Robert Wargas
Noam Chomsky, America’s Most Boring Public Intellectual, on the Death of Osama bin Laden
This post was first published here.
Noam Chomsky doesn’t like corporations, but the only one He doesn’t seem interested in exposing is al Qaeda. Since its inception, al Qaeda and its recently expired figurehead, Osama bin Laden, have essentially operated as a multinational importer-exporter of murder, fear, hatred, nihilism, and racism. They’ve had a hand in some of the most significant acts of degradation since the end of the Cold War, and have done so via a byzantine financial network of front companies, false charities, and squandered inheritance (see, for instance, the fine research of Rohan Gunaratna on this). But to read Chomsky these days, one is forced to overlook all this capitalist malfeasance and conclude the following:
1. There was little or no evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11 when we first invaded Afghanistan; moreover, there’s still little or no evidence.
2. Morally, George W. Bush is worse than Osama bin Laden (or, presumably, whoever was actually responsible for 9/11).
3. Since we killed Osama bin Laden, we must admit that it would be OK for someone to kill Bush or President Obama.
4. The United States is racist and imperialist.
These are the main points of Chomsky’s Official Reaction to the recent raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which took out bin Laden. It wasn’t enough for Chomsky to criticize the U.S. for not giving him a “fair trial.” No, to lodge that complaint only would be to consent to the moral parameters of the argument as put forward by Washington—that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and deserved some form of retribution. The extremist impulse to destroy and rebuild another world is evident in the way Chomsky wants the entire perspective redefined. Whereas before He might have been content to criticize bin Laden as the product of American foreign policy, now He apparently feels even doing that might be an indulgence of the imperialist narrative. read more…
Noam Chomsky, America’s Most Boring Public Intellectual, on the Death of Osama bin Laden
Noam Chomsky doesn’t like corporations, but the only one He doesn’t seem interested in exposing is al Qaeda. Since its inception, al Qaeda and its recently expired figurehead, Osama bin Laden, have essentially operated as a multinational importer-exporter of murder, fear, hatred, nihilism, and racism. They’ve had a hand in some of the most significant acts of degradation since the end of the Cold War, and have done so via a byzantine financial network of front companies, false charities, and squandered inheritance (see, for instance, the fine research of Rohan Gunaratna on this). But to read Chomsky these days, one is forced to overlook all this capitalist malfeasance and conclude the following:
1. There was little or no evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11 when we first invaded Afghanistan; moreover, there’s still little or no evidence.
2. Morally, George W. Bush is worse than Osama bin Laden (or, presumably, whoever was actually responsible for 9/11).
3. Since we killed Osama bin Laden, we must admit that it would be OK for someone to kill Bush or President Obama.
4. The United States is racist and imperialist.
These are the main points of Chomsky’s Official Reaction to the recent raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which took out bin Laden. It wasn’t enough for Chomsky to criticize the U.S. for not giving him a “fair trial.” No, to lodge that complaint only would be to consent to the moral parameters of the argument as put forward by Washington—that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and deserved some form of retribution. The extremist impulse to destroy and rebuild another world is evident in the way Chomsky wants the entire perspective redefined. Whereas before He might have been content to criticize bin Laden as the product of American foreign policy, now He apparently feels even doing that might be an indulgence of the imperialist narrative. read more…
This popular post was first published on January 31 here. (Be sure and see the shocking apologetics from Chomsky defenders in the comments.)
Whenever there is talk of an “open letter” circulating among academics, you can be sure the issue is serious enough to involve some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, usually Israel. (Remember the push for “divestment”?) And in that case it’s safe to assume that the vile creature from M.I.T. has been roused from his reptilian catacomb to endorse it.
Now, American academics, including the not great and not yet late Noam Chomsky, have put their names to an online letter addressed to President Obama that urges us
“…to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.”
The letter also states:
“There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy.”
If Chomsky’s name weren’t on this letter, I might think that that last statement sounded vaguely neoconservative. It has the universalist feel of an actual endorsement of Western values, and it seems to assume we might be capable of doing something other than waging war for capitalism. read more…
Whenever there is talk of an “open letter” circulating among academics, you can be sure the issue is serious enough to involve some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, usually Israel. (Remember the push for “divestment”?) And in that case it’s safe to assume that the vile creature from M.I.T. has been roused from his reptilian catacomb to endorse it.
Now, American academics, including the not great and not yet late Noam Chomsky, have put their names to an online letter addressed to President Obama that urges us
“…to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.”
The letter also states:
“There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy.”
If Chomsky’s name weren’t on this letter, I might think that that last statement sounded vaguely neoconservative. It has the universalist feel of an actual endorsement of Western values, and it seems to assume we might be capable of doing something other than waging war for capitalism. read more…
I love Charles Krauthammer. A Harvard-trained physician and psychiatrist, he knows what true mental illness is, and he lends his measured perspicuity to our understanding of Jared Lee Loughner:
“His [Loughner's] own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations. read more…
In case you happen to be Facebook friends with a women’s studies professor, the content of whose latest posts we can only guess, ask her to remember the years 2002 to around 2007. This was the run-up to the Iraq War—its planning, execution, and escalation. These years also just so happened to coincide with an era of extended dementia, an orgy of the most vile, childish, callous work of the activist Left, a time when violent radical rhetoric reached its most rabid masturbatory peak. read more…
Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column in Wednesday’s New York Post that begins with this pithy bludgeoning of the Left: “So now openly gay soldiers get to fight and die in neocon-imperialist wars, too?” read more…
Have A Very Chomsky Christmas!
On the first day of Christmas Noam Chomsky gave to me…
a handbook of terror apology
On the second day of Christmas Noam Chomsky gave to me…
2 Towers down
and a handbook of terror apology read more…
Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical anti-American cleric, is once again asserting his influence in Iraqi politics.
The recent coalition between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and an anti-American Shia radical group signals two things in the briar patch of Iraqi politics: The first is that nascent infighting among those same Shia could arrest the progress of Iraqi stability and pave the way for more Iranian influence. The second is the possibility of a Sunni refusal to trust Maliki, which would only open the door for more radical elements on their side as well.
With the support of the pious and portly Muqtada al-Sadr, Maliki is probably looking at another term in office. This has broken a deadlock in Iraqi politics, but the anatomy of this particular alliance is tenuous and foreboding. read more…
It’s the end of the week, which means it’s time to assess the latest Americans-are-bigots story in The New York Times. This time around, The Gray Hag ran an article entitled “Muslims Report Rising Discrimination at Work.”
The article explains:
“[A] record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.” read more…
Every year, on September 11, all colleges go quiet.
They do this not out of respect—that hushed solemnity that makes room for our grief and for our memories—but out of the desire to say nothing.
For they have nothing to say.
Who are “they”? I am speaking of scholars. I am speaking of administrators. I am speaking of donors. Students, too. Intellect, when confronted with the harsh nature of the modern world, dissolves into an impotent silence. read more…
In an untrammeled display of what one does when one is simultaneously devoid of knowledge and full of time, Albert Hunt, the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News, has written an opinion piece comparing Glenn Beck to Depression-era agitator Father Charles Coughlin.
“Glenn Beck, at his successful “Restoring America” rally in Washington, wrapped himself in the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. He fits much better with another religious-political figure, the late Charles E. Coughlin, the Catholic priest who led a populist-right crusade against President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.”
