[The_Rorschach]

Ronnie may not have any thoughts on Chomsky, but I certainly do. By all means let us begin a serious discussion of the man here. I'll argue that Chomsky is a psuedo intellectual who shows great consistancy is trying to make a villain of the United States at every concievable occasion. For instance:

"In the early 1990s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients..." -Chomsky

Contrast that quote this that of Otto Von Bismarck who said:

"There is nothing in the Balkans that is worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

Lets assume that his faulty premise is correct, that the US does indeed, for cynical great power reasons, select client states. Why the Balkans? Have the Bosnian Moslems suddenly become the cornerstone of US military or political strategem within Europe? Are those same Moslems, who were being murdered daily at exponentially rising rates, intrinsically valuable to the United States? Is the region itself of strategic importance, or possessing of security interests? While the outcome of our interference can be debated, it is clearly obvious that the only plausible explaination for our presence was humanitarian in conception.

But I'm bored already. Lets move swiftly on, we have quite a bit of ground to cover Max, because I'd also like to illustrate that his standing as a peerless intellectual preaching Plato's Republic to ungrateful pigs is a terrible misconception.

Allow me to introduct Mr Robert Faurisson. You may have heard of him, he was a professor of French literature at the University of Lyon, France. 'Was' being the operable word as he has since been thoroughly relieved of his duties. Why? Well, "on the grounds that he could not be protected from attacks carried out against him as a result of his views, and he was sued in court for writings denying the existence of gas chambers in Nazi Germany and calling into question the Holocaust itself" - Edward S. Herman, "Pol Pot"

More than tried, he was actually convicted for the blatant falsification of history. That judgement, according to Chomsky, "reeks of Stalinism and fascism, and was naturally applauded by the French intellectuals, who proceeded to lie outrageously about it, as do Dershowitz and others Â* the truth being too embarrassing to allow," - March 31, 1995

You see, Chomsky also wrote the preface for Faurisson's book, and saw the man -using his own words- as "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." Chomsky went so far as to insist he had never read anything in Faurisson's works to make him believe the man was a Nazi supported, and in fact, that if anything he was an "anti-Nazi." Again, his words. Later, when seeing the reaction of his support, he attempt to retract his sentiments saying that in truth, he only did so to support free speech. . .Right.

Then why bother to misrepresent Faurisson's beliefs? Why the attempt to make him out to be "a relatively apolitical liberal"and that there is no evidence he is pro-Nazi? If you wish to make a case for the absolute tolerance of free speech, wouldn't his cause be better served to show Faurisson as the Holocaust-denier's he truly is rather than "a relatively apolitical liberal" being martyred for his unbiased research?

Seems to me he is a tit monkey who is quick to swing towards whatever hypothesis supports his, and I use the term emphatically, insane ideals without bothering to do any ample research before embracing it en toto. Furthermore, he is just as quick to cower and cover his tracks rather than admit he may have erred. He is a weak man who seems to be unjustifiably full of his own self importance and crippled diatrobes.