Thought I’d clue you in to another letter from Cousin Ned. Last time he took on the right wing with his highly unconventional support for Donald Trump. This time, Ned goes for the jugular of left-wing icon, sensei, superhero, savior and some say sheepman, Noam Chomsky.
According to Ned, both are pied pipers leading their disciples on a path to destruction. Ned discusses Chomsky’s sophistry on 9/11. He explains why he feels Chomsky has “neutered” the post 9/11 anti-war, anti-imperialist left.
I posted this to an anti-war Facebook page promoting the ideas of Noam Chomsky. Tired of the mindless hero-worship. This man has done so much damage. Thought I’d share.
Chomsky, the sophist.
I find it interesting that Chomsky introduces a subtle straw man argumentin response to Bob Tuskin’s WTC Building 7 collapse (video at bottom of page) challenge.
“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved…”
(Chomsky’s highly opinionated “no opinion” on WTC Building 7’s collapse on 9/11.)
Sophists use words to decieve. They were a school of philosophy in ancient Greece. Plato was the first to condemn them.
Yet Tuskin never asserted that the Bush administration was involved. His only assertion was that Building 7 fell by controlled demolition. Proving both 1.) it was a controlled demolition and 2.) “the Bush administration did it” is a much taller order than proving Tuskin’s assertion of simply 1.) controlled demolition.
Chomsky also creates a false dichotomy in the minds of his adoring disciples that there are only two options: 1.) 19 nincompoops with box-cutters, Qurans, and a wild-eyed scheme pulled off the unimaginable or 2.) Frat boy Bush, the booze-sodden, coke-snorting ne’er do well who
could barely string a complete sentence together without stumbling, laid down the orders to his cabinet and set the plan in motion.
Oh, and more sophistry from the “great one:” Chomsky appeals to authority by deferring to NIST and a scientific “consensus” of establishment scientists. It’s understandable, since Tuskin also appealed to authority, but two wrongs don’t make a right, and neither do two logical fallacies make a sound argument. (Career-ending consequences for scientists [e.g. Steven Jones] who go “truther” make a credible refutation, btw.)
(WTC Building 7’s odd collapse on 9/11. It never was hit by a plane. Why does its collapse look identical to a controlled demolition? Why do so few people know about it? Why did the official 9/11 Report fail to mention it? Why the big secret? “Move along people. Nothing to see here.”)
As my username implies, I'm a long-time runner, and a lazy bum who would rather write than do real work for a living. I enjoy listening to roots music, such as James Brown and Elmore James, and discovering good, but little-known, movies and shows on Netflix. I live in the Seattle area.