8 ms·

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird r

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Edit: To be sure, I wish him full recovery and many more happy years. https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chom...

alecco 2y ago
Just Russia? Noam Chomsky had some financial money transfers and a series of meetings arranged by Jeffrey Epstein. At least one meeting with Ehud Barak (former PM of Israel). And he refused to explain himself. This got quickly swept under the rug. But it's there even on mainstream media if you bother to search for it.
- addicted 2y ago
  Considering he’s significantly anti-Israel I’m curious even if there were nefarious purposes behind his meeting with Barak what direction do you think it swayed him in? In addition a LOT of academics met with Epstein. The whole point of Epstein was that he clawed himself up the social ladder by schmoozing with money people and raising funds for academic work. It would be entirely shocking if Epstein raised all this money for academia and didn’t even try and meet probably the only famous academic in the world.
- hdbenne 2y ago
  If I recall, he did explain himself… it boiled down to it being none of your or my business. I despise Epstein, but as he was heavily involved in finance, I am sure many people had dealings with him that were not sexual in nature. You can find many things that Noam missed the mark on. To err is human. But this is conspiratorial and not fair. If you were judged by all the people you had financial or social dealings with I’d imagine you would share a similar sentiment.
  - jasonvorhe 2y ago
    Jeffrey Epstein was sus ever since he appeared because of the way he suddenly rose up in ranks, got handed billions of dollars without having done any significant deals himself. His connections to Mossad and US elites should've raised red flags for someone like Chomsky. I see no reason to give anyone dealing with Epstein the benefit of the doubt.
    - Jerrrrry 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - sciawps 2y ago
    [dead]
jcranmer 2y ago
> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Chomsky's foreign policy views can somewhat accurately be reduced to "everything is either American imperialism or reactions against it," to a degree that he ignores the imperialist tendencies (and other unpleasantries) of countries that aren't the US because they're against the US. For example, his denial of the Cambodian genocide essentially boiled down to "well, the US doesn't like the Khmer Rouge, so therefore everybody criticizing the Khmer Rouge was overselling the criticism, how was anyone at the time to know what they were doing?"
- spdgg 2y ago
  While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those initiatives was ordering those starving people to suddenly leave the capital and go farm, and another was to unalive people at death camps. I don't think he denied the genocide. It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland, and that the US would create a narrative to hide that and did not let the tragedy of Pol Pot "go to waste".
  - tim333 2y ago
    >It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.
    - spdgg 2y ago
      Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.
slantedview 2y ago
> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.
- RIMR 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - EthanHeilman 2y ago
    If you repeat false claims used to justify a war of conquest, you can't complain if people see you as aligning yourself with support of that war. I wish Chomsky a speedy recovery, but he has had a number bad political takes over the years.
    - Jerrrrry 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - EthanHeilman 2y ago
        [flagged]
- graphe 2y ago
  Many people also hate mearsheimer if he talks about what he predicts will happen vs what he'd like to happen (Ukraine or Israel).
- crazygringo 2y ago
  The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and distracting from domestic problems. So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.)
codr7 2y ago
Wow. The guy has a different opinion. It's going to happen a lot so maybe better to get used to it?
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  They guy built a brand (rightfully) opposing US imperialist wars only to side with a Russian imperialist war. It matters.
darby_nine 2y ago
"Taking russia's side" seems like a wild mischaracterization of the situation.
- Jerrrrry 2y ago
  [flagged]
objektif 2y ago
Rather he chose to understand the point of view from their side. It is extremely difficult to do so and only a few public facing individuals is able to do ( Jeffrey Sachs etc. )
- epistasis 2y ago
  This is much like trying to understand the US invasion of Iraq from the neoconservative point of view, and parroting it uncredulously. This necessitates dehumanizing the invaded population.
- tim333 2y ago
  That's kind of the problem. He should have been trying to understand it from the Ukrainians side more than seeing the thing as US vs Russia. It seems a bit of a historical change - in the 19th century view it would be ok for the Russians to get pissed off with the US trying to steal their Ukrainian peasants and associated property. These days you're supposed to let sovereign democracies do their own thing even if they have smaller armies.
  - objektif 2y ago
    Is that how it works? How about letting your ally wipe out a sovereign nation in the ME? Does that count as these days? Or casually kill 2+ mln civilians in Iraq. “These days” also apply to us and our allies and it is an unfortunate part of how things run.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    [flagged]
- wruza 2y ago
xg15 2y ago
I think matters of geopolitics and war especially must be up for debate.
martin82 2y ago
Russia's action are absolutely up for debate.
jesterson 2y ago
> But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Taking sides is a sign of emotional, not intellectual approach. And Russia/Ukraine conflict is way far from good fighting evil simplified construct. I don't like leftists in general and Chomsky in particlar, but I give him huge respect for intellectual and independent position, which will cause him losing appreciation from people like you.
- tim333 2y ago
  There's a 2023 interveiw with him here on Ukraine https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-a-stronger-nato-is-the-last-thing-we-need-as-russia-ukraine-war-turns-1/ https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-a-stronger-nato-is-the... I'd say rather than emotional he has the usual academic thing of being up in one specialist area - in this case US imperialism and not up on another speciality like Russia's history of invasion, expansion and the like.
  - jesterson 2y ago
    Its my poor wording to blame - when i said emotional i was referring rather to the commenter who attributed Chomsky position to taking sides. I agree its well thought position. As much as I disagree with him on many matters, he is absolutely right here. Besides being right, it takes immense courage to go against mainstream (which he apparently did all his life) and that’s something i can’t avoid admiring.
adastra22 2y ago
Chomsky regularly and rigorously defends genocidal regimes. Look up "Cambodian genocide denial" on wikipedia and you'll find an entire section devoted to Chomsky. This isn't anything new, and I'm surprised how much sympathetic support he's getting in this thread.
johnisgood 2y ago
It is probably needless to say, but you do not have to agree with someone on everything, especially to admire someone's knowledge or contributions in specific fields.

alecco 2y ago

Just Russia? Noam Chomsky had some financial money transfers and a series of meetings arranged by Jeffrey Epstein. At least one meeting with Ehud Barak (former PM of Israel). And he refused to explain himself. This got quickly swept under the rug. But it's there even on mainstream media if you bother to search for it.

addicted 2y ago
Considering he’s significantly anti-Israel I’m curious even if there were nefarious purposes behind his meeting with Barak what direction do you think it swayed him in? In addition a LOT of academics met with Epstein. The whole point of Epstein was that he clawed himself up the social ladder by schmoozing with money people and raising funds for academic work. It would be entirely shocking if Epstein raised all this money for academia and didn’t even try and meet probably the only famous academic in the world.
hdbenne 2y ago
If I recall, he did explain himself… it boiled down to it being none of your or my business. I despise Epstein, but as he was heavily involved in finance, I am sure many people had dealings with him that were not sexual in nature. You can find many things that Noam missed the mark on. To err is human. But this is conspiratorial and not fair. If you were judged by all the people you had financial or social dealings with I’d imagine you would share a similar sentiment.
- jasonvorhe 2y ago
  Jeffrey Epstein was sus ever since he appeared because of the way he suddenly rose up in ranks, got handed billions of dollars without having done any significant deals himself. His connections to Mossad and US elites should've raised red flags for someone like Chomsky. I see no reason to give anyone dealing with Epstein the benefit of the doubt.
  - Jerrrrry 2y ago
    [flagged]
- sciawps 2y ago
  [dead]

jcranmer 2y ago

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Chomsky's foreign policy views can somewhat accurately be reduced to "everything is either American imperialism or reactions against it," to a degree that he ignores the imperialist tendencies (and other unpleasantries) of countries that aren't the US because they're against the US. For example, his denial of the Cambodian genocide essentially boiled down to "well, the US doesn't like the Khmer Rouge, so therefore everybody criticizing the Khmer Rouge was overselling the criticism, how was anyone at the time to know what they were doing?"

spdgg 2y ago
While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those initiatives was ordering those starving people to suddenly leave the capital and go farm, and another was to unalive people at death camps. I don't think he denied the genocide. It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland, and that the US would create a narrative to hide that and did not let the tragedy of Pol Pot "go to waste".
- tim333 2y ago
  >It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.
  - spdgg 2y ago
    Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.

slantedview 2y ago

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.

RIMR 2y ago
[flagged]
- EthanHeilman 2y ago
  If you repeat false claims used to justify a war of conquest, you can't complain if people see you as aligning yourself with support of that war. I wish Chomsky a speedy recovery, but he has had a number bad political takes over the years.
  - Jerrrrry 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - EthanHeilman 2y ago
      [flagged]
graphe 2y ago
Many people also hate mearsheimer if he talks about what he predicts will happen vs what he'd like to happen (Ukraine or Israel).
crazygringo 2y ago
The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and distracting from domestic problems. So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.)

codr7 2y ago

Wow. The guy has a different opinion. It's going to happen a lot so maybe better to get used to it?

throwawayq3423 2y ago
They guy built a brand (rightfully) opposing US imperialist wars only to side with a Russian imperialist war. It matters.

darby_nine 2y ago

"Taking russia's side" seems like a wild mischaracterization of the situation.

Jerrrrry 2y ago
[flagged]

objektif 2y ago

Rather he chose to understand the point of view from their side. It is extremely difficult to do so and only a few public facing individuals is able to do ( Jeffrey Sachs etc. )

epistasis 2y ago
This is much like trying to understand the US invasion of Iraq from the neoconservative point of view, and parroting it uncredulously. This necessitates dehumanizing the invaded population.
tim333 2y ago
That's kind of the problem. He should have been trying to understand it from the Ukrainians side more than seeing the thing as US vs Russia. It seems a bit of a historical change - in the 19th century view it would be ok for the Russians to get pissed off with the US trying to steal their Ukrainian peasants and associated property. These days you're supposed to let sovereign democracies do their own thing even if they have smaller armies.
- objektif 2y ago
  Is that how it works? How about letting your ally wipe out a sovereign nation in the ME? Does that count as these days? Or casually kill 2+ mln civilians in Iraq. “These days” also apply to us and our allies and it is an unfortunate part of how things run.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  [flagged]
wruza 2y ago

xg15 2y ago

I think matters of geopolitics and war especially must be up for debate.

martin82 2y ago

Russia's action are absolutely up for debate.

jesterson 2y ago

> But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Taking sides is a sign of emotional, not intellectual approach. And Russia/Ukraine conflict is way far from good fighting evil simplified construct. I don't like leftists in general and Chomsky in particlar, but I give him huge respect for intellectual and independent position, which will cause him losing appreciation from people like you.

tim333 2y ago
There's a 2023 interveiw with him here on Ukraine https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-a-stronger-nato-is-the-last-thing-we-need-as-russia-ukraine-war-turns-1/ https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-a-stronger-nato-is-the... I'd say rather than emotional he has the usual academic thing of being up in one specialist area - in this case US imperialism and not up on another speciality like Russia's history of invasion, expansion and the like.
- jesterson 2y ago
  Its my poor wording to blame - when i said emotional i was referring rather to the commenter who attributed Chomsky position to taking sides. I agree its well thought position. As much as I disagree with him on many matters, he is absolutely right here. Besides being right, it takes immense courage to go against mainstream (which he apparently did all his life) and that’s something i can’t avoid admiring.

adastra22 2y ago

Chomsky regularly and rigorously defends genocidal regimes. Look up "Cambodian genocide denial" on wikipedia and you'll find an entire section devoted to Chomsky. This isn't anything new, and I'm surprised how much sympathetic support he's getting in this thread.

johnisgood 2y ago

It is probably needless to say, but you do not have to agree with someone on everything, especially to admire someone's knowledge or contributions in specific fields.