and monopolies.

 

MikeSC: There was no competition, as Angle just GAVE the title shot to JBL.  This represents the favoritism of a command economy, such as in communism, rahter than capitalism.  And Chomsky denies the title match ever happened!

 

C-Bacon: No, he doesn't.  Obviously the title match happened, or else JBL wouldn't be champ.  Chomsky refers to this on pages 3964 and 3969 of the 1959 article "Title Reigns of the Capitalist Dichotomy and Its Effect on Mainstream Sports".

 

MikeSC: That idiotic.  JBL wasn't even born in 1959.

 

C-Bacon: I know that, but I'm saying he talks about the situation in that article, not the specifics of JBL himself.

 

MikeSC: How the hell is Chomsky going to write an article about something before it even happens?

 

C-Bacon: He was making a prediction!  And the fact that his predictions held up and CAN BE applied to the JBL situation proves the theory is correct.

 

kkktookmybabyaway: They shoulda just put the belt on Booker.  That monkey can sure dance...

[cbacon 0]

Hahaha, keep it up, Rob.

 

re: Mike

 

Here's something you seem to be missing all over again. CHOMSKY DEFENDED FAURISSON'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF EXPRESSION. The very idea of what Voltaire said is clearly lost on you. Defending someone for the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a defence of the right, not of the person. It is most likely that Chomsky acted in signing the petition (which caused this whole mess in the first place) because Faurisson was almost beat to death for his writing.

 

And I'm quite aware of the Khmer Rouge thing with Chomsky, and it's hardly to the extent of what you're making it out to be. Chomsky admitted that he had underestimated the atrocities at the time in later talks about it. In terms of Chomsky's position on misinformation in American media (which despite the Khmer Rouge mess, is really quite informative), it is natural to assume he would make the assertations that he did with the information he was presented at the time. The idea that you are harping on a subject matter that he admitted to being mistaken about is a seemingly desperate attempt to grasp at supposed inconsistencies in his work.

 

As for the linguistics thing, I find it rather funny that you claim that they have been "disproved." A former student of his throwing out some writings about how Chomsky was wrong (which are undoubtedly interesting and worth more investigation admittedly) is not disproving anything. There has been no backlash on Chomsky's work for a reason. I'm sure if the assertations his student makes are in fact true, we could see a change in that, but that's not really what we're arguing here anyway.

 

The correspondence between Chomsky and Faurisson is hardly what you make it out to be I might add. Chomsky's correspondence with Faurisson was on the subject matter I've been discussing, not some intense neo-Nazi conspiracy like you seem to be implying.

 

i.e. I think neo-Nazis should be allowed to believe what they want, in that, races shouldn't mix, breed, or marry.

 

Does that make me a Nazi?

[Guest MikeSC]

Hahaha, keep it up, Rob.

 

re: Mike

 

Here's something you seem to be missing all over again. CHOMSKY DEFENDED FAURISSON'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF EXPRESSION. The very idea of what Voltaire said is clearly lost on you. Defending someone for the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a defence of the right, not of the person. It is most likely that Chomsky acted in signing the petition (which caused this whole mess in the first place) because Faurisson was almost beat to death for his writing.

That he was CLOSELY tied to Faurisson on top of that is a problem.

 

One you choose to ignore, but hey, Chomsky needs lemmings.

 

Oh, and I suppose ACTUAL proof of these beatings exists somewhere...

And I'm quite aware of the Khmer Rouge thing with Chomsky, and it's hardly to the extent of what you're making it out to be.

I'm actually not getting as negative as I could, considering his statements.

Chomsky admitted that he had underestimated the atrocities at the time in later talks about it.

He didn't "underestimate". He CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAPPEN.

 

World of fucking difference.

 

And it only took him 10 years to finally realize that they DID happen.

 

Kudos to him.

In terms of Chomsky's position on misinformation in American media (which despite the Khmer Rouge mess, is really quite informative), it is natural to assume he would make the assertations that he did with the information he was presented at the time.

Because Cambodia: Year Zero was SUCH a joke of a book with no supporting documentation behind it. Certainly enough to warrant referring to the author as "untrustworthy".

The idea that you are harping on a subject matter that he admitted to being mistaken about is a seemingly desperate attempt to grasp at supposed inconsistencies in his work.

He DENIED THEY HAPPENED. He ATTACKED the people who STATED WHAT HAPPENED.

 

And his work is a joke. I respect his linguistic work as much as I respect Bellesiles historical work.

As for the linguistics thing, I find it rather funny that you claim that they have been "disproved." A former student of his throwing out some writings about how Chomsky was wrong (which are undoubtedly interesting and worth more investigation admittedly) is not disproving anything.

Um, it VERY much is disproving it. When somebody can prove that a rule you refer to as "universal" is NOT universal --- hey, then your rule HAS been disproven.

There has been no backlash on Chomsky's work for a reason.

Because you IGNORE it does not mean it does not exist.

I'm sure if the assertations his student makes are in fact true, we could see a change in that, but that's not really what we're arguing here anyway.

His student disproved his theories.

 

When Chomsky finally recognized that his student was correct, he refused to even credit him with the work.

The correspondence between Chomsky and Faurisson is hardly what you make it out to be I might add.

Faurisson has proof otherwise. He will show it to anybody who asks.

Chomsky's correspondence with Faurisson was on the subject matter I've been discussing, not some intense neo-Nazi conspiracy like you seem to be implying.

No, he openly supports Faurisson's work.

 

No big deal --- EXCEPT that it means than alleged professor is actively supporting LYING.

 

So be it.

i.e.  I think neo-Nazis should be allowed to believe what they want, in that, races shouldn't mix, breed, or marry.

 

Does that make me a Nazi?

No.

 

You're just an anti-American anti-Semite.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

If someone supports Palestine in that whole situation, are they automatically anti-semite?

[Guest MikeSC]

If someone supports Palestine in that whole situation, are they automatically anti-semite?

No.

 

They can just be utter morons.

 

Sorry, but I can't even respect the view that the Palestinians are the good guys, considering how much the Israelis have tried to work with them.

-=Mike

...It takes a special level of idiocy to proclaim that the Israelis are the BAD guys...

[The Czech Republic 0]

[college asshole]Hellooooooo, Mike, they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS! Perhaps you think the patriots were the good guys? They were TERRORISTS, our nation was built on TERRORISM. You are simply not educated enough to realize this.[/college asshole]

[cbacon 0]

No.

 

You're just an anti-American anti-Semite.

 

+

 

If you were to constantly compare Canada to totalitarian regimes with atrocious human rights records --- and come to the conclusion that Canada is worse consistently --- yeah, you'd be anti-Canadian

 

Wow.

 

First, so what does being "anti-Canadian" mean, then? Were Germans who denounced Hitler "anti-German?" People who feel that United States foreign policy is morally wrong are morally right to denouce it. If you disagree with his assessment of, say, the morality of intervention in Indochina, let's stick to the issue itself rather than throwing words like anti-American out there. It's basically used to say "this guy would criticize no matter what, so don't listen to his criticism," - which raises the question, by that logic, what criticism of ourselves are we supposed to listen to, even if we don't agree with it?

 

Oh, and the Anti-Semitic thing, that's because I support Chomsky and am just as guilty by proxy right?

 

 

He didn't "underestimate". He CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAPPEN.

 

World of fucking difference.

 

No, he did not, and all your basing that on is your signature which as I proved earlier is merely a bad case of juxtaposition. He underestimated (but did NOT deny) the crimes and later acknoweldged them. But I suppose if he's to fault for this, it totally discredits everything else he says right?

 

Um, it VERY much is disproving it. When somebody can prove that a rule you refer to as "universal" is NOT universal --- hey, then your rule HAS been disproven.

 

No, it hasn't. If I were to say that human's don't need air to breathe, would that mean breathing air to live isn't a universal truth?

 

The correspondence between Chomsky and Faurisson is hardly what you make it out to be I might add.

 

Faurisson has proof otherwise. He will show it to anybody who asks.

 

Chomsky does not support the views of Faurisson, and i'd like to see any proof that he does. I've outlined their relationship, including quotes straight from Chomsky regarding the issue that do not prove the position your trying to purport.

 

Since this contradicts everything Chomsky has said publicly, the only way it would hold any sort of water is if you believe anything Faurisson has to say. And who does? No one. The man's deeply disturbed, you can get that just from half a paragraph of his writings.

 

Oh yeah, finally, the funniest thing is how people who disagree with Chomsky would rather do studies of Chomsky the man, slam him by associating him with types like Faurisson, instead of debating the issues. Motives are questioned, why he wrote about this thing more often than that thing, and it's all totally irrelevant. Funny that you don't see the left writing books like "the Anti-Dershowitz Reader", for example It would make no sense, it'd be a waste of time, and if anyone bothered I don't think many would read it