Salty milk and pennies?

he didn't do it because he's a gigantic faggot?

I can't recall who, but someone described culture as "forgetting where the reference came from." Thomas Mann, maybe?

Chomsky defended Faurrison. He championed the Khmer Rouge. His condemnations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one hundred percent one-sided, based on the (obviously) false notion that the Arab nations and the Palestinian people have been trying to arrange a peace with Israel for decades. He viewed the rescue mission undertaken in Kosovo as nothing more than the extension of imperial power. He accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan and thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers. One could go on, but it all adds up to, I fear, the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc. And I find it amazing that intelligent people take it seriously.
- Eric Alterman, editor of The Nation, former Nader's Raider, avowed leftist

>>201072
>Chomsky defended Faurrison

Would you prefer people go to jail for having socially unacceptable views on politics and history then?

fucking lolled OP, good work

Sure does not sound like that pretentious faggot. WHile being a great author, he would always rub everything in your face, especially any references.

>>201072

Hmmm, the picture in the upper right is of the Einsatzgruppen murdering a Jewish man in the Ukraine. A little out of place, eh?

>>201787
Chomsky has bordered on apologist for Nazi Germany, and has associated himself with holocaust deniers.. so no.

Cunning linguist.

>>201793

In what ways has he been a borderline apologist for Nazi Germany and what Holocaust deniers has he associated with?

Welcome to 4chan, zack.

>>201590

As long as those views are unacceptable to me, sure.

>>201072
a) the Palestinians have been on and off trying for peace with the Israelis, neither side are willing to make the right concessions though. (Palestinians want 1967 borders, Israelis does not want the Palestinians to have official "Government/Nation status" etc etc.)
The other Arab nations are a bit of a coin toss though. Egypt is cool as long as they get bribe money from the US, some of the others are haters in their internal politics but "secretly" trade with them and what not.

>thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers
The mistaken attack?
Mistaken? Who is this fucker kidding.
That shit was more transparent than the bias in this article.
And no, I fucking despise Chomsky.

>>201804
By stating that it was Britain and the US who were responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany, by stating that Germany would have have not started the war if not provoked by the allies, by stating that the occupation of Europe by the Nazis was equivalent to American occupation, by stating that modern America is equivalent to Nazi Germany and need "de-Nazification," etc.

As for his association with holocaust deniers, the list is long as well-known. Look it up. It includes Max Weber, Robert Faurisson, Serge Thion, Pierre Guillaume, etc.

>>201904
Mega-Liberals always do weird shit like that.

>>201904

his "association" with holocaust deniers is merely to point out that anyone who believes in 'freedom of speech' must by definition believe in the right of holocaust deniers to voice their denial of the holocaust.

Only stupid people turn that around and think that Chomsky must therefore agree with holocaust deniers.

>Max Weber
>holocaust denier
I did not know that

>>201904

Hmmm I have to wonder if Chomsky knows much about the lead up to WWII if he believes that. As for the Holocaust deniers, does he simply defend their freedom of speech, or does he go out of his way to defend their work as legitimate?

>>201996

No.

Every good conservative knows that freedom of speech only applies to "good" speech.

Every one who isn't a good conservative doesn't get an opinion.

>>202002

*Mark Weber

http://www.adl.org/Holocaust/weber.asp

>>201072

The Somalia vs. WTC debate was tried by Christopher Hitchens against Chomsky, and Chomsky demolished him so soundly that Hitchens fell silent. An incredible accomplishment.

ok guys get out and get fucking girlfriends. somalia is dwindling and chomsky is an fag.

>>202014
>>202008
>>201996

Chomsky signed a petition that explicitly approved of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson’s writings by (a) affirming his scholarly credentials (“a respected professor” of “document criticism”); (b) describing his lies as “extensive historical research”; (c) placing the term “Holocaust” in derisory quotation marks; and (d) portraying his lies as “findings.”

“I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
- Noam Chomsky, in response to criticism

Chomsky's repeated premise is that America needs to stop being hypocritical in its foreign policy: if we call someone else's aggression a war crime, then we should call our own aggression a war crime as well. All he asks is that we be consistent.

>>202056

let the man defend himself:

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm

>>201904
>By stating that it was Britain and the US who were responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany
They and the french. That's history 101 for fucks sake. See the Treaty of Versailles.
>by stating that the occupation of Europe by the Nazis was equivalent to American occupation
Doesn't sound so far off, the Europe fighting was just good ol' Imperialism.
>by stating that modern America is equivalent to Nazi Germany and need "de-Nazification," etc.
Have you seen America recently?
Shit's scary.

>>201072

I agree with 90% of this

>>202123

Probably because you're not actually familiar with Chomsky's arguments.

>>202143
Au contraire.

>>202147

then you should know that "90% of this" is a misstatement of Chomsky's positions.

>>201787

"The Last Jew in Vinnitsa," it was titled by the German that snapped it. He perhaps had a flair for the dramatic.

>>202159
It's a rather reasonable interpretation of a rather obfuscatory man.

>>202095

>Have you seen America recently?

Saying that the United States is even close to as evil as Nazi Germany really REALLY doesn't give Nazi Germany enough credit.

>>202177
You're lacking death camps and laws singling out a minority. That's about it really.

>>202175

It seems to me that Chomsky has been adequately defended in much of this thread. Specifically on the cases brought up by the Alterman quote.

>>202197
They certainly have not. Weak attempts at counterargument of 2 points have been made. That a significant leftist as Alterman would make such a statement (and he is hardly, hardly alone) is revealing in itself given all complex political philosophy is subject to interpretation, hermeneutics, emphasis, etc.

>>202229

fine. let me.

>Chomsky defended Faurrison.

see: >>202074

>He championed the Khmer Rouge.

Not at all. He pointed out root causes and the things done by the US that brought it about. He uses it to explicate the East Timor situation at the same time, and the US's contradictory reactions.

>His condemnations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one hundred percent one-sided, based on the (obviously) false notion that the Arab nations and the Palestinian people have been trying to arrange a peace with Israel for decades.

>>201881 is a decent beginning at a defense.

>He viewed the rescue mission undertaken in Kosovo as nothing more than the extension of imperial power.

Well, the phrasing of this one is atrocious. In reality, Chomsky points out that the US predicted the casualties its bombing would create and went ahead with the bombing anyway. He judges the situation based on that.

>He accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan

This might be true, but what is Alterman's argument?

>and thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers.

see: >>202030

>One could go on, but it all adds up to, I fear, the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc. And I find it amazing that intelligent people take it seriously.

Spurious at best.

>Chomsky defended Faurrison.
Good. Free speech should be protected.
>He championed the Khmer Rouge.
I was under the impression he said that the American Media was doing their anti-commie spiel and ignoring the Americans hand in Cambodia's suffering. And finishing off with a hypothetical what-if situation.
>His condemnations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one hundred percent one-sided, based on the (obviously) false notion that the Arab nations and the Palestinian people have been trying to arrange a peace with Israel for decades.
Not false, there's a lot of political dissent on both sides however.
>He viewed the rescue mission undertaken in Kosovo as nothing more than the extension of imperial power.
Citation needed.
>He accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan and thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers.
A holocaust? Bit strong words but the death toll in Afghanistan is nothing to joke about. And the destruction of the medical facilities in question killed tons of people.
>One could go on, but it all adds up to, I fear, the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc. And I find it amazing that intelligent people take it seriously.
I find it hilarious that "Leftists" that go "LEAVE THE COUNTRY YOU HURT THE ELECTION" are taken seriously.

>>202315
>>202320

hivemind?

>>202315
None of that in my honest opinion constitutes an adequate defense. It is of course possible to defend yourself of defend someone regardless of anything else. Politicians do it. Lawyers do in trials every day. Simply because a defense has been made does not make it adequate, and none of those cases are given again the nature of political discourse and the frequency and seriousness of the points against Chomsky.

>>201072
Let's see... misrepresentations and outright falsehoods with a few truths thrown in.
Yeah, good editorializing, shiteater.

>>202368

the point is that Alterman DOES NOT UNDERSTAND Chomsky's arguments. That he would even begin with "Chomsky defended Faurrison [sic]" demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the situation in question.

I love Zach Galifianakis.

Actually stop and think. How COULD Chomsky champion the Khmer Rouge when their most infamous policy was to kill intellectuals... especially ones with glasses?

>>202399

he's not funny. gtfo

>>202406
Your opinion is undisputable fact, eh? Well, I guess I lose.

Noam Chomsky seems to feel licensed to forget or distort the truth whenever it suits his polemical convenience. He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook.
- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Harvard Historian, leftist

>>202422

by what metric is Schlesinger a "Leftist"?

I found myself wondering what Noam Chomsky was saying. Chomsky's remarks, which are pathetic but revealing: First he tries to blame it all on the Western Right, then suddenly gets all judicious and practical.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate Princeton economist, leftist

>>202399
he gets it.

>>202399

>>202451

After many years, I came to the conclusion that everything [Chomsky] 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 Postale, Yale scholar, author, linguist, leftist
The New Yorker, March 31, 2003

I see one side coming with arguments and one side (or person) repeating the Argument from authority fallacy.

>>202456

>>202443

That sentence has no context. What is Krugman even referring to?

And again, how on earth is Krugman considered a "Leftist"?

>>202451
>>202468

In his ideological fanaticism, Chomsky constantly shifts his arguments and bends references, quotations and facts, while declaring his ‘commitment to find the truth.’
- Leopold Labedz, Holocaust survivor, Soviet Union refugee, London School economist
(Encounter, July 1980)

>>202468

>>202479
>>202462

Again, define "Leftist"... And obviously these people don't actually know anything about Chomsky.

What? Are you pulling quotes from some anti-Cchomsy website?

Even on the rare occasions when Mr. Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies, he exaggerates by a factor of, plus or minus, four or five.
- Walter Laqueur, Harvard historian

>>202422
>>202443
>>202462
>>202479
Funny I see quotes but no context, guess logic and arguments are just too hard for you, eh?

The three paragraphs of Mr. Chomsky to which I have referred constitute less than five percent of his article. I do not know if the level of veracity which he achieves in them is typical of the entire piece. If these paragraphs are representative, however, the article as a whole should contain, by conservative extrapolation, approximately 94 other serious distortions and misstatements of fact.
- Samuel Huntington, Harvard historian

>>202488

>>202422
>>202443
>>202462
>>202479
>>202502

Every one of these quotes is verifiably false.

Further, each of these people attends (or attended) Satanic rites on Saturday nights.

[See, I can make claims without evidence too.]

>>201904

BROTIP: Chomsy is a JEW, he's just of the antizionist branch

Chomsky's about as challenging as Mr. Rogers. "Hi kids, won't you be my Culturally Sensitive Leftie Neighbor? Good, today kids, we're gonna talk about the evil things America has done in Nicaragua. Can you say Nee-karrrrooah-ooah?
- Mark Ames, journalist, writer for The Nation, leftist

"Hey he's a shiteater"
"No he isn't"
"Yes he is check this totally rad quote"
"Points out bullshit"
"No it's cool"
"Several more posts point out bullshit"
"Fuck you; starts posting quote after quote with no context from Harvard and Yale fags being butthurt."

>>202515

In the issue of January 1, I pointed out that massacre and forced evacuation of the rural population is the essence of American strategy in Vietnam, and referred to Samuel Huntington's essay in Foreign Affairs for a clear explanation of the theory behind this strategy. There he wrote that: "In an absent-minded way the United States in Vietnam may well have stumbled upon the answer to 'wars of national liberation.'" The answer to such wars is "forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength to come to power." He presents a more detailed description of "the answer" we have stumbled upon in a comment on Sir Robert Thompson's contention that People's Revolutionary War is immune to "the direct application of mechanical and conventional power." This Mr. Huntington denies:
In the light of recent events, this statement needs to be seriously qualified. For if the "direct application of mechanical and conventional power" takes place on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city, the basic assumptions underlying the Maoist doctrine of revolutionary war no longer operate. The Maoist-inspired rural revolution is undercut by the American-sponsored urban revolution.

When Noam Chomsky was merely the most original, arresting, and widely talked-about linguistic theorist in America, he was never referred to as a leading American intellectual. That came only after he expressed his outrage over American involvement in the war in Vietnam, about which he knew nothing, since he read The Nation instead of Parade. It was the outrage that gained him entry into that “charming aristocracy,” to borrow the words of Catulle Mendès. Or as Marshall McLuhan once put it, “Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity.”
- Tom Wolfe, renowned journalist, author, Yale historian

>>202544

He also points out that the Viet Cong is "a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist."

These comments are no doubt accurate and, as I wrote, provide a succinct explanation of American strategy. Since the Viet Cong is a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist, we have resorted to military force, causing the migration of the rural population to refugee camps and suburban slums where, it is hoped, the Viet Cong constituency can be properly controlled.

I also commented that Mr. Huntington "does not shrink from" these conclusions. This comment could, in fact, have been strengthened. Thus he says that "forced-draft urbanization and modernization," Vietnam-style, may well be "the answer" in general to mass-based peasant revolutions. In fact, he expresses no qualms, no judgment at all about such methods (which clearly involve "war crimes" as defined by Nuremberg Principle VI, for example). His approach follows the principle stated by two counterinsurgency theorists in Foreign Affairs, October, 1969: "All the dilemmas [of counterinsurgency] are practical and as neutral in an ethical sense as the laws of physics." Thus Huntington uses such terms as "urbanization" to refer to the process by which we drive the Viet Cong "constituency" into refugee camps and cities, and he speaks of the "American-sponsored urban revolution," the "social revolution" that we have brought about in this way. So successful is "urbanization," he might have added, that the population density of Saigon is now estimated at more than twice that of Tokyo. Lucky Vietnamese.

>>202536
So basically he's all butthurt that someones calling out the gov on their shit and makes comparisons to Fred Rogers? (god bless his soul)

>>202547

Enough has been written about the conditions of life of the five million or so beneficiaries of "urbanization" so that further comment is unnecessary. A useful indication of the nature of the "American-sponsored urban revolution," as it affects the more privileged, is given in an observation by Luce and Sommer (Vietnam: the Unheard Voices):
When students at Saigon's teacher training college were asked to list 15 occupations in an English examination, almost every student included launderer, car washer, bar-girl, shoeshine boy, soldier, interpreter, and journalist. Almost none of the students thought to write down doctor, engineer, industrial administrator, farm manager, or even their own chosen profession, teacher. The economy has become oriented toward services catering to the foreign soldiers.

Huntington himself refers to the "often heart-rending" social costs of "urbanization" and writes that: "After the war, massive government programs will be required either to resettle migrants in rural areas or to rebuild the cities and promote peacetime urban employment." Such is the social revolution we have brought to Vietnam.

Mr. Huntington further claims that I said he "favors" eliminating the Viet Cong constituency by bombardment, whereas he only states that such "forced-draft urbanization" may well be "the answer to 'wars of national liberation' " that we have stumbled upon in Vietnam. The distinction is rather fine. One who insists on it must also recognize that I did not say that he "favored" this answer but only that he "outlined" it, "explained" it, and "does not shrink from it," all of which is literally true.

Noam Chomsky skittles and skithers all over the political landscape to distract the reader’s attention from the plain truth.
- Sidney Hook, The Humanist, March-April 1971

>>202553

My only additional comment involved a quotation from Ellsberg, who speaks of the "people who have been driven to Saigon by what Huntington regards as our 'modernizing instruments' in Vietnam, bombs and artillery." Huntington claims that this is prejudiced and a distortion. Unfortunately, it is an accurate statement. The "forced-draft urbanization and modernization" that he believes may be the answer to peasant revolution was, as he makes clear, effected primarily by American military force. Bombs and artillery produced "the depopulation of the countryside," the migration to the cities, where "the Maoist-inspired rural revolution is undercut by the American-sponsored urban revolution."

So far as my comments go, then, they are accurate. But Mr. Huntington objects that they do not go far enough, and cites two reasons. First, I did not state that the phrase "direct application of mechanical and conventional power" was borrowed from Thompson. That is correct (though irrelevant -- see the full statement, just quoted); however, it was clearly indicated that the quotation was abbreviated, and note 4 refers to a fuller discussion where I explicitly gave the source of the wording. His second and more serious claim is that I misrepresented his position by not discussing his specific tactical proposals. It is true that I did not discuss these proposals, restricting my comments to his assessment of Viet Cong strength and his general ideas about how to defeat peasant revolution. Let us turn, then, to his immediate suggestions for Vietnam.

It's hilarious check out the background on some of these guys. Anti-commies, Zionists and what not. :D

>>202565

After describing how we may have stumbled upon the answer to peasant revolutions, Huntington adds this paragraph:
Time in South Viet Nam is increasingly on the side of the Government. But in the short run, with half the population still in the countryside, the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation.

Obviously, if the Viet Cong constituency will continue to exist in the short run, it follows that in the immediate future, if there is to be peace, it must be based on accommodation (or American withdrawal, which is rejected as "misplaced moralism"). This is not a policy proposal, but rather, indubitably, an immediate consequence of the assumption that the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force. Why this assumption? Huntington explains:
To eliminate Viet Cong control in these areas would be an expensive, time-consuming and frustrating task. It would require a much larger and more intense military and pacification effort than is currently contemplated by Saigon and Washington.

>>202508

Son...just let it be. You're dealing with a man with a chip on his shoulder so large it's crippling him.

Anon, Febuary 04 2010, leftist

Chomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. Makers of automobiles know this as well. So do makers of hockey sticks, baseball bats, plastic bags, swimming pools, chain-link fences, or nearly anything else that could conceivably contribute to the death of a child. There is a reason we do not refer to the inevitable deaths of children on our ski slopes as "skiing atrocities." But you would not know this from reading Chomsky.
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 2005

>>202571

Since "the answer to 'wars of national liberation'" will, in this instance, require an effort that is expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating, and since Saigon and Washington cannot or will not take the necessary steps, evidently another approach must be sought. Therefore Huntington proposes that the Viet Cong accept an arrangement rather like that of the Hoa Hao (who, he asserts, went through the typical evolution: development of social and political consciousness, confrontation with the Central Government, defeat by the Central Government, withdrawal from the national political scene, accommodation). Given the present "rates of urbanization and of modernization," his prognosis is that the Viet Cong "could now degenerate into the protest of a declining rural minority increasingly dependent upon outside support" (though at one time, prior to "urbanization and modernization," the Viet Cong "had the potential for developing into a truly comprehensive revolutionary force with an appeal to both rural and urban groups").

Suppose, however, that the NLF refuses to be satisfied with the generous offer of some degree of local control within the framework of national power set by the US military and the Saigon authorities it has installed. Suppose that the NLF is unwilling to accept an "accommodation" under which it is likely to degenerate into a declining rural minority. Then, Mr. Huntington explains, we can make clear that "this confrontation cannot succeed." He does not list the methods, but they can easily be imagined.

>>202579

Thus although the general answer to peasant revolution may be beyond our grasp in the short run, given present political realities, we may still be able to impose (by force) an "accommodation" that is likely to lead to the political solution that we have determined to be appropriate. Nothing could indicate more clearly the persistence of what can only be described as colonialist assumptions, pragmatically attuned to the political and economic constraints within which policy makers are forced to operate.

Finally, Mr. Huntington objects to my description of the Council of Vietnamese Studies, which he headed, as "in effect the State Department task force on Vietnam." He states that this group is only indirectly related to the State Department, that its influence is negligible, and that its main function is fund-raising for scholarly research. An assessment of this statement depends on records that are not available to me. My identification was based only on hearsay, and I am quite ready to accept the correction.

Among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice.
- Osama bin Laden

>>202578

That one is easy to take apart. And Sam Harris probably knows it, if he thought about it. He's smart enough.

>>202587

source:

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19700226.htm

>>202014

>Every one who isn't a good conservative doesn't get an opinion.

When I read this, my brain started to bleed.

Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomsky, the MIT inventor of now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese lives it costs. His reason? He insists Syrian occupation of Lebanon is necessary as a way to prevent those evil Israelis from doing horrid deeds in Lebanon, like attempting to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks launched out of Lebanon.
- Steven Plaut, Princeton economist

I love Chomsky for one reason and one reason only.
He pisses off both the American Left and the Right.
It's fucking hilarious.

>>202422
>>202443
>>202462
>>202479
>>202502
>>202515
>>202536
>>202545
>>202562
>>202578
>>202590
>>202606

non-participating fuckwit; unschooled, no-thought-having, unconscious, pretender to intellect; symptom of contemporary faux-intellectualism dominated by fingers-in-ears, mouth-open-wide, screaming at maximum volume tired conceits that have been debunked a thousand times in twenty years—go fuck yourself.

>>202642

that's because "Left" and "Right" as they're commonly used in public discourse are entirely meaningless.

I personally regard Chomsky as a kook and a half on toast.
- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia project

Can the guy who had anti-Chomsky quotes all prepared for this thread actually state an argument against one of his texts, instead of just spamming cherry picked quotes from better men than him?

>>202668

Huzzah!

>>202667

Jimmy Wales? Jimmy Wales?

This spam has got to be coming to an end if you have to bring out Jimmy Fucking Wales.

>>202646

Spooked ya

Noam Chomsky: He's really an interventionist - and also completely clueless.
- Justin Raimondo, creator and editor of ANTIWAR.COM

Watching how upset both sides of this argument are getting is very funny and reminds me of idiots I knew in University. I no longer care about politics or global affairs in the slightest, and it feels amazing. I suppose I'm a conservative in a limited sense. Nothing will make you a conservative faster than living in a household of stinking, pot-smoking, dreadlocked "activists".

>>202733

you're not a 'conservative'—you're a slave.

The racist reading of Obama’s success culminated in Noam Chomsky’s remark that Obama is a white man blackened by a couple of hours of sun-tanning.
- Slavoj Žižek, leftist

>>202751

Says the negro to the mule.

>>200989
"Once you get past the smell, you've got it licked."

>>201904

America and the UK WERE at least partially responsible for the rise of the Nazis. Look up the Treaty of Versailles, faggot.

>>202733
>stinking, pot-smoking, dreadlocked "activists".
aka armchair activists I take it?
Not that I bother with this shit normally but outright dishonesty irks me. Or at least when it's as noticeable as this shit.

Chomsky has the ability to get right to the heart of a matter, without any ideology clouding his thinking. His greatest strength is that he supports no '-ism'.

--Merylin Oswald, a person I made up.

>>202769
Dude. Fully fucking responsible. The only reason fuckers like the Nazis got the original low numbers before they seized the power with the Reichstag fire was the tanked economy and fucking hatred for a certain few other nations going on. (the treaty was considered shameful for a few more reasons than the Debt they could never hope to repay)

this

>>202769

America and UK appeased the French in drafting a retarded treaty, and thus gave the Germans a reason to rally behind an extreme philosophy.

Professor Chomsky reveals that he is not really an “anarchist” at all, indeed that he prefers statism to an anarchist world. That of course is his prerogative, and scarcely unusual, but what is illegitimate is for this distinguished linguist to call himself an “anarchist”. Beneath a thin veneer of libertarian rhetoric there lies the same compulsory and coercive collectivist that we have encountered all too often in the last two centuries. Scratch this “anarchist” and you will find a coercive egalitarian despot who makes the true lover of freedom yearn even for Richard Nixon (Arghhl) in contrast.
- Murray Rothbard

>>202823
>America and UK appeased the French
>implying the UK and America wasn't happy to do so.

>>202824

If Murray wants to come on /lit/ and talk about Chomsky, I support him in doing it. I don't think he would want you doing it for him. I find it irreducibly frustrating that any person should pretend to thinking but never actually state his own position.

>>202871

Plus, Murray might actually be able to offer a semblance of reason for his position that the attributed quote does not do.

>>202824

Well...at least you didn't pretend Rothbard as a leftist.

>>202854

I stated what I stated and implied nothing.

>>202890
Just saying the blame falls equally on all three.
They shafted the Germans HARD and WW2 was the consequence.

>>202871

By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. A great man quotes bravely, and will not draw on his invention when his memory serves him with a word just as good.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Some men's words I remember so well that I must often use them to express my thought. Yes, because I perceive that we have heard the same truth, but they have heard it better.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

>>202751
>you're not, like, a 'conservative'— *bong noises* — you're totally a slave bro. Wait, what was I talking about?

>>202944
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

>>202871

Perhaps he's posting these quotes because they sum up his opinion rather nicely?

>>202890

That's what every reply to be to greentext.

>>202961
His opinion being a variety of people going "hurrdurr Chomsky is bad" but without the actual context to make sense of their comments?

>>202944

Might apply if the Rothbard quote actually said anything of substance. At best it's a conclusion based on missing evidence—in any case it offers absolutely no revelation.

>>202956
Immortality. I notice that as soon as writers broach this question they begin to quote. I hate quotation. Tell me what you know.

o May 1849: This is a remark Emerson wrote referring to the unreliability of second hand testimony upon the subject of immortality. It is often taken out of proper context, and has even begun appearing on the internet as "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know" or sometimes just "I hate quotations."

there sure is a lot of chomsky hate in here which is (mostly) quite unfounded

the minute you bring up cambodia w/r/t chomsky and list that as something against him then your opinion is immediately invalidated

he was right with the media not knowing what was going on in cambodia, they simply got lucky

chomsky is cool, his ideology is nice but ultimately flawed

deal w/ it

>>202995
>there sure is a lot of chomsky hate in here which is (mostly) quite unfounded
Are you kidding?
There's one guy posting quotes.

>>202961

that would be true if the quotes actually said anything worthwhile.

before I hit submit I should predict the attack on the word-choice 'worthwhile'. By it I mean something with meat, something that has a position not based on air, but on a foundation. Something supported in one way or another.

>>203007
I also dislike Chomsky.

>>202995

Chomsky has an ideology? Really? Please enlighten us!

I wonder if chomchom is happy about what the socialist dbag chavez he endorsed is doing in Venezuela right now..

http://whakahekeheke.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-emerging-dictatorship-in-venezuela/

>>203061

when Chomsky and Chavez met last year, Chomsky took the moment to discuss his differences with Chavez during their talk.

>>203061
>Chavez
Fails quite a bit but American media is all too happy to show an incredibly biased view against him.
Guess it's because of all that oil, there's probably a backup invasion plan or two.

You can't honestly convince me that the WWI Allies caused every bad thing in Germany afterward. It's Germany's own fault for taking such an inhumane route to deal with their problems.

>>203090
You are a fucking moron.
The Nazi's got into power through what was essentially a fucking coup.

>>203074
Chomsky said to Chavez, "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

Yeah, a real rationalist there. I can tell Chomdom understands economics and not afraid of the freedom.

>>203094

A coup started by Germans.

>>201803

ololol

>>203107
By Nazi thugs. Brown-fucking-coats.

OH GOD WHY AREN'T ANY OF YOU ANSWERING THE OP
WHAT WAS IT THAT NOAM CHOMSKY SAID ABOUT EATING PUSSY?

All strong-arming by the SA aside, Hitler was ultimately appointed to the chancellery by the President.

>>203094
>>203107
The Nazi party that Hitler effectively founded won democratic elections twice before the democratically elected president of Germany appointed Hitler chancellor to recognize this democratic sentiment. Hitler came to power by way of democracy.

>>203124

Nazis were Germans, brohan.

>>203090
>You can't honestly convince me that the WWI Allies caused every bad thing in Germany afterward.
A War was inevitable due to the debt and massive shaming involved. (Germany was totally completely responsible for WW1 guis!)
When politicians go "maybe that's too harsh" you know it's insane.
>It's Germany's own fault for taking such an inhumane route to deal with their problems.
Yeah, because a coup by Fascists is completely the whole countries fault.

>>203151
>A War was inevitable due to the debt and massive shaming involved.

WWII would never have happened if the militarist Nazis had never come to power.

>Yeah, because a coup by Fascists is completely the whole countries fault.

see: >>203143

>>203143

It's funny how they had the least support in the south, when the Nazis always coloured themselves as the good ol' boys from Bavaria.

>>203138
>>203143
By '33 the viable political candidates had all been killed (by guess who?) and the commies (some of his largest remaining political opponents) got blamed for the Reichstag attack. Hitler convinced the President to revoke most of the human rights as decreed by the Weimar Republic, and got him going on a massive campaign against the commies. By then the choice was basically the Nazis or nothing.
A bit later the Gleichschaltung came in with his "Hey i'm basically your king now." shit

>>203143

>>203177
>WWII would never have happened if the militarist Nazis had never come to power.
Shit would have gone down either way, but probably not on the scale of WW2.

>>203200

Germany sure didn't start to complain about any of this until after they started losing the war.

>>203200
The Nazi party won the two federal elections preceding 1933 by large margins too, brah.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/elect.htm

>>203221
Start to complain about what?

>>203214

Nothing would have happened. Germany wasn't allowed a military because of the treaty and the Nazis are the ones who came in and said fuck the treaty we're making an army anyways.

>>203230

The Nazis being in power.

>>203231
>Germany wasn't allowed a military because of the treaty and the Nazis are the ones who came in and said fuck the treaty we're making an army anyways.
That shit wouldn't have mattered when their economy was as bad as it fucking was. You can't push a crippling unpayable debt upon a nation and just expect them to lay the fuck down.

Chomsky is a loon. No serious person is going to argue this. Move along.

Chomsky is the left's version of Glenn Beck.

>>203268
>Chomsky is a loon. No serious person is going to argue this. Move along.
>I can't argue this.

>>203257

What do you expect them to do without a military? The Nazis were the only ones proposing policies to ignore the treaty at the time. That's what made them so popular to begin with.

Sure, the treaty was harsh, but Germany should have tried to find some other method besides indignation to fix the problem.