Chomsky and 911

just curious.

fwiw I'm on Al Gore's side with this. I just am interested, because Noam espouses things about the sciences and what happened on September 11, 2001: so how does he reconcile the vast amounts of inconclusive data in both scenarios?

am also interested to find out whether Chomsky simply thinks climate change/global warming, i.e. human-induced changes to earth's atmosphere/biosphere, happens to "matter" or be "of consequence" - or not.

I have my own theoretical work regarding human language. Some local professors goaded me into e-mailing him about looking into some of it. He sent me back a ludicrously dismissive comment.

His condemnations of U.S. foreign policy are legendary. But he just keeps repeating his "organize, organize" mantra over and over. He never advocates any specific agenda. I don't listen to him anymore.

I think it's necessary to press on with the 9/11 truth movement. I really don't know what will happen when the truth comes out. And cynicism has a history of not yielding results. But still...

It is true; many 9/11 "truthers," like Alex Jones and Ron Paul, et al., live in a libertarian fantasy land that would resemble the bottom of hell were it ever to "go live."

Come on... Chomsky just restated what other people that recognize the state of the planet have been saying all along. Even if it was the U.S. government that destroyed the WTC in NY, "Who Cares... it's insignificant". Because the "truth" of it, and people hung up on 9/11 seem to be blind to this, is that authority or "power-structures" to quote Chomsky, have been doing bad things, far worse than what happened in New York 9/11/01, for a very long time. Get over it! If you think the government is doing bad things then stop them, but stop whining about a marginally bad thing that happened 6 years ago when more heinous atrocities committed on larger scales, have been going on both before and after. If you realize you are being fooled by the government then great, stop talking and start acting. Independent inquiries amount to even less than masturbatory electoral politics. Start demanding something real or get another hobby.

Chomsky, Zinn and Barsamian are all wolves in sheep clothing. Most of their work is borrowed from each other and people in their circle.

Chomsky did plagiarize one of my articles into a book. My article was called "America, The Ultimate Failed State" The book came out about a year and half later with more or less the same title. I was really angry. He never even talked to me about it. But what does one do? Sue Chomsky? I was conflicted. Mike Rupport did the same thing when he was screaming peak oil. I connected the dots and showed how the generals are using the war on terror as cover to prepare for the global climate change catastrophe. Mike got it and then stole the whole concept without even a link to me any where in the material.

I do all this work and it gets stolen. I suppose I should be flattered considering who the thieves are.

Reality, your as afraid of the contextual reality as Chomsky is. Chomsky and you do not understand the need for context within the narrative in human collective and individual psychology. In order for humans to commit to a collective action like war or the over throw of the domestic government we need a contextual narrative that fits. The fascist establishment understands this. Which is why they go to such lengths "manufacturing consent." while at the same time covering up their tracks on things like 911 so as to prevent the public (that would revolt against them if they knew what was really up) from having a contextual narrative.

In all human movements a contextual narrative is the most important aspect of principles of organization. It is the very rope by which we pull ourselves along throughout our lives. This is why I have always been puzzled by Chomsky's editing out the truly big events that could have sparked a revolution in this country. A revolution that is desperately needed. But Chomsky and his cadre of what amounts to being counter revolutionaries really don't want real change, a real revolution for the simple reason that they are dispassionate intellectuals and not arbiters of change.

Simple bureaucrats, play by play announcers who omit the most important facts so as to not rock the boat which might end their salaries and positions in society.

I'm willing to bet that Chomsky, and Reality both have a better grasp of historical context than any of your nine-eleven tinfoil hat club friends do. I think the point is not that the event being staged would be meaningless in a vacuum, but rather in the context of things transpiring outside of 09.11.01, the tragedies that have happened from the beginning of this nation 'til present day, so outweigh the impact of the 9.11 tragedy that to focus on it is bizarre and dismissive.

And even past that I'll agree with Reality and say "Who cares" if they did do it? By which I mean. Even give all points of the 9.11 wingnut cult are true, what will it matter? You wingnuts will never actually try to accomplish anything with that knowledge, that you claim to already know, will you? Independent inquiries? Who fuckin' cares? The extent to which conspiracy theories can create any real change is nil. You people have lost even if you get what you're demanding... so who cares!

The real historical context of conspiracy cults is that they are inconsequential. Because they don't work to change things, they're just empty complaints to an otherwise deaf authority.

The hatred of Chomsky by disaffected academic wannabes is legion. The attacks on him are part of an anti-anarcho-left campaign that is largely based on lies, including the claim that Chomsky is somehow a media "gatekeeper". If you hate Chomsky, welcome to the mainstream. Bolsheviks hate him. Corporatists hate him. Fascists, liberals and conservatives hate him. Why? Because he is a champion of democracy, and he refuses to tell people specifically what to do. If you think this makes him "counter-revolutionary", you are pathetic.

First of all, stop the disinformation. Chomsky and Zinn both voted for Nader in 2004 as well as in 2000.  http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html,
 http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=86.

I have never heard Chomsky "attack" the "truthers". It is the "truthers" who consistently attack Chomsky.

He has said many times that, even if the multitude of "theories" are all correct, it still pales in significance to the ongoing institutional hegemony that has slaughtered and tortured tens of millions in the last fifty years alone.

Why is the slaughter and torture of tens of millions not conspiracy enough for the "truthers"?

Your not dealing with the gaps in the Chomsky narrative that I point out. He does want to deal with the military coups that were the assasinations of JFK,MLK,RFK. Malcom X and the Panthers that led to and maintained the Vietnam war and of course now he does not want deal with 911. You can't have a narrative with gaps. As far as Chomsky being a champion this is going to far. Chomsky is a dispassionate intellectual and good one at that, but that is all. He has taken no great risks in any movement that I have seen and participated in. Chomsky is not an activist, he is a teacher.

And what about him plagiarizing my material? Is that the work of a champion? Or is it the work of faultering intellectual?

As far as me being anti-anarcho? I have been an anarchist all my life and am in complete support of militant anarchist action. It Chomsky and the gate keepers that make up the progressive left who are sewn at the hip to the democratic party that are anti-anarcho.

When your ready to have a real debate on this issue let us do live in an open forum. In fact I challenge anyone to an open forum debate on this issue.

Barry Zwicker's Towers of Deception provides the best comment for this one.... (Here's where to see the DVD that comes with the book: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623)

From 911blogger.com:

Zwicker present us with a question asked of Chomsky after a public meeting, "Would you consider your media analysis as a 'conspiracy theory' at all?"

Chomsky replied, "It's precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually ... 'conspiracy theory' has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it's something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on." [emphasis added - Matt]

Later, on a different occasion, in a different context (in a conversation with Zwicker) Chomsky had this to say about evidence suggestive of government involvement in 9-11, "Look, this is just conspiracy theory." (TOD pp. 179-180)

This dismissive stance toward the subject of 9-11 skepticism is standard issue from Chomsky. Ask a 9-11 activist who has corresponded with Chomsky about 9-11 and the answer is ultimately the same, with some derivation, "There's nothing to see here, move along."

It should be noted that Chomsky has not always had an allergic reaction to the word "conspiracy";

"Peter Dale Scott succeeds in achieving new insight into the American war in Indochina with his meticulous and fascinating analysis of intelligence conspiracies and the links between the 'intelligence community' and corporate power. The logic of the Nixon doctrine leads to a still greater reliance on the devious workings of this system of bureaucratic and private power. The great importance of this book extends well beyond the new understanding it provides with regard to past escapades. Scott exposes an element in the American system of global power that poses an increasing threat to the victims of this system, the American people among them." - Noam Chomsky, review blurb from Peter Dale Scott's The War Conspiracy, 1972.

Chomsky has never received evidence about a JFK conspiracy with open arms either. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with Mark Lane's work, and the Marchetti trial. In just under 50 pages, Zwicker deconstructs this icon of the Left, examining Chomsky's evasiveness and dismissive attitude when pushed to examine evidence of broader involvement regarding 9-11. He also names a host of other media spigots and personalities as echoes of Chomsky-s stance; The Nation, Democracy Now!, Chip Berlet, David Barsamian, Z Magazine, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternet.org, Global Exchange, PBS, South End Press, Public Research Associates, FAIR/Extra!, Counterspin, Columbia Journalism Review, Deep Dish TV, Working Assets, Molly Ivins, Ms Magazine, Inter Press Service, MoveOn.org, Greg Palast, David Zupan and Northwest Media Project.

Zwicker's critique is wide ranging, well referenced, and ultimately devastating. I can't do it justice with a summary. Instead I'll quote from Zwicker's conclusion; "...Chomsky, the most quoted "Leftist" in the Left media, systematically engages in deceptive discourse on certain key topics, such as JFK's assassination, 9/11, and with regard to the CIA. In warning the Left against examining the evidence on JFK and 9/11, he lines himself up with George Bush and the corporate media, thereby advancing their agenda - which he otherwise opposes. When he is not appearing to undermine the American Empire, which is the main thing he does, he is buttressing it by undermining the most effective and therefore dangerous foe the Empire faces - the conscious Left." (TOD p. 224) No longer a bellwether of the Left, (to me at least), Chomsky looks more like Humpty Dumpty after the fall. Perhaps he can be rehabilitated. End quote from 911blogger.com

Attached to this comment is Ace Baker's mp3, found at AceBaker.com, "Blown to Kingdom Come."