Senator Mike Duffy said recently:
“When you put critical thinking together with Noam Chomsky, what you’ve got is a group of people who are taught from the ages of 18, 19 and 20 that what we stand for, private enterprise, a system that has generated more wealth for more people because people take risks and build businesses, is bad,” Duffy is quoted as saying.
Duffy then told Conservatives they have nothing to apologize for because most Canadians are not “on the fringe where these other people are.”
I'd recommend reading the foregoing carefully and using one's brain, rather than being Pavlovianly reactionary towards selected words and phrases and failing to understand what Senator Duffy is talking about. Kind of hard to do when one's used to being told what to think (like by "The News", albeit in plainer language!).
But then again, Leftists/"Progressives" tend to be too lazy-minded to take the time and expend the effort to understand complex English-language passages.
The point is that Duffy was NOT criticizing critical thinking. Oh, no. It's a bit more complicated than that, and requires, believe it or not, actual critical thinking, something lacking on the part of Duffy's critics, who are obviously Chomsky-ites, perhaps without even knowing it, in my opinion. Remember, merely being critical, which is what Noam Chomsky really is, despite his impressive, mesmerizing, manipulative cunning linguistic acumen, doesn't make one a critical thinker!
It'd also help to realise that Noam Chomsky is either crazy or a malicious liar, in order to realize that combining that professional cunning linguist with what FEELS AND LOOKS like "critical thinking" can have a powerful manipulative effect on students, rendering them misinformed and confused, yet dogmatically cocksure of themselves, as to what Duffy was talking about (free enterprise, etc.). Duffy, I believe, meant that Noam Chomsky and critical thinking don't mix, because Chomsky's a professional extreme-left-wing manipulator-propagandist who pretends to be thinking critically when, in fact, he's spewing pure nonsense.
Of course, "progressives" reading this, particularly "progressives" who've been mentally harmed by the likes of Chomsky and his lies, will have great difficulty comprehending what I'm writing here. But if they don't want to think critically about Noam Chomsky and his bizarre claims and extravagantly profuse verbal diarrhea, well, then it's their own fault.
Oh, and, by the way, for those who don't already know, I had an economics professor who always made students read leftist drivel such as Chomsky as well as other fullashit leftists like Linda McQuaig, an infamous hard-leftwing propagandist "economist" herself. Well, fortunately, despite the Chomsky gobbleddygook, I retained my own critical-thinking ability due to my healthy level of skepticism and demand for real-world, empirical proof, not just what masquerades as "logic", "reason", and "critical thinking". Oh, and graphs and mathematical formulae don't really impress me, except as tools for communicating economic theory (or dogmae). Oh, and the commie econo professor also brought the Chomster to the university. But of course. Hell, he even resembles the Chomster himself!
Liberals. How is it we're supposed to talk to them again?
Anyway, as the Senator said, we regular, in-touch-with-observable-reality folks needn't apologize to those fringe-elementist, "critical-thinking" Chomsky-ites for representing Mainstream Canadiana.
Sometimes one may believe one's practicing "critical thinking", but may actually be deluding oneself. It's not just about being critical, after all, right? There's also the "thinking" part, after all...
That said, perhaps the Senator could've worded his comments a little simpler so that, perhaps, liberals would be able to understand what he meant. But then again, he wasn't talking to liberals!
ht: Bourque Newswatch
1 comment:
awesome analysis.
Thank you.
Post a Comment