Well, there we go then, that’s proves it

Professor Noam Chomsky has claimed that any serious future for the Labour party must come from the leftwing pressure group Momentum and the army of new members attracted by the party’s leadership.

In an interview with the Guardian, the radical intellectual threw his weight behind Jeremy Corbyn, claiming that Labour would be doing far better in opinion polls if it were not for the “bitter” hostility of the mainstream media. “If I were a voter in Britain, I would vote for him,” said Chomsky, who admitted that the current polling position suggested Labour was not yet gaining popular support for the policy positions that he supported.

If you’ve got Chomsky’s support then you’re clearly mad.

21 comments on “Well, there we go then, that’s proves it

  1. That looks a good read, John.

    So far, these two crackers have stood out:

    “This is why Communism eventually adopted the hammer-and-sickle as its emblem. (An embarrassing choice, by the way, for what those tools really represent is the investment of capital.”

    Heh!

    “We behold in Marx a man who evidently could accept being contradicted by himself, but not by reality”

    Sounds awfully familiar…

  2. “He said Labour needed to “reconstruct itself” in the interests of working people…”

    That would be a start. But judging by the leaked manifesto, it’s not even on the radar.

  3. “Noam Chomsky has claimed that any serious future for the Labour party must come from the leftwing pressure ”

    Just noise. Not information.

    Chomsky thinks progress can only come from leftwing pressure. Or, at least, what he considers “progress”.

  4. Cynic

    And this:
    “In all the socialist literature I had read,” ex-New Leftist David Horowitz once wrote, “there was not a chapter devoted to the problem of how wealth is created. Socialist theory was exclusively addressed to … the division of wealth that someone else had created.”

  5. Pingback: Yeah, Right, Keep Taking the Tablets – Longrider

  6. Remember the Left can’t win in a lot of areas, but they continue to win in some others. As Mr Ecks would point out when it comes to culture they are winning hands down.

    To the point that this blog is full of people who recommend authors who proudly boast their main influence and sources of research is Chomsky. As Richard Morgan (Altered Carbon) does for instance.

  7. That’s what you want – the endorsement of a man who still backed the Khmer Rouge well into the 1980s and long after their genocide was well known.

    A truly evil man.

  8. Rob – “what sort of maniac uses dark red text on a black background?!”

    One who spells his name backwards and has a fancy for long black capes?

    Chomsky not only backed the Khmer Rouge for years he has also refused to apologise for it. While squirreling his millions away in off shore trust funds to avoid tax.

  9. As Richard Morgan (Altered Carbon) does for instance.

    Funny you should mention him: I tried his next two Kovacs books and found them wanting, especially the second one. I then discovered in the end notes that he was praising John Pilger, and that explained everything. He stumbled on a cracking concept in his first book and then didn’t know what to do with it afterwards, so looked to 6th form lefty politics for inspiration.

  10. “Jesus Christ, what sort of maniac uses dark red text on a black background?!”

    My thoughts as well. Thank god for Reader View.

  11. I rather like Chomsky. Don’t agree with everything he says – few authors I can do that with.
    He does get listened to.

    Jeremy is probably closer to Chomsky ideas than most Labour leaders in the past 40 years.
    Don’t blame Chomsky for that.

  12. Leftist turd says other leftist turd is not a leftist turd. It was all a misunderstanding.

    Bollocks.

    Chomsky should have been hanged 100 times over. Or better still 150 million times over.

  13. Whirly (and Martin) –

    Take some time and research the nature of Chomsky’s “advisory role” with the Sandinistas… The short version is this: He actively participated in the brutal, violent suppression of some of Nicaragua’s indigenous peoples who weren’t keen on becoming Good Socialists.

    Chomsky has blood on his hands.

    If you’re OK with that, then have the balls to say so. If not, then have the integrity to denounce him.

  14. Whirly – “Chomsky was not an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, nor is he a Stalinist. This article may help explain where the misinformation came from:”

    He is not a Stalinist, it is true, he is a Trotskyite. But he was an apologist for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. As that article glides over. He did attack people who pointed out what the KR were doing. He did call them part of the resistance. He did insist that they were popular and the Cambodian government was not – as that article actually says. He did claim the atrocities were malicious inventions.

    Another Trot claiming otherwise is not evidence.

  15. Martin – “I rather like Chomsky. Don’t agree with everything he says – few authors I can do that with. He does get listened to.”

    Let’s see what we have learned about Martin – his wife out earns him, she dominates him in the bed room, and he likes Chomsky. To the verge of apologising for him.

    Go on, admit it, you are Ironman trolling the rest of us, aren’t you? No one could be such a cliche.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.