Mine and Gold's email correspondence with Chomsky - Lets give him what he wants!
A while back for people who don't know me and Jon Gold had a good email exchange with Noam Chomsky regarding 9/11 truth and his stance (for anyone interested you can read them here in full on the Loose Change boards). After these exchanges were made a load of other great mails were sent by people from this site, which received equally interesting and at times frustrating replies from Chomsky. But amidst all of this great contact that was made, I think we missed a chance to follow up on what he actually wanted to see before stepping on board, to some degree at least, with 9/11 truth.
Have a read of what he said here;
Chomsky: "It basically comes down to this. We have two choices: (1) devote ourselves to ending the crimes of state, which include those for which 9/11 was a pretext and even more dangerous ones that preceded the pretext, literally threatening species survival; (2) devote ourselves to a debate about the roots of 9/11. The latter course is certainly far easier, but that is not a sufficient reason to reject it. We can, however, be pretty sure that (2) will get nowhere as long as proponents of the Truth Movement theses refuse to take even the first minimal steps towards evaluation of their claims, e.g., submission of a paper to a scientific journal raising questions about the 9/11, the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers, etc. It cannot be seriously claimed that their reputations would suffer, etc. In fact, this is one of the safest forms of dissidence and activism I know of; the Griffin-Falk examples are typical. But until at least those steps are taken, we can conclude that advocates of the theses are unwilling to submit their claims to evaluation, and it will remain an academic debate without issue."
So lets give him what he wants, can someone contact Dr Steven Jones and ask him to submit his paper to a reputable scientific journal outside that of the “Journal for 9/11 Studies”? This might have already been done by Dr Jones, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn’t for some reason.
- Dem Bruce Lee Styles's blog
- Login to post comments
i had a pretty long exchange
i had a pretty long exchange wtih him as well. its like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer out of the guy on anything. it was after our exchange that it became painfully clear to me that Chomsky is nothing but controlled opposition. its so fitting that he authored a book called "Manufacturing Dissent". it sure fits him to a t.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
his book was Manufacturing Consent
But you're right anyway, he is 100% controlled opposition. For what it's worth, I go the Chomsky treatment in person, having run into him in Harvard Square while truthing and grilling him for a few minutes as he walked to a talk he was giving. The most memorable quote was that he "would have to study civil engineering for two years before having an opinion on building 7". Yep, that's what he said.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
ah, thank you RT, thats
ah, thank you RT, thats right. that is what does though,haha. great job grilling him in person. he actually gave me the same line about having to study engineering for years etc. goddamn coward.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Barrie Zwicker devotes a chapter to Noam Chomsky....
in his book "Towers of Deception". The chapter is called "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left". Good reading. In the chapter, Zwicker provides a very interesting chart showing how the left gatekeepers are funded.
An example: Carlyle Group funds George Soros who in turn funds Pacifica who in turn funds Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. Soros also funds "The Nation" magazine
The left gatekeepers provides "the kind of opposition the US Elite can Live with and Chomsky is its Leader", Zwicker states.
Zwicker also states, "A study of Chomsky's stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK's assassination and 9/11, and the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious ourages and their covert agency engines. He conducts a de facto defense of the Empire he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase 'conspiracy theorist', which in one context he has characterized as 'something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on..... The the New World Order he is worth 50 armored divisions."
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey
Why I no longer suffer "socialists"
I was (and still am in many ways) a pretty leftward kind of guy. Until I realized that Chomsky and his minions are basically set up to make sure that the most effective critiques of the corrupt status quo come from a hard left socialist perspective. Aside from race and religion, money is one of the best ways to divide people, and by wedding critique of the status quo with critique of free markets, capitalism, etc. a false dichotomy is created wherby you either accept the status quo and the freedom to "keep what you earn" or oppose it and agree to a socialistic economic setup.
There is plenty of criticism to go around though--Capitalism, exactly like Communism, is great in theory but an abomination in practice. They are, as history shows us anyway, two different ways to rob the people. One by corruption favoring the party bosses, the other by corruption favoring the money bosses.
The oft-celebrated "third-way" is in fact a bogus compromise whereby the elites have tried to convince the people that they have learned the lessons of history and as such have hit on the perfect compromise between socialism and free market capitalism. Don't believe the hype! The "third-way" is yet another scheme with a label to hide the reality of the corrupt system. Actually I think Chomsky is very much a "third-way"kind of guy, calling himself a libertarian socialist.
The dead giveaway in all these cases is the LYING. When these people are pressed, they will ALL LIE about something. Every "system" sold from the top down is a SCAM, and we have to let go of the easy labelling if we are to get to the truth about how the world works.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I agree for the most part.
I'm a dissilusioned lefty myself. I had been drifting away from the "liberal" mindset for several years. (But not TOWARDS conservatism. I wonder where I was heading?)
So what's your "fourth way"? You're seem like a smart person RT, but you're bloody negative.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
The term "socialism" has
The term "socialism" has lost all meaning, just as the term "free market" has lost all meaning, just as the term "anarchism" has lost all meaning except for those who have taken the time to read about it. "Socialism" is state capitalism with welfare and public parks, "free market" is corporate "personhood" and the privitization of rain water, "anarchism" is "chaos" or state capitalism in flux. Even the term "fascism" has been bastardized, with most people assuming it has to be accompanied by goose-stepping soldiers and raving lunatics with little mustaches.
There is indeed a "third way", and it is anti-authoritarianism, be it political or economic. Decentralization, federation, the dismantling of mega-states, workplace democracy, participatory government, people and their environments before profit and pop music.
Chomsky's views on government or lack thereof are completely irrelevant; basing one's views on whether or not some public figure endorses them is classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.
Saying "Chomsky is an anarchist" therefore "anarchism is bogus" is irrational. "Anarchist" is a simply a term given to people with anti-authoritarian leanings. Gandhi was an anarchist, Kafka was an anarchist, Huxley and Orwell and Tolstoy were anarchists. If I don't agree with Tolstoy's dogmatic opinions on non-violence, or Huxley's views on overpopulation, does that mean I have to reject anarchism? If I don't agree with Alex Jones' opinions on American-style constitutionalism, does that mean I have to reject 911 truth? No, these are non-sequitors all around.
Anarchism is not a system "sold from the top down". Indeed it is the ONLY political ideology based on "bottom-up" organization. It's not even really an ideology, since, "anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything". Anarchism is the means by which humans beings have organized ourselves for 99% of our time on planet earth.
By all means, criticize Chomsky, but don't drag anarchism into this.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
hmmmmm...
Danse, I wonder why you think I was dragging anarchism into this? In my heart that is exactly what I am. Utterly and without reservation. Maybe you thinik that because some people believe Chomsky is an anarchist and i was dumping on Chomsky that I was tehrefore dumping on anarchism. Nope. I agree with almost everything you said, if not all of it. I would add for thoise who don't know that anarchism is not "anarchy" as used in heavy metal songs, like you say it's not chaos.
I do think though that there is more to a vision of successful and worthwhile anarchism than most self-styled anti-authoritarians seem to understand. It's quite something to aspire to and as such I think will require some time to come about if indeed it will ever--nothing is certain in history--Marx was quite wrong about that.
So we've actually stumbled on something that I think transcends the issue of 9/11 and that in fact is much closer to my passion--what can the future hold for humanity? How best to live our lives? How to influence the world so that these changes may occur without forcing anything? It's all much more grand and wonderful than dragging the truth out of a bunch of criminals and an unthinking brainwashed herd, that's for sure. :)
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
“Danse, I wonder why you
“Danse, I wonder why you think I was dragging anarchism into this? In my heart that is exactly what I am. Utterly and without reservation. Maybe you thinik that because some people believe Chomsky is an anarchist and i was dumping on Chomsky that I was tehrefore dumping on anarchism. Nope. I agree with almost everything you said, if not all of it. I would add for thoise who don't know that anarchism is not "anarchy" as used in heavy metal songs, like you say it's not chaos.”
Glad to hear it!
My only point is that Chomsky’s cowardice should not be conflated with anarchism. Just ‘cause Chomsky styles himself an anarchist (and he HAS written some good papers on the subject) doesn’t mean the philosophy itself should be impugned. I’m not saying that’s what you were trying to do, just trying to clarify.
Anarchism gets a bad rap because of (a) agent provocateurs and (b) liberal usage of the term “anarchy”. One connotation of the word is indeed chaos. Go back to the 18th C and you’ll see anarchists claiming that this was by design, as indeed (imo) it was.
Anyway, if you look at the Mbuti pygmies of the Ituri Rainforest or any other (actual) “anarchist societies”, what you see is ORDER minus institutional hierarchy. A little sloppy perhaps, but far more “orderly” than state capitalism. Hierarchies should be based on ability alone, and indeed everyone has something important to bring to the table; therefore it all balances out. “Perfect” order is not only impossible but undesirable. Perfect order would be a living hell.
When journalists use the word “Anarchy” it is only during civil war or a flux in state capitalism, ie a struggle for power. This is the exact opposite of “Anarchy”. In an anarchist society “order” is maintained by lack of institutional hierarchy, NOT a struggle for it.
“I do think though that there is more to a vision of successful and worthwhile anarchism than most self-styled anti-authoritarians seem to understand. It's quite something to aspire to and as such I think will require some time to come about if indeed it will ever--nothing is certain in history--Marx was quite wrong about that.”
Agree. There is no “perfect plan” to bring about a decent society. We make it along the way.
“So we've actually stumbled on something that I think transcends the issue of 9/11 and that in fact is much closer to my passion--what can the future hold for humanity? How best to live our lives? How to influence the world so that these changes may occur without forcing anything? It's all much more grand and wonderful than dragging the truth out of a bunch of criminals and an unthinking brainwashed herd, that's for sure. :)
Agreed.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
it's the ism that i don't like
I'm also partial to zen-like rejection of terms as illusions that people chase. anarchism is as good a label as any I suppose, but i've met to many dogmatic "anarchists" to have any illusions about people's ability to understand the principles behind the rhetoric....
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
would have to study civil
would have to study civil engineering for two years before having an opinion on building 7
Pure obfuscation. "Well, that's something that only the 'experts' can understand..." BULLSHIT. It's actually very simple and basic physical concepts that prove the impossibility of the OCT.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
"Manufacturing Dissent?"
uh, am I missing something, here? I know of "Manufacturing Consent" but not of a follow-up titled "Manufacturing Dissent"... I could well be wrong but I think you need to get your facts straight.
http://myspace.com/ratskulls
Noam Chomsky, propagandist extraordinaire
I just wrote a blog entry about Chomsky, I have found, during my internet trawls, Barry Zwicker's Towers of Deception Chapter 5. Which focuses on Noam Chomsky and left Gatekeeping. It's a controversial chapter, but it is well written, very informative and educational. So if anyone is interested in analysis of propaganda techniques, language as a means of avoiding communication, to conduct obfuscation and deception please consider reading the chapter:
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky3.htm
From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagra without having seen or heard of one or the other. So it is that my name is Sherlock Holmes, it is my business to know what other people don't know
Sherlock... thanks for posting a blog on Chomsky...
I look forward to reading it.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey
An analysis of the Chomsky Email response.
Using Chapter 5 of Barry Zwicker’s Towers of Deception, in which he describes the methodology of analysing Chomsky’s assertions, statements and literature on the events of 9/11, JFK; and indeed anything that may create controversy so as to upset the left-right paradigm. I will attempt to analyse the email response you had from Chomsky, which you have given above in the main blog entry.
Chomsky: "It basically comes down to this. We have two choices: [Restriction of options (Limitation of possible questions), Inappropriate selectivity ] (1) devote ourselves to ending the crimes of state, which include those for which 9/11 was a pretext and even more dangerous ones that preceded the pretext, literally threatening species survival; [Bizarre non-sequiturs, word inflation](2) devote ourselves to a debate about the roots of 9/11 [False parallels]. The latter course is certainly far easier, but that is not a sufficient reason to reject it [Obfuscation, Internal contradiction]. We can, however, be pretty sure that (2) will get nowhere [Sweeping generalisations, Dismissiveness] as long as proponents of the Truth Movement theses refuse to take even the first minimal steps towards evaluation of their claims [Insinuation], e.g., submission of a paper to a scientific journal raising questions about the 9/11, the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers, etc. [Misleading asides (useful for avoiding answering questions directly) , Diversions (e.g. not answering the questions)] It cannot be seriously claimed that their reputations would suffer, etc. [Major premises hidden in passing (taken as read),Bald assertions that are mis-statements, Insinuation] In fact, this is one of the safest forms of dissidence and activism I know of; the Griffin-Falk examples are typical [Inappropriate selectivity, False syllogisms]. But until at least those steps are taken, we can conclude that advocates of the theses are unwilling to submit their claims to evaluation, and it will remain an academic debate without issue." [Bandwagon Psychology, Dismissiveness, Bullying, Setting up straw men, Sweeping Generalisations, Framing to exclude contrary outlooks]
thanks sherlock
be sure to close your italics with < /i > (remove spaces) so that they end when your post does!
Yeah, the guy is just a great obfuscator. If he had any interest in fairness he would use his influence to help us get these papers peer-reviewed. instead he seems overly keen on dismissing a huge number of pissed off people who ARE trying to hold this regime accountable for its crimes...
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
A clear command of fallacy. Love it!
I recall seeing your work before. Keep it coming. A better understanding of logical fallacy would benefit all of us. It can be difficult to decipher Chomsky's rhetoric, as it is so polished. He's definitely saying what a lot of people what to hear, or at least saying it the way they want to hear it. I read his approach as highly political.
This was my primary critique of my academic experience. Academic social science is some kind of oxymoron. Because as you become more a part of the institution, your success and that of the institution are reliant upon whomever provides funding for research. And that most often includes the government. And so, if your career depends upon studies that draw money from mainstream sources, you aren't going to study, let's say 9/11 truth, recognizing without having to be told that this will draw no funding and end your career. Doesn't sound like any attempt at objectivity in the pursuit of social scientific research to me.
So I didn't find that the institution, University of California, Santa Cruz, was a place where I would find a truly scientific approach to social science. They somehow never mentioned in my Classical Theory of Sociology class that many of the 'founding fathers' of sociology were fascists.
Anyway, more to the point, am I just missing something here, or are Chomsky's comments above suggesting that the core of our case for complicity is the collapse of the towers? I would have to differ with that assessment. Assuming that he's an honest intellectual, I would have expected him to have read The Terror Timeline, The War on Truth,...
Is he really implying here that he has such a limited understanding of the case for complicity? No. He's speaking in a politically conscious manner. He's saying what he's supposed to say in order to maintain his position as respected within the academic community and for those who resonate with his position. Gatekeeper?...maybe. Biased social scientist?...I think so.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
You Forgot One
"proponents of the Truth Movement theses refuse to take even the first minimal steps towards evaluation of their claims"
= BLATANT LIE embellished with a couple vague polysyllabics in an attempt to evade a direct refutation.
The entire Truth Movement is an ongoing, painstaking "evaluation of claims"--"theirs" and ours".
"Lawn" Noam Chumpsky is a slimey, slick warlock who revels in implementing the Protocols while pretending to rebel against them.
We've gone that route actually.
For example, one of our authors submitted this comment...
"Yes, I did initially submit it to ASCE, believing this was my best chance at reaching my target audience. In corresponding with the editor, he apologized for the delay and mentioned that my paper was the longest they had ever taken to review. Since essentially all of the most qualified reviewers were involved in the investigation, he had a hard time finding anyone to review it. I was disappointed (but not shocked) that it was turned down, but even more so because the feedback was so paltry. The basic objection seemed to be that the formatting wasn't right and that it's not nice to claim NIST cheated. "
So it's not a matter of failing to submit to "legitimate scientific journals". Of course the argument itself is poor to begin with, and would be made only by those who have a need to maintain the status quo. That is, part of what makes a scientific journal legitimate today is that they do not question the myth of 9/11.
Most people don't realize how ideological peer review is
An excellent study of this was, if I recall correctly, Greg Myers' Writing Biology.
Famous corruptions of science include Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, Creationism, and of course Nazi eugenics.
Naturally, there will be at least two responses to this claim when applied to 9/11 science: one, to suggest that science can be corrupted by politics does not mean that this is so in this particular case; two, some form of American exceptionalism, which insists that "it can't happen here."
Kevin, can you branch you to
Kevin, can you branch out to other credible journals though specifically in physics and structural engineering etc? Because this is something they’re using against us it seems to falsely delegitimise all the groundbreaking work done in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". If it's true that other journals are consistently declining to review Dr Jones' paper, then one clear way to counter the types of accusations made by Chomsky and others is to compile and publish a list of the journals you've asked. That would reverse this perception that Dr Jones' paper "isn’t up to scratch for proper review" and that you've actively been trying to submit the work for evaluation etc.
Steven Jones:
from the STJ911 Forum: http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/viewtopic.php?p=5232&highlight=&mforum...
"I am hopeful that Prof Kuttler's or Gordon Ross's work -- or microsphere studies or others now pursued in the Journal -- may make it into the mainstream scientific literature -- we need to break through! That is one of my main goals, as I have repeatedly urged. Not all agree with that, perhaps, but I think such publication will help the 9/11 truth movement greatly. I know that Eric Douglas tried to get his paper published in a major journal -- did not succeed -- and I have sent a paper to an editor of a major publication... We'll see. We must keep trying.
I am very happy about the number and quality of papers submitted to and published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies on a variety of important topics. Explosive growth since January! These papers provide already a strong basis for inquiry -- and for a solid investigation/ trial. And that is great.
If we had had all these solid papers during the 9/11 Commission proceedings, it may have gone differently... I should also note that I have rec'd this past week a feeler from NIST ... someone there is evidently now willing to sit down and talk."
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."