The other day I received an email from a marketing executive at VBS.tv, the online television channel associated with Vice Magazine. This message was to inform me about an interview with Noam Chomsky – esteemed professor of something or other, and the world’s “leading public intellectual”. Chomsky is one of the very few subjects on which I agree with Oliver Kamm.

The interview with Chomsky, which was conducted by Kate Albright-Hanna and recorded during the sometime academic’s visit to Queen’s University in Belfast, is brief, and begins with an annoying advert, It covers a multitude of topics, including the grievances of the American lunatic right, Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize and left-wing political activism.

My VBS correspondent asked for comments on the interview. At first I warned him that my views on Noam Chomsky were rather negative, but still he was keen to hear them.

This is what I had to say…

“Shallow questions, and even shallower answers. Shallow questions from an idealistic youth who has yet to combine political passion with an understanding of the human condition that depends on life experience; shallow answers from a jaded old hack with nothing substantial to say.

“I can think of a few people who would make good interviewers of Chomsky. But Chomsky would never agree to a proper cross-examination. He cannot cope with criticism, and thinks of himself as infallible. Chomsky is always going on about marketing and spin in bourgeois politics, but is himself a creature of political spin, and one every bit as empty as those he damns in haughty tones.”

I could go on and on about Chomsky, but have far more interesting things to do with my time.

Let’s see how long it takes the Chomskybots to track down this post and leap to the defence of their hero. I estimate no more than 30 minutes following Google’s indexing of the page. Chaos may rule the universe, but some things in life remain predictable.