I never took much notice of the fact that Chomsky is a "proffessional Linguist" until now ( please take note of the quotation marks). It certainly explains a lot, because one thing he's not is a credible historian or political scientist...nevertheless (thanks to his occupation) he certainly has a way with words.
This "proffessional linguist," who is in love with Stalin, would make an excellent writer for 'Pravda'.
Please read the following article -
CHOMSKY IDENTIFIES "THE EVIL" THAT HAUNTS THE WORLD
by Amir Taheri
13 March 2004
THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN ASHARQ AL-AWSAT ON MARCH 13, 2004
At the conclusion of his latest book, Noam Chomsky, quotes these lines from
"After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies,
evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis
Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, I believe, is a passing nightmare; in time
the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will
This is a fitting conclusion for a work that starts with another quotation- this
time from the biologist Ernst Mayr.
Chomsky summarises Mayr's view like this:
"The human form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection.
The history of life on Earth refutes the claim that it is better to be smart
than stupid, at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for
example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival."
Russell and Mayr, though trained scientists, belonged to what one might call the
"romantic-tragic" tradition of political thought.
Chomsky, an eminent linguistics professor, belongs to the same tradition.
If his latest book, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global
Dominance", has any message is this: the United States today is the most
concrete example of what humans could achieve in terms of economic and military
power. And, yet, such is the flawed character of mankind, that all that power is
monopolised by a small stratum of society that uses it to impose "total
dominance" on the globe. And American "dominance", for reasons that Chomsky does
not explain, threatens the survival of mankind.
Before we examine Chomsky's thesis, let us briefly analyse the two pillars of
his system, i.e. the citations from Russell and Mayr.
The problem with Russell is twofold.
First, he compares trilobites and butterflies, which are species, with Neros,
Genghis Khans and Hitlers that are individual types within the human species. He
might have as well mentioned Homer, Hafez or Shakespeare, or Buddha, Mansur
Hallaj, or Master Eckhardt. Or Marilyn Monroe, for that matter.
The second problem with Russell's view, and the foundation of his pessimistic
vision, is that he regards peace as a passive state of non- being rather than an
active process of becoming. He dismisses the entire human experience as a
"nightmare" that will be over when the earth, unable to sustain human life, will
condemn our species to extinction.
Mayr's vision also suffers from two flaws.
The first is that he believes that smartness, i.e. intelligence, and stupidity
are uniform abstractions common to all species. He does not understand that what
is intelligent for beetles, for example, may not be intelligent for buffalos or
humans. The beetles have not survived because they are stupid in human terms.
They have survived because they are intelligent as beetles.
Thus the recipe for human survival is not, as Mayr suggests, to become stupid,
so as to win the favours of selection and ensure survival, but to expand the
boundaries of human intelligence.