NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky's work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich" and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like eighty percent of the population -- pay off the rich."

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning" set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one email. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people."

Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being 'commodified' -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be."

<snip>

Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund, or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a "what else can I do" defense: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" enterprises. They just don't yield the maximum available return. http://www.techcentralstation.com/1019055.html

BWAHAHAHAH!

St. Noam is doing nothing a smart writer wouldn't do, and none of this, in and of itself, proves that any of his ideas are incorrect. But Chomsky must be the first "dissident" in history who has his works copyrighted under the very system against which he's struggling. (except maybe for The Fearless Roosting Chicken himself, Ward Churchill.) We've lowered our standards considerably since Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was forced to hide his books and secretly smuggle them out of the country, haven't we? (I can't help thinking of the difference between Christians or Muslims, who give their sacred texts away freely, and the Scientologists, who will sic a platoon of lawyers on you if you leaf through Dianetics without paying for it.)

But what I love the most is that Chomsky has become a trusted brand name for people who think themselves too intelligent to trust brand names. Put his name on anything, and thousands of hairy college kids wearing Che T-shirts and "Buck Fush" buttons will camp out overnight to buy it. (Schweizer quotes one of the sainted dissident's publishers: "All we have to do is put Chomsky's name on a book and it sells out immediately!") These self-proclaimed independent thinkers are nothing but sheep. http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005062.html

It's even better when non-USians realize how screwed up our professional "dissenters" are... :D

"Damian J. Penny Newfoundland". Now, that is a cool name.

Edit: Hmm, reading the rest of the article, I think it's funny that he hasn't given anything to charity or donated any of that money to environmental agencies.

I shall ponder this.

He should give all of that money and all of the profits from his books to the poor and draw only a very modest salary, perhaps just enough to ensure economic security.

He's doing his best to stay alive in this system. If I were in his shoes, I'd do the same.
If these allegations are true, then there are no excuses that can be made for him. There are no excuses for this:

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a "what else can I do" defense: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" enterprises. They just don't yield the maximum available return.

I can certainly stay alive without investing in any industries.

But Chomsky must be the first "dissident" in history who has his works copyrighted under the very system against which he's struggling.

Noam Chomsky betrayed us.

I heard some critics about Chomsky, they told Chomsky's ideology was something like Capitalism for the Opressed.

But capitalism (with its disequalities) at all.

Whatever, I agree more with Samir Amin... :D

-snip-

Check my edited post. I should really read through articles completely the first time around. :p

Anyway, Mr. Chomsky's been banned from my sigspace. He's getting ditched very soon.

Check my edited post. I should really read through articles completely the first time around. :p

Anyway, Mr. Chomsky's been banned from my sigspace. He's getting ditched very soon.
And soon he'll be in my sig, a sort of before and after if you will.

If these allegations are true, then there are no excuses that can be made for him. There are no excuses for this:

You must have seen this sort of argument before:

"I believe you supported the war. Why aren't you on the front lines,you hypocrite?"
"You believe in envoirmentalism. Why do you own a car, you hypocrite?"
"You believe in anti-capitalism. Why are you trying to make a buck, you hypocrite"

All of these are idiotic. Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. Pointing out that he's exactly as failable as the rest of us proves nothing.

(Never read any Chomsky)

All this emotional investment in Chomsky...

And people get upset when they hear that someone believes in God...

snip
That's a fucking bullshit cop-out and you know it! Potaria, are you listening to yourself?
Let me pull that out of my ass in another argument, and you'd shoot me down yourself for such obvious hypocrisy! That's like hearing me make a FUCKING CAREER out of dissing welfare, and then finding out that I've been secretly stocking my fridge with food stamps! Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Reminds me of some old lady finding out that the televangelist she's been sending money to every week who tells her that sinners rot in hell has just been caught with his pants down screwing some prostitute in a dirty hotel room.

This emperor has no clothes.

EDIT: I just read that you're changing your mind... but the post stands for anyone gullible enough to excuse this asshole for his devious duplicity.

That's a fucking bullshit cop-out and you know it! Potaria, are you listening to yourself?
Let me pull that out of my ass in another argument, and you'd shoot me down yourself for such obvious hypocrisy! That's like hearing me make a FUCKING CAREER out of dissing welfare, and then finding out that I've been secretly stocking my fridge with food stamps! Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Reminds me of some old lady finding out that the televangelist she's been sending money to every week who tells her that sinners rot in hell has just been caught with his pants down screwing some prostitute in a dirty hotel room.

This emperor has no clothes.

EDIT: I just read that you're changing your mind... but the post stands for anyone gullible enough to excuse this asshole for his devious duplicity.

Belief in Chomsky is like belief in God, Allah, or Jesus. You're not going to sway Potaria by proving that Chomsky is a hypocrite.

Ahem... I think I've found him to be a hypocrite without your "help".

Edit: Ah, I see you (Eichen) didn't notice my change of mind about Chomsky. It's fine with me --- I'm not some gullible prick, you know. I'm information-based, not belief-based.

LOL!

We really need to wait for people to edit before we post, eh?

:p

Syniks, I haven't thanked you for sharing this. I'm sending it to a l-o-n-g list of friendly contacts (many of them Chomsky fans) who I belive deserve to know the truth.

I did the same thing as soon as I found out that "Rush is Right" was so wrong about his hypocritical position on drugs. :D

LOL!

We really need to wait for people to edit before we post, eh?

:p
:D Yes, I think we do. But it's understandable. This information is revelatory. Chomsky is a beloved bastion for the ultra-left, and even a lot of his opponents respect him because he's seemed like such a venerable figure. I had to do a double-take and reread the post just to belive it myself!
I've liked reading some of Chomsky's anarchist ideas, and found some of his anticapitalist arguments to be far more palatable than most others of his persuasion. This is very shocking news.

I feel the same way I did about hearing Rush was addicted to the "rush" of Oxycontin. He's a public figure who should've known better. I hope he suffers the consequences for his duplicity, and his fans should expect nothing less than an honest explaination or a sincere apology.

:D Yes, I think we do. But it's understandable. This information is revelatory. Chomsky is a beloved bastion for the ultra-left, and even a lot of his opponents respect him because he's seemed like such a venerable figure. I had to do a double-take and reread the post just to belive it myself!
I've liked reading some of Chomsky's anarchist ideas, and found some of his anticapitalist arguments to be far more palatable than most others of his persuasion. This is very shocking news.

I feel the same way I did about hearing Rush was addicted to the "rush" of Oxycontin. He's a public figure who should've known better. I hope he suffers the consequences for his duplicity, and his fans should expect nothing less than an honest explaination or a sincere apology.

Completely understandable. I was somewhat shocked to read about this, but said shock quickly turned into a sarcastic "eat shit and die" smirk.

It's best to go by your own ideals than follow those of others, I figure.

You must have seen this sort of argument before:

"I believe you supported the war. Why aren't you on the front lines,you hypocrite?"
"You believe in envoirmentalism. Why do you own a car, you hypocrite?"
"You believe in anti-capitalism. Why are you trying to make a buck, you hypocrite"

All of these are idiotic. Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. Pointing out that he's exactly as failable as the rest of us proves nothing.

(Never read any Chomsky)
No, it proves that Chomsky doesn't believe his ideas. Its like the leader of PETA taking animal insulin. If I say that no one should be able to eat pork, and then it is discovered that I have a ham sandwich for lunch everyday, have invested in the pork industries, and deal in pork futures, then I really don't believe that no one should eat pork. Which leads to the question of why I would espouse an idealougy that I obviously am not willing to follow?
And when such an idealougy involves sacrifices, then you must be willing to sacrifice every bit, if not more, than your followers.

Syniks, I haven't thanked you for sharing this. I'm sending it to a l-o-n-g list of friendly contacts (many of them Chomsky fans) who I belive deserve to know the truth.

I did the same thing as soon as I found out that "Rush is Right" was so wrong about his hypocritical position on drugs. :D
No sweat.

I'm an old Chomsky fan.... back from his sane Linguistics days. Unfortunately, as soon as he (re)developed some of the more noxious "skills" of psychodynamics he dropped more worthwhile research for psychosis.

Too bad really.

Chomsky is a beloved bastion for the ultra-left,

??????
Since?

The REAL and TRUE ultra-left calls him capitalist.

I've liked reading some of Chomsky's anarchist ideas,

?????
Anarchist? which ones?

and found some of his anticapitalist arguments.

????????
Anticapitalist? Chomsky?

No, it proves that Chomsky doesn't believe his ideas. Its like the leader of PETA taking animal insulin. If I say that no one should be able to eat pork, and then it is discovered that I have a ham sandwich for lunch everyday, have invested in the pork industries, and deal in pork futures, then I really don't believe that no one should eat pork. Which leads to the question of why I would espouse an idealougy that I obviously am not willing to follow.
And when such an idealougy involves sacrifices, then you must be willing to sacrifice every bit, if not more, than your followers.
Exactly! Excellent analogy. It wasn't just like finding out that the guy had a few grand of evil, capitalist cash in a savings account. He seems to have his hands in everything he supposedly despises, from the pharmaceutical companies that use suffering for profit, to the military-industrial complex for God's sake! Listening to any leftist who's writing this guy blank checks for excuses is as bad as hearing a Republican do the same for George.
It's sickening and insulting to his fan's intelligence.

??????
Anarchist? which ones?
Well, this was easy:

Read this (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html),and this (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html).
Are you just lazy and hoping I'll do your homework for you?

Also, try to make your posts at least somewhat coherent.

You're not getting me. I amn't saying that Chomsky isn't a hyprocrite, I'm saying that just because he's a hyprocrite doesn't mean automatically that his ideas are useless.

You're not getting me. I amn't saying that Chomsky isn't a hyprocrite, I'm saying that just because he's a hyprocrite doesn't mean automatically that his ideas are useless.
Automatically? Not quite. But almost, and it does say that Chomsky is useless.
After all, if Chomsky's theories were so wonderful, why does he not live by them? If his way of the Universe is so superior, why would he stoop to our level?

Ahahahahaha! Stupid liberal elitist!
What a hypocrite Chomsky is

Automatically? Not quite. But almost, and it does say that Chomsky is useless.
After all, if Chomsky's theories were so wonderful, why does he not live by them? If his way of the Universe is so superior, why would he stoop to our level?
I'll give the same advice I give people arguing reason with Christians: Don't expect an answer to any of the good questions. ;)

Well, this was easy:

Read this (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html),and this (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html).


Those are only Chomsky's opinions on Anarchism, he actually says in the second link that everybody will face a problem trying to call Chomsky an "Anarchist".

Although I bookmark the second page; I'm interested in the Spanish Revolution (?) :rolleyes:

Those are only Chomsky's opinions on Anarchism
Well, then it would make sense that I stated "I've liked reading some of Chomsky's anarchist ideas", and not "I liked reading that Anarchist Chomky's ideas", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Automatically? Not quite. But almost, and it does say that Chomsky is useless.
After all, if Chomsky's theories were so wonderful, why does he not live by them? If his way of the Universe is so superior, why would he stoop to our level?

Irrelevant. As funny as it sounds to say, you're trying to discredit Chomsky's ideas by linking them with Chomsky's actions. This is wrong. The ideas should be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.

Well, then it would make sense that I stated "I've liked reading some of Chomsky's anarchist ideas", and not "I liked reading that Anarchist Chomky's ideas", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

I'm not so deep at english, then!

But that guy is capitalist! :D

Irrelevant. As funny as it sounds to say, you're trying to discredit Chomsky's ideas by linking them with Chomsky's actions. This is wrong. The ideas should be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.

It does however indicate that Chomsky himself does not actually believe in them.

It does however indicate that Chomsky himself does not actually believe in them.

Indeed. I've alread stated that I think he is a hyprocrite. However being a hyprocrite does not prevent you from having good idea. People have already mentioned Rush's drug addiction or fiction ministers having affairs with prostitutes. Even if Rush or the minister were not hyprocrites I would disagree with thier arguments (It is wrong to take drugs or it is wrong to have sex with prostitutes). Thier hyprocritical nature would be irrelevent to my views in this.

I'm not so deep at english, then!

But that guy is capitalist! :D
Oh, okay, no problem. I didn't know you didn't write English very well yet.
If it makes you feel better, I can't write or speak spanish at all. :)

Irrelevant. As funny as it sounds to say, you're trying to discredit Chomsky's ideas by linking them with Chomsky's actions. This is wrong. The ideas should be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.
It is very relevant. Chomsky is, by definition, the reigning expert on Chomsky's ideas. No one else will ever know more about what Noam Chomsky thinks then Noam Chomsky.
Therefore, if Noam Chomsky doesn't think that Noam Chomsky's ideas are the ones that someone should live by, then why should someone else?
Its like the pork example or if Jesus had become wealthy as a result of the Sermon on the Mount. If someone thinks that what they are spouting is bullshit, why should I disagree?

Oh, okay, no problem. I didn't know you didn't write English very well yet.
If it makes you feel better, I can't write or speak spanish at all. :)

Okay... haha, imagine what I felt when I saw you calling Chomsky "Anarchist"! :D

Whatever, that flag.blackened.net seems interesting... hum...

Those are unexpected news.

I quite liked some of his books and articles even though he had quite a faible for redundancy.

*puts Chomsky on hypocrite list*

It is very relevant. Chomsky is, by definition, the reigning expert on Chomsky's ideas. No one else will ever know more about what Noam Chomsky thinks then Noam Chomsky.
Therefore, if Noam Chomsky doesn't think that Noam Chomsky's ideas are the ones that someone should live by, then why should someone else?

Why shouldn't they? You're arguing that we should treat Chomsky as some sort of God. Just because Chomsky does not believe in his own works does not make them inherently worthless. And neither does it mean that fans on his work must now abandon it because thier Great God has decided against it. They might be worthless, but until someone reads they and decides on thier worth they can make no comment in this regard, especially if thier comments are based on the conduct of the author.


Its like the pork example or if Jesus had become wealthy as a result of the Sermon on the Mount. If someone thinks that what they are spouting is bullshit, why should I disagree?
Because you have a mind of your own that you should make up regardless of what Jesus or a pork baron believes.

Oh well, maybe the Left will find a better representative. Chomsky, Chomsky, why did you do it?

Edit: Hmm, reading the rest of the article, I think it's funny that he hasn't given anything to charity or donated any of that money to environmental agencies.
Well, he may have given money to charities, just because this journalist doesn't mention it, does not mean he didn't.

I found it so deplorable that he claims to reject the concept of private property, yet owns two houses (one house would be OK, but two, just no). Possibly even worse is that he claims to oppose oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals; but he owns stock in such companies!

Anyway, Mr. Chomsky's been banned from my sigspace. He's getting ditched very soon.
I don't know about that. His work is still worth reading. Just because he's a flaming hypocrite, does not mean that all he says is wrong. I mean, if Hitler told you that genocide was wrong, would it not be still true even though he committed it?

"I believe you supported the war. Why aren't you on the front lines,you hypocrite?"
"You believe in envoirmentalism. Why do you own a car, you hypocrite?"
"You believe in anti-capitalism. Why are you trying to make a buck, you hypocrite"

All of these are idiotic. Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. Pointing out that he's exactly as failable as the rest of us proves nothing.
1. I won't comment on the war thing for fear of starting a shitstorm.

2. For some, even environmentalists, owning a car is a necessity. However, for an "environmentalist" to own a big gas-guzzler that exhausts smog, and then proceeeds to use it liberally even when other alternatives are availible, is blatant hypocrisy.

3. You need to make a buck to live. You don't need to make millions to live.

I agree that Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. But I also have lost a vast amount of respect for him, and I regard him as far more fallible than the rest of us.

I agree that Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. But I also have lost a vast amount of respect for him, and I regard him as far more fallible than the rest of us.

Let's be realistic. Think of what 2 houses, a couple of million dollars, and stock in various lurcrative portfolios might do to you.

A lifestyle that involves writing a few books, doing book tours, and getting paid to lecture to people with more money than sense....

Yeah. I'm sure you would pass that up... He could be the Saint Of All That Is Good, and he would be laying on a beach in the Caymans, collecting 20 percent.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy or a stupid douche (though he's close to the latter, obviously), I'm just saying he's been banned from my sigspace because he's a hypocrite.

as i mentioned the other time this topic was mentioned, it seems to me that the idea of chomsky keeping his money out of the hands of uncle sam through a trust is in perfect keeping with his calls for principled tax resistance and the general idea that all uncle sam would do with it is kill people with darker skin tones (see pretty much everything he's ever written). as for the stock portfolio, the article mentions an mit retirement plan. i wonder how much control over it he actually has. the answer to that certainly has some bearing on this discussion.

though i'm definitely hitting him up for money when my planned federation of collectives needs capital in order to expand.

Irrelevant. As funny as it sounds to say, you're trying to discredit Chomsky's ideas by linking them with Chomsky's actions. This is wrong. The ideas should be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.
The way those of Conservatives and NeoCons are? :rolleyes:

You know, that's a good idea. I should make a career out of spouting anti-establishment crap, and then retire on my winnings.

I could even write a book later: "The Fools On The Left"

You guys seriously don't get it, do you?

Being an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't mean you want to live outside the capitalist system, because that is currently impossible. An anarchist eschews EXPLOITATION where it can be avoided, but why live in poverty and squalor as a result of one's convictions?

In a capitalist world, one can only express anti-capitalist(and in Chomsky's case, anarchist) opinion through capitalist channels, and that is what Chomsky does.

(Note that I'm not that much of a Chomsky reader and I don't agree with his theses; but your criticism is remniscient of that of some Republican kid wannabe that's been drinking brake fluid.)

It is entirely possible to be both a socialist and a capitalist at the same time, while folks like me are neither. :(

Wow, an entire thread based on one big, and way too common logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem.

If indeed Chomsky has stock in the oil companies, he is indeed a hypocrite. However, simply copyrighting his name does not make him one. If he doesn't copyright his name, someone else could, and legally speaking he could conceivably no longer have the right to use his own name.

If indeed Chomsky has stock in the oil companies, he is indeed a hypocrite. However, simply copyrighting his name does not make him one. If he doesn't copyright his name, someone else could, and legally speaking he could conceivably no longer have the right to use his own name.

You can't copyright a name.

"Noam Chomsky.... Uber Capitalist?"

Noam Chomsky.... Uber Idiot! :D

kind of like m. moore, gets rich whining about the rich.


we rich detest those morons ;)

You must have seen this sort of argument before:

"I believe you supported the war. Why aren't you on the front lines,you hypocrite?"
"You believe in envoirmentalism. Why do you own a car, you hypocrite?"
"You believe in anti-capitalism. Why are you trying to make a buck, you hypocrite"

All of these are idiotic. Chomsky's ideas should be discussed separately from his actions. Pointing out that he's exactly as failable as the rest of us proves nothing.

(Never read any Chomsky)

i think this is a good way to look at it. noam chomsky could work for a weapons manufacturer for all i care [wait....]. he has some great ideas, and it's his ideas that have value to me, not his actions.

i mean, if this surprises you, you should not be looking for someone to fill whatever void chomsky has just created. you should step back for a moment and ask yourself why you're deifying people. the man is an intellectual, not a role model, and he'll be the first to point out that his ideas are not currently implementable, as engels did......engels owned a bunch of factories...

he's an intellectual?

he is a self styled elitist that hates the country that provided him with his riches.

it doesn't take genius or intellect to say what he says. anyone can criticize, I suggest that it's a good thing he is safely esconced in academia. he couldn't survive with competition.

Wow, an entire thread based on one big, and way too common logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem.

It's perfectly valid to point out hypocrisy.

It's perfectly valid to point out hypocrisy.
Yeah, it's not like anyone's saying that any particular argument of his is proven false by his hypocrisy.

It's perfectly valid to point out hypocrisy.

Sure, to the person being a hypocrite so they can change their ways perhaps. But pointing out to third parties has no purpose unless you are trying to make an ad hominem attack. In which case...well...let's just say you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Sure, to the person being a hypocrite so they can change their ways perhaps. But pointing out to third parties has no purpose unless you are trying to make an ad hominem attack. In which case...well...let's just say you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It's not an ad hominem if it has everything to do with the person's integrity and believability.

For instance, it wouldn't make a difference if he was a womanizer, or had some other personal failing that isn't directly related to his espoused philosophy.

But, imagine the credibility gap that someone might have as an anti-abortion spokesperson who was regularly getting an abortion. That's very important information to third parties.

What it does point up is that while his ideas may have some merit, he certainly doesn't believe that they do - because he capitulates to the way things are.

You guys seriously don't get it, do you?

Being an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't mean you want to live outside the capitalist system, because that is currently impossible. An anarchist eschews EXPLOITATION where it can be avoided, but why live in poverty and squalor as a result of one's convictions?The point is, if his economic opinions were valid, he could live quite comfortably without violating his own stated principles to become "Rich". If I can live quite comfortably (though not exorbantly) on a $20,000/yr job he certainly can.
In a capitalist world, one can only express anti-capitalist(and in Chomsky's case, anarchist) opinion through capitalist channels, and that is what Chomsky does.But he doesn't have to profit from it. That's the key. Socialist Subsistance vs Capitalist Profit. Acording to his own values his Profit is unreasonably excessive - but he doesn't care because it's HIS profit.

Eli>>

Evidently, you never read anything by the man, or are yourself too unintellectual to appreciate the amount of intellectual effort he puts into his works; at least those I've read.


Syniks>>

The point is, if his economic opinions were valid, he could live quite comfortably without violating his own stated principles to become "Rich". If I can live quite comfortably (though not exorbantly) on a $20,000/yr job he certainly can.

- Possibly without you knowing, you just touched upon a major contention point in the anarchist milieu. Many anarchists willingly give up their wealth to help others or donate all they have to anarchist charities(Anarchist Black Cross/Food Not Bombs etc.), or put their funds into the collectives they live in. Others(like myself) claim that "lifestyle anarchism" such as this is just fulfillment of perceived needs to "be an anarchist"; and that living a regular capitalist lifestyle is allright, provided one does support the anarchist movement and doesn't consume to the extent that is contrarevolutionary(that is, anarchists don't support corporations that abuse animals or murder union leaders - two good examples are McDonalds and Coca-Cola).

But he doesn't have to profit from it. That's the key. Socialist Subsistance vs Capitalist Profit. Acording to his own values his Profit is unreasonably excessive - but he doesn't care because it's HIS profit.

- I don't know or care enough about Chomsky to know, but as I see it, he(and all other anarcho-syndicalist theorists) need to get their point across. If they, in the process, use capitalist channels and get obscenely rich from doing that, then I think that is allright, provided they use their wealth to do good; giving to charities and supporting libertarian socialist movements.

But he doesn't have to profit from it. That's the key. Socialist Subsistance vs Capitalist Profit. Acording to his own values his Profit is unreasonably excessive - but he doesn't care because it's HIS profit.

profit in itself isn't against socialism. a socialist enterprise will still aim to produce wealth in excess of costs. it's the capitalist system for determining the distribution and use of that wealth that is opposed.

profit in itself isn't against socialism. a socialist enterprise will still aim to produce wealth in excess of costs. it's the capitalist system for determining the distribution and use of that wealth that is opposed.

Yes, but in Socialism you are simply distributing the wealth in an arguable equally unjust way. Instead of a free-market capitalist system where wealth distribution is efficient and bound by market forces, Socialism allows politicians, who don't have to obey market forces, to allow their self-interest, and inefficient redistribution policies dictate where wealth goes instead.

I for one choose competition and efficient distribution over the decisions of politicians.

Socialism allows politicians...to allow their self-interest, and inefficient redistribution policies dictate where wealth goes instead.

some socialisms, yes. not mine. i'm more of a direct workers control sort of guy, with most such decisions being made within individual firms/collectives and secondarily within federations that those firms are part of.

You guys seriously don't get it, do you?

Being an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't mean you want to live outside the capitalist system, because that is currently impossible. An anarchist eschews EXPLOITATION where it can be avoided, but why live in poverty and squalor as a result of one's convictions?

In a capitalist world, one can only express anti-capitalist(and in Chomsky's case, anarchist) opinion through capitalist channels, and that is what Chomsky does.

The problem is not that he has money. You need money to live in this world. My problem with him is that it goes far beyond that. The man has hids hands in almost everything that he claims to oppose - the military-industrial complex, for god's sake!

kind of like m. moore, gets rich whining about the rich.

Chomsky doesn't whine about the rich.

Never compare his work to that of Michael Moore again.

- I don't know or care enough about Chomsky to know, but as I see it, he(and all other anarcho-syndicalist theorists) need to get their point across. If they, in the process, use capitalist channels and get obscenely rich from doing that, then I think that is allright, provided they use their wealth to do good; giving to charities and supporting libertarian socialist movements.
Problem is, he's not spending his money on charity and socialist movements. He is investing it in companies - morally bankrupt companies, no less - so he can make more money. That's about the most capitalist thing you can do.

It's not an ad hominem if it has everything to do with the person's integrity and believability.

For instance, it wouldn't make a difference if he was a womanizer, or had some other personal failing that isn't directly related to his espoused philosophy.

But, imagine the credibility gap that someone might have as an anti-abortion spokesperson who was regularly getting an abortion. That's very important information to third parties.

What it does point up is that while his ideas may have some merit, he certainly doesn't believe that they do - because he capitulates to the way things are.

You dont know the definition of ad hominem fallacy do you? This describes an ad hominem fallacy perfectly. In fact, the most common ad hominem attack is the "hypocrisy" attack. In fact, this fallacy has its own subcategory, it is the "tu quoque" subcategory of the ad hominem fallacy.

Problem is, he's not spending his money on charity and socialist movements. He is investing it in companies - morally bankrupt companies, no less - so he can make more money. That's about the most capitalist thing you can do.

i still want to know how much control he actualy has over this. as the article said

"When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund, or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it."

now it seems to me that he probably made any decisions about his retirement plan with MIT back when he first started working there in 1955 (or maybe a couple years later when he got full professorship, i don't know). what were his options at the time? what control over his retirement plan's operation does he have now?

i still want to know how much control he actualy has over this. as the article said

"When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund, or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it."

now it seems to me that he probably made any decisions about his retirement plan with MIT back when he first started working there in 1955 (or maybe a couple years later when he got full professorship, i don't know). what were his options at the time? what control over his retirement plan's operation does he have now?
He can divest any time he wants and roll his funds into a non-evil-corporation plan. How much more control do you want?

He can divest any time he wants and roll his funds into a non-evil-corporation plan. How much more control do you want?

can he? i honestly don't know about the operation of MIT's retirement plan and any contracts that might be involved. but if he can then he definitely should. now that it has been brought to his attention where his money is, he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance.

can he? i honestly don't know about the operation of MIT's retirement plan and any contracts that might be involved. but if he can then he definitely should. now that it has been brought to his attention where his money is, he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance.
Anyone can divest themselves of a retirement plan at any time. You might lose the corporate matching funds (if you are not vested), but that's a small price to pay...for moral purity. With Chomsky, especially given how much money he makes outside of the uni anyway, he could still easilly fund a 401K from a disbursement rollover, then fully fund a ROTH IRA (which grows tax free). He'd still have way more "retirement" money than most evil capitalists will ever have.

he's an intellectual?

he is a self styled elitist that hates the country that provided him with his riches.



he's a professor at MIT. like him or not, the man is clearly brilliant.


it doesn't take genius or intellect to say what he says. anyone can criticize, I suggest that it's a good thing he is safely esconced in academia. he couldn't survive with competition.

well, considering that he revolutionized the field of linguistics.....

he didn't do that without people second guessing what he had to say, that's for sure. his political writings are simply something he does on the side, for the hell of it; they're essays written to nobody in particular that he puts together to get it out of his system. if he was thirty years younger, he'd probably just put them up on his blog. he's not a revolutionary, he's just a really smart over-read linguistics prof that likes to ramble in his spare time and apparently has enough spare time that he can produce enough of his ramblings to put together a rather modest publishing career......and people dig what he was to say.

but let's not psycho-analyze noam chomsky, and let's certainly not deny him of his obvious intellect.

he's an intellectual?

he is a self styled elitist that hates the country that provided him with his riches.



he's a professor at MIT. like him or not, the man is clearly brilliant.


it doesn't take genius or intellect to say what he says. anyone can criticize, I suggest that it's a good thing he is safely esconced in academia. he couldn't survive with competition.

well, considering that he revolutionized the field of linguistics.....

he didn't do that without people second guessing what he had to say, that's for sure. his political writings are simply something he does on the side, for the hell of it; they're essays written to nobody in particular that he puts together to get it out of his system. if he was thirty years younger, he'd probably just put them up on his blog. he's not a revolutionary, he's just a really smart over-read linguistics prof that likes to ramble in his spare time and apparently has enough spare time that he can produce enough of his ramblings to put together a rather modest publishing career......and people dig what he was to say.

but let's not psycho-analyze noam chomsky, and let's certainly not deny him of his obvious intellect.

he's a professor at MIT. like him or not, the man is clearly brilliant. In Linguistics. Otherwise "Idiot Savant" seems to apply.

Try this one from a nice conservative (not) Lawyer/Pundit:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

Chomsky’s Immoral Divestiture Petition

Alan M. Dershowitz

Who is Noam Chomsky and why is he seeking to compel universities to divest from corporations that have ties to Israel? I have known Noam Chomsky for more than thirty years. I have debated him on numerous occasions, and I have written extensively about his zealous anti-Zionism and his flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial. I was not surprised therefore to learn that he is the inspiration behind the foolish and immoral campaign for divestiture.

I first debated Chomsky in 1973, several weeks after the Yom Kippur War. Chomsky’s proposal at that time was consistent with the PLO party line. He wanted to abolish the state of Israel, and to substitute a “secular, binational state,” based on the model of binational “brotherhood” that then prevailed in Lebanon. Chomsky repeatedly pointed to Lebanon, where Christians and Muslims “lived side by side,” sharing power in peace and harmony. This was just a few years before Lebanon imploded in fratricidal disaster.

This is what I said about Chomsky’s hare-brained scheme in our 1973 debate: “Putting aside the motivations behind such a proposal when it is made by the Palestinian organizations, why do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn’t it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture, and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace. I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will.”

My counterproposal was that “Israel should declare, in principle, its willingness to give up the captured territories in return for a firm assurance of lasting peace. By doing so, it would make clear what I think the vast majority of Israelis believe: it has no interest in retaining the territories for any reason other than protection from attack.”

Chomsky rejected my proposal out of hand. He characterized it as a mere return to the “colonialist status quo.” Only the dismantling of the colonialist Jewish state would satisfy the PLO, and only the creation of a secular, binational Palestine in “all of Palestine” would satisfy Chomsky.

My next encounter with Chomsky revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson who denied that the Holocaust took place, that Hitler’s gas chambers existed, that the diary of Anne Frank was authentic, and that there were death camps in Nazi occupied Europe. He claimed that the “massive lie” about genocide was a deliberate concoction initiated by “American Zionists” “and that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. Chomsky described these and other conclusions as “findings” and said that they were based on “extensive historical research.” He also wrote that “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” He said he saw “no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work,” including his claim that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. He wrote an introduction to one of Faurisson’s book which was used to market his anti-Semitic lies.

In a subsequent debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky initially denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to have to back down upon being confronted with the evidence. He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in “revisionist” literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.

This then is the man who is leading the campaign for divesture against Israel. He is joined in this ignoble effort by some who would take the money now invested in the Mideast’s only democracy and have it sent to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, the Palestinian Authority, and others who support and finance terrorism. He is also joined by a motley assortment of knee-jerk anti-Zionists, rabid Anti-Americans, radical leftists (the Spartacist League), people with little knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and even some of Chomsky’s former students who now teach in Israel.

There is no intellectually or morally defensible case for singling out Israel for divestiture, and I challenge Chomsky to debate me on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself -- and the world -- against terrorism that targets civilians. Universities invest in a wide array of companies that have operations in countries that systematically violate the human rights of millions of people. Nor are these countries defending themselves against those who would destroy them and target their civilians. Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights. This is bigotry pure and simple, and those who signed the petition should be ashamed of themselves and shamed by others.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University.

How many of the companies he (sorry, MIT's retirement plan :rolleyes: ) is vested in have ties to Israel? Why hasn't HE "divested"?

Peh.

Swimmingpool>> If your claims are legit, then that is detestable - odds are good he cannot be a conscientious anarchist and support a system that steals freedom from all it's citizens. However, I will need proof.

I hope this isn't true. I've been wrong to hope in the past. All too often.

Swimmingpool>> If your claims are legit, then that is detestable - odds are good he cannot be a conscientious anarchist and support a system that steals freedom from all it's citizens. However, I will need proof. http://www.techcentralstation.com/1019055.html

The author personally interviewed Chomsky to address his FOA findings. Chomsky not only didn't deny it, he thought it was irrelevant. Coupled with Dershowitz' commentary that's all the proof I need.

In Linguistics. Otherwise "Idiot Savant" seems to apply.



i have no comment on the holocaust denial. i must say that i find this slightly contradictory to what i know of chomsky's ideology, which would certainly [and intelligently] be cynical of the mere concept of history and which would certainly be willing to accept "secret socities" at work but would almost certainly blame not an ethnicity but greed. from what i've read, chomsky's viewpoint on world war two was that it was a war of resources, orchestrated by major corporations, for the eventual purpose of world domination, and the americans were, for most of the war, on the german's side. this, i think, is absolutely accurate, but neither here nor there. he would only be speaking out of both sides of his ass if he tried to condemn american corporations for creating the holocaust [which he has, and not without evidence] and simultaneously deny the holocaust and blame the jews.

bluntly: i find noam chomsky's own writings a far more reliable source on noam chomsky's opinions than the heresay of alan dershowitz, who has been known to tell a fib or two in his lifetime.

however, in regards to this:

I first debated Chomsky in 1973, several weeks after the Yom Kippur War. Chomsky’s proposal at that time was consistent with the PLO party line. He wanted to abolish the state of Israel, and to substitute a “secular, binational state,” based on the model of binational “brotherhood” that then prevailed in Lebanon. Chomsky repeatedly pointed to Lebanon, where Christians and Muslims “lived side by side,” sharing power in peace and harmony. This was just a few years before Lebanon imploded in fratricidal disaster.

This is what I said about Chomsky’s hare-brained scheme in our 1973 debate: “Putting aside the motivations behind such a proposal when it is made by the Palestinian organizations, why do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn’t it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture, and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace. I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will.”

My counterproposal was that “Israel should declare, in principle, its willingness to give up the captured territories in return for a firm assurance of lasting peace. By doing so, it would make clear what I think the vast majority of Israelis believe: it has no interest in retaining the territories for any reason other than protection from attack.”

Chomsky rejected my proposal out of hand. He characterized it as a mere return to the “colonialist status quo.” Only the dismantling of the colonialist Jewish state would satisfy the PLO, and only the creation of a secular, binational Palestine in “all of Palestine” would satisfy Chomsky.


...i can't help but observe chomsky's incredible foresight. israel has offered palestine the moon and the sun, but they won't take it. what westerners, and i include israelis as westerners, don't understand is that the plo aren't fighting an ideological war. they want their land back, pure and simple. nothing short of

a) carpet-bombing them into a crater
b) taking away both states and forcing them to room together or
c) giving them their land back

will ever end the war there. these kinds of wars sometimes last thousands of years.....see the celts, the basques, the berbers. man, look at the berbers: 3000 years and still fighting! the only dense solution i see here is dershowitz', which happens to also be george w. bush's. the plo doesn't want the captured territories back. that's not going to end the war; what it wants is israel back. what we have here is chomsky understanding the problem and dershowitz living in la-la land.

and i hate to point it out, and i get the feeling you wanted me to point it out, but dershowitz happens to be jewish. his viewpoint is perhaps not a logical one due to this reality. sometimes, passion clouds reason.

and i hate to point it out, and i get the feeling you wanted me to point it out, but dershowitz happens to be jewish. his viewpoint is perhaps not a logical one due to this reality. sometimes, passion clouds reason.Um, no. The whole point of the text was to show yet another instance where Chomsky makes calles for Divestment that he himself is not willing to undertake.

The fact that he is, at least. a Holocaust skeptic just adds another whole level to my distaste for him in his non-linguist persona.

The fact that he is, at least. a Holocaust skeptic just adds another whole level to my distaste for him in his non-linguist persona.

......but i really don't think that he is a holocaust skeptic, or at least if he is it would contradict his writings rather heavily, which is not impossible, but is, i think, to say the least, unlikely.

my point was that it sounds more like a story thought up by a creative lawyer.

......but i really don't think that he is a holocaust skeptic, or at least if he is it would contradict his writings rather heavily, which is not impossible, but is, i think, to say the least, unlikely.

my point was that it sounds more like a story thought up by a creative lawyer.
http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Maybe you should read that website, and read the documents and writings they mention, and see for yourself who has published Chomsky's books.

......but i really don't think that he is a holocaust skeptic, or at least if he is it would contradict his writings rather heavily, which is not impossible, but is, i think, to say the least, unlikely.

my point was that it sounds more like a story thought up by a creative lawyer.Not Quite.

See: http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ExtremistLang.html
It would be inaccurate to call Chomsky a Holocaust denier. Chomsky knows the Holocaust took place, and he has repeatedly called it "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history." Nevertheless, Chomsky did in fact lend his reputation to the deniers of the Holocaust and participated directly in downplaying another genocide, the Cambodian massacres of 1975-78. While it is true that Chomsky himself never claimed that the Holocaust never happened, he did sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier, saying that Faurisson

has been conducting extensive research into the 'Holocaust" question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. 2

This is much more than a call for freedom of speech. The use of the word "findings" for Faurisson's book and the quotation marks around the word "Holocaust" are themselves a denial. Chomsky is in effect saying that although he happens to believe that the Holocaust took place, other reputable researchers may honestly come to different conclusions.
2. Cited in Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust; translated and with a forward by Jeffrey Mehlman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. p. 69.

Or: http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12204
While Chomsky’s preface does not specifically endorse Faurisson’s thesis, neither does it criticize or repudiate it. In addition, Chomsky denies that Faurisson is an anti-Semite, and instead characterizes him as “a relatively apolitical liberal of some type.” Shortly thereafter Chomsky goes so far as to claim, in private correspondence with the Australian journalist William Rubenstein, that he saw nothing anti-Semitic about Holocaust denial:

“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...” [1]

Chomsky, then, sees nothing wrong with denying that the worst crime in human history ever occurred. What strikes him as “vicious” is that this horrendous atrocity should be used to generate sympathy for Israel.
[1] W. D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant [Australia], October 1981, pp. 8-14. A reply by Chomsky and a rebuttal by Rubinstein are published in the April 1982 issue of the same journal. See Noam Chomsky, Search for the Truth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair, and http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html for Chomsky’s comments

More Questions: http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/goldsmith/barsky.htm

When Chomsky asserted (whether in all honesty, or as a rhetorical device, we’ll never know) that he had not read what it was that Faurisson had written, and that he did not care, because what was at issue was Faurisson’s right to express his views, not the validity of those views – when Chomsky asserted that, critics (myself included) shook their heads. Surely Chomsky should have taken the opportunity to read what was at issue: surely he had taken the opportunity: is there anything, after all, that the man does not read? Was Chomsky’s statement that he hadn’t read it just a rhetorical device? And if he had taken the opportunity to read it, why did he not say what we might expect him to say: something like, in the light of what we have long known about Nazi-sponsored extermination of European Jews, surely a contemporary who questions the broad outlines of that proposition must have either a screw loose or a highly dubious political agenda; but either way, I defend his right to say it and publish it without being taken to court by the State as a criminal.
I guess more Jewish thought on the topic is irrelevant... http://www.webspawner.com/users/herethereisnowhy/

How about Denial that antisemitisim exists? http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/005164.html
( http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article81025.ece) Is anti-Semitism on the increase?

In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc. In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant. The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.

Etc: http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html

One of the many myths propagated by Chomsky’s admirers on this subject is that Faurisson published the essay without Chomsky’s consent. In fact Professor Arno J. Mayer of Princeton spoke to Chomsky a month before publication of the book, when Chomsky confirmed that he knew exactly the use to which his own essay would be put. Further, according to the report of an interview in the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, 18 December 1980, Chomsky confirmed that even with the benefit of hindsight he considered that his essay had not been misused. (On both these points my source is Seidel, op cit, p. 103.) <snip>

Chomsky claims “numerous” statements “in print” about the Holocaust, but his statements on that subject and on Nazi Germany in general are almost always polemical devices with which to denigrate the United States. There are many things that can be said about such claims, but I will state the bare minimum: for all the faults it has exhibited, evils it has tolerated and even crimes it has committed in its history, the United States is a free society that has acted with nobility in defending western civilisation against tyranny. To draw an analogy with an incomparably evil and genocidal regime is pitiful sophistry.

What, finally, are we to make of Chomsky’s remarks on the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson? They are worse than sophistry. Chomsky is not himself a Holocaust denier, and no responsible critic has ever claimed he is. He is, rather, an “antisemitism denier”. His disaffection from genuinely progressive values – the values that the United States at its best effectively promotes, as we have lately seen in Afghanistan – is so extreme that it leads him to see not only “no enemies on the Left” but also “no enemies amongst the enemies of my enemies” – even if it puts him alongside men who whitewash Nazi genocide. That is a damning charge, but my explanation fits the facts as no other does. Consider this fact, which I believe has not been commented on publicly before.

In November 1979 The New Statesman published an article by Gitta Sereny on the Holocaust deniers Richard Verrall (the editor of the National Front’s magazine, and the pseudonymous author of the single most pernicious – because popular – tract denying the Holocaust), Arthur Butz and Faurisson. Only one paragraph refers to Faurisson: it states who Faurisson is, records briefly a telephone conversation between him and Sereny, and remarks on his “mechanism of double-think” (Faurisson apparently believes that Sereny’s exhaustive studies of Nazi Germany provide proof of his own case!). That's it. Yet according to an unpublished and ridiculously pompous letter, dated 30 November 1979, that Faurisson sent to the magazine:

Noam Chomsky, the famous professor (of Jewish origin) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is aware of the research work I do on what Revisionist Historians term “the gas chamber and genocide hoax.” He informed me that Gitta Sereny had mentioned my name in the above article, and stated that I had been referred to “in an extraordinarily unfair way.”

Faurisson is an inveterate liar, but the presence of a direct quotation from Chomsky – which I am not aware Chomsky has ever denied - has at least the appearance of verisimilitude. Did Chomsky write to Faurisson? If so, what was he doing defending a bigot not from attacks on his liberties but from mere journalistic comment? What could any sane person regard as “extraordinarily unfair” about the almost anodyne remark of Gitta Sereny? (Sereny’s article is reproduced in her book The German Trauma, 2000, pp. 135-146.)

So, not a Holocaust Denier himself, but someone who will not distance himself from their opinions either - even to the expediant of saying "I utterly disagree with their premise and conclusions but they have the right to their Voice". Just as bad. Peh.

So, not a Holocaust Denier himself, but someone who will not distance himself from their opinions either - even to the expediant of saying "I utterly disagree with their premise and conclusions but they have the right to their Voice". Just as bad. Peh.

Hey, if it isn't the Right doing it, it's just fine. Remember it's not antisemitism if Chomsky does it. :rolleyes:

Hey, if it isn't the Right doing it, it's just fine. Remember it's not antisemitism if Chomsky does it. :rolleyes:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/FASCISM_NOT_US_large.jpg

:D

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/FASCISM_NOT_US_large.jpg

:D

I don't view Chomsky as some radical genius with great political philosophy. I view him as a badly dressed geek who is good at being a shameless self-promoter and egotistical maniac.

Sorry, havent' been around in a while.

I think you rabid shibbers who would attack Chomsky as soon as you get the chance should read THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Noam_Chomsky

It is evident that Chomsky is not without flaws in reasoning, but a lot of the things you desperately want his head for are simply blown out of proportion by the media and right-wing critics - It's without merit.

Sorry, havent' been around in a while.

I think you rabid shibbers who would attack Chomsky as soon as you get the chance should read THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Noam_Chomsky

It is evident that Chomsky is not without flaws in reasoning, but a lot of the things you desperately want his head for are simply blown out of proportion by the media and right-wing critics - It's without merit.
Of course, the point of all this still remains. Chomsky calls for divestiture for others - when he won't himself. He calls for a radical version of Socialisim and decries Corporatisim - yet is unapologetic about making money by the bucketfull and is essentially a corporation unto himself.

Seems he spends an awful lot of time wanting things both ways.

Besides, I hardly call Wiki a solid source of anything except good research starting points.

That's a pretty biased viewpoint, isn't it? Many wikis are written by experts of their field.

And you're right, just stop it already - But you cannot live in a capitalist world without contributing to it in some way, so I can hardly condemn his actions.