The conclusion I came to after perusing Prof. N. Chomsky's "Failed States" (Henry Holt; 2006) for about 20 minutes: our leaders/rulers are crazy. I am certain the highly qualified Noam C. would not put it that way but I have to see it in the terms that correspond to my own experience which is that of a person with only the humble "bachelor's" degree --- I'm like an uneducated idiot compared to so many more qualified others (Gee:what a nice writing trope that was!) The serious, deep and socially-critical Noam Chomsky explains how the elites' security policies work (he sometimes sounds like he speaks in a special super-educated pidgin English) and he does an excellent job of laying out the explanation: of how elites' security affairs work. I think I mentioned that. But anyway, it (the writing) occurs---and this is to his great credit---in a way free of all ideas/tropes of the standard garbage language of "elites." Meaning of course other elites. I have been really very honestly impressed by what I have seen of him. He does not consider leaders crazy, though, like I did, in my recent reading moment. The "mainstream" ideas he puts in their proper place (the garbage can) come from the persons whom Chomsky considers rational, if, (p.28) "perhaps misguided." Well, whatever, N. C., but what I seem to have concluded, is that, in my humble estimation, they are crazy, if they do all these things. Now I wonder if I was right about that. What should I say, that I did not really think it? Look. The bad ideas come from the "elite" rulers who are, in my certainly terribly misguided reading, actually crazy. Makes sense?
He always says "elites." You know? But so what, I use that word too, actually. No, not "actually." Rhetorically... Actually rehetorically. (re-heated and editorially.)
The man --- and I am actually fairly well-familiar with him, beyond the recent 20 minutes of fame, thank you --- I saw him speak last April, in Madison --- writes in order to explain what fellow author Ron Suskind (I sense he kind of likes elites) might call "the way of the world" (his book title, for those of you who are out of this particular intellectual loop: 2008), and, as I think I already mentioned, this particular well-educated individual writes in a way free from, Um ---- what we call the mainstream rhetoric. Which is garbage. As in, say, "Foreign Affairs?" Right. Garbage.
So, it looks like I'm right. But does being right count for anything? The question is: Does being right create "product?" If capitalism counts for something... Well, there ought to be product.
Is it better to call mainstream approaches "rhetoric?" Or is "garbage?" a better word? Which do those educated guys like? I believe my point here is their rhetoric is garbage. So, the two words appear as synonyms in this context.
And, Um ---- where does that leave us? I am concerned I might be destroying Western Civilization, by being rude. By speaking so poorly? By not being educated, at Eaton? What do you want me to do - pretend I have a Master's when I do not? That won't fly.
Let's take a breath like Thich Nhat Hahn teaches.
The basic "service" of Prof. N. C. is to tell the truth (but, says he: not to power as they do not care because they are happy doing their "high-class" act of exterminating the poor and so on, or committing "state terror" --- that is Chomsky's line, but I said they're crazy, not rational.) But how do you tell the truth? He does it as only a highly educated person (albeit in another field!) could. There is also the question of whom he is telling it to? Who is he telling it to? ----- if not elites? ----- in not "to power?" (Is he speaking to the less well-educated? I just turned his truths into vulgarities hurled in the general direction of elites!)
The only answer is to become a better writer. All the liberals hate the elites, and yet we want to be elites. But finally, there is the real society I belong to, and experience. What else do I have? I am writing over two dollar D'in D's coffee, watching capitalism about to finally fall, and at a lower-middle-class suburban sort of "service" oasis (to replicate a word I use above), with all the moderately-wealthy persons, most of them young, milling about me, and, a final observation of "The Way of the World":
.........------.........--The rulers are crazy and the girls are pretty.