rigorousintuition.ca

The title of this YouTube post is itself offputting, if not positively shameful, but I think Zwicker's arguments are unanswerable:

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxY ... ssent.html

It is very sad and very strange to see Chomsky, one of the smartest and bravest people on the planet, simply arguing so poorly. As far as I can see, he barely even tries.

A longer version of Chomsky's speech in Hungary can be viewed here:

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc&NR=1

Nothing new in any of this, but worth watching.

Thanks Mac. I'd never really noticed Barrie Zwicker before, or maybe I'd just forgotten about him. He's a breath of fresh air.

Chomsky says "who cares?" Well, he certainly doesn't. That should be enough to give people pause about his credibility on conspiracy subjects (JFK and 9/11 in particular).

Zwicker is great. I've had his DVD "The Great Conspiracy" for years -- one of the first 9/11 movies I saw, and it still holds up well despite being fairly low budget.

Yeah, Zwicker strikes me as one of the people with the right kind of focus.

Michael Parenti has also spoken with anger (but very cogently and incisively) about Chomsky's attitude to the JFK killing and to "conspiracy theory" in general.

It is painful to watch Chomsky struggling in vain to say anything rational or remotely convincing about 9/11. One of my heroes turns out to have feet of clay... But he is at least still impeccably decent and polite about it, unlike Cockburn, Corn and too many others to list.

I think that now, in his very late 70s, Chomsky is simply worried about being marginalised even further than he has been all his life. It's just a bridge too far for him.

I agree with Zwicker that Chomsky behaves in an intellectually dishonest way by refusing to discuss the subject at all. On a certain level, I think Chomsky's concern (in the case of the JFK assassination as well as 9/11) is the diversion of political energy into a kind of hobby. We've talked about it here before, it's what Chomsky means when, on the clip, he talks about
'the kind of huge energy that gets put out trying to figured out who killed JFK'. People who are substantively in agreement about the political implications of 9/11, about the involvement of a criminal gang of politicians, businessmen and spies using a traumatic event to hijack the US treasury and attack civil liberties to fill their pockets and increase their power, and about the threat that this situation represents, get wound up arguing about the minutiae of how the attacks were actually carried out. Which is not unimportant, but it too easily becomes a pointless waste of time, especially under the influence of agents who want disagreement among adversaries of the state as well as caricatures of 'moonbats' to point at and mock.

I feel irrationally compelled to defend my guy here - I'm a tremendous Chomsky fan, I've read as much of his political stuff as I could find and struggled through On Language earlier this year. In The Chomsky-Foucault Debate (most of the book is a debate between him and Michel Foucault on Dutch TV in 1974 about the problem of free will, unbelievable and a bit depressing when you think that Big Brother is what replaced that kind of thing on the box), he addresses the question of JFK. What I took away from his answer was that the most important thing for him was to preserve a coherent energy on the left, focusing on the leverage points that could make a difference.

Maybe Chomsky's private conviction is closer to yours and mine than he wants to make public, but when he speaks he does so as a political figure, and his aim is to encourage involvement in a broad, left-ish movement. This is also why, in his speeches, he sounds more optimistic than you'd expect, in light of what he knows about how the world works. He wants the people who listen to him to walk away inspired and involved, part of something other than and opposed to state corruption and violence.

MacCruiskeen wrote:in his very late 70s, Chomsky is simply worried about being marginalised even further than he has been all his life

Mmm... to me the 'Chomsky is a marginal figure' is the kind of thing Jonah Goldberg or some other completely replaceable hack whose name no-one will remember in ten years would say. I find that a bit ridiculous about one of the great linguists, cognitive philosophers and political writers of our time. How many books has he published? How many people have read Noam Chomsky? According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most-cited scholar in any time period. He's hardly marginal. But if by 'marginalised' you mean 'fired', then perhaps.

he addresses the question of JFK. What I took away from his answer was that the most important thing for him was to preserve a coherent energy on the left, focusing on the leverage points that could make a difference.

But he can't do that by diktat, stefano. Nor can Cockburn, nor can Corn, nor can anyone. Nor have they in fact done so. On the contrary.

If the only way "the left" can "preserve coherent energy" is by refusing to address matters of important fact in the real world, then people in the left's natural constituency are inevitably going to turn away from it in anger and disgust. Those people are going to say: "No, you're being intellectually dishonest and lazy. Our questions are saner and smarter than your non-answers. And how can you presume to lead us intellectually or to speak for us politically when even we -- the non-intellectuals -- can see that your position is simply not serious?"

In the USA in 2008, the plain fact is that the left's most coherent energy is in "the 9/11 truth movement", however deeply imperfect that movement may be. That's where "the masses" are. That's where the entirely justified anger is. That's where the honesty is. That's where the tireless activism is. That's where the rejection of arbitrary and dishonest authority is. That's where the working classes are, in all their vulgarity and unloveliness and loudness. That's where the energy is. That's where the left is.

Shamefully, those huge masses of people are being left in the lurch by the likes of Chomsky, Cockburn and Corn, who yet have the temerity to claim for themselves the right to speak for "the left" -- and who have not managed to conjure up a single spark of "coherent energy" between them in the seven years since 9/11. And no wonder, when their on-the-record response to world-changing realities is: "Who cares?", "Listen to us, proles." and "You're nuts."

If that's intellectual leadership, then George W. Bush is an honest man. If that's "the left", then I want no part of it.

Luckily, it isn't. It just thinks it is.

Mmm... to me the 'Chomsky is a marginal figure' is the kind of thing Jonah Goldberg or some other completely replaceable hack whose name no-one will remember in ten years would say. I find that a bit ridiculous about one of the great linguists, cognitive philosophers and political writers of our time. How many books has he published? How many people have read Noam Chomsky? According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most-cited scholar in any time period. He's hardly marginal. But if by 'marginalised' you mean 'fired', then perhaps.

By "marginalised", I mean: not reviewed in the NYT or the WP, not interviewed on TV, not granted the attention and respect his reputation and intellect deserve. Marginalised by the US ruling class, as far as they can manage it: that's what I mean (and Chomsky himself has spoken about it very often).

stefano wrote:

On a certain level, I think Chomsky's concern (in the case of the JFK assassination as well as 9/11) is the diversion of political energy into a kind of hobby. We've talked about it here before, it's what Chomsky means when, on the clip, he talks about
'the kind of huge energy that gets put out trying to figured out who killed JFK'. People who are substantively in agreement about the political implications of 9/11, about the involvement of a criminal gang of politicians, businessmen and spies using a traumatic event to hijack the US treasury and attack civil liberties to fill their pockets and increase their power, and about the threat that this situation represents, get wound up arguing about the minutiae of how the attacks were actually carried out. Which is not unimportant, but it too easily becomes a pointless waste of time, especially under the influence of agents who want disagreement among adversaries of the state as well as caricatures of 'moonbats' to point at and mock.

While I agree with Chomsky on many things, I do not agree with his position on JFK and 9/11. Neither do I agree with Amy Goodman's stance towards 9/11.

In another thread yesterday, I posted something about agent-baiting. That is an entirely different matter, and it is problematic the way that 9/11 Truth advocates say or imply that Chomsky works for the CIA and/or military because of differences that one may have around this particular issue.

It's usually the Powers That Be which gain from these sorts of tactics...

I recently heard Chomsky's take on 911 in What We Say Goes, Conversations with David Barsamian (Audio Version) [2007], on track 8, cd 1, which begins...

Barsamian: There has been a persistence of various theories, around September 11th, alleging, um, direct or indirect Bush Administration participation, ah, in the attacks. Why do you think that is?

Chomsky: First of all, I don't think much of these [laughs quietly] theories. Uh--

B: Well you know they are out there-- people ask you about them --

C: I'm getting bombarded... I mean it's not only a huge industry, it's a kind of fanatic industry. So you know, other people think I should change my priorities, but of the, um, couple hundred letters I'm getting every day, the flood that says - it's really abusive - that says it's your responsibility to set this as your highest priority and to drop everything else. That's coming from the 911 truth people. So it is a kind of religious fanaticism, almost.

There are three questions you have to ask: One has to do with the evidence. Uh, ok. Can you become a qualifi - a highly qualified - civil or mechanical engineer, an expert in the structure of buildings with a couple of hours on the Internet? Well if you can, then we can get rid of the civil and mechanical engineering departments at MIT, why go to university?

Uh, and if you thin-- if you really believe any of this evidence, then there's an easy way to proceed. Go to - specialists, who can evaluate it. Not - you know you may have found one physicist somewhere - uh, but, go to the civil and mechanical engineering departments. I mean, um, uh, maybe the industry claims they're all in on the conspiracy. Well you know if it is that vast, you may as well forget it. Uh, it's [unintelligible] - they claim that they would be afraid. There's nothing to be afraid of. It's the safest position to take. In fact it is treated very sympathetically by power centers. Which takes us to another point. Why is it treated sympathetically? I think they like it. It's diverting enormous amounts of energy - away from the real crimes of the administration, which are far more serious, even than what's they're are accused of, with 911. All right, suppose they blew up the world trade center. By their standards, that's a minor crime...


There's more (a few minute's worth), but I'm tired of trying to transcribe it - time to go to bed. I like leaving all the 'uhs' and 'ahs' and 'ums' in, just because that provides a little clue to his thinking as he speaks. He does a great job of tap-dancing around any meaningful or reasonable evidence of 911 skepticism, focusing on, instead, debunking controlled demolition. It's interesting also that the question itself is framed by Barsamian in the "Bush knew" line of reasoning.

Then Chomsky says the "who benefits' argument is meaningless, because, bascially, all governments benefited.

Finally, he says 'the whole idea just completely lacks credibility" because the "chance of a leak is pretty high." He asks rhetorically, why someone would risk such an impossible conspiracy, what would they gain? Completely glossing over how 911 was evoked constantly to promote the war, the patriot act, etc. And then: "There is nothing in history, that is even remotely comparable to this, and there's a good reason - you could never get away with it, even a dictatorship couldn't get away with it."

I dunno... Chomsky sounds like he is full of shit here. But you could see if you only had a cursory knowledge of 911, that maybe he would be convincing. And he is hugely influential - that's why Zwicker is calling him out, and I say good for Zwicker!

Just listen for yourself here:

Code: Select all

http://rapidshare.com/files/128129163/noam_chomsky_-_what_we_say_goes__2007__track_08_-_008_on_911_.mp3.html

Or just download the whole book here [requires bitorrent]

The author of this op wrote a fascinating (and long) essay on Chomsky at his blog:

The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky and 911

sunny wrote:The author of this op wrote a fascinating (and long) essay on Chomsky at his blog:

The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky and 911

Ouch. That guy really nails it, even if he could have used a few less nails to do the job. It's no joy to see Noam Chomsky crucified, but it cannot be denied that he built that cross himself and then lay down on it.

Ouch.

I appreciate the sympathetic and unsparing critiques of Chomsky. He simply doesn't do conspiracy - and that's pretty much how sophisticated his analysis is on the matter - but that shouldn't diminish his many other contributions or earn him the title of "agent." Though it may diminish him, because he's demonstrably incurious and untroubled about such a tremendous blind spot.

Peter Dale Scott has a decent explanation for Chomsky's aversion to "conspiracy theory." Chomsky's interested in systems, and his understanding of conspiracy is that it represents an aberration in how the system works. Scott regards conspiracy as a structural component to the Deep System of Control, of which electoral governance is merely a superficial representation.

That's a pretty good essay, but I think he went further than the facts warrant in his feverish ambition to use every adjective in Roget's. 'The Wicked Eunuch'? Pfff.

Tom Breidenbach wrote:Here, cold-blooded arrogance is the only mask sufficient to the intellectual authoritarian’s impotence. Though it’s disguised as consummate reasonableness, this “analytical” butchery emulates the physical carnage it envies. His pedantic sadism compensating for his historical irrelevance, Chomsky signals (however momentarily) a response to the possibility of 9/11’s state-sponsorship that’s far more craven and servile—if nevertheless predictable—than mere paralysis: an alignment with the attackers whomever they may be based in denial of their crime’s even mattering! This opportunistic concurrence with the killers, a squirming and obsequious capitulation to or veneration of their power is betrayed by a flippant readiness or unconcern (at least on the part of this moneyed old man and his “radical” discipleship) for whatever conflagration or apotheosis 9/11 might portend. The ugly armchair bluff (or is he leveling with us?) of this cynical fossil should sober those inured to his hagiography.

Tit. Go read Hemingway.

Tom Breidenbach wrote:Chomsky’s crude assumption that those responsible for a conspiracy such as 9/11 would be put before “firing squads” is vastly allusive in its farcicality, revealing his delusory grasp of the contemporary Anglo-American power-structure.

Firstly, there's no such word as 'delusory', he's confusing 'illusory' and 'delusional'. Does Breidenbach really, honestly, think Noam Chomsky's comprehension of state power is either of those? Fuck off. Again, don't forget Chomsky long ago adopted the role of public intellectual, and weighs his words very carefully. What he says in front of a mic is not what he really thinks, and what he really thinks is not that important in a discussion of 'Noam Chomsky', where that term refers to his public persona and its pronouncements.

Consider an alternative present in which Chomsky in October 2001 said 'yeah, clearly, the official story is rubbish and people in government were involved'. The platforms that he is offered to give his lectures would have been removed - to that extent, Mac, you're right about his marginalisation. He'd have lost his job. And then? He'd still have been hassled by proponents of CD or 'Mossad did it' or what have you to validate their theories, and he'd still be subjected to angry comment on boards like this by people who feel slighted that he doesn't agree with their specific, narrow theory of what happened. How would that help? I agree with him to a large extent (though not in his broad rejection of conspiracy theories) that it doesn't matter. The other day Alice posted a lot of evidence about people connected to Likud privatising an Air Force base etc. etc. Very interesting, but to me less important than the idea that the richest, most powerful people in the world are happy to commit murder on an industrial scale to improve their capital gains and dividend yield by half a percentage point. That is important, and if Chomsky wants to avoid talking about conspiracy in order to retain the pulpit from which to broadcast that message broadly, so be it.

There are two other levels to my mind: firstly I think Chomsky, who is convinced of the fundamental goodness of man (or was in the 1970s, when he gave lectures on the subject, before he became a full-time political thinker), finds the idea of the US Government killing its own people indeed one bridge too far. This would explain his weirdness and uncharacteristic dismissive tone in talking about it, he is unable to consider the theory. Secondly, he's never used any sources other than mainstream ones. In all his writings, he uses NY Times, Wall Street Journal and so on. This has made him pretty devastating as a debater: he is unassailable on matters of fact, as his sources are those considered canonical by his opponents. He's not going to start using other sources on this matter.

(edited to fix the first quote)

stefano said:

don't forget Chomsky long ago adopted the role of public intellectual, and weighs his words very carefully. What he says in front of a mic is not what he really thinks

Now, that is slandering Chomsky. (And since when did you become telepathic, stefano?)

Firstly, there's no such word as 'delusory', he's confusing 'illusory' and 'delusional'.

"Delusory", yeah, heh heh, what a "tit"! Breidenbach also spelled "vis-a-vis" "visa-vie", did you notice? Heh heh, what a tit! Adjective-heavy, that article, or what? Go read Hemingway, tit! Heh, heh, heh, heh... (Etc.)

- Attend to the man's argument, stefano. Please. A couple of solecisms and some stylistic self-indulgence are not enough to discredit it. In fact he argues his case both passionately and extremely well.

[Chomsky] is unassailable on matters of fact

Demonstrably not true. On some matters of fact, from European football to 9/11, he has never demonstrated any acquaintance with the salient facts whatsoever. This hasn't prevented him from pontificating about the latter and presuming to decide ex cathedra what can possibly be true about it and what can't.

When I started to look closely at how the world works, Chomsky seemed god-like but only for a very short period. I've always been wary of the cult of the personality but his way with words (He is a linguistics specialist, after all) is first class. Add in the messages he was putting out and it was difficult not to take his writing as the pinnacle of critiques against the corporate elite. That being said, I sometimes wondered how someone in his position could be allowed to attack the MI complex, particularly so given who he worked for. In recent years some high level academics have lost their jobs for speaking out, so, the fact that Chomsky was allowed to publish book after book made me a little wary.

I then saw Zwicker laying into Chomsky in a video recording about, hmmm, 3-4 years ago. Zwicker has always struck me as genuine, in large part because he is so low key and virtually unknown. That made me start to wonder even more.

Then I heard Parenti make comments about Chomsky's reluctance to place any emphasis on the JFK killing. Parenti, whose work I admire, pointed out that Chomsky's reliance on structural analyses made perfect sense and Parenti pointed out that he too used a structuralist approach to looking at the political system. Thus, a structuralist approach to political systems, should not preclude deep analyses of specific events and the attaching of great weight to them.

Chomsky is a heat sink imo. Whilst that might sound a little broad brush I cannot see any justification for someone in his elevated position failing to use that position to burst open the chink in the armour that 9/11 opened up. Instead, he has used his position to maintain the status quo.

And it might seem petty or irrelevant to say this. His appearance and general air seem manufactured; the loveable, rumpled old professor in his woolen jersey and his slightly bemused air.