The Pen is mightier than the sword, but the Pen must sometimes move the sword against corruption if the corrupt are not moved by the pen.. An idea without an implementer is useless. "The Rulers do not carry the sword in vain"Rom 13:4

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Noam Chomsky Supports Genocide.. as long as it's done by the Left(?)

It would appear so!  Chomsky  is on record in a number of fascinating talks about propaganda, in which he makes reference to the grand papa of all propaganda Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud)  who wrote the book on the subject with that as the title.   Chomsky seems to have a good handle on how propaganda is used by many powerful interests in the West, but in the process, he is actually committing the same sins he is condemning.

He applauds with the greatest academic finesse, a book by Porter and Hildrebrand that downplays, even denies the Cambodian genodice.

For example, in his talk "Necessary Illusions" (the Q and A period) he states emphatically that the book he supports which dumbs down, dilutes and distorts the reality of the Cambodian Genocide, that he still holds the same views, and that it was a very well documented book, researched to the nth degree etc.....

Here is the reality

By contrast, Chomsky portrayed Porter and Hildebrand's book as "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources." Refuting Chomsky on the question of documentation, researcher Bruce Sharp found that 33 out of 50 citations in one chapter of Porter and Hildebrand's book derived from the Khmer Rouge government and six from China, the Khmer Rouge's principal supporter.

See it? Not a pea shooters worth of attack on Pol Pot or his psycho regime..nope..  "carefully documented" and 'AMERICA' is...wait for it....the bad guy... well of course you didn't see that coming did you? Hmm like a speeding express train when you are standing on the tracks in broad daylight.

In Chomsky, who describes himself as an 'anarcho syndicalist'.... basically meaning if you are poor, you get organized and steal stuff from those who have more. He makes Grand Theft look like playschool when you analyze the (a)morality of his views!

This the danger of simply swallowing hook line and sinker, views like Chompers, who does have very high academic qualifications, it's just that he is also infected with that despicable 'anarcho syndicalism'.

CONCLUSION.. Interestingly, Chomsky is Jewish, and I'll get he would raise an incredible and hysterical stink if anyone denied the Holocaust... oooooh yeah!  But here he is denying the very thing somewhere else..oh wait... it didn't involve 'his' people now did it...aah.. just could not have happened then... and anyway, it's too good an opportunity to miss  to bash America. So, I conclude, and this is just my opinion, that Chomsky does in fact support mass murder, by denial, as long as the people murdered are a) Not Jews and b) Represent the educated classes in countries Left wing revolutionaries are operating in.

"Final Conclusion" Chomsky is evil, Chomsky is a nut case... Chomsky is a dingbat fruitcake and dangerous.

 His 'dangerousness' comes from the fact that he 'sounds' like some kind of liberating force for good:

The historical norm is illustrated by the dramatically contrasting case of Central America, where any popular effort to overthrow the brutal tyrannies of the oligarchy and the military is met with murderous force, supported or directly organized by the ruler of the hemisphere. Ten years ago, there were signs of hope for an end to the dark ages of terror and misery, with the rise of self-help groups, unions, peasant associations, Christian base communities, and other popular organizations that might have led the way to democracy and social reform. This prospect elicited a stern response by the United States and its clients, generally supported by its European allies, with a campaign of slaughter, torture, and general barbarism that left societies "affected by terror and panic," "collective intimidation and generalized fear" and "internalized acceptance of the terror," (Chomsky-Force and Opinion)

Now unless you are a lazy thinker you could easily be hoodwinked into the propaganda that Chomsky is espousing in this paragraph. Notice that
GOOD GUYS= Peasants, Unions, Self Help groups etc.
BAD GUYS= Governments, the USA and European Capitalism.

Unfortunately, ALL are the bad guys, none of the 'good' guys Chomski mentions will ever turn out to be anything but a new batch of 'bad' guys once they have power. They will use exactly the same methods and mayhem that the current crop uses.  Todays Peasant is tomorrow's Tyrant, just ask Chairman Mao Tze Tung.

There is another approach to human organization. Even the decadent yet very intelligent Jean Jaques Rousseau, the author of "The Social Contract" recognized it in the city of his birth- Geneva. He applauded that state as the closest to his ideals of fairness, equality and justice out of all others......and Geneva was a Protestant  Christian Theocracy at the time!
Rousseau was no fan of Religion. I suppose the best way to sum this up is by the bumper sticker:

"If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved?"

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make comments here. Vulgarity or namecalling will not survive the moderator. Reasoned argument alone will survive.