Thinking of Chomsky Today

Now, I don't find him hard on the eyes, just repetitious in theme. I know how each chapter ends before I turn the pages: United States, bad, Rest of World - helpless victim. 

I flipped through Hegemony for a few hours, reading his historical summaries with interest.  On page 73, I had to stop. It was the Cuban Missile Crisis depiction from a Russian standpoint that made me lose touch with his reality.

Not being into S & M, I find absolutely nothing sexy about being a victim and, nothing intelligent about having a one track mind with a 'heat seeking nose' for anything that can be twisted, baked or manufactured into having an Anti-US message.

However, it is an eye opener to get the details on a lot of the events he describes. Chomksy's research is extensive and I will not take that away from him. However, it is skewed quite often. Take his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. In true Chomsky-speak he quotes an unknown person in the Wilson administration (speaking of the Latin American people in the early 1800s):

"they are naughty children who are exercising all the rights and privileges of grown ups" (p. 64-65)

Here is a typical 'Noamism': watch how he once again quotes an unknown, but first, adds his own words. To reiterate, Chomsky put this part in himself:

"and require"

Then, he continues on with the mysterious person who is unnamed and only referred to as "The Wilson Administration":

"a stiff hand, an authoritive hand"

Was that one quote or two? He doesn't list the source as he normally does, so its a coin-toss.

Further, I would remind Noam of two points. That was then, this is now. People those days were under the belief of manifest destiny. All of the civilized world was, not only the United States. Spain, France, and Britain all shared the belief that the world was theirs and they were only restricted by whether or not another power would prevent them from doing something.

Is it any wonder that somebody in any administration in that day would refer to less advanced societies as children? He uses this as a valid point to establish a pattern in US foreign policy that extends to this day. Get real Noam, hang ten and chill out! His omission of the stark reality that most other nations of the day were more aggressive in their attempts for 'Hegemony' in that day is missing. Probably doesn't fit in with his premise.

So when is Noam's work on French Hegemony coming out, I wonder? Not like France has suddenly change; when did they change, and when, Noam? Could it have something to do with losing a couple of times in war and being rescued by in large part by the US? And could that large part be a defining moment in how the US suddenly felt the need to protect loser countries that couldn't protect themselves? It's not like there was suddenly no threat from anybody, with the Soviet Union saying chummy things like "we will bury the West." Yes, I can see where the US might have felt a need to stick around a bit to make sure the French and European Citroen didn't get stuck in the mud again, but who wants to storm the Beaches of Normandy time after time? Once is enough. Chomsky calls it Hegemony, I might call it common sense.

His portrayal of the Monroe Doctrine is one of the US preserving the Western Hemisphere for it own uses. Chomsky, in true Chomskonian Leftie-Looping and Over-Cascading of Facts so frequently used by the Left sees this with blinders and omits the obvious: the US had a legitimate wariness of Europe's power and the strife that they brought to places they colonized. Not the rhetorical, leftist type of 'US Imperialism' and 'Neo Colonialism' written on a sandwichboard in downtown Ottawa by a wet protestor, but downright slavery of anybody they could put under a boot. No pretensions of help, just ripping out what they could, leaving nothing but less than what they found. This was the reality of what Europe brought to the new world.

You are a somewhat powerful country, isolated from other powerful countries who come from thousands of miles away and start to colonize and influence countries adjacent to you. Are you supposed to sit by and watch all this happen without raising an eyebrow? The Monroe Doctrine was less a claim of property than a 'keep out' sign to governments that were at least as hegemonic as the US was at that time and had a history more oppressive than the US has to this day.

Chomsky never entertained this, not once. His ongoing (yawn) message? The US did it to rip off the people of the Philippines, Caribbean, Latin America. That's his gig and he's good at it. Some points are great, some are stretched and others are just worthless. Chomsky is so biased that he is not credible as a whole.

Another example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Chomsky brings forth a revelation that Russia had legitimate reasons for placing the missiles in Cuba, as did Cuba for allowing them there. From a 60's standpoint, Noam loses track of a harsh reality in his thoughtful tirade against US foreign policy of the day: Communism sucks. Who at the time could feel sorry for Russia? They couldn't be trusted with nuclear missiles as they had one goal: to propagate and expand their corrupt slavery system, the one that was a realistic end product of the lofty Socialist ideals held by so many intellectuals even to this day.

The US wanted to keep the Communists out of our hemisphere. And, rightfully, didn't feel anything but defensiveness, fear and aggression against this valid threat. Noam should remember that the Russians had reasons, but if they ever gained a foothold, the intellectuals would've gotten the bullet to the back of the head first. All theories and ability to discuss complex issues end with the lead entering the skull. Nothing lofty or intellectual about a rotting body in a hay field in some nameless grid square of Kansas.

Having read much of Chomsky's work before, this short essay does him no justice, and should not be construed as an overall view of his work.  I only aim to draw attention to the fact that all of us are biased; we all have a predetermined view of things. Still, as one critic put it, 'Chomsky, right or wrong makes us think.'  For that, his research and easy-to-read style, I thank and respect him. His one-track mind in this particular case, however, does his cause no justice, as it decreases his credibility when errors that counter his overall premise are found.  Perhaps, if he were to make equally biased observations of other world-moving governments and events to show balance, his true intellect would shine through and he might find a more receptive audience on the Right.