Leftwing anarchist Noam Chomsky believes conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh are blaming America's problems on "rich liberals" in much the same way the Nazis blamed Germany's problems on Jews.
I kid you not.
Speaking in front of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on October 6, Chomsky told attendees that Americans "who for the last 30 years have seen their wages, income stagnate or decline, their benefits decline, services decline" are being told by "Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, the rest of them" that "rich liberals own everything" and "they don't care about people like you."
To Chomsky, "the memory that comes to my mind...is late Weimar Germany" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Mediaite):
I'm not really thinking about the entertainment aspect of the media, though, yes, it's significant. I'm thinking about the part that has substantive content, crazy content. But it is substantive. It does give answers. I mean, the people who for the last 30 years have seen their wages, income stagnate or decline, their benefits decline, services decline, there's nothing for the children. World's out of control. These are the people who on polls maybe 80 percent of them say the country's going in the wrong direction. The government's run by the few and the special interests not the people and so on.
You know, they're not wrong. This is all happening to them, and the answers that they're getting from say Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, the rest of them, are, "Well, we have an answer. The rich liberals own everything. They own the corporations. They run the government. They run the media. And they don't care about people like you. They don't care about the flyover people between the east coast and the west coast. They only care about giving everything you work for away, to, you know, to illegal immigrants or gays or something. So we gotta protect ourselves from them. And furthermore, they run the government. When they put up a health program, it isn't to give you health. It's to kill your granny, you know." And that's an answer to something. It's a terrible answer, but it is an answer. And if you do suspend this belief, you forget about what's happening in the world really, it's a coherent answer.
Now they're not hearing anything else. And the memory that comes to my mind - again, I don't want to press the analogy too hard - but I think it's worth thinking about - is late Weimar Germany. There were people with real grievances. The Nazis gave them an answer: "It's the fault of the Jews and the Bolsheviks and we've got to protect ourselves from them, and that'll take care of your grievances." And we know what happened. Germany in the 1920s was you know the most civilized, at the peak of Western civilization, in the arts, in the sciences, highly democratic, functioning democratic institutions. A decade later, it was, you know, the pits of human history.
Again, the analogy is not, it's not close, but it's frightening. And unless an answer can be given to these people, unless they can be led to understand what's really happening to them, we could be in for trouble.
Actually, Noam, we're already in trouble because people like you get paid to voice such invective.
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Huh?I challenge anyone
October 17, 2009 - 16:32 ET by BDActually, the notion that the american left wants to abandon those of us in "Flyover Country" is not hard to fathom - if you live out here in the center of the nation.
You are lucky
October 17, 2009 - 16:40 ET by ThoreauKeep in mind that when the shoes drop, the "Flyover Country" will be the only place in the US that isn't burnt to a crisp in a first strike zone area. When things start going sideways, expect alot of company over there. I'm already looking at land so I don't have to bunk with your neighbors.
Zombieland anyone? Know
October 17, 2009 - 18:40 ET by Dan The Man 2Zombieland anyone?
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Antisemite leftists are
October 18, 2009 - 03:56 ET by notonmywatchAntisemite leftists are constantly denigrating what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, equating it with any petty little thing they want to attack.
The PETTY stuff I have heard them equate with the Holocaust.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Wow, Chomsky is One Sick, Twisted Puppy
October 17, 2009 - 16:34 ET by BondPlainBondHe's all wee-wee'd up in the liberal lies he's been espousing for eons.
This horrible snapshot of liberalism and liberal journalism (Limbaugh) has really got all the true racists and off-the-wall socialist psychos coming out of the woodwork.
Maybe it's been a good thing for the reasonable and rational in the long run. Clear lines have been drawn as to who it is that aligns with whom and now it is known who the liars, obstructionists, and extreme radicals and racists are and who the politicians are that protect these mad men and their dangerous philosophies.
2010 and 2012! Vote Out The Incumbents!
rigging the game
October 17, 2009 - 17:34 ET by konoIt's easiest to win an argument when you get to put the words in your opponent's mouth, Noam. What a piece of work. You're living proof that being on MIT's faculty doesn't imply you're clear-thinking or correct.
Is this National Fake a Limbaugh Quote Week, or what?
The Limo Liberal...
October 17, 2009 - 16:38 ET by AgentAmerican...gets apprehensive whenever anyone questions their philosophy. Noam Chomsky is a rich liberal, and has total disdain for the rank and file. He can afford to preach his vile and disgusting comments from high above in the ivory tower of the Northeast.
I have never (and nor will I) read his books, which are quintessential left-wing hate manuals that originate from view of an agitator that hates the American way of life, and is not that far from the vermin known as William Ayers. Karl Marx would kiss this rat on the cheek.
These people need to be dealt with...soon. I don't fear these bastards. They fear us.
Awake the sleeping giant...and that giant is WE THE PEOPLE!
AA
October 17, 2009 - 16:42 ET by MrShyTry telling this to my lib brother, who adores the schmuck...
Actually, yeah, we should try telling everyone. And telling... and telling....
Hopefully he will grow out of it
October 17, 2009 - 16:46 ET by kdizzydazeI have a friend in his forties that is beyond hope with this Chomsky crap - hopefully this will not be the case for your lib brother.
kdizzy
October 17, 2009 - 16:54 ET by MrShyHey, well, my brother is 46 and not far from 47... oh well... :p
Every time I see one of my
October 17, 2009 - 16:58 ET by general companyhardcore liberal acquaintances. I ask them about the controversy of the day. I have converted several this way, just by asking them questions, and letting them do a little research on their own. Never cater to their anger, they just dig-in. Of course once they do, have at it.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
AgentAmerican
October 17, 2009 - 16:42 ET by BondPlainBond"I don't fear these bastards. They fear us."
Bravo!
I have never (and nor will
October 17, 2009 - 16:57 ET by JasonCI have never (and nor will I) read his books, which are quintessential left-wing hate manuals
Gotta love the obvious and inherent contradiction here. You never have and never will read his books. Yet you intuitively know what they contain because...you take someone else, who perhaps has a vested interest in critiquing him, at his or her word?
Do you read his books?
October 17, 2009 - 17:00 ET by general companyWhat do they contain?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I have read a few. They
October 17, 2009 - 17:04 ET by JasonCI have read a few. They are, indeed, from a leftist perspective.
However, the very idea that someone would purport to know that they are all garbage and beneath contempt in the same sentence that they claim never to have read them is ludicrous and fallacious beyond reason.
A counter-example. We both know that Sean Hannity and Rush are expressing views from the right. However, for me to roundly dismiss and denigrate their work and views while simultaneously proudly claiming never to have listened to a moment of their respective shows? You would call b---s--t, and rightly so.
JasonC
October 17, 2009 - 17:32 ET by MrShy"I have read a few. They are, indeed, from a leftist perspective."
Hahaha... gotta love it.
Shy, are you saying I just
October 17, 2009 - 17:45 ET by JasonCShy, are you saying I just made AA's point for him? Because, um, admitting that they're from a leftist perspective is not quite on par with "total disdain for the rank and file" and "vile and disgusting comments" and "quintessential left-wing hate manuals that originate from view of an agitator that hates the American way of life." All this from someone who so proudly trumpets that he never-has-never-will read him?!? What a joke.
Might I add what a hoot it is to see NBers getting their knickers in a wad over someone making a Nazi comparison? Half the posters here have been ardent apologists for Obama/fascist comparisons for the past several months. Chomsky rightly points out that conservative pundits are determined to make the common people believe that the source of their problems is limo liberals; just as the left spent 8 years making people believe the source was Halliburton.
It is absolutely hilarious how, in terms of argumentation if not ideology, the shrill and dogmatic right is just a carbon copy of the shrill and dogmatic left.
It does not take a genius,
October 18, 2009 - 01:05 ET by MrSnugglesIt does not take a genius, nor even the ability to read, to know that Chomsky is a vile hate monger. So of course any book he writes will be much of the same.
I wonder, JasonC
October 17, 2009 - 17:20 ET by Candance MooreWhen you see a new book from Ann Coulter, do you read it or assume it's a hateful book?
I have actually read quite
October 17, 2009 - 17:34 ET by JasonCI have actually read quite a bit of Ann Coulter: her first three books as well as her weekly column. So while I may roll my eyes when I hear that she's published yet another screed, and refrain from reading it, I have a strong understanding of her personal politics which was not derived from listening to second-hand accusations by people with a vested interest in discrediting her.
Also, even I wouldn't call most of Coulter's god-awful writing "hateful."
Hey JasonC
October 17, 2009 - 17:54 ET by gmaniac1I think a lot of people have never read Mein Kampf but that doesn't mean they don't know what Hitler represents. But according to your logic, we can't understand extremists like this until we actually read their garbage.
Terrible argument. First
October 17, 2009 - 18:04 ET by JasonCTerrible argument. First of all, kudos on the Hitler comparison, despite the fact that that's what is allegedly so horrendously offensive about Chomsky's comment.
Second, I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I also don't purport to know exactly what arguments are made in it. However, since it was authored by the man responsible for The Holocaust, one can make a pretty educated guess about it. What has Chomsky done that is comparable to The Holocaust, which allows us to judge his books so definitively? Reread the original post closely; the poster makes a statement not just about Chomsky, but about his work. You don't typically come across people off-handedly claiming that Mein Kampf is evil, but that Hitler himself was.
Well this subject was about
October 17, 2009 - 18:10 ET by gmaniac1Well this subject was about Chomsky making a remark about Nazis hence the Hitler remark. You do know Hitler was the leader of the Nazis don't you? That's the relationship of what I posted. I did read your post and Hitler's work was Mein Kampf. Hmmm, reading is fundamental. No need to get all emotional like you liberals seem to always do.
I understand all that.
October 17, 2009 - 18:15 ET by JasonCI understand all that. Reread my second paragraph. Because Hitler was Hitler, one can make a pretty accurate guess about Mein Kampf wihtout reading it. Chomsky does not have some sort of notorious event on par with the freakin' Holocaust that allows us to make a similar hypothesis about his work; just vague truisms about his being a leftist...certainly nothing to suggest his work deserves the various denigrations visited upon it by AA.
How am I being "emotional"?
No but he does use the
October 17, 2009 - 18:18 ET by gmaniac1No but he does use the analogy that conservatives are the problem in a statement much like Hitler used to do with the Jews. Just because he hasn't acted on some kind of physical extermination of conservatives doesn't mean he doesn't want to exterminate their ideas, vis-a-vis like Mein Kampf supposedly did. We all know how that freakin Holocaust turned out, again, no need to get testy with me. The man you came to defend made the statement. I'm just calling him out on it.
This is beside the point.
October 17, 2009 - 18:25 ET by JasonCThis is beside the point. The argument at hand is whether it's proper to roundly criticize the work of someone you haven't read. Suggesting that Chomsky's alleged desire to exterminate conservative ideas - as evidence by his comment here - gives us an accurate clue about what his books entail, is beyond stupid.
But since you're so sure, go ahead and explain why Chomsky believes anarcho-primitivism is an unsustainable form of social anarchy...you know, based on his comment here.
No, it's not besides the
October 17, 2009 - 18:33 ET by gmaniac1No, it's not besides the point, it is exactly the point. He irresponsibly throws a reference around about a horrific event and any time you use the Nazi label as your argument, you've already lost the debate. And let's say his entire work should be held accountable. Well, as Rush himself has noticed, even one or more comments, can destroy your reputation. However, in this case the quotes were straight from the source.
After seeing such a divisive comment from your friend Chomsky, I know all I need to about him at this point. I used to be more apathetic with my disagreements but extremists like him don't know when to quit.
As a side note, while taking a women's history class in college the teacher loved Chomsky, Kinsey, etc. I got to know a lot more about them it seems than Willa Cather, Ann Paul, etc.
JasonC
October 17, 2009 - 18:50 ET by MrShy"Suggesting that Chomsky's alleged desire to exterminate conservative ideas - as evidence by his comment here - gives us an accurate clue about what his books entail, is beyond stupid."
Huh? No it's not. It's miles away from stupid. He's a leftist, JasonC, so he's out to generally demonize ideological thinking from the right. Hence, he retrieves the Nazi reference.
Now, the fact that, after being an NB member and around smart NB'ers some 3-plus years, you remain an unflinching leftist eager to jump on the Chomsky thread to defend him.... now, that is beyond stupid.
So you are an expert on
October 17, 2009 - 19:17 ET by NL207So you are an expert on Chomsky, eh?
I recall this man quite clearly. He is not a true anarchist as the label applied the classical anarchist movement of the 19th century. Chomsky does not adhere to the vision of society those men sought to advance. Chomsky is a Marxist. Study his works carefully. He is an almost pure Marxist as distinguished from Leninists or Maoists. He thinks a Marxist state can exist that is not centrally planned and controlled as did Marx. One of the delusions of Marx was complete diossolution of the state once a harmonious Marxist society has been reached. A false utopia. This is the Anarchy Chomsky preaches.
A skunk is a skunk!
October 17, 2009 - 19:42 ET by IamTinmanArguing whether it is a marxist skunk , a communist skunk, or in Hitler's case a National Socialist skunk doesn't change the odor.
Chomsky is not worth the time for me at least to bother with. 40 years ago I figured out I wasn't a marxist and that hasn't changed. I take very seriously anyone who hauls out the horror of the Holocaust as a descriptor and Chomsky offers it a tad too friviously with no offer of proof.
In fact take an honest look at civil unrest in this country and you will find that most of it has come from the left of the political spectrum.
I made no reflections on
October 17, 2009 - 21:47 ET by NL207I made no reflections on his odor.
I knew 40 years ago that I disagreed with his philosophy. Perhaps unlike you, Dr. Chomsky was more immediate influence in my environment.
I agree that Chomsky is not
October 17, 2009 - 20:45 ET by JasonCI agree that Chomsky is not a pure anarchist. And no, I am not at all an expert on him, or even close to it. However, the exercise here is to see if someone can explain a multi-faceted argument of Chomsky's merely by consulting the video Noel has embedded. In order to defend AA's comment above, one would have to be able to do this. gmaniac has defended AA's comment with an outrageously fallacious comparison to Mein Kampf. So I wait to see if he can explain a small portion of Chomskyian theory.
And do you also agree with
October 17, 2009 - 22:00 ET by NL207And do you also agree with me that Chomsky is a classical Marxist, who believes the state becomes unecessary in a Marxist Utopia?
You are arbitrarily restricting AA's interpretation of Chomsky to the video. I will argue that you cannot do this because Chomsky is a too well known as a public figure, who has over his lengthy career published many books, speeches and articles outlining his position and philosophy.
Last, I am not an expert on Chomsky either. I knew him only in the context of faculty. At the time, I was neither interested in, nor well enough trained to defeat him in a debate. I only knew I disagreed with his worldview and believed he held and still does hold a defective view of human nature. 40 years makes quite a difference.
There's was nothing
October 18, 2009 - 14:02 ET by gmaniac1There's was nothing outrageous at all. Chomsky said it and used the Nazi reference and you want to put the blame on me. Sniff, sniff, here's a tissue JasonC.
I've read and heard enough
October 17, 2009 - 18:38 ET by Dan DiegoI've read and heard enough of this guy's interviews and quotes. I won't line his pocket to suffer through a load of crap.
"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's a$$, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it." Tommy
In this case, I'll trust the butcher.
The trolls are out in force...
October 17, 2009 - 21:49 ET by AgentAmericanProof positive the left hates opposing views.
You know, Jason...I would read his books and give an honest critique of this bloodsucking leftist Chomsky. Then again, an honest critique of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" from anyone from the Daily Kos (run by a complete little bastard) would be a stretch.
The left have no good intentions for the country, and any further dialog with leftist rats is pointless. You will be defeated.
Awake the sleeping giant...and that giant is WE THE PEOPLE!
defeated?
October 17, 2009 - 22:11 ET by shawn228Do you mean 2010 or 2012 or both? Quick question because I am not even sure, do you know how many seats the GOP needs to take back the house?
"I have a Bush man-crush, you need to understand."-Mr. Shy
Why is it a contradiction?
October 18, 2009 - 10:54 ET by mbuelOne merely needs to listen to some of the idiotic quotes he's made to know his books are marxist indoctrinations of lies.
Let me ask you a question. Would you like Anita Dunn admire Mao as a philosopher and read his little red book of lies?
Would you admire Stalin and read his book of lies?
The only difference between Mao, Stalin and Chomsky is one of conviction. Chomsky wouldn't have the balls to call out Soviet Russia or Communist China for being "imperialist" nations, yet he doesn't see the blatant hypocrisy in "screaming it from the mountain tops", in the world's most free civilization.
Another way to look at it, is that Mao, Stalin (and Bill Ayers) had the courage of their revolutionary convictions and killed people to achieve thier sick marxist goals.
Chomsky doesn't have the balls.
He won't criticize a marxist-imperialist nation.
He won't get his feet dirty like Ayers for the cause of revolution.
Does one have to read Mein Kampf to know that Hitler hated jews, and wanted to espouse national socialism (aka marxism)? BETTER YET, does one have to read Mao's little red book, or Mein Kampf to know they are inciteful hateful manuals, inciting the "masses" to revolt against the proletariat?
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
it is clear
October 17, 2009 - 16:43 ET by kdizzydazethat old Noam has never even listened to Rush, Beck, or any on the right.
He is definitely a "useful idiot"
He's too busy in his capsule
October 17, 2009 - 17:58 ET by gmaniac1He's too busy in his capsule of liberalism writing books, for proit nonetheless. Oh the irony.
According to several on
October 18, 2009 - 11:05 ET by JasonCAccording to several on this board, not having any actual familiarity with the man's work is no disqualification against offering sweeping critiques of him. Or maybe that only works when the target is a prominent liberal; I'm not sure of the rules.
Nice generalization and if
October 18, 2009 - 14:10 ET by gmaniac1Nice generalization and where are these rules listed?
Typical liberal.....yaaawwnnnn
October 17, 2009 - 16:44 ET by superconBoring as always. What is it about liberals who think their every thought is some wonderful nugget of genius and originality but the opinions of those whose oppose or disagree with them are opinions that were dictated to them and they repeat like parrots....?
Hey Noam....I got eyes and ears buddy and I don't like what I see. Am I supposed to count on YOU to give me the truth ? We know media hack cheerleaders when we see one and we know when we're getting screwed. Don't piss on us and tell us it's raining.
" if Republicans are able to stop Barack Obama on health care, 'it will be his Waterloo, it will break him...." -Sen. Jim DeMint
Double post....
October 17, 2009 - 16:45 ET by superconOops.
One Correction
October 17, 2009 - 16:48 ET by ThoreauRespectfully, an anarchist is right wing.
The complete absence of government is at the far right end of the least amount of government(like a zero). But also, like the number zero, it is nothing but a temporary waypoint to introduce dictator's, communists, socialists, and anyone else with the power and will to kill the masses.
So it's sorta like genocidal marijuana. A euforic gateway drug that leads you to killing everyone in your family because you forgot to turn the damn gas stove off before you lit up again.
At the far left is an oligarchy. Technically the few ruling the many. That's what Chomsky advocates in reality. But you know how history and reality mixes with communist dipshits.
Your post exemplifies why
October 17, 2009 - 16:58 ET by JasonCYour post exemplifies why the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle.
A triconoid example is a
October 17, 2009 - 21:28 ET by BDA triconoid example is a better illustration. Three dimensional.
nope.
October 18, 2009 - 11:08 ET by mbuelThe founding fathers correctly saw the political spectrum as a straight line. Absolute Tyranny on the left, and Absolute Anarchy on the right.
The constitution and related founding documents are the perfect fulcrum of this spectrum.
And in case you're wondering, I think most politicians today fall on the side of Tyranny. They want more power, and more regulatory control.
Marxist philosophy is a throwback to feudalistic-tyranny philosophy. That mankind is too stupid to be an individual, and to have individual rights, property and freedoms.
We need to be ruled by a "philosopher-king", someone wise enough to control the economy and the people.
That's what frightens these Tyrants. WE THINK FOR OURSELVES.
Look at the recent comments from Bill Maher about getting 60 votes for healthcare:
This obsession with marxist-dictators is not new for the progressive numb-brains.
IMO, they dislike individualism. Collectivism with rule by the elite is preferred.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
Thoreau
October 17, 2009 - 17:07 ET by Noel SheppardThoreau,
Are you sure about that? http://en.wikipedia....
ns
I also view "anarchy" as
October 17, 2009 - 17:29 ET by GregEI also view "anarchy" as all the way to the right edge, on the left to right scale.
Anarchy, on the extreme right, is no government at all. Dictatorship, on the extreme Left, is total government. With anarchy, there is no freedom, it's everyone doing everything just to survive and protect their properties. There are no laws to be enforced. Moving away from anarchy, toward the center, but still on the right of center, we want limited government, recognizing that some government is necessary. Move to the left of center and they want more government, believing government should have more control of our lives. Move to the extreme Left, completely opposite the "no government anarchist" and you have the "total government" dictator.
This is one of the best I've seen...
http://www.youtube.c...
I don't know much about Chomsky. I have heard someone, who is no liberal, says Chomsky is one of the people he most pays attention to, and this person wants government as small as it can be and out of our lives as much as possible.
Greg, I made a very similar
October 17, 2009 - 17:44 ET by JasonCGreg, I made a very similar argument a few weeks ago when NB was blowing up about how the Pittsburgh protests got more favorable coverage than the 9/12ers. It was not well-received.
Your understanding of
October 18, 2009 - 00:18 ET by G. MayYour understanding of Anarchy leaves out the well-theorized 'anarcho-syndicalism' which is the extreme leftward end of the linear scale. Granted it's been awhile since I've paid any attention to old Noam, but I recall him being a syndicalist.
The anarchist protesters at G-8 summits are hardly right wingers.
Pay closer attention to the link Noel provided as it is a good stepping off point to learn more about the subject.
Chomsky ramblings
October 18, 2009 - 11:19 ET by mbuelChomsky is not right wing anarchist....
What he describes above about Capitalism is Oligarchism/Corporatism. Which can only exist with populist control of the government.
Corporations are granted power BY THE STATE. Here Chomsky is saying we need a bigger state that rules for the people, and all capitalist functions are "fascist". (which is moronic, true capitalism, is just an economic system, not a form of RULE.)
Jefferson NEVER advocated a progressive tax system. He'd be appalled at the current income tax system that punishes success and rewards failure.
Also, WE ALREADY HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM. The "rich" pay 97% of the tax burden, the remaining 3% is paid by the middle class. The poorest individuals get money back from the government.
And seriously, where do these numb-brained marxists' think money for their populism comes from? If you keep punishing the wealthy, there won't be any money for your collective BS.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
An anagram for Noam Chomsky
October 17, 2009 - 17:18 ET by Antisocial-ismAn anagram for Noam Chomsky is: A Commy Honks!
Need I go further?
Right.
unbelievable
October 17, 2009 - 17:21 ET by Candance MooreI'm sure that our resident libs will be along any minute to condemn this as hateful.
Oh great, Candance...
October 17, 2009 - 18:06 ET by JerOh great, Candance...another instance of the lib baiting tactics that Sgt. Rock is so fond of employing. [Except that if you take his bait, he'll then make some mocking comment about "throwing rocks at pigs and one of 'em squealing"]
But I'll make a deal with you, Candance. I'll condemn this hateful trash while you go over to the thread about Obama and the children and condemn poster George Patton's description of "the cheap negro victimization stunt. Obama is pig sh!t on a half-a$$ed farmer's boot." Fair enough?
→ Jer?
October 17, 2009 - 18:17 ET by Cool ArrowWhere's the integrity in trading condemnations when both are inexcusable?
Don't tell me you'd honestly withhold judgement in hopes of getting a favorable ruling in another matter?
I think I know you better than that.
"I think I know you better
October 17, 2009 - 18:23 ET by bretzysdude"I think I know you better than that."
Sadly, you do. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop him.
Hi, Jer!
→ Oh yeah?
October 17, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Cool ArrowJer was making a point.
All I did was point out to him that he's making a point.
To be accurate, I didn't
October 17, 2009 - 18:31 ET by JerTo be accurate, I didn't withhold judgment, Cool, and now I regret jumping the gun and labeling Chomsky's words "hateful trash" before reading the entirety of Noel's blog. I don't entirely agree with his remarks, in tone or content--and making any Nazi comparison immediately and automatically poisons the atmosphere [even though Chomsky himself attempts to moderate the analogy]--but there is indeed a degree of validity to his underlying thesis.
Jer
Unfortunately for the left,
October 17, 2009 - 19:41 ET by HockeyKidUnfortunately for the left, if you carry through Chomsky's allusion, what brought about the horrific changes in Germany began with the election of a charismatic leader with little previous experience. Doesn't sound too good right at the moment.
Just sayin'.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
didn't mean to play a trick, Jer
October 17, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Candance MooreI honestly wanted some lefties to show up and condemn this. So are you are the only one to do so, so congratulations.
As to your challenge to condemn what someone said on a thread, first of all you know I'll be the first to jump in and criticize people on NB, but I haven't been cruising all the threads lately so I didn't read that. Second, even if I had read it, I fail to see how one random poster on NB is the same as Chomsky spreading his opinions everywhere.
Candance...
October 17, 2009 - 18:41 ET by JerThanks, but you may need to withdraw your congratulations after my follow-up post.
But I do acknowledge that you are, and have always been, extremely cognizant of the need to maintain a high quality of commentary on the threads and have never been hesitant to post admonishments when and where you thought appropriate.
Jer
I will not condemn it. It
October 17, 2009 - 18:21 ET by JasonCI will not condemn it. It was a perfectly legitimate critique of Limbaugh/Beck/Malkin and their fear-mongering rhetoric. This is not to say the left doesn't do the same thing, as I've said elsewhere; but that fact doesn't make Chomsky any less correct.
The comment Jer refers to here is on a different level of repugnance because it doesn't make an argument, it just calls names and refers to tired racist stereotypes. The two might have a whit of similarity if Chomsky had said "Limbaugh is just a fat, drug-addled Nazi." But he did not, he made a legitimate, well-explained critique of Limbaugh's rhetorical methods. It's too bad he used the Nazi analogy, but it's not like he just said Rush = Goebbels.
The Nazi comparison was tiresome and over-the-top, as Chomsky himself seemed to realize. But let's face, the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy has become weirdly acceptable on both sides of the aisle lately.
"It was a perfectly
October 18, 2009 - 10:39 ET by G. MayLegitimate? Maybe. Perfectly legitimate? Hardly. It was oversimplified or simply contained the assumption that some or all of the points they (Rush, Beck, Malkin) bring up are incorrect. In essence, he is using the same rhetorical tactic he's criticizing.
It's not uncommon for Chomsky to employ this sort of nonsense from what I recall, but then again it has been some time since I've bothered to read anything about him or by him.
→ Chumpski
October 17, 2009 - 17:22 ET by Cool ArrowI'm sure he'll share a box seat with Nazi collaborator, George Soros, any day.
CA - if you and Bretzy
October 17, 2009 - 18:30 ET by BO STINKSkeep playing with the troll like this, he'll get tired and bruised and won't be any fun tomorrow! Be careful with your toys and be sure to put them away where they belong when you are done. Thank you.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
I'm confused here
October 17, 2009 - 17:37 ET by bre1227"Well, we have an answer. The rich liberals own everything. They own the corporations."
My income neither stagnated nor declined until November of last year. What peeves me is that every year my income was on the rise, my taxes exponentially increased. However, we repealed the income averaging method for small buiness owners years ago.
Plus, whoever made the argument that all the businesses were owned by rish liberals? Thought the argument was that evil, evil Wall Street people were conservatives. Like the CEO at BofA that had to work for free last year, thanks to the pay czar.
Chomsky is Correct
October 17, 2009 - 17:51 ET by srqvetThere are talk show hosts that are telling their listeners exactly what the liberal elite is up to. This absolutely infuriates the libtards. One thing the libtards can't stand is having the light of day shine on their actions. They talk a "good game" about race relations while they imprison millions in inner city poverty simply for control and votes. They lie and slander yet try to stiffle the free speech of others. Pure evil.
Libtard leaders and their loyal minions in the press cannot keep their lies straight. Libtards believe in aborting babies and letting old people die. Yet, we now watch these scum say it is the conservatives who want to see people die. Libtard projection all the way.
Free, unbiased press is what this country needs. Reporting by true news professionals would shine the light on the lying libtards and their slandering of those who do not "go along" with the commie agenda. Unfair reporting by the media is the death of freedom.
Libtards are simply emotional babies. You see it in their rhetoric and actions. Why doesn't Barry talk to the American people like his does whe he talks with his union supports? Why does Barry whine so much at his libtard fund raisers? He's a typical two-faced libtard getting cover from the media. Barry is such a big baby and such a radical he cannot stand it when the truth of his misadminsitration is told.
Racists.
Say libtard again, it's
October 17, 2009 - 18:00 ET by JasonCSay libtard again, it's totally turning me on. You came up with that yourself, right?
Also, now the left is imprisoning the impoverished masses in cities? I thought poverty was a symptom of laziness? That if they just pulled themselves up by their ragged bootstraps, they could make a living wage? That's what every conservative I've ever spoken with has said. I know that's Noel's position; maybe he can set you straight that it's irresponsible to blame poverty on a particular ideology, in theory or in practice.
libtard libtard libtar
October 17, 2009 - 18:25 ET by bretzysdudelibtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard libtard
Damn that's hot.
October 17, 2009 - 20:46 ET by JasonCDamn that's hot.
Chomsky has proven to be an
October 17, 2009 - 17:51 ET by mostlymoderateChomsky has proven to be an anti-semite for decadeswith his elitist diatribes against Israel, AIPAC, The USA, etc. Talk about the pot-head calling the kettle black.
Libtard
October 17, 2009 - 18:08 ET by srqvetLibtard-if the shoe fits...
Poverty in the inner city is more a function of Dimocrats running the cities and the resultant nanny state which imprisons people through handouts. Less to do with laziness than a state of mind.
In other words, when The
October 17, 2009 - 18:18 ET by JasonCIn other words, when The Gipper or Bush43 is running the show for 8 years, poverty is indeed just a result of laziness. When liberals are dominating the three branches, it somehow shifts to being a result of welfare and charity.
Gotcha. Great argument.
Gall
October 17, 2009 - 18:21 ET by justbob223This from the man who has spent his entire life undermining the United States and trying to destroy the republic.
Nice Try JasonC
October 17, 2009 - 18:21 ET by srqvetWow. If only you could read and comprehend. What a sad commentary on our education system.
There's this thing called
October 17, 2009 - 18:27 ET by JasonCThere's this thing called the reply button...
And sorry, I see no reason to take you seriously when you just respond with some variation on "nyah nyah, you're wrong, education failed you." That and the fact that you actually use the term Nanny State.
Seems fair
October 17, 2009 - 18:24 ET by 10ksnookerHis party, the Democrats', and their terror wing, the KKK for a 100 years, wrote the Jim Crow Laws, lynched political opponets, and kept segragation alive as long as they could. Sen Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You think he knows we know?
Right, and at the
October 17, 2009 - 19:30 ET by JerRight, and at the conclusion of that 100-year period, a big chunk of those Dems became Republicans.
Jer
Yeah, I get it now
October 17, 2009 - 21:37 ET by delmarThat must be why Republicans have an annual Jackson Day fundraiser and it's the democrats holding the Lincoln Day dinners. It all makes sense...criss/cross
Right, and at the
October 17, 2009 - 22:38 ET by Dan The Man 2Right, and at the conclusion of that 100-year period, a big chunk of those Dems became Republicans.
I would posit the KKK Dems stayed that way becaue the Repubs would not stand them in teh party at the local level. I offer as proof the fact Bird still in.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
This comments section has gone off the rails
October 17, 2009 - 18:40 ET by richb313This comments section has gone off the rails. Noam Chomsky displayed his ignorance about Rush, Hannity and to a degree Savage. His comments are pure ignorance with projected fears that mirror his true feelings and show a deficit of critical thinking. Most of the posts display the same thing. I need not attack the person to attack thier position or thinking. Too much bunker mentality is on display. Too much playground antics where the loudest bully rules the roost.
This is what is happening in a Balkanized America today where we are divided and then sub divided yet again. Liberals always use the tactic to didvide us into groups to play one off the other, that is why Noam thinks that Rush and others are doing the same. Now I see the fruits of the Liberal philosophy at work here in the comments section. It is not a pretty sight.
Who's talking?
October 17, 2009 - 18:53 ET by cajun2I find it difficult to see Malkin, Rush, and Beck as fear mongering. They pointed out radicals in this administration. Gave sites and information on these people. I checked out this info myself. Jarret, Mark LLoyd, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Obama. These people were speaking, no quotes. They scared the crap out of me. How do Beck and Rush get the credit for fear mongering and you can excuse these radicals spreading fear in their own words?
rush
October 17, 2009 - 19:02 ET by charlietexasok, add nazi Rush's rep. They hate his guts don't they....delicious.
Just a Twit
October 17, 2009 - 19:06 ET by Cho Yi FanThis guy Chomsky has described himself as a anarchist and has in fact written a book on anarchy which was published by an anarchist book collective. He believes that societal and social authority is illegitimate. However if the government exerts authority over the citizens to protect them then that is OK. He calls working for wages is a type of slavery. He is an idealist filled leftist concepts and believes that the US is the boogieman. He is an academic twit that has no concept of the everyday workings of the average Jane and Joe's life.He is the perfect Obamaite and therefore,for that reason alone he he should be ignored.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson
Hypocrites here
October 17, 2009 - 19:39 ET by sajc05I didn't like when the left called bush a nazi,
BUT
People here have no problem when republicans call obama a nazi. it's either okay to throw the "n" word around or its not.
WHO here will dispute that wages have been stagnant? who here thinks our economy is good? who here likes spending trillions on wars of choice. trillions added onto the countries credit card? there are no jobs, the dollar is declining and people here think this started on JANUARY 20TH 2009.
some republicans here have to wake up. while they play divide and conquer with us our country goes down the tubes, while people here argue democrats this democrats that BOTH PARTIES ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY.
I don't agree with a lot of Chompsky, but he's making a point that things are getting worse for the common man in this country. our country the USA is being sold to the highest bidder, corporations - jefferson said merchants have no country. he's right. wake up people. stop arguing dumb democrat republican garbage and lets unify to demand our country back from corrupt politicians and wealthy lobbyists.
Well I am not going to pretend
October 17, 2009 - 19:56 ET by general companyThe Repubs dint help get us here,,,,,
BOTH PARTIES ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY.
I sure would like to know just what you think the Repubs can do about it now?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Both partys are on a spending spree.
October 17, 2009 - 21:25 ET by Cho Yi FanI haven't liked the monetary policies of the Dem or Repubs for a while now. Heaven knows the Repubs didn't try to control spending like they should have when they were in control of the Congress.It was Bush that started out with TARP with the bank bailouts.What happened to the free market there? Now it is Obama that is determined to spend every last dime that we as a nation can generate for the next 500 years. Redistribution of wealth is a big expense. As a Libertarian I know that is not the kind of thinking that founded this country or the kind of fiscally responsible thinking that made this at one time the greatest economy in the world. There is quite simply to much spending and to much government involvement in our everyday life. From auto emissions to the amount of water your toilet can flush the Government knows best!
The two parties seem to have forgotten a document called the Constitution. Where is the justification for all of this government intervention and regulation in the Constitution?Where is the justification to spend us into bankruptcy. The dollar is failing apart and who's doing anything in DC to stop that slide? Certainly not Obama.He is to busy patting himself on his narcissistic back to be concerned about everyday people being able to afford a gallon of gas.
As a nation we need to go back to basics laid out by the founding fathers. That's where we need to go but I fear that that is a dream. Today the two parties are to busy playing power trips and the blame game to really understand that they work for the people. For that reason I am going to vote every incumbent out in 2010. Political rookies couldn't do any worse that this group of corrupt gasbags that are currently not representing or looking out for the best interest of We the People.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson
The Left v. The Right
October 17, 2009 - 19:33 ET by MrShyHere's the glaringly revealing difference between a leftist and a rightist making the Nazi comparison. I will use Chomsky's quote as a perfect example.
A leftist going to the Nazi well:
And the memory that comes to my mind - again, I don't want to press the analogy too hard - but I think it's worth thinking about - is late Weimar Germany.
A rightist going to the Nazi well (my words as an example):
What Obama and the growing leftist progressive movement, with it's steady Federal government takeovers, seeking the "fairness doctrine", promoting wealth distribution, demonizing those with opposing thought, etc., is quite analogous to the days of Germany before the rise of Nazism.
Notice myself and most on the right are very much pressing the analogy and wanting people to do more than just consider "thinking about" it, but to stop it in it's tracks before it gets any more dangerous.
He's right
October 17, 2009 - 20:31 ET by easygoerLooks like Rush was right about the crips & bloods angle:
Link below
The smarter they think they
October 17, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Average_JoeMNThe smarter they think they are, the more nuts they are. This guy's several levels more stupid than that. Wow.
He's Right
October 17, 2009 - 20:24 ET by easygoerLooks like Rush was right...again.
Didn't know ol' Noam was
October 18, 2009 - 00:29 ET by G. MayDidn't know ol' Noam was still alive. I stopped paying attention to his nonsense a long time ago when I realized he was batsh!t crazy. Never had much respect for the guy since he's essentially a linguist who had a great idea decades ago, so he's been riding that for all it's worth and using his tenure at MIT to foist his far leftwing propaganda.
He's a prime example of the leftist infections running rampant in academia.
Go away, noam. The Rocky
October 18, 2009 - 05:36 ET by wiwfGo away, noam.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Oh Yeah!
October 18, 2009 - 08:03 ET by nadadhimmiNoam be hatin' him some freedom, hatin' it DAMN GOOD too.
Chomsky really ought to do research before flapping his lips
October 18, 2009 - 10:52 ET by Jabba the TuttChomsky said: "I mean, the people who for the last 30 years have seen their wages,
income stagnate or decline, their benefits decline, services decline,
there's nothing for the children."
Chomsky has a prejudiced, bigoted view of who listens to talk radio. Limbaugh's crowed about the fact that his listeners rate at or next to the top in being informed. Limbaugh listeners are in the higher earning demographics. Limbaugh listeners are producers, doers and active in their communities. Limbaugh listeners vote more than non-listeners.
Chomsky believes that all Limbaugh (Talk Radio) listeners are white, working class, declining, angry, bigots, homophobes, mind-numbed robots. Actually, this describes the ChomskyBots far more than the DittoHeads.
Part of Chomsky's credentials as a commentator is that he is also a true scientist, who's produced path-breaking work in his field of linguistics. So, he has no excuse for NOT DOING HIS RESEARCH. (sorry for the all caps, but this bugs me.)
I just love how many on the far left are accusing conservatives
October 18, 2009 - 11:54 ET by R D Helm...of employing Nazi-like tactics, when it is they themselves who are but a couple of congressional votes away from executing a full-blown government takeover of our nation's health care system, and after having pulled off government takeovers of 2/3 of our auto industry, 90% of the mortgage industry, and are poised to snatch up the banks as well.
If the Nazis were around today, they would be sporting woodies from seeing what the Obamanistas are doing to this once-free country.
-Dave
Gnome must think that we're
October 18, 2009 - 23:36 ET by RR GOPGnome must think that we're all ignorant and aren't aware of the failures of the liberal Weimar Republic. And the Bolsheviks and a multitude of other political factions were fighting over Germany, though looking back, I'm not really sure why...they managed to eventually field an army that conisted mostly of infantry that had to walk just about everywhere they went and were armed mostly with bolt-action single shot rifles that dated back to our Spanish-American War.
Couldn't even run the heaters in their trucks on the Russian Front due to lack of fuel.
Not much of a prize in my book.
These Libtards have always been upset that it was the Nazis that took over...they would have been quite OK with the Bolsheviks winning out just as they had hoped that Franco had been defeated in Spain.
But, since so many people believe the Soviet-contrived nonsense concerning the Nazis above and beyond the wrong they actually did continues to be a big win for the Communists. Notice how the words "atrocity" and "Hitler" go along swimmingly as far as the average Joe is concerned, but not so with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
extremely odd
October 19, 2009 - 03:15 ET by sudmufIt strikes me as being very odd that a socialist like Noam whould compare Rush Limbaugh, a beliver in personal liberty and freedom, to a socialist like Hitler. Obviously Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minh are more like you and the democrats, Noam.