Yes, this appeaser was once my hero (Chomsky bashing)

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1634855,00.html

Me? Frankly, I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner. Once the turncoat had sold his soul, why shouldn't he go the whole way and pick up a few extra shillings chancing his remaining scruples on the stock market? I know we columnists tend to pay a bit more attention to world events than your average homme moyen Norm, but am I the only one who knows what this born-again conservative's been getting up to? These days Noam Chomsky's about as radical as Alan Greenspan. Correction: Greenspan's part of the noble neocon mission to spread democracy worldwide. Chomsky's happier sitting at home, reviewing the fruits of his - sorry, Mrs Chomsky's - share portfolio.

Granted, the Chomsky family's personal-finance ventures, highlighted in an interview by my lovely, leggy and, I'd go so far as to say, very promising young colleague Emma Brockes, must have come as a nasty shock to Prospect magazine's constituency of stoppers, root-causists and not-in-my-namers. Without this ancient reactionary, how will they know what to think?

But, believe me, I feel their pain. It wasn't easy for me, either, when I realised the brilliant academic whose linguistics lectures had once held me spellbound, that the political theorist I'd revered for his unsentimental computation of Mao Zedong's balance sheet, and firm evaluation of Pol Pot's achievement in creating modern Cambodia, had morphed into an unfeeling appeaser to whom the murder of Milosevic's victims could be assessed with an amoral sophistry that might have been lifted, with barely an adjustment, from the speeches of Douglas Hurd.

Was it possible that this do-nothing conservative, who presumed, from his armchair, to mete out death sentences to Balkan peasants (let alone his request that Saddam Hussein be offered a visiting professorship at MIT and, I gather, a suggestion that David Cameron contribute to a Festschrift in honour of Robin Cook) was the same far-sighted but, above all, warm-hearted intellectual, who'd written by return when, as an idealistic student, I sent him an account of my first impressions of the Soviet Union, "in the footsteps of Sidney and Beatrice"? How did my former hero, who spent his life fighting ignorance and tyranny, turn into the wannabe-seer who now spends all his time - when not checking online share prices - coming with up the baddest names he can think of (Stalin, Hitler, Bluebeard, Saddam, Lord Voldemort), then denouncing George Bush as the equivalent, or worse. Put it this way: when it comes to mental agility, the great intellectual Chomsky makes Bush look like Christopher Hitchens.

[Mika]

1. Only be fair to link to the Emma Brockes story that Norman Johnson refers

That way readers can make a more reasoned judgement of the rantings of Mr Johnson.

The greatest intellectual?
by Emma Brockes
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1605276,00.html

[Englander]

2. wtf was that?!?!

This can't be serious, shurely? Who's Norman Johnson, is this
another satire along the lines of 'Bel Littlejohn'? It certainly
reads like it, plus there's no picture of Mr 'Johnson' on the
columnists page;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/columnists/

[pnorman]

5. Here's what I was able to Google so far:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1572095,00.html

He's apparently no hoax, but he seems to need some "critical analysis" himself. I'll keep Googling.

pnorman

[Englander]

7. I think this is satire -

the 'Bel Littlejohn' I mentioned was in a similar vein, 'she'
was a fictional columnist created & written by the humourist/satirist
Craig Brown. I don't know who is writing this stuff, but I think it's
taking the piss out of 'liberal interventionists' like Aaronavitch,
or bLiar, or Friedman, I guess. I've never heard of Norman Johnson,
if he actually exists, which is another reason why I think it's a
spoof.

More from 'Bel Littlejohn',most of this mentions UK politicians
& pundits, so probably a lot of context is lost on an 'murkan
audience;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,448928,00.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Definitely satire

When David Aaronovitch left the Guardian, they started up this spoof column. As you say, the "Bel Littlejohn" column was a similar idea.

The target would seem to be columinsts like Aaronovitch, and Norman Geras ("Stormin’ Marxist is toast of the neocons"), a (retired?) professor of politics.

Geras wrote a piece for The Guardian saying linking Iraq to the London bombings was being an apologist for the bombers.

[Englander]

14. Yes, you're right.

Now that I've re-read the articles, as satire, they become a very
funny, & quite accurate spoof of Aaronovitch, &tc.

Best line-

--Do bears have a tendency to relieve themselves in environments of a sylvan variety?--

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1577337,00.html

:)

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I did a bit of googling, and I've found who the 'johnson' comes from

Alan Johnson, Reader in Critical Social Science at Edge Hill College of Higher Education, and heavy user at "Labour Friends of Iraq" of the phrase "the decent left". He has now founded a book review website Democratiya which he describes this way:

Democratiya believes that in a radically changed world parts of the left have backed themselves into an incoherent and negativist 'anti-imperialist' corner, losing touch with long-held democratic, egalitarian and humane values. In some quarters, the complexity of the post-cold-war world, and of US foreign policy as it has developed since 9/11, has been reduced to another 'Great Contest': 'The Resistance' (or 'Multitude') against 'Imperialism' (or 'Empire'). This world-view has ushered back in some of the worst habits of mind that dominated parts of the left in the Stalinist period: manicheanism, reductionism, apologia, denial, cynicism. Grossly simplifying tendencies of thought, not least the disastrous belief that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' are once again leading to the abandonment of democrats, workers, women and gays who get on the wrong side of 'anti-imperialists' (who are considered 'progressive' simply because they anti-American).

This attitude is especially unfortunate at a time when there is 'reform ferment in the Arab world, an emerging democracy in Iraq, and the colour-coded democratic revolutions in post-communist societies', as Michael Allen notes in the inaugural issue of Democratiya. In this historical moment, as an editorial in The New Republic noted, 'iberals must realize their own future is at stake. Should democratization succeed with Democrats deeply involved, they will be able to claim a share of the credit. But, should it succeed despite their puerile detachment - or, worse, their objections - Democrats could well be branded as the party that opposes bringing human rights and responsible governance to people who don't yet benefit from them'. To which Norman Geras has added, 'For "Democrats" in the US, read "the left" in Europe'.

When over 8 million Iraqis voted in democratic elections in January 2005, at polling stations guarded by American and other foreign troops, emerging to dance for joy, their purple fingers held aloft, only for Britain's leading liberal newspaper to sneer that the election was 'at best irrelevant', it was clear that something had gone terribly awry. When Iraq's heroic free trade unionists were called 'collaborators' and 'quislings', while their torturers and murderers were hailed as a 'liberation movement', one could hear the rattling of loose political and moral bearings.

Of course our task is not to sing 'America! America!' As Irving Howe put it, 'The banner of critical independence, ragged and torn though it may be, is still the best we have'. But this is 2005 not 1965. It is no longer enough to say 'no' where the US says 'yes'. A more self-condident and constructively critical stance is needed.

http://www.democratiya.com/pages/default.asp?id=1

It won't surprise people to find Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen on the list of editors. I am a little disappointed to find Francis Wheen there too.

[Englander]

17. I'm surprised that Francis Wheen's name appears, there.

I wouldn't have thought that he qualifed as a latter-day-imperialist,
I'd be very disappointed if he's signed up for the 'WarOnTerra'.

From the Guardian, an undated article by Wheen;

'Francis Wheen's top 10 modern delusions'
http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,6109,1140156,00.html

On edit;

Wheen is mentioned on Geras's blog, as well, with lots of praise.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/06/writers_choice_.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Maybe this is more the reason he's there

The last half of the final chapter deals with the total failure of too much of the left to understand the world after the end of the cold war, and especially after 9/11. Wheen doesn't have any kind worlds for the 'Enemy of my enemy is my friend' brigade, and the likes of Micheal Moore and particularly the loathsome Noam Chomsky, who appear to be prepared to side with nihilistic fanaticism rather than admit that an enemy that attacks the west is in fact an enemy against which we have to defend ourselves. Perhaps wisely, although supporting the overthrown of the Taliban, Wheen avoids getting into any discussion on the contentious issue of whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/21/133308.php

But, of course, the invasion of Iraq was based on mumbo-jumbo. If Wheen examined the views of Moore and Chomsky critically, but gave Blair and Bush a free pass by not pointing out their mountains of bullshit used to justify an illegal war, then he disappoints me a lot. Strange, when your first link had him saying that Blair has religious delusions of "God on my side" just like bin Laden.

[Rich Hunt]

18. let's face it

The whole thing was a little over-the-top, British style.

[pnorman]

3. I regard this as a bum-rapping of a person I greatly admire.

but I'm glad to have encountered these contrary views. That earlier labeling of Chomsky as anti-Semite for defending the right of that French journalist to publish, struck me as an unprincipled smear. But I'll read these two article very carefully.

pnorman

[mrfrapp]

4. I have no idea what that was all about

Does anyone have any clue what this joker's talking about?

[Kire]

22. No

he doesn't say what he's talking about

[Voltaire99]

6. What a sad bore is Norman Johnson.

Unreadable. Surely a paper that publishes George Monbiot can find better than this?

[Generarth]

8. Well

can you tell me what you mean "the great intellectual Chomsky makes Bush look like Christopher Hitchens". Hitchens is a turd not an intellectual. Bush already looks like a turd. I therefore don't get your analogy.

BTW Chomsky deserves to be revered.

[WhiteTara]

13. good point

welcome to DU :hi:

[bemildred]

10. "my lovely, leggy and, I'd go so far as to say, very promising young"

Who is this moron? Does he not have anybody to edit his work? Or do they not care?

[Rich Hunt]

19. that's hilarious

Come on - it's a satire of certain attitudes in the media. The British understand satire, some Americans are deaf to it.

[bemildred]

21. Ah, so he is intentionally being a moron.

Probably true. That would explain it. But you have to
realize that this sort of drivel is published with a
straight face here in the USA, so that's why it becomes
hard for us to tell "humor" from sycophantic propaganda.

[Make7]

11. "Smearing Chomsky - The Guardian In The Gutter"

Rebuttal on ZNet:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9045

[Darranar]

12. "great intellectual Chomsky makes Bush look like Christopher Hitchens."

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

15. its in the comment section as far as I can tell (read as opine)