No bag limit? Well then, if unrestricted hunting of a species can result in the extinction of that species or the significant decline of that species to a very restricted and dwindling ecosphere, where for Pete's sake can I get a license? I want to contribute to helping an endangered species become more endangered! Please, oh please.

Amritas is a good source for Anti-Chomskyans in his supposed field of expertise, linguistics. Too many posts to link - just keep scrolling.

Any list that includes notorious liars like Werner Cohn and David Horowitz is somewhat dubious. Chomsky is far from endangered - he sold so many books after 9-11 that his publishers started reprinting his books that had been out of print for years. It's still SRO to see one of his talks in person, and he is booked 2 years in advance. I guess his critics aren't too effective.

Ken, "popular" does not always equal "right".

Angua,

True enough - but Chomsky's growing popularity refutes George's "endangered species" comment.

Ken is right - Chomskyites aren't rare.

Then again, neither were passenger pigeons.

Found this blog through LGF. Nice work! esp. Convert Stories - perhaps I should write mine ;)

I started blogging recently, and I started with Chomsky:

…By stealing other people’s work, using a lot of long senseless words, and making up fancy bulls**t, the pathetic charlatan Naum Chomsky was able to convince a number of unfortunate lemming “intellectuals” that he was a genius.

http://www.anti-com.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=870

Please read the whole article - maybe you like it!

I think that Chomsky's growing popularity is part of a broader trend, and his ideas should be exposed for the fraud they contain, and his persona and his cult following - ridiculed.

CHOMSKY SUCKS - RUMSFELD ROCKS

Just a minor point; what you meant to say is that there is an open season on Chomskyites. No season on them would mean they could not be hunted.

Joe: I not only detest Chumpsky's political views, but his professional ones! I was forced to take Computational Linguistics in grad school, and it is my considered belief that Chumpsky set silicon speech understanding back twenty years (although Amritas says 50)! Even as we speak the Incredibly Stupid Theory of Deep Grammer is being forced down the throats of college students everywhere!

Joe: I see the top thread has been corrupted-- maybe we can still addrees the topic here.
Considering how memes are propagated in our culture, universities are a potent source of memetic enforcement. My question to Josh Yelon was not intended to be flippant. Is there some difference that predisposes the choice of a college major? Can a linkage be established between domains of expertise and political ideaology? Are students of linguistics destined to be liberals? Well, Amritas is not, but he is something of an outlier.
My point is, the memetic reinforcement in this example is very strong. Once a student has chosen linguistics as a major, it is a near certainty that his training will be in Chompskyan linguistics. This student's brain may be more or less receptive to liberal ideology, but the receptors are preprogrammed to accept chompskyan ideology. Most probably the receptors do not distinguish between linguistics and politics at the biochemical level.
And I guess I really just wanted to see if I was banned. :)

Chomsky. It's not a comment on his eating habits. ;-)

Awwwwwwwah, Gary, can't I be allowed my bit of memetic fun? :-(

Needs more seasoning. Or maybe more cow-bell.

But, hey, if it's intentional, don't let me get in your way. No drooling, though, please.

nice site i really like it

nice site i really like it

Chomsky-Haters

Logic and Reasoning: Inside the Mind of an anti-Chomskyite: The Play (Act 1)

B: Have you read Chomsky?

J: No, but I hate him.

B: How do you know?

J: He hates America, he’s a Pol Pot apologist, he thinks the Holocaust never happened, he hates America, he takes things out of context, his knowledge of history is piss-poor and he doesn’t even have a PhD. in history, he hates America, he never says anything good about the U.S., he always supports communists, he hates America, he’s loose with facts and uses questionable sources, and even his linguistics is shoddy. Oh, and did I mention, he hates America?

B: Oh, really? Forgive me for asking, but if you haven’t read him how do you know all of this?

J: Because….uuhhh……well……I….I…….I did read 15 pages of one book once…….and I can tell piss-poor scholarship when I see it. I don’t need to eat an entire pile of shit to know that it tastes bad after a few nibbles.

B: Really? Hmmm, That’s quite interesting. So you got all of this information from 15 pages of one book? Which book were the 15 pages from? I must have missed this one.

J: The book was called 501.

B: And you got all of this information from the first 15 pages of 501?

J: Well, no, of course, not stupid. I’ve gotten some of my information from others who have studied him more thoroughly.

B: Really? Like who?

J: Like Brian Carnell, Brad DeLong, Keith Windschuttle, David Horowitz, Werner Cohen, and many others. It’s so easy to find really great criticisms of Chomsky’s lame-ass work.

B: But none of the people you’ve named are historians. How would they know if they don’t have a PhD. in history?

J: Uhhhh…..well…….uhh…….Anyone can see! You’re being sarcastic! You’re not being logical or rational! Are you attacking me? You and all of the other Chomsky-lovers always do this. You’re taking what I’ve said out of context, just like your hero Chomsky.

B: Excuse me? What are you talking about? I never said anything about liking Chomsky. When and where were my comments not logical or rational? What am I taking out of context? Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

J: It’s hopeless! I’ve tried and tried to make you understand, but you just don’t get it. You resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. You and your type, who think they have some high moral authority, always speak condescendingly to those of us who are rational enough to see through Chomsky’s ignorance and his hatred for America. We have the greatest country in the world and everyone wants to come here. They’re all jealous of our way of life and freedoms. The terrorists want to destroy us and all that we stand for in the world. We only help other countries and they don’t even appreciate it. They spit in our faces and we still hold out a helping hand. Chomsky and his ilk are just encouraging the terrorists. He’s a terrorist! He should be kicked out of the country, or better yet, killed! I’m so pissed I can’t even see straight! Where’s my gun? Goddamnit! Barbara! Where’s my fucking gun?

W: I think it’s in the dryer dear……Oh! Here it is. It was next to the bible under your National Review.

J: Shut up woman! Did I tell you to speak?! Just give me the fucking gun!

B: J, are you okay?

J: Shut up you fucking commie! You hate America too, don’t you?

B: How did you come to that conclusion?

J: Well, look! All you’ve been doing is criticizing everything I say. You’ve made countless ad homenim attacks. You’re so blinded by your love of Chomsky that you can’t even be rational or logical. Why don’t you and your friends start your own ‘We Love the Infallible Chomsky’ blog where you can just sit around with each other and talk about how great Chomsky is? This way you don’t have to listen to voices of reason and you can use your sloppy logic to your hearts content. Why am I even talking to you? You don’t make sense.

B: Okay, thanks J. I’ll talk to you later.

J: Barbara! Bring me another beer and those Amazon.com negative Chomsky review prints. I wanna’ study!
END

Projective Test: Therapy with an anti-Chomskyite (Act 1)

T: Good afternoon J.

J: Sorry I’m late. I couldn’t get this dumb-ass Chomsky-lover off of my blog.

T: Oh, you have your own blog?

J: Sure do. You should check it out sometime. Maybe you’d get some more insight into my psyche. (chuckles)

T: Well maybe I’ll just do that. What’s it called?

J: ‘Deep Insight: Exposing the Lies of Noam Chomsky’

T: Wow! That’s a pretty impressive name. You must put a lot of work into it?

J: Not really. All I find myself doing is arguing with irrational, illogical, Chomsky-loving commies who like to make ad hominem attacks on me.

T: But I mean you must have had to spend a lot of time reading and studying Chomsky’s ideas so that you could argue with these folks, right?

J: Shall we start our therapy?

T: Uhhh….okay, sure. Today I’d like to give you what’s known as a word association projective test. I’ll just say some words and you say the first thing which comes to your mind. Try to answer with one word or a short phrase.

J: Okay.

T: Are you ready?

J: Fire away.

T: banana

J: Sandanistas

T: book

J: review

T: study

J: Amazon.com

T: gun

J: love….No! Peace, peace.

T: history

J: memory hole

T: ad hominem

J: hobby

T: terrorists

J: everyone else

T: hypocrisy

J: rap

T: Orwell

J: Citizen Kane Wait! Did you say oil well? Uhh...Beverly Hillbillies

T: logic

J: Huh?

T: TV

J: Martha

T: projection

J: What?! Are you accusing me of projection?! That’s what those fucking Chomskyites are always saying to me. Did they put you up to this?! What do you want from me?!

T: No, J. Just relax. It’s okay. No one wants anything from you. I only want you to continue with the test. Okay?

J: Well, okay. How much longer is it going to be?

T: Not too much longer. Shall we proceed?

J: Okay. Sorry.

T: Chomsky

J: WHAT?! What the fuck are you doing?! You American-hating-commie-sympathizing-Jewish-Holocaust-denying-liberal media loving-Dan Ratherite-60’s were good-anti-gun-pro-environmental-pro-affirmative action-Michael Moore idolizer! You mother-fu*”+*#+!+

T: Yes, J! Yes J! Express your feelings! Open up! Open up!

J: You son-of-a-bit*`”*#*”*#*”*………………………………..

(After about 15 more minutes of “expressing himself” J begins to calm down. He sits down and begins to shake. He puts his face in his hands and begins to cry uncontrollably.)

T: It’s okay J. It’s okay to let your feelings go. Would you like to talk about it?

J: (Still crying) I don’t know what happened. It just came out. I couldn’t control it. I’m not even sure I remember what we were talking about.

T: Well, I said Chomsky and…..

J: You fucking said what?! You goddamn son-of-a-*+”*#+!*”+#*!............................................................

(The therapist pushes the button under his desk to alert the orderlies. Two big men bust through the door just as J starts after the therapist. As the orderlies are helping J into his straitjacket he continues to yell and scream obscenities interspersed with comments about Stalin, ad hominem attacks, and Paris Hilton. The orderlies then pick him up and head for the door. As they’re going through the door his head turns toward the therapist’s bookcase. He sees that there are about 30 Chomsky books neatly lined up. He becomes speechless. He glances back at the therapist. The therapist gives him a wink and says….)

T: Take him to room 501!

J: No! No! Noooooooo…………………………………

END

Preventive War or Preventive Thought?: The Logical Conclusion for an anti-Chomskyite

B: You look deep in thought J. What are you thinking about?

J: I was just thinking about preventive war and how it seems a good logical idea.

B: Really? You think it’s logical?

J: You don’t?! You can’t be that naïve. Of course it’s logical.

B: Please explain yourself.

J: Well, I mean if we just go kill the other people first, it will just save us the trouble of having to do it later after they attack us, and could possibly save many more lives than if we wait. And it’s probably cost efficient. Why would any intelligent person wait? It’s like preventive medicine. You don’t wait until you get the illness before you start taking preventive medicine. Otherwise, it’s not preventive medicine. How much simpler could it be?

B: Hmmm I’m not so sure you can apply the preventive medicine analogy when talking about human affairs and war. It’s a little more complicated than that, don’t you think?

J: Hell no! It’s not complicated! If we know that these folks may eventually do something to us, why shouldn’t we just go after them first? Killem’! Killem’ all!

B: How will we determine who may want to do something to us in the future?

J: See?! This is the perfect example! I can tell by the way you’re questioning me that it’s possible that you’ll probably want to attack me in the future.

B: You can tell that simply by the questions I’ve asked you?

J: There you go again! You’ve just proved my point! You are attacking me! I knew I should’ve kicked your red-ass after you recommended that therapist! You commies are always sneaking up on us just waiting to pounce when our guard is down.

B: Commies?! What are you talking about? I’ve asked you five simple questions and now you’re calling me a commie? You say that I’m attacking you? You say that I’m sneaking up on you? And you say that you should have kicked my red-ass earlier? And you said I’ve proved your point? What are you talking about?

J: Yes, you have proved my point.

B: How have I done that?

J: Well, if I would have just killed you earlier on I wouldn’t have to endure all this pain you’re inflicting on me. See?

B: I’m inflicting pain on you? What have I done?

J: You may as well have stuck a knife into my back you unappreciative, Che T-shirt wearing, traitor.

B: So what if everybody else decides to implement the preventive doctrine? What will keep them from killing you first?

J: Because I believe in God and country and…(BANG!)

(Just then a gun shot went off and J’s head splattered against the wall. Everyone turned around only to see Barbara, his wife, standing there wearing her NRA T-shirt, her Wal-Mart sneakers, holding a 12-pack of Diet Pepsi in one hand and the smoking gun in the other.)

Barb: Sorry, B. I heard what J said and thought he was going to kill you.

(Barbara drops her gun, opens a Pepsi, looks into my eyes and says…..)

Barb: Be sure to vote for Bush!

END

History, Anger, and the Future of Education: An anti-Chomskyite’s Perpective

B: Hey J, how do you like your history class?

J: Well, you know, it’s the same old crap. The professor is the usual liberal type who makes sure to slip in little comments which denigrate the U.S. What happened to all the “real historians?”

B: Like who?

J: Like David Horowitz.

B: Who?

J: You know, that guy who wrote the ‘Anti-Chomsky Reader’. Now he’s a “real historian”. He exposed all of the lies put forth by that damn east coast Jewish commie liberal Noam Chomsky, who’s not even a historian anyway. Why aren’t we using Horowitz’s book in our class?

B: I don’t know. Why don’t you ask your professor?

J: He’ll just give me the same old crap about this not being a very good example of either history or scholarship. This is the same thing I get from all of the Chomsky-lovers.

B: But you can challenge him if you really think that the authors are onto something regarding Chomsky. You should try to show him how accurate the book is and how it should be taken seriously. Perhaps it will be on the required reading list next year.

J: Yeah, right! And I’m supposed to believe that the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the time he gassed his own people.

B: Well, we did.

J: See! They’ve gotten to you! I can’t believe it! You fell for it, too! Am I the only rational one on this campus?! Am I the only one who knows anything about history?!

B: What do you mean? Are you saying that we didn’t support Saddam during the time of the gassing of the Kurds?

J: Of course we didn’t support him. I mean, yeah, well, we were selling him guns and weapons, and, yeah, we were doing everything possible to keep him in power, and, yeah, after the gassings we didn’t do a damn thing about it, and yeah, we basically liked him, but it doesn’t mean we supported him.

B: It doesn’t?

J: Hell no! Why would we support a murdering dictator like Saddam? He had guns and weapons, all he wanted was to stay in power, and he gassed his own people.

B: But you just got through saying that we sold him guns and weapons, and that we tried to keep him in power, and that he gassed his own people with U.S. complicity, and that we liked him.

J: Are you calling me a liar?! I didn’t say that! You’re putting words in my mouth! I never said complicity! I don’t even know that word! You’re one of them! You’re one of them! Let me see your book bag! What do you have in there?! (J grabs B’s book bag and begins to look for some kind of “evidence”. He doesn’t find anything of interest.) Where are they?! Where are they?! Where are the books you’re using in your history class?!

B: Settle down J. People are beginning to stare.

J: Fuckem’! They’re all commies, too.

B: How do you know this?

J: Look at them! They’re all just sitting around reading and stuff. Look! Look! See that girl over there? She has Howard Zinn’s ‘A Peoples History of the United States’. Pure shit! Nothing but lies! Zinn takes everything out of context! Chomsky does the same! They’re liars, and these professors, who supposedly study history and know what they’re talking about, allow their students to read this vulgar propaganda! See?! Can’t you see?! Are you really that blind?! There are signs all over the place that this country is going to hell. And it’s because these liberal teachers are letting their students read shit like Zinn, Chomsky, Said, and all the others!

B: So where do you get all of your historical information?

J: Everyone knows this! This is just common sense! No sane person has to study what I’m talking about to know what I’m talking about! Are you calling me a liar?! This country is great and I’m damn proud to be an American!

B: Uhhh…..Okay. And what does this have to do with where you get your historical information?

J: There you go again! You really are trying to start a fight! You’re calling my patriotism into question, aren’t you?!

B: Not at all. I was just wondering……..

J: Wondering what?!

B: Wondering where you got your historical information from? That’s all.

J: I’m finished talking to you! You can’t be reasoned with. You really are one of them. You guys should all just go live in North Korea if you think it’s so great there!

B: What are you talking about? Who said anything about North Korea, or thinking it was great?

J: See you’re trying to get out of it now!

B: Trying to get out of what?

J: See, you’re too ignorant to even know what I’m talking about. The education in this country really is going to shit.

END

Presidential Debate with an anti-Chomskyite: Plus a Brief Analysis of Media Coverage

M: Okay, gentlemen, we will begin with the topic of national security. How do each of you intend to insure the security of the American people? B, you have 60 seconds.

B: I think….

J: Why does he get to go first?! This debate has been fixed by the liberal media!

M: Well, we flipped a coin and…….

J: I don’t remember flipping a coin! I didn’t even have a chance to look at it! It was probably the same on both sides!

M: But sir you were the one who……

J: There you go again! I knew I shouldn’t get involved in a debate which was engineered to make me look like an incompetent idiot!

(During this exchange the anti-Chomskyites in the audience stand up and begin cheering J. They begin yelling that the debate is fixed, that J’s statements have been taken out of context, that B is making ad hominem attacks on J, and that J’s winning the debate. They are removed from the hall and taken to a padded cell in the back of the auditorium which was constructed in anticipation of the usual outbreaks of angry irrationality which they often display. A few minutes later calm returns to the auditorium.)

M: I must apologize to our audience for the temporary interruption. Perhaps, we can now resume with the debate. Okay, gentlemen, are you ready?

(They both say yes.)

M: Now B, regarding national security, what would you do……..

J: What?! Even after all that’s happened here you’re going to let him go first?! This is the second time tonight I’ve been insulted! What the hell’s going on here?!

B: It’s okay, M. J can go first……………………….

J: Shut the hell up! I don’t need handouts from a welfare commie like you! I’m a self made man! I’ve done everything myself! I’ve never taken anything from anyone, and I’m not going to start now! Just shut the hell up! Both of you! Shut up and let me talk! I think I’d be a good leader because I said I would. That’s all the proof I need. And if you’re like me and my fellow anti-Chomskyites, that’s all the proof you’ll need too. If I’m president I’ll do everything in my power to make every other country in this world hate us. Then we can use preventive war and kill all the bastards. We also won’t have to worry about them invading this great country anymore and trying to take all of the things I’ve built myself, with my own hands. They’re jealous! They’re all fuckin’ jealous!
I’d bomb the U.N. first as it’s the symbol of giving a shit what others think around the world. Nothing could be more dangerous than this!

M: J, I’m afraid your 60 seconds is………

J: Shut the fuck up you Kim Jong Il-loving mother-fu!*#+*$+”*$+!!! I’ll say when 60 seconds is up! Shut the hell up! Just let me speak! You haven’t let me say anything! See, you and your state-controlled liberal media are doing everything you can to censor me! You’re trying to make sure that my dangerous ideas don’t reach the average folks like me.

B: Why don’t we just relax and ………

J: I’ve had just about as much of you as I can take! You and your condescending tone!
You’re always interrupting me, mocking me, laughing at me behind my back, calling me bad names, and worst of all, thinking that you know what Chomsky’s talking about just because you’ve read him and I haven’t. That really pisses me off!

M: Okay, gentlemen. Let’s …………………..

J: I’m leaving! This is ridiculous! This isn’t a debate! This is a lynching! I don’t need this kind of treatment, and I sure as hell don’t deserve it! I’m going home! For those of you who are more objective, and want to hear what I really think, you can check out my anti-Chomsky website tomorrow. ‘The Voice of Reezun: Publicly Spanking My Monkey’. Thank you! God Bless America! And good night!

(The next day B decides to check out how the media has covered the debate. First, he looks at J’s website. Needless to say, the top article was how J smashed B despite B having the media on his side, and how the media had not given him a chance to express his opinions. There was a picture of the anti-Chomskyites being taken to the padded cell which was confirmation that the media and the B people were totalitarian censors. There was a picture of B saying “I think…” and was used as proof that his thoughts were getting more attention. There was a picture of the M putting his hand in his pocket which was proof that he had switched the coins, even though one could tell by looking at the background of the photo that the M was in a night club somewhere and looked about 10 years younger.B then looks at all the other media outlets CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and even PBS. He found that they had all interpreted the events of the debate much the same way J had on his website, with a few minor exceptions. B then leaned back in his big soft recliner, patted his copy of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ as if it were a pet, and burst out into laughter.)

The End

Taking a Test-The anti-Chomskyite’s Dilemma: A Short Story

(It was first period on Friday morning and J was an hour early for class as usual. He despised all of the slacker students who came strolling in just before the bell. He thought of them as lazy, good-for-nothing, communist, hippies who were just at school to take drugs, pick up chicks, and pretend to be radicals by reading Chomsky. True, his classmates were only 14 years of age, but to J this didn’t excuse their lack of discipline. Perhaps his being their senior by at least 25 years had something to do with his frustration. Anyway, he was confident that this test was going to be easy. The test was to cover the works of Noam Chomsky, and J was sure it would be a breeze. Of course, he hadn’t studied for the test because, I mean, what would be the point? After all, all commies think alike, and Chomsky was just another of the leftover flotsam from the terrible 60’s. Plus, J had an allergic reaction just at the thought of opening up one of Chomsky’s books. His body would break out into hives which could only be soothed by a thorough scrubbing with a wire brush and the William Buckley Jr. soap figurine he got from his father for learning to ride a bike two years earlier. Anyway, a few minutes later, the teacher walked in and told the students to clear their desks and take out a pencil. Upon hearing these instructions J took his copy of ‘The Complete Idiots Guide to Being an anti-Chomskyite’ off his desk and slipped it into his backpack. He then reached further down into his pack only to be shocked that his pencil wasn’t where he always kept it. He began searching frantically. He began to sweat profusely as the teacher came nearer. J was still digging as the teacher stopped next to his desk with test in hand…..)

T: So, J, did you forget your pencil again?

J: It was right here a second ago. I know it’s here somewhere. It’s got to be……………

T: Is it really that difficult to keep track of your pencil? And don’t try to blame Skippy for taking it again.

(The week before J had forgotten his pencil too. When confronted by the teacher, he began yelling that Skippy and all the other students were in a conspiracy against him and that Chomsky was behind it. He was sent to the principal’s office where he had to write ‘I will read more than 15 pages of Noam Chomsky before I’m fifty years old’ 200 times on the blackboard. When J finished this assignment two days later he decided to sue the school for excessive punishment. Anyway, back to the story.)

T: Will somebody let J borrow a pencil?

(Nobody offered a pencil. The teacher then looked a B.)

B: Why should I lend him a pencil? Last week when I did he started screaming that he wouldn’t accept handouts and that he wasn’t on welfare. And when he finally did take it he ate the eraser.

(There was a short pause and then B grudgingly gave J a pencil to use. It was the same pencil that he had eaten the eraser off of the last time. J took this as a direct attack. His face turned red, his hands began to shake, and he started mumbling something about Kissinger having a nice butt and saturation bombing. He was stuck. What was he to do? If he attacked B he’d probably have to write the Chomsky sentences 500 times, but if he didn’t kick B’s ass everyone would think he was a wuss. The teacher, seeing that J was about to blow, handed him an eraser hoping to diffuse the situation. It worked, but all that J could think about was kicking B’s ass after school. The teacher finished handing out the tests and the students began.)

The Test: J’s Test to be Precise

1. After having read the 8 Chomsky books you were assigned, do you believe Chomsky:

a. Hates America

b. Is a Pol Pot apologist

c. Is a Holocaust-denier

d. All of the above XXXXXXX

e. None of the above

2. Chomsky’s critics often accuse him of sloppy scholarship and being selective with his sources. Do you think this is:

a. True

b. False

c. Don’t understand the question

d. Both a and c XXXXXX

3. Some anti-Chomsky critics feel that it’s not really necessary to have to read his work to know what his thoughts are. Do you think this is:

a. True. There is no reason to read him to know what he thinks.

b. False. In order to understand his thought you should read his works.

c. Are you thinking that if you choose answer (a) to this question it’ll probably be the wrong answer, but to admit that it’s necessary to read Chomsky before you understand his thought and choose answer b would simply be too unbearable and not worth the point?

d. You wish you’re pencil had an eraser to eat.

e. All the above except b XXXXX

4. What best describes the Faurisson Affair?

a. It was the incident in which a Chomsky statement on the freedom of speech was used by a Holocaust-denier as the forward to his book. This was then interpreted by a few dumb-asses to mean that Chomsky supported the views included in the book.

b. It was the incident where Chomsky knowingly offered his statement on free speech to a Holocaust-denier because he hates Jews too and doesn’t really think the Holocaust happened either.XXXXX

c. It was the incident where a gay French fashion designer was caught making love with J’s wife because he thought she was a man.

(J had already circled b to the last question before reading c. Upon reading answer c J jumped from his desk and headed for the teacher, who incidentally is B’s father. T picked up his big thick copy of ‘Deterring Democracy’ and slammed J upside the head with it. A few hours later J began to wake up and realized that he was in the principal’s office. He was still a little dazed, but soon realized that his hands were handcuffed behind his back. He also realized that he was nude. He could turn his head just enough to see that there was a copy of Chomsky’s ‘Keeping the Rabble in Line’ sticking out of his butt. A policeman, the principal, T, B, and Skippy were all standing around laughing and pointing. J thought he had died and gone to hell. He then closed his teary eyes, began trying to click his heels together, though it was difficult because of the book in his butt, and repeating to himself ‘There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.’
(Incidentally, for you anti-Chomskyites, the answer to the test above are e,b,b,a just in case you thought that J had gotten all of the answers correct.)
THE END
Kropotkin Beard

J the anti-Chomskyite’s Haiku: A Lesson in Emptiness

One fine autumn day J the anti-Chomskyite was sitting alone in the woods burning all seven of the books he had collected over the first 43 years of his life. His new Buddhist teacher had told him that he needed to rid himself of those things he had accumulated as they were no doubt what had led to his ignorance and warped perception of reality, and the subsequent suffering which presented itself as irrational and illogical anti-Chomskyanism. J had no problem with this order as book-burning was a hobby of his anyway. So, there J sat, gazing down into the fire, watching the last little bit of ‘Radical Son’ and a few Oliver Kamm papers go up in smoke. J’s teacher also told him that he should give Haiku a try. This suggestion was quite appealing to J as there need be only 17 syllables in an entire poem, and given the fact that J usually broke out in hives when exposed to any writings longer than this. So, there sat J, pencil in hand, eraser…uhhh….never mind…pencil in hand…..and began his Haiku meditation. What follows are a few of the Haiku which were found in J’s drawers upon his second release from the Boston Mental Hospital. He had initially been admitted to BMH after having been required to clean Chomsky’s toilets for several months as a part of his occupational therapy after finding out that he had inadvertently read a Chomsky book and thought it was great. This time he had been admitted to BMH because after having tried to achieve TRUE emptiness with the help of his Buddhist teacher he had a difficult time adjusting back to his usual reality. But wasn’t this the point? Wasn’t the point that J empty himself of all of his delusions and try to see the true nature of reality more clearly? Anyway, his friend B was a little perplexed by the whole J-Buddhist therapy thing anyway as he thought J’s head was empty most of the time already and wondered if there was really anything left to empty. Here are J’s four controversial Haiku poems:

J’s Haiku: Four Seasons

a winter day spot
had a book but couldn’t read
Chomsky laughs at me

anti- Semite spring
is Chomsky this I ask you
ignorant I am

summer fever cry
holocaust denier nye
why am I dumb I

fall sitting in pond
Pol Pot apologist not
empty my head is

In all fairness to J it should be noted that many Haiku poets, scholars, and psychiatrists, have pondered over the meanings of these great poems for years now. There seem to be many ways to interpret them depending on the perspective from which ones analysis begins. Had J actually recognized his pathetic ignorance and attempted to detach himself from his desire to cling to his irrational anti-Chomskyanism? Was J being sarcastic, actually meaning the opposite of what he posited in the poems? Or, in his unconscious desire not to be released from BMH, was this simply a case of J’s Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy disorder presenting itself again? Only one person really knew, and this was his friend B. B was aware that J’s emptiness was not the emptiness of those seeking to detach themselves from the delusions of the perceived world in order to expand their awareness, and, thereby, rid themselves of their unwanted sufferings. Nor was it an emptiness which brings peace and oneness with all of humanity and the universe. It was an emptiness of the type you find when your assigned to read a Chomsky book, but you can’t, and you have to lie, and lie, and lie, and pretend that you have, all the while knowing deep down that you’re fooling no one but yourself, and you’re not even really doing a good job of that. It’s the emptiness of knowing that your lies are being witnessed by all, especially those who have actually read Chomsky’s work. It’s the emptiness of knowing that every false assertion and out of context reference can be easily exposed by any third grader. This is a different type of emptiness, an artificial emptiness, an emptiness like that found when examining ‘The Anti-Chomsky Reader’, many, many, words and not a shred of truth behind any of them. So, what was B to do? How was he to help J become a semi-well functioning person again?
First, B had to find J, and no one had seen him since his second release from BMH. There had been rumors J had been hit by a truck while chasing a rabbit across Interstate 66 with an empty bowl in his hand. Other rumors had it that J had given up his anti-Chomskyanism, gotten married, had 8 children, and began making porno films and selling contracts for Haliburton. And, yet, still other rumors had it that J had had plastic surgery and had gone back to cleaning toilets at M.I.T. Then, one day, as B was about to give up his search for J, he wandered into the local Taoist cigar club to ask the owner if he had seen J hanging around his club, possibly carrying a bowl, or a rabbit. Just then, to B’s amazement, he looked up and saw J hanging stuffed as a trophy on the wall between a donkey and a pig with a bowl on his head and a rabbit clenched in his teeth. B asked the owner where he had acquired his trophy. The owner assured B that he had not killed J himself, but had bought him at a yard sale which had been held by some Buddhist monks. When asked how they had come into possession of this stuffed J trophy the monks simply replied that one day as they were in a deep contemplative meditation their master approached J from behind as he thought J to be dozing off. The master gave J a good solid whack on the shoulder with his bamboo staff and yelled CHOMSKY as loud as he could to wake him up. They said that at exactly that moment any residue of self which may have remained in J’s being instantly evaporated, and he keeled over and died. But what was even more astonishing to the monks was what happened later when they took him to the taxidermist to be stuffed. The taxidermist said that upon making the first incision into J’s body a tremendous gush of hot air was released and the body collapsed in on itself like a hot air balloon. The taxidermist passed out and had to be admitted to BMH a few hours later. At a loss of what to do with the deflated body, the monks, in their infinite, mysterious, and ironic wisdom, decided to tear the pages from every book Chomsky had ever written, and to stuff the empty shell of J with these pages, so that he could go through eternity filled with that knowledge which he had refused to, or perhaps was unable to, because of his ignorance, accept during his short and miserable anti-Chomskyan life.
THE END

J the anti-Chomskyite’s Haiku: A Lesson in Emptiness

One fine autumn day J the anti-Chomskyite was sitting alone in the woods burning all seven of the books he had collected over the first 43 years of his life. His new Buddhist teacher had told him that he needed to rid himself of those things he had accumulated as they were no doubt what had led to his ignorance and warped perception of reality, and the subsequent suffering which presented itself as irrational and illogical anti-Chomskyanism. J had no problem with this order as book-burning was a hobby of his anyway. So, there J sat, gazing down into the fire, watching the last little bit of ‘Radical Son’ and a few Oliver Kamm papers go up in smoke. J’s teacher also told him that he should give Haiku a try. This suggestion was quite appealing to J as there need be only 17 syllables in an entire poem, and given the fact that J usually broke out in hives when exposed to any writings longer than this. So, there sat J, pencil in hand, eraser…uhhh….never mind…pencil in hand…..and began his Haiku meditation. What follows are a few of the Haiku which were found in J’s drawers upon his second release from the Boston Mental Hospital. He had initially been admitted to BMH after having been required to clean Chomsky’s toilets for several months as a part of his occupational therapy after finding out that he had inadvertently read a Chomsky book and thought it was great. This time he had been admitted to BMH because after having tried to achieve TRUE emptiness with the help of his Buddhist teacher he had a difficult time adjusting back to his usual reality. But wasn’t this the point? Wasn’t the point that J empty himself of all of his delusions and try to see the true nature of reality more clearly? Anyway, his friend B was a little perplexed by the whole J-Buddhist therapy thing anyway as he thought J’s head was empty most of the time already and wondered if there was really anything left to empty. Here are J’s four controversial Haiku poems:

J’s Haiku: Four Seasons

a winter day spot
had a book but couldn’t read
Chomsky laughs at me

anti- Semite spring
is Chomsky this I ask you
ignorant I am

summer fever cry
holocaust denier nye
why am I dumb I

fall sitting in pond
Pol Pot apologist not
empty my head is

In all fairness to J it should be noted that many Haiku poets, scholars, and psychiatrists, have pondered over the meanings of these great poems for years now. There seem to be many ways to interpret them depending on the perspective from which ones analysis begins. Had J actually recognized his pathetic ignorance and attempted to detach himself from his desire to cling to his irrational anti-Chomskyanism? Was J being sarcastic, actually meaning the opposite of what he posited in the poems? Or, in his unconscious desire not to be released from BMH, was this simply a case of J’s Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy disorder presenting itself again? Only one person really knew, and this was his friend B. B was aware that J’s emptiness was not the emptiness of those seeking to detach themselves from the delusions of the perceived world in order to expand their awareness, and, thereby, rid themselves of their unwanted sufferings. Nor was it an emptiness which brings peace and oneness with all of humanity and the universe. It was an emptiness of the type you find when your assigned to read a Chomsky book, but you can’t, and you have to lie, and lie, and lie, and pretend that you have, all the while knowing deep down that you’re fooling no one but yourself, and you’re not even really doing a good job of that. It’s the emptiness of knowing that your lies are being witnessed by all, especially those who have actually read Chomsky’s work. It’s the emptiness of knowing that every false assertion and out of context reference can be easily exposed by any third grader. This is a different type of emptiness, an artificial emptiness, an emptiness like that found when examining ‘The Anti-Chomsky Reader’, many, many, words and not a shred of truth behind any of them. So, what was B to do? How was he to help J become a semi-well functioning person again?
First, B had to find J, and no one had seen him since his second release from BMH. There had been rumors J had been hit by a truck while chasing a rabbit across Interstate 66 with an empty bowl in his hand. Other rumors had it that J had given up his anti-Chomskyanism, gotten married, had 8 children, and began making porno films and selling contracts for Haliburton. And, yet, still other rumors had it that J had had plastic surgery and had gone back to cleaning toilets at M.I.T. Then, one day, as B was about to give up his search for J, he wandered into the local Taoist cigar club to ask the owner if he had seen J hanging around his club, possibly carrying a bowl, or a rabbit. Just then, to B’s amazement, he looked up and saw J hanging stuffed as a trophy on the wall between a donkey and a pig with a bowl on his head and a rabbit clenched in his teeth. B asked the owner where he had acquired his trophy. The owner assured B that he had not killed J himself, but had bought him at a yard sale which had been held by some Buddhist monks. When asked how they had come into possession of this stuffed J trophy the monks simply replied that one day as they were in a deep contemplative meditation their master approached J from behind as he thought J to be dozing off. The master gave J a good solid whack on the shoulder with his bamboo staff and yelled CHOMSKY as loud as he could to wake him up. They said that at exactly that moment any residue of self which may have remained in J’s being instantly evaporated, and he keeled over and died. But what was even more astonishing to the monks was what happened later when they took him to the taxidermist to be stuffed. The taxidermist said that upon making the first incision into J’s body a tremendous gush of hot air was released and the body collapsed in on itself like a hot air balloon. The taxidermist passed out and had to be admitted to BMH a few hours later. At a loss of what to do with the deflated body, the monks, in their infinite, mysterious, and ironic wisdom, decided to tear the pages from every book Chomsky had ever written, and to stuff the empty shell of J with these pages, so that he could go through eternity filled with that knowledge which he had refused to, or perhaps was unable to, because of his ignorance, accept during his short and miserable anti-Chomskyan life.
THE END

Kropotkin Beard got the spelling wrong. The name is spelled "Sandinistas," not "Sandanistas", as Beard has it.
Augusto Sandino practiced torture with his machete during the 1920's. The three kinds of cuts with the machete are described by his sympathetic biographer in The Sandino Affair by professor Neill Macaulay of Florida.

Despite its pretentious title, the Journal of Historical Review is a little journal published in southern California by Nazi apologists by what is called the Institute for Historical Review.
In 1986-7, Robert Faurisson published there an article in defence of Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz (vol 7, no. 4). Other articles try to descredit the Nazi death camps.
Gentle reader, you will recall that Chomsky sweetly called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal."
In 1985, Chomsky himself appeared in the Journal (vol.7. no. 1) The neo-Nazis recognize a fellow-traveller from MIT. A wink is as good as a nod.

"Other articles try to descredit the Nazi death camps.
Gentle reader, you will recall that Chomsky sweetly called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal."

That's odd? When I saw Faurisson in the film 'Manufacturing Consent' Faurisson called himself the same thing. He said that he wasn't a Nazi, and that he was nothing. So, in the usual overzealous display of anti-Chomskyan ignorance it'd probably be a good idea to study the topic before inserting your foot in your mouth. And when I say study I don't mean the nonsense put out by Horowitz, Kamm, or any other of the anti-Chomsyan comics, nor the negative book reviews on Amazon, I mean, by actually reading his material. After you have studied, learned a little about the topic, come back and I'll teach you what you still don't know. A kick in the butt is as good as a kick in the butt.KB

"Other articles try to descredit the Nazi death camps.
Gentle reader, you will recall that Chomsky sweetly called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal."

That's odd? When I saw Faurisson in the film 'Manufacturing Consent' Faurisson called himself the same thing. He said that he wasn't a Nazi, and that he was nothing. So, in the usual overzealous display of anti-Chomskyan ignorance you got it wrong. It'd probably be a good idea to study the topic before inserting your foot into your mouth. And when I say study I don't mean the nonsense put out by Horowitz, Kamm, or any other of the anti-Chomskyan comics, nor the negative book reviews on Amazon. I mean, by actually reading his material. After you have studied, learned a little about the topic, come back and I'll teach you what you still don't know. A kick in the butt is as good as a kick in the butt.KB

"Gentle reader, you will recall that Chomsky sweetly called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal.""

Gentle reader, you'll also know if you had studied Chomsky for more than 5 minutes, or perhaps even watched the film 'Manufacturing Consent' once, that Faurisson calls himself apolitical. This entire non-issue was dealt with in the film and exposed as a non-issue making those who try and make this critique look quite the fools. But what's new in the world of anti-Chomskyanism. If they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't be anti-Chomskyites.KB

"In 1985, Chomsky himself appeared in the Journal (vol.7. no. 1) The neo-Nazis recognize a fellow-traveller from MIT."

Yes, Chomsky's well known for being a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite. And everyone who hasn't studied him at all is all too aware of this. Unfortunately, there are a few million folks who actually have studied Chomsky and they laugh at such inferences as Chomsky's anti-Semitism. The comments do make good for satires about anti-Chomskyites though.KB

"A wink is as good as a nod."

Yes, but if you're blind you won't know who's winking, nodding, or anything else. But isn't this the definition of the anti-Chomskyite. Here, I'll give you the radical idea which I always give to those of the anti-Chomskyite species: Why don't you actually read one of his books and then try and make some arguments? I know that this request flies in the face of all that is anti-Chomskyan and Holy, but you can try. Just once. You can confess your sin of having actually read one of his books afterwards if you still feel guilty.KB

Greg said:
"In 1986-7, Robert Faurisson published there an article in defence of Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz (vol 7, no. 4). Other articles try to descredit the Nazi death camps."

Yes? So?KB

"Gentle reader, you will recall that Chomsky sweetly called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal.""

Well, given that's what Faurisson called himself in the Manufacturing Consent I don't see a problem. After all, I've actually seen idiots call Chomsky a communist, so what do you expect?KB

"In 1985, Chomsky himself appeared in the Journal (vol.7. no. 1) The neo-Nazis recognize a fellow-traveller from MIT. A wink is as good as a nod."

Yes, Chomsky's a Nazi. Have you ever read a book?KB

Chomsky perfected many of the rhetorical tricks of the Holocaust Denial trade; e.g., "After the Cataclysm".

Robin said:

"Chomsky perfected many of the rhetorical tricks of the Holocaust Denial trade; e.g., "After the Cataclysm"."

Evidence? Fact is, there is nothing in any of Chomsky's writing which coud in any way, shape, or form, be interpreted as Holocaust Denial. If you "think" you see this in his writings, then you are simply unable to read and should probably go back to first grade and start over. But then again, most anti-Chomskyites never passed the first grade in the first place. But, being the "fringe extreme leftist" I am, I'll give Robin a chance to prove her case. I'll check back in 30 years to see if she has left anything yet. And, just in case you were thinking about borrowing the "supposed research" of someone like Horowitz, Kamm, DeLong, Carnell, etc...I WILL be able to recognize it with the first two sentences. YOU must read the book and find this for yourself. If you don't, you lose. It's that simple.KB

Here's a summary of 100 Chomsky lies:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf

"KB" (aka Kropotkin Beard) is a buffoonish troll who surfs the net looking for sites where he can "defend" his lord and master, Ayatollah Noam Chomsky, mainly by insulting those who dare to criticize Chomsky's crackpot political ramblings and copious historical fabrications. One of KB's favourite tactics was to write lame "satires" lampooning supposed "anti-Chomskyites" and leave them all over cyberspace like goat droppings. As a blog commenter, KB is as close to being a raving madman as you're ever likely to find.

BMcB said:

"Chomsky perfected many of the rhetorical tricks of the Holocaust Denial trade; e.g., "After the Cataclysm"."

Really? Have any examples, or did you just read this on the bathroom wall somewhere? Once again, a whine with no evidence.kb

"Here's a summary of 100 Chomsky lies:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf"

I highly recommend everyone go here as well. You can get a compilation of many of the illiterates all together. It's saves one time. But rather than referring us to someone else's "interpretation" of Chomsky's writings, all of which have been debunked, why don't you get off your lazy butt and give us some evidence from your own study of the topic? What?! Never read him? Hmmm....Is NOT studying the topic before rambling about it like you have something taught in home-schooling?kb

Shaven McBeard goeson to ramble:

"KB" (aka Kropotkin Beard) is a buffoonish troll who surfs the net looking for sites where he can "defend" his lord and master, Ayatollah Noam Chomsky"

Notice that there is no evidence given for anything. Notice that he doesn't say how I "troll". Notice how he says I "defend" Chomsky, when, in actuality, I rarely mention his name at all, as I'm usually only saying that he doesn't have the positions which are incorrectly attributed to him. Notice how that simply because I know his works, and buffoons like McBeard don't know his works, that this makes him my "lord and master". Notice how he uses simplistic name calling as he obviously has no game. He doesn't mention in what way Chomsky is Ayatollaesque at all. Nothing. Zero. Zip. There's nothing here other thank drunken Rushite opinion based on nothing.kb

"mainly by insulting those who dare to criticize Chomsky's crackpot political ramblings"

Insulting someone who persists on putting forth ignorant ass notions which have nothing to do with reality is a service which you should thank me for. I mean, it's quite embarrassing to hear supposed grownups running around making statements which amount to little more than 2+2=11teen. I welcome criticisms, and always have, as long as they're being made by someone who has actually studied the topic first and have some idea about what they're talkinig about. And if you actually knew what "I did" on the internet you'd see this mentioned in most every comment section I've even made.(Yet another indication of his illiteracy and tendency to lie)However, when someone who knows nothing about the subject starts pretending to, then I tell them that they're wrong, and then prove that they're wrong, as you would have also noticed had you read anything I've written. (ps. Notice, once again, how he gives no evidence that Chomsky has ever made a "crackpot ramble" in his life. Well, where's the evidence? There's not a sentence in the Paul B. link which has anything. Nothing at all. SImply because there are 20 like-minded idiots who believe that 2+2=11teen hardly makes their rambling more legit.kb

"and copious historical fabrications."

Really? Where? I've read all of his books and haven't seen what you're referring to. And you, as one would expect, give nothing. So, you're just blowing smoke, like most self-proclaimed anti-Chomskyites.kb

"One of KB's favourite tactics was to write lame "satires" lampooning supposed "anti-Chomskyites""

That's not a "tactic". That's simply a fact. True, it IS like shooting already dead fish in a barrell, but most deserve it. Were they simply honest, admitted that they knew nothing about what they were "trying" to talk about it, ask questions about that which they didn't know, like good little students, learning something, or even more radical, actually read him for themselves, then there would be no problem. However, folks like you don't do this. You're little more than an unwitting pseudo-patrotic propagandist, as I've already demonstrated.kb

"and leave them all over cyberspace like goat droppings."

And? Did you wish to try and respond to one, say what's wrong with it, challenge something, etc....or were you just going to sit there and whine like to rightwing neo-conartists always do?You have no game or you be challenging something. I'll be waiting.kb

"As a blog commenter, KB is as close to being a raving madman as you're ever likely to find."

As has been demonstrated by you? Once again, no evidence. On the other hand a rational person would look at your opening comments and conclude the same about you. But you wouldn't understand this. Perhaps a challenge of some sort? Still waiting.(snore)kb

BMcB said:

"Chomsky perfected many of the rhetorical tricks of the Holocaust Denial trade; e.g., "After the Cataclysm"."

Really? Have any examples, or did you just read this on the bathroom wall somewhere? Once again, a whine with no evidence.kb

"Here's a summary of 100 Chomsky lies:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf"

I highly recommend everyone go here as well. You can get a compilation of many of the illiterates all together. It's saves one time. But rather than referring us to someone else's "interpretation" of Chomsky's writings, all of which have been debunked, why don't you get off your lazy butt and give us some evidence from your own study of the topic? What?! Never read him? Hmmm....Is NOT studying the topic before rambling about it like you have something taught in home-schooling?kb

Shaven McBeard goeson to ramble:

"KB" (aka Kropotkin Beard) is a buffoonish troll who surfs the net looking for sites where he can "defend" his lord and master, Ayatollah Noam Chomsky"

Notice that there is no evidence given for anything. Notice that he doesn't say how I "troll". Notice how he says I "defend" Chomsky, when, in actuality, I rarely mention his name at all, as I'm usually only saying that he doesn't have the positions which are incorrectly attributed to him. Notice how that simply because I know his works, and buffoons like McBeard don't know his works, that this makes him my "lord and master". Notice how he uses simplistic name calling as he obviously has no game. He doesn't mention in what way Chomsky is Ayatollaesque at all. Nothing. Zero. Zip. There's nothing here other thank drunken Rushite opinion based on nothing.kb

"mainly by insulting those who dare to criticize Chomsky's crackpot political ramblings"

Insulting someone who persists on putting forth ignorant ass notions which have nothing to do with reality is a service which you should thank me for. I mean, it's quite embarrassing to hear supposed grownups running around making statements which amount to little more than 2+2=11teen. I welcome criticisms, and always have, as long as they're being made by someone who has actually studied the topic first and have some idea about what they're talkinig about. And if you actually knew what "I did" on the internet you'd see this mentioned in most every comment section I've even made.(Yet another indication of his illiteracy and tendency to lie)However, when someone who knows nothing about the subject starts pretending to, then I tell them that they're wrong, and then prove that they're wrong, as you would have also noticed had you read anything I've written. (ps. Notice, once again, how he gives no evidence that Chomsky has ever made a "crackpot ramble" in his life. Well, where's the evidence? There's not a sentence in the Paul B. link which has anything. Nothing at all. SImply because there are 20 like-minded idiots who believe that 2+2=11teen hardly makes their rambling more legit.kb

"and copious historical fabrications."

Really? Where? I've read all of his books and haven't seen what you're referring to. And you, as one would expect, give nothing. So, you're just blowing smoke, like most self-proclaimed anti-Chomskyites.kb

"One of KB's favourite tactics was to write lame "satires" lampooning supposed "anti-Chomskyites""

That's not a "tactic". That's simply a fact. True, it IS like shooting already dead fish in a barrell, but most deserve it. Were they simply honest, admitted that they knew nothing about what they were "trying" to talk about it, ask questions about that which they didn't know, like good little students, learning something, or even more radical, actually read him for themselves, then there would be no problem. However, folks like you don't do this. You're little more than an unwitting pseudo-patrotic propagandist, as I've already demonstrated.kb

"and leave them all over cyberspace like goat droppings."

And? Did you wish to try and respond to one, say what's wrong with it, challenge something, etc....or were you just going to sit there and whine like to rightwing neo-conartists always do?You have no game or you be challenging something. I'll be waiting.kb

"As a blog commenter, KB is as close to being a raving madman as you're ever likely to find."

As has been demonstrated by you? Once again, no evidence. On the other hand a rational person would look at your opening comments and conclude the same about you. But you wouldn't understand this. Perhaps a challenge of some sort? Still waiting.(snore)kb

I've just read "The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume I. By Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. South End Press, 1979."

The pseudo-scholarly appearance of this book - replete with quotations and footnotes - should fool no-one: this is a work of propaganda, in which American allies are furiously attacked and communist dictatorships relentlessly excused. Perhaps its most noteworthy feature is the assertion that �Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world� (p16), although not one of the reactionary crimes cited by the authors amounts to even a microscopic fraction of the tens of millions who had just been massacred or starved to death in the People�s Republic of China or the millions who were dying at that very moment at the hands of communist tyrants in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, let alone the countless victims of near-genocidal Soviet client regimes, from Ethiopia to Uganda.

Needless to say, Chomsky and Herman flatly deny the post-war atrocities in Vietnam, congratulating the communist dictatorship on its �miracle of reconciliation and restraint� involving �close to zero retribution deaths� (p28) and concluding that there has been �no bloodbath, so far as is known; nothing like what happened in France� after the Second World War (pp79-80). The statement is remarkable, both for its denial of crimes against humanity and for its suggestion that had such crimes taken place, the victims would have deserved no more sympathy than Nazi collaborators. Needless to say, Chomsky and Herman suppress the abundant contemporary accounts of repression and brutality, and they do not even hint at the massacre of perhaps 200,000 South Vietnamese - with victims beheaded, eviscerated or buried alive - or the mass killings in concentration camps or the mass expulsions that drowned 200,000-250,000 boat people. Could any reader, no matter how diligent, guess the truth from these pages?

Hardly less shameful is the whitewashing of massive communist atrocities during the war, such as the claim that Viet Cong success was based on �understanding and trying to meet the needs of the masses� (p340), or the suggestion that the terrorists are �not likely to resort to bloodbaths� because they seek the support of the peasants (p341). The reader is not told that Viet Cong death squads butchered some 37,000 civilians, or that the victims - typically doctors, teachers, social workers and their families - died after sadistic torture and mutilation: �Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers�. Omissions such as these would make Orwell cringe.

Having denied these atrocities - surely some of the most hideous crimes in living memory - Chomsky and Herman turn to �the two most important mythical bloodbaths,� namely the North Vietnamese land reform and the Viet Cong massacres at Hue (p341). On the pre-war slaughter in North Vietnam, they rely on a long-refuted piece of communist agitprop by Gareth Porter, who fabricated mistranslations of sources, smeared witnesses as CIA agents, treated North Vietnamese official statistics as gospel truth and would later argue that Cambodia�s killing fields did not exist - the evidence being that the Khmer Rouge said so. By contrast, they simply ignore the numerous eye-witnesses who testified that 50,000-100,000 were massacred and many more starved to death.

On the massacre at Hue, Chomsky and Herman quote from a captured document in which the Viet Cong boast of having �eliminated� thousands of people, but they dismiss the evidence because �nowhere in the document is it claimed or even suggested that any civilians had been executed� (p348). So �eliminated� does not mean �executed.� No satirist could invent such an argument. They do not mention the many other Viet Cong documents recording the massacres, such as the report boasting that they had �annihilated members of various reactionary political parties, henchmen, and wicked tyrants� in Hue. Nor do they disclose that North Vietnam also admitted communist responsibility for the bloodbath, gloating at �the hooligan lackeys who had owed blood debts to the Tri-Thien Hue compatriots and who were annihilated� in the Tet Offensive.

Quite simply, there is no limit to the absurdity of the denials in this book: we are even told that �the apparent absence of retributory killings in post-war Vietnam� proves that there was no massacre at Hue (p353). Applying this logic elsewhere, perhaps we can imagine some neo-Nazi tract which defends the claim that the Kristallnacht pogrom was a hoax with the assertion that the Holocaust never happened. Note that such analogies are rather generous to Chomsky and Herman, since the atrocities they deny are far less widely known than their Nazi equivalents, therefore much more easily concealed.

Like all sophisticated propaganda, this book contains particles of truth. The authors are right to condemn Indonesian atrocities in East Timor. But can we take their indignation seriously, when they zealously defend communist mass murderers in Vietnam? Is anyone impressed by double standards on genocide?

Someone blows KB just wrote above:

Well, I'll save you the trouble. There isn't one line of truth in anything written here, including his assertion that he read the book in question. I mean, at least for his sake I hope this was a lie. It's better to have not read it and simply collected a few lies from other ignorant-ass anti-Chomsky illiterates, than to actual have read it and simply interpreted it this far off. I think it would be difficult for anyone who has graduated from at least third grade of elementary school to come up with the ideas expressed here. So, once again, I hope SBKB (Someone Blows KB)chooses the lesser outright lying, than the less "honorable" not to mention embarrassingly ignorant just-can't-read-and-understand-basic-sentences-path. He actually said "apologetics" somewhere as if there was one instance in the book somewhere. I'll assume he saw Elvis dancing with Big Foot on a UFO there, too, somewhere. There is probably more evidence for this. Anyway, SBKB offers nothing, but opinion, old outdated and WAAAAY long ago disproven assertions, out of context mis-representations, and, well, you know. All the usual characteristics of the anti-Chomsky ilk. It's actually quite funny though they don't know why. For those of you familiar with the topic, or any of Chomsky's work for that matter, the ramblings above are little more than bathroom gossip. The entire premise if off from what Chomsky and Herman set out to do, which they make quite clear, at least to those who can read and comprehend simple sentences. They take no position at all, nor was their point to try and take a position. If you "think" you see one, this is more a statement of your own indoctrination rearing it's butt-ugly head, than it is anything they've written, or not, as in this case. Here, let's refer this poor soul to the film 'Manufacturing Consent' which came out in about, what, 88', which covers all of this in great detail. I mean, we all knew that those suseptible to the anti-Chomsky disorder/disease were a little slow, but the world really IS round. It isn't flat. And as soon as you try and understand this, the sooner you won't make yourself look like an idiot in public day after day. How embarrassing for you this "should" be. I'm almost embarrassed for you. It's like every time I watch Bush speak, I sit and wit for the next idiotic statement, and feel as if he just farted during a quiet part as he was singing a Celine Dion song on American Idle (puns intended). Your statements here regarding Chomsky are sort of the same. It's just so embarrassing that you haven't a clue that each time you repeat these old debunked notions, that you are, in fact, supporting Chomsky's theses regarding propaganda. You are unwittingly helping him, charlatan. Anyway, anything you can offer is more than welcome. Bitch-slap you soon. KB