CONTENTS Introduction vii Peter Collier Part I Chomsky, the World and the Word ONE Whitewashing Dictatorship in Communist Vietnam and Cambodia 1 Stephen J. Morris TWO Chomsky and the Cold War 35 Thomas M. Nichols THREE Chomsky and the Media: A Kept Press and a Manipulated People 67 Eli Lehrer Part II Chomsky and the Jews FOUR Chomsky’s War against Israel 87 Paul Bogdanor FIVE Chomsky and Holocaust Denial 117 Werner Cohn Part III Chomsky and the War on Terror SIX Chomsky and 9/11 161 David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh SEVEN Noam Chomsky’s Anti-American Obsession 181 David Horowitz Part IV Chomsky and Linguistics EIGHT A Corrupted Linguistics 203 Robert D. Levine and Paul M. Postal NINE Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me 233 John Williamson Contributors 249 Index 251 I NTRODUCTION Peter Collier T he dust jacket of Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky’s attack on U.S. foreign policy and the elites who supposedly control it, calls the author “the world’s foremost intellectual activist.” Normally such a statement could be dismissed as pub- lisher’s hyperbole, but this claim about Chomsky exists in an echo chamber of similar sentiments. According to the Chicago Tribune,Chomsky is “the most cited living author” and ranks just below Plato and Sigmund Freud among the most cited authors of all time. While acknowledging that he is reviled in some quar- ters for his ferocious anti-Americanism and cavalier relationship with the factual record, a recent New Yorker profile calls Chom- sky “one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.” Even this rapturous praise does not quite capture the extent of the Chomsky phenomenon. At this point in his career, Chom- sky is more a cult figure—“the L.Ron Hubbard of the New Left,” one writer called him—than a writer or even a theorist. (Most of his “books” are pamphlets in disguise, collections of speeches, or interviews strung together, as in the case of the best-selling 9-11, which was assembled by e-mail with the assistance of his pro- tégés.) Rock groups such as Rage Against the Machine and Pearl Jam promote Chomsky at their concerts the way the Beatles once promoted the Guru Maharaji, solemnly reading excerpts from his work between sets and urging their followers to read him too. vii viii The Anti-Chomsky Reader Manufacturing Consent, a documentary adapted from a Chom- sky book of the same title, has achieved the status of an under- ground classic in university film festivals. And at the climactic moment in the Academy Award–winning Good Will Hunting, the genius-janitor played by Matt Damon vanquishes the incor- rect thinking of a group of sophomoric college students with a fiery speech quoting Chomsky on the illicit nature of American power. The devotion of Chomsky’s followers is summarized by radio producer David Barsamian, who describes the master’s effulgence in openly religious terms: “He is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our Rinpoche, our sensei.” But unlike other cult figures, Chomsky’s power is not com- manded by the authority of charisma or the electricity of revelation. His speeches are flat and fatwa-like, hermetically sealed by syllogism and self-reference against the oxygen of dis- agreement. His power comes not from his person, but from the fact that he, more than any other contemporary public intellec- tual, gives an authentic voice to the hatred of America that has been an enduring fact of our national scene since the mid-1960s. It is a voice that also is easily distinguished from others with similar commitments. Chomsky is interested in a few “truths” that are always “beyond dispute.” His citations often loop back solipsistically to his own works. He argues with such imperious disregard for other explanations that he often seems to be talk- ing to himself: “The so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.” The Anti-Chomsky Reader does not seek to deprogram members of the Chomsky cult. But it does offer a response and an antidote to the millions of words Noam Chomsky has emitted over the last thirty-five years, and tries to explain to those who do not yet accept him as their Rinpoche what he has stood for during that time. Some of the ideas on his intellectual curricu- lum vitae that are discussed in the following pages—his defense of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, for example, and his support of Holocaust revisionism—may surprise those who know Chomsky only generally as a bilious critic of U.S. foreign policy. Other Introduction ix commitments of his—for instance, his claim that the United States as a world power is continuing the program of Nazi Ger- many, and his fierce hatred of Israel—will, unfortunately, be more familiar. But either way, as Chomskyism continues to grow at home and abroad, it is clearly time for a reckoning. (cid:1)(cid:1) Any work about Chomsky must begin with linguistics, the field he remade so thoroughly by his scholarly work of the late 1950s that he was often compared to Einstein and other paradigm shifters. Those who admire this achievement but not his politics are at pains to explain what they take to be a disjunction between his work in linguistics and his sociopolitical ideas. They see the former as so brilliant and compelling as to be unarguable—in all, a massive scientific achievement—and the latter as so venomous and counterfactual as to be emotionally disturbing. In their con- tribution to this volume, Paul Postal and Robert Levine, linguists who have known and worked with Chomsky, take the view that the two aspects of his life’s work in fact manifest the same key properties: “a deep disregard of, and contempt for, the truth; a monumental disdain for standards of inquiry; a relentless strain of self-promotion; notable descents into incoherence;and a pen- chant for verbally abusing those who disagree with him.” Whatever flaws have appeared retroactively, Chomsky’s work in linguistics allowed him to make a transition from the univer- sity to the public arena in the mid-1960s and be taken seriously as a critic of the war in Vietnam. In a series of influential articles that appeared in the New York Review of Books and other publications and in his American Power and the New Mandarins, he distin- guished himself by the cold intellectual ferocity of his attacks on American policy. Although a generation older than most members of the New Left, he shared their eagerness to romanticize the Third World. Finding Hanoi to be a radical version of the Eternal City, Chomsky traveled there with other revolutionary tourists to make speeches of solidarity with the Communists (whose hero- ism he believed revealed “the capabilities of the human spirit and human will”) and to sing songs and declaim poems. x The Anti-Chomsky Reader But Chomsky was unlike other antiwar intellectuals in that he never made a cerebral return to Vietnam to rethink the conse- quences of the Communist takeover there. As Stephen Morris shows in “Whitewashing Dictatorship in Communist Vietnam and Cambodia,” Hanoi has remained for him a place of the radi- cal heart, where unblemished goodness continues to engage the absolute evil of American aggression in a freeze-frame death struggle. He continued to serve the Vietnamese revolution after Hanoi, under the guise of “reeducation,” sent hundreds of thou- sands of Vietnamese to Hanoi’s gulag, relocated up to two million to the New Economic Zones (a jungle version of its Soviet patron’s Siberia), and forced tens of thousands of “boat people” to take their chances on the open sea. Confronted with evidence of these homicidal policies, Chomsky, as Morris points out, rushed to defend Hanoi: “For him there were only two ques- tions to be asked—whose interests were being served by all these ‘negative reports,’ and how could these reports be disproved?” Morris shows that Chomsky took exactly the same stance when word of the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields arrived in the West. Unlike some of his comrades who had joined him in regard- ing Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero and who had second thoughts as the bodies accumulated, Chomsky held fast to the radical party line, initially trying to minimize the deaths in Cambodia (“a few thousand”) and comparing those killed to the collaborators who were executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. Writing in The Nationin 1977, Chomsky practiced his own version of killing the messenger by savagely attacking the witnesses, some of them fellow leftists, who brought out news from Phnom Penh of the developing holocaust. In 1980, when it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia’s 7.8 million people had indeed perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky, still in denial about the Communist rulers, sug- gested that Cambodia’s problems might have been caused by a failed rice crop. As late as 1988, when the skulls were piled too high to be ignored any longer, he returned to the subject and insisted that while bad things may have happened in Cambodia, the United States was to blame. While he was establishing himself as a permanent scourge Introduction xi of American foreign policy, Chomsky occasionally called himself an “anarchist socialist” (which any linguist might be expected to identify as an oxymoron). But aside from genuflections in the direction of Mao’s totalitarian China (which he referred to as a “relatively just” and “livable” society) and Castro’s Cuban gulag (which he regards as more sinned against than sinning) and his more passionate engagements with Vietnam and Cambodia, he has not been much interested in the theory or practice of other countries, socialist or otherwise. His only real subject—David Horowitz is right to call it an “obsession”—is America and its “grand strategy of world domination.” In 1967, Chomsky wrote that America “needed a kind of denazification,” and the Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor ever since. Chomsky has denounced every president from Wilson and FDR to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the front men in “four year dictatorships” by a ruling elite. In his view, the United States, led by a series of lesser Hitlers, picked up where the Nazis left off after they were defeated (primarily by the Soviets) in 1945. Thus, a case could be made for impeaching every president since World War II because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.” In their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover in Latin America, JFK and LBJ in particular used “the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s execution squads.” As Thomas Nichols shows in “Chomsky and the Cold War,” the long conflict with the Soviets and the fact that it was fought out primarily in the Third World allowed Chomsky to elaborate on his analogy with the Nazis and “to spin his master narrative on the evils of American power.” The Soviet dictatorship was not only “morally equivalent” to democratic America in Chomsky’s view, but actually better because it was less powerful. The chief sin of Stalinism in his eyes was not the murder of millions but giving socialism a bad name. Nichols opens a window onto Chomsky’s rage in 1990 when the Berlin Wall came down, Com- munism collapsed and the USSR disintegrated—all events that were previously undreamt of in his philosophy: “The world that emerged was the complete reverse of what Chomsky and his cult followers had hoped for and expected during a quarter-century xii The Anti-Chomsky Reader of insistence that the United States was morally indistinguish- able from the USSR.” Many of the other critics of the war in Vietnam whom Chomsky had stood with during the 1960s had moved on by the 1990s. He remained behind, a bitter-ender operating what some- times seemed to be an intellectual version of a one-man government-in-exile from his office at MIT and frequently com- plaining of being ignored and marginalized. In Manufacturing Consent, heexplained how such a thing could happen: the Amer- ican media, reflecting the views of the corporate elites who control them, made sure that ideas such as his remained on the fringe. As Eli Lehrer shows in “A Kept Press and a Manipulated People,” Chomsky’s “propaganda model” of the media is a key to his worldview, explaining how the American people are so suffo- cated by false consciousness that they willingly accede to the horrors perpetrated in their name. Lehrer writes, “[Chomsky believes] they are either too stupid to understand how the media manipulates every aspect of their lives or complicit pawns who ‘goosestep’ to every whim of the dictatorial rich.” Chomsky has rigorously argued against personal motive in discussing policy, preferring to see elected officials, for instance, as robotic actors in a Marxoid drama of sinister ruling classes and falsely conscious masses. For the most part, he has kept his own personality out of his work too, cultivating a guru-like per- sona that communicates as easily by tape recordings as by public appearances. The one exception involves the Jews and Israel. Here there is an unacknowledged and perhaps unassimilated personal content that is hard to ignore. In “Chomsky’s War against Israel,” Paul Bogdanor discusses the “astonishing displays of polemical rage and vindictiveness” in Chomsky’s long hate affair with Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an “offshore military and technology base for the United States.” His animus toward Israel is so great—Chomsky sees it as a terror state “with points of similar- ity” to the Third Reich—that it seems to call for a psychological explanation, especially given the fact that his father, an immi- grant from the Ukraine, was a Hebrew teacher; his mother wrote Introduction xiii children’s stories about the heroism of Jews trying to form a new country in the face of Arab hatred; and Chomsky himself was once a member of a pro-Israel youth group. Even more bizarre is Chomsky’s involvement with neo- Nazis and Holocaust revisionism. This strange and disturbing saga began in 1980 with Chomsky’s support of Robert Faurisson, a rancorous French anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. (“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie.”) Chomsky defended Faurisson as an “apolit- ical liberal” whose work was based on “extensive historical research” and said that he saw in it “no hint of anti-Semitic implications” at all. In his carefully documented “Chomsky and Holocaust Denial,” Werner Cohn follows Chomsky into this murky world, locating him at the intersection where his loathing of Israel and his “paroxysm of self-hatred” meet Faurisson and the neo-Nazi groups that Chomsky allowed to print his books and to promote them alongside the works of Joseph Goebbels. (cid:1)(cid:1) In the post-9/11 political ferment, Chomsky’s reputation, which had suffered because of his support of Pol Pot and his dalliance with figures like Faurisson, is on the upswing again. His follow- ing has grown, particularly in Europe and Asia, where his views have helped inform an inchoate anti-Americanism, and on the university campus, where divesting from Israel (a cause he has led) and attacks against the War on Terror are de rigueur. The New York Timesand the Washington Post,which had for the most part ignored the dozens of Chomsky books that had emerged like clones over the previous few years, both treated his recent Hege- mony or Survival as a significant work, with Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power writing in the Times that Chomsky’s work was “sobering and instructive.” On 9/12 and for several days afterward, Chomsky discussed the attack on America, without particular regret, as an under- standable response to a longstanding grievance. His audience was far broader than the true believers who had followed him in