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.
Noam Chomsky has recently made some specific comments on 9/11 : http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-05/chomsky-revisits-9-11
For my article on the subject for the French website Oumma.com, I found and isolated the video sequence of his declaration broadcasted last Monday by Press Tv.
Take a look :
I voted for Cynthia McKinney because she was the only candidate who sees him (I think it is a he). The others either don't, or won't admit it, and I see no significant difference between these two points of non-view.
According to polls about a third of the US population (not to mention the rest of the world) think, or at least suspect, that 9/11 was an inside job, and McKinney was the only candidate who has even mentioned the possibility. Of course I'm glad that Obama has spared us the catastrophe of McCain, but this time I decided to indulge my "conscience"--that is, vote for the person I would really like to see in office--because it was pretty clear to me that Dumbo had decided on Obama, and in the long run we will never break the yoke of the two-qua-one party system unless we vote outside the box.
In preparing for my recent interview with Kevin Barrett on June 6, since I knew he wanted to talk about Noam Chomsky, I had the dubious pleasure of reviewing my own correspondence (1989-1995) with the man who seems to have become, in addition to the world's most famous linguist and leftist dissident, the most famous "left gatekeeper." I may have had more than a little to do with that, since I published three articles based on our correspondence (and his book Rethinking Camelot), and eventually the correspondence itself (my letters and summaries of his replies) on the internet, later included in my book Looking for the Enemy (2007).
[read more at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/falsedebate ]
Listen to a Master Gatekeeper: Chomsky dispels 9/11 "conspiracies"" with "sheer logic"
LOGIC? Hmmmm. Submitted for your valued critique and analysis.
The Art and Science of Gatekeeping.
The books ("Correspondence with Vincent Salandria" and "Looking for the Enemy") are available here: http://stores.lulu.com/mdmorrissey .
Len's summary is ok, too, except that he misheard me on impeachment: I said it is (i.e., would be) a political process, and therefore significant regardless of the outcome.
He has a different impression of Vince than I have--which is fine; I'm glad he spoke his mind too.
9/11 and the JFK assassination have a lot in common, as I am at pains to point out. It is important to see the connection--that 9/11 is NOT a freak phenomenon but part of an ongoing history.
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;
You can order my book here. Among other things, I show that the CIA sabotaged their own Bay of Pigs invasion, that HIV was probably invented by the US government, and that Noam Chomsky and Rudolf Augstein are frauds. These are not claims, but conclusions based on detailed textual analysis--in Chomsky's case of his letters to me. This history is essential for a full grasp of the reality of 9/11.
Manuel Garcia, a national weapons lab scientist, has attempted to debunk 9/11 skeptics with a defense of the NIST appearing in Alexander Cockburn's leftist magazine, Counterpunch.
Garcia's analyses of the fall times and heat issues in the trade center collapses is quite skimpy and mostly irrelevant. I have talked with more than one physicist who is extremely skeptical of the government claims and hence wary of Garcia's analyses.
Cockburn also writes a column for the progressive magazine The Nation, which recently ran a lead article by English professor Christopher Hayes accusing 9/11 skeptics of fomenting paranoia. Physicist Josh Mitteldorf has publicly questioned Hayes' reasoning.
Garcia, who has championed the cause of Wen Ho Lee and fought polygraph testing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has a PhD in aeronautical and mechanical engineering from Princeton University and has done plasma physics research for the weapons lab, where he has worked since 1978.
Previously, the noted scientist and socialist Noam Chomsky has pooh-poohed 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Further details are posted on my blog at znewz1.blogspot.com.
A relevant post is found at
Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:
"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."
I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?
I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
"The problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism" a Q&A of Chomsky
Ex: What is the role of the intellectual when dealing with imperialism and are the intellectuals doing they job?
Ch: Unfortunately, intellectuals are doing their historic job. The historic role of intellectuals if you look, unfortunately, as far back as you go has been to support power systems and to justify their atrocities. So the article you read in the National Post for the production of vulgar Stalinist connoisseurs, that's what intellectuals usually do as far back as you go.
If you go back to the Bible, there's a category of people who were called prophets, a translation of an obscure word, they were intellectuals, they were what we would call dissident intellectuals; criticising the evil king, giving geopolitical analysis, calling for the moral treatment of orphans, decent behaviour. They were dissident intellectuals. Were they treated well? They were prisoned and driven into the dessert and so on, they were the fringe. The people who were treated well were the ones who centuries later, like in the gospel, were called false prophets. So it goes through history. The actual role of the intellectual has been supportive of power.
Should they do that? Of course not; they should be searching for truth, they should be honest, they should be supporting freedom and justice and there are some who do it. There is a fringe who do it, but they're not treated well. They are performing the task that intellectuals ought to perform.
While the 911 madness is rife, there is always sanity in Chomsky. While he does not care to speculate on the greatest insanity, 9/11 false flag terror, he does always provide for good orientation and morally sound, common-sensical arguments .. kinda important in the ocean of spin. But you knew that. Anyway... just to keep us on the straight and narrow, read this seemingly tame review...
The seamy side of U.S. foreign policy
Perhaps any country’s self-image suffers from a kind of fun-house mirror effect -- it sees itself very differently from the way the rest of the world does. Certainly Noam Chomsky’s Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy demonstrates that the United States operates that way. Given that our government has taken on the management of so much of the world, it becomes crucially important for Americans to understand that distortion. So, if you can read only one book in that effort this year, this probably should be the one.
Mr. Chomsky’s analysis of American foreign policy differs so dramatically from the official version that some may find it disorientating, not because of any fast and loose rhetoric on Mr. Chomsky’s part but because of his deployment of a stunning array of sources in a relentless accounting of the hypocrisy with which Washington so often confronts the world.