For years I have followed the controversial career of Noam Chomsky, MIT professor of Linguistics and prolific writer on political philosophy. A self-described “libertarian socialist,” in my view an oxymoronic political philosophy, he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified – for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power.

Fifty years since publishing his work on transformational grammar, “Syntactic Structures” (1957), Chomsky is viewed as a demigod among the progressive left and a demagogue to the conservative right. According to reconstructed ’60s radical David Horowitz’s definitive article on Chomsky, this MIT professor is the patron saint of “the legions of ’60s radicals who have entrenched themselves in American universities to indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds. The New York Times calls Chomsky ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive,’ and Rolling Stone – which otherwise does not even acknowledge the realm of the mind – ‘one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world.’”

His pioneering work in linguistics notwithstanding, what makes Chomsky such a beloved figure to Democrats, utopian socialists and liberal pseudo-intellectuals is that he utterly delights in spewing anti-American, anti-Semitic and pro-socialist rhetoric at every opportunity.

You might say, “Ellis, but isn’t Chomsky Jewish?” Yes, but in name only, for even Chomsky had to admit in his “Chomsky Reader” that his definition of Zionism (pre-1948) would amount to anti-Zionism. Like many Jewish leftists, including Emma Goldman, Daniel Barenboim, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod and socialist billionaire George Soros, their Jewish identity is merely an accident of nature and plays no important role in dictating their spiritual or political life. Therefore, Chomsky believes in an immediate end to “Jewish settlements” and in the creation of an independent Palestinian state despite most serious Middle East experts like Dr. Daniel Pipes holding that such views would assure the demise of the state of Israel.

The ultimate expose on the radical nature of our 44th president: “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists.” The best-seller as an audio book is also available.

History to Chomsky is all relative; it is written by the winners and biased against non-whites and Third World countries. This sophistic idea is evident in this rant by Chomsky: “Legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.”

An irrational hatred of America is one of the sacred canons of the socialist left, which Chomsky repeatedly demonstrates in his writings: “What America really wants is to steal from the poor and give to the rich. America’s crusade against Communism was actually a crusade; to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor. That is why we busied ourselves in launching a new crusade against terrorism after the end of the Cold War.”

Is America fearful of the achievements of Third World countries, as Chomsky believes, and to this day plots against their success? Chomsky has literally written dozens of volumes claiming that those who threaten to succeed like the Marxist governments of Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, or the Muslim terrorist states of Iran and Syria, America regards as viruses. “Except for a few madmen and nitwits, none feared [Communist] conquest – they were afraid of a positive example of successful development,” Chomsky rants. “What do you do when you have a virus? First you destroy it, then you inoculate potential victims, so that the disease does not spread. That’s basically the U.S. strategy in the Third World.”

When Chomsky characterizes the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as “the wanton killing of innocent civilians” and “terrorism, not a war against terrorism,” he ignores 9/11 and seems to contradict Justice Robert Jackson’s famous aphorism, that “the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

What war in the history of warfare can Chomsky point to that didn’t have massive civilian casualties? No rational person wants them to happen, but it is the nature of war. And where are Chomsky’s tears and lachrymose rhetoric for his own heroic countrymen who constantly put their lives on the line to defend America’s republic, which gives him the freedom to spew his nitwit liberal ideas?

Following his absurd line of argument that since World War II condemns America as a terrorist state, Chomsky must portray the bombing of civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which even liberal historians now admit saved millions of Allied lives and brought an earlier end to the war, as terrorist acts.

Regrettably, the treacherous and idiotic ideas of professor Chomsky have been integrated throughout the entire Obama administration, particularly in international policy. Obama, like Chomsky, believes that America has been justly tried in the court of the international community (U.N., the International Criminal Court, the Arab League, etc.) and has been found guilty. Now it’s payback time, which explains why President Obama for the past two years has zealously and purposely enacted policies designed to deconstruct America.

Horowitz sums up Chomsky’s perverted impact on America society over the past 50 years in this manner:

Schooled in these big lies, taught to see America as Greed Incarnate and a political twin of the Third Reich, why wouldn’t young people – with no historical memory – come to believe that the danger ahead lies in Washington rather than Baghdad or Kabul?

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky’s lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe – his pathological hatred of his own country.

Like Napoleon, Chomsky is a little man with big, destructive ideas, a disproportionate influence in the intellectual marketplace, and lives the remainder of his vacuous life as a pathetic, increasingly irrelevant academic without a country.

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He hosts a radio program Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website. His weekly podcasts are available Mondays at The Conservative Beacon. Washington is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

The sad case of Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan is just the latest evidence that our culture of political correctness is not only destroying our freedom of speech, but it can have deadly results. The push for politically correctness is actually an effort by those who see themselves as elites to tell us poor unfortunate and uneducated commoners that there are some things were are not allowed to say and ideas we are not allowed to discuss… unless it is how awful our country is.

Some courts have even upheld this unconstitutional and anti-American mindset when they have placed hurt feelings above the rights we have been given by our creator. Our constitution says we have the right to express our thoughts and feelings. It does not guarantee that we will never be offended. Yet… some have used this pernicious concept which emanated from the bowels of academia which was once the bastion of free thought and inquiry to stifle free thought and inquiry. However, in this era of specialization, we have teachers teaching and professors professing that have spent their whole lives behind ivy covered walls, having successfully avoided real world participation. They have given us the benefit of the output of their great minds that are unencumbered by the reality the rest of us live in.

In the case of Major Hasan, we see that politically correct thinking most likely is running amok, even in our fine military. Reports are that he was inflicting his anti-war and anti-American views on recovering service men. We are also told that he was angrily spreading the word that our country was at war with his Islamic faith… and that those that take part deserve death. We are told that he gave away his possessions in his apartment prior to this attack… as if he were not coming back. And, lastly, we are told that he shouted praises to Allah before beginning his attack. Yet, the Commander in Chief is not interested in having investigators pursue the possibility that his extreme religious views led to his horrible actions.

The man was not Joe Muslim. He was inculcated with the beliefs that his country was wrong in what he saw as a battle against his religion and time after time made these thoughts known. His postings were scattered about the internet. There is no way his commanders should have been unaware of his positions. He even was transferred away from Walter Reed Army Hospital after running into trouble because of them. Yet, no one thought he posed a danger… or if they did,they were not willing to appear prejudiced against a member of a group the military was actively recruiting.

Hasan railed against the military he was part of, and against it’s objectives, yet they let him continue in his position, even deciding he should become part of this conflict. They refused to act on obvious information, or perhaps, they were ordered not to act on obvious information… and a dozen American men and women in uniform lost their lives before they even got into a war zone. Now they wonder, “How could this have happened?”

It happened because they were looking to be seen as open, diverse and inclusive. It happened because they took their eyes off the objective of the military, which is to keep our country safe. The creation of career paths and a diverse workforce replaced the real reason we have men with guns in our employ. Career paths and the like are nice, but they are not the reason we have our men and women in uniform.

Major Hasan even took advantage of the goodness of our country in providing him with an education to become a doctor. He was either an intelligent man to get through this education, or the recipient of other PC rules to keep the personnel in some sort of affirmative action driven quota balance. In either case, he received good from the Army and returned evil. He should not have been in his position, but he was and we, as a country, are lesser for it.

It’s time we stop quietly acquiescing to those who demand we temper our speech and thought so as not to offend someone. We should not become insensitive slobs, but we need to speak and act on the truth. Political correctness causes us to set the truth aside… and we pay for it by becoming a more dishonest society. We need to get back to understanding what we are told in John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

We have our choice, truth and freedom or lies and slavery… which will you choose?

Originally posted at Political Christian © Larry Miller

 

WesternFront America