Joe McCarthy
03-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Noam Chomsky's Not-so-Closeted Hatred of White People (http://www.westernrevival.org/)
“I answered all your questions, but I did not of course respond to the question you are now posing: whether indigenous Europeans have the right to living space – that is, to remain the overwhelming majority and barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries. And I won't... Talk about the political impotence of the indigenous population as a result of Muslim immigration is so outlandish that one hears it only among neo-Nazis.”
-- Noam Chomsky, leftist intellectual and MIT professor
Ah, the ignorance of youth. I came across a posting this morning on the Occidental Observer website about the famed Noam Chomsky. A writer named John Wisniewski had a dialogue with him and summarized the results into a short piece, which is where the quotation at the top of this page comes from.
In my days as a leftist, one of my favorite authors was Noam Chomsky. His followers and admirers always purported him to be a non-biased critic of the evils of capitalism and the propaganda apparatus that its interests control, especially the mass media. His criticisms of the mainstream media and its alleged complicity with the interests of the ruling class seemed right-on, based on his presentation and my deficit in political knowledge. The motives of left authors such as he, we are told and I had believed, are driven by a universal concern for humanity, outrage at injustice, etc. They just want to see wrongs made aright (their definition of both of these notwithstanding) and the good guy to win at the end of the day. Even as a scholar in his field of linguistics, Chomsky is well-respected, and I recall a citation from a study he was involved in in a college psychology textbook that I once owned.
Chomsky's political activism is what I would in hindsight call very party-line. He knows well the largely Marxist-derived narrative of the class struggle, which splits the world into two polar opposite camps, oppressed and oppressor (proletariat and bourgeoisie, respectively) in an odd secular version of the traditional Christian narrative of God vs Satan. The struggle is not between God and Satan, but rather the haves and have-nots, and all else revolves around this struggle, including history itself.
Leftists of varying stripes have taken the basic narrative of the bourgeoisie vs proletariat struggle and applied it elsewhere, such as with race, in a field of study called “Critical Race Theory” which amounts to nothing but blame whitey-ism on a pseudo-scholarly level and perfectly describes the racial worldview among the left which I am about to describe which Chomsky adheres to. I believe this so-called scholarship is thinly-veiled anti-white racial hatred, and I believe that modern leftists such as Chomsky have drawn ammunition from it in varying degrees and use it because it has been a spectacularly successful endeavor to do so as inducing guilt is a powerful coercive weapon, and because they harbor racial hostility toward whites themselves.
Chomsky is not a Marxist, but rather what he calls an Anarcho-Syndicalist or a Libertarian Socialist. They're basically non-Marxist anti-capitalist leftists with a generally Marxian view of economic and social relations, but with a different opinion of what the ideal socialist society would look like and how to get there. Both groups focus their ire against capitalism in general and America in particular, be it economically, culturally, or otherwise. This often includes whites as a cultural and racial group.
Modern Leftists such as Chomsky selectively promote the idea that race doesn't exist and attempt to back it up with bogus scientific data from Franz Boas who peppered his study on cranial plasticity with false data to advance that the human cranial structure changes with environment, while they present that abstract and fluid ideas such as class do exist, and thus there is no such thing as a legitimate racial collective or consciousness whereas there is such a thing with class. Talk about eye-crossing idiocy.
During the 60s, the left's approach to race and race relations began to radicalize due in no small part to a certain emergent sector of Marxist thought which has had a vast impact on modern Western culture through academia and eventually media, generally referred to as the Frankfurt School. This ideological vein also gave birth to CRT (Critical Race Theory) which in turn produced so-called “Whiteness Studies,” which emphasizes that the concept of whiteness – and only whiteness - is a purely social construct created by a bunch of bigoted (capitalist) beasts, again bolstering the idea with falsified data from Boas combined with what amounts to Marxian talking points about oppressed vs oppressor, replacing the bourgeoisie with the word “white,” and the proletariat with “all other races.” These studies, and I have checked with a number of volumes on CRT in a college library, have something in common: They only disqualify the white race as a social construct and expend no small amount of effort to do away with the idea that it does exist, in any way, shape, or form. While they, generally speaking, say that race as a whole does not exist, there is a glaring inconsistency in constant play, and that is the wide gulf in their selective promotion of the idea that there is such a thing as legitimate group interests among the varying peoples of humanity. Which (allegedly non-existent) racial group being spoken of at any given moment depends on whether or not they have a legitimate identity or right to claim any set of collective interests. Yes, it depends on their (non-existent) race, and their place in the perpetrator/victim hierarchy on the Ladder of Victims. Those not among the group labeled as bourgeoisie in racial relations are allowed a collective identity and all the interests and rights that go with it. Those who are among the bourgeoisie-labeled group do not. Thus, Chomsky's ridiculous comments about Europeans and how they singularly do not have indigenous rights. Rather, this oppressor-classified group must be expropriated materially, culturally, and otherwise to atone for sins which it singularly must atone for, regardless of the blood-splotched histories of other peoples, simply for being born who they are.
The left correctly perceive that a collective in-group identity among the hoped soon-to-be-expropriated white capitalist pigs is a threat to the advance of the left's agenda, thus the desired end is to destroy all barriers to this ideological victory. Therefore a positive white identity is a threat to that end, and a positive anyone else identity is not. Indeed, the collective everyone elses are allies in this cause and the racial grudges their own ethnic ingroups carry provoke anger toward the majority white ingroup which can be stoked for revolutionary victory, thus their collective, hostile agitating is a useful tool and is encouraged while whites are at the same time told to stand down and accommodate all comers without question for the sake of “getting along.” This is why we don't see this crowd trying to undermine Mexican or black racial identity or attack and demonize anyone within those groups who asserts ethnic rights or honors their foreparents. In short, a positively-identified white racial/cultural ingroup is a massive threat to these people.
This brings to the fore another glaring contradiction: That we are repeatedly told that group punishment, group distrust, and group hatreds are wrong. We must not repeat the errors and evils of our ancestors and all that rot. Let's be clear: this “moral” code is meant as a one-way street, as I have illustrated in the previous paragraph. While so many on the left, including Chomsky, gleefully celebrate the UN's injunctions against collective punishment, Chomsky's quote above clearly shows that he is not actually against all kinds of collective punishment. Worse, he's not even opposed to the concept of inherited guilt based on ethnic group membership and wielding it as a weapon to silence, manipulate, and confiscate. This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the left, and is unfortunately one of the left-created poisons that have infested greater Western society as a whole and is serving to undermine it in no small way.
Undoubtedly Chomsky (who is Jewish) would balk in outrage if someone suggested that all living Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ and thus deserved punishment for it and have no collective right to anything, yet that's exactly what he's done with Europeans. He asserts that Europeans have been “crushing” people for “centuries,” and that their resistance to Islamic migration is “racist.” First of all, nobody lives for “centuries,” therefore such a concept is laughable on its face. Chomsky is trying to silence debate by invoking inherited, collective white guilt. Secondly, he asserts that Europeans have done so-and-so for centuries therefore Muslims have the right to bitch and moan, one-sidedly giving Muslims the slide with no explanation in spite of over 1,000 years of Islamic invasions into many parts of this planet, especially Europe. Many Muslims to this day unflinchingly call Spain theirs. The message here? Muslims have the right to be incensed that Western powers have spent the past 100 or so years backing penny-ante Middle Eastern dictators over the stability of world oil markets but Europeans are “xenophobes” and “racists” if they are distrustful of millions upon millions of Muslim migrants and their accompanying bomb-packs in spite of that a solid 1,000 years of European history was spent in fending off one Muslim invasion after another, and that expressing unease over demographic projections is something that “only Nazis” would do. If anyone has the right to be distrustful for group behavior, its the Europeans. Not counting that their right to exist as an identifiable indigenous group is threatened by such massive incursions, its apples and oranges to compare the activities of small percentages of people acting on their own volition in contrast to a religion whose teachings have driven and inspired a great many violent acts for the last 1,500 years and is still doing so. See the intellectual and moral bankruptcy here?
If historical behavior was really at issue, then I ask why isn't everyone held to this standard? Why aren't Muslims bashed and told to give up reparations and shed their identities, why aren't Mongolians demonized and told their culture is crap, and why aren't Mexicans slammed for their filthy imperialistic bloodthirsty gut-ripping Aztec ancestors, for that matter? This guilt-tripping garbage is merely a pathetic pretext used to selectively attack a single identifiable group when the actual motives behind these attacks go unstated. In the end, these kinds of attacks are at least in some part, I believe, thinly-veiled racial attacks against European people by members of minority ethnic groups (such as Chomsky's) who harbor hostility toward the white majority for one reason or another. The racial undertone in these arguments is massive, and I think it not an accident that non-white is being pitted against white in a battle for loot and who knows what else. A lot of racial hatreds are being conjured up against whites as a means to depose and confiscate.
I was quite disappointed, yet not all that surprised, that when pressed on the subject of indigenous rights for Europeans, Chomsky morphed from a respected, well-spoken university professor to a mindless, party-line parrot of platitudes supported by slur-words as if he were an uneducated buffoon who inhaled a moral value system from his television and couldn't support it with an intelligent utterance if his life depended on it and was thus reduced to hurling invective while arrogantly snorting in derision at anyone who dare question him. Avoiding a question and justifying doing so by saying “only Nazis” would say that? I can almost hear the air escaping Noam's balloon. Talk about a defeated, deflated coward trying to avoid an uncomfortable discussion which exposes the hypocrisy at the core of his ideology. That's the kind of garbage I'd expect from a keyboard-banging liberal who, when confronted with something he dislikes but cannot explain why in a coherent sentence, can only scream, “Dat races!” No wonder most of Chomsky's followers are young, wide-eyed college students. Is Chomsky perhaps harboring some old Jewish hatreds of Europeans? I think so. Perhaps this is why such racially-charged anti-white attacks appeal to him.
I've heard of people rising from intellectual ignorance, going from being an uneducated dolt to something better, but the reverse??! This perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the left and the invalidity of the positions that they promote, and to say that this kind of thing should raise flags in peoples' minds about the motives of these people is the understatement of the century.
Noam, what do you really want and what are your real motives? As a scholar, I am sure you realize that invoking white guilt is not a response to a question or a justification for a position. We certainly expect more from a doctorate-holding professor, and we can only hope you didn't plagiarize your doctoral dissertation the way Martin Luther Kommunist did.
“I answered all your questions, but I did not of course respond to the question you are now posing: whether indigenous Europeans have the right to living space – that is, to remain the overwhelming majority and barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries. And I won't... Talk about the political impotence of the indigenous population as a result of Muslim immigration is so outlandish that one hears it only among neo-Nazis.”
-- Noam Chomsky, leftist intellectual and MIT professor
Ah, the ignorance of youth. I came across a posting this morning on the Occidental Observer website about the famed Noam Chomsky. A writer named John Wisniewski had a dialogue with him and summarized the results into a short piece, which is where the quotation at the top of this page comes from.
In my days as a leftist, one of my favorite authors was Noam Chomsky. His followers and admirers always purported him to be a non-biased critic of the evils of capitalism and the propaganda apparatus that its interests control, especially the mass media. His criticisms of the mainstream media and its alleged complicity with the interests of the ruling class seemed right-on, based on his presentation and my deficit in political knowledge. The motives of left authors such as he, we are told and I had believed, are driven by a universal concern for humanity, outrage at injustice, etc. They just want to see wrongs made aright (their definition of both of these notwithstanding) and the good guy to win at the end of the day. Even as a scholar in his field of linguistics, Chomsky is well-respected, and I recall a citation from a study he was involved in in a college psychology textbook that I once owned.
Chomsky's political activism is what I would in hindsight call very party-line. He knows well the largely Marxist-derived narrative of the class struggle, which splits the world into two polar opposite camps, oppressed and oppressor (proletariat and bourgeoisie, respectively) in an odd secular version of the traditional Christian narrative of God vs Satan. The struggle is not between God and Satan, but rather the haves and have-nots, and all else revolves around this struggle, including history itself.
Leftists of varying stripes have taken the basic narrative of the bourgeoisie vs proletariat struggle and applied it elsewhere, such as with race, in a field of study called “Critical Race Theory” which amounts to nothing but blame whitey-ism on a pseudo-scholarly level and perfectly describes the racial worldview among the left which I am about to describe which Chomsky adheres to. I believe this so-called scholarship is thinly-veiled anti-white racial hatred, and I believe that modern leftists such as Chomsky have drawn ammunition from it in varying degrees and use it because it has been a spectacularly successful endeavor to do so as inducing guilt is a powerful coercive weapon, and because they harbor racial hostility toward whites themselves.
Chomsky is not a Marxist, but rather what he calls an Anarcho-Syndicalist or a Libertarian Socialist. They're basically non-Marxist anti-capitalist leftists with a generally Marxian view of economic and social relations, but with a different opinion of what the ideal socialist society would look like and how to get there. Both groups focus their ire against capitalism in general and America in particular, be it economically, culturally, or otherwise. This often includes whites as a cultural and racial group.
Modern Leftists such as Chomsky selectively promote the idea that race doesn't exist and attempt to back it up with bogus scientific data from Franz Boas who peppered his study on cranial plasticity with false data to advance that the human cranial structure changes with environment, while they present that abstract and fluid ideas such as class do exist, and thus there is no such thing as a legitimate racial collective or consciousness whereas there is such a thing with class. Talk about eye-crossing idiocy.
During the 60s, the left's approach to race and race relations began to radicalize due in no small part to a certain emergent sector of Marxist thought which has had a vast impact on modern Western culture through academia and eventually media, generally referred to as the Frankfurt School. This ideological vein also gave birth to CRT (Critical Race Theory) which in turn produced so-called “Whiteness Studies,” which emphasizes that the concept of whiteness – and only whiteness - is a purely social construct created by a bunch of bigoted (capitalist) beasts, again bolstering the idea with falsified data from Boas combined with what amounts to Marxian talking points about oppressed vs oppressor, replacing the bourgeoisie with the word “white,” and the proletariat with “all other races.” These studies, and I have checked with a number of volumes on CRT in a college library, have something in common: They only disqualify the white race as a social construct and expend no small amount of effort to do away with the idea that it does exist, in any way, shape, or form. While they, generally speaking, say that race as a whole does not exist, there is a glaring inconsistency in constant play, and that is the wide gulf in their selective promotion of the idea that there is such a thing as legitimate group interests among the varying peoples of humanity. Which (allegedly non-existent) racial group being spoken of at any given moment depends on whether or not they have a legitimate identity or right to claim any set of collective interests. Yes, it depends on their (non-existent) race, and their place in the perpetrator/victim hierarchy on the Ladder of Victims. Those not among the group labeled as bourgeoisie in racial relations are allowed a collective identity and all the interests and rights that go with it. Those who are among the bourgeoisie-labeled group do not. Thus, Chomsky's ridiculous comments about Europeans and how they singularly do not have indigenous rights. Rather, this oppressor-classified group must be expropriated materially, culturally, and otherwise to atone for sins which it singularly must atone for, regardless of the blood-splotched histories of other peoples, simply for being born who they are.
The left correctly perceive that a collective in-group identity among the hoped soon-to-be-expropriated white capitalist pigs is a threat to the advance of the left's agenda, thus the desired end is to destroy all barriers to this ideological victory. Therefore a positive white identity is a threat to that end, and a positive anyone else identity is not. Indeed, the collective everyone elses are allies in this cause and the racial grudges their own ethnic ingroups carry provoke anger toward the majority white ingroup which can be stoked for revolutionary victory, thus their collective, hostile agitating is a useful tool and is encouraged while whites are at the same time told to stand down and accommodate all comers without question for the sake of “getting along.” This is why we don't see this crowd trying to undermine Mexican or black racial identity or attack and demonize anyone within those groups who asserts ethnic rights or honors their foreparents. In short, a positively-identified white racial/cultural ingroup is a massive threat to these people.
This brings to the fore another glaring contradiction: That we are repeatedly told that group punishment, group distrust, and group hatreds are wrong. We must not repeat the errors and evils of our ancestors and all that rot. Let's be clear: this “moral” code is meant as a one-way street, as I have illustrated in the previous paragraph. While so many on the left, including Chomsky, gleefully celebrate the UN's injunctions against collective punishment, Chomsky's quote above clearly shows that he is not actually against all kinds of collective punishment. Worse, he's not even opposed to the concept of inherited guilt based on ethnic group membership and wielding it as a weapon to silence, manipulate, and confiscate. This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the left, and is unfortunately one of the left-created poisons that have infested greater Western society as a whole and is serving to undermine it in no small way.
Undoubtedly Chomsky (who is Jewish) would balk in outrage if someone suggested that all living Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ and thus deserved punishment for it and have no collective right to anything, yet that's exactly what he's done with Europeans. He asserts that Europeans have been “crushing” people for “centuries,” and that their resistance to Islamic migration is “racist.” First of all, nobody lives for “centuries,” therefore such a concept is laughable on its face. Chomsky is trying to silence debate by invoking inherited, collective white guilt. Secondly, he asserts that Europeans have done so-and-so for centuries therefore Muslims have the right to bitch and moan, one-sidedly giving Muslims the slide with no explanation in spite of over 1,000 years of Islamic invasions into many parts of this planet, especially Europe. Many Muslims to this day unflinchingly call Spain theirs. The message here? Muslims have the right to be incensed that Western powers have spent the past 100 or so years backing penny-ante Middle Eastern dictators over the stability of world oil markets but Europeans are “xenophobes” and “racists” if they are distrustful of millions upon millions of Muslim migrants and their accompanying bomb-packs in spite of that a solid 1,000 years of European history was spent in fending off one Muslim invasion after another, and that expressing unease over demographic projections is something that “only Nazis” would do. If anyone has the right to be distrustful for group behavior, its the Europeans. Not counting that their right to exist as an identifiable indigenous group is threatened by such massive incursions, its apples and oranges to compare the activities of small percentages of people acting on their own volition in contrast to a religion whose teachings have driven and inspired a great many violent acts for the last 1,500 years and is still doing so. See the intellectual and moral bankruptcy here?
If historical behavior was really at issue, then I ask why isn't everyone held to this standard? Why aren't Muslims bashed and told to give up reparations and shed their identities, why aren't Mongolians demonized and told their culture is crap, and why aren't Mexicans slammed for their filthy imperialistic bloodthirsty gut-ripping Aztec ancestors, for that matter? This guilt-tripping garbage is merely a pathetic pretext used to selectively attack a single identifiable group when the actual motives behind these attacks go unstated. In the end, these kinds of attacks are at least in some part, I believe, thinly-veiled racial attacks against European people by members of minority ethnic groups (such as Chomsky's) who harbor hostility toward the white majority for one reason or another. The racial undertone in these arguments is massive, and I think it not an accident that non-white is being pitted against white in a battle for loot and who knows what else. A lot of racial hatreds are being conjured up against whites as a means to depose and confiscate.
I was quite disappointed, yet not all that surprised, that when pressed on the subject of indigenous rights for Europeans, Chomsky morphed from a respected, well-spoken university professor to a mindless, party-line parrot of platitudes supported by slur-words as if he were an uneducated buffoon who inhaled a moral value system from his television and couldn't support it with an intelligent utterance if his life depended on it and was thus reduced to hurling invective while arrogantly snorting in derision at anyone who dare question him. Avoiding a question and justifying doing so by saying “only Nazis” would say that? I can almost hear the air escaping Noam's balloon. Talk about a defeated, deflated coward trying to avoid an uncomfortable discussion which exposes the hypocrisy at the core of his ideology. That's the kind of garbage I'd expect from a keyboard-banging liberal who, when confronted with something he dislikes but cannot explain why in a coherent sentence, can only scream, “Dat races!” No wonder most of Chomsky's followers are young, wide-eyed college students. Is Chomsky perhaps harboring some old Jewish hatreds of Europeans? I think so. Perhaps this is why such racially-charged anti-white attacks appeal to him.
I've heard of people rising from intellectual ignorance, going from being an uneducated dolt to something better, but the reverse??! This perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the left and the invalidity of the positions that they promote, and to say that this kind of thing should raise flags in peoples' minds about the motives of these people is the understatement of the century.
Noam, what do you really want and what are your real motives? As a scholar, I am sure you realize that invoking white guilt is not a response to a question or a justification for a position. We certainly expect more from a doctorate-holding professor, and we can only hope you didn't plagiarize your doctoral dissertation the way Martin Luther Kommunist did.