Noam Chomsky lives, contrary to Hugo Chavez’s misinterpreted statement to the contrary. Fine. I don’t wish death on anyone.
A few fanatics claim Chomsky is a brilliant man. But Chomsky has spent far too much of his life feeding the totalitarian monster. There’s nothing smart about that.
I’m convinced that Chomsky suffers from a mental disorder paralyzing that part of the brain that enables most human beings to see nations as places where real people live.
Mad metaphors. Chomsky instead sees nations as metaphors, and he perceives only the leader, not the people. I’ve described how this disability has manifest itself in the way personality worshippers see Cuba as Castro, or Castro as Cuba. They can’t imagine that Cuba is 11 million people imprisoned by Castro. To them, there’s only Castro, and since he’s on a relatively small, miserably poor island, he is the favored underdog; he must be a victim no matter how many Cubans he has tortured or murdered when the rest of us weren’t looking.
Chomsky sees the United States as big and powerful, and therefore bad. The fact that human freedom gives America its influence doesn’t matter to Chomsky. He can’t figure out that, if the people living in dictatorships suddenly were free, their creativity would be unshackled, too, and their nations eventually would claim a fair share of world influence. In his mind’s eye, he can’t see the people.
To those with Chomsky’s syndrome, the success of the thriving (big) nations has nothing to do with the freedom of their people; instead, thriving nations thrive because they stole something from the poor (little) nations.
World conquest. In Chomsky’s clouded view, a big, free nation ousts dictatorships not because it’s good for the people or the world, but because big bad Bush wants to rule the world and, to do it, he must beat up poor little Osama or Saddam or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il. Hence, the book title, “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.”
Start with Chomsky’s retarded premise, and all of his paranoid linguistics makes sense. Addition is subtraction. Multiplication is division. Freedom is fascism. To hell with people.
Chomsky simply cannot imagine people he cannot see. He cannot connect. He cannot understand how freedom inspires human progress, and he cannot empathize with the anguish of those in foreign lands who are forbidden to speak their minds.
Cruel exploitation. With Chomsky, it’s only the leaders who count, and it doesn’t matter how they govern or how they came to power. If a leader’s repression has crippled his economy or crushed “his people,” that doesn’t matter either. What matters is, if a nation is a chronic failure, its leader automatically represents goodness and victimhood. If a nation is a major success, its leader represents criminal conspiracies and cruel exploitation.
* “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.”
* “I have often thought that if a rational fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.”
* “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”
* “Resistance is feasible even for those who are not heroes by nature, and it is an obligation, I believe, for those who fear the consequences and detest the reality of the attempt to impose American hegemony.”
* “The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control – 'indoctrination,’ we might say - exercised through the mass media.”
* (Dismissing reports of 2 million Cambodians murdered in “the killing fields” of the Khmer Rouge:) “Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing.”
* “The invasion of Iraq had a number of motives, and one was to illustrate the new National Security Strategy, which declares that the United States will control the world permanently by force if necessary and will eliminate any potential challenge to that domination.”
Worst best. Chomsky’s sick world view inevitably perceives politics and economics in reverse. The leaders of open and democratic societies are bad. The leaders of secretive and oppressive societies are good. Never mind if dictatorship is too bleak to bear.
Chomsky will mention people in his writings, as if he cares, but humans seem an abstraction to him. Occasionally, he’ll even condemn dictatorship, but the reasoning is obtuse. Ultimately, the worse the dictator, the more Chomsky seems to like him.
No, I can’t admire Chomsky’s research or writing. It’s the counterproductive result of bizarro-world thinking. But his books aren’t the problem. The syndrome is. (As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has noted, someone buys Chomsky’s books, but no one actually reads them.)
Angry sorrow. In a way, I feel sorry for Chomsky. He cannot feel the joy most of us feel when the tyrants are toppled and oppressed people are freed. He never saw the problem. He couldn’t celebrate the solution.
But I’m angry, too. I feel much sorrier for the countless millions of innocents who today suffer horribly harsh lives in police states while emotionally retarded writers like Noam Chomsky provide pretty, pompous words to justify the suffering.
While most of us fight the monster, he feeds it. Chomsky doesn’t have to die to stop doing that. He should just stop doing that.
SEE ALSO: Hugo Chavez: Passing ugly as clever.