Comments on: A Tale of two “dissidents”: Chomsky denied entry to West Bank; Wilders denied entry to Britain

By: gary ashton

gary ashton — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:28:30 +0000

is there any one out there…is there intelligent life on this planet, certainly not amongst our leaders who are marching us into some weird hybrid of socialism, fascism and islam, as for the people that follow them, well all i can say is baa! brainwashed mindless zombies are incapable of a single original thought.

By: Larry70

Larry70 — Mon, 24 May 2010 05:51:59 +0000

Osama Bin Laden is a fan of Chomsky, he has recommended his writings in one of his speeches. Neo-Nazis and fascists of all stripes just love Chomsky and just check out the Robert Faurisson affair. This kind of thing is just why Melanie Phillips’s latest book is entitled ‘The World turned Upside Down’, it is all beyond parody. Surreal, you can’t make this stuff up.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 21 May 2010 13:01:27 +0000

The difference between Wilders and Chomsky is far different and more stark than that painted by Robin Shepherd. Mr. Wilders wishes to retain a current status quo and Dr. Chomsky wishes to radically alter the status quo. Mr. Wilders wishes to minimize future pain and disruption, while Dr. Chomsky seems to approve of great dislocation and pain being applied to humans with whom he disagrees.

The principle that Mr. Wilders supports and Dr. Chomsky opposes is “If one party wants to remove something from another party, then he has to prove his case incontrovertibly.” If there is a compelling argument to the contrary, then the status quo should remain no matter the partial validity of the argument for change. This used to be a basis for civilized interaction between people, but it looks as though creating chaos without sufficient cause has become politically correct. The support of chaos for those who do not suffer its consequences is evil. Dr. Chomsky is quite detached both ideologically and practically and will not suffer from that which he is wishing for others. Mr. Wilders is indeed suffering for the principles for which he is standing.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 21 May 2010 07:55:47 +0000

Another incident to add to your list Robin – Elton John denied entry to Egypt on the grounds that he is gay, but he has no such problem in gaining entry to Israel. Another very under-reported incident.

By: Davidka

Davidka — Fri, 21 May 2010 05:09:13 +0000

Brilliant post. Orwell would have been appreciative for sure.
It takes such a piece to highlight the slow advance of subtle coercion and subversion of ‘elite opinion ‘ in western society.
Salman Rushdie’ springs to mind. what protection would he have been given today?
We need a new version of Animal Farm to expose it all today but then which publisher would dare print it. for the original only just made it to the bookshelves because of Britain’s love of Stalinism at the time.

By: Gábor Fränkl

Gábor Fränkl — Fri, 21 May 2010 03:12:12 +0000

Peter, Hungary
Just so that you know a little update 4 U: Tariq Ramadan was only banned during the Bush years. *NOW* there is no such ban any longer put in place by Obama & Co.
Back to the ChomPsky matter: Not only did he consult with his Hezbollah friends in Beirut, just like the demented discredited idiot (ohhh the “scholar”!) Finkelstein, but his real smoking gun of personal reputational self-killing is/was his defence of Faurisson Holocaust-denier “historian” in the early 1980s. ChomPsky wrote a foreword to the Frenchman’s book if I understand well. Still, you may recall Peter that in “Népszabadság” (the leading left-liberal quality daily, Seres László the famous-infamous icon of Hongarian neo-con journalism actually interviewed Noam some 5 years ago (when he was invited to the Soros-founded CEU (Central-European University) for a lecture which I suffered to attend then…). In the interview Seres specifically asked about the Faurisson issue he stuttered in his answer that I cite here — I remember by heart –: “You people here in Europe do not understand the real strength of dissent.” As compared to what, the US, I might add? That’s it. Word by word! A freaking cripto-fascist imbecile.

By: Andy Gill

Andy Gill — Thu, 20 May 2010 20:59:57 +0000

There is a total disconnect between the political establishment and the people about extremist Islam.

That is why Wilders is referred to as a ‘populist’ politician and that is why we are seeing the growth of grass-roots movements like the English Defence League.

The failure of the British establishment to control immigration, and its pandering to Islamic extremists contributed to the collapse in the Labour vote. Now at last have a government committed to capping non-EU immigration – unthinkably ‘racist’ even a couple of years ago, so perhaps the politicians are beginning to catch up.

It will take the media much longer I am afraid.

By: Gábor Fränkl

Gábor Fränkl — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:50:41 +0000

The refered-to Israeli writer cited in the Times just easily could be the siami-twin of Chompsky. Aprt from that the hypocrisy is so untenable that it is ridiculous. Any wonder these opinion-molder traitors in the West nearly everywhere have no credibility left – zero rather?

By: Lynne T

Lynne T — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:17:54 +0000

Not only is Chomsky’s public support for Hezbollah and the Syrian dictatorship reasonable grounds for Israel wishing to keep him out, why would Mahmoud Abbas or Salaam Fayyad would want him lecturing university students in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

By: Shlomo USA

Shlomo USA — Thu, 20 May 2010 11:52:42 +0000

There is, of course, nothing gentle about Noam Chomsky the public intellectual. He is a master of violent hate speech that is heard and heeded around the world. In this instance, he came to West Bank to incite Arab irredentists who bear unappeasable grievances. How much of this sort of violence must a liberal society like Israel bear?