Chomsky and the Cambodian Genocide

I was looking into Chomsky's denial of the genocide in Cambodia and praise for the Khmer Rouge, something he still seems to doubles down on today. I want to point out three books he reviewed back in the 70s, two which were critical of the Khmer Rouge and one that was essentially from the Khmer Rouge.
>Cambodia: Year Zero by Francois Ponchaud (1977 in France)
Here is the introduction to Year Zero from Ponchaud:
>"Even before this book was translated it was sharply criticized by Mr Noam Chomsky and Mr Gareth Porter. These two 'experts' on Asia claim that I am mistakenly trying to convince people that Cambodia was drowned in a sea of blood after the departure of the last American diplomats. They say there have been no massacres, and they lay the blame for the tragedy of the Khmer people on the American bombings. They accuse me of being insufficiently critical in my approach to the refugee's accounts. For them, refugees are not a valid source...
>"After an investigation of this kind, it is surprising to see that 'experts' who have spoken to few if any refugees should reject their very significant place in any study of modern Cambodia. These experts would rather base their arguments on reasoning: if something seems impossible to their personal logic, then it doesn't exist. Their only sources for evaluation are deliberately chosen official statements. Where is that critical approach which they accuse others of not having?"
This goes back to how initially when the book was released in French and it was reviewed there he had criticized the book before he was able to get a copy to read himself. Mainly because he did not like how the media was being critical of a communist country he was now very supportive of, he instead wanted to deflect criticism onto western 'imperialism' and blame any hardships Cambodia was facing on the US bombings during the Vietnam War. Here he dismisses first hand account of Cambodians.

Attached: killingfields.jpg (1452x1088, 574.98K)

>Murder of a Gentle Land by Anthony Paul and John Barron (1977)
This book he calls 'third-rate propaganda'. This book that was also pointing out the atrocities happening in Cambodia at the time, this had sources from not only witness testimony but sources from governments mainly the US, Thai and Malaysian governments which he considered all which he said where 'unreliable'. He also attempts to further diminish the book by saying:
>"They do not mention the Swedish journalist, Olle Tolgraven, or Richard Boyle of Pacific News Service, the last newsman to leave Cambodia, who denied the existence of wholesale executions; nor do they cite the testimony of Father Jacques Engelmann, a priest with nearly two decades of experience in Cambodia, who was evacuated at the same time and reported that evacuated priests 'were not witness to any cruelties' and that there were deaths, but 'not thousands, as certain newspapers have written' (cited by Hildebrand and Porter)."
Which brings us to our next book:

Attached: 2584875.jpg (318x456, 35.59K)

Based noam knew even in the 70s not to trust msm

>Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, by George Hildebrand and Gareth Porter (1977)
Chomsky says:
>"Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys' (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia."
Now a man like Chomsky priding himself on noticing propaganda, he does not seem to notice this book is never critical of anything the Khamer Rouge is doing and is only praising it
Now as someone who likes to pride themselves on being against the opinion of the mainstream media (mostly on anti-communist matters) and pointing out propaganda/lies, this book says nothing negative about the Khmer Rogue, which he apparently did not pick up on, and this is/was his favorite source for information on what was happening in Cambodia. A book that pretty much explicitly gets information from the Khmer Rouge.

Attached: rev.jpg (338x499, 28.96K)

even Noam is not above contrarianism

Real bones are dirty and brownish. The photos show nice bright white, polished "bones". It's bretty obvious they're Hollywood props.

Well he only mistrusted the western media, he was a big proponent of the media from communists countries and the word of their governments.

That and confirmation bias, he would only accept positive accounts when negative accounts would be written off as not reliable.

Attached: city rat talking from his ass.jpg (1024x768, 405.09K)

Nice breakdown of the ultimate communist contrarian. He was a retarded propagandist from the beginning and i never knew why he had a following.

Cambodia was a test run.