Chomsky

I was a Chomsky fanatic and talked to him through email three or four times.

I am now a cultural conservative in the strain of TS Eliot and Roger Scruto, though.

Read Government and the State to see a short overview of his anarchic ideals.

Read How the World Works to see the basic criticism that he makes of US foreign policy.

Read Manufacturing Consent to see what he thinks about the media.

In general, Chomsky is very rigorous with some things and very much of a wishful-thinker with another. His criticism of US foreign policy is quite obviously true and the crimes Americans did comitted are pretty much undeniable, but his view of the media - specially in the days of the internet - is completely wrong and his views on how society should work are ever worse.

>I am now a cultural conservative in the strain of TS Eliot and Roger Scruto, though.

That's called Traditionalism senpai.

>His criticism of US foreign policy is quite obviously true

No they aren't, they're outlandish and juvenile.

I believe that's also called English cultural conservatism. Traditionalism is more de Maistre-related. Maybe in the US it should be called traditionalism, though, in order not to be mistaken for stuff like Donald Trump or crazy protestantism.

>No they aren't, they're outlandish and juvenile.

Maybe they are, but as far as I know the US has killed a lot and often against the will of its own citizens, at least according to the polls Chomsky cites. I must admit I accept Chomsky's views on US foreign policy as fact for the mere reason that he cites many credible sources, often from the US government itself. Maybe there's another view, though. Do you know any book which defends US foreign policy? I would actually like to read it. Now that I am not a Chomskyan anymore, it would be interesting to see how others view these issues.

Chomsky also believes Bin Laden wasn't the leader of Al-Qaeda; which he doubts even exists and the raid in which he died was unjustified.

Oh and that arms are named after native American tribes 'n shit to celebrate their genocide and murder.

Don't even begin, he is a hard left nutjob whose sole philosophy is to take the position antithetical to the one he believes has been taken by the USA or the West. This is why, for example, he denies there was a genocide in Bosnia and says it was a CIA conspiracy to justify America intervention.

A Jewish anarcho-syndicalist MIT professor of linguistics and opportunistic political activist was teaching a class on Rene Descartes, known rationalist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Descartes and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than me!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, humanitarian Harvard behavioral psychologist who had conditioned over 1000 pigeons to compete in ping pong championship tournaments and understood the necessity of reinforcement and punishment for the creation of a Walden-like utopia and fully supported all breaches of research ethics made by J.B. Watson in the name of science stood up and held up a chimpanzee.

”How many signs does this chimp use to communicate, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “None, language is innate and uniquely possessed by the human species, you stupid empiricist”.

”Wrong. It’s been 58 years since you published Syntactic Structures and plunged us into the dark age of cognitivism. If it was language was not simply a semiotic system among many and Universal Grammar, as you say, is real… then we would be speaking Hebrew now”.

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and his favorite Bill Cosby sweater. He stormed out of the room crying those anarcho-syndicalist crocodile tears, the same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they publish tracts condemning right-wing dictators and ignoring the atrocities of left-wing rulers in Peru, Angola, Pakistan, and Equatorial Guinea. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Noam Chomsky, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist anarchist professor. He wished so much that he could blame his actions on the environmental influence of the academic ivory tower, but he himself had argued against it!

The students all predictably applauded at this positive stimulus that day and accepted B. F. Skinner as their lord and savior. An eagle named Radical Translation flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and Willard van Orman Quine himself showed up and abolished all cognitive psychology departments across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay for political subversion and was forced to watch looped footage of Foucault laughing at him for all eternity.

>LOL LEFTISTS AMIRITE XD

t.

>you published Syntactic Structures and plunged us into the dark age of cognitivism
So much this.

Chomsky is a charlatan because he's the American Lysenko and single-handedly ruined the science of linguistics, not because of his 'leftist' political views.

Except SS (or LSLT, for that matter) didn't really have any of the cognitive stuff in it (though it did make it possible to do later). That doesn't really get going, at least in published form, until Aspects.

" Chomsky's grammaticality, the categorical
S symbol that dominates every sentence, is more fundamentally a
marker of power than a syntactic marker: you will construct grammatically
correct sentences, you will divide each statement into a noun phrase and a
verb phrase (first dichotomy. . .). Our criticism of these linguistic models
is not that they are too abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not
abstract enough, that they do not reach the abstract machine that connects
a language to the semantic and pragmatic contents of statements, to collective
assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropolitics of the social
field. "

"A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic
chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences,
and social struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating
very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but also perceptive, mimetic,
gestural, and cognitive: there is no language in itself, nor are there any linguistic
universals, only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized
languages. There is no ideal speaker-listener, any more than there is a
homogeneous linguistic community. Language is, in Weinreich's words,
"an essentially heterogeneous reality."1
There is no mother tongue, only a
power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity.
Language stabilizes around a parish, a bishopric, a capital. It forms a bulb.
It evolves by subterranean stems and flows, along river valleys or train
tracks; it spreads like a patch of oil."

How did he ruin linguistics?

lol, is this a joke?

I'm confused, one time I see Chomsky referenced it's as a crackpot woo-peddler, other times he's just a pop-sci linguist. Which is it?

Ancap here, Chomsky is shit.