There is little doubt in my mind that Noam Chomsky is a hard-core socialist, deeply critical of the United States and prone to excusing the actions of Soviet-style communism as :fake socialism.” Like most academics living in an ivory tower, Chomsky observes his environment and then muses on how things should be in the unattainable “worker’s paradise.”  And, while Chomsky, the academic, is prone to use big words and lofty-sounding ideals, he appears to lack commonsense. Most egregiously, his worldview violates reality in that he does not appear to believe that society is based on, and driven by, human nature. A nature that favors the strong over the weak and a propensity for the masses to “go along to get along.”

Chomsky, a man out of touch with reality …

Chomsky was also impressed with socialism as practiced in Vietnam. In a speech given in Hanoi on April 13, 1970, and broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spoke of his "admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society." Chomsky praised the North Vietnamese for their efforts in building material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress.

In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone. <Source>

There has never been an organization, especially a state, where the self-interests of the political leadership, the so-called enlightened elite and their special interest friends, did not trump the interests of those who were being governed. And as a corollary, that such raw political power was free from force or covert manipulation of the governed by the leadership. Even worse, the political class adhering to the financiers and controllers who have amassed great wealth and status by being able to purchase the services of others to do their bidding.

So why is the progressive socialist democrat media playing upon a theme that has absolutely no basis in reality? 

Chomsky Classic: We Have the Means to End Civilization as We Know It—How Revolutionary Pacifism Can Preserve the Species

Modern warfare capabilities have taken humanity to the brink. It starts with accepting violence as a solution.

At this point in time, not accepting violence as a legitimate method for protecting the sovereignty of a state and the safety and security of its people, is to invite incursion, overrun, and conquest. There are any number of bad actors in our world that would love to have the natural resources and military power of a stronger state. And, realistically – however regrettable by socialist academics such as Chomsky and his fellow travelers – would kill thousands, perhaps millions to achieve domination over others. These are men without a soul, a conscience, or more likely, sociopaths that walk among us.

[Editor's Note: The following is the text of lecture given by Chomsky upon being awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, November 1, 2011. It remains one of the most powerful and persuasive arguments for recognizing the dangers that modern, industrialized warfare pose to the future of humankind.]

As we all know, the United Nations was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The words can only elicit deep regret when we consider how we have acted to fulfill that aspiration, though there have been a few significant successes, notably in Europe.

By any objective standard, the United Nations is a corrupt and self-serving body whose pretentions know no bounds. Not only have they not fulfilled their charter to prevent civil wars and genocide through diplomacy, but they are so corrupt as to place egregious violators of human rights at the head of the table when it comes to discussing human rights. The United Nations is an impotent, cowardly body that gives cover to dictators and others while proclaiming their lofty goals from on high.

Blaming civilization’s ills on those old white European types …

For centuries, Europe had been the most violent place on earth, with murderous and destructive internal conflicts and the forging of a culture of war that enabled Europe to conquer most of the world, shocking the victims, who were hardly pacifists, but were “appalled by the all-destructive fury of European warfare,” in the words of British military historian Geoffrey Parker.

And [it] enabled Europe to impose on its conquests what Adam Smith called “the savage injustice of the Europeans,” England in the lead, as he did not fail to emphasize. The global conquest took a particularly horrifying form in what is sometimes called “the Anglosphere,” England and its offshoots, settler-colonial societies in which the indigenous societies were devastated and their people dispersed or exterminated.

Did this learned scholar, Noam Chomsky, an observer of history and the affairs of man, somehow miss the Muslims and the Islamic world? Even today, trying to build a world-wide caliphate on the edge of a sword. Seeking the assistance of the United Nation to ban the truth about Islam not being a religion of peace and tolerance as “hate speech” needing to be criminalized and penalized.

But since 1945 Europe has become internally the most peaceful and in many ways most humane region of the earth — which is the source of some its current travail, an important topic that I will have to put aside.

Perhaps, Chomsky should take a moment to retreat from his perceived Anti-America stance and thank the men and women of the United States who shed blood to bring Europe to this state of peace. Without the blood and treasure of those willing to fight for liberty, Europe would be just an extension of another fascist or socialist totalitarian state. Something that has nothing to do with the United Nations.

In scholarship, this dramatic transition is often attributed to the thesis of the “democratic peace”: democracies do not go to war with one another. Not to be overlooked, however, is that Europeans came to realise that the next time they indulge in their favorite pastime of slaughtering one another, the game will be over: civilization has developed means of destruction that can only be used against those too weak to retaliate in kind, a large part of the appalling history of the post-World War II years.

It is not that the threat has ended. US-Soviet confrontations came painfully close to virtually terminal nuclear war in ways that are shattering to contemplate, when we inspect them closely. And the threat of nuclear war remains all too ominously alive, a matter to which I will briefly return.

Can we proceed to at least limit the scourge of war? One answer is given by absolute pacifists, including people I respect though I have never felt able to go beyond that. A somewhat more persuasive stand, I think, is that of the pacifist thinker and social activist A.J. Muste, one of the great figures of 20th century America, in my opinion: what he called “revolutionary pacifism.”

<snip – to read the boring stuff in context – use the reference link below>

Revolutionary pacifism, where you just refuse to play the hand you are dealt by circumstances, often has tragic and fatal consequences for larger numbers of innocents. There are those willing to discuss pacifism as an academic exercise, but are they willing to sit on the battlefield, between opposing parties, to register their feelings? I think not. Academics, as well as charlatans, poseurs, and megalomaniacs have gone to jail or have been jailed for their beliefs. But again, human nature intrudes. A person who will not stand up to protect himself, his family, his community, and his nation, is likely to suffer the consequences of his folly. 

If you need an example of anti-America, muddle-headed academic thinking …

Since we commemorate anniversaries, such as the Japanese attacks 70 years ago, there are several significant ones that fall right about now, with lessons that can serve for both enlightenment and action. I will mention just a few.

The West has just commemorated the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and what was called at the time, but no longer, “the glorious invasion” of Afghanistan that followed, soon to be followed by the even more glorious invasion of Iraq. Partial closure for 9/11 was reached with the assassination of the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, by US commandos who invaded Pakistan, apprehended him and then murdered him, disposing of the corpse without autopsy.

I said “prime suspect,” recalling the ancient though long-abandoned doctrine of “presumption of innocence.” The current issue of the major US scholarly journal of international relations features several discussions of the Nuremberg trials of some of history’s worst criminals.

There we read that the “U.S. decision to prosecute, rather than seek brutal vengeance was a victory for the American tradition of rights and a particularly American brand of legalism: punishment only for those who could be proved to be guilty through a fair trial with a panoply of procedural protections.” The journal appeared right at the time of the celebration of the abandonment of this principle in a dramatic way, while the global campaign of assassination of suspects, and inevitable “collateral damage,” continues to be expanded, to much acclaim.

The socialist idea that acts of war should be treated as civilian crimes akin to mass murder overlooks the singular point of the Nuremberg Trials – that they were a series of “military tribunals,” held by the joint allied forces who fought in World War II. Those who were tried were captured enemy combatants – far from the field of battle. Unlike Osama bin Laden who was serving as the acting leader or an insurgency that posed a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. Bin Laden was not assassinated, he was killed in his headquarters from which he was prosecuting an active war of terrorist activities. By his own admission, he was guilty as charged of perpetrating a heinous, unforgivable terror attack on the United States. An attack whose impact is still reverberating.

Maybe in Chomsky’s warped mind bin Laden was murdered and his body disposed without autopsy, but killing your opponent on the battlefield is not murder. And, as for an autopsy, it is my personal belief that while the authorities did not want to create an iconic martyr, they did not go far enough. I think he should have been placed in a 50-gallon drum of pig’s blood and tossed overboard without ceremony. To indicate the contempt in which this terrorist should be held for the acts perpetrated on innocents on 9/11.

Perhaps, we should note that times have changed significantly enough to the point where America’s interests cannot get a fair hearing in an international community of anti-America socialists. One need only consider that President Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by a group of socialists without one recognizable or supporting accomplishment. Or, the fact that the United States is roundly condemned in the United Nations, mostly by representatives of socialist nations or outright dictatorships. 

Pakistan …

Before considering what Chomsky has to say, I would like to ask: Pakistan, you mean the nation whose security service, the corrupt and two-faced ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), created and funded the Taliban whose murderous ways killed large numbers of men, women, and children because they offended Islam? You mean the Pakistan who knowingly harbored bin Laden in a large facility just over one thousand yards Pakistan’s elite military academy, located in a “safe” town known to be popular with retired politicians and military leaders? That Pakistan? Or perhaps the Pakistan that continues to take American money and lie to their face when it comes to the whereabouts of known terrorists.

Not to be sure universal acclaim. Pakistan’s leading daily recently published a study of the effect of drone attacks and other US terror. It found that “About 80 per cent [of] residents of [the tribal regions] South and North Waziristan agencies have been affected mentally while 60 per cent people of Peshawar are nearing to become psychological patients if these problems are not addressed immediately,” and warned that the “survival of our young generation” is at stake.

Unlike American and other foreign forces, terrorists do not separate their home lives from their military and terrorist lives. The plan operations on the kitchen table surrounded by family, friends, and co-conspirators. But, then again, what can you expect from an asymmetrical enemy that thinks nothing of placing weapons and explosives in schools, churches, and mosques – and firing from those locations; almost inviting collateral damage to be televised by the mainstream media as anti-America propaganda. Staging deaths of women and children for effect.

What Chomsky overlooks is that our Islamic enemy does not fear death, lives in a culture of death, and welcomes death as a tangible act of devotion to Allah. If they kill innocents, it is Allah’s will and they will be rewarded in heaven as martyrs for the cause. There is little or no rationality among people who would send their young men, women, and children out as suicide bombers. Again, Chomsky’s rather academic worldview conflicts with reality.

Excuse me, but aren’t devout Muslims taught from an early age to hate, revile, and in most instances, kill infidels?

In part for these reasons, hatred of America had already risen to phenomenal heights, and after the bin Laden assassination increased still more. One consequence was firing across the border at the bases of the US occupying army in Afghanistan — which provoked sharp condemnation of Pakistan for its failure to cooperate in an American war that Pakistanis overwhelmingly oppose, taking the same stand they did when the Russians occupied Afghanistan. A stand then lauded, now condemned.

Did Chomsky overlook the fact that Pakistan had an opportunity to assist America to root out terrorists and bring them to justice. But that is not the Islamic way, and even worse, it did not provide the opportunity for corrupt Pakistani politicians and military leaders to grow rich on purloined humanitarian and military aid money?

The specialist literature and even the US Embassy in Islamabad warn that the pressures on Pakistan to take part in the US invasion, as well as US attacks in Pakistan, are “destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States — and the world — which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan” — quoting British military/Pakistan analyst Anatol Lieven.

Perhaps, Chomsky needs a refresher course in history, and not the revisionist history taught by socialists at predominantly socialist American Institutions. Pakistan hates and reviles India. The Taliban was created to have a friendly force on their rear border so that they could concentrate on their arch-enemy, India. Pakistan, or should we use its formal name, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan,  was borne out of a radicalized population where millions of Muslims moved to Pakistan, with the corresponding movement of Hindus and Sikhs moving to India. Pakistan is a nation rife with corruption and inner turmoil – in fact, any geopolitical catastrophe is likely to be caused by the radical Muslim terrorists attempting to subvert the relatively more moderate Pakistani government for the purposes of securing an existing nuclear state.  

The assassination of bin Laden greatly heightened this risk in ways that were ignored in the general enthusiasm for assassination of suspects. The US commandos were under orders to fight their way out if necessary. They would surely have had air cover, maybe more, in which case there might have been a major confrontation with the Pakistani army, the only stable institution in Pakistan, and deeply committed to defending Pakistan’s sovereignty.

And, this presents a problem. We couldn’t even advise Pakistan of the operation or allow their troops to capture bin Laden as there was a strong possibility that the mission would have been compromised and bin Laden moved to a safer environment. The Pakistani military is deeply committed to lining their pockets with American aid, and it is unlikely that they would have interfered with an operation that could lead to a cessation of their cashflow. Yes, folks, I am saying the leadership of the Pakistani military is self-serving and manifestly corrupt.

America is responsible for the radical Pakistani Islamists …

Pakistan has a huge nuclear arsenal, the most rapidly expanding in the world. And the whole system is laced with radical Islamists, products of the strong US-Saudi support for the worst of Pakistan’s dictators, Zia ul-Haq, and his program of radical Islamisation. This program along with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are among Ronald Reagan’s legacies. Obama has now added the risk of nuclear explosions in London and New York, if the confrontation had led to leakage of nuclear materials to jihadis, as was plausibly feared — one of the many examples of the constant threat of nuclear weapons.

The progressive socialist will find any opportunity to make America wrong …

The assassination of bin Laden had a name: “Operation Geronimo.” That caused an uproar in Mexico, and was protested by the remnants of the indigenous population in the US. But elsewhere few seemed to comprehend the significance of identifying bin Laden with the heroic Apache Indian chief who led the resistance to the invaders, seeking to protect his people from the fate of “that hapless race” that John Quincy Adams eloquently described. The imperial mentality is so profound that such matters cannot even be perceived.

Sorry folks, I am not going to go further. If you want to read Chomsky’s work in context, feel free to visit Chomsky Classic: We Have the Means to End Civilization as We Know It—How Revolutionary Pacifism Can Preserve the Species | Alternet

Bottom line …

Noam Chomsky, in my opinion, is a prime example of the academic fifth column of socialists that threatens to destroy America from within. Our educational institutions are turning out scores of socialists who do not even know they are socialists due to the revisionist history and anti-America positions they are forced to hold to graduate. Unless this trend is reversed by conservatives willing to confront the educational establishment, we are doomed, as a people and as a nation.

As politicians became more and more self-serving and corrupt, they have sacrificed both their honor and their oath of office.

 I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Something to think about when you hear the progressive socialist democrats spout their academic nonsense, or put forth their corrupt view of science. Something to think about as the 2014 congressional election cycle approaches and the progressive socialist democrats are up for re-election.

You are responsible for yourself, your family, your community, and your country. Do the right thing. Vote for America.

-- steve

Related articles

Another Jewish Intellectual, Noam Chomsky, Bashes Israel

Progressive Celebrities: stupid is as stupid does -- join prisoner protests against solitary confinement for gang members

US behaves nothing like a democracy, says Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky says on Democracy Now that Sarah Palin was right on Obama (Video)

Flying Pig Alert: Leftist Noam Chomsky Says Sarah Palin Was Right About Obama All Along!

Report: CIA Investigated Noam Chomsky

Sarah Palin right about Barack Obama's 'hopey-changey' stuff? You betcha, says Noam Chomsky

Chomsky: Palin Was Right About Obama

CIA stops denials and admits it had file on Noam Chomsky