Celebrated liberal egghead Noam Chomsky has never been known for subtlety when it comes to doomsaying but he has certainly outdone himself with his latest outburst that goes above and beyond his usual nonsense. Mr. Chomsky – a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – is declaring that the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency will be almost a “death knell” for the human species.
Such alarmist babble is the norm with the loony left and Chomsky has been dishing it out for decades on end. It’s difficult to find anything that the country has done that meets with his approval and his activism once landed him on Richard M. Nixon’s infamous enemies list. It was an honor that punched his ticket to leftist moonbat Valhalla from where he still issues edicts that are gobbled up by the schmucks as though they were holy gospel.
Professor Chomsky’s came courtesy of an interview with The Guardian in an article entitled “Noam Chomsky on Donald Trump: ‘Almost a death knell for the human species'”:
What effect would electing Donald Trump have? It’s hard to say because we don’t really know what he thinks. And I’m not sure he knows what he thinks. He’s perfectly capable of saying contradictory things at the same time. But there are some pretty stable elements of his ideology, if you can even grant him that concept. One of them is: “Climate change is not taking place.” As he puts it: “Forget it.” And that’s almost a death knell for the species – not tomorrow, but the decisions we take now are going to affect things in a couple of decades, and in a couple of generations it could be catastrophic.
If it were between Trump and Hillary Clinton, would you vote for Clinton? If I were in a swing state, a state that matters, and the choice were Clinton or Trump, I would vote against Trump. And by arithmetic that means hold your nose and vote for Clinton.
Noam with the really big brain reiterated his take during an interview with far-left gatekeeper Amy Goodman on an episode of the popular Democracy Now:
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to move back to the United States, to the issue of the Republican Party and what you see happening there, the Republican establishment fiercely opposed to the presumptive nominee. I don’t know if we’ve ever seen anything like this, although that could be changing. Can you talk about the significance—I mean, you have Sheldon Adelson, who is now saying he will pour, what, tens of millions of dollars into Donald Trump. You have the Koch brothers—I think it was Charles Koch saying he could possibly see supporting Hillary Clinton, if that were the choice, with Donald Trump. What is happening?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, the phenomenon that we’ve just seen is an extreme version of something that’s been going on just for years in the Republican primaries. Take a look back at the preceding ones. Every time a candidate came up from the base—Bachmann, McCain, Santorum, Huckabee, one crazier than the other—every time one rose from the base, the Republican establishment sought to beat them down and get their own—get their own man—you know, Romney. And they succeeded, until this year. This year the same thing happened, and they didn’t succeed. The pressure from the base was too great for them to beat it back. Now, that’s the disaster that the Republican establishment sees. But the phenomenon goes way back. And it has roots. It’s kind of like jihadis: You have to ask about the roots.
We should recognize—if we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally. Just take their position on the two major issues that face us: climate change, nuclear war. On climate change, it’s not even debatable. They’re saying, “Let’s race to the precipice. Let’s make sure that our grandchildren have the worst possible life.” On nuclear war, they’re calling for increased militarization. It’s already way too high, more than half the discretionary budget. “Let’s shoot it up.” They cut back other resources by cutting back taxes on the rich, so there’s nothing left. There’s been nothing this—literally, this dangerous, if you think about it, to the species, really, ever. We should face that.
To his credit during the Democracy Now interview Chomsky takes his share of shots at Obama, but that is largely due to his already admitted support of Hillary Clinton. It’s also more than a tad hypocritical for Chomsky and Goodman to blast bogeymen Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers for funding conservative “jihadis” when the program receives funding from big left slush funds like the Ford Foundation among others. But trying to the explain such a concept concept to a liberal is like casting pearls before swine or as my old Texas buddy Mitch puts it “never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig”.