From Wiki:
"Avram Noam Chomsky (pronounced /ˈnoʊm/ or /ˌnoʊ.əm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3] cognitive scientist, and political activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4]
"
Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics,[5][6][7] and a major figure of analytic philosophy.[2] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist,[8] referring to himself as a libertarian socialist.
"Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views, despite being typically absent from the mainstream media."
Chomsky hates moral hypocrites and there's no shortage of those among US elites.
Oh, WELL, if the great and mighty Wiki says it, it MUST be true . . . oh, wait, never mind.
Of course a lot of people quote Chomsky. I don't think anyone's ever denied that there are a lot of stupid fuckers in the world at any given time. Case in point, yourself. That doesn't make him 1) worthwhile, 2) worthy of respect, or 3) correct. I mean, hello? Anyone notice MARX on that list? Being quoted doesn't necessarily mean your quotes were right.
For someone who allegedly "hates" something there's no shortage of among elites, he certainly is viewed as an icon of the elites. Of course, you probably mean someone other than the REAL elites in this country.
Nevertheless, one of Chomsky's greatest legacies to all of us - and thank you SO much, you pontificating buffoon - is the inability of anyone in politics anymore to simply conduct a rational, logical debate about the issues and their merits. Thanks to Chomsky, every issue is now viewed as an epic moral struggle between good and evil and the other side is cast as so diabolical as to be unworthy of even debating. And I quote: "By accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity." So much for civil discourse in politics.
And let us not forget his wonderful bequest of derailing debates by moral equivalency and topic-hopping. Chomsky was a big supporter of the Chinese Communistsl. When he finally had to admit that the ChiComs really did kill millions of their fellow countrymen, he blew off their man-made famines by comparing them to deaths in India that he blamed on that country's program of capitalism. He actually went on to claim that the "crimes of democratic capitalism may be monstrously worse" than the crimes of Communism. So don't anyone accuse him of lacking perspective and proportion.
This man, so admired by leftist pinheads, has gushed over genocidal murderers like the Khmer Rouge, predicted the US creating a holocaust in Afghanistan, and has posited numerous times the idea of a US-Nazi alliance after WWII. (See
What Uncle Sam Really Wants.) In 1977, he suggested that history was being rewritten to create the impression of "the sad results of Communist success and American failure. Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism by undermine the credibility of those who opposed the [Vietnam] war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom. It is in this context that we must view the recent spate of newspaper reports, editorials, and books on Cambodia, a part of the world not ordinarily of great concern to the press."
The piece went on to try to justify the Khmer Rouge. A decade later, he tried to claim he had always recognized the hideous nature of the Khmer Rouge. He wrote, "Outside the marginal Maoist circles, there was virtually no doubt from early on that the Khmer Rouge regime under the emerging leader Pol Pot was responsible for gruesome atrocities." THAT is how he "hates hypocrisy". Anyone as regularly moronic as Chomsky should learn to never, EVER put anything on paper.
More recently, Chomsky has claimed that the 9/11 attacks were nothing compared with President Clinton's 1998 bombing of Sudan, which - according to Chomsky - resulted in probably "tens of thousands of immediate Sudanese victims." Of course. as everyone but him knows, Clinton's bombing resulted in just a handful of casualties. Even the sources he tried to cite for this claim disavowed him, like Human Rights Watch.
Most ironic, though, is this writing from Chomsky in 1966: "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass without comment." Given how spectacularly wrong and dishonest Chomsky has been throughout his highly-touted and overrated career in the public eye, one must at least comment that it would be nice if Noam Chomsky practiced what he preaches.
....damn unfair.
