The problem with Chomsky is that he manages to use solipism and linguistic magic to make his points. He has a gift with words where if you follow it, it leads you to some conclusions that you would never make with logic (like that terrorism question). I would also put him in the category of people who manage to say a lot without actually saying anything at all. I dont understand. How can these lefties read this stuff? its sooo boring and convoluted. I guess if you are an anti-american commie, you might hang on to his every word (which is a lot!)
I didn't read the whole thing....I just can't stomach him. I scanned it, and what should jump out at me but the usual Bush-Hitler equivalency argument. I still say it's all so infantile, predictable, and boring.
They suffer through reading it because they are followers. Having been told by their betters that Chumpsky is to die for, they force themselves to look at just enough to say they've looked at it.
Here's the basic philosophical framework for reading a Post-Modern "intellecutal elite":
1. Cultural mores are used to suppress "freedom" for the individual.
2. Language is the tool used by the cultural elites to keep the individual "oppressed".
3. To overcome these "oppressions" of cultural mores one must use language differently to "free" the individual from the "tryanny" of the elites.
4. The hope is an 18th Century French styled revolution and a Totalitarianism of the masses in which every individual is able to "express" herself outside the infuences of a "repressive" cultural power stucture using whatever Neitschizian(sp) methods available.
This article is a practical application of those principles. Chomsky denounces in essences, with his lumping of Israel and the US, the cultural "oppression" of the Judeao-Christian ethic and praises the hysteria of the masses. His democracy is a Rousarrian(sp) style democracy as opposed to the Republican and Federal style democracy that the founding fathers established.