Matt Taibbi Asked About Noam Chomsky’s “Bad Takes”

In this clip from PRIMO RADICAL #232, journalist and “Useful Idiots” host Matt Taibbi is asked about former MIT linguist, philosopher and media critic Noam Chomsky’s “bad takes”.

Join the conversation! Submit questions to guests by becoming a PRIMO RADICAL patron for only $1 a month on Patreon:

Subscribe to PRIMO RADICAL on YouTube, Spotify, and iTunes!

Written by Primo Radical


  1. Noam is often wrong and he doesn't take kindly to being told so. Syria, China, force the vote and candy, and his quantitative understanding of climate change to name a few.

  2. The old Chomsky would have exhaustively detailed the vast amounts of money, weapons, and profound propaganda efforts that were unleashed to pursue regime change in Syria. We all knew this was on the US wish list and they helped engineer the civil war. He would have noted that having failed at regime change, the US has settled for balkanizing for the country, and robbing the nation of key resources that sustain it. No groups in Syria will emerge as safer or more prosperous as a result of the civil war and its outcomes.
    Chomsky also surely knows better than most how much the US has done to betray the Kurds in the past. Why he would expect better from them in the future is beyond me. Surely Russia has shown itself to be more interested in stability in the region and a better steward for the future of the region – if it’s less suffering and chaos that is being sought after.
    Now that his cognitive decline has set in, it seems he has been susceptible to certain mainstream talking points in a way I could not imagined previously. It’s sad but hardly surprising, and it should take nothing away from his profound influence and legacy.

  3. If someone is wrong on the facts, “rules” and policy, then they are wrong, even if that someone is Noam Chomsky.
    Chomsky is wrong on the facts. Why? The social “unrest” was not met with State violence until the infiltration of and by the Sunni, i.e., Muslim Brotherhood, both from within the country and from without by Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra. These forces were funded and supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
    Chomsky is wrong on the rules or law. The U.S. Constitution states under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 who and how War shall be declared. The United Nations Charter also states how armed conflict is to be handled with respect to sovereign nations. Then, there is the Nuremberg Tribunal or Principles.
    Oh, and Chomsky is going to call the police, if his house burglarized. Life is then not too complicated for rules. Oh, but now it is his ox being gored.
    Chomsky is wrong on the policy. Just like Bush said about Iraq after the invasion, “Regime change has been U.S. policy since 1989. Regime change policy has been the policy in Syria since the since the 60s and 70s by the United States, Since the 90s by Israel see The Clean Break Doctrine and forever see the Torah and the First Zionist Congress was the inaugural congress of the Zionist Organization held in Basel, Switzerland, from August 29 to August 31, 1897.
    We are adults. Any reasonable, logical, common sense person understand ms what Chomsky’s biases are in favor of and his prejudices are against.
    Chomsky is human and fallible.
    We humans must stop looking for other people to follow, for other people to think for us and for other people to do for us.
    dennis hanna

  4. Agreed NC is not the Pope and it's okay to agree to disagree like I do with his philosophy of voting for a War Loving Neolib every four years b/c for some reason the War Loving Neocon is not to his liking…

  5. Was it Chomsky who wrote those books or did he hire a ghost writer or something?
    I did hear Chomsky speak in public one time in New Delhi. It was like listening to a robot, he never once made eye-contact with the audience, just kept reading through his notes in a flat, disinterested monotone – no passion, no charisma…

  6. Listen critically and generously.
    Chomsky is self-admittedly bad at organizing. Let's not try to make him out to be one, k? He's not that kind of thought leader.

  7. I agree with Chomsky’s take here. If the Kurdish forces in NE Syria wish for U.S. troops to be present so that they don’t get trampled by Turkey or the Assad regime, then that’s what should happen. That is consistent with what Chomsky has said about “humanitarian intervention,” because most of the time, the people don’t wish for troops or occupation or invasion. The land of Rojava is in a very fragile state, and they’re in constant danger, and they ought to be protected, and if we’re the ones to do it, then so be it imo. My take, but willing to discuss and learn more from people who are more informed than I:

  8. Disappointing. This is about some very basic principles, it doesn't require any deep factual knowledge, 'reading', etc. There is such a thing as international law. No country, and that includes the US, is just allowed to intervene wherever it wants with either troops or arms in order to help whoever its intellectuals think is the better side or is in danger of having their human rights violated. The number one problem with the US being the world police is that unlike the real police, nobody has elected it to that position. The more specific facts on Syria are even more damning for the US, but Chomsky has been relying on the wrong sources – they may well be the same sources as he used before, but they have probably sold out in the meantime. As for Taibbi, he has never even been some kind of principled anti-imperialist or even an anti-interventionist, just a traditional all-American 'war-sceptical' progressive dove, as his response here shows.

  9. What is Matt even talking about? Chomsky has set himself up to be the authority on all these matters. He behaves and speaks and acts as if he's the authority. Stop running cover for Chomsky's bullshit, Matt. WTF.

  10. Chomsky has been a limited hangout since his book and Mat is a little afraid to talk out his lane now and I respected Mat a lot. And Chomsky is no intellectual

  11. I've always liked Chomsky's take on the JFK assassination – he doesn't concern himself with Kennedy's assassination. He concerned himself with the Kennedy administrations actions, which is a lot more important. Now, to Chomsky recent capitulation in regards to his support of the lesser-of-two-evil doctrine and recent US interventionism, I have grown suspect of his conviction to any anarchist philosophies he has often advocated over his lifetime . However, never take his opinion lightly or believe he doesn't have a solid reason for his beliefs. I would take a Chomsky wild guess over a State Department "fact" any day.

  12. This guest is definitely a wishy washy sob if a bitch. Call like it is and have self respect and dignity
    Noam Chomsky us a has been. Age catches up with everyone Chomsky should be ignored cause now he doesn t know which way is where