Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Thought this would be interesting reading material for some of his worshipers:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

Here is one example that a Chomsky worshiper repeated on another forum he was moderator at (and subsequently drove off the other members in sub-forum he was in charge of) -

1.
The Lie: “In fact, if you look at the British parliamentary inquiry, they actually reached the
astonishing conclusion that, until January 1999, most of the crimes committed in Kosovo
were attributed to the KLA guerrillas.”333

The Truth: The inquiry said the exact opposite: Albanians in Kosovo “were suffering greater
atrocities than the Serb population,” and furthermore, “KLA attacks were mostly focussed on
Serb policemen, while Serb action often focussed on unarmed civilians.”334

pg 51 of the pdf document or 48 of the original paper.

and that particular British parliamentary inquiry can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 8/2809.htm

Well, I think he is allowed to make an error on occassion.

His books are well researched and have great value. He delivers factual writings.

Hey, eh - credit where credit is due - you seem to have some evidence for Chomsky not being infallible.

As I'd not read the interview in question, but had quoted Chomsky's analyis in 'Hegemony or Survival' (and had verified his stats - which did show that of around 2000 killed before the bombings, only around 500 were Serbs killing Albanians).

That said, the allegation of a lie is pretty specific - so, it is worthy of closer examination.

Ok - let's see what Chomsky said in the 2006 interview:

Mastery of detail

Chomsky's unremitting clarity and his seeming mastery of detail somehow defy interruption or argument, but they are wondrous to behold. When we talk about Bush, Blair and co being hauled before the War Crimes Tribunal, I mention Milosevic and he switches subjects without pausing. The case against the Bush administration is stronger, he insists, than that against the late Serb president. "Remember, the Milosevic Tribunal began with Kosovo, right in the middle of the US-British bombing in late '99 . . . Now if you take a look at that indictment, with a single exception, every charge was for crimes after the bombing.

"There's a reason for that. The bombing was undertaken with the anticipation explicit [that] it was going to lead to large-scale atrocities in response. As it did. Now there were terrible atrocities, but they were after the bombings. In fact, if you look at the British parliamentary inquiry, they actually reached the astonishing conclusion that, until January 1999, most of the crimes committed in Kosovo were attributed to the KLA guerrillas.

"So later they added charges [against Milosevic] about the Balkans, but it wasn't going to be an easy case to make. The worst crime was Srebrenica but, unfortunately for the International Tribunal, there was an intensive investigation by the Dutch government, which was primarily responsible - their troops were there - and what they concluded was that not only did Milosevic not order it, but he had no knowledge of it. And he was horrified when he heard about it. So it was going to be pretty hard to make that charge stick."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200606190028


So, the lie is that the Parliamentary inquiry concluded 'until January 1999, most of the crimes committed in Kosovo were attributed to the KLA guerrillas.'


I could not see in the quote from paragraph 55 where this is shown not to be true. It says that more 'atrocities' were being committed against Albanians (and in the footnote it says:

Although by no means all: for example, on 14 December 1998 "six Serb teenagers were killed while playing pool when two masked gunmen sprayed a café in Pec with bullets." Weller, p. 290. This followed the killing of 36 KLA men by the Serb army. Ev. p. 26.

)

I could not immediately see in the report where it says that before 1999 the Serbs committed more crimes than were attributed to the KLA - if you can find this reference, perhaps you can post it here.

Edit: On closer reading, there was this quote from para 35 of the previous page of the same document:

The Foreign Secretary told the House on 18 January 1999 that—
On its part, the Kosovo Liberation Army has committed more breaches of the ceasefire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths than the [Yugoslav] security forces.[84]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 08.htm#n84

I'd concede that this is not a 'conclusion' but it is in the report and is pretty clear - KLA committed more breaches and killed more people up until 18 Jan 1999.

Anyway - Chomsky is by no means infallible - and if anything he's a bit anal when it comes to giving references. If he mis-spoke in the interview in 2006 - that doesn't change the mass of evidence and conclusions he has produced on the issue we were discussing - the role of US imperialism and whether they were beneficial to the countries touched by this or not.


And the 2006 interview was just a snap shot - for a fuller account of his analysis see something like this (where he is writing on the subject - rather than talking to a reporter - and gives full references):
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm


Thanks for bringing to my notice the interview of 2006 though.

Cheers,
Shafique

RobbyG wrote:Well, I think he is allowed to make an error on occassion.

His books are well researched and have great value. He delivers factual writings.

Errgh, Chomsky isn't really interested in facts. Just read his statements. He makes claims up that cannot be easily proved or disproved and goes on from there - such as claiming that the Wiemar Republic was the height of Western civilization.

Ignoring the absurdity of such a statement, how can you easily prove or disprove that?

That I won't believe. Are you sure you aren't missing out on his marvellous way of writing in irony?

I see what you mean. You forget the great development that constitutes the Weimar Republic in 1919. It marks the end of the imperial government and leads in the parliamentary republic. The similarities speak for themselves.

The Weimar Constitution was divided into 2 main parts (Hauptteile). The two parts were divided into seven and five sections, respectively. In all, there were over 180 articles in the Constitution.
Some of the more noteworthy provisions are described below, including those provisions which proved significant in the demise of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Third Reich.

The preamble to the Constitution reads:
Das Deutsche Volk einig in seinen Stämmen und von dem Willen beseelt, sein Reich in Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit zu erneuen und zu festigen, dem inneren und dem äußeren Frieden zu dienen und den gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt zu fördern, hat sich diese Verfassung gegeben.

In English, this can be translated to:
The German people united in its tribes and inspired with the will to renew and strengthen the Reich in liberty and justice, to serve internal and external tranquility, and to promote social progress, has adopted this Constitution.

I think you missed that important democratic fact.

I'm not sure how your response even remotely tackles the issue of how it can be said that the Weimar Republic was the height of Western Civilization.

One can compare the Weimar constitution to the British or other Parliamentary republics another day, but the fact is, is that Chomsky will make a claim up that he only believes is true and go on from there.

Again, the height of Western civilization in the eyes of Chomsky is the end of imperialism and the introduction of parliamentary democracy. We are talking about 1919 here.

I think he makes a good point there.

I think he makes an interesting point. Weimar Republic also had an economic meltdown - spooky!

Cheers,
Shafique

Good point Shafique. Democracy makes governing a whole other problem. You always have to find consensus, and that mostly leads to fiscal balances in deficit. Once you monetize that...you get inflation.

The US has been inflating the money supply since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971, so yes, consensus politics, democracy all have negatives for your freedom, liberty, rights and standard of living.

You can always vote back in a ruler who has answers to the problems. Fascism anyone? I'm serious, its possible. Especially when the government is taking over private institutions as is happening in the US now. Either the people revolt, or the government will grow and work together with formerly private corporations.

Corporatism is also fascism for the working class. The people lose.

Well, I've maintained that the form of Government matters less than what those in power do (and how they do it). A benign dictatorship is certainly better than a malign democracy, and I have to agree with your assessment of the democracies we have at the moment!

That said, a malign fascist is certainly not good news - to put it mildly!

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, what was that eh?

You're looking up when the Weimar Republic actually was? Oops - did you think it was Nazi era Germany?

Chomsky 2, Bogdanor/eh 0



Cheers,
Shafique

Err, no, not exactly.

I'm still trying to figure out how the Weimar republic could be considered the pinnacle of Western civilization by any measure.

event horizon wrote:Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,” he said.

http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

Eh, first a short description of the plurality and diversity of Weimar:

Weimar, already a German cultural mecca because Goethe and Schiller had lived and worked there 120 years earlier, emerged as a unique and experimental culture. Weimar culture was responsible for producing such icons as actress Marlene Dietrich, novels like All Quiet on the Western Front, musicals like The Threepenny Opera, the political cabaret, the Bauhaus School, and films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Metropolis. There were hundreds of premieres, performance debuts, exhibitions, works of fiction, and other cultural events that marked the Republic as Western Civilization's first modernist society. Modernism took many forms: the Einstein Tower in Berlin, the symphonies of Paul Hindemith, the paintings of Max Beckmann, the drawings of Käthe Kollwitz, the novels of Alfred Döblin, the industrial designs of Ferdinand Porsche, the choreography of Mary Wigman, the acting of Ernst Deutsch, the plays of Expressionism.

As a second point, consider the fact that the interwar years were marked by totalitarianism. Italy had a fascist regime and Communism in the Soviet Union. Everywhere you looked, there were people and parties that aspired to gain control over the individual’s consciousness and behavior in all phases of political, social, and cultural life.

A democratic republic was created in November 1918—the Weimar Republic
– Faced internal threats from the radical left and right from the start
– Put down two attempted communist insurrections
– But fear of communist insurrection remained embedded in the middle and upper classes

So, the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization in a world of left and right leaning nations:

Western culture (sometimes equated with Western civilization or European civilization) refers to cultures of European origin.
The term "Western culture" is used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, religious beliefs, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies.

Once more, Chomsky's view of the peak of Western civilization was the formation of the most plural and democratic republic in Europe, at that time. Free and Liberal as similar to the US of A.

Hey, if we're talking about a democratic republic, then I would imagine that would tend to include things like freedom of speech, press, religion and so forth - things that trump simple vote counting and even proportional representation. Direct democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, in any event.

From my understanding of the time, simply based on where Karl Marx (seventy or so years prior) had eventually fled to and (unfortunately) decided to stay; the country in Europe that valued free speech et al more than any other country would have to have been Britain. The British not only sheltered a man who called for its overthrow and incited violent class warfare amongst the citizenry time and again (just as Britain today tolerates Muslim terrorists who call for the killing of British citizens) but British culture can certainly be argued to have been richer than German culture at the time (oh, and what of French culture at the time?).

It's simply too subjective to conclude that the Germans had a higher culture than their other European counterparts, especially when it is a mantra of the left and liberals that all cultures (even ones that had not even invented the wheel) are all equal.

If we're going by Parliamentary republics, I have seen no evidence that the Germans model was more 'democratic' than the British or Americans.

If we're going by the amount of intellectuals churned out by a respective country, then wouldn't the Founding Fathers in America have easily trumped what Germany produced? And what about ancient Athens or the Roman republic?

From my memory, most of Europe was transforming into a republic shortly after the American revolution, so the Germans in the Weimar Republic would have had a lot of competition. But, in any event, we're talking about all of Western civilization (not just Western 'democracies'), so it's rather incredulous to claim that the Weimar government is more remembered than the Romans or Greeks or the British, French and Americans.

But it seems to me that the left needs to believe that the Germans were the most cultured and advanced people at the time, or ever in existence really, to warn others that anyone could become genocidal.

Therefore, Chomsky, the raving leftist, needs to regurgitate leftist propaganda to support his silly beliefs.

-- Thu May 27, 2010 2:18 am --

6.
The Lie: “Imagine the reaction if the Soviet police were to deal with refuseniks in any way
comparable to the Israeli [anti-riot] practices that briefly reached the television screens.”10

The Truth: The Soviet police held 10,000 dissidents in psychiatric prisons and concentration
camps. An estimated 50,000 were sent to uranium mines to die of radiation poisoning.11 Such
practices elicited no reaction because the Soviets did not allow them to reach the television
screens.

Seriously, this stuff is too good.

Well, I agree he's a lefty and I don't support lefties easily, but Chomsky had a point. Don't forget, Western civilization is limited to cultural developments with origin in Europe. Britain doesn't count. The French were just as weak as the Brits, as they still had connections with fascist Italy during the Interwar years.

The German Republic (Weimar) was unique in that it succeeded as a democratic experiment, even though it didn't last long. Lasting democracy requires democratic behavior and attitude practice.

eh - you may disagree with Chomsky's analysis of the Weimar republic, but it appears to me you picked a bad example to 'prove' that he's a liar.

I also don't agree with everything Chomsky believes in - he's politically to the left of me - but when you call him a liar and find you can't quite match the hype with evidence, you do your whole argument a dis-service.

Better to attack actual conclusions he draws from facts, rather than 'go for the man'.

You started this thread because I suggested you refer to Chomsky in relation to what US imperialism has done in various countries. I suggest rather than trying to slur him personally, you look at specific arguments and then present them for discussion (eg like the mini-exposition of the Weimar republic).

Be honest - am I wrong in assuming that when you first read that he had said that, it was via someone criticising him - and you assumed he was talking about a Fascist/Nazi period of German history? It's a natural reaction when someone refers to 'pre WWII 20th century Germany'.

Cheers,
Shafique

eh - you may disagree with Chomsky's analysis of the Weimar republic, but it appears to me you picked a bad example to 'prove' that he's a liar.

Another case of reading comprehension failure. I brought up Chomsky's take on the Weimar republic in regards to how Chomsky has a distorted view of reality. The lies/fantasies in Chomsky's books are plentiful just going by the ones listed by that website.

For the most part, Chomsky is like you, someone who is self-deluded and lives in his own version of reality. Often times, he throws a statement out that is merely personal opinion and builds a foundation around it - such as claiming the Weimar republic was the height of Western civilization or that Eastern Europe was a paradise under the Russians compared to territories held by the Americans.

Actually, the last statement could easily be argued against when one looks at the death tolls from Trotsky and Stalin's actions in Poland and the Ukraine in the 20s and 30s respectively. But these are simply stupid statements. Chomsky is not a historian and it's the difference between night and day to read from real historians and then to read Chomsky.

If I could compare him to anyone or anything, it would be Freud's theories that people love to talk about. They're interesting and always required reading material for any beginning psychology student, but one later on learns that modern psychology has all but moved on from Freud in no small part because his theories could never be tested - so why was Freud given so much fanfare over the years? Who knows.

Chomsky is no different. He is not interested in any scientific method. He does not pretend to be impartial. He'll simply drop a two-liner and sit back and congratulate himself on what he accomplished.

I suggest rather than trying to slur him personally, you look at specific arguments and then present them for discussion (eg like the mini-exposition of the Weimar republic).

I'll be happy to do so. We have 199 more lies to go through before we're even done with one guy's findings.

Perhaps you can address his other 'lie' or more correctly put, a fantasy, that I posted in my last post:

The Lie: “Imagine the reaction if the Soviet police were to deal with refuseniks in any way
comparable to the Israeli [anti-riot] practices that briefly reached the television screens.”10

The Truth: The Soviet police held 10,000 dissidents in psychiatric prisons and concentration
camps. An estimated 50,000 were sent to uranium mines to die of radiation poisoning.11 Such
practices elicited no reaction because the Soviets did not allow them to reach the television
screens.

Be honest - am I wrong in assuming that when you first read that he had said that, it was via someone criticising him - and you assumed he was talking about a Fascist/Nazi period of German history? It's a natural reaction when someone refers to 'pre WWII 20th century Germany'.

Nope - you would be wrong, which isn't the first time.

But the funny thing is, is that you are someone who often knows next to nothing on a subject but pontificates on it - whether it's quoting from the New Testament only to confuse a passage written by an anonymous author with Jesus (that was beyond words for me) or to claim that highly regarded historian, Hugh Kennedy, was wrong and that your 'research' (skimming through half a book) proved that non-Muslims paid less in taxes than Muslims did under an Islamic state.

I'm flattered that you compare me with Chomsky.

So, you started this thread apparently to show that Chomsky lies. When the first example was shown to be a little short of the mark of a complete lie, you decide to give the exampe of Weimar Republic as evidence that Chomsky has a 'distorted view of reality'.

Then you give us your opinions of my debating style/knowledge.

Hmm.

It is a good thing that Mel isn't a moderator here, she'll be having a field day with the off-topic submissions!


But seriously, its one thing to say Chomsky has a 'distorted view of reality' - i.e. he sees things differently from you (no shock there), and another to make an accusation that he lies and not comment when evidence is presented that he didn't actually lie in the example you gave (if anything it shows that your reference deliberately quoted paragraph 55 and skipped over paragraph 35)

BTW, I love your insights about me - its a great indicator that you've been found out when you launch into these long explanations and can't really address the topic at hand.

Cheers,
Shafique

eh - you asked me to comment on this 'lie'.

The Lie: “Imagine the reaction if the Soviet police were to deal with refuseniks in any way
comparable to the Israeli [anti-riot] practices that briefly reached the television screens.”10

The Truth: The Soviet police held 10,000 dissidents in psychiatric prisons and concentration
camps. An estimated 50,000 were sent to uranium mines to die of radiation poisoning.11 Such
practices elicited no reaction because the Soviets did not allow them to reach the television
screens.

Chomsky is posing a question - what would the reaction be if Soviet police were as brutal as Israeli practices shown on screen.

How is this a lie? Is he saying that Soviets were less brutal than the Israeli's televised actions? It seems to me he's just making a point (and he probably would say 'Iranian' or 'Arabs' today to make the same point).

The fact that Soviets did indeed act like the Israelis doesn't change the point he's making - which seems to be the LACK of reaction to Israel's brutal televised actions.

Chomsky's still 2-0 and arguably 3-0 if we count Weimar discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

The fact that Soviets did indeed act like the Israelis doesn't change the point he's making - which seems to be the LACK of reaction to Israel's brutal televised actions.

Wow, you've really lost it.

I mean, you never had it, but your craziness is now on display for all to see.

What fact is there that the Soviets acted like the Israelis? In proportion to the methods used by the Soviets - where they sent people to the Gulags or the loony bin?

Or that the Soviet Union was sending people to concentration camps well before Ben Gurion accepted the '47 proposal and the Pal-Arabs rejected them?

LOL

Chomsky's point is precisely that the world would (rightly) react strongly if the Soviets (or Arab/Iranian) acted in the way the Israelis were shown to act on TV. His point was that Israel's televised actions didn't elicit the same reactions.

Chomsky 3, eh 0.

C'mon, there are some actual points of disagreement over Chomsky ideas you can bring up. Putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a 'lie' doesn't wash.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm sorry, have you explained how the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization?

I'm still waiting for an explanation on that one. Claiming that in Chomsky's views, the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization, only proves my point.

You should indeed be sorry, just re-read what RobbyG took trouble to write and ask him for anything that still confuses you about Chomsky's argument (and which you seem to admit is not a lie, but an opinion)

eh - you're the one that is claiming Chomsky is a liar - but so far the score is still Chosky 3 - you 0.

Cheers,
Shafique

Must have missed Robby's explanation why the Weimar republic could even remotely be considered the pinnacle of Western civilization.

Please, by all means, quote and highlight where you believe Robby says this - perhaps I simply missed it.

Plurality is a key word and lets not forget the Republic. Ask yourself, how many countries in Europe had a democratic republic similar to the USA in 1919?

What does that have to do with being the peak of Western civilization?

You said so yourself that the Weimar republic was similar to the United States at the time.

Yet no one is claiming that in the 1920s, the US was the peak of Western civilization.

Even if the Weimar republic was supposedly superior to other governments. By now, the rest of Europe should surpass what the Weimar republic had, since they must have incorporated the republic's system of representative democracy into their own constitutions.

So, again, these current European governments would have to be the peak of Western civilization (what a joke!) if one uses Chomsky's own criteria - no doubt that today, European governments value 'democratic' concepts such as freedom of speech, press, etc more than the Weimar republic did in the 1920s.

Its sad that an American like you isn't able to recognize the foundations that led to our current Western civilization. What is Western civilization? Its is the plurality of people, cultural diversity and parliamentary democracies that exist in the current day and age. Weimar was one of few (if not first) in Europe in 1919.

You quoted Chomsky talking about the Weimar Republic, which was the short period in which Germany was a democratic republic during the interwar period. It has nothing to do with superiority of government during the Weimar days. It had to do with the system (form) of governance. He refers to the peak of civilization as can only be measured in hindsight, with the knowledge of today, where we stand as a society.

On a sidenote:
The decline of the Western standard of living, however, is the result of misguided economic theory and mismanagement of politics in the Western world. This could destroy the cohesion we now have and throws us back to the early days, if we don't change course soon.

The economic system is close to the brink of collapse. When the socialization of debt occurs, your freedom and liberties are affected for the greater good. It will lead to a form of central governance in Europe, as politicians want to control a nations fiscal situation to keep the system afloat.

As Ludwig von Mises said:

A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Its sad that an American like you isn't able to recognize the foundations that led to our current Western civilization. What is Western civilization? Its is the plurality of people, cultural diversity and parliamentary democracies that exist in the current day and age. Weimar was one of few (if not first) in Europe in 1919.

Fascinating. But beyond more obfuscation, what does your belief about the foundations of current Western civilization have anything to do to support your defense of Chomsky's claim that the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization ?

He said that and you seem to be defending him. So, on what basis is the Weimar republic better than the contemporary British and American systems of governance?

Please, save yourself the embarrassment of pontificating on Western civilization.

You can save the 'foundations' of Western civilization and your belief that Weimar was the first parliamentary democracy in Europe for another thread.