June 24, 2006

This Video Is Wrong: Chomsky is a Fool

I was surprised by some of the Atheists named in this video. I didn't know Bill Gates was an Atheist, for example.


  1. Interesting video, BEAJ. I enjoyed it, particularly the quote at the end:)

  2. WTF? Why would they start the list with this scumbag, who isn't even an atheist? Chomsky is an agnostic, i.e. his is as muddled on this question as on most other subjects.

    Here are a couple of his quotes on the subject:

    "Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid."

    "Suppose somebody says I believe in God, what are they believing in? What is it that they're believing in? I can't answer it because I don't understand the question.

    We all believe ... that there's a world out there that we are inside of ... there are truths about that world whether we can find them or not and that's the end of the story. We may not be able to find the truths about the world, but if it's there, there are truths about it. Maybe they're not even explainable in our language."

  3. It's not the atheist and agnostics that are creating war on this planet.
    And, someone please tell Bush that
    phrase, "one nation under God" is an addition to an oath that came into existance years after country was founded.

    The U.S. Constitution does not mention God.

  4. I don't always agree with him, but Chomsky is no fool. Besides completely revolutionizing the field of linguistics, he does a good service of criticizing our government when it needs to be criticized. Sure, he goes over the top and I know you don't like his opinions on Israel, but he's more than balanced by loonies on the right who support everything our country has ever done just because "we" did it.

  5. Sir,

    I have been reading your posts since last month. I have liked your posts. I was little taken aback when you labeled Chomsky as a fool. Can you justify that statement? I dont think it is correct to call Chomsky a fool just because you dont agree with his opinions. I have no qualms if you call Ann Coulter a fool. Most people will agree with you. But Chomsky. Please.

  6. By fool, I mean he is foolish if he thinks people can't see right through him. He tries to dazzle with words, but is evasive like an intellectual coward.

    Just with his bs when asked if he is an Atheist, he uses the same approach when it comes to Jews and the IP situation.

    Yet he attracts the biggest anti-semites on this planet.

    Even anti-semites can figure him out.....and they love him.

  7. Chomsky, who just got back from denouncing the Great Satan (and the Little Satan) with Hezbollah, *definitely* isn't our best representative. Just because he talks in a relaxing, monotone voice doesn't mean his tinfoil pronouncements are profound or sophisticated. More often than not, Chomsky's "research" turns out to be an assemblage of obscure communist newspaper and magazine clippings sent to him by friends.

    The man's a fraud. Chomsky hasn't done important research in decades, partly because he is busy playing millionaire revolutionary.

  8. Why is there a need to justify one's atheism?

    Personally, the experience of LIFE which ALL of us without exception are good at as we experience life by being alive and doing things, is SUFFICIENT if we can find a way to cope with life and life's questions.

  9. I must admit, I used to be a HUGE Chomsky fan. I own all his DVD's, etc...

    But one thing he mentioned I will never forget "I always support the underdog". And he isn't lying about that. Doesn't matter if the underdog are murderers, rapists, or just pure evil. He will always figure out a way to forgive those without power, and villafy those with power, no matter what the circumstance.

    His views on economics are a tad foolish. He is a "socialist anarchists"... basically an economy based on the now defunct heavily subsidized (by capitolist) "kabootz" project. How could a man of his brilliance endorse an economic system that 100% fails... usually with untolds amount of violence and poverty.

    But finally, his meeting with Hizballah was his "jumping the shark" moment. To embrace such a hateful, scumy group that keeps Lebenon from regaining its once beautiful culture and freedom is his worst disgrace.

    Lebeneze rarely say anything bad about Hizballah, they know to do so would invite civil war. Even a joke on late night TV of Hizballah's leaders causes panic. But I would make a bet that after Chomsky's embracement of Hizballah, he is far more hated in Lebenon than in Israel.

  10. RE: Chomsky. I still don't understand why atheists as a group tend to be beholden to left-wing loonies like Chomsky. It is as if they have replaced one dogma with another. Atheists *should* be the most open-minded and dipassionate thinkers of all groups, but I have yet to see strong evidence of this, except of course for our dear host, Mr. Bacon.

  11. J.F., many of the commentors on my blog are Atheist,and many are anti-Moonbat.

  12. JF:

    Even many leftist atheists like myself aren't "beholden" to Chomsky. I don't agree with him a lot. But, I'm glad that he's around to point out a lot of evil that's done in our (i.e. Americans') names which more mainstream people don't mention. Chomsky errs when he sides with the underdog even when the underdog is wrong, but when the underdog is right, he's often the only one shouting.

  13. Bacon: My apologies to your anti-moonbat atheist friends. And of course a friend of Bacon is a friend of mine. :)

  14. Chomsky is on permanent sabbatical. He has prostituted his scientific clout for mainstream attention. Much like Kary Mullis, who invented the polymerase chain reation and won the noble prize in the mid 90's, his only recent work is dropping acid and surfing. These "top-shelf" scientists are the absolute worst when it comes to politics and public policy. Thank god Einstein refused political office in Israel, that could have been a disaster.

    free constantinople

  15. I would definitely rate Chomsky as a fool.

    I think free constantinople has it right.

  16. Long time reader, first time poster.

    It seems everyone else is stuck on Chomsky but IMHO he's no fool.

    Many surprises in the video like Pinker, Foster, Nicholson, and the biggest suprise to me were Edison and Roddenberry. Never would have guessed!! Now I know why I am such a Trekkie.

    Thanks Bacon Eating Athiest Jew great video!!

  17. Land is more than dirt. Land is also position, and that position has neighbours which have their own social and political expectations and desires. For anyone to say that land is just dirt has to assume neighbours do not interact and do not influence each other; they have to assume that all neighbours are walled off, or shot, in order to maintain that lack of influence. But this does not happen in civil society, and dealing with neighbours is called politics.

    TAJ Wrote:
    "My house and property is not Jewish land. It wouldn't matter if everyone on my street were Jews. Land can be sold. And it can as easily be sold to anyone of any ethnicity."

    You can sell your house to a non-Jew, but they will probably pay less for it than a Jew would. A Jew with Jewish neighbors would be happier in the neighborhood than a non-Jew. The Jew will have more religious and social Jewish options, a non-Jew will have less non-Jewish options. This is simply a side effect of displacement and the fact that Land is position.

    To go to an extreme: I could not realistically buy land in some Afgan communities. I could give money to a local leader for a parcel of land, but one I placed foot on it, my white ass would be shot by some second-in-command that does not agree with me being there.

    Actually, it is hilariously naïve of you to assume the environment you live in allows for the concept of land ownership. Land ownership only works if there is a land-ownership-enforcement-agency (like a government). Without this agency, your land is only yours as long as you have the bullets to keep people off of it. The context of your post is wrt the Palistinian/Isreali conflict, land ownership is a political determination because a large enough proportion of the populations do not agree on a single land-ownership-enforcement-agency. In the event of disagreement, politics (or guns) will be used to resolve the situation.

    TAJ Wrote:
    "The percentages of Muslims in the West has climbed in recent years. Nobody is accusing Muslims of stealing Western lands though because they are not."

    France has just had problems with Muslim youth: the Muslim population in France has grown big enough to have noticeable political influence. France now has to deal with how poorly they integrated their immigrants. The white US is feeling the political effects of the ever growing Hispanic population. I do not know how this will play out, but the first play was made when Commander Chimpy wanted to close the Mexican border. The long term "takeover" of a country is achieved by immigration or making babies of like-minded people. On the mirco-political scale, nothing wrong is being done. But on the macro-political scale the laws of government change to reflect to majority views. Any soon-to-be-minority will start complaining as they loose political control.

    TAJ Wrote:
    "The Arabs, with the exception of the very few who owned land in Israel, have absolutely no claim to Israel."

    I am uncertain on how many "very few" is, and whether that includes formal land owners, or people living in rented spaces too. To justify shipping out all people too poor to own their own land seems wrong to me. Renters need their physical position to be close to good jobs. If land owners have a right to land, then, at the very least, renters have a right to be close to their chosen employment. I would disagree with any body that moved renters away from their jobs, especially if it was based on religious or ethnic reasons.

    If you do not believe renters have any right to be close to their jobs, then I have a business plan for you! We can shipping renters to another region with less jobs (especially the lazy ones):
    1) The poor region has a high demand for jobs, reducing the cost of labour, and reducing to cost of goods produced.
    2) The rich region has a high demand for labour, improving working conditions for the rich.
    3) The rich political agenda is not diluted by the concerns of lazy poor people.
    4) Trans-regional corporations can leverage the disparity to maximize profits.

    In summary: Land is position, that position has neighbours. Those neighbours are human, and have social, religious and political influences. Land is not just dirt.

  18. You commented on the wrong post but I'll forgive you.

    When a renter leaves, he leaves. That is all I have to say at this moment. Long posts are too difficult to properly respond to.

    You seem to take the land is just dirt statement out of context to make your point.