The responses to Rep's thread are a terrific example self-congratulatory narcissism.

If it's just a matter of venting (justified) anger then I'll join you in the hate-fest; I've had numerous email debates with Chomsky on the subject of 911 (one of these is posted at length on the Guerilla News Network, if you’re interested); needless to say I share your collective disgust.

But there’s a time for hate and there’s a time for redemption.

Like many of you, I eventually came to the conclusion that Chomsky was/is becoming senile, irrational, overly impressed with his own stature and ultimately doomed to be replaced by the likes of Chossudovsky and other new media figures.

Chomsky’s old stuff is fantastic and highly recommended, but his willful ignorance of the horrific new constant -- false flag operations -- makes him irrelevant, or nearly so, as to current affairs - save his massive following. I repeat: massive following. Are we a cultish clique or a movement? Do we want to expand our horizons or congratulate ourselves?

The "new breed" of journalist, a la Chossudovsky, combines structural and conspiratorial analyses without obsessing over one particular aspect of the equation, be it secret societies, Bilderbergs, the Mark of the Beast or the more (seemingly) mundane institutional factors which run our every-day lives. This latter point is often lost in the mix, especially amongst the populist right. Allow me to quote another anarchist, Bob Black:

“And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery.

In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity.”.

This is not a subject that arises with any frequency, however, on the Alex Jones show: the last time I heard about wage-slavery via AJ was, well, never.

Many truthers, sad to say, do not fit the bill of (what I hope) is an emerging consensus. Depressingly, the over-arching theme is "rogue network", "Jews", Zionism or cabal. In other words, a DEPARTURE from the good ol’ fashion Murikan values which we all hold near and dear -- namely slavery -- NOT a natural extension of these “values”, ie the massive class disparities which allowed these networks to develop in the first place.

The institutions which GAVE RISE to these monstrous appendages of state capital are left untouched, indeed sacrosanct, as if Moses himself appeared in a dream to James Madison and handed him down the theory that, as John J wrote: “those who own the country ought to govern it". This is a matter of little concern, apparently, whereas the "illuminati” warrants constant attention. This is at least as conspicuous as the left’s chronic denial of 911 truth and “conspiracy” in general.

We're caught between two paradigms, neither of which tells the whole story.

Not Alex Jones. Not Noam Chomsky.

The charge that Chomsky is an "agent" is every bit as absurd as the charge that Alex Jones is bought and paid for by Benny Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby.

And, if I may add, every bit as repellent to POTENTIAL truthers, which number in the hundreds of millions.

The more we descend into foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics about Chomsky and other leftists the more we will repel the one demographic we so sorely need – the eighty percent or so who label themselves “progressives”.

It is much easier, granted, to scurry around calling everyone an "agent" than deal with all-too-human follies.

I'm not here to defend Chomsky, nor Jones. Chomsky’s performance on 911 (like 99% of other prominent intellectuals) has been utterly despicable. He deserves to be criticized and called out and brought to task for his cowardice. Jones deserves to be called out, as well, for his hatred against “illegal Aliens”, to name one of the dozens of issues I could potentially call him out for.

“Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker.”
Proverbs 17:5

ESPECIALLY Chomsky, one might argue (and perhaps this is why he has received so much venom), since he has dissected media propaganda over decades and has himself pointed out that intellectuals are amongst the most indoctrinated and reactionary members of society (polls prove this, incidentally); people of stature NEED to swallow lies lest their heads explode over cognitive dissonance. It’s a shame Chomsky didn’t look in the mirror when he was penning those words.

Interestingly enough, Chomsky is not “anti” conspiracy. His lectures on the CIA drug trade are superior to any I’ve ever heard, better even than Ruppert’s; he openly acknowledges that MLK was taken out by the state; his articles on COINTELPRO point out the role of FBI provocateurs in attempting (and often succeeding) in their goal of staging bombings and blaming it on the left. Etc. Etc.

His Achilles heels are JFK and 911, the former because he loathed JFK and the latter because he became a pussy in his old age.

Nevertheless, I regard Chomsky’s work on JFK as essential, every bit as important as Joan Mellon’s. Why!?

Because he elaborates in excruciating detail that JFK was no “peacenik”, like some researchers would have you believe: John-boy simply preferred covert operations (like your modern day Brzezinski). He preferred assassinations, torture and destabilization to monumental ground wars. Similarly, he wanted to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces”, not to encourage international solidarity and peace -- let’s be clear -- but to reign in a rogue network outside of his control. All very natural for one of the last heads of state to imagine he was top dog.

The brutal (and brutally ironic) result was that his brother tried to suppress Jim Garrison’s investigation, and ended up getting capped by a hapless MKULTRA victim and a woman-in-a-polka-dot dress.

RFK was deeply involved in Operation Mongoose and with the anti-Castro fanatics in Florida; his plan was to win the presidency and pay back the conspirators in his own way.

Not—I repeat—not by exposing the operation and the actual culprits -- that would entail class disloyalty -- but by using his power to piss on the men who killed his brother.

This is the nature of state capitalism and class rule. Love it or leave it.

In closing:

Chomsky SHOULD be criticized until he does the right thing and completely reverses his former position on 911 truth; at the same time, there’s no need to be vindictive. Vindictiveness is the sign of a weak soul.

Hell, it’s not like it makes much of a difference anyway; people are waking up EN MASSE with or without gatekeepers. As Student said, Chomsky is no longer a leader but a follower. And who needs leaders anyway?

I sense a sea-change on the part of the left-gate-keepers. Let's ENCOURAGE them while SIMULTANEOUSLY insisting that limited hangouts won't cut it.