Why do people dislike Chomsky?

His voice is boring.

silly old fucker, god his voice is horrid. shut up old man.

>condemns a certain viewpoint that he thinks is made because of money
>in a speech/lecture/book/paper that he made a shit ton of money for
We're on so many layers of irony right now. But we need to go deeper. We need to stack the bullshit higher. Soon, we will hit an irony singularity. People will soon be unable or unwilling to cope with the bullshit and the lies, the false truths and the true falsehoods, and civilization will explode and we'll tear each other apart.

Everybody who knows it's irony knows it's not going to last very long like this. You can feel the singularity coming on a primal level; you can feel it in your bones.

Advocating for positions based on ideological principles rather than the national interest.

As a National Socialist his existence merely is further evidence of my beliefs and a common pattern that is evidence of the subversion of traditional societies. I hope this doesn't drive people to support Chomsky out of motives to spite nationalists.

>and civilization will explode and we'll tear each other apart.
What did you mean by this?

I think you greatly overestimate how much money authors and speakers make. Yeah, they make money but it's not like their millionaires.

Now filmmakers like Michael Moore are making the same shitty movie over and over because they're making the bucks.

Civilization is a psychic construction. Literally meme magic. What I mean by that is not any movie version of "psychic" or eye beams or moving things with your mind or whatever. What I mean by psychic is that cognitive process exists on a collective level just as much as an individual level. These collective cognitive processes have a profound effect on individual cognitive processes. By effecting the minds of a few people in the group, either naturally or artificially, just by merit of this collective cognitive process, the other members of the group will be effected - even if the idea is never voiced.

Civilization is a psychic construction. A group of people believe in this immaterial concept, and the individual beliefs affect the group belief. It evolves and changes in this way, adopting layer after layer of ideas, not all of them beneficial to the construction itself (civilization) or those participating. After a while, the collective idea has grown so much into something so vile, that its psychic weight is too much for some of the individual members to hold. They drop out, and cause others to drop out. The psychic construction collapses, and chaos ensues.

National interest doesn't promote Western Society, and if Western Society collapses and the supply train of globalism is broken, we will get picked apart like Rome or the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks fell because their miniature system of globalism broke down after most nations couldn't get more tin for bronze, and then the Sea Peoples destroyed them.

Actually, he's pretty much "everyone is bad". Any sort of centralized power is bad, America just happens to be the largest and most powerful at the moment.

He gives just as much hate to Russia, China, and oddly, even more to Israel. Though, as a linguist, he's a bit irate at the fact that, in America, every political term has been turned on its head, so he'll often go on about that as well.

He pushes this anarcho-libertarian syndicalism idea, but never really draws a path on how to get there. Like so many political commentators, he gets stuck in lamenting the current situation, describing only the problems, and rarely the solutions. Which is particularly frustrating, when, like many others, he's often so right.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1480495486935.webm

Civilization only means the art of living in cities.

Any other thing attributed to it is bogus.

Plenty of people like him. Just because you don't, it's wrong to assume that everyone shares your opinion.

He's an intellectual titan.

...

Could you say, from a Buddhist standpoint, that all of society is a shared illusion?

He's very, very old and worked at a university for decades.

Not really but okay

I'm gonna need some citations for that memetically generated imagery.

Because he hates America.

Simple. Like any left '''''anarchist'''', he will speak out against the brutality and imperialism of the state unless it's done in the name of Socialism. When that happens, this pseudo-intellectual, whose whole thing is that they are enlightened, will be the last one to acknowledge the evils of Marxism and will do so in a way that still chortles his balls

.

youtube.com/watch?v=fFXNnA3KqzA

Where, besides the west, does anyone give a single fuck about the issues he lists? Do kikes ever stop subverting white culture? Will they cause a second holocaust by doing so?

Slobodan did nothing wrong.

If he lived behind the iron or bamboo curtains, he'd been killed for subversion, if he lived in Israel, he'd be beaten to death for being an anti-zionist, and if he'd lived in the Islamic middle east, well, things would not have gone well for him there either.

youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A

Owned

Pretty good idea. Will strongly consider.

/pol/tards and stormfags hate him for being left wing and also a [spoiler]jew[/spoiler]

>Denying cambodian Genocide

I don't dislike him, I just don't agree with him. Somebody is going to be the most powerful in the world, either it is Russia, America, China or Britain, the question is who you prefer to have the power.

I'm less annoyed that he points out foreign policy blunders by the U.S and other countries(Which is a good thing), than I am annoyed that he thinks it's possible to build some kind of egalitarian utopia in the world without any form of coercive social structure.

>he only criticizes murrica!
>he doesn't talk about non capitalist crimes!
>b-b-but cambodia!
Seems like nobody has an argument against chomsky besides superficial lying.

>if he lived in Israel, he'd be beaten to death for being an anti-zionist
Proof of anyone being beaten to death for being anti zionist in Israel? There are anti zionist parties in the knesset and they demonstrate when they wish.
Why do leftists feel the need to invent false persecution threats? Is its to give themselves and their opinions the credibility they are missing when calling the societies they inhabit fascist while enjoying the freedom of speech the same societies provide them with thus disproving their own point?
Is it a psychological desire to view themselves as brave dissidents while being in no actual danger and continue to live a spoiled bohemian way of life?

And America has a communist party that can demonstrate when it wishes... Doesn't necessarily mean that advocating communism it isn't a good way to start a bar fight or end up on a watch list.

israelversusjudaism.org/oppression/index.cfm

Although if you wanna talk about the left or right inventing false persecution threats, see "The war against Christianity", in the states.

Still, at least Chomsky does praise the states for its egalitarian founding principles and what freedom of speech it does have, even if, at the same time, he'll go on and on about how the media and doublespeak has hijacked and diminished nearly all dialogue and turned most of it into drivel. He'll even praise Adam Smith, but thinks folks have largely deluded themselves as to what he was actually on about.

>South America practices socialism
>Falls apart
>Chomsky: "Capitalism destroyed South Ametica"
stuff like this basically. He's ok on a lot of things, but he's politically ideological and you can sense it.

That's an ideological principle.

Everything you said was wrong

Now that is simply untrue. He has spoken out multiple times against the atrocities of the socialists governments. What he does do, however, is show the ways in which western countries are manipulating you in a manner similar to the socialist governments- sometimes in a more insidious manner.

I think a lot of it is literally because he points out truths that are meant to be ignored. Worse, he calls out the media for when they are tacitly lying to the people, so as to drum up support for atrocities committed in their name.

So you post a link to some fringe anti zionist blog written by Neturei Carta, litteraly a religious cult that claims that it's ''persecuted'' to disprove my point about radical leftist falsely claiming to be persecuted when in fact they have representation in parlament, over represented in the media academy and judicial system and live a comfortable bohemian lifestyle in Tel Aviv?
Nice logic. Reminds me of religious people trying to convince opponents by quoting their own faiths scripture.

And where else would one expect to find such a complaint other than from those who feel repressed? You could dismiss any and all persecution in that same fashion. Save maybe when Amnesty International steps in, except they always get accused of being anti-semitic.

>i.4cdn.org/wsg/1480495486935.webm
is he literally saying we should ignore science because imagination-land allows more creativity

He was lost for me the moment he backed up Robert Faurisson.
Pierre Vidal-Naquet destroyed him imho.

He and Edward Herman invented the Propaganda Model, and undertook several case studies to show how it works in relation to western media. It's now widely accepted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Wrote a lot of genocide denying material on Khmer Rouge

1/2
It's an incredibly complex issue to answer the question of what is and is not true regarding historical events. Chomsky and Herman wrote a review for The Nation newspaper of a non-fiction book written by a frenchman named Ponchaud. They never denied the atrocities they wrote about, and mainly congratulated the writer, as well as the sources that the information came from. My main source is wiki because I can't be fucked to actually pull down the books- especially when you can get the sources yourself from the text:

> Chomsky and Herman had both praise and criticism for Ponchaud's book Year Zero, writing that it was "serious and worth reading" and "the serious reader will find much to make him somewhat wary."[14] In the introduction to the American edition of his book, Ponchaud responded to a personal letter from Chomsky, saying, "He [Chomsky] wrote me a letter on October 19, 1977 in which he drew my attention to the way it [Year Zero] was being misused by anti-revolutionary propagandists. He has made it my duty to 'stem the flood of lies' about Cambodia -- particularly, according to him, those propagated by Anthony Paul and John Barron in Murder of a Gentle Land."[15]

That was the original response, written in the French introduction. Problems came when Ponchaud, for some reason, decided to write a much more inflammatory response for the American edition.

I can't quite defend Chomsky's decision to write letters to the editor of newspapers showing the stuff.

2/2
However, I will point out that he and Edward herman devote around 80 pages to the situation in Indochina, American bombings (particularly bad in Cambodia) and their relationship to the later atrocities, as well as western support in the eighties for Pol Pol- right up to giving him guns. It's a hugely complex issue, and Chomsky gives a better explanation for it than I can in such a short post.

The guy never denied the atrocities- not in a way that is comparable to a naziboo, tanky, or even some 60s undergrad Stalinists from America. Rather, he was trying to find out what was true, and what was untrue- and a lot of the stuff that we know about America's involvement in Indochina is untrue. We did a lot of terrible stuff.

>They never denied the atrocities
Chomsky backed up negationists with his fame though, when nothing would pushed him to do so. I think it's quite bizarre when a supposedly left-leaning person feels the need to defend a far-left negationist on the other side of an ocean.

Are you talking about Faurisson? I thought the story was that Chomsky wrote a letter defending the man's right to publish works denying the holocaust without facing a three month prison term. He freely admitted that he hadn't read the man's work, but used some dodgy words in his letter, like using the word "findings" to discuss the guy's stuff.

I personally applaud Chomsky's efforts. I believe the holocaust happened, but I don't think people should go to prison after publishing something on the off chance that that report might incite a hate crime.

This seems like a similar situation when Chomsky shoots himself in the foot for a noble cause, cause now his enemies are able to describe him as an anti-semite, and worse, a self-hating jew.

Faurisson certainly wasn't facing any prison and his liberty of speech wasn't exactly at risk considering he indeed was published and invited in shows and national newspapers.

Chomsky didn't just wrote a letter but also the preface of the book simply to get angry at french people calling him for his bullshit.

Basically, he came up with his own american take on freedom and such, backed up a far-right writer without having even read him, read much if not all of his opponents and discussions about his "work" and then he is outraged when people told him to shut the fuck up cause he knew nothing of the whole situation and came up in the big mess like some sort of star who has an interesting opinion on every subject ever.

Chomsky indeed shoot himself in the foot not for a noble cause but for defending nazi sympathizers, why the hell did he went up defending those guys exactly? This without even knowing about the freedom of expression work in France in the first place. Nobody gave him the loaded gun for that.

Here's one of the many of P. Vidal-Naquet's piece about this.
anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

>Where else
Groups that do not belong to the same religious cult or radical jerk circle and yet do not believe that others should be beaten to death, In police reports and regular media. Unless you decided in advance that they are persecuted and there is a huge conspiracy to hide it, including the hiring of fake demonstrators that play the role of anti zionists while the actual anti zionistst were all beaten to death. Same goes for anti zionist mp's from ortodox, arab and communist parties, ex parlamentarian organizations, academics and newspapers such as haaretz. Amnesty doesn't claim that anti zionists are beaten to death.

I'm not saying every anti-zionist in Israel gets beaten to death, I'm just saying it's a good way to make yourself unpopular, particularly if you're vocal about it, and secular to boot. Not every gay was beaten to death before the 90's, but it happens.

People have the right to despise citizens who's official ideology is that the country they live in should be destroyed and that the war they are fighting should be lost. However
>It happens
Link to such case please

>Link to such case please
I just gave you a dozen, if you'd bother to follow them:
nkusa.org/activities/Demonstrations/April2605Jerusalem.cfm

classic.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=2054&forum_id=45

cocoalounge.org/viewthread.php?fid=13&tid=1956&action=printable

maroc.nl/forums/het-nieuws-van-de-dag/264474-tv-hamas-untold-story-6.html

...and on and on, if you bother to Google... And further, if you did, you'll find there's also a lot of violence against anti-zionist Jews, even outside of Israel. If you really think it never happens in Israel, where you're effectively burning and shitting on the national flag in public, then you're beyond all reason and there's nothing I can do for you.

Granted, much like the aforementioned being gay thing (or would you deny that as well?), part of it depends on the neighborhood you're in. You might get away with it in Mea Shearim (though even there, raids in other guises are apparently pretty common), but talk like that in the settlements could easily get you killed.

The piece was used in the preface of the book without his knowledge or permission

How on earth did you get that? He's saying that human nature impacts the nature of human sciences.

He was indeed convicted and the judge called for him to be fined many thousands of dollars. THe fact that it was overturned is irrelevant; that just means that he had a good lawyers. The state has powers in place to silence people's freedom of speech, which Chomsky is against- whatever the person in question is saying- neo-nazi or not, and Faurisson seems like a fairly vile person.

He did not write the preface to the book. Rather, Faurisson perfidiously took his piece and placed it at the front without Chomsky's knowledge like the hack he is.

He admits outright that he has not read Faurisson's work. He may have a few etymological problems in his piece, but not enough to bury him. The problem comes when people like this guy called Cohn pounce on something like this and think that, because he now has a tenuous connection to a neo-nazi, that his work criticizing Isreal can be ignored as the work of a white supremacist or "self-hating jew"- the epithet for anybody who doesn't think that the sun originates from Jerusalem.

>He pushes this anarcho-libertarian syndicalism idea

Yeh no it's just anarcho-syndicalism.

American spotted

well I don't like commies desu

The whole "Anyone who dares criticizing West never does the same for X(Russia/China/Korea/Ayyrab)" is an annoying strawman

>his work criticizing Isreal can be ignored as the work of a white supremacist or "self-hating jew"- the epithet for anybody who doesn't think that the sun originates from Jerusalem.

To Israel there are two types of Jews: Zionists and anti-semites.

The only problem with him is the anarchism stuff. Claiming to be able to organise a modern economy on anarchist principles just makes him seem batshit.

>South America was socialist
*revisionism intensifies*

Holy kek my sides are in orbit.

As expected, the only actual arguments against him come from more hardcore leftists.

He says shit that is...

>already widely known
>taken out of context
>grossly oversimplified
>blatantly false
or
>something that could easily be explained in one or two paragraphs but he ups up using dozens

in other words; He is an ideologue

>lying

The only one who lied is Chomsky.

jim.com/chomsdis.htm

/OUR GUY/

Quid quo pro

...

I automatically dislike all Jews by default. Chomsky happens to be two big no no's, Jewish and communist. At least he acts like a good boy sometimes and defends holocaust revisionists.

>Not realizing the spices of free market must grow
>Not realizing spics, niggers, and chinks will fall for the illusion of human rights so they can be easily exploited

ah thanks for clarifying that. when's the next blog post?

btw

...

...

I have no idea what this is trying to say; between the oh-so-ironic 50's drawing style, the ad-speak, and excessive sarcasm, it's almost meaningless. Are they simply criticising him on account of the fact that he has a boring speaking style? Or is it because he criticizes America, and apparently only hipsters and gays do that?

because ppl are closed-minded.

Go away, you gay hipster numale meme pepe cuck.

He is right in his criticism.
Once the world was able to hang Nazis for the crimes against humanity and they leave a nigger pass that was not better with a peace noble price.

This makes me think that if there are people naive enough to believe that the time of big massmurder and war is over don't realise that this time doesn't even start yet.

It seems to be criticizing the people who blindly worship him because of his trendy anti-establishmentarianism, rather than Chomsky himself.

It's trendy not without reason.

If there was no Western concern for those things he would have no audience. In fact I believe that the West is the ONLY place if the world with a concern for such things. Am I wrong? There's no marketplace for mercy or guilt anywhere else in the world, so nobody would try. The West is the most merciful, compassionate place in the world to a fault so all the guilt is poured onto us simply because we tolerate it.

>anarcho-libertarian
welp

So his beliefs are based on a system of abstract ideas without regard for the real world. Very autistic, very Jewish.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1481459652465.webm

My problem is that he doesn't seem to give a solution.

He's often talking about nuclear weaponry and climate change being existential threats, and I agree with him. These are massive problems that need to be addressed. But how do we address them? What can I do?

Such is the price of thoughtful intelligence. Only more fuel for the classic 'white mans' burden' argument.

He does not expect such a system to replace industrialized runaway capitalism, much less overnight in some neat transition. His point is rather that such ideas can help us transition into another system.

It is also a fallacy that an ideology MUST present a solution or end-stage utopia to bother getting started at all. Humanity would be nowhere if we also stopped at such pooh-poohing. This sort of sneering is a frequent dismissal method of our current hegemons, and so many people buy into it.

If you already agree that they are a big problem, you're on the right track. Vote with your wallet, divest, divert, protest, fight for the change you want.

This, except he doesn't have provide a roadmap for 'how to get there'. He leaves that up to us.

He's too low level. Good for teens and their first realization that America isn't "the good guy", but they should outgrow him fast.

Have you ever read any Chomsky?