Monday 11 August 2014

Noam Chomsky, the monster [updated]

image"What we're looking at with Chomsky is a man who has dedicated essentially his entire public life to political evil. I think we are justified in calling such a person a monster."  So says Yaron Brook, commenting on Michael J. Totten’s post, “Noam Chomsky: The Last Totalitarian.”

Chomksy was a structuralist,* a supporter of Pol Pot, and the left’s go-to man for hate-filled intellectual venom. The post on which Yaron comments is an interview with Benjamin Kerstein, author of the book Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite. Asked to boil his case against Chomsky down to a few paragraphs, Kerstein makes four points:

First, Chomsky is an absolutely shameless liar. A master of the argument in bad faith. He will say anything in order to get people to believe him. Even worse, he will say anything in order to shut people up who disagree with him. And I’m not necessarily talking about his public critics. If you've ever seen how he acts with ordinary students who question what he says, it's quite horrifying. He simply abuses them in a manner I can only describe as sadistic. That is, he clearly enjoys doing it. I don't think anyone ought to be allowed to get away with that kind of behaviour.
    Second, Chomsky is immensely important to the radical left. When it comes to American foreign policy he isn't just influential, he's basically all they have. Almost any argument made about foreign affairs by the radical left can be traced back to him. That wasn't the case when he started out back in the late '60s, but it is now.
image    Third, he is essentially the last totalitarian. Despite his claims otherwise, he's more or less the last survivor of a group of intellectuals who thought systemic political violence and totalitarian control were essentially good things. He babbles about human rights all the time, but when you look at the regimes and groups he's supported, it’s a very bloody list indeed.
    Communism and fascism are obviously dead as the proverbial doornail, but I doubt the totalitarian temptation will ever go away. The desire for unity and a kind of beautiful tyranny seems to spring from somewhere deep in the human psyche. 
    Fourth—and this may be most important—he makes people stupid. In this sense, he's more like a cult leader or a New Age guru than an intellectual. He allows people to be comfortable with their prejudices and their hatreds, and he undercuts their ability to think in a critical manner. To an extent, this has to do with his use of emotional and moral blackmail. Since he portrays everyone who disagrees with him as evil, if you do agree with him you must be on the side of good and right. This is essentially a kind of secular puritanism, and it's very appealing to many people, for obvious reasons, I think. We all want to think well of ourselves, whether we deserve it or not.
    There is an intellectual side to this, as well. You see it clearly in his famous debate with Michel Foucault. Chomsky says at one point that there is a moral and ethical order that is hardwired into human beings. And Foucault basically asks him, why? How do you know this hardwired morality exists? And even if it exists, how can we know that it is, in fact, moral in the first place? We may feel it to be moral, but that doesn't make it true.
image    Chomsky's answer is essentially: Because I believe it to be so. Now, whatever that is, it isn't thinking. In fact, it's an excuse for not thinking. Ironically, Chomsky later said that Foucault was the most amoral man he ever met, whereas I would argue that Foucault was simply pointing out that Chomsky's “morality” is in fact a form of nihilism.
   
I think people come to Chomsky and essentially worship him for precisely that reason. He allows them to feel justified in their refusal to think. They never have to ask themselves any difficult questions or provide any difficult answers. It’s a form of intellectual cowardice essentially, but I'm sure you can see its appeal.
   
This may be one of the reasons for Chomsky's hostility to psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis may be many things, but it is certainly a method of gaining self-knowledge, of asking difficult questions about one's self and others. And that is precisely what he, and his followers, want to avoid.
   
My apologies for the length of this answer, but I think you'll agree that, of all the bad things people are capable of, their refusal to think is one of the worst, mainly because it leads to most of the other bad things of which they are capable.


* In this context, the notion that language is “hard-wired” in us. As Kerstein makes clear, Chomsky also has a wider use for this doctrine.

UPDATE: Think Chomsky is irrelevant today?  Think again. He and his influence is everywhere, not least the current New Zealand International Film Festival.

2 comments:

Rob Roy said...

There is nothing concrete in this article. It is all opinion. Some facts would be appreciated to prove the writer's dislike of Chomsky has a basis. This is vituperative without reason. I've noticed Jewish people often scorn Chompsky without good reason, too. I have no idea if this writer is Jewish or not but he sounds as if he's attacking in that same vein...similar to David Horowitz, et. al.

Mike said...

Yes Rob, the author describes himself as an Israeli-American, which is what it all boils down to. Same applies to Yaron Brook.