Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
MacCruiskeen wrote:in his very late 70s, Chomsky is simply worried about being marginalised even further than he has been all his life
he addresses the question of JFK. What I took away from his answer was that the most important thing for him was to preserve a coherent energy on the left, focusing on the leverage points that could make a difference.
Mmm... to me the 'Chomsky is a marginal figure' is the kind of thing Jonah Goldberg or some other completely replaceable hack whose name no-one will remember in ten years would say. I find that a bit ridiculous about one of the great linguists, cognitive philosophers and political writers of our time. How many books has he published? How many people have read Noam Chomsky? According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most-cited scholar in any time period. He's hardly marginal. But if by 'marginalised' you mean 'fired', then perhaps.
On a certain level, I think Chomsky's concern (in the case of the JFK assassination as well as 9/11) is the diversion of political energy into a kind of hobby. We've talked about it here before, it's what Chomsky means when, on the clip, he talks about
'the kind of huge energy that gets put out trying to figured out who killed JFK'. People who are substantively in agreement about the political implications of 9/11, about the involvement of a criminal gang of politicians, businessmen and spies using a traumatic event to hijack the US treasury and attack civil liberties to fill their pockets and increase their power, and about the threat that this situation represents, get wound up arguing about the minutiae of how the attacks were actually carried out. Which is not unimportant, but it too easily becomes a pointless waste of time, especially under the influence of agents who want disagreement among adversaries of the state as well as caricatures of 'moonbats' to point at and mock.
http://rapidshare.com/files/128129163/noam_chomsky_-_what_we_say_goes__2007__track_08_-_008_on_911_.mp3.html
sunny wrote:The author of this op wrote a fascinating (and long) essay on Chomsky at his blog:
The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky and 911
Tom Breidenbach wrote:Here, cold-blooded arrogance is the only mask sufficient to the intellectual authoritarian’s impotence. Though it’s disguised as consummate reasonableness, this “analytical” butchery emulates the physical carnage it envies. His pedantic sadism compensating for his historical irrelevance, Chomsky signals (however momentarily) a response to the possibility of 9/11’s state-sponsorship that’s far more craven and servile—if nevertheless predictable—than mere paralysis: an alignment with the attackers whomever they may be based in denial of their crime’s even mattering! This opportunistic concurrence with the killers, a squirming and obsequious capitulation to or veneration of their power is betrayed by a flippant readiness or unconcern (at least on the part of this moneyed old man and his “radical” discipleship) for whatever conflagration or apotheosis 9/11 might portend. The ugly armchair bluff (or is he leveling with us?) of this cynical fossil should sober those inured to his hagiography.
Tom Breidenbach wrote:Chomsky’s crude assumption that those responsible for a conspiracy such as 9/11 would be put before “firing squads” is vastly allusive in its farcicality, revealing his delusory grasp of the contemporary Anglo-American power-structure.
don't forget Chomsky long ago adopted the role of public intellectual, and weighs his words very carefully. What he says in front of a mic is not what he really thinks
Firstly, there's no such word as 'delusory', he's confusing 'illusory' and 'delusional'.
[Chomsky] is unassailable on matters of fact
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests