Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Chomsky_Sick...genio.html
Whatever reputation this guy had has been ruined by is own inner demons.
THe idea that he is a trustworthy historian is nothing but BS.
He is a full blooded polemicist, which makes it impossible for him to write history.
He really should quit.
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Having recently completed Zelikow and May, Chomsky making Khrushchev the peacemaker, while ignoring Castro the bomb-thrower, adds depth to the evil figure denying Kennedy's Vietnam withdrawal.
The takeaway is a greater appreciation for the stability of Kennedy as helmsman of the world's peace, taking both Khrushchev and Castro to school.
Chomsky's denial of the stunning significance of NSAM 263 points to the heart of the failure to attain justice vis-a-vis the assassination of the 35th president.
Chomsky, with Hersh and others of that dog pack, maintain the moral equivalence with their two-pronged, forked-tongue lie: A) Kennedy's Vietnam War became Johnson's; B) personal traits distorted through the reversed telescope obscure the salient point of peace vs. war.
Chomsky displays a warlust identical to the hawks of the day; the Marxist dialectic feeding on the same blood and iron as the fortunes of Krupp and Brown & Root.
What a quaint yet vile dissembling, Chomsky's assertion CIA is a tool of the U.S. president.
Witness the warning of Eisenhower in 1961, the editorial of Truman December 1963, Kennedy's firing of Dulles et al and his NSAMs 55, 56, 57.
Chomsky is no historian.
He's the Marxist yin to the Cold War yang of the eternal war.
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
I will shed no tears when he passes. I have so many friends who adore him. Fools all of them. They have no concept of left gatekeeping.
Wonder if he's really a CIA asset. His lies about JFK would so indicate.
Dawn
Posts: 17,303
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
I agree is a fool when it comes to JFK matters. Not a tool. Or at least not a willing one. He is not Marxist but an anarchist. Nor is he an historian. Despite his rather large blind spot with regards to JFK (and for that 911) he still gives a good critique on other political matters. One just needs to be careful when using him as we do with all sources.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Magda:
I don't agree that Chomsky is an anarchist.
See, that may be what he tries to say.
But when one follows his career and writings, that is not what comes out.
In every instance, he favors the Marxist, communist regime at every step of the Cold War.
What convinced me of this was his inexcusable, almost insane defense of Pol Pot in Cambodia. He even did this AFTER the evidence was insurmountable, in that awful book After the Cataclysm. He then tried to cover this up with his East Timor baloney in order to conceal the fact that , per capita, he had tried to obfuscate the largest extermination of one's own population in modern history. (What he did to make this work by juggling figures is worthy of the Warren Commission.) All because he wanted to praise a Marxist regime creating a so-called Marxian worker's paradise.
When I examined all the evidence on this, it was simply overwhelming. Chomsky is not an anarchist, he is a radical leftist who bends over backwards to conceal their brutal crimes. His pal Cockburn was the same. Alex C. even tried to cover up and minimize the brutal repression of, if you can comprehend it, STALIN. Talk about a shocker.
What these two guys did to the left in this country is a calamity. They helped reduce it to nothingness.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
The basis of Chomsky's failure vis a vis his JFK analysis is not difficult to discern.
Chomsky does not allow for what I would term JFK's spiritual evolution -- the phenomenon that James Douglass discerns and dissects, and for which he provides, eloquently, irrefutable evidence.
But please bear in mind: Those who claim that JFK was, spiritually, fully formed at an early age make the same fatal error in judgment that Chomsky makes.
Posts: 17,303
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Magda:
When I examined all the evidence on this, it was simply overwhelming. Chomsky is not an anarchist, he is a radical leftist who bends over backwards to conceal their brutal crimes. His pal Cockburn was the same. Alex C. even tried to cover up and minimize the brutal repression of, if you can comprehend it, STALIN. Talk about a shocker.
What these two guys did to the left in this country is a calamity. They helped reduce it to nothingness.
No, he is not a Marxist. He never supported the soviet system as expressed in the USSR at all. When he wasn't attacking capitalism (which is well deserved) he was attacking the soviet system. He is part of the anti-communist left. And I fully agree that they have done a great dis-service to the left.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
You are wrong about this Charles.
Chomsky is a liar.
If you click my link near the end of the article you will see that Chomsky flipflopped on the issue of the JFK assassination. That article is the only one on the web which discerns this important incident in any real depth. At one time, he understood that JFK was taken out by a high level plot. He did not have the moral fiber to face that and take it on.
Once he made that purely political decision, he covered it all up, and then pilloried everyone else who was willing to face facts.
So saying one believes JFK's ideas were formed say in 1957, this is not the same as Chomsky's duplciity.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim,
I'm no apologist for Chomsky. He may be a "liar." His faculties may be damaged by age. He may appreciate that the threat posed by revelations of the truth of JFK's murder and the motives of his murderers would undermine the very foundations of his world view.
Or any combination thereof.
What remains clear to me is that nowhere in his analysis does Chomsky allow for JFK's spiritual growth.
One is left to wonder how Chomsky would account for the spiritual evolution of, say, John Donne. What would Chomsky offer to explain the fact that the author of Elegy XVIII and Death Be Not Proud (Holy Sonnet X) are one and the same?
Once I was lost. Now I'm found.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Anti-Communist Left?
Chomsky and Cockurn?
Magda, Chomsky defended Pol Pot! He loved the Sandinistas. He called what JFK did in the Missile Crisis as an attempt at hegemony.
In what specific instance--not his theoretical writings--has he ever been a Scoop Jackson type?
|
