Noam Chomsky: He has changed...

Third and final email. Also I feel a bit bad posting his e-mail on the internet:

From: Noam Chomsky ([email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:53:05 AM To: ... (by way of Noam Chomsky )' (...)

Below.

NC From: zaintdead (by way of Noam Chomsky ) [mailto...] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:56 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: RE: Deterring democracy and your other books

My real interest is in stopping history from repeating it self again and again. I think i have been polite, and I am sorry for anything I have written that you perceive as an insult. Sorry.

“Not to offend you, but I can only think that it is to protect your esteemed (and definitively deserved) position at MIT.” I can hardly think of a comment more offensive and insulting. And also particularly outrageous from TM supporters and directed against actual activists, for reasons I’ve explained.

My background is that my family is Polish (my living father was born in 1935) and many of my family were sent to Auschwitz, others were turned into bars of soap in other camps. I visited those camps when I was 16. My entire family would have been wiped out if not for my smart Polish grandfather who spoke German...he was able to forge documents for my entire family (Although Polish, our last name was Kratz, which is a very German name...so it wasn't impossible to convince the Germans that we were not Polish. My family escaped the war by living beneath the floor boards of a ship for many weeks during the trip to Australia. I don't like seeing Europe implode, and the USA. I'd like to undertake a serious study of what is really going on and if you are taking risks, why can't I? I have no idea what risks you have taken, because you haven't told me.

You can study these topics without taking risks. At least in relatively free societies, risks follow from serious activism. True, I didn’t tell you, because like other activists I don’t bother advertising the risks I constantly take – unlike the TM, who enjoy wailing about their courage. But if you’re interested, you can easily learn that I’ve been arrested numerous times and faced likelihood of a long prison sentence so severe that my wife went back to school after 17 years because we had three children to support. (Luckily for me the government called off the trials after the Tet Offensive). That was all because of resistance (not protest) against the Indochina wars, all illegal. That’s apart from regular death threats, bomb threats, physical attacks on meetings (even in churches), etc. Not worth discussing because it’s common fare among authentic activists.

Please just tell me what risks you have taken. The only point I disagree with you on is that you say intellectuals have spoken out about the official story and nothing has happened to them. Many have lost their jobs.

In the US, in the past several decades there are a few cases where people have been denied tenure and refused reappointment on political grounds. TMers constantly complain about this, but have provided no credible examples that I’ve seen. Their main figures, like Griffin, not only are perfectly safe, but are quite well-received: books prominently displayed in major bookstores, appearances on national TV in the US and UK, etc. Quite unlike authentic dissidents. Other very well-known intellectuals who’ve condemned the official story, including Nobel laureates, have been mostly ignored and have suffered no known reaction. Again, there is a dramatic difference between TM (reasonably safe, and much wailing about repression) and genuine activism (often with serious risks, but no time wasted in complaints).

You must at least agree that history repeats itself. I'll just reference the Katyn massacre as proof that intellectuals can become targets.

You’re quite right that intellectuals can become targets. For example, a few days after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 6 leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, were brutally assassinated in their university (including the rector) by state terrorists forces armed and trained in Washington and operating on the express orders of the high command, in close contact with the US Embassy. Far from the only case. You’re also right that the Katyn massacre was a horrible atrocity, but it didn’t target intellectuals, rather Polish officers.

Maybe I should re-read his books, it has been a long time. But I still think the media he complained about at length (I think there was a series of three books all on the topic of how corrupt the MSM is) are truer than ever. If anything, the situation now is exactly like he told it (not just in regards to the MSM but also the Government) but on steroids.

I'm undecided, I still think he's probably the top intellectual of our times but he's definitely 'sitting 9/11 out' as another poster said earlier in the thread.

But I can't help but think if 'heavy-weights' like him were to actually investigate 9/11 and write about it then it would add to the growing weight of 'evidence' against the OS. Or if he knows of such atrocities or schemes so horrible that 9/11 is but a small dot on a much larger map, then he should write about that.

How many engineers, architects, scientists, 'Nobel Laureates' and intellectuals does it take before the OS topples? The truth will probably come out eventually, it'll be geologically slow (taking immense time, and pressure).

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer


Not like I agree with Chomsky on everything, but if nothing else, he's been a consistent critic of US foreign policy for almost 50 years, not to mention somewhat of a communist sympathizer during the height of the cold war. But for some, if he don't believe that 9/11 wuz and inside jerb, then he must be disinfo.

What is the problem with these people? Couldn't they just say that he was mistaken, or perhaps hadn't really taken the conspiracy theories seriously? No, it has to be that "they must have got to him", or "he's disinfo".

fuuuuu.....

This is I think, is the most important post in this thread.

Chomsky's stance has been nothing but consistent - from the Kennedy assassination on the every other alleged conspiracy.

Chomsky doesn't deal in individual conspiracies: His theme is institutional conspiracies; he is much in the french structuralist tradition of Foucault, Derida, and Boudieu. These people believe in structuralism as the driviing force of history, not individualism.

I agree with Chosmky 90% of the time. I think his stance on 9/11 is, in the general picture rational and justified. The only thing I'm not sure about is that people like him really look into such matters - methinks, considering such things from their perspective does not allow them to take conspirational consideration seriously.

There's the famous episode where Chomsky refuses to even look at errant data in the Kennedy assassination, saying that it doesn't matter.
There's the even more famous episode where he says that the same doesn't matter for 9/11.

I don't quite know what to make of it. If there's evidence, I believe a review and discussion of it is indispensible. I'm still not sure if such evidence exist, it's a tricky question.

For the record, I agree with Chomsky that investigating 9/11 is not dangerous. At least not dangerous in the sense that speaking out against the War in Vietnam was.

Speaking out for 9/11 endangers your reputation and brings possible ridicule. There is not much to personally gain from such an endorsement. Therefore you have to be convinced that the case is worth it and you have also to be convinced, that the OS is not just a bit false, but also that a cover up hides more than just some mere incompetence.

In my opinion Chomsky's own statements show, that he is not convinced, that the case is worth it. Therefore, like in the case of JFK, he probably hasn't even taken the time to take a deeper look at the huge body of evidence which undermines the OS. Loud young men who shout “9/11 is an inside job!” aren't helpful. The same is true for the many conspiracy theories which don't just show where the OS is probably false, but also try to provide alternative explanations.

It is untrue, that activism in context with the JFK-assassination and 9/11 truth is a pointless endeavour. For example the JFK Assassination Record Collection Act of 1992 was the direct result of a fury of letter-writings and phone-callings to Washington DC. Thousands of people responded to Oliver Stone's JFK movie. A movie which by the way Chomsky has ridiculed without even knowing very much about the case. The 9/11 Commission, how flawed it might have been, is also a result of activism. Most of the questions collected by the 9/11-widows were never answered by the commission.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Speaking out for 9/11 endangers your reputation and brings possible ridicule. There is not much to personally gain from such an endorsement. Therefore you have to be convinced that the case is worth it and you have also to be convinced, that the OS is not just a bit false, but also that a cover up hides more than just some mere incompetence.

I agree with alot in your reply; but I would want to add: Ridicule is not danger. To be ridiculed is a risk that anyone practicing his first amendment rights is subject to.

When Chomsky talks about the "dangers of investigating" something, he is thinking of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or the McCarthy Era United States. There your very life and livelihood were endangered for speaking out or investigating something.

That is a meaningful distinction in my book.

The sure sign of a fool and of a person who is afraid of their own shadow would be one who takes seriously anything uttered from the leftist lips of Noam Chomsky.

He supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK - in other words: The warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission reports which all reasonably intelligent persons alive today know to have been FALSE. But not merely false.
Noam Chomsky really doesn't care about "truth," and so people who really care about the truth don't really need to care about anything Noam Chomsky has to say - period!

Chomsky manufactures consent, and supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK. "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky
Responding to questions regarding US government involvement in the false flag attacks on the WTC on 9/11. "All such comments in that regard are nothing more or less than wild internet theories and crazy speculations, which are all hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it or in any further discussion of them."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002,
At the time those remarks were made 9/11 investigators - aka "truthers and conspiracy nuts" - had already presented substantial documented evidence pointing towards government lies and deep involvement on the conspiratorial level.

Just so you know where he really stands, Chomsky says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Of course, we (meaning right thinking persons) know otherwise, and anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent. Chomsky says precisely the same regarding 9/11 and spouts the same preposterous notions of 19 Arab hijackers and on and on and on. Only a fool would hold to such lies - and we all know what an "intellectual" Chomsky is known to be. So if he isn't a fool then what is he?

MIT, where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps Noam should pay a visit to the department head and begin to ask some real questions about the wacky physics of 9/11 and the fact that it was physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.

The truth is that Chomsky is a decent analyst within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the truth of the "shadow politics" of the actual secret government, his analysis falls way short. I think he's afraid of what he would discover. He's a timid type when it comes to uncovering the real truth; the kind of truth that would expose his masters in government, and on the University level as well.

Chomsky does reasonably well at going into the double standards in US foreign policies, but he is awful at understanding and exposing the mechanics of the deceptions and secrecy of the US government when it comes to such as the 9/11 government conspiracy and the government conspiracy surrounding the JFK assassination etc., etc., and the list goes on. Like I said he's afraid and he's a coward. No balls. Typical leftist (read communist) intellectual so-called.

Incidentally, he was also part of an "elite" study group investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was "allegedly" a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront. Same for 9/11. His actions are those of a coward in both instances.

Perhaps Chomsky gets more press attention these days than most other so - called "dissidents" because of the very fact that he encourages people NOT to inquire into how the secret government really operates, and to stay away from those "nutty" conspiracy theorists. BTW - he's very much akin to Ron Paul in that respect..............

I think he's somewhat of a fool and a liar and a coward for not coming clean with what he HAS to know are FALSE claims made by the government of the US. For that he should hang his head in shame...............I have no respect for him whatsoever, especially after having read his eMail responses to the OP zaintdead in the very thread.

BTW zaintdead No need to feel any compunction about publishing NC's eMail responses to you...............he wouldn't have it any other way - I'm sure.

In conclusion: As to his demonstrably leftist ways up to this very day..........Noam Chomsky favors BH Obama as 2012 President
digitaljournal.com...

Noam Chomsky chooses Obama over GOPs as 2012 PresidentRead more: digitaljournal.com...

reply to post by zaintdead


Because maybe the media reports, what is in reality a cut and dry story, so poorly that it seems more suspicious than it is?
Perhaps he didn't get his info on 9/11 from the media as you did?

Originally posted by zaintdead

he's definitely 'sitting 9/11 out' as another poster said earlier in the thread.

If your emails are genuine I can't for the life of me see how you can come to that conclusion. He plainly thinks that the Truth Movement's ideas are ridiculous and that Truthers in general are avoiding real dissent by indulging in egocentric absurdities.

How many engineers, architects, scientists, 'Nobel Laureates' and intellectuals does it take before the OS topples?

A lot more than the tiny handful currently on record. Like, say, at least a tenth of one per cent.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Are you actually using Chomsky's critique of 'manufactured consent' against him, as though he endorsed that view? Extraordinary.

And are you also claiming he supports Obama?? How awful!

What alot of people easily overlook is that 9/11 happened on our soil - it's an emotional issue for many people and trying to discuss that is pointless with many people. It's one thing to protest wars on foreign soil it's another when it happens here. It's only going to lead to ridicule at this point.

Someday the situation will calm down and real questions will be asked. I know there is much of the story that hasnt been told but that will have to wait.

As far as the MSM goes all lies are 80% truth they say. You just need to determine which 80% you want to believe.

Originally posted by circuitsports
What alot of people easily overlook is that 9/11 happened on our soil - it's an emotional issue for many people

I think that goes to the heart of it. A lot of people found it very frightening that a homeland they assumed was cosily secure could suddenly be attacked in such a vicious and spectacular manner by people who absolutely hated them, but whom they hadn't really even heard of.

In response they have created safer narratives that provide them with some sort of closure.

Chomsky is an advocate of victimhood. He's one of the generation that participated in the civil rights movement, and he still hasn't got the memo that it never really accomplished anything of lasting value whatsoever. The government accomplished more when they had Lennon and MLK killed, than the other side ever did.

Chomsky is also a champion of the sort of material that the Fabian Socialist shadow men want people to believe. He's a darling among what's left of the hippies, but if you allow your brain sufficient rest from controlled substances to actually think about what he's saying, it really doesn't hold up so well, under the resulting scrutiny.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

They were not. You did know this right?

Remember they were drinkers and payed hookers... These were not religious people.

Really? You think because they consumed alcohol and fornicated that they were not religious? That doesn't sound like a fact - that sounds like a conclusion. One of those "special facts".

You need to learn something about Islam. These are not hypocritical Christians who say one thing and do another. It is a completely different mind set.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


You need to learn something about Islam. These are not hypocritical Christians who say one thing and do another. It is a completely different mind set.

Then again, the Koran explicitly allows un-islamic acts if they are done in order to promote the spread of Islam. I can't find the quote right now but it shouldn't be too hard to google. I explicitly remember that Atta (at the very least) was encouraged to "go native" in one of the instructional videos.

here is a list if it wasn't offered.

To think I used to value what he talked about. I guess he got scared or was never sincere.

Paul Bogdanor has compiled a handy list of Noam Chomsky's top 200 lies on topics ranging from Israeli-Arab wars and Communism to Latin America and himself.

) The Lie: The [9/11] terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clintonís bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).

The Truth: After al-Qaeda destroyed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds, America bombed an alleged chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The bombing was conducted at night so that civilians would not be hurt.
182 One security guard died. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders were all free to investigate and none alleged that the bombing caused mass deaths surpassing 9/11.

2) The Lie: [In Bosnia] there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire [at the Trnopolje camp] the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted.

The Truth: Trnopolje was a concentration camp where victims were imprisoned during the process of ethnic cleansing and subjected to systematic starvation and rape, as well as random violence and murder.

3) The Lie: ì[UNITA] had also announced a new campaign of urban terror,í Associated Press reported [in April 1984], noting a bombing in Luanda in which 30 people were killed and more than 70 injured when a jeep loaded with dynamite exploded in the city.

The Truth: UNITA claimed responsibility for bombing an army building in Huambo, not Luanda, adding ìthat the attack marked the beginning of UNITAís urban guerrilla campaign [emphasis added]. AP reported UNITA's claim to have bombed an army building and cited an official communist report from Luanda ìthat about 30 people were killed and more than 70 injured when a jeep loaded with dynamite exploded in the town [of Huambo].

4) The Lie: ìOnly a few months before he spoke [in June 1984], [George] Shultzís UNITA friends in Angola were boasting of having shot down civilian airliners with 266 people killed.

The Truth: UNITA claimed to have shot down government planes carrying hundreds of military personnel. The authorities said that first plane made an emergency landing because of technical problems, with no-one killed.

5) The Lie: [In November 1983,] UNITA in Angola took credit for shooting down an Angolan civilian airline with over a hundred people killed from South Africa and the United States support them so that whenever they shoot down a civilian airliner, thatís fine.

The Truth: UNITA claimed to have shot down a plane carrying government soldiers. The authorities said that it was a passenger airliner that crashed because of technical faults.

6) The Lie: the heroine of the popular struggle that overthrew the vicious Somoza regime in Nicaragua, Dora Maria Tellez, was denied a visa to teach at the Harvard Divinity School, as a terrorist. Her crime was to have helped overthrow a US-backed tyrant and mass murderer. Orwell would not have known whether to laugh or weep.

The Truth: In 1978, Dora Maria Tellez led a Sandinista attack on Nicaraguaís parliament building. The terrorists captured 1,500 civilian hostages, including children, and threatened to murder them unless their demands were met. The demands included a prisoner release and a $10 million ransom.

7) The Lie: What were the worst terrorist acts in the Middle East in the peak year, 1985?
The second candidate would be the Israeli bombing of TunisÖ Tunis was attacked with smart bombs. People were torn to pieces, and so on, and the attack killed about seventy-five people, Tunisians and Palestinians. They were civilians This was, again, international terrorism.

The Truth: Israel bombed the PLO's headquarters in a suburb of Tunis. A report stated that the raid ìheavily damaged or destroyed buildings used by Force 17, the PLOís elite security wing while leaving others in the complex untouched.

8) The Lie: We might tarry a moment over the Israeli attack on the island off Tripoli north of Beirut [in 1984], in which Lebanese fishermen and boy scouts at a camp were killed One might ask why the murder of Lebanese boy scouts is a lesser atrocity [than the death of Israeli children at Maíalot].

The Truth: Israel bombed an ammunition dump on the island, known as a training facility for
a jihadist faction allied to the PLO. Sources in the jihadist faction reported that there were 150
terrorists on the island and that 25 of them were hit.

9) The Lie: None [of the attacks on Israel] is remembered with more horror than the atrocity at Maíalot in 1974, where 22 members of a paramilitary youth group were killed in an exchange of fire.

The Truth: The PLO attack commenced with the murder of a father, a pregnant mother and their four-year-old child, with their five-year-old daughter shot in the stomach. The terrorists took over 100 schoolchildren hostage and threatened to massacre them unless their demands were met. They murdered 22 teenagers, and wounded 56, during an Israeli rescue attempt.

10) The Lie: we might consider one of the early exploits of our most favored client state [Israel], the massacre on Oct. 28, 1948 at Doueimah [sic] leaving 580 civilians killed according to the accounting by its Mukhtar 100 to 350, according to Israeli sources, 1,000 according to testimonies preserved in US State Department records.

The Truth: Arab officials investigated these stories at the time, concluding that 27 had been murdered and that the information on the slaughter in Duwayma was exaggerated. The IDF also investigated and requested a field trial for the guilty officer.163 The crime was committed in revenge for Arab terrorist attacks that killed 2,000 Jewish civilians during the war.

speedymedia.blogspot.com.es...

Well he knows about this thread and thinks it is a disgrace that I posted our correspondence.

picked up the site this time. The first item was from someone named “Dan,” maybe you, who broke all normal conventions taken for granted by honest people by posting an email correspondence unauthorized. And finally added: “I'm not going to reply to him, I think it's more clear now (in my opinion) that he's just protecting himself or simply doesn't care about the truth anymore. I honestly used to tell people that the smartest person alive is Noam Chomsky. I guess he's not the bravest, or maybe he's making a point that I can't understand. But his current stance is so out of touch with his past self that it's like Ronald McDonald suddenly telling children that McDonalds is unhealthy.” This is just another disgraceful shriek, more insults, not even a minimal effort to respond to evidence or to provide argument. If this is you, then obviously it is impossible to respond to you. Quite apart from the shocking content, of which the writer should be ashamed, it’s understood among honest people that private correspondence is private.

Ok, but you are still avoiding the obvious questions about how you can be part of a University and expect freshmen to throw out the laws of physics. You avoid that question at all costs. And if publishing e-mails is such a crime, why won't just speak your mind without retorting to whatever narrative suits you best. Speak the truth, isn't that what you used to do.

'I should be ashamed'... but the top intellectual in the world who happens to be a professor at MIT isn't ashamed of taking no efforts to expose the fraud of 9/11.

Ok, NC, I am ashamed. But not 1% of what you should be, since I am not in a position of influence. You either sold out or you have an agenda that is way more shameful than people posting e-mail correspondence.

Doesn't anyone else see the BS here? A professor at the top engineering school won't even look into the scientific evidence on 9/11. And hides behind linguistics or justifies it by believing that 9/11 is a minor incident compared to others.

Well NC, 9/11 is the biggest incident that changed the course of world history and you are on the wrong side of it. Hide behind grammar, semantics all you like but you are on the cowardly side.

You could have taken a stance, investigated the media and the politics but you didn't.

History won't judge you by your past books but by your stance on 9/11.

There's a lot to take issue with in your post. But I find this particularly interesting:

Originally posted by zaintdead
Ok, but you are still avoiding the obvious questions about how you can be part of a University and expect freshmen to throw out the laws of physics.

Do you think that you have a better understanding of physics than the relevant people at MIT? Presumably not. But you must therefore assume you have access to people who do. Whose opinions you trust more than those of the orthodoxy at MIT. I was wondering why that might be.

Also how do you think MIT actually goes about inculcating its students with these lies? Remember we are dealing with some of the cleverest students in the USA. They arrive at MIT, are told stuff that someone like youcan tell is nonsense and then... what? They just accept it? Or are they told to believe it "or else"?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
There's a lot to take issue with in your post. But I find this particularly interesting:

Originally posted by zaintdead
Ok, but you are still avoiding the obvious questions about how you can be part of a University and expect freshmen to throw out the laws of physics.

Do you think that you have a better understanding of physics than the relevant people at MIT? Presumably not. But you must therefore assume you have access to people who do. Whose opinions you trust more than those of the orthodoxy at MIT. I was wondering why that might be.

Also how do you think MIT actually goes about inculcating its students with these lies? Remember we are dealing with some of the cleverest students in the USA. They arrive at MIT, are told stuff that someone like youcan tell is nonsense and then... what? They just accept it? Or are they told to believe it "or else"?

I am not an expert in physics. When I was 17 I did study theoretical physics at St Andrews Uni in Scotland. But you don't need a degree in Physics to realize that a building will not collapse at free fall speed given the resistance of the building bellow it.

Chomsky is taking the safe position here... he wants to keep his position and anyone who will keep their position despite knowing better is a 'sell out'. Perhaps he realized many years ago that he won't get rich from his books, so all he has is his position at MIT.

Therefore he'll defend the official 9/11 story just to keep that position. And yes, he will be a professor until he dies, but history won't judge you as a great mind but as a great traitor to the truth.

reply to post by zaintdead


You didn't answer the questions.

And Chomsky makes a lot of money from his books, trust me.