Chomsky has repeated for many years that he believes the three great enemies of democratic movements in the last century have been fascism, Bolshevism, and modern corporatism. Because of this, he has been attacked by members of all three groups, all of whom desire to marginalize both his point of view and him, personally.

What the neo-cointelpro-types who have tried to dominate this group seem to hate most about Chomsky is that he is pro-democracy, the type of democracy that requires popular movements rather than a “vanguard” or leaders with advanced degrees in law or political theory. Chomsky is an inspiration to people like me (I’m a clerk in a mail order business) because he informs us that we can understand what’s going on in the world if we’re willing to maintain a skeptical attitude toward official explanations and if we’re willing to put energy into uncovering the facts of history, especially the ones that the elite classes attempt to hide or to obfuscate.

Chomsky has consistently suggested to his readers that they should question the legitimacy of all sources of information, including him. He has suggested reading original sources, even if this takes time and effort.

Chomsky has described himself as a libertarian socialist. To some, this means that he is ideologically impure or even that he lacks an ideology. Although he has his ideas about how to proceed (and he has written about them), he is hesitant to tell anyone what he thinks they should do. This infuriates those who want desperately to tell people what to do.

It seems to me that joining a group devoted to a discussion of “the philosophy, work and influences of Noam Chomsky” in order to attack him is a perverted and twisted undertaking unless one is ideologically committed to fundamentally anti-democratic action.

I recommend to all real Chomsky enthusiasts that they join Znet, where they can access the Chomsky archives and where they can communicate directly with him.

Harry K