This collection of essays examining Chomsky's controversial ideas about various foreign and domestic issues explores the dark corners of what the New Yorker recently called one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
Founder of Encounter Books in California, Collier was publisher from 1998-2005. He co-founded the Center for the Study of Popular Culture with David Horowitz. Collier wrote many books and articles with Horowitz. Collier worked on the website FrontpageMag. He was an organizer of Second Thoughts conferences for leftists who have moved right.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
One needn't agree with Chomsky in order to find that this volume relies primarily on strawpersons, red herrings, argumentum ad hominem, and other irrationalisms. In addition to being scurrilous and manifestly erroneous, for instance, the suggestion that Chomsky is anti-semitic and supportive of any dictator just because the US dislikes same does not make Chomsky's arguments wrong.
Such accusations indicate an inability to read. A similar reading comprehension problem arises in what may be the signature challenge to Chomsky, regarding his writings about Cambodia. Chomsky's actual argument has some subtlety to it, but that argument is typically ignored, and Chomsky is turned into an apologist for the policies of the Khmer Rouge, which is demonstrably false.
The final chapter, regarding Chomsky's linguistics, is comical, indicating an attempt to refute Chomsky at all levels, a challenge ontologically, Chomsky sous rature. I suppose the next edition will attempt to demonstrate that his birth certificate is faked--a locus of debate appropriate for the jingo-simian proto-teabaggery herein.
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words can never harm me". So go's the children's playground rhyme. Sadly nothing can be further from the truth. Words do harm very frequently and often they kill. Vladimir Lenin knew it, Josef Goebbels knew it , and Noam Chomsky knows it. In this work Peter Collier and David Horowitz outlines the career and work of this thoroughly malignant high priest of Marxist academia. Chomsky's works have had one thing in common, the justification of and support for mass murder and evil, and the condemnation of democracy. Chomsky has supported just about every tyranny and terrorist organization, that has existed in the last 40 years, from Maoist Red China to Castro's island hell on Cuba, from Communist Vietnam and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge genocidal regime in Cambodia to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Chomsky justified the atrocities of the Syrians and their Palestinian sidekicks in Lebanon, saying that the massacres against the Christian and Druze Lebanese where highly exaggerated. But the over 100 000 dead in Lebanon at the hands of the Syrian/PLO killing machine speaks for itself.
Chomsky aims his visceral hatred at the USA and it's allies particularly Israel. His war against the Land and People of Israel has been particularly venomous and uncompromising, since his 1975 polemic "Peace in the Middle East?" in which he demmanded that Israel should be dismantled and replaced with a Marxist `binational' `Palestine'. He later followed with longer works such as `Fateful Triangle' and "Pirates and Emperors" in which he compared tiny democratic beleaguered Israel to Nazi Germany and presents it as the soul obstacle to peace and harmony in the Middle East, and he go's on to justify and encourage PLO atrocities. Brigitte Gabriel in a recent speech at Duke University in the USA said : " Once upon a time there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle". This is the doing of left-fascist ideologues like Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky has a massive following throughout the world, and has helped to forge the hard left of today into an Orwellian hate machine where all that is evil and murderous is admired and the democratic west is hated. In the sick world of Noam Chomsky war is peace and peace is war, good is evil and evil is good, and love is hate and hate is love-the words of the witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth are the words of Noam Chomsky: "Fair is foul and foul is fair". In encouraging totalitarian regimes and murderous terrorist organization and rallying leftists around the world to their cause, who knows how much blood lies on the hands of this thoroughly evil man?
The main assertion of this book of edited chapters is that Noam Chomsky does not deserve his fame and reputation as a prominent American public intellectual. Most of the authors are on the political Right, but their main criticism of Chomsky is not that he is a Leftist, but rather that he is such a flagrant liar. His most famous lie is his denial that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide in Cambodia.
Linguistics:
Noam Chomsky started off in linguistics. He made two major contributions to linguistics: (a) Chomsky moved linguistics away from the nurture theory of language acquisition and from the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, and towards a more genetic and cognitive approach, and (b) Chomsky defined a containment hierarchy of generative grammars for formal languages.
Noam Chomsky did work in the 1950s on formal languages and generative grammars. Grammars describe the rules for arranging words to form valid sentences. The rules depend upon the part of speech that each word is, but not on the meaning of the word. Chomsky's hierarchy:
It is generally, but not universally, believed by linguists, that natural languages belong to Type 1: context-sensitive grammars, in particular, mildly context-sensitive grammars. Chomsky was more concerned with syntax (structure) than with semantics (meaning). His work has had applicability to computer languages. Most programming languages fall into the level of context-free languages, that is, languages where the meaning of a phrase does not depend upon any of the words that surround it. Interestingly, the smallest group of formal languages are related to the regular expressions of the UNIX programming environment. Noam Chomsky also contributed some other ideas to linguistics, but they are more controversial and most of them have not stood the test of time. In fact, Chomsky himself has made fundamental changes to his theories so that his later ideas contradict, rather than merely modify, the ideas that originally made him famous. Chomsky is also accused of (a) failing to reference those who have disproven his theories, and (b) failing to reference predecessors who had earlier published ideas that Chomsky claims to have originated himself. Noam Chomsky's idea that linguistic structures are genetic and built into the brain rest on his assertion of universal principles in linguistics, but these so-called universal principles have been shown to have numerous exceptions. Noam Chomsky has made his reputation in linguistics based upon writing books for the general public, and not on scholarly articles in refereed academic journals. The most interesting revelation in this book was not about Chomsky at all, but rather that in modern linguistics, sentences are classified into levels of difficulty, based upon the complexity of the linguistic rules that are necessary to explain them. Many sentences make sense to us, even though they cannot be fit into any existing set of rules for sentence construction. This reminds me of the unarticulated rationality of cultural tradition that Thomas Sowell defends, and the assertion by Roger Penrose that mathematical understanding is something you can't formulate in terms of rules.
Polemicist:
A number of the essays criticize Chomsky for the fact that many of his references are not to well-known journalists, periodicals and scholars, but rather to small-circulation pamphlets written by obscure, fringe political activists. Many of his references are to his own earlier writings, which are themselves full of weak references. In other words, the quality of his scholarship is poor. One of the essays points out that Chomsky's political and linguistic writings are similar, in that in both he ignores facts that do not fit his theories. Chomsky is criticized for presenting selective evidence. If there is a conflict between two parties, he reports the atrocities committed by one side, but none of the atrocities committed by the other. He also fails to distinguish between the inevitable collateral damage to civilians that occurs when fighting in an urban setting, with terrorist acts who intention is to deliberately kill civilians.
The Cold War:
Chomsky attributed the entry of the United States into World War I to President Woodrow Wilson's anti-German propaganda, in particular, to the Creel Commission. The conventional view of most historians is that Americans were motivated to enter the war because (a) German U-boats sunk the passenger ship the Lusitania, and (b) the Zimmerman Memorandum revealed that Germany had asked Mexico to join with it to attack the United States. Chomsky blames the United States for the Cold War, since we supported the White Russians during the Russian Civil War. Chomsky blames the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) for the post-World War II intensification of the Cold War. Chomsky believed that American hawks were exaggerating the magnitude of the Soviet threat. Chomsky was critical of Czech freedom-fighter Vaclav Havel for thanking the United States for fighting the Soviets in his 1990 address to the U.S. Congress. Noam Chomsky blames the United States embargo against Cuba for Cuban poverty. But this embargo prevented Cuba's trade with only one country, the United States. Cuba was free to trade with all the other nations of the world. Chomsky accuses the United States of terrorism, for supporting the contras in Nicaragua. But the contras, while receiving a great deal of military support from the United States, were not created by American agents, but rather by peasants resisting the collectivization of agriculture by the Sandinistas.
Zionism:
Chomsky's book about Palestine, Fateful Triangle, contains a dozen comparisons of the Zionists to Hitler, but it contains no mention of al-Hajj Amin al-Husaynia, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was an actual friend of Hitler. In this book, Chomsky also devotes much space to the 1948 Deir Yassin military action, where the Israeli soldiers killed several hundred Palestinians during an attack on a military force in the center of the village of Deir Yassin. But Chomsky says little, if anything, about Arab atrocities during Israel's war of independence. Chomsky frequently criticizes Israel for being a Jewish state, but he rarely, if ever, criticizes Ireland for being a Roman Catholic state, Greece for being a Greek Orthodox state, or the United Kingdom for being a Protestant (Anglican) state.
Freedom of the Press for Holocaust Deniers:
Chomsky has supported the publications of holocaust deniers, in particular, Robert Faurisson. Chomsky claims that his motivation is only to protect their right to free speech and academic freedom, but he has rarely, if ever, supported the advocates of other fringe causes. Speaking of freedom of the press, the book points out that Noam Chomsky persuaded American publishers to delete from the American edition of Biographical Companion to Modern Thought an entry by British linguist Geoffrey Sampson that criticized Chomsky for his denial of the Cambodian genocide.
Conspiratorial Thinking:
Chomsky has a conspiratorial world view. He believes that American foreign policy is motivation solely by the desires of corporations to increase their profits, and never by legitimate, defensive, national security considerations, or a desire to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world. If there is little evidence in most prominent news publications to support his assertions that America or Israel is committing evil acts, he interprets this as a cover-up. Chomsky believes that the American media are slanted to the right, because they are owned by large corporations. But rich corporations do not necessarily represent the interest of rich individuals, because most of their stock is ultimately owned by middle-class individuals.
I've made several attempts to slog through Chomsky's political ravings, but his obvious hatred of the U.S. and Israel drives away my interest in what he has to say. This book supports many of my independently formed opinions of his anti-American agenda. I believe that we should always remain skeptical of every "expert" and this includes the contributors to this work. I liked the book because it supported what I'd already seen, but I'm always willing to keep an open mind. No person is always right or always wrong. I've recently talked with some of his disciples who regard him as an infallible savior. I guess I just can't accept that the I'm-too-smart-for-you-to-understand mentality is anything other than a symptom of megalomania.
A must read for anyone who takes the rhetoric of the ultra Left seriously. Chomsky is a force to be reckoned with, but this book demonstrates how biased he is as a poor historian and a poor excuse of a political analyst.
Chomsky is truly off the political chart on the extreme left lunatic fringe.
Recommend this book to anyone enamored with ultra left thinking. The book will give them much to think about and reconsider or deconstruct about their own beliefs.
Let me begin by saying that I have never found Chomsky to be deserving of his accolades and credibility as he blares in his ironically Kissenger sounding voice on all facets of the World. It seems that he has well and truly stepped outside of his initial area of expertise, linguistics and grants an opinion, a well heard opinion on most areas but most especially he is revered for his political and International opinions. Most of those opinions being often inconsistent and contrarian to the official narrative on American foreign policy.
Now regardless of whether one can agree or disagree or simply view Chomsky as another self absorbed academic with tenure deriding the US as he finds himself immersed comfortably in State supported Academic institutions does not matter...
This book for the most part makes shallow attacks and while some of the criticism is valid for the most part the books goes in excess with its 'Anti-Chomsky' barrages. The book read like it was at times written by an obsessive ex lover. Some one who loved and shared with Chomsky but now found themselves, for what ever reason on the out and shall for ever resent him.
I suppose the ultimate compliment to Mr Chomsky should be that such a book exists and that some of his detractors should invest so much effort in a book so as to attack him in every area.
For those who love all things Chomsky, so most college kids in the United States, reading this book no doubt would NOT enter your mind. And for those who already dislike Chomsky, well then this book will add nothing to your opinion. For those of us outside of the United States who are sick of American academics like Chomsky who celebrate their Anti American exceptionalism with hypocritical arrogance, then this book is not really of any advantage either. I suggest for that third group to read a Thomas Sowell or Howard Zinn instead of anything written by Noam Chomsky , except in matters of linguistics that is.
As for this book, I did enjoy some aspects but for the most part it was grinding and too attack focused in an unhealthy way.
Where the hell was this book when I was 19!?! Would have saved me a lot of trouble.
Broken down into a handful of sections, the authors do a good job of breaking down Chomsky's most influential pieces and showcasing the techniques used to misinform his readers. From his support of the Khmer Rouge to his ties to and collaboration with neo-nazi groups, the authors present a metric shit-load of evidence to discredit nearly everything the guy has stood for over his career.
Closer to a 2.5, this is a series of essays attacking many of the positions and claims of Noam Chomsky. Part of me enjoyed it just to get a flavor for some of the arguments against him, another part was shocked as to how many people actually adopt Chomsky's arguments, consciously or otherwise, in the discussions I've had over the years.
With that said, the book is flawed. I would have liked more consistent sourcing, I would have preferred a more sober, less polemical treatment (it's published in part by WND books, which I did not know when I picked it up and probably would have kept me away from it), and, at nearly 10 years old, is desperately in need of an update.
Worth reading if you need this specific kind of response, but it's otherwise expendable.
I was intrigued by this book since it had a criticism of the propaganda model, something I personally have accepted as borderline gospel and I wanted to hear counterarguments for the sake of intellectual honesty. To put it nicely the counterpoints presented suggest a poor understanding or downright malicious misconstruing of Chomsky & Herman's argument, I'll outline the general arguments and debunk them here. The arguments I present here will be paraphrased of course and won't be direct quotes from the book for the sake of simplicity.
1. "They ignore revelations by the media of corporate and government misconduct of that wins awards and gains reputation." For a started those journalism awards are generally meaningless and are nothing more than mainstream publications giving other mainstream publications praise in an incestuous display but that's not the meat of the point it just irked me. Chomsky doesn't say the media has never reported on corporate or government misconduct the issue is that it only reports on misconduct it is *allowed* to report on. If the paper's sponsor is company X and they release a story of the misconduct of company Y that's perfectly fine since that doesn't cause harm to their sponsor. Government misconduct is similar, you can attack this president to try and get the other guy into office but if your publication likes the former candidate you won't be allowed to attack them. 2. "Different media outlets have different political views and disagree often." This is also silly, these outlets can disagree on issues that don't actually matter. One source on "the left" says that the proud boys are the biggest threat to Democracy while another on "the right" says it's Antifa and then both sources attack something like single payer healthcare. All they've done is push the same narrative to two distinct audiences, now both the conservative and liberal walk away against single payer healthcare. 3. "Can't explain the popularity of conservative shows, if people wanted to hear Chomsky's far left they wouldn't voluntarily tune in to conservative shows." I'm not sure what their point is. Obviously people who are conservatives exist and would want to hear those views. The point is that if you tune in to the press, irregardless of whether there is a right or left wing bias, you are being propagandised by the people who run the outlet and their interests are colouring the coverage. 4. "Ignores new media like the internet" Bud, who runs the largest news sites? The mainstream press. But even if you ignore that, collecting news is expensive. Newspapers act as scripts for other forms of relaying the news, if you can afford to run newspapers, which aren't as profitable as they once were, you can control the narrative. The internet can and does act as a counterweight to the mainstream media but that doesn't prove Chomsky wrong. 5. "This isn't new! It's just Marxist false consciousness" That's not a real criticism and doesn't refute anything.
I only read the section on the propaganda model and if this is the quality of argument I have no interest in reading the other sections but I might go back to it and may update this review refuting more of it.
The Anti-Chomsky Reader is an amazing book that exposes Chomsky for the fraud that he is, for the anti-American reactionary who would fight tooth-and-nail to attribute all the errors of the world to the US, and who would call all socialist states State-Capitalisms so as to mask socialist failures, and who would attack Israel on grounds that would also be true on Palestine and most Arabic states (something most Arabs I know are guilty of—not that Israel does not deserve condemnation as a state, but as the need for consistent criteria). Chomsky is a fraudster, and the world's most famous pseudo-intellectual, babbling on things that do not add up and do not make sense. His book, Who Rules the World?, even goes so far as to insist that the Cubans are innocents who were forced into poverty and terrorism because of the US foreign policy, a claim that no rational man would ascribe to a thief, a murderer, or a rapist.
This book shows us the glorified idiot who is Chomsky, who has engaged in Anti-American propaganda all his life, and who countless people read to him only to get their preconceptions fortified, and who has this idiotic fantasy that the rich rule the world and control it so that they become wealthier at the expense of the poor.
***
I have relistened to this book in the latter days of 2021, and my disgust with Chomsky has been renewed. I dislike his sophistry, especially in alleging to speak truth to power when he's conforming to Marxist agendas elsewhere.
*** Review of the 3rd reading, pending. During the last days of writing my thesis, I wanted quick and short reads. This was the first book to come to my mind. I remember enjoying it every time I've listened to it, especially with Kirk Jordan's beautiful narration. This book is not the kind of book you would read alone. You have to read this alongside Chomsky's book. My first experience with Chomsky was reading his Who Rules the World for a book club. I still remember how the author (Chomsky) presents the strangest arguments. As a physicist, I love strange arguments. But he is not very good at backing those arguments. For example, Chomsky claims that Cuba's installation of Russian nuclear weapons (that might be targetted at the USA) was for security and safety reasons since Cuba was afraid the USA would invade it. Well and good. How about Israel arming itself to the teeth in fear that Iran would invade it? That won't do with Chomsky. Why? Because Israel has illegitimately seized these lands. (He suggests in the book that Israel/Palestine be ruled in the style of Lebanon, which would still give Israeli citizens some say in the ultimate disposal of land and resources if we would disregard Rothbardian political analysis for a minute.) But lo and behold, the Castro regime also illegitimately rules over Cuba. There seems to be a breach of logic here. These kinds of problems are scattered all over the ideas of Chomsky. Therefore, this book is to be accompanied by readings of other books by Chomsky. I don't think this book discredits Chomsky, it just presents strong counterarguments and concerns of doubt. Except in some chapters where the authors follow the citations of Chomsky only to be sent to other books of his, without any page number or at least chapter references. (The authors located the vague, but still unsupported claims, in the dead-end books which Chomsky cites.) He's just a mess like that.
In other chapters of this book, the authors that the editors chose are just gadflies. And I specifically mean the last chapter of the book where the author just bugs Chomsky with e-mails. I really appreciate that Chomsky responded to the e-mails, which is something the author should be a little bit ashamed of. (This is the funniest chapter of the book, and Chomsky could really tolerate annoyance. This is a thumbs up for this guy! LOL!)
The majority of this book is about Chomsky's political analysis. Just to understand how superficial and plainly silly Chomsky sometimes can be, consider this: In his book, Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky claims that the media butters up for the big companies, for big business in general. That might be truer today than how it was then, and it certainly was not true by then in the style Chomsky intends. The media attacks big business. The media ultimately serves big business, but they actively attack both the institution of big business, and big businesses themselves. Chomsky claims that the media, in general, tries to defend and make excuses for big business. Which media, Fox News, you say? No. The Washington Post. The New York Times. CNN. Give me a break!
The book is filled with these things. But the MAIN body of the book is about one thing that is certain: Chomsky's defense of terrorist regimes in Central Asia. Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The authors the editors chose, including the editors themselves, demolish Chomsky's defense of these tyrannical regimes in which Chomsky never apologized but keeps coming up with excuses. (For example, Chomsky claims that Vietnam would have been a wonderful revolution, and the USA was afraid of it creating a good example of a functional communist state!)
I still go to this book from time to time, and I really love it and enjoy reading it. It's such a fun book, and I never get bored of it. This is my third time through, and no doubt there will be more to come.
Тази книга беше добре написана книга с критика НЕ КЪМ ЛИЧНОСТТА НОАМ ЧОМСКИ, а към методите му - основно това, че лъже.. Малко спейс аутнах по средата и частта с лингвистиката.. Но като цяло пейвах атеншън.
Знаете ли преди време се чудих защо Бърни Сандърс човек на възраст около 120 години (плюс минус) реши да се кандидатира в президентската кампания за да загуби за втори път, този път от човек който също е на 120 г., но освен това и с явна деменция - Джоу Байдън.. Странно особено като се има предвид, че "идеите му" бяха стщите кат на Елизабет Уорен.. А Бърни се кандидатира СЛЕД като беше ясно, че Елизъбет се е кандидатирала също.. Това им разцепи базата..
Мислих доста..
Дали се е надявал да спечели... Сигурно.. В някаква степен.. Дали толкова е вярвал в идеите си... Сигурно..
Но после осъзнах, че най-вероятната причина да се кандидатира и влезне в кампания е...
Че е забавно!
Ми готино си е бе.. Обикаляш страната със самолет... Изнасяш речи, канят те по телевизията.. Чувстваш се като супер герой..
Вкарваш се във филма, че ще станеш президент.. Пък кой знае.. Може и да стане..
Стимулите са изключително положителни, негативните стимули, като съвест и пр. не са големи ОГРАНИЧЕНЯ също почти няма, предвид че Сандърс вече беше се направил популярна личност и имаше финансии.
Изглежда същото прави и Ноам Чомски..
Защо лъже и говори глупсоти.. Защото е забавно... Забавно е да си някой.. Да се чувстваш, че съществуваш...
Айде ся тук една лъжа, там една лъжа... Колко му е...
Ти си с добри намерения, добър човек, това са благоородни лъжи бе..
Ако ще четете нещо за интелектуалците ПРОЧЕТЕТЕ ИНТЕЛЕКТУАЛЦИТЕ И ОБЩЕСТВОТО НА проф. Томъс Соуел.
Интелектуалците (Чомски е АМА ЕТАЛОНЕН ПРИМЕР) имат ВСИЧКО за печелене И НИЩО ЗА ГУБЕНЕ..
Стимулите и огрнаиченията в които такива хора се намират са просто така насопени, че най-успешни в тази професия, ще са именно лъжци като Чомски..
А чеатни и сериозни хора търсещи истината като Соуел.., които не дават лесни отговори остават на заден план..
Чомски много се интересува от пропагандата на телевизията, а междувременно самият той е пропаганден писател на опорни точки..
Ако някой е чел книгата Слонът в Мозъкът (горещо препоръчвам) и ако е наблюдавал хората, включае себе си ще знае, че най-вероятно Чомски дори не е наясно с това какво прави.
Лъжците, както замазват положението за пред другите много бързо започват да го замазват и за пред себе си... Така едната ръка не знае какво прави другата, за да не бъде обвинена в съучастие.. Както президентът умишлено не иска да знае какво прави някой от подчинените му.. За да може да го играе невинен и изненадан - ИСКРЕНО ИЗНЕНАДАН.
Чомски явно е просто благозвучен лъжец.
Това което ме изненадва при все повече левичари е, че те ПРОСТО ЛЪЖАТ... ЛЪЖАТ.
ЛЪЖАТ.
И ако не лъжат, то те просто вярват на лъжи, които не са проучили и си мислят, че не са лъжи.. Вероятно защото ги е мързяло да ги проучат в детайл. А и друг лош стимул е, че когато един човек си мисли, че е страшно умен и интелигентен, каквито са често левите хора (вклюаз преди 2 години) той си мисли, че не може да бъде излтган - как човек като него ще бъде излъган..
Други филми в които с евкарват са описани в книгата на Скот Адамс Загубеняшко мислене - най-чесно срещано е ЧЕТЕНЕТО НА МИСЛИ...
Аз бих добавил и бъркането на знание с предположение.
Тук предполагам какво може би се случва около Чомски... А твърдв, че ЗНАМ единстсебо, че човешката природа е доста греховна (това показва 100% от опита ми с хора) и няма светци..
Тъпото е, че толкова лъжа в днешно време има излята, че обикновения човек си мисли, че таьи лъжа е някаква истина..
И когсто някой десен човек бъде честен и запопне да описва света такъв честно какъвто той го вижда - свят населяван с грешни хора, много от които лоши, егоистични, близко до зверове.. Когато десният човек каже, че ако тази природа не е под контрол на всякакви културни и др. институции, които именно за това са еволюирали да я огранипават, и да изкарват доброто от хората, ако това не се направи да цитирам Комика Бил Майер - ако нямаше полиция още утре щях да ти глозгам дроба....
Когато наивният лъган и без опит в живота човек (дали ще е зелен 20 годишен, или ще е 60 годишен проф.,не стъпвал извън стерилитета на академията) чуе какво мисли един десен човек, той вероятно решава, че консервативните хора ИСКАТ света да е такъв.. Или нз..
Аз преди 2 години откровенно си мислех, че консервативбите хора са расисти, които биха избрали Хитлер...да избие негрите, циганите и гейовете..
Постепенно открих, че всъщност това ПРОСТО НЕ Е ТАКА..
ИСТИНСКИ десните хора са тези които третирст хората като човек.
Левите са тия дет ги групират в групички..
Абе гледали сте матрицата..
Левите си дъвчат синьото хапче, на приятната лъжа, че хората сме добри с изключение на ОНИЯ ЛОШИТЕ, които ше победим..
Десните си смучат червеното хапче на неприятната, но полезна истина - знаят, чв хоеата са лоши... И НЯКОИ ОТ ТВХ.. по изклюпение могат и да са добри..
Знаят го за другите знаят го за себе си..
Тука минах в една друга тема, обсъдена в книгата A conflict of visions. Както и в книгите The righteous mind, и The blank slate...
Отговорът на въпроса защо хората са с различни мения, ВИЗИИ за политиката.
Най-адеквстния отговор (КОЙТО ЗНАМ) е че просто различните хора имат различна визия за дефолтът на човешката природа.
Едните хора (еднта крайност на спелтъра) (обикновенно страдали, опитни, мъдри) смятат, че хората ПО ДЕФОЛТ сме... Лоши... (flawed е думата... Грешни да кажем).. Че човек се ражда звяр и за 20 30, 100 гдоини се наупава как да е човек.. Как освен лош, да е (поне понякога) И ДОБЪР ЧОВЕК.
Другите хора - друфата крайност - си мислят, че хората сме ПО ДЕФОЛТ добри, или ПО ДЕФОЛТ празни дъски.
Децата, особенно отгледани в дорби семейства в добри училища, добри квартали, в добра среда вярват в това нещо, защото ТОВА СА ВИДЯЛИ..
И се изненадват, когато видят нещо лошо.. И търсят обяснение на лошото...
А не осъзнават, че ДОБРОТО ЕНИКЛЮЧЕНИЕТО, което иска обяснение.. Лошото е ДЕФОЛТА.. МИЗЕРИВТА Е ДЕФОЛТА.. Прогреса, мира, разбирателството, добротата Е ИЗКЛЮПЕНИЕТО.
За съжаление все поврче такива стерилни хора дават акъл и без да искат пропагандирст и ЗАБЛУЖДАВАТ още повече хора..
А реално това прецаква още повече света. Защото ако си мислиш, че навън хората са добри няма да вземеш мерки.. И псоле ще се чудиш защи са те пребили в някоя уличка..
За разлика от Сам Харис обаче, който е същия стерилен човек, той поне не лъже.. Има грешна спред мен (нека кажем изкривена със сбъркан дефолт) представа за света, но не лъже.
Но Ноам Чомски изглежда лъже.. Подбира фактите извърта ги, или си измисля само и само за да ги напасне така, че да закрепи визията си..
И аз можех да направя така, но по стечение на обстоятелстеа преди 2 години просото отгкрих постепенно, че визията ми за света не отговаря на реалността, такава каквато я виждам всеки ден.. И внесто да слагам розовите очила си промених визивта.
В момента до синьото и червеното хапче има и едно друго хапче - черното хапче.
Хапчето на депресията.
Черното йапче е половинчатата истина представена така, че да е безполезна и песимистична. Това хапче съм го изплювал няколко пъти.
Истината макар и тежка за преглъщане Е ВИНАГИ ПОЛЕЗНА!
Тези със синьото хапче си мислят, че света е такъв какъвто им се иска да бъде.. Те гледат с оптимистични очила
Тези с черното хапче си мислят, че света е такъв каквото хич не им се иска да бъде.. Те гледат света с песимистични очила.. Всичко е загубено.. Коръба потъва..
Онези с червеното хапче просто се опитват да видят света ТАКЪВ КАКЪВТО Е..
Защото само когато знаеш как работи нешо, можеш да престъпиш ктм това да го промениш.
А да се депресираш или да витсеш в облаците не променя света.. Прави го по-лош.. Щото по втори закон на термодинамиката дефолта е хаос, нарастеащ хаос.
И единственото, което, поне в човешки аспект противодейства хаоса са човешките действия.
В космически аспект не.
Радвам се, че изслишах книгата. Което не те убива те прави по-силен... Това са и критиките.. Критиките, ако не те убият, правят тезата ти сано по-силна.. Така е и в науката.. Нешо е мейнстрийм теория, ако не се е намерила критика, ковто да го убие..
Тази книга в моите очи уби Чомски.
Това, че той си позволява да лъже еъобще го дискредитира като ум в моите очи..
Да беше се захванал да пише фикшън..
Пп: явно голям смисъл на човешкото съществуване е желанието за признание, за усещане че съществуваш. Лошото е, че училише и култура ни промива (без да иска, базовста пропаганда в момента не мсиля, че някой я дирижира, кара си на аетопилот) че основният начин УМЕН ЧОВЕК да се докаже да помогне на света е, ако стсне учен и открие нещо и спечели нобелова награда..
Което е смешно...
Първо защото повечето велики открития в науката обикновенно са дошли от откриването на нов метод на наблюдебие (напр. Микроскоп, или телескопа), а не от мислене на фотиойла.
А тези нови методи са дошли от предпиремачи бейсикали..
Реално в БИЗНЕСА в рекламата, в изкуството има къде къде повече уникални идеи за "откриване" и печелене на известност отколкото има в науката.
Казвам откриване защото съм на мненивто, че идеите тип Айфон са много повече откритие, отколкото създаване..
Човек работи в една обласет и му идва идея, пробва я и стане.
И в свободния пазар една идея може да се открие от един, и да се доразвие и подобри от друг.
Докато в тежката наука един открива.. И тва е.
Нямам нерви да го обясня по-добре това в момента..
Но ако Чомски се беше захванал с това кат иска да става известен да е бизнесмен и да продава вафли.. Можеше да си вкара идеите е това да открие новата Кока Кола на вафлите.. Вместо да се занимава с линглистика, където оригиналните му идеи, не за първи път чувам, че са оригинално... Грешни.. И несъстоятелни..
Просто матетиалът в бизнесът, тестото с който можеш да се правят фигурки е много по голямо и има за всяко дете достатъчно да си играе и да си тества..
Като работещите идеи продават. По-добре работещите продават повече.. Най-добре работещите продават хем много хем всички г�� харесват..
Абе ако промивахме децата не толкова с тоя идеял за учения, а с идеалът за предприемача умните деца щяха поне да имат едно наум, че могат да използват ума си не в това да се опитват да опишат неописуемата реалност, а в това да правят тази реалност все по-интересна.. Както айфона е направил света ни по-интересен.. И по-добър бих казал..
Лекарствата и антибиотиците съшо са си бизнес. Там също е проба и грешка и е много по-близо до рекламния дизайн отколкото до науката..
Абе след 200, 300 до 500 години рралистишно, след втората кому��истическа революция и падането на РИМо-САЩ може и да се стигне до такъв момент. Аз залагам, че ще почне от САЩ 2 на Марс...
Ще открият маса хора, че най-полезните хора населяващи тази планета са предприемачите. От лелята отворила кравтален магазин, до геният създал гигантрска корпорация попнала от гаража си..
А всичките останали сме едни я клетчици, я коменсали, я паразити (такива като Чомски и бърни Сандърс наред с останалите политици и повечето журналисти са си баж второто) в тоя голям организъм.
Чомски е идеал на някои хора..
За мен Чомски и компания са АНТИИДЕАЛИ.
...
ПС2. Томъс Соуел, един от любимите ми хора, наравно с Уил и Ариел Дюрант са странна фигури..
Те също са интелвктуалци, но в и телектуалните си писания те пишат против собствената си професия..
Смис ако не бях чел Соуел щях да стана като Чомски вероятно... Умен който да счита писанията си за велико дело.. Соуел, особенно с книгите си Интелектуалците, Знания и решения и Осбови на икономиката, ми показа всъщност как ако човек иска да е полезен на обществото той трябва или да ПРАВИ ФИЗИЧЕСКИ (ДА ДЕЙСТВА) ПОЛЕЗНИ НЕЩА или, ако ше говори и пише да е като Айн Ранд - да помага с каквото може на действащитв, да ги надъхва и /или да им спестява време, да ги развлича, успокоява, вдтхновява и пр.
Защото без хора дето само пишат, като Соуел ние ще имаме готини неща, но без ДЕЙСТЕАЩИТЕ НЯМА ДА ИМАМЕ..
Реално всичко което ни заобикаля е там защото НЯКОЙ ДЕЙСТЕАЩ ЧОВЕК ГО Е НАПРАВИЛ.
И в тази игра най-лошото корто може да си е да спреш действащия човек.. Да го демотивираш, депресираш, объркаш, забавиш и пр.
*важно е да добавя дислеймър, че става дума за действащи във фромата на Свободен пазар и сделки по взаимно съгласие от пълнолетни относително адекватни хора без нстистк. В този смисъл политика не е действащ човек ттй като той разполага с откраднати пари, а не с пари от инвеститор дал му ги доброволно. Ако си си купил нещо от магазина то е направено от действащ човек. И ти доброволно си решил да си го купиш.
Starting in 1967, MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky began his blizzard of brief books and pamphlets about the United States, its history and its politics. At the risk of eliding the hundreds of thousands of words he's put into print, let's just say he holds a negative view of all three.
Writers Peter Collier and David Horowitz began as leftists like Chomsky, but over time migrated to the right, while keeping their laser-intense focus and gift for highly charged writing. In 2004, they collected several essays by historians, political scientists and opinion writers -- and Horowitz contributed a pair himself -- dissecting Chomsky's viewpoints and analysis. They also collected two essays about Chomsky's professional field of linguistics and linguistic analysis. At the risk of eliding the thousands of words they put into print, let's just say they hold a negative view of almost every bit of his work.
Specific targets include Chomsky's view of the actual heroes and villains of the United States' involvement in southeast Asia, his analysis of the true causes as well as the heroes and villains of the Cold War, and the actual reasons behind the September 11, 2001 attacks and some of the subsequent conflict as it was happening in that time.
According to the contributors to this Anti-Chomsky Reader, Chomsky believes the only reason something wrong with the world isn't the United States' fault is because Israel beat them to it. Both, and to a lesser extent some western European nations, cause most of the trouble in the world as ways to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Nearly every American action is seen as a way for wealthy elitists, industrialists and other such power brokers to strengthen or maintain their grip on the reins of power. Pre-USSR collapse, the good guys in the story were the world's Communist dictatorships; now it's a rotating cast of whoever Chomsky believes is getting picked on or bullied by the United States.
The essays start to wear thin, although their authors are surveying a body of work rather than one book. The Reader could be a useful reference work when countering some of Chomsky's own work on the subjects in question but turns into a kind of heavy slog. The linguistics section presupposes the average reader knows quite a bit about the subject and can leave that reader wondering just what's being written about beyond the claim that Chomsky's a dishonest hack in his own legitimate field of study, not just politics and history. Since Chomsky shows little variation in his errors, pointing them out takes on a feeling of sameness as well.
A Corrupted Linguistics Bob Levine, Paul Postal April 2004
This paper argues that N. Chomsky's linguistics has been thoroughly saturated with intellectual dishonesty from at least the publication of his 1957 volume Syntactic Structures. This claim is supported by the analysis of four cases: the treatment of passives in the latter work, his advocacy of the so-called A-over-A Principle, his adoption of the ideas of others without credit and his distortion, and baseless denigration, of the record of achievement in the physical sciences.
inside - The Anti-Chomsky Reader
---
It's my view that Postal and Langendoen in their 1984 book The Vastness of Natural Languages
deals with the implications of Godel and Cantorial Set Theory to Natural Language Theories and how it likely blows up all the theories of Generative Grammar being a good model for Natural Languages.
My analogy is that Chomsky was a seller of endless plumbing parts that was never really able to fix a kitchen sink.
Chomsky, I think borrowed from Computer Science some of the logic for building Machine Languages, and he just thought all people needed to do was 'endlessly collect data on languages' and the electronic brains will figure out all the damn rules and useful information.
In the end Chomsky just ended up with a bizarre Theory of Mind, and not much else. Where if aliens from outer space landed on Earth they would NEVER EVER be able to master English, because their brains are hard-wired differently than us.
Chomsky I think refused to accept the vastness of the possibilities of human creativity, and how syntax really can't explain everything when it comes to the complexities of semantics, and the meaning of words.
---
In the end I think Ian Robinson was correct in his book The New Grammarian's Funeral (Cambridge 1975)
Cambridge blurb:
This is probably the sharpest consideration of Chomskyan linguistics yet to appear. Ian Robinson argues that it is important to recognise Chomsky's positive achievement as a definition of the domain of traditional syntax in the context of an adherence to traditional grammar.
But this strictly limited achievement offers no basis for many of the claims made for linguistics. Chomsky's views of language as a whole are narrow and conceptually confused; his psychology is based on the predication of unnecessary entities; and the central ambition to make linguistics a natural science is deeply misconceived.
The common reader will find the argument clear and invigorating.
The study of language necessarily interests philosophers as well as linguists: so the ordinary person with no more than an interest in poetry or speech may feel himself disadvantaged as an amateur.
On the contrary: it is by the common reader that the discussion of language is finally judged, and Mr Robinson speaks for the central common sense of speakers and readers of language and literature.
---
Chomsky I think was sorta like the New Math to English Departments.
And if you think something which is sort of a flawed copy of Russell+Whitehead's Principia, or a Willard Quine book on Logic based in Bizarroland is helpful for studying English Grammar and Style rules. It's probably why Chomsky's linguistics isn't really used to help us understand Shakespeare.
Chomsky is a bit like Freud, all theoretically-blocked up with unnecessary crap, that it's really not all that useful.
Some genuinely good criticisms of Chomsky diluted by a good measure of (early 2000s) conservative nonsense.
At its best, the book offers clear evidence for a pattern of misrepresentation of facts and highly selective use and evaluation of sources by Chomsky in service of his worldview. Chapter 1 on Chomsky’s downplaying of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and CPV in Vietnam and Chapter 6 on 9/11 stood out as positive examples here.
At its worst, the book does exactly what it accuses Chomsky of doing: abusing language and history in defense of dogma (which, for most of the included authors, ends up being equal and opposite to that of Chomsky - i.e., US foreign policy has been wholly benevolent, aimed only at spreading freedom and democracy around the world). Some highlights here include: * A description of (pre-statehood) Hawaii as a “benignly run colony” of the U.S. * Summarizing U.S. intervention in Latin America in the 1980s-90s as attempts to “rescue” the citizens of these countries “from the clutches of their Communist oppressors” (a description also confusingly applied to Iraq?) * Characterizing Arabs' rejection of the UN Partition Plan and subsequent war against Israel as nothing more than a "genocidal outburst" (couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the unfavorable terms of this plan for Palestinian Arabs, I guess?) * Stating that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua “had usurped their power from a democratic coalition” (the “democratic coalition” here being the brutal Somoza dictatorship?) whereas the U.S. was simply attempting to assist the “peasant revolt” of the Contras (interesting characterization there...)
In short, if you want an even-handed critique of Chomsky’s work from an ideologically diverse group of authors willing to at least entertain the possibility that Chomsky’s analysis has at times been both valuable and correct, you'll have to keep looking. Still, I found there to be enough substantive criticism here (albeit highly unequally distributed across chapters/authors) to make this worth my time.
This seemed really well researched, although I listened to the audiobook so I couldn't really check references. When I did, they checked out.
I think this book's main flaw is that they are so flummoxed by Chomsky's illogic and hypocrisy that they assume he's just 'bad', or something. I think Chomsky is, in MBTI, an NiTe who gets lost in the woo of Ni and then, like an underdeveloped Fi user, lashes out at everyone who challenges him. His life's work is political social justice (not linguistics), a classic theme of Fi.
I actually feel a bit panicky when I read or listen to Chomsky, because he mishandles 'truth' and evades criticism that could 'solve' his errors. I don't think he knows that he does this though.
The book gives a ton of examples of Chomsky doing this. Whenever Chomsky is confronted, his MO is sidestep, sidestep, attack the person, claim he's already addressed everything. I think he's functioning on some kind of ethics level, where he's being true to an Ethical paradigm, and doesn't realise he's being false to a Truth paradigm.
I saw another review criticising this book for attacking Chomsky's linguistics. I actually thought it totally made sense. It showed how Chomsky's flaws are consistent and persistent across everything he does. As a linguist, I was fortunate enough to miss being taught Chomsky's linguistics, so when I did finally come across it, it seemed strange, and to me, easily falsifiable. I couldn't understand why it had been so revered and entrenched.
As Christopher Hitchens said in his later years between his differences with Noam Chomsky that Chomsky "did not finally think that the United States of America was a good idea. He thought it had been all genocides since Columbus basically. And that's not simplifying his opinion by very much."
There was a time when Chomsky held some sway over my opinions. The way he presented facts with such conviction and "matter of fact" speech, it made it hard not to believe him. And as with all extreme positions, real facts are always sprinkled in. Many of his points about the US are actually true. But this book does expose a sort of tunnel vision or mild autism that Noam Chomsky is prone to. Whereas most conflicts are different shades of grey, Chomsky can only see black. He certainly should still be read, as his influence on political factions are immeasurable. But we ignore him at our own peril, either to learn about the moral failures of the West, or as in many cases to expose his outright lies and fabrications.
As it turns out, Manufacturing Consent applies to all sides of the political spectrum. And Chomsky is one of the distasteful ringleaders of it.
I listened to this audiobook while driving for work because audible made it free.
As part of my project of hearing out more political arguments I oppose, I had mixed feelings when I found this book. Chomsky had maybe the biggest influence on my political reformation, but the cover of this book is hideous, indicating poor quality, and one of the editors is a lunatic who thinks Obama is a communist (his entries were weakest). Shockingly, some of the contributions have some merit (I skipped the linguistics). Chomsky does seem to have a loose relationship with citations and representation of primary sources. Chomsky's unwillingness to apply the propaganda model to coverage of domestic issues is baffling. Regarding insights from the cold war, and from Israel, this collection has highlighted my urgent need to learn more about these topics - I couldn't tell who was lying, mistaken or extremely misleading between Chomsky and these critics. In other cases, the lazy misreadings of Chomsky were blatant to anyone familiar with his work, but I tried not to let that distract me from the points and entries with some mert.
first things first: by all accounts, david horowitz is a bit of a kook, to put it more politely than others would. his participation as an editor & writer here can't help but taint this collection a little.
but there is very good stuff in here, a good retort to a lot of the basic and really deceptive tactics that will be familiar to anyone who's read chomsky's stuff.
i personally haven't read anything of his in decades, but i certainly went through a phase in the 90s where i went into the deep end of his interviews & books, and i recall very well what i now can recognize as logical fallacies & real misrepresentations in his works.
this book does a pretty good job in laying out what's wrong with what he does. the opening section on vietnam, cambodia, the cold war & his media theories in particular were very well done. the rest of it isn't quite so essential, & i think the authors are on thin ice trying to tie chomsky to nazis and holocaust deniers.
but overall, it's worth a read if you're one of the folks who went through a chomsky phase in his misspent youth.
There's a lot here I'm just not knowledgeable to judge and would require more looking into. However, what I do know, particularly about South America and Palestine, I think the authors are pretty far off on their positions. I'm also very skeptical of Horowitz, knowing what I know about him. I'm giving it three stars because the authors give plenty of information one could use to verify or invalidate.
An alright mix of essays some frankly are stupid others quick clearly show Chomsky to be a fraud I wish that their was a more objective bipartisan book on Chomskys lies however if you’d interested in the topic it’s fine. I would not listen to reviews their is a constant obfuscation and constant revision of what he said not being what he said
My rating measures my disdain for Chomsky rather than the quality of this book. I particularly liked the last chapter, which demonstrates that Chomsky is no match as a scholar of English syntax compared to the average waitress at Hooters.
I didn’t like this book. The author did a lot of quoting different biographies instead of doing research for his facts. I found him to be a lazy author for not doing his research.
There were things I agreed with years ago that I no longer agree with today. There were things I did years ago that I do not do so anymore. I am not duplicitous, I am simply growing and changing as I should be. as we all should be.
As someone who read a LOT of Chomsky and felt irritation the entire time, this book was extremely refreshing. It’s interesting to note throughout the essays a common theme of Chomsky engaging in dishonest language and, frankly, Doublethink throughout his work. In reading his books I was always troubled by his use of particular words and phrases that stacked premises in his favor or tacitly swept alternative views under the rug. It particularly troubled me because he’s an expert in language and likely knows what he is doing.
On that note, the final chapter about Chomsky’s work in language was quite interesting though parts of it went over my head due to the technical aspects of the study.
I do have a few criticism of this book though. Some of the commentary on US foreign relations seemed rather reductive. The authors glance over the crimes of the Pinochet regime in Chile in a disconcerting way. In another example, they don’t present the full story. Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups did and do attack the governments of various middle eastern countries that are allied with the US. Saudi Arabia is certainly a target of the ire of Al-Qaeda.
One of the main critics to Chomsky that was mentioned in the book was Chomsky's citations to his own work, I don't see anything wrong with that when someone begin the fundamental ideas in a topic. The critics about Chomsky's ideas and explanations on socialist Vietnam (after war) was acceptable to me. I don't agree with the writer when it compared US and china regarding doing evil things. I think it is irrelevant to count the people who are sentenced to death as a measure of evilness. I think, the consequences of actions on other nations are much more important.
"Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me," the last essay in the book, written by John Williamson, is by far the best. It's personal, it's funny, it's true. My five stars go to Williamson for the achievement; the rest of the team, for the effort.