Well, I’ll save you the trouble. There isn’t one line of truth in anything written here, including his assertion that he read the book in question. I mean, at least for his sake I hope this was a lie. It’s better to have not read it and simply collected a few lies from other ignorant-ass anti-Chomsky illiterates, than to actual have read it and simply interpreted it this far off. I think it would be difficult for anyone who has graduated from at least third grade of elementary school to come up with the ideas expressed here. So, once again, I hope SBKB (Someone Blows KB)chooses the lesser outright lying, than the less “honorable” not to mention embarrassingly ignorant just-can’t-read-and-understand-basic-sentences-path. He actually said “apologetics” somewhere as if there was one instance in the book somewhere. I’ll assume he saw Elvis dancing with Big Foot on a UFO there, too, somewhere. There is probably more evidence for this. Anyway, SBKB offers nothing, but opinion, old outdated and WAAAAY long ago disproven assertions, out of context mis-representations, and, well, you know. All the usual characteristics of the anti-Chomsky ilk. It’s actually quite funny though they don’t know why. For those of you familiar with the topic, or any of Chomsky’s work for that matter, the ramblings above are little more than bathroom gossip. The entire premise if off from what Chomsky and Herman set out to do, which they make quite clear, at least to those who can read and comprehend simple sentences. They take no position at all, nor was their point to try and take a position. If you “think” you see one, this is more a statement of your own indoctrination rearing it’s butt-ugly head, than it is anything they’ve written, or not, as in this case. Here, let’s refer this poor soul to the film ‘Manufacturing Consent’ which came out in about, what, 88’, which covers all of this in great detail. I mean, we all knew that those suseptible to the anti-Chomsky disorder/disease were a little slow, but the world really IS round. It isn’t flat. And as soon as you try and understand this, the sooner you won’t make yourself look like an idiot in public day after day. How embarrassing for you this “should” be. I’m almost embarrassed for you. It’s like every time I watch Bush speak, I sit and wit for the next idiotic statement, and feel as if he just farted during a quiet part as he was singing a Celine Dion song on American Idle (puns intended). Your statements here regarding Chomsky are sort of the same. It’s just so embarrassing that you haven’t a clue that each time you repeat these old debunked notions, that you are, in fact, supporting Chomsky’s theses regarding propaganda. You are unwittingly helping him, charlatan. Anyway, anything you can offer is more than welcome. Bitch-slap you soon. KB

The pseudo-scholarly apparatus of quotations and footnotes cannot disguise the true intent of this notorious work of denial literature, which seeks to rehabilitate the radical position on the Vietnam War by systematically whitewashing totalitarian genocide in Indochina. It must be seen in the light of Noam Chomsky’s previous writings on Vietnamese communism, whose “achievements”Â? have been “quite remarkable”Â? as demonstrated, presumably, by the brutal purges in which 50,000-100,000 were massacred and many more starved to death.

The book at hand continues these apologetics for communist butchers and mass murderers, asserting that there is “no credible evidence of mass executions”Â? in post-war Vietnam (p62) – only testimony from defector Nguyen Cong Hoan, who estimated that 50,000-100,000 had been massacred and whom the authors dismiss (pp98-103); from political prisoner Doan Van Toai and communist official Nguyen Tuong Lai, who reported that up to 200,000 opponents had been singled out for execution; from torture victim Nguyen Van Coi, whom the authors consign to a footnote (p331n75); from UN officials who estimated that communist expulsions had drowned 200,000-250,000 boat people; and so on.

On Laos, we are treated to extensive displays of indignation over the horrors of war. The sincerity of this humanitarian concern may be deduced from the observation that the communist Pathet Lao made “efforts to achieve a reconciliation”Â? with the mountain tribespeople (p122); these efforts involved a sadistic campaign of genocide that killed 100,000 people.

On Cambodia, Chomsky and Herman produce some extraordinary apologetics for the Khmer Rouge, offering a figure of only 25,000 killed and claiming that the bloodbath has been exaggerated by a “factor of 100”Â? (p139). They rely on accounts of stage-managed official visits undertaken by credulous Western fellow-travellers, while dismissing the evidence of the victims, on the basis that refugee reports are compromised by “extreme bias”Â? in their selection by the media (pp147-8). They reject any parallel between the killing fields and Nazi Germany, asking whether “a more appropriate comparison is, say, to France after liberation,”Â? where tens of thousands of collaborators were massacred “with far less motive for revenge”Â? (p149). They complain that “allegations of genocide”Â? are being used “to whitewash Western imperialism,”Â? to distract attention from the “the expanding system of subfascism”Â? and to lay the ideological basis for further Western intervention (pp149-50).

Chomsky and Herman ridicule the idea that the people are “suffering in misery under a savage oppressor bent on genocide,”Â? a notion disproved by “common sense”Â? (pp151-2). They argue that if the population is being slaughtered, one would expect “unwillingness to fight for the Paris-educated fanatics at the top,”Â? whereas the record indicates that the Cambodian people “have not exactly been awaiting liberation from their oppressors”Â? (p156). They suggest that the brutality of the killers “may actually have saved many lives”Â? (p160). Echoing the ideology of the Khmer Rouge, they denounce the country’s “urban society”Â? as “a colonial implantation,”Â? which the perpetrators “know only as a murderer and a remote oppressor,”Â? and thus plainly deserves its fate (p290). In their eyes, the atrocities are a “direct and understandable response to the violence of the imperial system,”Â? a suggestion that readers may well interpret as an explicit justification for mass murder (p291).

Equally noteworthy is the authors’ use of source material. Having conceded that the work of Khmer Rouge critic Francois Ponchaud is “serious”Â? and deserves “careful study”Â? (p253), they proceed to denounce him for his “careless and untrustworthy”Â? writing (p274), his “petty deceit”Â? (p280), his “highly unreliable”Â? book (p282), etc. These scruples disappear, however, when the authors rely on Khmer Rouge apologists such as Michael Vickery (pp215-22), Ben Kiernan (pp226-30), or Shane Tarr (pp235-40), let alone Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, whose “carefully documented”Â? study has been “almost entirely ignored”Â? by reviewers and journalists (pp284-5) – perhaps because it was based largely on official Khmer Rouge propaganda statements.

The alert reader will detect countless falsifications of facts and evidence in these pages. Perhaps the most striking example is the libel of Cambodian refugee Pin Yathay, whose classic memoir [8] offers a detailed account of the unimaginable horrors of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship, which wiped out his family. Chomsky and Herman refer, without further discussion, to a letter in a foreign newspaper that defames Yathay as a CIA-sponsored drug dealer (pp143-4). Needless to say, no supporting evidence whatsoever is offered for this scurrilous allegation from an anonymous source, which the authors uncritically deploy for the purpose of smearing a bereaved father and genocide survivor. One is reminded of the neo-Nazi attempts to discredit the diary of Anne Frank.

As Stephen J. Morris has noted, the object of this disgraceful exercise cannot be to convince the reader that the arguments offered are actually true. Rather, the goal is to affect the reader’s emotional attitude, by dulling his or her sense of outrage on contemplating millions of tortured and mutilated corpses brought about by the radical movement that campaigned for a communist victory in Indochina. In this task, the book is eminently successful, not unlike the works of Holocaust denial that serve as its echo and mirror image.

“KB. Your red herrings on Central America, Castro, etc., etc. are irrevelant.”

Don’t know what you’re referrring to.kb

“If you would argue that the Republic of Vietnam did not enjoy the right of a sovereign state to request military assistance from the United States (sovereign state #2), then you have stepped beyond the pale of reason.”

The U.S. bombing South Vietnam in 1962 came about as an invitation by the people of Vienam? Really? I’m totally unaware of this fact.kb

“It then becomes easy to see how you would define U.S. actions as an “invasion”Â? however spurious that claim.”

Well, first of all, the U.S. invaded South Vietnam. There is no claim to be disputed. Let’s use your logic for a moment to see what would happen if the roles were reversed. Let’s say that Vietnam had had the CIA fooling around in the U.S., with it’s government, etc… for years.(Already an absurdity) Then, the Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld posse, and the other few percentage of rich white folks like them decided that the masses, most of whom supported candidate X
(who was speaking of equal rights, making a constitution based on that of the U.S. Constitution, independence, whose leader said one of his heros was George Washington, etc….) asked Vietnam to come and help them stamp out what basically amounts to the masses. Now, when those folks came from Vietnam to the U.S., would it be considered an invasion? Perhaps not by the Bush posse, but it would by the majority of the people. Look at Iraq today. There are a few percentage who consider U.S. presence a “liberation” and about 90+ percent who view it as an occupation, which means invasion. Well? It hardly takes a Harvard scholar to recognize what’s taking place. (And while I’m aware that the analogy is loose, I think you get the point.)kb

“Since you suffer from an obvious lack of knowledge of the basic geography of those countries vis-a-vis the theatres of air and ground operations, we are precluded from having any meaningful discussion.”

And you’re basing this assesment of my knowledge on exactly what? One phrase where I mentioned bombing the countries in tghe surrounding region back into the stone age? This isn’t even an issue under discussion, nor could it be as this fact that this happened isn’t disputed by any side to my knowledge.kb

“Your obedient servant”

Don’t know who or what you’re referring to here.kb

“a proud Vietnam “invader”Â? who never “invaded”Â? anyone until October 1983”

The only folks I recall mentioning invading was the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam in 1961-2, having left out the even earlier hanky panky by the CIA in the area. Don’t know who you’re referring to regarding 1983. I guess being unaware of this we are precluded from having any meaningful discussion.kb

“and in that case, with the full support of well over 95% of Grenada’s people.”

Not the several thousand killed. What percentage of the population was that by the way. Yes, that was a textbook example of heroics in action. I would have thought the entire world would have willingly succumbed to U.S. interventions after that display of magnificant benevolence. Why didn’t we invade to help the Sandinistas given they had just about as much support? Sorry, but the U.S. has a long history of NOT supporting the preferred candidate of the masses. They’re usually shot before there’s even an election. The lucky ones are the ones who aren’T assassinated, and only have to endure the efforts to “make them scream” via sanctions, terrorism, and other measures. Anyway, I was talking breifly about what happened in Vietnam and the surrounding areas, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.kb

“This is priceless when it comes from the one guy here who couldn’t even read the article Curz was posting.”

Where is your evidence that he “couldn’t even read the article Curz was posting.”(snore) Don’t know what you’re referring to. I couldn’t have possibly been the Paul B article, as I had read that LOOOONG ago along with eveything else on it plus much more. It surely wasn’t this post. Don’t know what you’re referring to.kb

“Chomsky’s good at denial”

And where is you evidence for this? DId you hear someone say it while standing in line at Wal Mart when you were buying a 99 cent copy of Ann Coulter? The only denial I usually see is tthe denial of folks who know nothing about the topic to not be able to admit that they know nothing about the topic. And like them, I’ll assume that your readings of Chomsky are limited to things like the Paul B link which demonstrates nothing. But I’ll allow you the opportunity to demonstrate this “denial” you think you know about in Chomsky’s writings. However, you will NOT be allowed to use Paul B, Oliver Kamm, Dabid Horowitz, or anyone else of this ignorant ilk to quote from as their all the same and they just use each others flawed materials. YOU must read and YOU muct refer to page number, etc…Oh, and I’ll know if you’re lifting the quotes as I’m already familiar with most of the critics.(Well, that’s the last we’ll ever hear of him on that topic, unless of course he decides to come back and make a bunch of statements as to why he doesn’t need to read for himself. You know, the usual attempt at escape.)kb

“not surprising that his rabid disciple is in teh same category.”

Don’t know who or what you’re referring to. As usual, empty of content and meaningless. Please be more specific when babbling.kb

“Oh yeah, and Kissinger rules. Big time.”

Really? So you think it’s cool to say that war criminals rule? Why not Hitler? Don’t like his moustache?kb

Chris, nice to hear a voice of reason, not to mention the voice of at least one person who has actually read some of the works of the person in question.

This is priceless when it comes from the one guy here who couldn’t even read the article Curz was posting. Chomsky’s good at denial, not surprising that his rabid disciple is in teh same category.

Oh yeah, and Kissinger rules. Big time.

I read Chomsky deeply in my teens, and though I was later purged of my Socialist tendencies by reading the works of Nietzsche, I still retain a great deal of respect for the man and his work.

I do find it interesting that whenever I hear criticism of Chomsky, it almost always tends to be of the ad hominem variety, almost always seeking to attack the man himself (to claim that his reputation is insufficient to have his argument considered) rather than the specific argument in question.

It reminds me a bit of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy is confronted by a big man with a sword- knowing he can’t stand up to him in hand-to-hand combat, Indy simply takes out his gun and shoots him.

But perhaps a more appropriate analogy is the Swift Boat Veterans- the attack against Chomsky is almost exclusively of the Swift Boat variety. That is, in the sense that, the whole discussion turns into did-he-or-didn’t-he say such-and-such-a-thing thirty years ago, and whether or not you come out believing the accusation or not, you realize that the debate has been entirely hijacked from its original course, when we were discussing something meaningful to us in the present day.

Anyway, I apologize for going off on a tangent, thank you for indulging me in that”¦ what were we talking about again?

“In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and restraint, instead of receiving respectful attention in the West and generating some soul-searching over another exposed layer of official fabrications, has been almost totally ignored. The search has been exclusively for flaws.”

Has a footnote which he doesn’t elaborate on. Actually there are several, but I’ll choose just one as an example, though this will not give due credit to Chomsky’s comments. The sentence from the passage above which ends with “.....has been almost totally ignored (which, of course, he has mounds of evidence which demostrate as well, another topic)” ends with a footnote. Chapter 1 footnotes p.369 #78 which reads:

Not entirely, however. For example Jean and Simmone Lacouture point out that after “the reconquest and unification of Vietnam by Vietnamese citizens” in April 1975, there was no bloody revenge. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not follow the example of “their Frence, Russian, or Chinese predecessors. Not to kill is a great virtue; one seems to ignore a bit too easily.” “They are probably the first victors in a civil war (embittered and aggravated by two foreign interventions) who have not unleashed any operation of massive reprisal.” Furthermore, “the Vietnamese maquisards, more honorable than their French comrades of 1944,” did not humiliate the hundreds of thousands of prostitutes created by the American invasion..(Seuil, 1976, p.7,11,110)

The Lacoutures’ book is a record of their visit to Vietnam in April-May 1976. Though highly critical of the Vietnamese revolution—-so much so as to elicit a sharp rejoinder in the Vietnamese press—-it was nevertheless sympathetic and balanced, and did not fail to describe the horrendous residue of thirty years of imperial violence. It was unable to find a U.S. publisher, and it’s very existence was denied in the U.S. press, as we shall see in Volume II, chapter 6.

(footnote 79 then refers the reader, the serious ones anyway, to Vol.II, chap.2, section 2 where “western precedents, considered highly moral in contrast to the barbarous behavior of the Vietnamese” is examined.

Now, do you think you see some sort of apologetics here? Once again, I ask the question, why would there be a need for anyone to give apologetics of any sort at all. Chomsky has no pro-communist agenda. Remember, he’s more or less anti-communist, and always has been. One STILL needs to review the other item in Vol. II which I mentioned so as to understand where the propganda has come from which folks like Paul B. are basing his notions on in the first place, thereby causing him to “interpret” things the way he does. It’s probably a good idea to know what propaganda is being and has been used by your own governments so that you’ll at least have some notion about where your “ideas” have been coming from. Chomsky and Herman do this in GREAT detail reviewing just about everything they could get their hands on fromt he press, official documents and responses, etc….before making their theses. So, when folks who know the topic, know Chomsky’s works, can easily spot a victim of the very propaganda he writes about ad nauseum(as most every reference they use Chomsky has already used, shown it’s origins, demonstrated it’s falsity, and sometimes even retractions by the folks putting out the propganda, etc…), read what amounts to little more than the comic ramblings of a drunken lunatic like Paul. B, there really isn’t much one can do but to sit back and enjoy watching Chomsky’s writings be further confirmed and validated by the very folks who think they’re onto something. They are basically unwitting supporters of most of his theses, as I have often told them, shown them, etc…However, being that the grip of the indoctrination is so strong, they atill can’t see it when it’s right in front of their face. It’s actually pretty sad, and one would have sympathy for them if it weren’t for some of their fierce arrogance and refusal to read a little bit.kb

There is no text in question, as there’s no issue. And I already have the text of that which you referred to. Had it LONG ago, along with dozens of others, some of them similar. However, this means nothing as well given that the vast majority are referring to each others text. Simply because one or two folks inadequate work is spread around by a few other illitarates giving it the appearance of that there is some general concensus or making the validity any better is naive at best. Apologetics do not exist regarding any crimes by anyone. There are 73 pages of footnotes one can refer to if one is serious and wants to see what he’s basing his comments on. This is old, as I said, and was dealt with long ago. There is no issue to discuss other than the fact that there are still a few folks around still trying to beat a horse which was never there in the first place. Can’t debate an issue like Pol Pot apologetics if they don’t exist anywhere. Well, I’ve read his books, all of them, some several times, and they apologetics don’t exist. I heard hundreds of hours of lectures, and the apologetics don’t exist. I’ve talked to the man, and apologetics don’t exist. Nothing. Zero. And please don’t do what one of my anti-Chomskyite friends tried to do and make me prove that some that’s not there is not there. Asking someone to prove a negative, while not impossible, is basically retreating. And there’s exactly one way to do this, and it’s for you to read the context from which this nonsense has been lifted from and see for yourself. Then, AFTER you have done this, there are two possible options. One is that you still think you see something which doesn’t exist, and the other is that you realize how illiterate the fellow who attempted to make the critique was in the first place. That’s it. There are no other choices. And I’ve been through this same silly nonsense at least 2000 times before.kb

“In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam.”

Yes? And how do you interpret this? Are you saying that he’s wrong? Well, where’s your evidence? Simply saying he’s wrong is meaningless. And, as I mentioned, and if you had read or seen the film I’ve referred to several times now, you would know that what Chomsky and Herman were doing were comparing three kinds of “bloodbaths” of which all sides participated in. This, already, by definition, demonstrates that he was making no apologetics for anyone at all. Why would he? He has no loyalty to some side. He wants to know what happened. He wants to know what his country participated in. He wants to know what happened. Period. If it turned out that Ho killed everyone in Vietnam then Chomsky would say this without a second thought. You seem to be under some mistaken impression that he has some “agenda” for some “side”. Where on earth would you have gotten this? I mean, true, he does have the humanitarian agenda that war is bad, peace is good, etc….but then again what rational person doesn’t? By definition I should add. Even the title of the chapter in the book is ‘Bloodbaths in Indochina: Constructive, Nefarious, and Mythical. This alone pretty much sets the stage for how to interpret the findings. There were killing on all sides and they’re all bad. However, those who don’t like to think of “their team” as having participated in bloodbaths choose to look at nothing but the examples given of the others and complain that the numbers are too low, and to deny those committed by their team, or try and push down the numbers as far as possible. And it’s always the same. The other team did more than we did as we, by definition, are better and wouldn’t do such thing. Chomsky goes into great detail demonstrating all of the numbers which were being used by the U.S. and inflated. He challenged one of the main contributing “scholars” who numbers were the common propaganda. The numbers came from a French book which was mistranslated, of course boosting the numbers WAY high, and when confronted the fellow conceded. This is just one of the many, many, many examples given in the books, and all over the web for those wishing to know something about the topic. As I said, for those who are simply looking to confirm a story, no reading is necessary. Anyway, let’s look yet again for the non-existent issue anyway. It is also good not to forget that Chomsky has said hundreds of times that he primarily looks at those bloodbaths committed by his country almost as a priciple, and as he should be doing, being that it’s his country and he’s helping to pay for it. It’s easy to whine about the others and find all sort of stats which boost the numbers of crimes of the others to higher and higher levels, as he deomstrates dozens of times in the book. Wonder why your “critic” sort of left out this part? But remarkably this rarely happens with ones own crimes. And it’s good to remember that the number killed by direct U.S. intervention surpasses everything by a loooong shot. No one even knows how many of “them” were killed because who counts them? They’re just worthless Vietnamese. Anyway…..Really, until you decide to read and study this for yourself there is no point. You are seeing what you wish to see. That’s it. Nothing is there. Also, you can see this dealt with as far back as a 1969 “debate” between Chomksy and Buckley on Firing Line. I put quotes around debate because I felt sorry for Buckley. It was sad, but sort of funny.kb

“This miracle of reconciliation and restraint, instead of receiving respectful attention in the West and generating some soul-searching over another exposed layer of official fabrications, has been almost totally ignored. The search has been exclusively for flaws.”

Yes? And? Where’s the Beef? Wasn’t this already also dealt with in the link I left you? There is no apologetic here at all. Given the situation of what had just happened, which you notice is ignored by the critique, the setting, and the mounds of data prior to the time period in question, etc…something one should look at and know before jumping to conclusions in thinking they’ve struck gold, there is basically no excuse for the mis-interpretations and mis-representations other than illiteracy, or flagrant propaganda, as was the case with Werner Cohen. Where do you think you see an apologetic in the above phrase?kb

“There you be the bare text of a Communist massacre denial by Dr. Chomsky.”

There is nothing resembling an apologetic written on this page. If you think you see one I feel sorry for you. But I’ll allow you the opportunity to watch the film, read his book, or any number of links like the one I’ve already left for you, and THEN you can make your determination. This is usually the point where the excuses start for not wishing to find out firsthand, and the easy and much simpler preference for continuing to believe the out of context passages prevails. Remember, trying to get a anti-Chomskyite to actually read even one of his books is like trying to push Konishiki up Mt. Fuji.kb

“To repeat: Chomsky’s apologetics for Communist tyrrany during the Cold War are documented by his own tongue”

They don’t exist, nor have you demonstrated any apologetics. If so, where? There’s nothing on this page which ever resembles an apologetic.kb

“and your twenty years of studying his work can’t deny the plain text.”

You’re funny. It’s precisely because of my 20 years that I’m aware that this is not an apologetic. It may be an apologetic for you as you’re not familiar with the topic, or think you have some information which demonstrates the invalidity of his statements. Well, where’s you evidence? Where’s the evidence that he’s wrong? And what apologetics? What’s really sad is you’re doing exactly right now the textbook definition of reading out of context passages, and believing they have some validity. I thought you seemed aware enough about how this phenomena works not to succumb so easily.kb

“(That this is the fourth time I am posting the same item is why I inferred you were illiterate.)”

On the contrary, that you’re continuing to believe something that doesn’t exist, and I know as I’m familiar with his work, is why I’m calling you illiterate. Once again, I know the work, you don’t. As soon as you’ve done your homewrok and prepared, then come and try and debate. I thought this was the basics of debate 101. You don’t go into a debate without studying the topic first. And you sure as hell don’t simply go to a few fellows with agendas of their own instead of the source material. I can take a few passages from Chomsky to “prove” he belives in Martians if I want to. Are you going to believe it if I take the words right out of his own mouth? Geez! Read his work why don’t you. Not a single sentence of apologetics. Or perhaps you have a different definition of apologetics. That’s always possible.kb

“That’s all from me, but you’re welcome to embarrass yourself further have the last word.”

I’m not the least bit embarrassed as I know the subject. You, on the other hand, should be embarrassed by thinking that you know something about a topic which you have obviously never studied. Anyway, let me know if you ever decide to study the topic, I mean, like a scholar and not a undergraduate skimming the cliff notes the night before class, and maybe we’ll have something serious to talk about. Until then I’ll be reading more of his work and looking for that first apologetic somewhere.kb

In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and restraint, instead of receiving respectful attention in the West and generating some soul-searching over another exposed layer of official fabrications, has been almost totally ignored. The search has been exclusively for flaws.

There you be the bare text of a Communist massacre denial by Dr. Chomsky. To repeat: Chomsky’s apologetics for Communist tyrrany during the Cold War are documented by his own tongue, and your twenty years of studying his work can’t deny the plain text. (That this is the fourth time I am posting the same item is why I inferred you were illiterate.)

That’s all from me, but you’re welcome to embarrass yourself further have the last word.

“KB, I can only conclude that you are illiterate.”

I would expect you to conclude this based on you sources. I’ve already mentioned that I’m quite familiar with the nonsense above as well as dozens of other such nonsensical charges. Remember? Simply because you’re basing your supposed “evidence” on what an illiterate himslef says hardly makes you some expert on Chomsky. It simply means that you have found one out of a few references from which to confirm your preconceived notions. I can find miore for you if you want. They’re similarly laughable. Have you read his book yourself? This is what I would like to know. And have you read the many articles by the man himself? This is what I would like to know. And you actually spoken to the man about these things? I have. Anyway, as I said, most of this nonsense was dispelled in the film of Manufacturing Consent, which, as I said, is obvious that you haven’t watched. I would advise you NOT to watch it either if you insist on maintaining this mis-belief. Anyway, let’s have a look at what you’ve chosen.

“The above article dissects Chomsky’s co-authored book “The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume I.”Â? To quote cited excerpts:”

Well, you’ve already screwed up. It dissects nothing. It’s the classic example of a fellow picking out of context statements to confirm their preconceived notion, as I said above. There is one radical way though for you to find out if this is true or not. And it’s a way I often recommend to readers unfamilar with the topic. And that’s to read the books for yourself. I’d say in the past 10 years this has happened once or twice that I can recall. It so much easier just to look for the things you want to find. This is old, at least to those who know the subject.kb

“Chomsky and Herman flatly deny the post-war atrocities in Vietnam, congratulating the communist dictatorship on its “miracle of reconciliation and restraint”Â? involving “close to zero retribution deaths”Â? (p28)”

Notice that the “author is telling you what he “thinks” Chomsky and Herman are saying. The quote above “miracle of reconciliation and restraint”Â? is a textbook example of picking something out of context and misrepresentation. It also give no idication of what would have led them to such conclusions. A slight oversight I’d say. Does he think they’re communists or something? Another equally as absurd a notion? Anyway, let’s continue:

“and concluding that there has been “no bloodbath, so far as is known; nothing like what happened in France”Â? after the Second World War (pp79-80).”

Yes? That’s correct. At the time which this was written, given the documentation which was available at the time, this is accurate. Does he think they just made something up? Perhaps it is HE that is illiterate. Anyway, AFTER you’ve read for yourself, if this clowns mis-interpretation hasn’t jaded your anility for object thought and reasoning too much, you can tell me yourself. Until then this means nothing. Secondhand heresay with footnotes.kb

“Chomsky and Herman suppress the abundant contemporary accounts of repression and brutality [1], and they do not even hint at the massacre of perhaps 200,000 South Vietnamese [2] ““ with victims beheaded, eviscerated or buried alive [3] ““ or the mass killings in concentration camps [4] or the mass expulsions that drowned 200,000-250,000 boat people [5].”

They do? Once again, they do not. This is another blatant misrepresentation, not to mention it showing the weakness of the writers own knowledge and vulnerability to propaganda which much of what follows is recognized to be. I mean, at least by those who study the subject. There are dozens of articles, interviews, etc…regarding Vietnam, Pol Pot, etc…which one wishing to know about the topic can Google and find out. And I mean articles written by the nam himself without the “translations” and “interpretations” of real illiterates. Like I said, I can forgive you for not knowing any better because you haven’t read the material for yourself. You can be excused to a degree, though only in the sense that wishing to stay ignorant of the topic is safe. They, presumably have read the material, and have just gotten this far off. It’s really embarrassing. There are links everywhere. Let me know if when you’re ready to start studying the topic…seriously anyway.
http://www.flagrancy.net/khmerchomsky.html

“Could any reader, no matter how diligent, guess the truth from these pages?”

Yes, they could. But notice the assertion “the truth”. He already has a preconceived idea that he knows what “the truth” is, and this is precisely the point. It is exactly this supposed “knowledge” which prevents him from understanding the words on the page and how to interpret them. Are you trying to help me here or something? Chomsky talks at length about what the scholarly work is made up of, uses all sorts of governmental documents, scholarly research, and is actually quite reserved in many ways. If there is no way of really knowing what the answers are, as in the case of just how many people were killed by the North, Khmer, U.S., they say that based on the only evidence avilable, as is made quite claer to any literate person who actually reads the books. This is old. It’s like trying to argue with someone who persists on believing the world is flat because someone gave them a photo of the earth and the photo is flat. Basically, the author of this article is interpreting the photo as evidence that the world is flat. I’m not joking either. He really IS that far off. Fortunately, the affects of indoctrination are often so great, and remember the goal of indoctrination, that this sort of interpetation is a predictable outcome. Anyway, Chomsky and Herman have written about this as well in great detail, so it’s doubly funny to tell the truth.kb

“Hardly less shameful is the whitewashing of massive communist atrocities during the war”

Not a one.kb

“such as the claim that Viet Cong success was based on “understanding and trying to meet the needs of the masses”Â? (p340)”

Mis-interpretation and mis-representation. Sort of leaves out the reason this is being said and the context. Almost makes it sound as though Chomsky is trying to make an apologetic for something. Sorry, it’s not there. There are no apologetics. And if the VietCong say that they’re “trying to meet the needs of the masses”, and Chomsky repeats what they said they’re up to, this in no way, shape, or form, is an apologetic. Only an illiterate would think otherwise. Chomsky also said that the Soviet Union went from a backward third world country which basically served western Europe, to a world superpower which developed in a great many ways, within one generation, and was the envy of many other third world countries who were in similar straits, and who would love to extricate themselves from similar horrendous conditions. Now, some actually interpret THIS as an apologetic for the Soviet Union and infer that Chomsky thinks it must have been great, that he’s a communist, etc….When read in the context of the rest of the book, not to mention all of the other books, a literate person easily sees through this nonsense. He’s quite critical of the Soviet Union, and always was, especially given his anti-communist stance which he said started when he was about 12 years old. So, once again, the person you’re relying on for your data is a joke. You can find better criticisms in bus stop bathrooms.kb

“or the suggestion that the terrorists are “not likely to resort to bloodbaths”Â? because they seek the support of the peasants (p341).”

Notice that he is telling you the “suggestion” without saying why he would have made the statement. Geez! Cuzon, I would have thought you a little more astute than to be this gullible. Yes, everyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s work knows that he would assert, infer, or anything else that “terrorists are “not likely to resort to bloodbaths”Â? because they seek the support of the peasants (p341).” This is actually very funny.kb

“The reader is not told that Viet Cong death squads butchered some 37,000 civilians [6], or that the victims ““ typically doctors, teachers, social workers and their families ““ died after sadistic torture and mutilation: “Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers”Â? [7].”

Note the authors supposed knowledge of the subject. Chomsky is quite well aware of most all of the data with regards to these suggestions. He has written extensively about them, who uses them(this unsuspecting writer), how they are used, and what’s wrong with them. Of course one would have actually had to read Chomsky to know this, but that’s part of the point, to keep people from reading. If they read, they will probably learn. It’s much better to have folks like this guy informing folks who are too lazy to read for themselves. And, the few times someone has read them that I’m aware of, they did a 180 and actually began challenging the other naive of the likes they had once been.kb

Curzon, I must say that I thought you were a little more insightful than this. After all wasn’t it you who said on a more recent post regarding the environment that certain researchers has only looked for the evidence they wanted to find? Perhaps it was another of your group. Well, this is the perfect example of one such character. The few items he has taken out of context and mis-represented mean nothing. I mean, they DO say a lot about him, but not much about the works of Chomsky at all. Now, I’m also quite well aware that the next logical step at this point in the “debate” is for the person making the assertions, that would be you, to think that even in the face of what you perceive to be “evidence”, that only a “Chomskyite” or something equally as simple is preventing me from “plainly seeing what is right there. The author just put it there. It’s there, right in front of your eyes, and you are just refusing to see it because you don’t want to believe it. You’re a hopeless Chomskyite!” Sorry, but it really is there ONLY in the sense which I’ve said. There is NO evidence here, nor in the book, of any apologetics, of any kind. And this ISN’T my interpretation of the writings. This is simply what they say. Chomsky says X, he means X, not Z, like the author has inferred. Actually, the supposed criticisms are of very little interest to me because they’re old, funny, and were debunked immediately after the first charges were made. What interestes me much more is how even after having been debunked almost 50 years ago, there are STILL illiterate folks interpreting them this way. THIS is the interesting point. NOT that they have something. They don’t, and never did. It’s their belief that they do which interests me, and, hence, my interest in psychology and propaganda. kb

There is also all of the crimes which “the good guys” carried out, which, once again, far exceeds those of the perceived “bad guys”. So, rather than basing your accusations of illiteracy on someone who knows the subject, perhaps you should study the topic for yourself. Usually the person who doesn’t read is considered the illiterate. I have read. You haven’t. Try again. You can see Oliver Kamm, David Horowitz, Keith Windschuttle, and many others if you’re wishing to further deepen your non-knowledge of Chomsky, but I’d recommend just picking up several of his books at the library and reading for yourself. I have about a hundred lecture tapes if you wish to have any additional materials which may help you to dispell some of your mis-perceptions. Let me know. Always willing to help someone learn.kb

Chomsky and Herman flatly deny the post-war atrocities in Vietnam, congratulating the communist dictatorship on its “miracle of reconciliation and restraint”Â? involving “close to zero retribution deaths”Â? (p28) and concluding that there has been “no bloodbath, so far as is known; nothing like what happened in France”Â? after the Second World War (pp79-80).

Chomsky and Herman suppress the abundant contemporary accounts of repression and brutality [1], and they do not even hint at the massacre of perhaps 200,000 South Vietnamese [2] – with victims beheaded, eviscerated or buried alive [3] – or the mass killings in concentration camps [4] or the mass expulsions that drowned 200,000-250,000 boat people [5]. Could any reader, no matter how diligent, guess the truth from these pages?

Hardly less shameful is the whitewashing of massive communist atrocities during the war, such as the claim that Viet Cong success was based on “understanding and trying to meet the needs of the masses”Â? (p340), or the suggestion that the terrorists are “not likely to resort to bloodbaths”Â? because they seek the support of the peasants (p341). The reader is not told that Viet Cong death squads butchered some 37,000 civilians [6], or that the victims – typically doctors, teachers, social workers and their families – died after sadistic torture and mutilation: “Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers”Â? [7].

“I’ve been studying him for more than 20 years”(kb)

“Well that about says it all”¦”

Yes, it does. It says that I know his work quite well and can easily spot when someone hasn’t a clue. I’ve been studying other folks for even longer. Would you like their names?kb

“He has never made an apologetic for tyranny of any kind”

Nope. None. No apologetics in any of his writings. Not a single sentence. But I’ll allow you the opportunity to presen one if you think you can.kb

“I believe his long standing position on the Khmer Rouge might be one example”¦”

Well, then you believe wrong. He has had no long standing position on the Khmer Rouge other than it being horrendous. Don’t tell me that you’re still regurgitating the WAY outdated “Pol Pot” apologetics charges. These were debunked within hours after the illiterate who made the charges put them out there, knowing all the while that most folks, the naive and lazy ones who wouldn’t bother to read, would simply keep perpetuating the dis/dis-information. Not a single line of apologetics. It doesn’t exist. Sorry, to burst your under-informed bubble, but that’s the way it is. He does, however, discuss the U.S.’s support of him in trying to get him a seat at the U.N. It’s hardly a wonder why anyone would call Chomsky the Pol Pot apologist instead of those who supported him. Better look a little close at your history, not to mention actually reading a few of his books before making such silly comments.(Oh, by the way Curzon, once again, it was the “other” person bringing Chomsky back into the disussion.) I guess that just about says it all…..You see, if you were simply making these assertions because you are unfamiliar with his work, and are simply babbling the anti-Chomsky line, then it’s potentially something which you could be forgiven for. You know, like you don’t NOT teach a kid math, and then accuse them of getting it wrong when they just start blurting out embarrassing things. You feel a little sorry for them and try and help them. Onthe other hand, if you actually HAVE read Chomksy and just were this far off on interpreting it, that’s a far worse problem. Please tell me you aren’t making these accusations after having actually reading him. Oh, and by the way, by “actually reading him” I DO NOT mean reading the writings of illiterates like Oliver Kamm. David Horowitz, and the like, and their WAY out of context quotes and phrases, as this means nothing. I mean YOU reading several of his books from front to back without the influnce of a bad interpretation. Let me know if you’ve done this and I’ll give you the chance of demonstrating some of your assertions. And, if you even think about lifting the writings of the “gentlemen” who I’ve mentioned, I’ll know within a sentence or two as I have most of their writing as well. I’m ready when you are. (Next thing you know he’ll be makng the charges that Chomsky has written something “anti-American” in his life)kb

Curzon said:

“KB, did you even read the link in my previous comment?”

Yes. I’ve read all of the anti-Chomsky links. He has never even come close to inferring apologetics to any regime of the sort. ANd if you think he has you simply aren’t familiar with his work. It’s quite simple.kb

“Here it is again. Chomsky’s apologetics for Communist genocide and tyrrany during the Cold War are documented beyond the realm of your comments changing anyone’s mind.”

No, they are NOT. This is an uninformed statement. Had you actually read his work and then you came to these “conclusions” then you would only be illiterate or a liar. I will assume that you haven’t read any and that’s why you’re referring to the anti-Chomskyites ALL of who I am familiar with. There is NO documentation of any apologetics whatsoever. Or if there is I have yet to read them in the past 20+ years of studying not only his work, but even more so his critics. None. Zero. Oh, and those things which you think are “documentation” are textbook examples of what it means to “take statements out of context” and “misinterpret”. Why would I lie about this? I have no reason to blindly supprt anything Chomsky says at all. I’ve never even said that I liked him. You may have inferred that I have simply because I have kept up with his work, but anything more than that is also a misinterpretation. This is typical and happen all the time though. Someone knows about his work and then they’re called a “Chomskyite”, which is quite funny. I guess I’m a Michael Jordanite, too, since I know many of his statistics. Come to think of it, I’m a manyperson-ite if knowing their work means that I’m an “ite” of some sort. I REALLY suggest, I mean for your own sakes as wishing to portrait yourselves as Victorian gentlemen, for reasons which are WAY beyond me(not really)I ‘d advise that you actuallytake the time to study the subject and not simply what amounts to little more than book reviews by folks who have never even read the books. I mean, were I on a philosophy blog talking about Descartes being Spanish, and fighting in Irian Jaya, and singing opera, and being a black woman….I’d hope that someone would tell me what to read or set me straight. There isn’t a single apologetic in any of his writings. None. Zero. I’ve been there. They don’t exist. And PLEASE don’t tell me to keep loking at that which you think you have found which demonstrates otherwise. I’ve been there too and that’s exactly why I have the position I do. Of course it helps to correspond with Chomsky himself from time to time and allow him to speak to these things. But he’s done this so many times he usually has better things to do. Actually, it’s quite obvious by your comments that you haven’t even watched the film ‘Manufacturing Consent’. This and all of the other non-issues were dealt with there. I recommend that you at least watch a film. Reasonable?kb

Well that about says it all…

He has never made an apologetic for tyranny of any kind

I believe his long standing position on the Khmer Rouge might be one example…