Noam Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage

[longafan]

I presume when you say "rational, honest, decent people" who loves to read his books you're referring to guys like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/books/23chomsky.html

Ah, from the same bestseller list that boasts names like Michael Savage. So relevant. The next time I'm in a checkout line at the supermarket I'll make a point to strike up a conversation with the person behind me by asking, "Hey, do you think Chomsky's opinion that the media is little more than a pulpit for perpetuating the axes of institutional power is correct?" I'm sure I won't be greeted by a blank stare. Even college students stop caring the minute they put the test down.

No, Chomsky went too far this time: much, much too far. We're not talking about the financial center of the West, here. We're not even talking about the rich, spoiled brats of Saudi oligarchs. We're talking about a bunch of satirists and cartoonists getting gunned down in cold blood by their fellow citizens; one of whom who had no historical attachment to Islam or the suffering of "state-sponsored terrorism" abroad by the West at all.

Unfortunately, there will always be spineless, disaffected, powerless pseudo-intellectuals who cling to cult champions of anti-authoritarian propaganda like this (as it requires its own audience for solvent sustainability). You know...the type who always gravitate towards the most outrageous minority opinions out of-- I speculate-- some strange narcissistic need to feel exceptional when there is nothing else exceptional about them; the type who endlessly soapbox about the unmitigated evils of "state worshiping" and those who willfully contribute to such states while never doing anything meaningful to counter it, but, on the contrary, continue this pontification while actually participating in the power structures of such states themselves! (i.e. paying taxes, voting, etc.) One wonders if there could be any more pitiful a creature so hopelessly unaware of their opaque (but evidential) self-loathing.

Chomsky may or may not have gone to far but to call him a pseudo intellectual shows that he sure rustled your Jimmies...I would say that it makes you sound like an idiot but you seem to be intelligent and well spoken, so I'll allow for that to slide as you being a little upset...Agree or disagree with Noam, he is not a pseudo intellectual, he is an Intellectual, a man of great knowledge...his opinion you may not appreciate, but they are backed up by a lifetime of research learning and thought.

 

[jeffk]

I think he was calling some of his followers pseudo intellectual, not Chomsky.

 

[KrazyKanadian]

it is not the same argument from both sides. The western argument (and frankly this argument goes for many muslim countries as well) is 'leave us alone and you can run your own countries as you see fit'.

hahahahahahahaha

 

[ButterStoch]

I think he was calling some of his followers pseudo intellectual, not Chomsky.

Yes he said pseudo-intellectuals who "cling to anti-authoritarians" not Chomsky wasn't an intellectual. He is *the* Leftist intellectual.

He is accurate in one of seen of Chomsky supporters, frail pseudo-intellectuals with hipster pube beards/square black-rimmed glasses/ear plug combos seem to gravitate toward him.

 

[Amerikuracana]

The problems he complains of are much, much worse in the places where the people he seems to champion come from. He needs to come to terms and accept that.

 

[longafan]

I think he was calling some of his followers pseudo intellectual, not Chomsky.

OK, MY bad, was late and am on cold medicine, I guess I misread or misunderstood, I apologize for my attack on you Madmick

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I presume when you say "rational, honest, decent people" who loves to read his books you're referring to guys like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/books/23chomsky.html

Ah, from the same bestseller list that boasts names like Michael Savage. So relevant. The next time I'm in a checkout line at the supermarket I'll make a point to strike up a conversation with the person behind me by asking, "Hey, do you think Chomsky's opinion that the media is little more than a pulpit for perpetuating the axes of institutional power is correct?" I'm sure I won't be greeted by a blank stare. Even college students stop caring the minute they put the test down.

No, Chomsky went too far this time: much, much too far. We're not talking about the financial center of the West, here. We're not even talking about the rich, spoiled brats of Saudi oligarchs. We're talking about a bunch of satirists and cartoonists getting gunned down in cold blood by their fellow citizens; one of whom who had no historical attachment to Islam or the suffering of "state-sponsored terrorism" abroad by the West at all.

Unfortunately, there will always be spineless, disaffected, powerless pseudo-intellectuals who cling to cult champions of anti-authoritarian propaganda like this (as it requires its own audience for solvent sustainability). You know...the type who always gravitate towards the most outrageous minority opinions out of-- I speculate-- some strange narcissistic need to feel exceptional when there is nothing else exceptional about them; the type who endlessly soapbox about the unmitigated evils of "state worshiping" and those who willfully contribute to such states while never doing anything meaningful to counter it, but, on the contrary, continue this pontification while actually participating in the power structures of such states themselves! (i.e. paying taxes, voting, etc.) One wonders if there could be any more pitiful a creature so hopelessly unaware of their opaque (but evidential) self-loathing.

The question at hand is, how isolated has he become after making "outrageous" claims over the years? So him making the NYT Bestseller list doesn't count. Him receiving dozens and dozens of honors from all sorts of institutions across the world doesn't count. Sorry, but the Does Madmick Say It Is? test isn't valid for me.

And if you were honest for a split second, you'd admit that 9/11 wasn't seen as an attack on the "financial center of the West." It wasn't a cyber attack on the banks' computers or a bombing of the stock exchange or something. 9/11 was viewed as a direct assault on American territory, American people and American culture itself. Flags came out everywhere, it mobilized the country for war, it brought everyone to tears, etc. Some cartoonists in goddamn France getting killed doesn't even register compared to this.

All Chomsky did to in both cases is point out that while they're unquestionably heinous, the US and the West carry out unquestionably more heinous acts. So he didn't go too far for comments on the biggest attack on US soil in 200 years... but he did go to far for a bunch of dudes in France. Yeah, you're a bright one.

And yeah, it's pretty "spineless" to support anti-authoritarian movements, ideas and people. It takes real guts to support the powerful and violent. It takes real guts to insist that "your side" is always righteous because, hey, it's your side and you certainly don't wanna have to think that what's "yours" is involved in something bad. Reflecting on your position and thinking critically is for the weak and stupid. The strong and principled defend their indoctrination through thick and thin.

And finally, you're also correct that some people simply love "outrageous minority opinions." Like the outrageous idea that international law should be followed and applied. Pretty wild stuff there.

 

[Thunderflash500]

To me the conclusion of the article is that when it comes to rights violations there exists a double standard in the world where the West sees itself as not being able to "do no evil" so to speak. Chomsky used the bombing of Serbian state television headquarters to demonstrate this point. Both situations involved a violation of free speech where journalists were killed for what they were saying yet only the Charlie Hebdo example garnered widespread condemnation from the West. I think most objective observers would look at both examples and see the hypocrisy.

I agree. He's not saying they aren't bad. He's just saying we are bad too. We all need to advance and not just blame each other.

I would argue in the modern world islam is more of a threat to liberty than western governments. The west has made large improvements, but we still need people like chomsky to continue pointing out our flaws.

 

[peytonlucy]

Would have loved to have seen Hitchens and Chomsky go toe to toe.

Hitchens was basically, "kill all radical Muslims" after the ayatollah put the fatwa on his boy, Salman Rushdie.

And Chomsky has always been, "Down with the Nazi system of America."

I love and respect both and I believe Chomsky raises some great points, always gives sources, researches his talking points to the umpteenth degree, and never rattles off ideology based on idiotic conjecture.

Hitchens was an excellent public speaker; however, after watching many of his debates over three decades or so, people confuse his calling his opponents idiots with making an effective case. In the few areas that I know anything about it was easy to recognize that he had drawn forceful conclusions with having knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep. I'm not a fan of Chomsky but we're talking about two different leagues of intellects, IMO. Hitchens basically was doing H.L. Mencken's act.

 

[peytonlucy]

Just more tribal bullshit from both sides.

Our Western tribe is awesome, and their Muslim Tribe cannot coexist and must be destroyed.

The Western Tribe is infidels and does not worship Allah, they must be destroyed.

Same argument from both sides, same argument that is the basis of every conflict ever. Must destroy the "other"because they are different .

More conflicts throughout history were over resources than philosophy, religion or ideology.

 

[alphaomegaman]

More conflicts throughout history were over resources than philosophy, religion or ideology.

*Amen































































































*Praise be to Allah

 

[Osstopher McGi]

I dunno. The Council of Clermont is clearly a responsive action, the wording and everything indicates as such (I have the Fulcher of Chartres version, which stands thus at least). This is the basis for the intial engaging conflict between the West and Islam.
Contemporary historians of the Persian area at the time of Mohamet indicate a military defeat and exile then massive aggressive military expansion.
Islamic doctrine supports this theory and advocates the expansion by the sword which has been seen unceasingly since it's inception.
There are those, particularly in the Islamic world, who claim that the Roman Catholic Church (I haven't heard any claims, funnily enough, against Maronite Catholics, Chaldean &c. or even Byzantine/Ruthenian) are at fault for antagonising Islam for centuries but even then it is undeniable that the Second Vatican Council proclaimed religious liberty for all religions and documents from the Council reversed previous Church teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus doctrine, setting all religions on an equal footing; as opposed to Islam, whose doctrine still regards all those outside it's fold as infidels.

If they were something which could be just left alone, they would just be left alone. But we have nearly 1000 years of precedence indicated from various sources, including those among Islam itself.