
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
From the “if you are upsetting Noam Chomsky you must be doing something right” department;
…
Why did you recently call the Republican Party “the most dangerous organization in world history”?
Take its leader, who recently applied to the government of Ireland for a permit to build a huge wall to protect his golf course, appealing to the threat of global warming, while at the same time he withdrew from international efforts to address the grim threat and is using every means at his disposal to accelerate it. Or take his colleagues, the participants in the 2016 Republican primaries. Without exception, they either denied that what is happening is happening – though any ignorance is self-induced – or said maybe it is but we shouldn’t do anything about it. The moral depths were reached by the respected “adult in the room,” Ohio governor John Kasich, who agreed that it is happening but added that “we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it.” Or take a recent publication of Trump’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a detailed study recommending an end to regulations on emissions. It presented a rational argument: extrapolating current trends, by the end of the century we’ll be over the cliff and automotive emissions don’t contribute very much to the catastrophe – the assumption being that everyone is as criminally insane as we are and won’t try to avoid the crisis. In brief, let’s rob while the planet burns, putting poor Nero in the shadows.
This surely qualifies as a contender for the most evil document in history.
There have been many monsters in the past, but it would be hard to find one who was dedicated to undermining the prospects for organized human society, not in the distant future — in order to put a few more dollars in overstuffed pockets.
And it doesn’t end there. The same can be said about the major banks that are increasing investments in fossil fuels, knowing very well what they are doing. Or, for that matter, the regular articles in the major media and business press reporting US success in rapidly increasing oil and gas production, with commentary on energy independence, sometimes local environmental effects, but regularly without a phrase on the impact on global warming – a truly existential threat. Same in the election campaign. Not a word about the issue that is merely the most crucial one in human history.
Hardly a day passes without new information about the severity of the threat. As I’m writing, a new study appeared in Nature showing that retention of heat in the oceans has been greatly underestimated, meaning that the total carbon budget is much less than had been assumed in the recent, and sufficiently ominous, IPCC report. The study calculates that maximum emissions would have to be reduced by 25% to avoid warming of 2 degrees (C), well above the danger point. At the same time polls show that — doubtless influenced by their leaders who they trust more than the evil media — half of Republicans deny that global warming is even taking place, and of the rest, almost half reject any human responsibility. Words fail.
…
In my opinion Noam Chomsky has a track record of noisily criticising the alleged “crimes” of the USA and right wing leaders, while glossing over serious failings of the left.
In 1980 Chomsky was accused by fellow left wing academic Steven Lukes of providing cover for Pol Pot’s genocidal Cambodian Communist Khmer Rouge regime, a charge Chomsky denies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chomsky is a single step linguist – language emerged fully formed suddenly.
I wonder what he thinks of Phrygian, and Pharaoh Psammetichus experiment with children raised with sheep, while a shepherd waited for their first word, bekos, the Phrygian for bread. King James V of Scotland tried the same and concluded Hebrew as the first language.
Ventris, a lawyer not a linguist, deciphered Linear B which most had written off as “phrygian”, to be Greek.
Noam Chomsky has been proven a pathological liar a thousand times over, and this is not limited to his political musings. His professional career has been one of plagiarism from its inception, and he is generally despised by his peers, one of his former students even labeling him “satanic.” For an introduction see Collier and Horowitz, editors, “The Anti-Chomsky Reader.”
For a wealth of scholarly anti-Chomsky literature start with any of (historian of linguistics) Koerner’s articles on the much hyped Chomskyan linguistic revolution. Or see any of the critiques of Barsky’s pseudo-biography of NC. NC has single handedly set back linguistic science half a century. –AGF
See also Paul Bogdanor’s The Top 250 of Chomsky’s Lies (pdf).
Bogdanor’s web site has a large number of articles showing Chomsky’s abuse of truth. http://www.paulbogdanor.com/writings.html
Thanks!
It’s all a game. How many honors students can you dupe in one setting while still getting an ovation?
Freshly entering the US from a communistic country, I happened to attend Chomsky’s talk at MIT. Shortly after he started to talk, he brought up the superiority of the communistic system. I thought my English was so bad that I misunderstood him. Eventually it dawned on me that that guy is not in touch with reality. Not being in a position to question him with my poor English I got up and left. I was not alone in doing so.
Noam Chomsky was also a big fan of Hugo Chavez. He praised his social revolution that denounced U.S. Imperialism. Why even listen to this clown? His opinions are worthless.
It’s a good buddy of Chaves who is funding the caravan headed north. Trump exposes the biggest losers!
This guy’s just a bag of sh!t. Doesn’t even know the meaning of words (criminally insane??? what is that exactly LOL) calls himself a writer, HA HA
Hold on, just a second! You mean to tell me that the shoreline does not erode from wave action? Only from a changing climate?
What’s in your wallet NC?
Did he ever find the mass graves that resulted from the U.S. perpetrated “savage, silent genocide” that killed a million people in Afghanistan over a single winter?
Ask the Generals – they weren’t counting.
Noam Chomsky is consistently wrong about everything he touches and every field that he investigates.
Hey Noam, chomp on this you leftist pos.
You always set aside a table at Thanksgiving for the crazy uncle.
The discussions are always better, and it makes you more carefully form your argument.
Noam Chomsky, a socialist who has squirreled away millions in a private trust which minimises tax.
Jeff
Isn’t that what pseudo socialists do?
The Interview:
HotScot; So, Noam, you’re wealthy but support socialism.
Noam; Indeed, I have worked hard for my money.
HotScot; But Noam, if you’re a socialist doesn’t that mean you believe in everyone being equal.
Noam; No, that’s communism, there’s no democracy.
HotScot; So you don’t believe in everyone being equal then.
Noam; Of course I do, it’s just that certain people need some extra money from the state to …..well….motivate people. Like intellectuals.
HotScot; Which of course includes you Noam.
Noam; Naturally. I’m a pre eminent intellectual, I know stuff others don’t, I can motivate people to be equal.
HotScot; As long as you’re at the head of the equality queue, right?
Noam; Naturally, you wouldn’t want to see we intellectuals suffer the privations of poverty, would you?
HotScot; Of course not Noam.
I will never pay any attention to a person who was an advisor and strong supporter and proponent of Hugo Chavez’s narco-communism in Venezuela.
But you should, at least try to figure out where they are coming from.
No, but I certainly know where I’d like them to go. 😉
Noam Chomsky was denied entry into Israel in 2010 when on a speaking tour in the region. For a Jewish fellow to be denied entry into Israel, well, something must be very wrong. Especially for a world famous Jewish linguistic professor. He was scheduled to give lectures in Israel and the West Bank. Israel denied him entry stating he was subverting the security of Israel and the West Bank/Gaza with his denouncement of both USA and Israel.
25-30 years ago, I listened to what he had to say and even read a few of his books. But he was such a diehard Marxist professor then, it was hard to listen to since I was interested in what he had to say about linguistics and not his views on everything else. And now, he is just foaming at the mouth in his old age. If he had just stuck to his linguistic studies and teachings, the world would have probably been a better place. The leftist hooligans idolize him while attacking everybody and everything in their way, supposedly in the name of Antifa.
Damn… you all know that Chomsky was working at the Rand Corp and complicit in forming the MAD strategy that effectively ended the Cold War… right?
During that period he was exposed to the realities of US interference in the global arena. The CIA follows him around, documents those that show up at his lectures, and basically create the appearance (in publications and planted antagonists) that he is a crackpot.
He is NOT. This man is just brilliant, and despite the bad press and intimidation strategies on behalf of our government (who would rather have their secrets kept secret) continues to speak truth to power. Just consider what he says. So far as being a brilliant linguist, I can surely attest, as a longtime student on computer science.
[????m .mod]
Silliest nonsense I ever heard.
Without regard to anything he has said or anything he has done in the past, in *this* article he’s claiming exceeding +2.0C is an existential threat. That’s approximately as likely as Guam tipping over from having too many people on it.
or the interior of the earth being several million degrees.
“…concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
This was written by Walter C. Langer, in a psychological profile of he-you-must-not-be-named!
Catastrophic global warming is ‘the big lie’! It is entirely outrageous, with completely unfounded tenants like: Warmer temperatures are catastrophic, atmospheric CO2 controls global temperature, tipping points are just around the corner, natural climate change is insignificant, atmospheric temperatures have been basically steady for the last 11,000 years until now, a few degrees warmer will cause massive extinctions on land and in the seas, a warmer world has much more severe weather, and so on.
All of these statements are clearly false, but they are being repeated again and again throughout the liberal media, and I fear that a growing number of people are starting to buy ‘the big lie’! Terrible things happen when the majority has been brainwashed into believing ‘the big lie’.
Trump may be the last high profile politician to stand up to the big lie, and now the left has seized the House of Representatives, with the sole agende of demonizing and destroying the President over the next two years. We may scoff at the words of Noam Chomsky in this article, but you will hear much these same words spoken over and over again in the months and years ahead. They will often be spoken by people who don’t really care about climate change, but they will passionately use the big lie to win political power and destroy their enemies.
We underestimate the power of the big lie at our own peril!
Logic does not appear to be among his languages. He is a blinkered idiot.
I speak on subjects in which I have expertise. These include climate and energy. It is clear to me that Noam Chomsky is entirely incorrect and his assumptions and his statements on these subjects.
As regards his other alleged failings, I have no opinion, because I have not studied him, nor do I intend to. The fact that he is utterly wrong on these two subjects suggests he is not worthy of further attention.
Your expertise in English grammar is lacking: “It is clear to me that Noam Chomsky is entirely incorrect and his assumptions and his statements on these subjects. “
Steve
Apologies for the typo, which was trivial. I am dictating this from my phone, which does not always correctly interpret my words.
Perhaps next time you will have something intelligent to say.
Correction of typo:
I speak on subjects in which I have expertise. These include climate and energy. It is clear to me that Noam Chomsky is entirely incorrect in his assumptions and his statements on these subjects.
As regards his other alleged failings, I have no opinion, because I have not studied him, nor do I intend to. The fact that he is utterly wrong on these two subjects suggests he is not worthy of further attention.
Pat Frank’s PDF has good stuff, including this quote from Paul Postal:
“After many years, I came to the conclusion that everything he says is false. He will
lie just for the fun of it. Every one of his arguments was tinged and coded with
falseness and pretense. It was like playing chess with extra pieces. It was all fake.”
– Paul Postal
(The New Yorker, March 31, 2003)
It might be noted that Postal was a colleague of Chomsky’s at MIT, one of many whose dissent Chomsky attacked viciously, only to later have his ideas renamed and adopted by Chomsky and claimed as his own.
Here’s Barsky on Chomsky, from a “biography” based on letters from Chomsky:
https://books.google.com/books?id=RKUbyYPG4mcC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=ellis+rivkin+on+chomsky&source=bl&ots=_FUk16xwL6&sig=vxxOFE3yxdt6CVGIsv7Js1D9Ess&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN0MuVxP_QAhXis1QKHf2zDY4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=ellis%20rivkin%20on%20chomsky&f=false
================================================================================
p.55
“Hoenigswald—and Harris, as well—likely knew that there existed another example of generative grammar (albeit a less detailed one than Chomsky’s 1948 thesis work, and limited to the phonological level) that had preceded Chomsky’s by roughly eight years. It was called “Menomini Morphophonemics,”and was published by American linguist Leonard Bloomfield in the Czech Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague in 1939. It is remarkable, in Chomsky’s view, that neither Hoenigswald nor Harris revealed the existence of this text to his student. “Menomini Morphophonemics” is an extraordinary text, completely inconsistent with Bloomfield’s other writings about language and how research in the area should be done. This, Chomsky believes, was one of the reasons Bloomfield decided to publish it in Europe.
“Hoenigswald and Harris were very close to Bloomfield, and certainly knew his work. But neither of them mentioned to their only undergraduate student that he was rediscovering, more or less, what Blooomfield had just done eight years before. It’s not surprising in Harris’s case, because he didn’t know what I was doing. But Hoenigswald read it, and must have recognized the similarities, back to classical India. I learned nothing of this until the 1960s when Morris Halle found out about Bloomfield’s work. (31 Mar. 1995)”
=================================================================================
This denial of knowledge of what is hinted by Barsky to be an obscure publication in an obscure journal was in fact Bloomfield’s contribution to a Festschrift for Nikolai Trubetzkoy, a founder of the preeminent Prague Circle who had recently died when the Nazis confiscated the draft of his study, “On the Pre-History of Slavic Languages.” Accordingly Chomsky’s assertion of ignorance is in fact a preemptive defense against the automatic charge of plagiarism, and thus Chomsky begins his career. Critical writers give many examples showing a pattern of failure of attribution. Rest assured, Chomsky’s pervasive dishonesty extends deeply into his professional writing. –AGF