Chomsky: MIT Bimbo?

Some praise Chomsky as the “Socrates For Our Times“. Before unleashing a deep and scathing critique to the heart of Chomsky’s mind, let me hasten to point out that I do agree with a lot of Chomsky’s remarks. Let me quote him in an interview posted June 16, 2014:

“This war hysteria has never ceased, moving seamlessly from a fear of the German Hun to a fear of communists to a fear of Islamic jihadists and terrorists.

“The public is frightened into believing we have to defend ourselves,” Chomsky said. “This is not entirely false. The military system generates forces that will be harmful to us. Take Obama’s terrorist drone campaign, the biggest terrorist campaign in history. This program generates potential terrorists faster than it destroys suspects. You can see it now in Iraq. Go back to the Nuremberg judgments. Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows. The U.S. and British invasion of Iraq is a textbook case of aggression. By the standards of Nuremberg they [the British and U.S. leaders] would all be hanged. And one of the crimes they committed was to ignite the Sunni and Shiite conflict.”

The conflict, which is now enflaming the region, is “a U.S. crime if we believe the validity of the judgments against the Nazis. Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the [Nuremberg] tribunal, addressed the tribunal. He pointed out that we were giving these defendants a poisoned chalice. He said that if we ever sipped from it we had to be treated the same way or else the whole thing is a farce.” 

Today’s elite schools and universities inculcate into their students the worldview endorsed by the power elite. They train students to be deferential to authority. Chomsky calls education at most of these schools, including Harvard, a few blocks away from MIT, “a deep indoctrination system.””

What is there not to like for someone such as me? Did I not just said the same over and over again, even yesterday (before the Chomsky interview was published)?

[I agree, with all the preceding, especially what I emboldened. Actually, I have said these things vociferously, for years. I am happy Chomsky has joined the show. He should add MIT, and… himself, to the parade. Let me explain.]

My objection to Chomsky is that we need a Death Star to destroy the plutocracy, and that Chomsky is a deeply malfunctioning Death Star.


Chomsky’s analysis of World War One. What happened then bears and informs completely upon what is going on today: a few manipulating plutocrats, in one of the deadliest and deepest conspiracies ever, ganged up together, and achieved their objectives.

(There was actually a hierarchy in the manipulative order, conspiracies within conspiracies: the half dozen Prussians, and the grandson of Queen Victoria who, technically launched WWI all by themselves, were manipulated by a number of higher level creatures… from the other side of the Atlantic! The very failure of Chomsky to know of the existence and nature of this meta-conspiracy mindset is his greatest failure. That makes him bark all day along, at the foot of the wrong tree.)

Chomsky as Socrates? Some will see in that an innocent way of expressing oneself. Instead I view in this not just the pursuit of false prophets, but of a false analysis of humanity.

Having a false evaluation of humanity makes oneself into a lambs ready to be devoured by plutocrats. The basic approach of Chomsky is the same as the one of Russell. It’s a variant of the one inaugurated by Kant, no less. Kant (following Confucius) said the state defined morality, so should be obeyed.

Russell and Chomsky say:”All states are the same, so let’s just do away with them.”

OK, they say: let’s do away with the military mindset; however, a state worth of its name, is, first of all, an army. Thus an anti-military posture is pure anarchism, and, thus pure impotence, hence the greatest help a fascist, plutocratic, oligarchic state can have. That makes Russell and Chomsky more like vaccinations rather than aggressions.

In the end, they leave the state perhaps even stronger, and more unscathed, than Kant did.

Chomsky and MIT mean well. Perhaps. But I doubt it.

Indeed, Chomsky did not get the history of World War One (or Two) right yet. He makes the exact same mistake as the major plutocrat, pseudo-philosopher, Lord Russell. It’s the same grotesque call to turning the other cheek, after the first one has been torn out, and made into a gory mess, with some brains showing (maybe that’s why they lost their minds?)

The Kaiserreich that made a surprise attack on August First 1914, deliberately launching a world war (that’s the way they had planned it since December 1912) was a regime that had long engaged in holocausts and Nazi style war crimes, and proceeded to do this exactly in Belgium and France in the following days.

Weirdly, Chomsky, who recognizes that “Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows,seems astonishingly unawares of the elementary fact that it is the Reich of the Kaiser which deliberately attacked in August 1914 (even Austria took several more days to declare war, despite Berlin’s frantic urging!)

Yet, the bare facts are obvious: the envoy of the USA president told the Kaiser, June 1, that the USA would support him and proposed an alliance against France. Next the Kaiser attacked, and the USA became immensely rich, feeding the Kaiser, with, among other things, ammunitions, through the “neutral” Netherlands.

When the USA saw that France and Britain were going to win, it came to the rescue of victory, and grabbed the spoils.

Then the USA, by a somber public-private pirouette, transferred much German property into private American plutocratic hands… who then, basically, organized Nazism, as an occasion to indulge in business far removed from Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly laws!

By forgetting, ignoring, or simply not knowing those basic facts, Chomsky makes himself a major ally of Wall Street plutocracy (the prime profiteer of the preceding; headed by JP Morgan).

To claim, as Chomsky does, that the racist, mass murdering, war crime indulging, anti-Judaic dictatorship of the Kaiser was just the same as the French republic it attacked to destroy, out of sheer computation, to pursue its reign of terror and exploitation, is sheer madness.

And it’s nothing new: that was the line of that major plutocrat, Lord Russell. And, implicitly, dear at heart of many British plutocrats (before their sons, over-represented in the officer class of the British Expeditionary Force, died by the thousands on the battlefields of Belgium and France; the sons were idealistic, the fathers, cynical… But, after they had to bury their progeny, they started to sincerely hate the Huns.)

By attacking on August 1, 1914, the Kaiser actually broke the unity of plutocracy. It’s only being reconstituted now… And in danger of being broken again, not by Thomas Picketty’s rather bland remarks, but by that other major war minded plutocrat, Vladimir Putin.

Chomsky is a false prophet, an objective accomplice of un-truth.

Un-truth has never helped revolution. Moreover, the un-truth of Chomsky (war is bad, we are manipulated into it), is exactly the opposite of what we need in the realm of emotion.

Plutocrats can easily brandish wars that have to be fought. Say World War One, or World War Two. Yes democracies had to fight them, just as the Secession War had to be fought, or the defense war of the French Republic in 1792, fighting for survival against all the plutocrats of Europe united, had to be fought.

The mistake, in World War One, or in World War Two, was not to see that the plutocrats themselves had craftily organized it (just as they organized the plutocratization of the ex-USSR, and, Chomsky could notice, that oligarchization of the ex-Soviet Union was indeed directed from Harvard!)

By saying war is the problem, and refusing to engage in an intricate causality debate Chomsky is enjoining us to enjoy the furious bleating of sheep against the wolves. That won’t do. Except for the wolves. Not only do wolves enjoy eating sheep, but they love killing them, with wild abandon, just because it’s fun. Something about bleating invites the humiliation of being torn open, and being unable to do anything about it.

Our plutocrats are not any different. Bleating to their faces, thus, won’t do.

Oh, by the way, Socrates was executed for his troubling role during Athens 30 year  desperate fight for survival. The dictators that came to rule Athens, and collaborate with her enemies (Sparta, etc.), were all Socrates’ students. Socrates, the pseudo-great philosopher, spent most of his career bitterly criticizing Athens total democracy, while dining, feasting, getting drunk, and having sex with Athens’ Golden Youth (such as the Syracuse tyrant friendly Plato).

Half of Athens’ population died during the war. A general amnesty was proclaimed when (under victorious Sparta’s supervision), democracy was re-established. The amnesty was scrupulously respected, but for one exception: Socrates.

So to be called a “Socrates” is not necessarily a compliment. Or rather, if one is on the side of the plutocrats, it is. And that’s no compliment.

Posing to look pretty, as bimbos do, does not bring the Cave Bear down. Any Neanderthal could have told you that. If MIT differs in this evaluation, MIT ought to go back to study the jungle.

Against plutocracy, action without violent violation nor subtler comprehension, contends in vain.

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , , ,

15 Responses to “Chomsky: MIT Bimbo?”

  1. Ralph J Kramden Says:

    Ralph J Kramden

    And yet, he has more courage in his little pinky, a more sophisticated analysis of what ails us, and a much greater contribution to human thought than you will ever accomplish.

    Russell as a plutocrat and a pseudo-philosopher? That gives you away. Lord Russell renounced his inheritance, lived off his writings and had the courage to go to jail protesting the 1st. World War, a capitalist war if there ever was one. What exactly have you done lately, ever? Russell was also instrumental in exposing the War Crimes in Vietnam. Again, who are you to criticize anyone?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I replied to Mr. Kramden, who asked “who are you to criticize anyone?”… On TruthDig. An interesting misunderstanding of what Mr. Chomsky is trying to teach him, namely that one should beware of the concept of authority. My posted reply, though, disappeared (strange…). So let me write this, in answer to his comment celebrating Earl Russell and MIT’s Chomsky:

      If Earls are not plutocrats, crocodiles don’t have teeth.

      I do appreciate the thinking and wit of Lord Earl Russell (He succeeded to Earldom in 1931 wen his brother died). I cherish his books, especially his hilarious History of Philosophy. I have offered his books to friends and family, making enemies in the process.

      However, I stand by what I wrote.

      You ask who I am? Well someone who has written plenty about the First World War. You buy the principle of authority, and that WWI was about a mystery concept, “Capital”. Serious German historians have given up on that fallacy. The truth is more sinister: there was a conspiracy.

      So get to know me and you will find a different picture. BTW, differently from Lord Russell I was actually the object of violence with intent to kill, more than once. From genuine murderous fascists.
      Although Earl Russell sounded rebellious, in the end, he was a Lord through and through. A sugar coated plutocratic sleeping pill. And here we are.

      Think before you applaud the Lords of professional rebellion, be they Russell or Chomsky.


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Some find “strange” to compare Chomsky to Socrates, considering the latter was a champion of the plutocracy, as they rightly point out, whereas the former is a champion of… MIT? Well, think again. What’s the difference between MIT and Harvard? Different shirts?


  3. Ralph Kramden Says:

    RalphJ_Kramden > Tyranosopher

    I totally disagree with your views on Lord Russell and I know you are very ignorant when it comes to his life. I don’t understand how Russell is responsible at all for the attacks on you by murderous fascists.
    Why are you blaming him for being born into nobility? You mean, he had a choice? You also accused him of being a pseudo-philosopher. Not only was he a philosopher, he was a first-rate mathematician and wrote beautifully. We need more pseudo-philosophers then. After all, he did win a Nobel for his writings. Have you won a Nobel lately? I suspect that your admiration for humans are limited to perfect saints. Sorry, those creatures only exist in religious mythology


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All you do is to apply to the Principle of Authority (Russell got a Nobel that he shared with Churchill, Obama, etc.), and sprinkle it with ad hominem insinuations about my Nobel Prizes.

      You did not understand my objections. My principal objection is that Lord Earl Russell loved the Kaiser, because the Kaiser was a fellow plutocrat, and true blue blood aristocratic English relative. So he wanted everybody to submit to the Kaiser.

      Russell spent the rest of his life trying to disguise his pro-fascist leanings. Russell was not a saint, but a creep in disguise. This being said, as I already wrote, I love his book, and he touches me. Just I don’t spend my life in obscene adulation.

      Notice that Russell could have refused his inheritance, as the Gracchi brothers did. However Russell did not, and stayed a member of the nobility.


  4. Ralph Kramden Says:


    “Champion of MIT?” For real, how do you figure? Now we are dealing with a serious misreading of Chomsky. He did mention in this interview as he has in many others, that Harvard and MIT are part of the training school for the viceroy class of the empire. Did I get it wrong? I will gladly offer me apologies if I have misread Chomsky.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ralph: You did, indeed, misread Chomsky. You read his words for the New York Times, or other plutocratic device. What you have to do is, instead, read his acts. Chomsky is, probably, MIT’s most famous professor.

      His beautiful, not to say hysterical, hysterically funny discourses, are so detached from reality where it hurts, that they have no efficiency whatsoever to destroy the hands that feed him, and his cushy position of plutocratic jester.

      I have myself taught in two universities among the five most prestigious. However, what I found there was so terrible, that I discontinued the habit. When Polansky made a (very good) movie about Harvard, the USA immediately started judicial proceedings to have him extradited. He spent several month in jail. Yes, it’s that dirty, and worse.

      Never, ever, does Chomsky utter the real damaging critique of the role of the USA plutocracy in WWI and WWII. Instead, he goes on with the same soothing fables for little children where everybody is bad, just because they got violent.

      The truth is infinitely more sinister, and has a crucial bearing on today.


      • BW Says:

        BW > Tyranosopher
        Impressive reply. That brings Machiavelli to mind, the precursor of the modern thought and his detached and sinister treatment of truth and the good. I’m reading now a chapter on Machiavelli in a book “An Intellectual History of Liberalism” by Pierre Mannet. It’s a book for the brave only.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Tyranosopher > BW
          Thanks for the appreciation, BW! And mentioning that book.
          I did not know of Mr. Mannet’s work. I have never read Machiavelli seriously either (although I know his name!)

          However, I studied Caesar (Iulius) very seriously, including in the original Latin, and also as much as I could on what others said about Caesar at the time (Caesar was basically prosecuted for war crimes by the hypocritical Senate).
          The case of the Bellum Gallicum is most interesting: overall the relations between Rome and Gaul lasted more than a millennium, and were very complex. (Ultimately… the Franks won…)


  5. Patrice Ayme (@Tyranosopher) Says:

    Mr. Kramden finds “strange” to compare Chomsky to Socrates, considering the latter was a champion of the plutocracy, as he rightly points out, whereas the former is a champion of… MIT? Well, think again. What’s the difference between MIT and Harvard? Different shirts?


  6. gmax Says:

    People love celebrities more than they love ideas.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That’s indeed pretty clear, the way Mr. Kramden goes ad hominem, while praising the decorations from the very system he supposedly condemns. It’s all about who is the alpha male on the block, for him… From what the masters told him, that is.


  7. Ralph Kramden Says:

    RalphJ_Kramden > Tyranosopher
    Well now, since you are bragging about your credentials, (you brought it up) where do you stand as compared to Chomsky? Since you are pulling rank, I bet nobody knows you and yet thousands of people who struggle for social justice respect and admire Chomsky. I detect a bit of infantile jealousy in your bitterness. Are you the one that goes ape-manure over Russell? I suspect you just can’t stand anyone who defends the Palestinians? Did I guess right?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are the one who introduced the obsession with credentials. You are also walloping in racist innuendos (say about Palestine), instead of studying my careful teaching to you. Learn that ideas are about ideas, not celebrities, or causes that are celebrities (Palestine).

      Chomsky, BTW, even in linguistic, is no Einstein. Many research linguists completely disagree with Chomsky. All physicists agree with Einstein’s basic work.


  8. Plutocracy: Epigenetics, Not Just Wealth And Democide | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] CHOMSKY FINALLY AGREES WITH PATRICE AYME: AMERICAN DREAM DIED BECAUSE OF PLUTOCRACY… But Chomsky does not go as far as using the word. And that makes him, and his devoted followers, miss the EPIGENETICS OF EVIL. Thus they complain about the fleas, not the wolf carrying them: […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: