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.
