Blog

  • Noam Chomsky

    y in Sudan, which killed one person?

    But it’s when you look at the extraordinary moral force of Chomsky’s writings that you start to get an understanding of why he’s so influential. There is surely a whiff of the cult here. This may seem far-fetched – Chomsky doesn’t appear to be after followers in the same way as, say, Marx was. He’s no patriarch: more Woody Allen than Moses. He’s the picture of modesty, just simply presenting the facts. And I don’t want to push this too far: I’m not arguing that Chomsky actually runs a cult. But there’s a continuum between on the one hand the normal exchange of information in a free society with people talking, arguing, writing articles and books, up through more charismatic individuals with a point to get across, through movements, religions, cults. And Chomsky is somewhere along that continuum. His attitude to who those who disagree with him, is, by and large, one of contempt. The only reason they can’t see the simple truth of what he’s saying is that they are, in one way or another, morally deficient. Normally this moral deficiency takes the form of selling out to the establishment. People want to get on in their career but they see which way the wind blows – if they write the truth they don’t last long, don’t get promotion, don’t win those Pulitzer prizes – so they write what the establishment wants to hear. So there they are, hypocrites, tossing and turning in their beds raddled with guilt, while outside – can you hear it? – there’s a still small voice, the voice they’re trying to marginalise, the voice which sick, violent, mainstream America doesn’t want you to hear, the voice of Noam Chomsky, telling the plain unadorned truth. Have you got the moral character to respond to that voice? Not many do (oh it’s a cruel, shallow world) but for those chosen few they can look around them, in the street, on the tube, in the office, and think to themselves “The fools! The blind stupid fools! They think they’re the good ones, threatened by terrorists, but it’s the other way around! We’re the real terrorists! And those pathetic cries of Democracy and Freedom – they’re just advertising slogans to dupe you.”

    This, I think, is verging on cult territory. The Chomskian world is almost exactly a reverse of the way most of us view things, but only a few, those with special moral vision, can see it. For Chomsky, one of whose favourite terms is “Orwellian”, we already live in the world of Big Brother. But to spell this out is immediately to see how fatuous it is, and what an insult it is to everything that Orwell stood for. To pretend that we in the West are living in an Orwellian state is simply grotesque while Kim Jong Il still rules in North Korea.

    But you can’t ignore it: that small insistent voice goes on and on. Just the plain and simple truth, which anyone, if they’re not corrupted by the wicked world, can understand. In the past few years the US and its allies have bombed and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true. Go back a bit and they were blasting away at the Serbians. Can you deny it? And they’ve been doing it for decades. Go back sixty years and they were storming across the Pacific leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, bombing and killing, then virtually flattening Tokyo before dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and setting up a pro-western government to rule over a devastated country. At the same time in Western Europe they killed hundreds of thousands with targeted bombing on German cities before advancing across Germany, deposing the legitimate elected government and setting up a puppet government in Bonn. That’s how it was, but that’s not the story you’ll read about in the mainstream press.

  • Shameful Alan Bennett

    ho voiced the real feelings of the British intelligentsia with the opinion that on the whole many people thought the Americans had it coming, and if you identified the British intelligentsia with LRB reviewers, then she was spot on. But generally it just isn’t as good as it used to be: you can see the direction it’s been going in from the adverts in the back pages for courses at various psychoanalytic/Lacanian institutions. Plus their favourite writer seems to be the unreadable Adam Phillips.

    Well, no, in fact their favourite writer is Alan Bennett. Every January the LRB publishes Bennett’s diary for the previous year. Unfortunately it’s not on line, but you can see the title of this year’s piece in the contents page. “A Shameful Year”. No surprise about what according to Bennett is so shameful, but it strikes me as very odd. I can think of many shameful things: Munich and Chamberlain was shameful. The behaviour of the Major government, refusing to allow arms to the Bosnians while Milosevic carried out his ethnic cleansing and the UN stood by, that was shameful. The total inaction of the UN while Hutus slew Tutsis in Rwanda, until they set up camps over the border in Zaire (as it then was) which were taken over by those same Hutus: that was shameful. But getting rid of one of the most despicable tyrants in modern history and freeing the Iraqis from their decades-long nightmare…shameful?? Clearly we live on different planets.

  • Benny Morris

    Roger Simon links to a remarkable interview with Benny Morris. If you’re not familiar with the name, Morris is a leading Israeli historian, who’s made a career out of documenting the more sordid side of Israel’s past, and as such is much cited by the likes of Chomsky. Of course one of the key issues in the foundation of the state of Israel is whether the Palestinians left voluntarily or were pushed out, and Morris probably knows more about this than anyone. It turns out he’s got a new book coming out detailing further outrages, including rape. But that’s not why the interview is so interesting, and indeed both surprising and moving as well.