On Fascism and the Dissociative Academic Rhetoric of Noam Chomsky
On Fascism and the Dissociative Academic Rhetoric of Noam Chomsky, by Alex Constantine
The Noams vs The Brussell Sprouts
Noam Chomsky's influence is pervasive - and somewhat divisive, a garrulous wedge that has split progressives into two adversarial camps. To see it clearly, if you haven't already, pick up a copy of Z Magazine, an organ that routinely features the wisdom of Noam Chomsky and his fellow acaedmic-intellectual commentators. We will hereafter refer to this crowd as "The Noams." (Some may note that Z Magazine has signally corrupt funding sources, but never mind that now. It is the content of the magazine that concerns us here.) The work of the other camp is represented by Mae Brussell, the late anti-fascist researcher. (She took no suspect financial aid, some will point out, but never mind that now.) This camp we will call "The Brussell Sprouts."
Now, The Noams have been beating up on The Sprouts, discreditng and ridiculing and censoring them for years. With deep disdain in his voice, Dr. Chomsky has denounced The Sprouts as short-sighted, naive conspiracy mongers. He will not stoop to discussing the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy because, he told a trusting sudience once, "Kennedy wasn't important." Why not?
"He's just another dead president."
This sort of reasoning is carried to every issue addressed by The Noams. Some topics are not worth discussing, and domestic political murders are chief among them.
And then there are the Nazis.
The Brussell Sprouts point to Otto von Bolschwing - the powerful SS officer who settled in central California after the war and connected up with Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and a clique of right-wing industrialists - a mover and shaker in ODDESSA, and ask "WHY?" The Noams find discussion of Nazi murderers taken aboard by the CIA and military a distasteful subject, and ask, "WHO CARES?"
Tying this fascist underworld to the murder of John Kennedy (and Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, et al) is positively forbidden by The Noams. They will sneer at you.
The Sprouts, who have been mugged by The Noams in the obscure, unlit backalleys of the progressive media, believe that political murders are not too trivial to discuss. Perhaps, they reason, the assassination of John F. Kennedy in broad daylinght, before a nation of spectators, was not so insignificant after all. The Sprouts have the temerity to disagree with the Noams. The former camp suggests that this murder, and many others, may even matter.
John Kennedy may be "just another dead president," but his killers altered history. They are still with us. They are in control of the "system" that Dr. Chomsky inveighs against.
Was Martin King "just another dead n*gg*r?" Did the "system" kill him? No. The government killed him - does justice cry out for more from the dissociative Left than "system" bashing and the belittlement of documented "theories?"
Chomsky does not represent The Sprouts, who fear and loathe him. Well, they don't really fear him ...
The Noam cult, as I say, sniffs at the naive work of the Sprouts, and has written them off as "theorists." The Noams are concerned with loftier issues than the deaths of Kennedy and King. So lofty, in fact, that the discussion is kept at the level of abstraction, usually. What is bloodshed in Dallas when a Noam has his diamond-like mind wrapped around media memes and assumptions, imperialism in the Middle East, Israel, and the proles' mistaken abstract perceptions of world events...
There are distinct differences between the two camps, who often talk past each other, when you get down to it.
The Sprouts flail at fascism, run down details, and name names. The Noams wrinkle their noses at the word "fascism," which is viewed as a pending threat, not a serious domestic issue at present, and seldom is a name ever actually named.
One side is facing reality, the other is dissociating, running away ... but making a good show of it by engaging in high-brow prattle that makes them feel like intelligent people.
The Sprouts aren't so concerned with feeling intelligent and making a good impression.
I am a Sprout. I once asked Chomsky to help me address organized child abuse. He suggested that I am "trouble." Told me to never write him again. So I dealt for three years with organized child abuse. Along the way, I managed to have a few pedophiles arrested, informed the public of important cases, wrote a book, and even forced a pedophile police chief in North Carolina to step down.
Chomsky went on to make humorous speeches about imperialism and the propaganda of the New York Times. He refused to talk about organized child abuse, as he did the murder of John Kennedy, and for that there is a circle in Hell with his name on it.
If agitating to stop child rape and abuse makes me "trouble," then what is Noam Chomsky, who seems to me of even less importance than "just another dead president," and speaks in an effete twang that reveals him to be pathologically stuffy.
What is an "Intellectual" if he is one of them? I certainly don't want to be one. Sprouts will stick with "smart people with the courage to face and resist fascism."
The Noams will, believe it or not, eventually slide into the sink hole of history. They were creepy types who placed their image before the cause of social justice, and engaged in empty, high-toned whining when there were serious issues to address directly, the killing of John Kennedy and Martin King and organized child abuse among them.
May The Sprouts thrive and prosper. We don't cringe and censor and whine. We kick fascist ass like no one else.