The Left Has Admirable Values, But....

One value all progressives have is opposition to racism. Some white people are better at it than others. Most  interfaith  and progressive groups take the following WEAK stand on Islamaphobia. They say we should not hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of s few. This is an appeal only to people with such high minded sensibilities that they already assume racism is wrong. You are essentially throwing in the towel rather than confront  chest thumping proponents of American exceptionalism. If these reactionaries were shown evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation, some would be MUCH less likely to support dropping bombs on Muslim homes thousands of miles away.

So, am I being unfair when I say progressives take a racist position when they refuse to discuss the possibility that Muslims are not the 9/11 culprits? If you won't even discuss the issue, I'm still hesitant to accuse you of racism, but I would level an accusation of hypocrisy. Disagreeing on analysis is fine, but refusing to dialog is not.

I have a bachelors from MIT, where I was radicalized by Noam Chomsky, Lillian Robinson, Wayne O'Neill and others. I took Noam's political course , "Intellectuals and Social Change" twice and audited ir twice , all within 5 years. Each semester was different. My favorite semester was on fascism. Noam will, of course, address us this weekend. Allow me to take a lesson from my favorite of all his quotes. It was from his first political book, American Power and the New Mandarins. It goes, "The responsibility of intellectuals is to speak the truth and expose lies." Since so many progressive leaders, including Noam, hold that discussion of the evidence of a false flag operation on 9/11 is a distraction, isn't that equivalent to "We don't mind looking the other way about SOME government lies."

If the left welcomed us as allies as you should, you would give us some stage time at larger conferences and rallies as the late Howard Zinn recommended in my interview of him listed at 911truth.org on March 2, 2009.

I do feel a little funny challenging Noam to address this issue. It's like, gee Noam, I'm not satisfied that you are at the intellectual peak of two fields, linguistics and US  foreign policy criticism. Seems too demanding of me. But, the issues involved with 9/11 truth ARE part of criticizing US foreign policy, not to mention the intellectual corruption of the so-called free press in the US, hardly a field Noam ignores.

One day in class, Noam made a comment where I thought he was suggesting I was "obstreperous" . I didn't  know what it meant, so I looked it up. it means," hard to control." A few years later I remember Noam being quite pleased that three different national level foreign ministers had publicly criticized him in one week. I don't think most foreign ministers trouble themselves to publicly attack college professors.  I venture to say all those in attendance are glad Noam has been "hard to control."

I used to actually feel badly that I never seemed to be able to figure out any hard questions to ask Noam. The Spartacists always did such a terrible job.
They were stupidly hostile. I'm not, I just think Noam is  remiss on the issue of the value of 9/11 truth to the antiwar movement as a whole.

One mistake Noam doesn't make that many progressive do make is using the term "conspiracy theorist " as a put down. The proper way to make this point is to take issue with "conspiratorial thinking" . To suggest the term "conspiracy theorist" should be used  as a way of criticizing someone is to imply that those in power are unlikely to abuse their power, a clear absurdity.

Here is the question will ask Noam if I am allowed to during Q & A. It comes after my notice of Noam's recent exchange with Abby Martin on You Tube. 

Search you tube for  "Abby Martin  Media propaganda, war on terror, civil liberties, and more with Dr Noam Chomsky"

Abby Martin," ...in the aftermath of 9/11 when the Taliban said we will give you bin Laden if you present us with evidence, which we didn't do."
Noam Chomsky," I know their proposal was a little vague, but we should have pursued it.."
This exchange starts at 6:36  and ends at 6:49

My question for Noam and the leadership of the Left Forum follows," Is there a reason next year's Left Forum shouldn't address this question?" I would be happy to address it alone or in a panel. I prefer a panel so I can show how much I respect the left.  Once in my youth Noam criticized  the debate format as being "too much heat and not enough light." I may take issue with conventional left wisdom on bin Laden's culpability for 9/11, but I've identified myself as a leftist since 1974 ( I've been arrested protesting over 2 dozen times)

The 9/11 truth movement includes progressives, libertarians, and people so new to activism they don't self identify ideologically. It is very much antifascist and leftists are antifascist. Why exclude 9/11 truth activists as allies opposing war and fascism when the left runs the gamut from democratic socialists to trotskyists? At times we explain to each other why we disagree, but we still coexist in various coalitions. The 9/11 truth movement drives me crazy with certain cultural aspects I'd be happy to discuss, but its goals are antifascist and that should be sufficient for leftists and truth activists to function as allies. Frankly, the truth movement could use some mentoring from the left about the value of activism, if I do say so.

Noam is so busy, maybe some of the rest of you will reach out and dialog with me. Mark my words, "The suppression of 9/11 truth will be to the new left as socialist realism was to the old left. " All ideological people need be wary of becoming doctrinaire. It is intrisic to having analyses.

David Slesinger
dslesinger@alum.mit.edu
410-499-5403