Contents
A. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About Communist Mass Murderers 1
B. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About Modern History 5
C. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About the Cold War 9
D. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About the War on Terrorism 13
E. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About Latin America 16
F. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About the Arab-Israeli Conflict 20
G. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About His Collaboration With Neo-Nazi Holocaust Deniers 23
H. Top 10 Chomsky Misquotations 26
I. Top 10 Chomsky Statistical Distortions 29
J. Top 10 Chomsky Lies About Himself 32

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf

Left-wing hero and pathological liar. :nonono:

who is chomsky?

TBH, I'm a left-winger, & I have doubted Chomsky's credibility for a long time.

TBH, I'm a left-winger, & I have doubted Chomsky's credibility for a long time.
you're a left winger? coulda fooled me :shrug:

I don't think this author is informed enough about WWII to be making such broad generalizations...


"The Lie: “The United States and Britain fought the war, of course, but not primarily against Nazi Germany. The war against Nazi Germany was fought by the Russians… you have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did.” 30

The Truth: America fought both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; Britain fought the war primarily against Nazi Germany. The Soviets were Nazi allies until 1941; America then saved them from the Nazi attack by providing massive military and economic aid.31

Yes, America provided military and economic aid to Russia but that's not ENTIRELY why the soviets prevailed. The Russians saved themselves! Hitler's attention was focused almost entirely on the Russians for a good portion of the war, resulting in 10,600,000 Russian military deaths and 11,500,000 civilian deaths. Russia's military deaths alone exceed Britain & America's TOTAL COMBINED DEATHS for the portion of the war.

The Russians repeled the Russian attack primarily with Russian blood, not with pounds and dollars. The Russians did a majority of the leg work in Europe during WWII, and they're often not given due credit in western history classrooms.


America and Britain did not kill tens of millions of Russians; the Nazi attack killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens, many of them non-Russians. Unlike the Soviet Union, America and Britain were never allies of Nazi Germany.
America and Britain's slow attack and slow movement of forces indirectly resulted in Russian deaths.

Also, the author is refuting a moot point here. He talks about "allies of Nazi Germany," yet Chomsky's comment discusses support of Nazi Germany, not an alliance. US businesses directly and indirectly supported Nazi Germany in the run up to WWII.

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

"On December 20, 1922 the New York Times reported4 that automobile manufacturer Henry Ford was financing Adolph Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semitic movements in Munich...A decade later, in August 1938 — after Hitler had achieved power with the aid of the cartels — Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners...A post-war Congressional subcommittee investigating American support for the Nazi military effort described the manner in which the Nazis succeeded in obtaining U.S. technical and financial assistance as "quite fantastic.11...The memo cited the advantages of having a majority of the German firm held by Ford Motor Company in Detroit. German Ford had been able to exchange Ford parts for rubber and critical war materials needed in 1938 and 1939 "and they would not have been able to do that if Ford had not been owned by the United States." ...In July 1942 word filtered back to Washington from Ford of France about Ford's activities on behalf of the German war effort in Europe. The incriminating information was promptly buried and even today only part of the known documentation can be traced in Washington...

Edsel Ford cabled:

Delighted to hear you are making progress[WRT truck production for Nazi Germany]. Your letters most interesting. Fully realize great handicap you are working under. Hope you and family well. Regards.

- Edsel Ford14

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm

If that wasn't enough, here's a whole website dedicated to the facts about Western support of Nazi Germany:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
"Some of the primary and more famous Americans and companies that were involved with the fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric.

It should be noted that businessmen from many countries, including England and Australia, also worked with the fascist regimes of Europe prior to WWII. The fascist governments were involved in a high level of construction, production, and international business.

One reason the Russians beat the nazis back and stopped them from conquoring Moscow was because of the winters the germans weren't use to , but in the end we won the war .

But in an earlier war the Brits sunk the Bizmark ! :p . I liked the song...Sink the Bizmark .


PS . Also the whole world traded with each other , just like now . So no big deal about all those elites doing biz as usual . If not for them, we never would have made it this far . Even if they are now ruinng this nation .

Read through it all and quite a few of the retorts to the 'lies' completely miss Chomsky's point, are irrelevant, are just listing statistics for no reason, are clutching at straws, etc.

The Russians repeled the Russian attack primarily with Russian blood, not with pounds and dollars. The Russians did a majority of the leg work in Europe during WWII, and they're often not given due credit in western history classrooms.

Apparently almost all of the front line stuff used to prevent their takeover by Germany was via the "Lend-Lease" program of US taxpayers paying for stuff and giving it away to the Ruskies. What is interesting is that our friends in Iran allowed the transport of the stuff.

TBH, I'm a left-winger, & I have doubted Chomsky's credibility for a long time.

You are anything but a left-winger. You are a Hillary Clinton style Democrat and thus an excuse-maker for the GOP criminal enterprise.

:werd:

also, the Banana king is right. I especially enjoyed reading the accusations of "collaborations with neo nazis" :p Like this:

"The Lie: “Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as ‘the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human
history’).”153
The Truth: The phrase in Chomsky’s Peace in the Middle East? occurred in a passage setting out “the Zionist case” for Jewish statehood, which he opposed."

How on earth is that a lie?

I always know exactly when Chumpsky is lying... it is when his mouth is moving.

you're a left winger? coulda fooled me :shrug:
Let's see - I believe in free abortion on demand; demilitiarization used to fund education & healthcare; affirmative action; heavy upgrades of the Bracero program; a constitutional gay marriage amendment; vast increases in state funding of social programs; strict gun control; an entirely secular gov't; pervasive legalization of prostitution; & decriminalization of all other consensual crimes, particularly controlled substances.

Doesn't sound very right wing to me. :shrug:

:werd:
How on earth is that a lie?
IIRC - & it's been some time since I read that book, so I may be mistaken on this point - he didn't say that the Holocaust was the greatest outbreak of collective insanity in history.

He implied that the "Zionist case for Jewish statehood" maintained that "WWII was the greatest outbreak of collective insanity in history."

I recalled that from memory alone, so it might be a slight paraphrase as well.

Wow, CowPunk isn't left-wing enough to some on this board. Makes me want to give my left-wing adversary a hug. :( :)

I mean, I'm not a radical leftist - I certainly believe in private property & capitalism.

To Communists & the hard left, that's not left-wing.

isn't chomsky funded by the DoD?

he also thinks world government is a good idea.

if that's not an NWO stooge, i dont' know what is

Let's see - I believe in free abortion on demand; demilitiarization used to fund education & healthcare; affirmative action; heavy upgrades of the Bracero program; a constitutional gay marriage amendment; vast increases in state funding of social programs; strict gun control; an entirely secular gov't; pervasive legalization of prostitution; & decriminalization of all other consensual crimes, particularly controlled substances.

Doesn't sound very right wing to me. :shrug:

This is the second time CowPunk's political philosphy has been questioned because he deviates from some minor component of the left-wing cult. In fact CowPunk is a far left-wing extremist- the fact that any leftist on this board could doubt his affiliation with the left points to the utter cult like nature of the left.

He did say that about 70% of his income is funded by the DoD - perhaps his lingustics theories have some intel or military value? :confused:

He's never really explained it.

He did say that about 70% of his income is funded by the DoD - perhaps his lingustics theories have some intel or military value? :confused:

He's never really explained it.don't be so naive my friend

This is the second time CowPunk's political philosphy has been questioned because he deviates from some minor component of the left-wing cult. In fact CowPunk is a far left-wing extremist- the fact that any leftist on this board could doubt his affiliation with the left points to the utter cult like nature of the left.
^ Just like the right comes in various strengths & varieties - one would hardly expect that right libertarians & communitarians would agree precisely with the Christian Right, nor the latter with many ideas of the Fascists - so does the left.

I, too, am amazed anyone would consider him anything less than a complete radical, leftist.

He believes that the Constitution is meaningless and can be re-written at pleasure. What could be more left-wing?

A liberal or leftist does NOT have to be an idiot, and that's exactly why extreme right-wing people here dislike CowPunk (if all leftists were like him, Rush and the rest of the idiots wouldn't be making no big money like that:p )...he proves liberal points to be correct without being un-american, pro-islamist, socialist, communist or racially biased idiot...that's republican's worst nightmare:nice: :nice: And the reason leftists often lose and look like useless idiots is because of people like Chomsky and some people here who critisize REAL liberals like CowPunk for basically being smart and understanding the reality:rolleyes: .

So much for not debating the poster! :not:

he proves liberal points to be correct without being un-american

THAT is an impossibility, not just for Cowpunk, but for ANYONE. Being a leftist is inherently un-American. The two cannot be separated.

Ya see Mobile when someone, say GanjaFreebird, has a belief system premised on double standards, hypocrisy, and falsehood, he can say that and in theory it can be true, to him.

THAT is an impossibility, not just for Cowpunk, but for ANYONE. Being a leftist is inherently un-American. The two cannot be separated.

What a load of shit. I hate to be the one to reintroduce you to reality, but a person's political beliefs do not define anything more than that - a person's political beliefs.

THAT is an impossibility, not just for Cowpunk, but for ANYONE. Being a leftist is inherently un-American. The two cannot be separated.

WHAT?:confused:

I mean, here's a question for you and other rightists:

Let's say...I believe in woman's right to chose, gay rights, I'm against racism, I support gun control, wefare, higher taxes, prostitution and drug legalization, feminism, sexual freedom...you know, the leftist values...does it mean I'm un-American and hate America? I mean, suddenly, I'm not allowed to love America and I have to be a commie or islamic supporter because I happen to support government regulations of the economy, freedom of religion, and unlimited personal freedom?:confused:

And on the other hand, can't I be pro-life, anti-gay, racist, anti-personal freedom, religious freak, AND hate America?:confused:

And one more thing...CowPunk did for this country more than any of the idiots who critisize him could ever dream of all combined:nice: :nice:

Can we get this thread back on bashing Chomsky? We can go after CowPunk's views on another thread where it is warranted. Thanks. :)



btw, ganja, I view being anti-racist as being a rightist view, especially a right-wing Christian view. But we're happy for you and other left-wingers to join us in our anti-racist advocacy.

lol JESUS! I was only commenting based on my overall impression of the guy... nothing personal or anything - I should have just kept my drunken trap shut.

I think the idea might have stemmed from a constitution related response about the limititation of the rights of the individual, or some such thing... or possibly CP's stance on pre-emptive attack (which i believe to be a logical fallacy on many levels).

Regardless, we should probably get back to the point of this thread, no matter how trivial. I dont even understand the deal about this Chomsky guy. Why is he always being attacked by right wing DA-ers featuring special guest thumper? Is he particularly influential or important?

Let's say...I believe in woman's right to chose, gay rights, I'm against racism, I support gun control, wefare, higher taxes, prostitution and drug legalization, feminism, sexual freedom...you know, the leftist values...does it mean I'm un-American and hate America? I mean, suddenly, I'm not allowed to love America and I have to be a commie or islamic supporter because I happen to support government regulations of the economy, freedom of religion, and unlimited personal freedom?

I didn't say you had to "hate America" or support our enemies directly.

However, if you believe in EVERYTHING that is antithetical to America, its history, its principles and its society and laws, then you ARE un-American. You cannot possibly claim to truly love America when you want to change everything about it! And THAT is the position that leftists are in. They hate everything that IS America and want to erase it all to remake it in a leftist, Europeanesque image.

Still, that does not necessarily mean you want to forcibly destroy it, though your ideas would tend to do so in the long run.

But, go on... get back to that traitor Chumpsky. Go back to discussing something boring.

Chomsky has some good points, but I'd never read a book of his without checking the stuff I don't know. Maybe I should start a topic about one of his issues, seeing that, as Mobile Vulgus pointed out, debating the author tends to get dull :p

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/images/left_gatekeepers.gif

He believes that the Constitution is meaningless and can be re-written at pleasure. What could be more left-wing?

The same could be said for neo-cons.

Can we get this thread back on bashing Chomsky? We can go after CowPunk's views on another thread where it is warranted. Thanks.


Well, the point is, that leftists like Chomsky are lying idiots who are a shame to REAL liberal values and have more in common with Pat Buchanan than true liberals, while leftists like CowPunk are great and if there were more of them, the world would be a MUCH better place:) .

btw, ganja, I view being anti-racist as being a rightist view

You can be a rightist and be anti-racist, I agree.

However, real liberals CANNOT be racist, and the "leftists" who are racists are mostly bigoted idiots (usually with rightist social values) who just happen to support socialist economy and are against going to war. There are WAYY more bigots on the right than on the left, and I'm objective about it since I'm not really a leftist nor a rightist.

especially a right-wing Christian view.

Then why are there so many racists in this group?:confused:

But we're happy for you and other left-wingers to join us in our anti-racist advocacy.

I am NOT a left-winger...maybe possibly a liberal, but even then I support capitalism, gun rights, destroying radical islam, and I'm moderate-conservative on most economic issues.

I didn't say you had to "hate America" or support our enemies directly.

But how can one be un-American if he loves America and supports it over our enemies?:confused:

I agree that SOME idiots on the extreme left are un-american, like Chomsky, but I have yet to see evidence that most liberals are the same way:rolleyes: .

However, if you believe in EVERYTHING that is antithetical to America

Such as?:confused:

its history

REAL American patriots ARE against some of the things done by American leaders in the past...are you suggesting that a "true american" should be ok with slavery, segregation, McCarthyism, sexism...because I thought that all of the above were THE "un-American" things, since it did so much harm to so many Americans, am I right?

its principles

Such as?:confused: If you mean "bigotery" against minorities and things like that...I didn't know it was "American" the first place:rolleyes: .

and its society

I love the American society, and that sure includes people from all kinds of races, religions, backgrounds and lifestyles:) . Is that "un-american" too?:confused:

and laws

Actually, I like many laws in America actually, especially the First Amendment (as well as the 5th and 10th), the medical marijuana laws in California and OF COURSE, how can we forget...Roe. vs. Wade:p . Am I finally a good American?:D

You cannot possibly claim to truly love America when you want to change everything about it!

Not EVERYTHING of course, and I don't know too many liberals who want to change everything about America, but some of the things that happend in the past and happen now SHOULD be changed.

Oh yeah, and of course, since you the righitsts are so "American", you guys are definately against changing laws such as the pro-Abortion ones, the ones for separation of state and religion, the ones that decriminalized drugs in some states and the future law that will let gays get married, am I right?:p

And THAT is the position that leftists are in. They hate everything that IS America and want to erase it all to remake it in a leftist, Europeanesque image.


I disagree with European immigration laws, appeasement of radical islamic nazis and neo-socialist economy. Everything else is ok with me...next...

Still, that does not necessarily mean you want to forcibly destroy it, though your ideas would tend to do so in the long run.

Wrong again, I want America's enemies to be either destroyed or be put in their place, so that the country will return to a peaceful time (as in 1967-1969) where people can just chill, smoke lots of weed, have lots of sex, protest against bad politicians and authority, make decent money, listen to Hendrix and Beatles, while at the same time not being afraid of Ahmed bombing them and having to chose between christian moderate-fanatics and muslim extreme-fanatics.

get back to that traitor Chumpsky.

He's more of a traitor to his race than to his country, I'd say.

Chomsky has some good points

I agree, and he also has MANY MANY bad ones:rolleyes: .

He's very smart, so is Pat Buchanan, but both people use their intelligence for bad causes for the most part:rolleyes: .

Some here are making the mistake of lumping everyone with a leftist orientation into the same category. This is not fair.

It IS possible for People of Goodwill to hold differing philosophical views while respecting one another. Chomsky, imo, is unable to do this - which is why he is Freaking Leftwing Moonbat.

Those on the Right who demonize all Lefties, are just as bad as Chomsky.

Some here are making the mistake of lumping everyone with a leftist orientation into the same category. This is not fair.

It IS possible for People of Goodwill to hold differing philosophical views while respecting one another. Chomsky, imo, is unable to do this - which is why he is Freaking Leftwing Moonbat.

Those on the Right who demonize all Lefties, are just as bad as Chomsky.

:nice: :nice:

THAT is an impossibility, not just for Cowpunk, but for ANYONE. Being a leftist is inherently un-American. The two cannot be separated.
As this country was founded on democratic liberal values that were the most exemplary of the heritage of the Enlightenment - thus making this nation the most successful experiment in liberalism every made - in fact, NOT to be a liberal is to be "un-American."

However, America's greatest triumph is its tolerance for even those that don't share our collective liberal democratic American values, like conservatives. :nice:

As this country was founded on democratic liberal values that were the most exemplary of the heritage of the Enlightenment - thus making this nation the most successful experiment in liberalism every made - in fact, NOT to be a liberal is to be "un-American."

However, America's greatest triumph is its tolerance for even those that don't share our collective liberal democratic American values, like conservatives.

:D :nice:

Those on the Right who demonize all Lefties, are just as bad as Chomsky.
Frankly, I feel as demonized by Chomsky as the cons do - almost anyone that doesn't share his media-paranoid, Israel-hating anarcho-syndicalism probably does or should. :shrug:

However, America's greatest triumph is its tolerance for even those that don't share our collective liberal democratic American values, like conservatives. :nice:


:rolleyes:

Actually, America was founded by a blended group of conservatives and liberals. I refer you to Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind".

I'll refer you to Nakove's "Original Meanings" for an exposition of the part Enlightenment ideals played in the codifying & ratification of the Constitution. :)

John Adams, for one, was a Conservative. You also are (willfully I believe) misunderstanding what Conservatism is. In its healthy form, it means to preserve those things which are worth preserving. Mindlessly tossing out that which does work is just as foolish as mindlessly adhering to things which are no longer working.

The Founding Fathers certainly believed in preserving what worked; like, for example, the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

Is wishing to preserve The Constitution a Liberal or Conservative objective?

Depends. :shrug:

Is wishing to preserve The Constitution a Liberal or Conservative objective?
I think it's technilly a conservative objective if you look at the dictionary definition. Politically, i don't believe it's either lib or con to do so - it's a requirement, and often part of the duty of gov't officials!

Depends. :shrug:


I'll take that as an acknowledgement that The Founders blended both Liberal and Conservative values.

:nice:

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that The Founders blended both Liberal and Conservative values.

Unfortunately, for the definition of "liberal", today leftists are in charge of the "liberal" Party. Leftism is NOT liberalism. It is Marxism. And Marxism is as far from American liberalism as you can get.

Liberals, today, are Republicans. Democrats are just plain Marxist.

Some leftists are Marxists, not all. :rolleyes:

I thought the republicans were trotskyists?

There is a huge difference between the liberals who formed the country and todays liberal. Redistribution of wealth wasn't a concept advocated by either side when the country was founded, but modern day liberals can't seem to live without it.

I thought the republicans were trotskyists?
The neo-cons were former Trotskyiites, anyhow, before being turned on to the God's One Truth of Leo Strauss.

The neo-cons were former Trotskyiites, anyhow, before being turned on to the God's One Truth of Leo Strauss

Over simplified twaddle. And I'd bet you wouldn't know Strauss' philosophy from the ingredients of a box of Cap'n Crunch!

And I bet you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground, what's your point?

Over simplified twaddle. And I'd bet you wouldn't know Strauss' philosophy from the ingredients of a box of Cap'n Crunch!
Uh, no - the original neo-cons were primarily former Trotskiites & Communists, many of whom shifted right after studying under Strauss himself. Hence, the descriptic "neo-cons."

And as was publicized heavily in the 70s, Cap'n Crunch was revealed by the FDA to be no less than 96% sugar + artificial colors & riboflavin.

Over simplified twaddle. And I'd bet you wouldn't know Strauss' philosophy from the ingredients of a box of Cap'n Crunch!


Of course CP would know the difference. Strauss doesn't contain Crunch Berries.

Basically, there's one ingredient.

Hence the Simpsons' observation: "Only sugar has more sugar."

I don't think Strauss sticks to one's teeth like Cap'n Crunch does, either. Not that I have ever tried munching on Strauss, but I do believe my theory is sound.

They both seem to make one over-hyped & belligerent.

I could make the same observation about excessive amounts of Mountain Dew and Howard Dean, but I won't.

I think Capt'n Crunch is more nutritious than Strauss' philosphy ... and the ingredents label is more intelligible

partially hydrogenated political snake oil anyone ?

:)
Ha, ha. Good one!

He is a bit hard to follow, I have to admit!