Noam Chomsky Favored a U.S. War to Conquer Russia

Eric Zuesse

[NOTE: Wherever a reader disagrees with or doubts an allegation that is made in the following, the evidence behind that allegation can immediately be found by merely clicking onto the link where the given allegation is being stated.]

Noam Chomsky, who in a 2005 global poll was voted as the “world’s top public intellectual”, told Qatar’s Al Jazeera television, in a November 24th interview, that Hillary Clinton’s “positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue that I can think of”, so that Americans who didn’t vote for her to become the next President were “making a bad mistake.”

One of those issues (on which he preferred her “position”) was whether to go to war against Russia — an issue on which her statements were remarkably consistent (unlike her positions on most other issues) — namely, that we should engage in a hot war against Russia, and that as the U.S. President she would do so. Trump was opposed to her position that supported each one of the three ways in which she argued for hot war between Russia and the United States (1: establishing a no-fly zone in Syria; 2: responding by physical warfare means — including bombs — against any Russian espionage that entails ‘cyber’ elements which harm U.S. interests or affect a U.S. federal election; and, 3: forcing Russia to restore Crimea to Ukraine). Trump opposed her on each of those three “issues”: he stood against her on each one of those three pathways toward a war against Russia; he opposed each one of the three paths. This was one of the clearest differences between him and her.

Huffington Post, as part of its continuing campaign for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, headlined the next day about this AJ interview, “Noam Chomsky: People Who Didn’t Vote For Clinton To Block Trump Made A ‘Bad Mistake’,” and linked there also to a 20 May 2016 interview of Chomsky by Britain’s Guardian“Noam Chomsky on Donald Trump: ‘Almost a death knell for the human species’,” in which Chomsky alleged that Trump was unacceptable especially because of the effect he would have on climate-change:

“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.”

On October 2nd, I provided evidence that whereas Hillary Clinton has never verbally denied the reality of global warming, her actual record as a public official (and also the sources of her political funding — both of those factors) point consistently to her being at least as much of a threat against the survivability of this planet’s atmosphere and environment as Trump is. Chomsky pays attention only to words not deeds, and so ignored all of that evidence, which I provided under the sub-head: “5:  Sanders has been consistently opposed to fossil fuels. Hillary has aggressively supported them.”

That issue, of global warming, seems to have been #1 for Chomsky, whereas for me it was #2, after the issue of whether or not the U.S. should engage in a hot war against Russia, either in Syria, or in Ukraine, or in Russia itself (which surely would mean a nuclear war).

However, my main disagreement with Chomsky regarding the U.S. Presidential contest is that whereas he implicitly trusted the honesty of — and based his views and made his selection of the candidate to prefer, upon — the merely verbal statements that were made by the candidates, I rely always as much as possible (which in Clinton’s case was 100%) upon the given candidate’s actions not words. Whereas Chomsky invites liars to persuade him, I simply do not; only the choices that a candidate has actually made in his or her official capacity — actions not words — affect my electoral preferences.

One might therefore say that my basic disagreement with Chomsky is epistemological: He arrives at his opinions on the basis of people’s words, whereas I arrive at my opinions on the basis of people’s actions and decisions — not what they say, but what they actually do in the context of the circumstances in which they do it. I do not invite liars to persuade me, whereas he does — and that’s the difference.

But, in any case, Hillary’s consistent — in both her actions and her words — support of the U.S. government imposing a no-fire zone in Syria (or any other country whose government is being actively protected by Russian military forces) was the overwhelming reason why I considered her to be presenting the greatest threat to the continuance of life on Earth of anyone in history, and why I was therefore greatly relieved to learn that she won’t be the U.S. President. The difference between myself and Chomsky on this goes deeper than to political issues, and it reaches to epistemological issues, which is the bedrock of all beliefs.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • eupf

    Yes, over the years Chomsky has shown himself to be an Establishment gatekeeper at all the key moments, i.e. when it really matters. He might make generalized yet useful critiques of “the system”, but he rarely addresses specific individuals and their policies, and always loves to mock “conspiracy theorists” (despite himself speaking on the undeniable geopolitical power of things like the Trilateral Commission in the past). Put your money where your mouth is, Noam, or shut your damn Chomper and stick to linguistics.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Your implicit allegation that a person (such as Chomsky) who evaluates experienced public officials (such as Hillary Clinton) on the basis of what they say, not on the basis of what they actually did as a public official — evaluates candidates that way even when that public official has an extensive record of lying — is worthy of intellectual respect, is wrong, unjustified, and unjustifiable. The problem with Chomsky is his deep stupidity, so deep that it’s on the epistemological level.

      • kimyo

        why / how do you rule out misinformation? it’s clearly a more likely explanation.

        i read that he had scheduled a meeting with one of the architects/engineers for 9/11 truth people. if it went through, surely, even if dumb as a hammer, he’d say ‘building 7’. his failure to do so implicates him as part of the apparatus.

        your failure to maintain skepticism, especially is these times, implicates you as part of the apparatus.

        you need chomsky/sanders/warren to be inept/stupid rather than deceitful in order to maintain your delusion. they are lying to you, in concert. if you were paying attention you’d see that in 2 seconds.

        • Natashaaking

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj112d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash112ShopLifeGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj112d:….,…….

      • paul

        He is far from stupid, as you know. He is a liar.

        His academic work – logic, in the sense of the attempt to turn describe human thought via equations – is foundational for AI and this makes it clear that he was an establishment tool from the start.

  • Sam

    Looks like misinformation to me

    • Stormymprice

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj212d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash212ShopMediaGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj212d:….,……….

      • Eric Zuesse

        Go to hell, spammer!

  • Paul

    No, it’s not epistomological. Chomsky is a tool. He’s quite aware of what he’s doing too.

    You should recognize the type buddy.

  • cityspeak

    Wait do you mean that the “great intellectual lefty” might be just a talking bullet point for Empire?
    Has that ever happened before in the history of our sacred democracy?

    What a large group of individuals that were once considered the left in the 50’s and 60’s were wined and dined, courted and had by the intelligent services?
    This is understood and well documented?

    Is the entire political spectrum (far right, right, centrist, left, far left) in the USA “well in hand as not to ever rock the boat”?

    Note Jill Stein raising millions for a recount of the past election but not to fill her own parties coffers to create a real functioning third party to challenge the already “in the bag coke/ pepsi parties”.

  • moomin

    Chomsky was like that in that particular Al Jazeera interview because the talk was specifically about ‘Trump’ as US president.

  • Amal Iel

    Chomsky never said we should go to war with Russia. On the contrary, he believes that a nuclear escalation is one of the two most dangerous possibilities today. This article is a misrepresentation of the man

  • Rehmat

    Canadian professor Tony Hall in his latest 7-part research article, Noam Chomsky and Zionism has claimed that Dr. Noam Chomsky is an Israel ‘Gatekeeper’ for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    American Jewish philosopher Noam Chomsky was the first to author the 128-page booklet, 9-11 in December 2001. In the booklet, Chomsky tries to divert public attention from the real evildoers and claim it as a blow-back to United States imperial foreign policy by aiding western puppet regimes in Nicaragua, Turkey, and Israel in order to commit genocide of local people, Kurds and Palestinians living outside proper Israel.

    Chomsky also claimed that the US along with the UK, Egypt, France, Pakistan organized, trained, funded, and trained so-called Muslim radical groups.

    However, during an interview on Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky stated that he believes Osama Bin Laden was probably behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. The statement was curious because in earlier interviews Chomsky described the evidence against bin Laden as thin to nonexistent, which was accurate and, no doubt, explains why the US Department of Justice never indicted bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.

    Two investigative journalists, Barrie Zwicker and Kevin Barrett, PhD concur that Noam Chomsky’s nonsensical interventions on 9/11 constitute an important part – indeed, perhaps the single most instrumental part – of the 9/11 cover up. If Chomsky’s adoring fans had been treated with respect and truth rather than with duplicity and lies, they might have joined together in a timely and effective way to get to the bottom of the 9/11 deception and to demand some legal and political accountability for the fraud…….