Noam Chomsky Makes Most Ironic Statement in 3rd Millennium AD

[th3ranger]

"It's very similar to Weimar Germany, the parallels are striking." Here, too, there is a tremendous disappointment with the parliamentary system, pointed Chomsky interviewing on Truthdig. "The United States is very lucky that no honest and charismatic figure has appeared, and if this were to happen this country would be in real trouble for the frustration, disillusionment and the justified anger combined with the absence of a coherent response," he concludes. In Germany, he recalls, an enemy was created to explain the crisis which was the Jew. "Here they are the illegal immigrants and blacks. We will say that white men are a persecuted minority. We will say that we must uphold and defend the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. There will be blows. This could be converted into an undeniable force. And if it takes place, it will be more dangerous than Nazi Germany. The United States is a world power ... I do not believe that this is far from happening," he says.

From here.

This has to be the most ironic statement ever made in the 3rd millennium AD. I'm calling it now. There are 990 years yet till the end but I think we've got it right here. If only there was some group of people that all our problems could be blamed on...hmm.....who could be pointed at as the source of all evil....*ACHOO!* *businessmen!* *achoo!* What? I didn't say anything.

[2046]

Why was there no debate or mention ever of Obama's pre-Democratic convention calls: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Edit: fixed quote and it seems like Fox's Judge Napolitano covered it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx_TawARfJA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDyWGk4X8EM

Edited April 26, 2010 by 2046

[Cole]

The article begins with discussing the Tea Party, so I'm guessing they are the target of Chomsky's criticisms. Regardless of what you think of their tactics, it's simply not true that the foundation of the Tea Party's ideology is that "illegal immigrants and blacks" are the source of the problem they're protesting against. It's incredible that essentially every criticism I've heard of the Tea Party has focused on the character of the people making the arguments, instead of refuting the arguments themselves. Of all the people who oppose the message of the protesters, there seems to be nobody attempting to give an economic explanation of how more federal spending can possibly be a good thing. The best we get is when some MSNBC reporter goes up to a protestor and smugly points out that Obama hasn't raised taxes. (Which isn't exactly true in the first place. Obama signed the largest tax increase on tobacco in US history.) But merely not raising taxes doesn't mean that the federal government isn't expanding at an alarming rate through other methods, like; nationalizing major corporations, socializing entire insurance industries, massive increases in spending, inflation, etc. Not raising taxes during a time when rampant federal spending has created the largest deficit in history is hardly something to be proud of.

Also, I've been hearing the criticism that political discourse in the US has become more uncivil than it's ever been before. Chomsky himself seems to imply in the article that this brand of criticism towards the government is dangerous. Maybe it's because I spent much of my time on a liberal California college campus during most of Bush's presidency, but I'm not seeing any protests from the Right in the US today that even compare to viciousness of the Left's protests against Bush. While the Tea Party protests against the current administration and its policies, they still uphold patriotism and the foundations of America. In the Left's very personal attacks against Bush, they criticized the administration but also many of very principles that the country was founded on. I don't think that arguments against traditional ideas are necessarily wrong just because they're untraditional (they're wrong for other reasons in this case), but I don't understand why people would think that the protests from the Right these days are more "dangerous" than the protests from the Left in the past. It takes an incredible ignorance to claim that that Tea Party protests are more uncivil than the anti-free-trade protests in Seattle.

Finally, here is a piece an article by Ron Rosenbaum published on Slate last week with an uncanny resemblance to Chomsky's article:

This is just one example of the toxic effect of Tea Party ignorance on the lives of their fellow citizens. But the damage done by the injection of fraudulent history into the body politic by Tea Party ignoramuses and their enablers will be more profound and lasting than one tragedy.

That's because ignorance of this sort isn't inconsequential. Historical fraudulence is like a disease, a contagious psychosis which can lead to mob hysteria and worse. Consider the role that fraudulent history played in Weimar Germany, where the "stab in the back" myth that the German Army had been cheated of victory in World War I by Jews and Socialists on the home front was used by the Nazis to justify their hatreds.

It's a historical lie, but it caught on, and Hitler rose to power on it, asking Germans to avenge the (nonexistent) stab in the back! It may be true that the Tea Party will disintegrate before it acquires any real power, as more and more of its leaders are revealed to be fanciers of racist jokes and bestiality videos. But one can't be assured of it. It's important to expose the lies for what they are before they further debase the language with their false use of words.

http://www.slate.com/id/2251669

[th3ranger]

I should probably explain how this is ironic:

He thinks that the right embraces government power, seeks a scapegoat, and is racist to some extent. All that he says is exactly true, but not of the right, of the leftists in power now. I just thought it was funny that someone could be so close to the truth but so totally wrong still. Its like saying cars are assembled on an assembly line by industrial robots and gorillas dressed like clowns.

[Greebo]

I should probably explain how this is ironic:

He thinks that the right embraces government power, seeks a scapegoat, and is racist to some extent. All that he says is exactly true, but not of the right, of the leftists in power now.

At least two of the three things he thinks are true of the right as well.

[Thales]

The article begins with discussing the Tea Party, so I'm guessing they are the target of Chomsky's criticisms. Regardless of what you think of their tactics, it's simply not true that the foundation of the Tea Party's ideology is that "illegal immigrants and blacks" are the source of the problem they're protesting against. It's incredible that essentially every criticism I've heard of the Tea Party has focused on the character of the people making the arguments, instead of refuting the arguments themselves.

Well stated. Instead of dealing the arguments made, they impute to them arguments that they never made, and Chomsky is doing the same thing.

But, with the attack on character you identify, what we really have is an ad hominem argument, but one for which there is no evidence of the actual character flaw.

Also, I've been hearing the criticism that political discourse in the US has become more uncivil than it's ever been before. Chomsky himself seems to imply in the article that this brand of criticism towards the government is dangerous.

It's laughable. These "protests" have had more of a picnic atmosphere. Again, it's the left gone nuts. They are loopy people who don't objectively evaluate much of anything.

Remember, during the Republican convention it was left wing radicals that were engaged in overt violence, e.g. dropping cement bags on buses going to the convention, and throwing urine bombs at people. And during the Democrat convention there were quite a few lunatics demonstrating, egging cops on and then faking injury.

[Cole]

Yeah, I don't know how any reputable newspaper could print somebody who's saying that the Right has created the most "uncivil" period in modern US politics during Obama's presidency. It should be so obviously untrue to everyone who reads it, but instead many people seem to think it's fact and even repeat it.

(Chomksy's biggest supporters)

(The people Chomksy is warning us will turn America into something "more dangerous than Nazi Germany")

[th3ranger]

At least two of the three things he thinks are true of the right as well.

Well yeah, of course. Which is why the parallels are so ominous...ha ha ha

[D'kian]

I don't think that arguments against traditional ideas are necessarily wrong just because they're untraditional (they're wrong for other reasons in this case), but I don't understand why people would think that the protests from the Right these days are more "dangerous" than the protests from the Left in the past.

Oh, that's easy. "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask yourself what it acomplishes." The objective of portraying the right-wing protesters as dangerous is simply to discredit them. The reason is that they threaten the Left's hold on power, at a time when an activist Obama is making many of the Left's dreams come true.

It takes an incredible ignorance to claim that that Tea Party protests are more uncivil than the anti-free-trade protests in Seattle.

The ignorance lies in believing such stataments. That's what the smear merchants on the left are couting on: ignorance.

Really, the only thing that's surprised me since Obama was elected was Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs viciously attacking the Right, even when he goes after things worth fighting against such as creationism. I wonder if he'll take up "fake but accurate" next.