Friday, August 13, 2004

Noam and His Lies

A challenge has been made by a Chomskyte on Benjamin’s Blog to identify 10 of Chomsky’s lies. So here you go 10 (actually it is more since some of the links have multiple lies in them) lies by Chomsky:

  1. "I haven't read Horowitz. I didn't used to read him when he was a Stalinist and I don't read him today. Haven't seen it."

    If Chomsky has never read Horowitz, then how did he cite Horowitz in his 1972 book, Problems of Knowledge and Freedom? See here.

  2. "Since I never wrote a 'joint article' with Guillaume, I was curious, and after a search, found the book in question. Indeed, it contains the chapter 'Une mise au point', written in first-person singular by Guillaume, with no hint of any collaboration with me."

    Guillaume's book actually states: "The first version of the text which precedes comprised multiple errors of detail and an error of appreciation that Chomsky told us while reaffirming the constancy and the invariance of its position. We corrected in the text the errors which did not modify the reasoning." [Dhimmi: Translation by Google]

  3. As John Williamson, a contributor to the Anti-Chomsky Reader shows, Chomsky even lies about his own statements. In an email to Williamson Chomsky claimed that a statement of his quoted in a New Yorker profile by reporter Larissa MacFarquhar was "too ridiculous to merit comment...No one can seriously use this as a source...childish diatribes in journals attempting to discredit political enemies... almost all gosip...a ridiculous gossip column in the New Yorker." According to the New Yorker profile, Chomsky had made the comment to an MIT class that McFarquhar attended. Not ready to believe that anyone could be so brazen in lying about what he himself had said, Williamson contacted McFarquhar to check. She who told him that MIT had video-taped the class she had attended where Chomsky made the statement. Williamson obtained the tape and sure enough everything Chomsky had said -- every word -- was on the tape.

  4. "Plans are being made on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people. Very casually, with no comment and with no particular thought about it. It looks like what is happening is some sort of silent genocide."

    There was never any genocide, silent or otherwise.

  5. Chomsky's articles [on Cambodia] are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.

  6. Chomsky does not hold truth in a high regard. Many are impressed by the long list of notes and sources in his books and articles, but few take the trouble to investigate how he uses them. But today Gellert Tamas pays attention to Chomsky’s defence of Diana Johnstone, who denies the Serbian mass murders in Bosnia. To show that critical Swedish commentators got it wrong, Chomsky writes that her book "has been very favorably reviewed, e.g., by the leading British scholarly journal International Affairs, journal of the Royal Academy". But Tamas read the review, and it was not very favourable, instead it explains that the book is full of mistakes, selective in its use of facts, and try to paint a revisionist picture of Milosevic as a multi-culturalist. Chomsky even gets the name of the reviewer wrong.

  7. Whatever the merits or demerits of [CIA Demographic Catastrophe Report], it is clear that Chomsky's description of the report is a string of lies. Chomsky made four easily checked lies -- lies that can be verified as such simply by reading the CIA report and require no further deep knowledge on the events in Southeast Asia.

  8. In a ... debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky initially denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to have to back down upon being confronted with the evidence.

  9. [Chomsky] tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down.

  10. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in "revisionist" literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.

Talking Chomsky Doll?

It’s just so darn funny. See this cartoon about a new Talking Chomsky Doll.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

The Definitive Anti-Chomsky Link List

The Definitive Anti-Chomsky Link List compiled by Justin R. Taylor. Check it out.

Monday, August 09, 2004

Chomsky: Fast and Loose with the Facts

Chosmky is fuming again. This time it's because John Negroponte who was the former US Ambassador to Honduras was recently appointed the same position in Iraq. Negroponte, who Chomsky claims was responsible for the "international terrorist campaign in Nicaragua", will be unable to deliver on the prospect of democracy in Iraq, because of his past.

Chomsky believes since the World Court in the Hague ordered the United States to end it's "unlawful use of force" that implies Negroponte was the head of an international terrorist organization sponsored by America. Leaving the absurdity of the claim aside one should note, "when there were free elections in Nicaragua, and Mrs. Chamorro took office, all the lawsuits, all the complaints against the United States were dropped, when [there was] a democratically elected country." Chomsky should know this, yet he refuses to inform his readers. How do I know that Chomsky knows this, because it was pointed out to him by Bill Bennett in a debate with Chomsky on CNN.

If one thought that was the worst of Chomsky's blatant disregard for placing facts in their proper context and misinforming his readers he or she would be wrong. The last few sentences of the article are almost unbelievable:

Several days after Negroponte's appointment, Honduras withdrew its small contingent of forces from Iraq. That might have been a coincidence. Or maybe the Hondurans remember something from the time when Negroponte was there that we prefer to forget.
It's almost laughable to believe that Chomsky is actually arguing that Honduras withdrew 370 troops from Iraq because John Negroponte was appointed ambassador. If Hondurans remembered something about Negroponte that we Americans prefer to forget than why send troops in the first place? If their experience was so bad, as Chomsky tries to show in his article, then why even help America at all?

Chomsky can't answer these questions and won't. There is a simple reason why, because the actual motive why Honduras withdrew its troops out of Iraq had nothing to do with Negroponte, but that would not fit the Chomkyan belief that America is the biggest terrorist state in the world. In fact the President of Honduras stated, "The soldiers have accomplished the goals of their mission [as outlined by the Honduran Congress and] United Nations Security Council resolution 1483." Leaving aside the president's statements there seem to be another reason why Honduras withdrew its troops - Spain. In March terrorist blew up a train in Mardid, because of Spain's support in the war against Iraq. After Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was elected the new president of Spain he declared that he would withdraw Spain's troops, Hoduraus followed a couple of day's later, that was no coincidence.

But then again why bother with facts? The Chomsky version of the world where everyone hates America because of her past terrorist activities should suffice.