My Mass Comm teacher showed a video last week titled "The myth of the liberal media." Hosted by Noam Chomsky, Ed Herman, and Justin Lewis, it was one hour of complaining that "liberal progressivism" (aka communism) didn't get enough coverage in the media. My teacher challenged me to find 10 examples of liberal bias in the media in the past week, which I compiled with ease. However, my greater discovery was on the background of Noam Chomsky, anarchist, neo-Marxist, and possible neo-Nazi. This man is a respected intellectual in American society, yet his writings are completely hypocritical. His message is singular: anything that is anti-American. The following excerpts were taken from an "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky" written by Keith Windschuttle: On Noam Chomsky'’s political views and contradictions over communism:
For all his in-principle disdain of communism, however, when it came to the real world of international politics Chomsky turned out to endorse a fairly orthodox band of socialist revolutionaries. They included the architects of communism in Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera, as well as Mao Tse-tung and the founders of the Chinese communist state. Chomsky told a forum in New York in December, 1967 that in China "“one finds many things that are really quite admirable."” He believed the Chinese had gone some way to empowering the masses along lines endorsed by his own libertarian socialist principles:
China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.
At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both "“the mass slaughter of landlords in China"” and "the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam"” that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist.
I don'’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.
On Noam Chomsky'’s hypocrisy over Cambodia and terrorism:
Chomsky was this regime'’s most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist. Even as late as 1988, when they were forced to admit in their book Manufacturing Consent that Pol Pot had committed genocide against his own people, Chomsky and Herman still insisted they had been right to reject the journalists and authors who had initially reported the story. The evidence that became available after the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, they maintained, did not retrospectively justify the reports they had criticized in 1977.
They were still adamant that the United States, who they claimed started it all, bore the brunt of the blame. In short, Chomsky still refused to admit how wrong he had been over Cambodia.
In his response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists'’ actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot. On September 12, 2001, Chomsky wrote:
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, ClintonÂ’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people.
This Sudanese incident was an American missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where the CIA suspected Iraqi scientists were manufacturing the nerve agent VX for use in chemical weapons contracted by the Saddam Hussein regime. The missile was fired at night so that no workers would be there and the loss of innocent life would be minimised. The factory was located in an industrial area and the only apparent casualty at the time was the caretaker.
He told a reporter from salon.com that, rather than an "“unknown"” number of deaths in Khartoum, he now had credible statistics to show there were many more Sudanese victims than those killed in New York and Washington: “That one bombing, according to estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths."” However, this claim was quickly rendered suspect. One of his two sources, Human Rights Watch, wrote to salon.com the following week denying it had produced any such figure. Its communications director said: “In fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of US bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground."
Chomsky'’s second source had done no research into the matter either. He was Werner Daum, German ambassador to Sudan from 1996 to 2000 who wrote in the Harvard International Review, Summer 2001. Despite his occupation, Daum'’s article was anything but diplomatic.
On Noam Chomsky'’s hypocrisy through standards:
Chomsky himself has consistently demonstrated an inability to abide by his own standards. Among his most provocative recent demands are for American political and military leaders to be tried as war criminals. He has often couched this in terms of the failure by the United States to apply the same standards to itself as it does to its enemies.
For instance, America tried and executed the remaining World War Two leaders of Germany and Japan, but failed to try its own personnel for the "“war crime"” of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Chomsky claims the American bombing of dams during the Korean War was "a huge war crime just like racist fanaticism" but the action was praised at home. "“That'’s just a couple of years after they hanged German leaders who were doing much less than that."
The worst current example, he claims, is American support for Israel:
Virtually everything that Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact, a war crime. And many of them they defined as "“grave breaches," that is, serious war crimes. This means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial.
Yet Chomsky'’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented.
I thought the article was a devastating critique of Noam Chomsky. To think that he supported communist China despite its slaughter of over 20 million of its own citizens through forced starvation. If he is so in favor of China, perhaps he should move there and experience it first hand. My mother, an immigrant from mainland China, knows first hand of the disastrous effects of communism. And this is what professors teach in American classrooms.
