Noam Chomsky has been right all along

[jglapski]

If Chomsky were a "holocaust denier" I'd take him more seriously. Unfortunately he isn't: look for the Faurisson/Chomsky video on youtube. He defends Faurisson's right to speak but condemns his views.

He gave Faurisson credibility by writing a preface in his book and helping him get published.

I'm not saying that there should be laws against Faurisson, but don't expect me to help him (or any other socialist) because HIS VIEWS ARE REPUGNANT. Chomsky did, because he supported his views. He's not in the habit of supporting those he opposes.

And here's evidence that Chomsky ignores the corpses piling up courtesy of the socialist Khmer Rouge:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Chomsky is fucking scum. But you have to be, to support the most evil government to ever grace this planet (viz., the Khmer Rouge).
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/HOLO.TAB1.GIF

8.16% of the population PER YEAR was killed.

 

[jglapski]

noam chomsky does have really good foreign policy credentials, so I assume the socialist part of his beliefs is his domestic ideas, which my friend tells me is the removal of property rights, allow anybody who wants to use factories, and such. He did mention tribes... I could it being pretty easy to get enough followers and to take control of a nation with these ideals in place.

Really? He sort of kind of missed that wholesale slaughter of Cambodians. He's clueless.

 

[jglapski]

The thing about Chomsky is his stuff is researched so well that it is for the most part bullet proof. Plus he is brilliant, he used to be a teacher of mine back in the day. Another thing about Chomsky: he does not vote in presidential elections and believes that local elections are the only ones worth worrying about. He knows the system is corrupt and a persons vote in a presidential election means nothing at all. He is not a holocaust denier at all, but rather thinks that the zionists have used the subject to advance their own agenda (which they have.) People often call him a denier but they are uninformed. A lot of this comes from his defense of Norman Finkelstein, who also is not a denier but gets labeled as one by those who want to keep their heads in the sand about the whole affair. This despite the fact that his research is backed by non other than Raul Hilberg who is considered to be the most distinguished holocaust scholar anywhere, as well as being the founder of Holocaust studies. He wrote the three volume epic "The Destruction of the European Jews" considered to be the most distinguished work on the subject and largely undisputed.

His stuff is poorly researched. To wit:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

That's not brilliant; it's dishonest.

He denies holocausts. That's plural. As you see above, his drivel is not well researched, and it denies the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge.

My criticism of Chomsky with respect to the Holocaust was that he supported Holocaust deniers like Faurisson by helping them get published and providing moral support. That's pathetic, and his defense of that as defending his free speech simply shows that he doesn't have the first clue about what constitutes free speech.

I'm sorry you didn't have better educators, like Crackhead Bob or Wendy the Retard.

 

[Sir VotesALot]

Really? He sort of kind of missed that wholesale slaughter of Cambodians. He's clueless.

Is he any more clueless than people who talk about the non-existent wholesale slaughter of Jews? It didn't happen!

The "holocaust denial" laws in Europe should not only be condemned but broken. Shame on jglapski for lecturing others for their courage in defending dissenters and shame on him for confusing Chomsky's views entirely.

 

[jglapski]

I went to Borders last night and bought a couple of his books. Im addicted to his intellectual views, and these views are right on. A scientific explanation of what must be what has happened. Unbelievable.

Chomsky is an absolute fraud:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

It amazes me that a candidate with the intellectual background of absolute giants like Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, Murray Rothbard can draw people who are attracted absolute cluefucks like Chomsky.

 

[jglapski]

Is he any more clueless than people who talk about the non-existent wholesale slaughter of Jews? It didn't happen!

The "holocaust denial" laws in Europe should not only be condemned but broken. Shame on jglapski for lecturing others for their courage in defending dissenters and shame on him for confusing Chomsky's views entirely.

So you're denying the Holocaust? You are a fucking idiot. But thanks for showing that I am not confusing a goddamned thing, and that Chomsky's bigotry draws idiots like you like shit attracts a fly. This would make you the fly and Chomsky's "ideas" shit. He attracts Holocaust deniers for what reason then?

The Holocaust denial laws and any other laws that banish freedom, such as the ones perpetrated by your idiotic National Socialists. And unlike Chomsky, who hasn't the first fucking clue about free speech, I will either get a warning or perhaps banned from this board for calling you a fucking idiot. But that isn't a restriction of my free speech. Nor was anyone duty bound to ensure that Faurisson got published, and nor was Chomsky duty bound to allow sales of his essay fund neo-Nazi groups.

And as mentioned before, Chomsky has also apologized countless times for the 20th century's greatest murderers, like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

 

[Enzo]

Chomsky is an absolute fraud:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

It amazes me that a candidate with the intellectual background of absolute giants like Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, Murray Rothbard can draw people who are attracted absolute cluefucks like Chomsky.

Please... Chomsky's research is as airtight as it gets.

You're gonna cite a racist, Israel apologist to try to prove that Chomsky is telling lies?

You're gonna have to do better than that. You might as well pick up the latest Alan Dershowitz fiction while you're at it.

 

[Primbs]

Chomsky has attacked Ron Paul. He is claiming Ron Paul's policies would lead to children starving in the streets of America.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

His stuff is poorly researched. To wit:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

That's not brilliant; it's dishonest.

He denies holocausts. That's plural. As you see above, his drivel is not well researched, and it denies the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge.

My criticism of Chomsky with respect to the Holocaust was that he supported Holocaust deniers like Faurisson by helping them get published and providing moral support. That's pathetic, and his defense of that as defending his free speech simply shows that he doesn't have the first clue about what constitutes free speech.

I'm sorry you didn't have better educators, like Crackhead Bob or Wendy the Retard.

Who is Jim? Obviously not a scholar of any import. It sounds like the same rhetoric you hear from idiots like Dershowitz. It appears that link is just meant to confuse and is so pointless I will not even address it. Chomsky has written more books than I care to list here and all you can come up with is that link? Do you really think that Noam Chomsky supports the death and destruction of human beings? The fact that you cannot restrain yourself from using profanity in your posts here proves you are driven to dislike him purely by emotion and leads me to believe you are one of these rabid tribal jews; and don't call me anti semitic cause I am a Jew. I am not hear to say everything Chomsky writes should be taken as the absolute last word; like all of us he is not infallible and not free from his own biases. I will even go as far to say that Jim may indeed have some things right but I could care less; Noam Chomsky is still a prolific and well researched scholar. There are many people out there who would seek to slander him; thing is most of them are half-wits with no credentials whatsoever. I do not agree with a lot of his views and he has come out against some of Ron Pauls policies, but I still have great respect for him and the type of slander seen on here is uneducated and somewhat baseless.

I thought he was one of the most learned teachers I ever had and for the record he teaches linguistics, not world affairs, or foreign policy. He is also considered to be one of the leading scholars on the subject.

I do not know who crackhead Bob or Wendy the Retard are, or what you are even trying to say with that statement

 

[Sir VotesALot]

So you're denying the Holocaust?

Here was my first post in the thread which you actually quoted but obviously didn't read:

If Chomsky were a "holocaust denier" I'd take him more seriously. Unfortunately he isn't: look for the Faurisson/Chomsky video on youtube. He defends Faurisson's right to speak but condemns his views.

Yes, I "deny the holocaust". And if gas chambers weren't used to save lives and Jews weren't interned for security reasons then provide some evidence that these these things did not occur and quit "denying" them. But no, you don't want to do that; you want to insult people instead and scream "anti-semitism!" when you're called upon to support your racist theories about the Germans with factual evidence. Shame on you!

 

[jglapski]

Please... Chomsky's research is as airtight as it gets.

You're gonna cite a racist, Israel apologist to try to prove that Chomsky is telling lies?

You're gonna have to do better than that. You might as well pick up the latest Alan Dershowitz fiction while you're at it.

Airtight? And I'm to believe that because you say please? I'm actually citing a list of ridiculous quotes from Chomsky, where he says ridiculous things like there was no holocaust in Cambodia (even as late as 2003).

You want airtight research? Every piece of bullshit from Chomsky is systematically destroyed from various sources.

I don't have to do better than that, because you aren't an honest person.

Why the fuck are you here? Chomsky speaks out against Paul and they philosophical opposites.

 

[jglapski]

Here was my first post in the thread which you actually quoted but obviously didn't read:

Yes, I "deny the holocaust". And if gas chambers weren't used to save lives and Jews weren't interned for security reasons then provide some evidence that these these things did not occur and quit "denying" them. But no, you don't want to do that; you want to insult people instead and scream "anti-semitism!" when you're called upon to support your racist theories about the Germans with factual evidence. Shame on you!

Yes, I read it. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't about to make insinuations that you are a tremendously stupid and wish to ignore the evidence of your senses until you made it blatantly obvious. You have.

Congratulations, you are a fucking idiot. BTW, when have I screamed anti-Semitism on this thread? The evidence is around you. Open your fucking eyes, but you will have to remove your head from your ass before you will see any light.

But continue your support of Chomsky and the denial of the Holocaust. I want these other Chomsky apologists just to see who they're in bed with.

Why are you on a Ron Paul forum? Is it because he has expressed support for Jewish intellectuals, named his son after a Jew, expressed support for a black VP or is it because Chomsky has criticized him and he is as philosophically opposite to Chomsky as you can get?

 

[jglapski]

Who is Jim? Obviously not a scholar of any import. It sounds like the same rhetoric you hear from idiots like Dershowitz. It appears that link is just meant to confuse and is so pointless I will not even address it. Chomsky has written more books than I care to list here and all you can come up with is that link? Do you really think that Noam Chomsky supports the death and destruction of human beings? The fact that you cannot restrain yourself from using profanity in your posts here proves you are driven to dislike him purely by emotion and leads me to believe you are one of these rabid tribal jews; and don't call me anti semitic cause I am a Jew. I am not hear to say everything Chomsky writes should be taken as the absolute last word; like all of us he is not infallible and not free from his own biases. I will even go as far to say that Jim may indeed have some things right but I could care less; Noam Chomsky is still a prolific and well researched scholar. There are many people out there who would seek to slander him; thing is most of them are half-wits with no credentials whatsoever. I do not agree with a lot of his views and he has come out against some of Ron Pauls policies, but I still have great respect for him and the type of slander seen on here is uneducated and somewhat baseless.

I thought he was one of the most learned teachers I ever had and for the record he teaches linguistics, not world affairs, or foreign policy. He is also considered to be one of the leading scholars on the subject.

I do not know who crackhead Bob or Wendy the Retard are, or what you are even trying to say with that statement

Let me guess: appeals to authority are linguistically solid arguments?

I can come up with more, but what's the point when you've decided in advance that you won't even read it. With intellectual dishonesty like that, why the fuck should I?

Yes, Chomsky does support the death and destruction of human beings. Ideas are powerful, and if his are widely accepted, that will be the result. Why do you think he ignores millions of corpses in Cambodia? Question: when he taught that in class, and tried to compare with 200,000 dead in East Timor with the several million in Cambodia, how many people laughed at him? Or were the students in that class simply sheep who followed orders?

Stephen Kings writes a lot of books. Ronald Coase wrote two articles and won a Nobel Prize. What the fuck was your point? That Chomsky was verbose?

The ironic thing, since I've been "accused" of being a Jew by several of you sheep in this thread, is that I am not Jewish. In fact, I am significantly German in my heritage. My use of profanity doesn't prove a fucking thing except that I like to use profanity.

I get emotional about scum like Chomsky, in much the same way as the intelligent people (which excludes the Chomsky fans, naturally) get upset about John McCain.

I haven't called anyone anti-Semitic yet you are the second illiterate who can't read that I haven't read that.

Despite your words, you are acting like Chomsky is infallible. You refuse to even read criticism of him. The evidence that Jim cites that you could care less about invalidates your other claims. He isn't prolific. He is a well-researched scholar, but that research is done by others. Chomsky's research is shoddy and comprised of half lies and lies.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Let me guess: appeals to authority are linguistically solid arguments?

I can come up with more, but what's the point when you've decided in advance that you won't even read it. With intellectual dishonesty like that, why the fuck should I?

Yes, Chomsky does support the death and destruction of human beings. Ideas are powerful, and if his are widely accepted, that will be the result. Why do you think he ignores millions of corpses in Cambodia? Question: when he taught that in class, and tried to compare with 200,000 dead in East Timor with the several million in Cambodia, how many people laughed at him? Or were the students in that class simply sheep who followed orders?

Stephen Kings writes a lot of books. Ronald Coase wrote two articles and won a Nobel Prize. What the fuck was your point? That Chomsky was verbose?

The ironic thing, since I've been "accused" of being a Jew by several of you sheep in this thread, is that I am not Jewish. In fact, I am significantly German in my heritage. My use of profanity doesn't prove a fucking thing except that I like to use profanity.

I get emotional about scum like Chomsky, in much the same way as the intelligent people (which excludes the Chomsky fans, naturally) get upset about John McCain.

I haven't called anyone anti-Semitic yet you are the second illiterate who can't read that I haven't read that.

Despite your words, you are acting like Chomsky is infallible. You refuse to even read criticism of him. The evidence that Jim cites that you could care less about invalidates your other claims. He isn't prolific. He is a well-researched scholar, but that research is done by others. Chomsky's research is shoddy and comprised of half lies and lies.

....

 

[sophocles07]

Chomsky did, because he supported his views. He's not in the habit of supporting those he opposes.

That’s nonsense. That was the point of supporting the right of a Holocaust denier to publish. It’s a support of free speech, not of Holocaust denial.

And here's evidence that Chomsky ignores the corpses piling up courtesy of the socialist Khmer Rouge:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Chomsky is fucking scum. But you have to be, to support the most evil government to ever grace this planet (viz., the Khmer Rouge).
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/HOLO.TAB1.GIF

8.16% of the population PER YEAR was killed.

Your links didn’t work for me for some reason. But it’s absolutely untrue that Chomsky “supported” the Khmer Rouge. He uses Khmer Rouge as a case study beside East Timor: two atrocities happening during the same time, one funded by the Soviets, the other by the US. The US condemns the former and it’s all over the papers; the latter is ignored because it is in the interest of the OWNERS of this country to ignore it. You are being extremely simplistic on this very clear position Chomsky is taking.

Chomsky has attacked Ron Paul. He is claiming Ron Paul's policies would lead to children starving in the streets of America.

Are you incapable of separating his exposure of foreign policy crimes from his economic views?

I don’t understand everyone’s inability to give credit where it is due here.

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

I tend to ignore asshole holocaust deniers like Chomsky. The sad thing about that asshole is that he's ignored at least 2 of them.

Now why would you go and do that, are you profiting by the myth of the holocaust? I never heard about the second one, can you enlighten me? (with evidence, if you don't mind)

 

[sophocles07]

I think he means the Cambodian holocaust. Which Chomsky didn't "ignore."

 

[aravoth]

He is a libertarian socialist.

Those two philosphies are incompatible. Which is why whenever a Socialist gets in argument with a Libertarian, they are completely unable to get the libertarian to concede on anything. Which is hard for the socicialist since so much of that hair brained philosophy depends on infiltrating the ranks of other philosophies.

In general, in a debate between a libertarian and a socialist, the Socialist is left scratching his had wondering what the fuck just happened.

You are either for free markets or you are not.

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

The Holocaust Debunked in Eight parts

 

[Flash]

He is a libertarian socialist.

And I'm a Fascist Communist Anarchist.