Anyone know anything useful about Noam Chomsky?

If you're a college-age American it's likely that you've never heard of Noam Chomsky.  But you need to know about him.

Chomsky is an intellectual, and hates the U.S. and capitalism.  For all practical purposes he's a communist, so has been totally fawned over by the American Left for decades.  "Elite" universities and the media have absolutely slobbered over him for many years, because he provided the intellectual ammo for what they wanted.

Due entirely to his popularity among academics and Media, he is the eighth-most-cited author in what academics call "the humanities," trailing only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, and Freud.  Last year the New Yorker called him "one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century.”  And what did the fellators at the New Yorker believe made him great, eh?

Communism, baby.  His fame and status are due entirely to the fact that academics and "elites" love the guy.  

Chomsky supported the murderous, genocidal, communist Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.  He claimed that forcing the residents of the capital city, Phnom Penh, into the countryside in 1976--eventually murdering one out of five Cambodians--was actually because of a failed rice crop and “may actually have saved many lives.”  Seriously, he said that.

This is such abject horseshit that only a communist could possibly believe it.  If you're a young American, watch "The Killing Fields."  It's accurate.

He hates Israel, describing it as a "terror state" and comparing it to the Nazis.  He has defended a French academic who claims the Holocaust was a “historical lie.”

American Leftists needed an intellectual to give their idiocy a veneer of plausibility.  Chomsky filled that need perfectly.  They needed a line of plausible patter to dazzle the rubes, and he provided it.

Leftists blithely, casually dismiss the murderous nature of communism by saying "But they meant well.”  Really?  You're seriously excusing an ideology that has killed over a hundred million people by claiming its leaders “meant well”?

Yes, that's exactly what they claim.  And they haven’t given up.  They’re convinced they'll win eventually, because in their minds they're so much smarter than the rest of us that they simply have to be right.

Marxism’s appeal was (is) that in theory all citizens would share equally in the products of the society, regardless of how hard--or whether--they work.  The famous phrase--written by Karl Marx himself--was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

It sounded perfect.  But there were a few, um...bugs in the theory.  First was that even in such a faaabulous, equitable system, someone had to rule.  And of course the ruling elite needed to be rewarded with more goodies, like cars, vacation dachas (country homes), guaranteed entry to elite universities for their kids and so on.

Much to the surprise of the rulers, some of the proles--peasants, deplorables--noticed. And not surprisingly, a few of the proles were less than pleased with this arrangement.  It was almost as if the rulers of communist regimes were pulling a big con.

Of course the ruling Marxists didn't see it that way.  They clearly saw themselves as superior beings.  They believed their superiority should have been obvious to all.  And it had nothing to do with the fact that they had all the guns and controlled the secret police.

“We are the people we’ve been waiting for” is the ultimate self-referential argument. And to those making it, it’s very persuasive.

For supposedly being so very smart, communists ignored unequivocal evidence that didn't support their views:  Whenever a communist regime took over, everyone with an ounce of talent who could flee, did.  Russia, East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam.  Again and again, people voted with their feet.  The only people who fled TO East Germany or Cuba or Russia were either communist spies about to be arrested, or American criminals like Joann Chesimard (killed a cop, fled to Cuba 20 or 30 years ago).

That observed fact alone should have convinced communists that talented people hated them and their system.  The only people who liked communism were the lazy, because it guaranteed them food and housing--which is all many people want.

The "brilliant" Marxists couldn't believe masses of people would reject their *faaabulous* system.  How could this be, when they were so smart, so beloved by academia and the Media?

To be fair, in Chomsky’s heyday it seemed likely that Communism would take over the world.  Marxists claimed a hundred Vietnams were set to ignite.  Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev literally pounded on the podium with his shoe while yelling “we will bury you!”

American academics didn't say a critical word.  They loved it, believing he was right.

Communism came on like a freight train:
  *Mao's communist troops took over all of China;
  *Communists took over half of Korea;
  *the USSR crushed the Hungarian student uprising;
  *Castro took over Cuba;
  *Communists took over South Vietnam.

With results like that, it seemed inevitable that communism would eventually takeover of every nation. Yet people continued to flee communist regimes, never TO them.  The Marxists simply ignored it.

And if you think the marxists have given up, think again:  As always, they've simply changed their skin, morphing into the "One-World government"--the World Economic Forum.

WEF honcho: "NO NO NO!  We iz NOT Marxists!  We simply haz your best interests at heart!  See, you iz not smaht enough to survive without our benevolent leadership!"

See, "intellectuals" know that most people have zero knowledge of history--and with their control of all western schools they're determined to keep it that way.  So if lots of people don't like Communism, we'll simply re-brand it.  How 'bout "environmentalism."  Cuz who could possibly oppose that, eh?

The WEF is opening a branch near you, citizen!