/lit/ - Literature

>>15687889
>Chomsky calling Peterson a fraud
Get a load of this guy.
The fraudulent part of Peterson is that he was pushed forward by media people in an unnatural strategic fashion to be some kind of non threatening, acceptable, intellectual persona of conservative thought just because he has debated against militant feminism and mindless SJW claims. Really these are just common sense positions, and Peterson is just an interesting academic personality, and not a political entity at all. He's a professional psychologist and educator, not a politician or journalist. Part of his training involves understanding the gender differences in the mind and in human behaviour, and that was his entry point into the present day arena. He is at least quite interesting in his own right.

Chomsky is a fraud, in a very similar situation to Peterson but much worse. A linguistics professor who has waded into a field not his own, rambling about war and geopolitics for decades with no real training beyond what the average person could access and read.
This is a man who openly praised Chairman Maos China on television in the 60s as the place was collapsing into cannibalistic famine in real time, and had been under seige by the most evil oppressive government the world had ever seen for at least 20 years beforehand.
>They both know very well that there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities.
This is what Chomsky is. He has described himself as a libertarian socialist, and has displayed his Marxist bias in his work.
He has criticised the USA and their interference abroad at great length, but makes no mention of the Soviet funding behind the opposition in many of the historical theatres. Soft power American influence in the form of business and investment is a great evil according to Chomsky. This is aimed at developing a nation in the long run, even if it doesn't always go to plan, and America will make profit in the process,m. America has abused it's power in the past, and in certain places criticism is needed, but there is an element of intended mutual benefit that is ignored every time.
If a tank flies the hammer and sickle as it crushes villiagers under its tracks then all is well, and Chomsky has no comment.
Again, this is a man who cheered the most apocalyptic state failure in all of human history as it was unfolding.