I am contradicting you because you are taking his words out of context.

Chomsky disagrees with the philosophy, but he never called Foucault morally bankrupt nor a phony. Those are your words, not Chomsky's.

PS: I'm actually genuinely sorry you and Chomsky don't understand Foucault. It's very illuminating when you do. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for your attempted character assassination on Foucault, though. And I do appreciate a lot of Chomsky's writings, and that's why I react so negatively to your attempts to bring Chomsky into that. Chomsky's dismissal of post-modernism as "not philosophy" is simply dim, and I'd say a variant of his obnoxious habit of dismissing linguists who take a different or broader view of the subject by simply saying that what they're doing "isn't linguistics". And I actually think that the intellectual quirk that causes him to do that is the same thing that makes him struggle with understanding the actual content of Foucault.

Contradiction isn’t a valid antithesis. Also I never used quotation marks around “morally bankrupt”, I put it together based on statements Chomsky made about moral relativism, post-structuralism, and Foucault, over a 30 year period from debate, talks, and his books including Manufacturing Consent. I understand Foucault, I understand that he’s a charlatan. Are you denying that Foucault advocated for eliminating age of consent in France or are you okay with that?