How modest of Glazov not to mention his psychic skills.
In his article, he "argues" that "Chomsky is hurling an ugly insult that symbolizes the projection of self-hate." Like other mortals, I am consigned to judge the Horowitz/Chomsky affair with crude tools like reason. While Glazov, again gazing into Chomsky's soul, tells us "Chomsky is clearly entertaining the totalitarian fantasy of pushing Horowitz into invisibility."
Clearly? Only for mind-readers. Since when did laughably bad psychology replace philosophical analysis?
Glazov is not the only medium plying his dubious trade at that site: Horowitz, when running low on ad hominems, also shares the spoils of his mind-melts (if anyone disagrees with him, it's invariably because they "hate America").
At least Chomsky, relying on arguments and evidence that third-parties can verify, doesn't mistake himself for Freud.
Third parties can verify that the massacres in Vietnam are overblown? Third parties can verify that Cuba has been a victim of more terrorism than any other country? Third parties can verify that the U.S. post-1944 is an extension of the Nazi regime? Please. Chomsky is an accomplished liar and you're a fool to believe him.
Glazov and Horowitz can be forgiven for being somewhat over the top in their reaction to Chomsky, given their respective experiences with real (as opposed to US Academia sanitized) communism. But what about Horowitz's claim that Chomsky referred approvingly and at some length to Horowitz's (pre-epiphany) writings in the early seventies? Chomsky often claims to rely on "evidence easily verifiable by third parties," and gets away with it because he knows most of his devotees won't bother.