The blessed life of a Moral Crusader

Originally posted October 3, 2016

Being a Moral Crusader is a great gig in that you get the best of all worlds, public acclaim and a luxurious lifestyle just for self-righteously calling on others to meet the moral standards that you define. Enter Noam Chomsky who according to Wikipedia “in his youth developed a dislike of capitalism (a grotesque catastrophe”) and the selfish pursuit of material advancement”. He laments the increasing inequality resulting from the gutting of finance industry regulation and warns of an “unaccountable and deadly rule by corporations.”  But amazingly he’s managed to become a highly successful capitalist himself, making millions of dollars through adroit management of Brand Chomsky.

Books represent his biggest earner by far. He churns them out on an industrial scale (they’re largely rehashes of earlier speeches and articles) and charges a hefty capitalist price for them.  As he does for his speeches.  If you want him  to deliver The  Selfish Pursuit Of Material Advancement – one of his favourite lectures – your university will first have to fork out for the $15,000 fee plus the cost of First Class travel and a five star hotel that this horny-handed son of the soil insists on.  And should you want to download material from his web site you’ll be met with this stern warning: “Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.” Such permission being granted on payment of a hefty fee.
And what about this: Following the 9/11 attacks he discovered that the demand for his learned opinion had, well, exploded. Despite his intense dislike of the “grotesque catastrophe of capitalism” he immediately jacked up his speaking fees by 30%.  Don’t you just love that?  And within weeks he’d churned out another book to exploit the disaster, this one purporting to explain its causes and significance. However on closer inspection (after you’d forked out your $40) you’d have learned that it was – yet again – made up of already published material spliced together with some hastily-written linkage text.
At a speech in Philadelphia entitled “Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy” he told the audience that “a democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.” After the speech left-wing ‘journalist’ Deborah Bolling tried to get an interview with him. No problem…if the “free, independent, and inquiring” reporter first forked out $35 for the privilege!  Clearly he didn’t have the likes of her in mind when he wrote “The responsibility of the writer as a moral agent is to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them.”

And wouldn’t you expect him to invest the resultant fortune in a blind trust or better again in green eco-friendly stocks? Maybe, but unfortunately such companies offer poor returns and high risk. Unlike those for example in the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma or the oil companies. But that’s not an option given that he sees them as exemplifying the “grotesque catastrophe” of predatory capitalism. Oh wait – one quick intellectual somersault later and he’s plunged headlong into their stocks, greatly enriching himself in the process.

And now he strides the intellectual firmament like a colossus, wealthy, feted, admired, a sought-after guest while remaining a champion of the poor and a defender of the environment. The long and happy life of a Moral Crusader.

(More good stuff on Noam here).

11 replies
  1. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Chomsky is a casualty of Internet, I think. Before about 2000 the gushings about ‘world’s leading intellect’ could be put out by the Jewish media with nothing much in rebuttal. But as Internet has grown, Chomsky’s had attacks, critiques, derision, and what used to be called ‘brickbats’, expanding with the spiffing new medium. Another Jewish puppet deflated. I wonder what Chomsky’s obituaries will say — they will be an indicator of changes in relative Jewish power.

  2. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    Frankly, I don’t think those charges are out of line at all. To begrudge them seems rather churlish. And, if you don’t like him, you’re not obliged to pay them. But, again, frankly, I think they’re worth it, especially when you compare them with what you get from all the other overpriced blowhards. Bill Clinton, $500,000 for a speech?

  3. JessicaR
    JessicaR says:

    Noam Chomsky has always been upfront about the fact that he lives well. And, as an earlier letter writer pointed out, no one has to have him speak if they object to the price. I have heard from someone who knows him that he has a disabled grandson who will need help his entire life and wants to provide for him.

    At least the kid will get help from family and not taxpayers.

    I also give him an enormous amount of credit for opposing the Iraq war when liberal papers like the NYT and WAPO were publishing hysterical and dishonest stories about the dangers the country supposedly posed to us.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Gnome Chompsky says:

      Enormous credit?

      Before that, I had come to see that he was a dud scholar, but still gave him some credit as an at times interesting left-wing polemicist. After seeing his wilfull evasion of the AIPAC, Israel, neocon angles of the *why* of the invasion of Iraq, I just thought ‘typical of his tribe’.

  4. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    The whole Chomsky cult is a sham.

    He is supposed to be this great scientist and linguistic theorist, but I can’t think of any useful scientific work.

    The whole ‘generative grammar’ thing is long debunked by linguistic research. In any case, also by thought experiments and observation of children from babies to around five.

    The basic idea that people have an inherent capacity for grammars is a truism. The details (and yes, I have read some of his papers on it) are rubbish.

    I checked, he is still flogging the dead horse of his (and not specifically his, in first place) linguistic ideas (now under the more sinister term ‘universal grammar’) *very* occasionally, and at least half the time by tacking his name on papers by grad. students, but the vast portion of his work is (usually dishonest by omission re. his own clan) political polemics.

    So he gets this big salary and very cushy job as tenured (now emeritus) MIT prof., but neither spent much time on, nor made long-term meaningful contributions to, the field of studies in which he is supposed to be a professor.

    He is a very clear example of their building up their own as culture heroes.

    On only two related themes are his polemics not full of lies by omission (because neither Israel nor their U.S. lap dogs seem to have had much involvement): Indonesia in the mid-60s, and Indonesia and East Timor. However, I learnt nothing from him on either topic since I already knew anything of value he had to say from reading other sources.

  5. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    I reply to myself for clarification; of course, the U.S. was involved in Indonesia, heavily in the case of the coup and murder spree of the mid-60s, less directly in the case of Timor. It just wasn’t specifically as Zio-Israeli lap dogs, so Noam doesn’t much need to lie by omission on those points.

  6. Frank Church
    Frank Church says:

    Dude needs to fight Capitalism. It takes money to fight the capitalists in the polls and in the mass media.

Comments are closed.