Why We Love to Hate Conspiracy Theories: 911 Truth as Threat to the Intelligentsia

Especially left and liberal professionals and service intellectuals but also right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently attack and ridicule “conspiracy theories” such as the present 911 Truth movement.

Why?

It’s as though power did not covertly orchestrate its predation of us? Is that not the modus operandi of power?

Is it so difficult to believe that the complex and highly successful military attack on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and destroying four commercial jets and their passengers) was not orchestrated by a religious zealot from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by failed Cessna pilot trainees with box cutters? Or that those who measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?

What the hell? Not even (admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream reports seem to matter.1

What ever happened to “war is a racket” and “follow the money”?

In rigorous compliance with the true meanings of academic freedom2 and freedom of the press virtually no academics or mainstream journalists have made it their research to find truth or to radically (at the root) question the establishment version.

Indeed, all the major and considered-radical academic pundits such as Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the possibility that the 911 attacks could have been known or aided from within the finance-corporate-military complex.

What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line?3

Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his last public talk in Ottawa).

Is such self and projected censorship by star intellectuals only the result of the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these questions in public fora so dangerous?

When barred and suppressed Afghan Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was asked about 911 by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that those who sought answers in this matter should address their questions to the occupiers of the White House. To this writer’s knowledge, this is the furthest that any politician has gone in this direction, coming from “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” no less.

But what shocked the present writer more is the derision to which was subjected the truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands of an “activist” and “progressive” crowd.

INTELLIGENTSIA SELF-DEFENCE

The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols.

Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed discipline of not supposing the worst in one’s research stance, were established in academia at the time when “academic freedom” was being defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost that battle:

[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.

Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.2

Academics and “radical professors” train the intelligentsia…

And power owns the media.

TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH

But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned, information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change.

This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed to recognize.4 Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth.

It’s only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over their lives.

Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth.5

In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one that it perceives as an attack on its self-image.6 And, in such a culture, psychological self-image arising from power’s connection to the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain itself.6 In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials or in mainstream smear campaigns.

In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911 Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing 911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions from power.7,8,9

  • First published on the Activist Teacher blog.
    1. Major media articles on 9-11 raise questions” by Fred Burks, 2010, Want to Know. []
    2. Some big lies of science” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. [] []
    3. Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt” by Michael Barker, 2010, Dissident Voice. []
    4. 911 Truth” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. []
    5. Against Chomsky” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2008. []
    6. Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. [] []
    7. On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. []
    8. Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. []
    9. Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. []

    Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009: LINK. Read other articles by Denis, or visit Denis's website.

    109 comments on this article so far ...

    Comments RSS feed

    1. bozh said on September 13th, 2010 at 7:51am #

      It appears that US gangsters were building such huge military so that they could wage wars for land.
      They saw that in order to maintain or augment their wealth and to continue to control servant class with the usual iron grip, america would no longer do.

      Gangsters needed more serfs and more land. And so they devised 911. Probably only a few mosssad and CIA agents were involved in recruiting a few saudis for the job. It was an easy job. Children cld have pulled it off!
      And CIA and mossad agents involved may have been killed long time ago so that they wld not ever talk! tnx

    2. Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 7:53am #

      The problem here is not right wing conspiracies against truth, but the mere fact that there is no evidence of any alternative explanation for the 9/11 attacks.!!!!

      Secondly, common sense militates against the position of the truth ‘deniers.’

      A few months ago, a gasoline tanker truck caught fire on a freeway nearby, and the resulting heat quickly melted the supports of the freeway overpass located some ten feet above the truck. The overpass collapsed onto the truck and blocked traffic for weeks in the surrounding area.

      One truck carrying much smaller quantities of a much less volatile fuel, burning in an open space, with NO other fuel available for the fire, was able to replicate the collapse of the towers on a small scale…Why is it so ‘eviden’t’that it couldn’t have happened on a larger scale?

      Much of the 9/11 ‘truth’ appeal is to simple racism, the idea that no group of mere Arabs cound possibly circumvent ‘our’ vaunted ‘security’ apparatus.

      Common sense and logic are of no avail against this racist, unspoken, unchallenged assumption.

    3. 3bancan said on September 13th, 2010 at 8:04am #

      Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 7:53am #

      “Common sense and logic are of no avail against this racist, unspoken, unchallenged assumption.”

      Ellen Lau uses the only common sense and logic she knows – the zionazi one…

    4. Gary S. Corseri said on September 13th, 2010 at 10:12am #

      This is a brilliant analysis, multilayered and profound, about the way Power has corrupted and despoiled our modern lives and delivered us, piece-meal, fragmented, atomized and confused to the New World Order!

      Dr. Rancourt, Professor Rancourt–and he is a true Professor, whether “terminated” by fools or not–has outlined the ways in which self-censorship and “professional standards” of “intellectual inquiry” delimit such inquiry and rot the results. As a former academic, I can also attest to the rigid separation of inquiry/theorizing and social reform that batters the integrity of real truth-seekers and action-minded academics. Rancourt is right again about the necessity to preserve the “image,” the “self-importance,” of the profession (that, among other things, he did not add, keep the paychecks and the grants and the extra lecture money rolling in).

      This short essay begins with questioning the official narratives about 9/11. It’s timely and pertinent on that measure alone; but it probes even more deeply into our collective psychic space–the simulacrum of the world we have inherited and created; and the fears that keep us chained to half-truths, non-truths and sheer absurdities.

    5. Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 10:42am #

      So George Galloway and Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, and so forth…are all suppressing the truth and are ‘zionnazis..?’

      I have a feeling that trolls have nested here on this blog.

    6. 3bancan said on September 13th, 2010 at 11:25am #

      Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 10:42am #

      “So George Galloway and Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, and so forth…are all suppressing the truth and are ‘zionnazis..?’”

      A typical rhetorical zionazi question…

    7. Deadbeat said on September 13th, 2010 at 12:42pm #

      Ellen Lau writes …

      The problem here is not right wing conspiracies against truth, but the mere fact that there is no evidence of any alternative explanation for the 9/11 attacks.!!!!

      This is a red herring. What Ms. Lau is doing is putting the onus on the 911 skeptics to prove that there is an “alternative explanation”. The real issue is whether you believe the government explanation of the events. The skeptics, IMO, has blown enough holes in the government’s explanation to raise more questions and that there should be a new investigation to get to the truth.

      For example, the physics of the buildings destruction would indicate that the buildings were demolished. In this case you have Ms. Lau making the argument that a freeway collapse under the heat of a exploding tanker truck is analogous with the complete destruction of huge three skyscrapers. Clearly Ms. Lau doesn’t take into the account the physics of the resistance of tons of skyscraper material slowing down the speed of decent. It is this kind of arguments that insults intelligence and raises more questions as to why Ms. Lau needs to engage is such rhetorical dishonesty.

      Much of the 9/11 ‘truth’ appeal is to simple racism, the idea that no group of mere Arabs cound possibly circumvent ‘our’ vaunted ’security’ apparatus.

      According to Ms. Lau’s logic she would then have to include former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as a “9-11 racist” as she was a early skeptic of the government’s story and demanded a full investigation. To this day Ms. McKinney doesn’t accept the conclusions of the 9-11 Commission.

      I’m not surprised by Ms. Lau’s badly played race card but if she wants to bring up racism then she ought to take a closer look at Noam Chomsky who is a professed Zionist before she labels 9-11 skeptics as being racists.

    8. Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 1:06pm #

      Calling people racists won’t cover up the fact that there’s no evidence to support the 9 11 truth people. It’s up to them to produce evidence if they dispute the official version. Otherwise, they should continue to call people names, since they have no facts to adduce!

      Again, trolls seem to dominate on this blog. Lacking ANY facts, they call people names when you question their heroes.

      I continue to say that racism is thinly disguised in this unwillingness to accept that a few Arabs could defeat ‘our’ intelligence and security, in the face of mountains of evidence that they DID!.

      BTW all the serious analysis supports the collapse of the buildings due to intense heat.

    9. 3bancan said on September 13th, 2010 at 2:33pm #

      Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 1:06pm #

      “BTW all (sic!) the serious (sic!) analysis supports the collapse of the buildings due to intense heat.”

      Ie, any analysis different from the official version is just “not serious”. Such a criterion just can’t go amiss…

      PS:

    10. Deadbeat said on September 13th, 2010 at 3:42pm #

      Ellen Lau writes …

      Calling people racists won’t cover up the fact that there’s no evidence to support the 9 11 truth people. It’s up to them to produce evidence if they dispute the official version. Otherwise, they should[n't] continue to call people names, since they have no facts to adduce!

      [1] What Ms. Lau is doing is exactly what you’d expect from reactionaries — shift the burden. It is not up to the 9-11 skeptics to produce evidence. What Ms. Lau ignores is that the 9-11 skeptics are not government official who have free and full access to the physical evidence.

      [2] If Ms. Lau wants the 9-11 skeptics to produce their evidence then she ought to demand that they and their experts have access to all the evidence that is now sealed by the government.

      [3] It was Ms. Lau who is smearing the 9-11 skeptics as “racists” and invokes Noam Chomsky (a professed Zionist) as a fallacies to support her arguments. In fact that weakens her arguments as several 9-11 skeptics suspect that Israel may have had a hand in the bombing and invoking Chomsky only arouses their suspicions.

      Again, trolls seem to dominate on this blog. Lacking ANY facts, they call people names when you question their heroes.

      [4] Now Ms. Lau engages in name-calling behavior as she present no facts of her own. The only “evidence” she produces is the invocation of the names of “intellectual” celebrities none of whom have any background in Physics.

      I continue to say that racism is thinly disguised in this unwillingness to accept that a few Arabs could defeat ‘our’ intelligence and security, in the face of mountains of evidence that they DID!.

      Notice that Ms. Lau demand “acceptance [of Arabs culpability]” without any regards to EVIDENCE. Clearly she would make a great despotic prosecutor. Yet she demand that the 9-11 skeptics who have little to no access to the evidence held by the government to supply proof. Those who have questioned the government story have used the evidence that is readily available — analysis of video, sound, and images that was recorded on 9/11/2001.

      BTW all the serious analysis supports the collapse of the buildings due to intense heat.

      If intense heat of the jet fuel (which didn’t reach such temperatures) took down three huge skyscrapers (including Building 7 which didn’t sustain any damage) nearly everyone within the vicinity of the Trade Center would have been incinerated. Also the manner in which the buildings were demolished (pulverized) and the speed of decent is evidence enough that those buildings did not collapse.

      I’d suggest that Ms. Lau go back to her high school and enroll in a Newtonian physics class and quit insulting people’s intelligence.

    11. bozh said on September 13th, 2010 at 3:57pm #

      If my memory serves, the saudis who flew the planes into towers and pentagon were trained to fly the jets in US.
      And it may have taken days or weaks for the 911 plotters to learn how to fly huge planes.
      But what airlines company wld train any individuals if they wld not be accredited and thoroughly checked midicly and otherwise and of course pay for teachers, gas, usage of plane which wld cost mega bucks.
      And why wld not such airline ask the clearance from cia and fbi knowing that it was arabs who were learning to fly jumbo crafts.

      And it seems there was no the usual patrol planes in the air at the time to intercept hijacked aircraft. tnx

    12. Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 4:03pm #

      In the first place, you don’t know anything about the physics involved and are only repeating what the 9 1s people say, which has been thoughly debunked by every independent expert. Steel softens at 2000 degrees or so…and the fire easily reached that. The speed of descent was predictable; there’s been NO evidence to the contrary.

      If you dispute the official version, then yes, you do have the burden or producing some FACTS…otherwise, what gives you the right to just say it’s wrong off the top of your head?

      Then there’s the matter of thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses, which you can’t even mention of course!!!

      Clearly, we are dealing with irrationality with the 9 11 truth crowd. I still say that the irrationality is the thinly disguised racist contempt for Arabs, consistent with the attitude that, after all, permeates ALL US policies, no?
      Would it be surprising if that attitude was not operating here as well?

      Often you can see it when you read their material..they just can’t believe that ‘camel jockeys’ could defeat ‘our’ supersonic aircraft. Not all of them speak in this way, of course. …part of this racism is of course unconscious.

    13. Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 4:22pm #

      BOZH–I’m not going to argue long with people who haven’t even read the official report and therefore are just airing prejudices, not arguing based on factual knowledge.

      AS explained in the official report, Bozh,!!!!!! the US military was not trained to deal with hijacked airliners being used as weapons. !!! They simply were confused about how to respond. ‘Our’ security was defeated by 20 Arabs, hard as it is for you to believe!

      Again, we see the thinnly disguised racism here…the ‘usual’ patrol planes you blithely mention DIDN’T EXIST, the ‘security’ network was taken by surprise and didn’t anticipate any of this happening. AS those backward Arabs anticipated. Read the ***@@ report, before you start typing again!

      It was common for wealthy Saudis to seek flight training. They are ‘our’ allies. Are they not? Is it surprising the CIA spooks weren’t paying that much attention? You just can’t trust the bought to stay sold, Bozh.

      Yes, Bozh, ‘we’ were lacking in foresight here. Deal with it. Just as
      the US military had to deal with being defeated in Vietnam.

      Yes,’our’ advanced aircraft were defeated by a bunch of Saudis with box cutters.

      It’s understandable that people can’t deal with this, given the faith many of ‘us’ have in ‘our’ technology to defeat those ‘backward’ Arabs, and the propaganda about the ‘backward’ Arabs we all take in daily.

      But it’s ridiculous for supposedly ‘progressive’ people to operate with that perspective.

      That sometimes unconscious racist perspective is what we see in large part in the faith-based 911 truth churches: facts be damned, Bush did it!

      Also, most of these 911 people are dyed in the wool Democrats at heart, and I think it’s reflex for them to blame Bush for everything! Regardless of the facts! SAme for Cynthia McKinney, also a Democrat at heart.

    14. 3bancan said on September 13th, 2010 at 4:25pm #

      Ellen Lau said on September 13th, 2010 at 4:03pm #

      “Clearly, we are dealing with irrationality with the 9 11 truth crowd. I still say that the irrationality is the thinly disguised racist contempt for Arabs, consistent with the attitude that, after all, permeates ALL US policies, no?”

      The only irrationality and the overt racist hatred for Arabs are inside Ellen Lau’s zionazified brain…

    15. Deadbeat said on September 13th, 2010 at 4:48pm #

      In the first place, you don’t know anything about the physics involved and are only repeating what the 9 1s people say, which has been throughly debunked by every independent expert. Steel softens at 2000 degrees or so…and the fire easily reached that. The speed of descent was predictable; there’s been NO evidence to the contrary.

      So you claim that the “soften” steel took down 110 story tower at nearly free fall speed. If anyone doesn’t understand physics it is you who is repeating what you’ve heard. Also your claim of “every independent expert” is rhetorical as it implies that the 9-11 skeptics are not independent which in fact they are.

      The speed of decent would not have achieve free fall speed had the building collapsed due to the loss of integrity and the collapse would have been localised to the upper floors where the jet fuel was concentrated. It would have been much more disastrous in fact using your believed scenario because the building would have buckled and possibly toppled over.

      If you dispute the official version, then yes, you do have the burden or producing some FACTS…otherwise, what gives you the right to just say it’s wrong off the top of your head?

      Again you ignore that the burden of proof is on the government who has access to the physical evidence and is keeping the physical evidence away from the public. It you want the truth and you believe the official story then you need to provide ACCESS to the evidence. That would end the debate unless you have something to hide.

      Then there’s the matter of thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses, which you can’t even mention of course!!!

      Then there the matter of eyewitnesses, the video, audio and images that has been analyzed by the 9-11 skeptics and uncovers discepancies in the government’s story.

      Clearly, we are dealing with irrationality with the 9 11 truth crowd.

      Again with the name calling. First the 9-11 “crowd” as you label them have raised legitimate questions that should be investigated and they should be permitted access to the evidence so that they can either be shown to be right or wrong. You demand proof from them so then give them full access to the evidence.

      I still say that the irrationality is the thinly disguised racist contempt for Arabs, consistent with the attitude that, after all, permeates ALL US policies, no? Would it be surprising if that attitude was not operating here as well?

      If anyone is being irrational here it is you labeling people who question the official story as ‘racists’. There are many legitimate questions about the security breakdown on 9/11 raised by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. According to your irrational logic then she a “racist” for demanding answers.

      Often you can see it when you read their material..they just can’t believe that ‘camel jockeys’ could defeat ‘our’ supersonic aircraft. Not all of them speak in this way, of course. …part of this racism is of course unconscious.

      You are engaging in very ugly bandwagon smearing and ad hominem that only weakens your argument. Clearly you are an example of those who agree with the official account and likes to label your opponents as racist if they don’t agree with you.

      The issue that has been raised by 9-11 skeptics is how could Bin Laden carry out this crime out of a cave in Afghanistan especially when the FBI had stated they have no evidence that Bin Laden was behind the plot. This was the basis of the longest war on U.S. history. So what you are saying that is now “racist” to question the raison d’etre of the “War on Terrorism ™”.

    16. teafoe2 said on September 13th, 2010 at 5:01pm #

      thank you deadbeat for mentioning Cynthia McKinney, probably the one exceptional “politician” who proves the writer’s rule.

      I myself concluded by noon PST on Sept 11 2K+1, after a couple hours reflection on the dramatic footage of planes into WTC and damage to the Pentagon, that the whole thing was another False Flag Op, in the tradition of the Tonkin Gulf incident, Remember the Maine, the Reichstag Fire etc etc. Nothing I have heard/read/seen since has changed my considered opinion.

      A few weeks later a fellow war-protestor invited me to accompany him tp a talk by Ralph Schoenman. Since Schoenman’s book “The Hidden History of Zionism” had been so valuable to me a couple of decades earlier, I was more than glad to get to see Dr S. in person.

      I found his analysis convincing, based as it was on historical experience. Schoenman didn’t delve deeply into matters of the melting point of steel or what photos of the Pentagon proved or didn’t. His emphasis was on the historical record of how Imperialism goes about its business.

      Later I was convinced to consider the arguments of the 911 Truth advocates. It soon became apparent that most of them were what I would describe as Intellectual Hobbyists, with a good sprinkling of crackpots and crypto-provocateurs who specialized in advancing nonsensical “theories” which had the effect of discrediting the whole movement to demand a genuine impartial investigation.

      Early on, I realized that no matter what the truth or falsity of hypotheses contrary to the Official Version as propounded by the Keane Commission and MSM flaks, it didn’t matter since for every volunteer 911 Truth “expert”, the Powers That Be could mobilize five “experts” who would produce mountains of statistics and complex equations proving the exact opposite beyond any reasonable doubt. That the whole thing would inevitably wind up just like the JFK/RFK/MLKjr assassinations: My PhDs can lick Your PhDs.

      So I don’t give a shit what happened under some freeway somewhere at whatever degrees celsius. I have continued to operate on the assumption that the whole thing was and is just another False Flag operation typical of the Empire’s traditional MO. All that has happened since accords perfectly with that assumption so I see no reason to change it.

      My view of the matter has changed since that fateful morning in only one respect; I now realize more clearly than earlier the hegemonic role of the Zionist Ideological Consensus and the Zionist Power Configuration in the direction of all actions of the Imperialist State Apparatus.

      Whether it was a controlled demolition, or if it really WAS a case of nineteen Saudis armed with boxcutters executing some amazing aerial manuevers, at some level it could only have been an Inside Job, and nothing on that scale involving persons of questionable background from the ME could happen without coming to the attention of the Mossad.

    17. cburn said on September 13th, 2010 at 5:03pm #

      Quick response to Ellen Lau:

      1. I would really like to see the list of Serious Analysts you refer to that believe the official conspiracy theory. I have looked and I have only seen a few that publicly back the official story. On the other hand, we have thousands of scientists, engineers, and architects that publicly put their name out there denouncing the official story.

      2. It is equally racist to simply accept a racist premise; namely, that 19 arabs conducted 911. It’s arguable that those responsible for this false flag attack knew how deeply racist the US is, and therefore knew that people would buy the story about arabs.

      3. Finally, there is abundant scientific evidence. Start with this peer reviewed paper that has not yet been challenged by a peer reviewed process in over a year since its publication. Dr. Harrit from the prestigious University of Copenhagen, is a chemist and the lead author. It proves that high explosives were used to bring down the buildings:

      http://bit.ly/lA8d

    18. Deadbeat said on September 13th, 2010 at 5:04pm #

      Ellen Lau writes …

      That sometimes unconscious racist perspective is what we see in large part in the faith-based 911 truth churches: facts be damned, Bush did it!

      There may be a faction of the 9-11 “truth” folks who may fit your profile. Thankfully I know of none. But there are many who have raised legitimate questions about the government’s report. Your desire to smear anyone who raises such question is the problem I have with your position.

      You have an entire group of architects and engineers who are asking very good questions and have provided evidence that raises doubt. Are they too a bunch of “racists”?

    19. bozh said on September 13th, 2010 at 5:48pm #

      Dear Ellen,
      We do not need to argue. I have no proof that US govt had lied bout 911. But war ensued a month or so after that. And all perps dead. So why wage war? With culprits all dead? Because it had been planned, i assume.
      Hey, kid, there is nothing wrong in assuming following: the agression against pashtuns and collective punishmnet for so many innocent peoples which includes US soldiers was necessary only in view that US wanted more land.

      Ellen, 20 arabs learning to fly passenger planes for free? And not one sent over to US by the saudi arlines or saudi airlines not paying for training?

      Did laden or s’mone sent a signed cheque for it, say, a least $200k but probably at least $2mn. And fbi and cia not informed about 20 arabs or interested enough as to who these people represented or whether they were saudi princes.
      Saudi princes, being a strong fascists can be trusted but even then cia shld make a quick check.
      And how did we know that even wealthy saudis;usually several thousands princes and great allies of US, are not checked to see that there is no bin laden in any of them.
      How many of the 911 perps were princes! Yes, an odd prince flies US planes but it’s always, i assume, fighter jets.
      We know that US govt lies. So why trust what it says?And the reports being several thousands p. long, who is gonna read any of them.
      And why read it while US is killing children, women?
      More cld be said. Tnx

    20. ajohnstone said on September 13th, 2010 at 6:12pm #

      The motive ? Creating the New World Order?

      Did the USA require a false flag op to convince a majority of its population to support an invasion first of Afghanistan . An invasion for what purpose ? And no , i’m not going to accept oil pipelines before its offered up.

      Was it to justify the invasion of Iraq which did have the oil as a reason for an invasion. But then why fail miserably and embarrassingly to link Hussein with Al Qaida and then require the WMD threat instead to convince people to support the war. All that planning for 9-11 and the rest of the frame up is forgotten.

      UK simply required the false 45 minutes that troops in Cyprus could be hit by missiles claim to suffice for its justification in joining the war so i suppose Brits are much more easily mobilised behind its government than Americans . Is that a legitimate conclusion to make ?

      9-11 is just over-kill (pardon the pun) for its purpose claimed by the truthers. It simply was not necessary to gain political support from its citizens .

      But of course i could be racist in assuming the gullibility and malleability of American and the British public opinion.

    21. MarcGordon said on September 13th, 2010 at 7:56pm #

      @ Gary S. Corseri – Couldn’t agree with you more; 9/11 besides the point. The analysis of academia is the value I found in this article.

    22. cruxpuppy said on September 13th, 2010 at 7:59pm #

      “Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth.”

      Not true, professor. But this is not a matter for academic musings about the nature of truth. Truth in our world is empirical science. Just the facts, ma’m. Academia was called in to determine the facts, a commission of hard scientists called NIST, many from Chomsky’s glorified think tank, MIT. They misrepresented the facts, distorted the facts, in short, they lied.

      Who will take issue with the NIST report? Ellen Lau? No. Such people believe what they are told by the authorities. Who among us feels adequate to challenge the specialists, from MIT, no less! But anyone with common sense does not argue with experts, because it so happens that experts often lack common sense. They can explain anything, no matter how ridiculous, such as 110 story buildings collapsing with no resistance because they were hit by airliners, or 47 story buildings collapsing at free fall speed after not being hit by anything at all. These things do not happen for the reasons experts claim.

      But they do happen from a cause known as “controlled demolition”. This is another highly specialized area. 911 was a technical tour de force, and there are few in the general public capable of understanding how the job was done. Even many truthers don’t understand how it was done.

      It is not that the truth does not set you free, or that the public knows the truth but cannot act. The public is baffled through ignorance and calculated bullshit. This event was huge, unprecedented. Even Noam Chomsky, a respecter of truth in most cases, could not see it. Many, if not most of the deniers on the left, are sincere. It is simple impossible for them to countenance the fact that domestic agents could murder their own American brothers & sisters in such a way.

      No matter how one explains the controlled demolition of 911, however, the political reality is real enough: there do exist organized terrorists of an Islamic fundamentalist persuasion who engage in acts of terror against the hegemony of the western powers, most especially the US. When the towers were destroyed and nearly 3,000 murdered, it was easy to declare war and seek revenge against a convenient enemy, one that had already tried and failed to bring down the towers in ’93. Once that happened, once a commitment of troops was made, the time for deciding who really blew up the towers and why was over. The nation began to act as if the official story were true.

      For this reason, it became true. Academics are not different in character from politicians. Few among them play Socrates. They all want tenure and they all desire funding from government sources and the faithful alumni. Politicians want to be elected. They all play to the “people”, that vast and faceless chorus that is baffled by bullshit. Once there were boots on the ground, no one dared to say that our heroes in uniform shed their blood for no good reason. When Bush invaded Afghanistan, he declared the debate over. And when his objections to further inquiry were overwhelmed, the 911 Commission tried to squelch it for him.

      And now it is often said: it doesn’t matter! Oh yes, it matters, now more than ever, because truth does matter. The public will learn the truth because the truthers keep at it. We know the false pretense that created Viet Nam. As we withdraw from the ME in humiliation, the public mind will eventually grasp the truth.

      But whether it sets us free or not has nothing to do with the nature of truth and its analgesic properties. Truth is a luxury that is sacrificed in the name of survival. We are, collectively, engaged in a struggle for survival. Our political masters, those who perpetrated 911 and do their utmost to create history, are not equal to the chaos that threatens us from every quarter, environmental, economic, social. Those who embraced the official 911 story were ruled by a fear that our survival was at stake, even though it obviously wasn’t. There is a generalized anxiety just below the surface. The real truth of the matter is that 911 is the least of our problems. Of course it was a lie, perhaps one of the biggest in all of history.

      But knowing the truth of it will not liberate us from this deep and universal anxiety about our own collective survival.

    23. catguy00 said on September 13th, 2010 at 10:56pm #

      Yeah, I’ll take Chomsky over bloggers who think they know what a controlled demolition looks like.

      Chomsky is such a zionist that he isn’t allowed into Israel. Imagine that.

    24. cburn said on September 13th, 2010 at 11:18pm #

      Posting in 2 parts: Part 1

      Thank you for writing this.

      This is an issue I have addressed many times, and I think it’s crucial that we understand the mechanisms at work that literally place blinders over the academic left. I think it’s crucial to understand Chomsky’s position on this, no matter how much I disagree with it. I am a big supporter of Chomsky’s work, and have read most of it.

      When you ask, “What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line?”, it’s important to remember that Chomsky’s main argument is that the State routinely conducts crimes that are very visible, and that there isn’t a need to focus on crimes that are not so visible, and indeed require an uphill battle to expose. So the murder of 1 million people in Iraq is clearly visible, clearly constitutes a war crime, and there is a precedent to bring people to justice. In fact, that is Chomsky’s goal, expose the crimes of state, partially by using their own documents and rhetoric. And he has documented these crimes for over 50 years. Ad infinitum.

      However, the key question is, what is different about 911 in that it might justify a whole movement to expose this one crime? I would argue that this is where Chomsky misunderstands what an organizer is concerned about, how psychologically important and revolutionary this could be in the U.S. I have always argued that 911 is an organizer’s dream, in that it exposes the true nature of U.S. state terrorism not just abroad, but at home. But most importantly, it is an incredibly diverse movement that reaches scientists, professionals of all sorts, the left, the right, the working class, etc, etc. The unity on this issue is powerful and dangerous to elites, in that it unites all of us in the recognition that false flag state terrorism is real. This is the kind of revelation that could internally challenge the dynamics of empire.

      On the issue of the liberal class, i think it’s pretty clear that they still believe in the U.S. as a democracy, not what it is, which is a totalitarian corporate state (Chris Hedges). They also have a lot to lose personally. Any journalist knows he or she stands a chance of getting ridiculed and fired in the mainstream press for speaking out about 911. Same with academics in large part. These are real serious concerns right now. In many cases, they refuse to look to closely because they either are not scientists (so they don’t get that side of the argument), or they are so closed minded that they refuse to look at any of the facts. Indeed, facts clearly don’t matter in this case, but their illusions do. They cling to mythology about the nature of “democracy” and state terrorism. It’s what Joe Bageant calls the Hologram.

    25. cburn said on September 13th, 2010 at 11:18pm #

      Part 2

      Another key issue to remember from history is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a very very clear example of a false flag attack that justified the increase in troop levels in Vietnam. We know that led to the slaughter (murder) of close to 3-4 million Vietnamese (the CIA’s number is 2M). Yet the real crime here was the war and not the incident which led to it. If the international community had power and Nuremberg was ready, the war criminals would be on trial for that war, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident would be a footnote.

      911 is different. It is both a false-flag terror attack and a clearly direct crime in it’s own right. And it was conducted by against US citizens by elements of the corporate state [An aside: whether parts of 9/11 were outsourced to a private company and worked together with govt, it's still the same power structure at this point]. I always emphasize to people that false-flag terrorism is systemic state policy, as the CIA is it’s own conspiracy generating factory (overthrowing governments, assassinations, drug running, coups, spying, etc etc).

      Chomsky has always pushed a systemic analysis when it comes to understanding state policy. I tend to agree. The right generally avoids this because the nationalist/patriotic tendencies there. But my answer to Chomsky is that he is missing, or not discussing, the fact that false flag terrorism is systemic state policy. You only have to read Dr. Ganser’s book (http://amzn.to/cUOWbd) on Operation Gladio (which Chomsky ironically wrote a blurb for on the back) to understand that terrorism is indeed conducted by states to make sure that the left is destroyed any time it gets to close to achieving state power.

      I thought David Ray Griffin did an excellent job in tackling his letter to the liberal punditry: http://bit.ly/9PQQ61

      But I really don’t have much hope there. As Chris Hedges points out, the liberal class sold out the working class long ago, and the icing on the cake was NAFTA. And it’s true that the enemy of the liberal class is Chomsky, because he points out their complicity in state crimes.

      Chomsky is not the enemy of the 911 truth movement. He’s just wrong about this one. That is ok.

      Finally, I agree with Peter Phillips that 911 Truth needs to integrate itself into the anti-war movement. 911 Truth should not be a single issue movement, IMHO. And one suggestion I have for that is that 911 Truth organize it’s own anti-war march in and around ground zero, under the banner:

      911 Truth, End The War in Afghanistan!

    26. mempojim said on September 14th, 2010 at 12:29am #

      Ellen, do Arabs who question the official 9/11 narrative do so because they feel a ‘racist contempt’ for themselves? Do they feel that their own people are too ignorant to accomplish the devastation realized on 9/11? Detractors of 9/11 Truth have used a number of different ploys to attack the movement. Your bizarre line of reasoning is singularly peculiar. What lengths you have gone to in order to defend the government’s account! I give you four stars for creativity.

      Almost every ‘truther’ that I know actually BELIEVED the official story, in many cases, for YEARS. Congratulations on achieving a new level of absurdity.

    27. Deadbeat said on September 14th, 2010 at 2:03am #

      catguy00 foolish scrawls …

      Yeah, I’ll take Chomsky over bloggers who think they know what a controlled demolition looks like. Chomsky is such a zionist that he isn’t allowed into Israel. Imagine that.

      I take Chomsky at his word that he is a Zionist. Also you clearly do not have any grasp of the substantive aspects of the Chomsky’s apparent denied entry and obviously you missed the interview on Israeli TV where Chomsky professed his support for Israel.

    28. Deadbeat said on September 14th, 2010 at 2:51am #

      cburn writes …

      However, the key question is, what is different about 911 in that it might justify a whole movement to expose this one crime? I would argue that this is where Chomsky misunderstands what an organizer is concerned about, how psychologically important and revolutionary this could be in the U.S. I have always argued that 911 is an organizer’s dream, in that it exposes the true nature of U.S. state terrorism not just abroad, but at home. But most importantly, it is an incredibly diverse movement that reaches scientists, professionals of all sorts, the left, the right, the working class, etc, etc. The unity on this issue is powerful and dangerous to elites, in that it unites all of us in the recognition that false flag state terrorism is real. This is the kind of revelation that could internally challenge the dynamics of empire.

      Perhaps the reason why Chomsky is opposed to 911 truth has to do with the possibility of what the truth surrounding 911 may reveal. What you don’t understand about Chomsky is that he uses the awfulness of U.S. history as a means to conceal certain truths rather than reveal those truths to the public. Thus Chomsky’s position on 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination is rather in line with his MO.

    29. Deadbeat said on September 14th, 2010 at 2:58am #

      cburns writes …

      On the issue of the liberal class, i think it’s pretty clear that they still believe in the U.S. as a democracy, not what it is, which is a totalitarian corporate state (Chris Hedges). They also have a lot to lose personally

      The Liberal class is great at pretense but in actuality hates democracy. The term “mob rule” emanates from Liberals. Liberals abhor the participation of the masses and wants only an elite class to rule over others. The other important aspect of Liberalism is that they are great at deflating radicalism. Liberalism only appears reasonable when there is radicalism and other mass movements. In other words as you recognize, 9-11 truth has the possibility of uniting citizens across class lines and such a possibility is actually a threat to Liberals.

    30. ajohnstone said on September 14th, 2010 at 3:23am #

      Yet again to add to my previous comment and add some more commonsense to this debate, is it feasable that when the USA already had one Al Qaida operative in detention for anearlier car bomb attempt on the WTC and considering all those truthers that claim controlled explosions for the WTC collapses for such dramatics it as necessary to use hi-jacked aircraft to crash into the towers and simply not have a repeat of th car bomb tactic . Surely , the most sensible and efficient strategy was to plan a similar operation as a cover for the controlled explosions , that would have no need for hundreds of “extras” in the form of passengers, or involve the need for countless collaborators in the conspiracy .

    31. bozh said on September 14th, 2010 at 7:41am #

      Chomsky had stated [u can ask him if u don't believe me] that he’s against ROR and for the two state solution. And i emend that to a two state nonsolution.

      But the nature of US had even been exposed by hitler and countless americans and world socialists.

      I do not want to mire in the what chomsky IS; only in what he does; i.e., writes, does, and says.
      To his credit, he did severely condemn US and israeli state terror. But being ‘jewish’ to some degree and which he never revealed, as far as i know, he cld not beat it out of him.

      He thus clings to ‘jewish’ causes altho bilogicly being a pole or pole-lett-german and not an iota shemitic. So he clings to a cult, because that’s what the label “jew” denotes and not any ethnicity.

      I think it took more than one person to weaken or destroy peace movement and not justa few ‘jews’! more cld be said! tnx

    32. Ellen Lau said on September 14th, 2010 at 7:57am #

      Good luck on injecting common sense, johnstone, it’s like talking to UFO fanatics.

      !. The site was analyzed for explosive residue. None was found.
      2. Demolition would have required placing charges at strategic places thorughout the building, which was occupied by thousands of people and even at night hundreds….NOT ONE of those people noticed anything like that.

      Contempt for ordinary people’s opinions and perceptions is a common thread in this troll coven that unfortunately seems to be the majority on this blog.

      Enough for me. I don’t argue with UFO people, or zionists, or anyone else who believes they have a mandate from God…If sensible people want to talk about this..I’d like to know for example who is this Michael Berger.
      moc.oohaynull@13ualnelle

      Alex Jones is an obvious nut who also BTW is a UFO theorist..those are the two major figures in this church.

    33. kalidas said on September 14th, 2010 at 8:13am #

      Speaking of nuts, are you aware there is a cult of demons in disguise existing today who would have us all believe, by any and every means available, that there is one group of human beings who are superior, actually chosen by God (even though they can’t even spell God if you spot them the G and the d), to rule (with and iron fist nonetheless), over the entire spectrum of living beings on this planet.

      Honorable Rabbi sir;
      are you out of your f___ing mind!

    34. bozh said on September 14th, 2010 at 9:11am #

      There apears su much value to the onepercnters arising from the terrorrist act on 911 by a few individuals to totally ignore even an assumption tha 911 was a false flag. And we have listed the benefits accruing to the ruling class from warfare, exploitation, torture, etc., many times.

      The fact is that this assumption wld remain forever a historacal fact; thus, anger, insults, and deterence of free speech by some people.

      They wld like to erase the assumption from historical record and prevent us to talking to and elicting some answers from oneperecenters.
      This assumption forever mars GREATENESS OF AMERICA AND ITS follow up GOD BLESS AMERICA!

      And, of course, if people believe that god indeed blesses [?only] america, all those who do not evaluate it as true shld be called names, condemned!
      If true, it is logical. But it’s is not true.
      It is more of a devil blessing america than god.
      But name calling, blaming, condemning truth seekers is n ancient artifice. Such people believe in magic of words and is a sorcery similar to the voodoo craft! tnx

    35. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:37am #

      Miraglo! Applause, Bozh makes sense! Well, about half the time today anyway:)

      Ellen Lau presents herself as an expert on the 911 Truth movement, but thinks Alex Jones is one of its only two “major figures”? Hmm: does she maybe have Alex confused with Dr Stephen? Is she perhaps a little out of touch or behind the curve on what’s happening in 911T circles? Let me see what I’ve got that’s reasonably fresh, I’ll be back…

    36. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 12:16pm #

      http://www.sf911truth.org/neocons.pdf

      It seems that some 911Truth investigators are starting to reach conclusions close to those reached by Jeff Blankfort in 2003 in his Left Curve article “A War For Israel”. The erudite author of the long article linked to above eventually gets around to tracing “the neocons” sympathy for Isreal, even cites Walt & Mearsheimer in passing, but ignores James Petras and the Christisons early seminal work.

      IMO the SF911Truth site is the one I prefer to rely on to keep me abreast of developments, over the Michael Berger page and similar offerings by relative “newbies” to the 911 arena.

      Errata: Steven E Jones, not “Stephen” as I had it.

      Disclaimer: I’m not active in 911 doings, haven’t been for some years, don’t consider myself part of that “movement”. However if the concerns raised in the article linked to become the focus of a major trend within said movement, it could be that an important political convergence would result. ??

    37. Deadbeat said on September 14th, 2010 at 1:26pm #

      t42 is definitely raising a key issue as to why I think you are seeing this hostility towards the 911 truth movement. Ironically the 911 truth movement had also taken a critical look at the Left and the foundation network.

      I agree t42’s suggestion of a possible convergence of 911 truth & the Blankfort/Petras wing which is why IMO you are seeing the race card being played against the 911 truth advocates.

    38. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 3:25pm #

      btw Bozh, ain’t no such animal as “voodoo”. using the word brands you as a tourist. Vodun, if you please.

    39. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 3:30pm #

      Ellen Lau writes: ” The site was analyzed for explosive residue. None was found.”

      Uh, I believe the above is couched in what they call the “passive voice”?

      Is it permissable to ask just WHO performed the analysis? “None was found”? WHO found “none”?

    40. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 3:54pm #

      http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/06/jfk-noam-chomsky-and-straw-man-debate.html

    41. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 4:11pm #

      Question for Ms Lau et al: You said a search was made that found no traces of explosives? Did that search include looking for Thermite or Thermate? Which a lot of sites are claiming WAS found?

      BTW: This site seems to me even better than the “arabesque” page: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-14/russia-today-911-reasons-why-911-was-probably-inside-job

    42. teafoe2 said on September 14th, 2010 at 6:20pm #

      Like I said earlier, I don’t consider myself one of the “truthies”. While I’m in full agreement that the Official Version has more holes in it than Ma Kettle’s screen door, it seems to me that the 911 debate, with the focus on what one bunch of scientists called another scientist’s mother etc etc most often serves as a distraction enabling truthies to avoid coming to grips with more fundamental political questions.

      I know a number of people who have developed considerable knowledge about the melting point of various steel alloys and such to me esoteric questions, but who, when Cynthia McKinney spoke in the local area stayed away from the event en masse.

      They’ll tell you all about the Carlyle Group, Trilateral Commish, Skull & Bones, Prescott Bush’s fascist connections etc — but at election time wind up voting for the Lesser Evil.

      One big problem with the SF911T bunch is they’re saddled with this Carol Brouillet, a nice lady from a very nice suburb near Palo Alto, who is a great organizer full of energy, who isn’t afraid to open her checkbook or those of her friends for The Cause — but who is totally convinced of a crackpot theory about how it is US Currency, Greenbacks, that are responsible for all the evils we now witness. Real “Henry George” level stuff.

      Another problem is that many of their key organizers haven’t gotten over their whitebread suburban racist assumptions. Well, check that, such was the case a few years back. It’s conceivable that such persons have smartened up some by now, but I tend to doubt it. ??

      The problem with them is that they have no sense of Politics. They’re so intent on proving once and for all that it WAS controlled demolition that they ignore what it might or might not mean politically. They ignore the political objective, the overall Grand Strategy goal, and focus on one tactical objective, something like Lee getting so focussed on Taking That High Ground, Mr Pickett, that he forgot about trying to win the War.

    43. catguy00 said on September 14th, 2010 at 7:36pm #

      Deadbeat,

      Please explain why Chomsky was banned from Israel?
      Also, what is your definition of Zionist? Is simply supporting Israel’s right to exist enough?

      The definition of what consitutes a Zionist varies from ideology to ideology.

    44. cburn said on September 14th, 2010 at 7:53pm #

      teafoe2 wrote:

      “The problem with them is that they have no sense of Politics. They’re so intent on proving once and for all that it WAS controlled demolition that they ignore what it might or might not mean politically. They ignore the political objective, the overall Grand Strategy goal, and focus on one tactical objective, something like Lee getting so focussed on Taking That High Ground, Mr Pickett, that he forgot about trying to win the War.”

      I largely agree with that assessment, but as I said above in essence, 9/11 is a teachable moment. Left/radical organizer’s can actually help to politicize those that have realized the nature of state violence. Of course there are going to be massive differences politically within 9/11 Truth movements, but hey, that is the U.S. of A.

      Talk to any union organizer about the difficulties of getting people to join a union. They often have to appeal to their own selfish needs, and hope that they will become politicized over time and really understand the meaning of solidarity. I see 9/11 Truth as similar. As an anti-authoritarian organizer, I treat 9/11 in a similar vein.

      By the way, there is nothing esoteric about scientific evidence and data. It is a crucial piece of the puzzle, which in fact does prove, irrefutably, that high explosives were used to bring down the WTC.

    45. hayate said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:14pm #

      This is a well thought out article. My one question about concerns Galloway here:

      “Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his last public talk in Ottawa).”

      How long ago was this? The zionists who run Canada’s guv wont allow Galloway in Canada. At least recently, last I heard. Earlier this year I listened to one of Galloway’s programmes on Talksport (? I think that’s what it’s called) where he discussed the WTC 7 collapse and the nano thermite found in the dust from the site. He said he had been dismissive of the demolitions theories before, but the nano thermite revelation had him thinking maybe it’s time to look seriously into the WTC collapses. He was not ridiculing “Truthers” on that show, but instead quite open minded. I don’t know what Galloway has said since on the subject, but if that show was any indication, he’s not against a real investigation into 9/11 now.

    46. hayate said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:21pm #

      catguy00 said on September 14th, 2010 at 7:36pm #

      “Please explain why Chomsky was banned from Israel?
      Also, what is your definition of Zionist? Is simply supporting Israel’s right to exist enough?”

      Apparently the story wasn’t covered by fox tv…..

      :D

    47. Ellen Lau said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:35pm #

      Mike Williams has a whole website debunking all this phantom explosive nonsense. Of course thermite was tested for, but I’m sure you already know that….it’s like arguing with the holocaust deniers. You’ll simply ask about some other explosive, knowing there are thousands…impossible to prove a negative, of course.

      I’ve already received two e mails from people banned from this blog for disagreeing with this troll nest. An old zionist trick, ban everyone who dissents and then it looks like ‘everyone’ agrees.

      I’m already gone…but thanks teafoe for the description of the leadership of the Truthers…crackpot wealthy suburban women impervious to reason, either Democrats or Libertarians…the SAME profile we see among the UFO believers!

      What a fantastic coincidence!

    48. 3bancan said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:46pm #

      Ellen Lau said on September 14th, 2010 at 10:35pm #

      “….it’s like arguing with the holocaust deniers”

      This tells it all about Ellen Lau…

    49. hayate said on September 14th, 2010 at 11:12pm #

      RE: “ellen lau”

      The more these zionists try to stop people from looking critically at the 9/11 attacks, the more they inspire and goad people into thinking critically. It’s a natural reaction since all this effort put into shutting down discussions of the incidents only reinforces people’s views that there is something the zionasties want to keep hidden. These hasbarats are creating more hostility to themselves more than anything else.

      :D

    50. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:26am #

      catguy00 writes …

      Deadbeat, Please explain why Chomsky was banned from Israel?

      Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?

      Also, what is your definition of Zionist?

      Zionism is a racist ideology advancing Jewish Supremacy.

      Is simply supporting Israel’s right to exist enough?

      Is supporting the destruction of the secular state of Palestine for a racist Jewish state acceptable? For Zionists that is most definitely the case.

    51. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:31am #

      Calling Chomsky a Zionist is absurd…

      No basis in reality.

    52. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:32am #

      Ms. Lau writes …

      but I’m sure you already know that….it’s like arguing with the holocaust deniers.

      I agree with 3bancan. This says it all which only reinforces the desire to smear the 911 truth seekers. If I agreed with the government assessment then I would support giving skeptics of the government’s story full access to the evidence. They’ll either be shown right or wrong.

      However I agree with the larger political point about how 9-11 was used to set the stage for the ZionCons to implement their PNAC agenda.

    53. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:34am #

      Ellen Lau writes:

      “Of course thermite was tested for…”

      Really? Please document. There is zero documentation anywhere for that statement. NIST/FEMA absolutely did not test for thermite.

      The only people to test and figure out that thermite/thermate/nano-thermite were used is from the 9/11 Truth movement, in particular Dr Jones and Dr. Harrit. I’ve already cited the peer reviewed paper above.

    54. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:34am #

      cburn writes …

      Calling Chomsky a Zionist is absurd…No basis in reality.

      That is false as Chomsky himself identifies himself as a Zionist.

      Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

    55. bozh said on September 15th, 2010 at 7:13am #

      Chomsky is disapproved by ‘zionists’ because he’s for a two state solution and for previous condemnation of israeli crimes.
      95% of israelis are for one enlarged state solution. Actually, he had been prevented from visiting WB and not Israel.
      If israel does not want him in israel, chomsky wld certainly have known that, thus, wld not travel to israel.
      And it seeems he did not want to visit gaza. He also calls self “anarchist” and often severely criticizes soialism builders in SU.

      He also admitted that he did not condemn soon enough serb massacre of about 6-8k Srebrenica [silver city] muslim men in ’95.
      He also had never condemned recent serb aggressions. It seems, he, along ?all ‘jews’ were rooting for serb fascists and their four aggressions: against slovenia, croatia, bosnia, and kosovo.

      Recall please, when serbia after tito’s death abrogated kosovo autonomy, the fascist act represented causus belli.
      By the way, at least some yugoslav communists opposed the break up of tito’s yugoslavia.
      Even a few croats fought the cessionists in belief that yugoslav army was trying to save yugoslavia.
      Once they found, that serbs were only interested stealing other peoples’ lands, they left yugoslav army.

      I had been aware that chomsky had been almost completely silent about four serb aggressions ’91-95; nevertheless, made it clear on whose side he was on and revealed eventualy on whose side he’s now.
      On side of darkness! tnx

    56. hayate said on September 15th, 2010 at 8:46am #

      Hmmmm….so bozh is an expert on the Yugoslavian break-up, as well. There seems to be no limits to this person’s knowledge. I wonder if he’s discovered the TOE and is keeping the knowledge from us mere mortals, realising we might hurt ourselves with such advanced knowledge ? ;D

    57. bozh said on September 15th, 2010 at 9:45am #

      hayate,
      no, i am not as knowledgable about break up of yugoslavia as many people in tito’s yugoslavia.
      But i have read croatian papers during its break up. And recall a report of a croation airforce general bombing croatain positions in ’91. He like nearly all officers of toto’s army swore allegience to tito’s yugosvia.
      Just prior to his death he was quoted as saying: preserve my yugoslavia!

      My home twn was heavily a partizanski grad or gradich. Yet, when yugoslav army attacked croatia, few of these people were for break up of yugoslavia. I know that for a fact talking to many partizans; includes my cousin and a partizan with my surname living just across our house.
      In fact, my mom called him “chetnik”, serb fascist-royalist, becuase he blamed tudjman for attack on croatia.

      In addition, croatians who were fighting yugoslav army, got their arms from army bases by placing mines arround these bases; forcing soldiers to surrender.
      This did not happen in my home twn.
      Because of that, there had been much bitterness between communists and populace;resulting in rise of fascism thruout croatia.

      But why such dishonesty, accusations, etc.?
      In any case, it seems that most people on this site appear uncivilized and talking to them appears useless.
      And i need to walk more instead of wasting my time!

    58. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 10:01am #

      Deadbeat, that article attacking Chomsky’s position on the Israel is inaccurate and poorly written. The author claims that Chomsky is a Zionist but offers no proof. Making an unfounded statement is not only NOT evidence, it is the weakest form of scholarship.

      I have read most of his books on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and have heard him speak numerous times. To say the guy is (essentially) soft on Israel is ridiculous.

    59. 3bancan said on September 15th, 2010 at 10:18am #

      cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 10:01am #

      “Making an unfounded statement is not only NOT evidence, it is the weakest form of scholarship.”

      It looks like cburn is an expert in practicing “the weakest form of scholarship”…

    60. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 10:26am #

      Ellen Lau, one swallow does not a summer make. Ms Brouillet is only one member of the San Francisco-based 911 Truth organization, which is but one of the many local and regional organizations now functioning.

      There are also leaders like Prof. Rea whose article is still linked to http://www.sf911truth.org/neocons.pdf

      I would be happy to post an excerpt or two for anyone interested but not energetic enough to open the link for themselves.

      I would likewise be happy to read anything from the “Mike Williams” site if Ms Lau would care to provide an excerpt, or perhaps a link? So Mr Wms assessment could be compared with that of Steven Jones?

      But here we go again: my PhD vs your PhD.

    61. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 11:02am #

      3bancan, I am not the one making the claim that Chomsky is a Zionist. The burden of proof lies squarely at the feet of the mud slinger…

    62. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 11:16am #

      cburn, I have been gratified by your posts about previous topics, so I am dismayed to see you taking the “no criticism of Chomsky allowed” stand expressed above.

      Perhaps you aren’t aware that a lengthy debate recently took place here on DV and simultaneously on the Pulse Media page, kicked off by a more recent article by Blankfort addressing his differences with Prof Chomsky. DV reposted the Blankfort piece that had earlier appeared on Pulse, and followed with an even longer piece by a certain Jeremy Hammond attacking Blankfort’s arguments in considerable detail.

      On Pulse, a Blankfort critic ID’ing himself as “Tarnopol” posted a series of lengthy “comments” echoing many of the points offered on DV by Hammond.

      Others including myself weighed in on the respective sides. It was a freeforall for several days on both sites. Eventually Hammond and Tarnopol stopped replying to Blankfort’s rebuttals.

      So you see, the kind of arguments you have been offering have only recently been examined and re-examined right here on DV. In my opinion they have been thoroughly demolished, so to me it seems you are beating a dead horse. Attempting to re-open a case that I believe most DV “regulars” would agree should remain closed, unless/until some new facts or logic are offered.

      I don’t see any point in discussing the literary merits of Blankfort’s writing style, but if you would care to quote any of his statements you find “inaccurate”, and explain why you find them at variance with objective reality, I would be glad to consider your arguments.

    63. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 11:26am #

      Ms Lau, you haven’t responded to my earlier question. You haven’t told us who it was that examined the WTC site and found no traces of explosives. ??

    64. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 11:39am #

      cburn, yes, anyone who defends “isreal”s fictional “right to exist” is a Zionist. Anybody who fails to call for the total dissolution of all racist Zio-Apartheid laws, institutions and practices is a Zionist.

      Chomsky hems/haws, criticizes certain Zionist crimes, policies, practices, but does not clearly call for the dismantling of the Jewish State itself.

      And most telling of all, he refuses to endorse the global BDS campaign, calling it “hypocritical”.

      Please, with all due respect, do review criticisms of Chomsky and Chomsky-echoes like Steven Zunes, Mitchell Plitnick et al offered by people like Jas Petras, Hatem Bazian, Joe Anderson, Kathy & Bill Christison, Blankfort and others, before you paint yourself into a corner defending one side in a debate which has been going on since 2003 at least.

      Permit me to recommend the chapter in Petras’ “The Power of Israel in the US” entitled “Noam Chomsky’s 14 Erroneous Theses”.
      Regards, and Good Reading!

    65. 3bancan said on September 15th, 2010 at 12:02pm #

      cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 11:02am #

      Imho someone who – still now – categorically asserts “Calling Chomsky a Zionist is absurd… No basis in reality.” will be impervious to any argument/proof to the contrary…

    66. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 1:34pm #

      3bancan and teafoe2,

      We would need to agree on a definition of Zionism in order to define Chomsky as a Zionist. Blankfort doesn’t do that clearly, and he just says that Chomsky is a Zionist, and honestly, that isn’t good enough.

      And to be clear, I don’t defend everything Chomsky says. But I want to be fair to the guy. I have a lot of respect for his work in exposing US and Israeli crimes. If it is true that he does not endorse the BDS campaign, that is unfortunate. But I would like to see a source on that, directly from Chomsky, no someone else making that claim.

      Zionism is a form of racism backed up by state violence. I think accusing Chomsky of this requires the highest standards of research, not usually found in the blogosphere.

      And no, I haven’t read the previous thread here about this…

    67. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2010 at 2:08pm #

      I don’t have enough time right now but I’ll provide additional links when I have time but if cburn goes back and carefully read the Blankfort article (and that’s just one of many) cburn will see that Blankfort provide analyze via direct quotations of Chomsky’s comments and writings and is well footnoted.

      Also cburn’s definition of Ziionism is not quite accurate. State “violence” is a result of the accumulation of power. Zionism is a racist belief system of superiority and inequality. That is the driving force behind Zionists quest for power.

    68. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 2:16pm #

      Well, I suggest you do read at least Blankfort’s more recent article, which you can find on Pulse as well as the DV archives. And do check out Petras, the Chomsky’s Fourteen Erroneous Theses chapter I mentioned, also his webpage with all his articles to read for free, the books do cost money.

      As far as defining Zionism, for present purposes I think it will suffice to say that it is the system of ideas, institutions and practices which established and now maintain the entity known as the “State of Isreal”, and which attempt to justify the train of criminal acts by which it was established on land stolen from the indigenous inhabitants, and which support its continued existence as a racist settler-colonialist militarized Apartheid state.

      It is clear from many statements made by Chomsky that he thinks of “isreal” as a country basically similar to other countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isreal is an anachronistic abomination comparable in recent history only to the Confederate States of the US Slavocracy und der Tausend Jahr Dritte Reich.

      Ideological warfare is a tricky business, and Chomsky is tricky as they come.

    69. shabnam said on September 15th, 2010 at 2:38pm #

      Chomsky is a Zionist because he is on the record to say: “I don’t criticize Israel; I am a friend of Israel.”
      What does it mean to be a Zionist?

      Well, Judge Goldstone who documented the genocide in Gaza and possibly, WAR AGAINST HUMANITY by THE APARTHEID STATE, ISRAEL is a Jew and a Zionist, however, he criticize Israel. Therefore, to criticize Israel as a client state is not A REASON not to have affinity towards Zionist state of Israel, like Chomsky does. Bill Moyer interviewed Richard Goldstone and asked him the same question:

      BILL MOYERS: You’re Jewish, and a Zionist as well. When you say, “I’m a Zionist,” in your case, what does that mean?

      RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, what it means, that I fully support Israel’s right to exist. That’s for the Jewish people to have their own national homeland, in Israel.

      BILL MOYERS: So why, as a Jew and a Zionist, concerned for Israel’s survival, did you agree to stand in judgment on Israel’s action in Gaza?

      RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well now, it was a question of conscience really. I’ve been involved in investigating very serious violations in my own country, South Africa, and I was castigated by many in the white community for doing that. I investigated serious war crimes in the Balkans and the Serbs hated me, hated me for that. And I was under serious death threat, both in South Africa and in respect of the Balkans. And then I went onto Rwanda, and many people hated me for doing that. I’ve been a co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, and for the last five years, I’ve been sending letters of protest weekly to countries like China and Syria and you name it, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, complaining about violations of human rights. So I’ve been involved in this business for the last fifteen years or so, and it seemed to me that being Jewish was no reason to treat Israel exceptionally, and to say because I’m Jewish, it’s all right for me to investigate everybody else, but not Israel.

      Chomsky has connections to Israel and has travelled and stayed in Israel many times in the past. A few years ago he said: “I prefer to live in Israel.” He is against one state solution because believes one state solution write off Jews as the majority in the state and turns them into ‘minority’ which is ridiculous. The Jews are ‘minority’ in every single country they have resided but in fact they felt as ‘the majority’, like in the USA, Canada, Australia, and other major western countries and even in South Africa.

      He always holds the United States responsible for the crimes of Zionism because he presents the crime of Zionism as ‘American policy’ in the region. He paints a picture that the United States does not want ‘peace.’ I don’t know if Chomsky DARES to say the same when Obama, and even Bill Clinton, tried to end Palestinian’s suffering, but ISRAEL KNOCHED THEM DOWN. The reason behind Israel’s behavior is that: Israel feels only THROUGH WAR she can establish ‘the greater Israel”. This is the Zionist plan, not American plan where Chomsky is hiding from you. Thus you never see Chomsky to talk about ‘A STRATEGY FOR ISRAEL IN THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES” by Oded Yinon and “A clean Break”, instead he continues his with his rubbish “The Grand Chessboard” by Brzezinski and ‘No blood for Oil”.

      The late Israel Shahak, on the other hand, translated “A strategy for Israel’ from Hebrew to English because he, correctly, called it “the Zionist plan for the Middle East” where was changed into “NEW Middle East” by the fifth column, Zionist neocon to sell it to an illiterate president by the name of George Bush.
      Please watch the following video to see how Chomsky hide the role played by the ORGANIZED ZIONIST JEWS in invasion of Iraq and also he completely ignores the role of the ORGANIZED ZIONIST JEWS in pushing for a war against Iran. The only person who does not know about Jewish Lobby ‘s push for a military strike for the interest of Israel is Hafiz, the 14th century poet who is in his grave, otherwise everyone else knows and talk about it except Chomsky to protect Israel.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIVNzcMucU&feature=player_embedded#!

    70. Hue Longer said on September 15th, 2010 at 2:54pm #

      If Chomsky’s ” ideology” won out, there wouldn’t be an Apartheid State of Israel or an Empire of America. You can’t educate people on hegemony and injustice and expect it to not rub off on their views of Israel… It’s an insane idea and the stupidity of insidiously trying to subvert minds for Israel by encouraging critical thinking and dropping exceptionalism would have occurred to someone like Chomsky…but not to T42, DB and others (maybe some of whom got their minds started by reading Chomsky).

      So when Ellen uses the fallacy of appealing to authority, maybe someone who gave a fuck about 9-11 truth would point that out instead of allowing the discussion to go downhill by taking the bait and turning the debate into Chomsky

    71. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 3:21pm #

      hooey longer is back:(

      Speakers of Calo use an expression which translates as “If is not a word”.

      Even “if” Chomsky’s view was that Izreel should cease to exist, which is a very “iffy” proposition, one I’ve never observed him to advocate, but even “if” that was his preference, his actions contradict such a goal. “If” he really wanted to do away with Izreely Apartheid and militarist aggression he would unreservedly support the global BDS campaign.

      The BDS campaign is the only thing in motion that really threatens the US-based ZioImperialist war&occupation machine. Yes Chomsky is fond of babbling cliches about Capitalism, US Imperialism etc, blah blah, but he does so only to divert attention from the ZPC Fifth Column in the US, which is what well-meaning people need to be closely examining instead of getting caught up in endless disputes over What Really Happened.

      BTW I knew all about US Imperialism and racist Zionism before I ever heard of Chomsky.

      In my view, taking the debate from 911 “Truth” to whether Chompsko is a Zionist or not amounts to taking in UPHILL, not down.

      And please, let’s drop the appeals to ESP. I don’t give a fuck what you claim Chompsko “insidiously” thought he was doing. I take him at his word.

    72. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 3:32pm #

      shabnam wrote: “Chomsky is a Zionist because he is on the record to say: “I don’t criticize Israel; I am a friend of Israel.” ”

      Source please?

      This is getting absurd. You can’t put quotes around something and expect me to believe it. Chomsky always criticizes Israel. I have seen zero evidence to support the claim that Chomsky is a Zionist, and unless you have audio, or a published book of his, saying he is a Zionist, the he simply isn’t. I’ll take him at his word that he is not a Zionist.

      The more you two open your mouths, the more you are putting your foot in it.

    73. Hue Longer said on September 15th, 2010 at 3:51pm #

      You don’t understand what I’m telling you, T42

      Let’s start simple…If I spent years teaching you that 2 + 2 equaled four, I’m fairly certain that you’d one day understand that 3+3 equaled six. To keep you from learning that mystical secret, I wouldn’t pretend to hide behind the fact I taught you something if it led you there. The stuff Chomsky “babbles” about in books isn’t exactly common knowledge in the USA, ya know?

    74. shabnam said on September 15th, 2010 at 3:52pm #

      Source please?

      Everyone knows about this source. Chomsky was interviewed by an Israeli Journalist in Jordan at the time when he was denied entry into Israel.
      http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60367.shtml

      Goldstone not only criticizes Israel but has brought serious charge of genocide and possible war crimes against humanity against Israel.
      Chomsky never questioned the establishment of Israel on land of Palestinians as even Gideon Levy has pointed out to this very crucial point criticizing Israeli ‘left’.

      Chomsky, like Goldstone, supports Israel’s right to exist, and he proudly says I am a Zionist. Why is it so difficult to accept Chomsky, who presents Israel as a ‘client state’ to protect her interest, is a Zionist?

    75. 3bancan said on September 15th, 2010 at 4:17pm #

      cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 3:32pm #

      Do we have here a real ignoranus or a fictitious one?..

    76. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 4:53pm #

      cburn, let me suggest in as friendly a way as I can that you are trying to defend positions you will sooner or later have to abandon. I’m sorry but you are way behind the curve on this debate.

      So if I were you I’d take the Just Cool It Man adjustment. If you find something posted questionable, by all means question it, but don’t put yourself out on a limb by jumping to the conclusion that Blankfort, Petras, Bazian, Joe Anderson, Deadbeat, Shabnam, or even Yrs Truly are complete idiots who are unaware of what Chomsky has written and said.

      I WILL confess that my own familiarity with Chomsky’s writings is probably more sketchy than the others mentioned, but on the key questions about his stance vis a vis Zionism in general, the “Jewish State” and the ZPC/Fifth Column in particular, I have read and reread everything his defenders have offered. To me it’s all been extremely unconvincing.

      BTW on the Pulse site there is a post by the editor, Idrees, quoting Chomsky’s most recent statements on the subject, including excerpts from the interview cited above by Shabnam. If you can find other, perhaps more recent relevant statements by Chomsky, please do post them here for our consideration? Thanks;)

    77. 3bancan said on September 15th, 2010 at 5:02pm #

      Hue Longer said on September 15th, 2010 at 2:54pm #

      Converted to plain speak, Hue Longer just wants to remind us that our understanding of “hegemony and justice” is his guru’s educational work and that we’ve got our critical views of Israel ONLY through his guru’s “stupidity of insidiously trying to subvert minds for Israel by encouraging critical thinking and dropping exceptionalism”. Of course even our critism of Chomsky and his “ideology” is only a product of Chomsky’s teaching.

      That may be true of Hue Longer & Co, but I don’t belong to that group…

    78. hayate said on September 15th, 2010 at 5:23pm #

      Jeez

      Between the bozhes, the cburns, the longers, the trolls have been busy with silly wind-ups. :D.

    79. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 5:42pm #

      Hooey Longer, I PERFECTLY what you are saying, plus what you are insinuating in your “insidious” way:) Sorry but you seem to be a slow learner. So I’ll try to break it down for you, “draw ya pitcher”? One simple enough even you will understand?

      Chomsky is a component of the ZioImperialist Ideological State Apparatus. If you have time to read “Reading Capital” by L Althusser you will discover more meaning in my chosen terms than may be apparent on the surface. But that’s up to you, there’s a limit to how much of your homework I’m willing to do for you.

      Anyway, Chomsky and his activity, his writing & speaking, are part & parcel of what Burroughs called The Combine. I know it may seem on first glance that his role is just the opposite; that’s what makes him so effective.

      The Chompsky Gambit: Think back to when you first encountered Chomsky and his views. Why did you ever decide to read his books or articles, or to continue watching/listening to him talk?

      Was it perhaps because you had noticed certain actions by the US government, the State of Izreel or both, which you had difficulty reconciling with the notions of Justice, Truth, Human Decency you’d grown up with? Could it be that you found the explanations offered by POTUS, politicians, MSM talking head punditutes less than completely satisfactory? That even after listening to and reading all you came across via “normal channels”, you still had questions that you wanted to have answered?

      Of course I can’t read your mind; neither do I know your personal history or how you came to hold the views you now defend so “vigorously”. But whenever the US war machine finds a reason to go into action, invariably it sets off a lot of protest activities.

      So everytime the DOD starts bombing somebody, invading somebody, “intervening” in somebody else’s country etc, it predictably results in a wave of mainly young people starting to ask questions the MSM does not provide satisfying answers for. That’s where the Chompsky Gambit comes in.

      Whenever another wave of questioners arises, the State Apparatus goes into action. One of the first things it does is to spread a large number of ideological “nets”, all of which purport to be “anti-Establishment” explanations of recent historical phenomena, usually accompanied by prescriptions for Action.

      Some of these nets present themselves as based on the beliefs of the American Founding Fathers, on the US Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, the New Deal, the Kennedy “Camelot”, in short on Enlightenment Liberalism.

      But the brighter of the answer-seekers will not be satisfied by this kind of pablum, so the pablum nets are backed up by a second Line of Defense comprised of BS artists who claim to be Socialists, or in some cases Anarchists. Both varieties can call on vast intellectual resources, the works of Marx/Bakunin/Lenin etc etc, backed up by Hegel, Sartre, Alexandra Kollontai, De Beauvoir, Mao Zedong, Marcuse, Brecht, Lukacs etc etc.

      These idea systems are pretty heady stuff if you’ve never encountered them before. Most often I think, answer-seekers tend to be so blown away by the first sophisticated ideological scam they encounter that they never get any farther.

      Just take a minute to note some of the major ideological scams being run today: how about the CPUSA? or its sibling the CCDS? Both run “schools” which will teach the uninitiated all about Marxism, Surplus Value, the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall; all about Lenin and the Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism; back it up with erudite excursions into Materialist Epistemology… and then finish off with convoluted but psychologically sophisticated reasons why all Revolutionaries should get off their asses and Get Out The Vote for Obama.

      Let me skip over all the other similar products on the market, Name Branded as Trotskism, Maoism, Anarchism, Social Democratism and others too numerous. Let’s jump to the chase, and examine without further adoo the Chomksy Gambit.

      In 1982, the IDF invaded Lebanon, resulting in numerous civilian deaths, a lot of destruction, and climaxing with the Sabra-Shatilla massacres. These dramatic events led to the emergence of a wave of questioning of the pro-Isreal version of events offered by the State Dept, POTUS and the MSM, mostly by younger Jewish individuals.

      Many of these Jews got together with Palestinian immigrants to the US and created an organization they called the November 29th Coalition.

      to be cont…

    80. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 6:11pm #

      to resume: in the early eighties it was discovered by the ZPC High Command that the Exodus fictional version of history was starting to wear thin for an increasing number of younger well-educated US Jews. Obviously something less easily debunked was needed.

      It may be a complete coincidence that around that same time Nobel Laureate Chomsky conceived of the idea of writing a Major Work dealing with Izreal, Zionism, US capitalist Imperialism, and the relations between them. It may be a complete and total coincidence, but I tend to doubt it. Of course as many have noted I tend to have a suspicious cast of mind:)

      Anyway, just as in the case of 911, it may have been a complete coincidence or there may have been a conscious intent shared by two or more persons, but the upshot is the same either way. Dr Chomsky went ahead and composed his Magnum Opus “The Fateful Triangle”, and most of a generation of Jewish and other inquiring young minds were instantly ensnared in its cleverly designed folds.

      This wave of answer-seekers found in Chomsky’s book answers to all the questions that had been plaguing them, “everything you ever wanted to know about Zionism, Imperialism, and MORE!” (thank you Ed, and thank YOU too doc…)

      Chomsky was careful to make his cataloging of Zionist crimes more exhaustive than any that had appeared in English previously. He also included an exhaustive rundown of the US Empire’s criminal history. He made no bones about his belief that the US system of governance needed to be radically changed.

      However he DID make a lot of “bones” about what to do about Izrael. He made bones then and he makes them now.

      But back to the main argument: after compiling this monumental compendium of Isreely criminality, which functioned, if I may lapse into baseball terminology, as a Long Slow Curve, he followed with The Fast Break: nothing could be done about any of this Zionist criminality, since it was all done at the behest of the United States or of US Imperialism; that the Izreelys were only carrying out the orders of their US WASP masters, and therefore were not the parties responsible for any of said crimes. And furthermore, since nothing could be done about Izrealy actions until the US power center had been dismantled, something that obviously wasn’t in the cards in the near term, the whole subject was thereby rendered Academic. It was all a terrible shame, just awful really, but Nothing Could Be Done. So the only intelligent thing was to stay Well Informed, wring your hands frequently, and wait for a Deus Ex Machina to drop.

      What a fiendishly clever gambit. So clever a lot of well-meaning people are still buying it.

      Well, probably I haven’t fulfilled my promise, haven’t broken it down into small enough pieces for Hue to be able to digest it. I’m afraid I’ll have to try again at a later time.

    81. klaatu said on September 15th, 2010 at 6:18pm #

      The scientific evidence accumulated by Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, the careful analyses of David Ray Griffin, clearly provoke a GREAT deal of hostility. Prof. Rancourt is clearly correct, the only truth that is dangerous to the ruling powers is that truth that challenges its validity. And the reality of the conspiracy of 911 totally destroys the legitimacy of the elites in power–and so must be discredited, come what may. Mike Ruppert has stopped fighting the battle, since the destruction of the democracy now far outstrips the destruction of the Towers. IF–the public ever wakes up to its own deception, literal heads will roll.

    82. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 6:54pm #

      Well, Klaatu, “IF”:) I haven’t read Gage, but came across Steven “with a v” Jones several years ago and found him the most impressive of the scientific voices at that time. Griffin I find alternately impressive and disappointing.

      But I don’t think any of the 911 “experts” inspire as much hostility as James Petras. BTW, I remember being bemused when Ruppert who had been one of the first to raise questions about the MSM versions of events, announced that he was “retiring” from the 911 verbal wars. I don’t remember what his reasoning was; I wonder if it was at all close to my own?

      With all due respect and credit for the best intentions the proverbial road was ever paved with… I’m kidding, just came to my mind, couldn’t resist:))) but w/all due etc, I don’t think there’s anything to indicate that the kind of efforts engaged in by the 911T orgs will ever result in the “public” waking up to “its own deception”.

      I have a hard time picturing the kind of people I’ve come across in 911 circles putting the guillotine to work, or imposing a Dictatorship of the Truth:)

      The 911T movement, IMHO, suffers from the absence of some Missing Link. Something more is needed to make it a realistic component of the Collective Effort to Change Conditions that is aimed at dismantling the present structure of Power. ??

    83. cburn said on September 15th, 2010 at 7:15pm #

      teafoe2, your thinking/writing is all over the place. i can’t make heads or tales of it. what are your politics? how do you define yourself politically? I’m curious.

    84. teafoe2 said on September 15th, 2010 at 7:16pm #

      Back to The Education of Huey:)

      I think I need to fill in a little more about the timing of Chomsky’s “Triangle”. It may be that he was writing about Israel before it appeared, but if so was not writing for a very “Left” readership. Ditto re the possibility of him expressing hostility to capitalism/US Imperialism: I don’t know where any Chomsky writing like that could have appeared but it wasn’t in anything likely to be read by the majority of anti-Vietnam/pro-Civil Rights activists in the late sixties or early seventies. In those days I used to haunt Ferlinghetti’s City Lights Bookstore where the now-renowned journalist Robert Scheer was the clerk who made sure anything likely to be of interest to the store’s large Left clientele was on the shelf by the window.

      Where I found stuff like the PLP paper Challenge and their mag Iskra, also a lot of IWW literature, The Militant, People’s World, IF Stone’s Weekly, and probably the best of the weekly press, the National Guardian.

      Irwin Silber who was first the featured writer and later the chief Editor of The Guardian was an early admirer of George Habash and the PFLP, so beginning while most attention was on Vietnam Laos Cambodia, the Guardian was presenting speeches and statements by Habash plus analysis/exposition by Silber. It was in the Guardian that I first heard of Hilton Obenzinger and his award-winning “Neither This Year or The Next, I Will Never Be In Jerusalem”. American Book Award, I think that’s the right nomenclature?

      So I had some kind of idea what the real deal was in the ME, understood that Zionism was Racism as proclaimed in the since-revoked UN Resolution. Was up with things enough in 1975 to help publicize an on-campus talk by a PLO representative. But my own focus was on other things, not all of them political.

      It was the 1982 invasion of Lebanon that woke me from my slumbers. By the end of that year I had read a number of works detailing the history of the Zionist invasion/Nakba and Palestinian Resistance.

      To be continued…

    85. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2010 at 9:25pm #

      T42,

      This is an amazing and fanstastic historical journey that for me puts a lot of threads together. For me my awakening took another 2o years. Having lived in NYC and being befriended by Jews I had no idea. My introduction to Chomsky came in the last 80’s and early ’90. I was an avid reader of Z-Magazine where Chomsky was a prolific contributor. It wasn’t until I got involved in the anti-war movement against the Iraq War did the onion begin to peal and reek.

      I’m looking forward to your next installment because this is a facinating read.

    86. Rehmat said on September 16th, 2010 at 5:05am #

      The liars never like the public to know the truth – because once the public knows the truth – some of the liars could end-up on the Cross. That’s why the liars and the actually criminals – call every research that doesn’t follow their “official story” – a conspiracy theory, most of which have already become the truth. Sometimes, the criminals creates state laws to protect the “official story” – like in the case of the so-called ‘Holocaust’.

      Even though, the “number story” has climed down from ‘Eleven Million Died’ to ‘2.5 Million Died’ – it’s still a crime in several western countries to deny ‘Six Million Died’ myth.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/holocausts-too-many-to-remember/

    87. cmunit said on September 16th, 2010 at 12:07pm #

      This order that order.

      http://www.CommonSenseWorldOrder.org

    88. teafoe2 said on September 16th, 2010 at 5:00pm #

      Overdetermined
      hypothesis: that the Jewish Zionist takeover or “hijacking” of the US/Nato imperial state apparatus and the US/EU/BIS/NYFed financial state apparatus cum reverse-robinhood regime is difficult to explain and to demonstrate partly because it was not due to any single cause, mechanism, or longterm conscious plan.

      Jas Petras, with assistance from Jeff B and Grant Smith, has presented us with a clearly drawn picture of the situation as it exists at this point in time, at least on the level of political operations and institutions, and supports his thesis with documented evidence which none of his “Left” or “Soft” zionist critics have ventured to challenge. He does not go deeply into the “economic base” which undergirds and supports the ZPC’s operations within/manipulations of US political institutions like the Congress, WH, DOD, NED, National Security Council and others which fall into the “Superstructure” category.

      One reason few responsible critics of Zionism & the State called “isreal” have attempted to delineate the precise role and place of Jewish Zionist financial interests within the context and structure of the overall US capitalist financial accumulation process is that to try to assemble the relevant data is such a daunting task, one which a university Economics department might have enough resources to tackle but which is probably beyond the powers of even the most knowledgeable and skilled journalist or independent researcher.

      Nor does Petras attempt except in a very sketchy way to recount the historical process by which the Zionist power-seeking enterprise achieved its present lofty status.

      It appears to me, from reading the reactions of many otherwise more or less “progressive” activists and observers of the political arena, that the picture Petras presents is so at variance with everything they’ve ever heard or read before that it seems just too “far-fetched”; that while there may be some truth to Petras’, Smith’s, and Blankfort’s assertions, if the whole thing wasn’t largely a reflection of such writer’s preconceptions and prejudices, the picture they paint would have been presented and by now hashed and re-hashed in the “alternative” or “left” media until a consensus would have emerged that non- or semi- intellectual activists could rely on to determine their own political direction and agenda.

      Such a misconception is of course due to the degree to which not only the MSM but also all but a tiny online fraction of the “Left” media are totally controlled by the ZPC, are under the State of Izrael thumb.

      So the challenge becomes one of how to combat the power of the MSM/ZSM (“zionstream media”?) to implant, nurture and perpetuate in all these well-intentioned minds this pro-Zionist/pro-Isreal mythology, this substrate of fallacious notions which so fill the average antiwar activist’s mental “cup” that there is no room for less familiar facts, no matter how well documented.

      It seems to me, however, that if the trail of cause and effect in all its overdetermined complexity/diversity could be dissected and taxonomically categorized, and each specific branch and bypath examined and explained in sufficient detail. It might enable many who now remain reluctant to fully embrace “the Petras Theorem” to overcome their hesitations and join in the collective effort to clarify the real reasons behind why Bush et al invaded/occupied Iraq and “Af-Pak”, and what’s behind the push to bomb Tehran.

      The most stubborn element of this synapse-preempting substrate is of course the Chomsky Version. I don’t know what I can add to what Jeff Blankfort and J Petras have already explained. Maybe if I can find a few really choice passages, excerpt them & paste them where some of our faithful Chomskyites can’t avoid reading them? Yes, I’ll give that a try as soon as I get this posted.

    89. teafoe2 said on September 16th, 2010 at 5:45pm #

      A few more “historical notes”: Chomsky’s “Triangle” was published in 1983, but probably most of it was written by the end of 1999. A more comprehensive search than I’ve been able to do would probably turn up some articles dealing with the ME before that. It’s generally acknowledged that Chomsky’s writings on the Vietnam war first began to establish his reputation as a “dissident” intellectual force in the US Liberal to Left political spectrum, but somehow I either never saw any of his writing in that period, or, more likely, saw it but saw nothing remarkable about it.

      My own view of the US “mission” in “Indochina” was closest early on to that of the now-defunct Progressive Labor Party/PLP. The only PLP leaders then whose names might resonate with DV readers now are likely those of John Ross and Fred Jerome.

      But PLP, along with its competitor/ally the CPUSA, was all over the Vietnam issue before most had realized it was an Issue. PLP included a number of second-generation Bolshevik intellectuals, and had a detailed comprehensive global analysis of US Imperialism largely based on the Mao-led CCP analyis, with some influence of Uncle Ho, General Giap, Fidel, Amilcar Cabral, Malcolm X and Kwame Nkrumah. To the PLP, Trotsky was the devil incarnate, and those hardy souls who dared to show up at PLP sponsored events offering attendees copies of The Militant were viewed as scum of the lowest order.

      So PLP members & non-party adherents had at least HEARD of Trotsky & the 4th International. There were members of the IWW, the Wobblies, around, viewed as harmless misguided souls. But I have no memory of anyone ever mentioning Chomsky; if anyone had it would have been in the context of a discussion of Language.

      The biggest player on the Bay Area pro-Civil Rts/anti-Veetnam War scene then, 1964/65, was the CP-sponsored DuBois Clubs; PLP was probably next biggest, except for the Berkeley campus where the SDS was the only game in town, which meant that PLP joined SDS en masse & proceeded to pretty much take it over, until the Weatherman bunch got into the game.

      Robert Scheer soon emerged as the most articulate and intellectually prepared non-PLP honcho of the campus movement. All discussion among the honchae then was couched in Mao-speak, primarily owing to the impact of PLP which was the first pro-China spinoff from the CP following the “Sino-Soviet Split” and Nikita K’s basement speech denouncing his erstwhile mentor Stalin.
      But in the late sixties other outfits and gurus-manque showed up to contest PLP’s control of the Beijing Franchise. Bob Avakian is the only one stiil around, far as I know.
      Bob Scheer was Editor of Ramparts, a Jewish Maoist editing a Catholic publication:) It’s reported that he published work by Chomsky; I used to read every issue of Ramparts but don’t remember any Chomsky stuff. ??

      Breaktime…

    90. teafoe2 said on September 16th, 2010 at 6:36pm #

      I was not a real Red Diaper Baby, like the PLP leaders, Scheer, or even Chomsky. My parents were manual-worker class; they did read a lot of magazines but few books. So I got exposed to a lot of People’s World but other than that, Time, Life, Look, Reader’s Digest, Colliers, Wmns Home Companion etc.

      So even though I caught on to the nature of what was going on in Vietnam by late sixty-two, stumbled onto the works of Mao Tse-T in the Hawaii State Library there on the big lawn just next to the Iolani Palace, and had been turned onto a few minor Marxist Classics by the PLPers I met, stuff like the Manifesto, Wages Price & Profit, Imperialism the Highest Stage, State & Revolution, What is to be Done, Engel’s Origin of the Family, some of Herbert Aptheker’s and Howard Fast stuff on US history, I couldn’t follow the arguments between Scheer and various challengers. I had a lot of catching up to do.

      I was intimidated by just the words “Das Kapital”, so didn’t get up the nerve to tackle it for several years. When I finally did in about nineteen seventy, I was surprised how readable and entertaining it was. Even more surprised I could follow Marx’s arithmetic exposition of his Theory of Value.

      I remember that just as I finished my first read-through of Kapital I spotted an article by Raya Dunayevkskaya who said “Back to Hegel!”. I’d read considerable Sartre in my late teens under the impression that Existentialism had some connection with Bebop, tried to follow up on the cites to Kant but found it totally baffling so passed on Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger et al. Well, I did check a book or two out of the library but didn’t get far with any of it. So I went back to Walter Page & tried to regroup on the Blue Devils:)

      But Chomsky never came to my attention enough to make an impression one way or another.

      Of course I was really ignorant when I hit SF. Landed right in the middle of the Poetry scene, then the Theater scene which was TOTALLy a new thing for me.

      The Art Scene I had a handle on. But only a handle.
      In general my mind was blown six directions at once, and then here comes Vietnam, on top of Breaking the Color Line, Malcolm vs MLK, Mao vs Khruschev, Beats vs Literature, etc etc:)

      Hehe, Ferlinghetti is a great poet and a great publisher. And later on he got into Maoism under the influence of Leroi/Amiri Baraka-Jones and stuff going on in the neighborhood, is now a very important Progressive Influence. But the Beat Movement was pure Cold War, how to turn attention away from Sartre/Beauvoir and get it into more Aesthetic channels. That goddam “Howl” was nothing but a pile of racist bullshit but it sure put Lawrence F on the map:)

      Okay, I’m rambling, see yawl in the bagnana:) Meantime suggest you read up on JP Genet and A Kollontai:)

    91. shabnam said on September 16th, 2010 at 7:06pm #

      Does anyone have INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING GROUP?
      The International Marxist Tendency (IMT)

      Who is funding them? They have an internet newspaper:

      http://www.americasocialista.org/node/21

      {The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) is an international Trotskyist tendency based on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Ted Grant was its chief theoretician and the person who built the organisation since its beginning. Currently, Alan Woods and Lal Khan are its main leaders and theoreticians. It was founded as the Committee for a Marxist International, but has referred to itself as the IMT since 2006.[1] The tendency is active in over 30 countries worldwide.}

      During the cold war many Jewish ‘intellectuals’ had ties with the CIA. Zionists/imperialists used the Islamists against the left during 60s and 70s to destroy the organized left. Now, majority of the Iranian ‘left’ are in the pocket of zionists. These days, the Zionists are using the ‘left’ against ‘Islamists’ especially Islamic resistance groups. People must learn from the past and not to trust these murderers, the zionists/imperialists.

      Soros is using the ‘left’ for his agenda, to promote ‘open society’, and brings ‘color revolution’ to place puppet around the world for the zionist’s interest.

      {The left has been quietly building a web of non-profits that feed each other and the big daddy provider at the top is none other than George Soros.}

    92. catguy00 said on September 16th, 2010 at 7:22pm #

      Deadbeat gave us the definition

      “Zionism is a racist ideology advancing Jewish Supremacy.”

      OK. So that would leave Chomsky out of your definition wouldn’t it?

    93. catguy00 said on September 16th, 2010 at 7:24pm #

      Deadbeat write:
      What you don’t understand about Chomsky is that he uses the awfulness of U.S. history as a means to conceal certain truths rather than reveal those truths to the public.
      ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      ….and what truth is he hiding exactly? NWO? The Protocols?

    94. hayate said on September 17th, 2010 at 12:55am #

      “….and what truth is he hiding exactly? NWO? The Protocols?”

      Looks like max shields is back under yet another new nick…

    95. hayate said on September 17th, 2010 at 1:17am #

      shabnam said on September 16th, 2010 at 7:06pm

      “Does anyone have INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING GROUP?
      The International Marxist Tendency (IMT)”

      I looked into them a while back when I found out several sayanim at guardian’s talkboard were part of that zionist front, or used to be. In the UK they are usually called by the name “militant”. They are a classic zionist front org. Their UK website is:

      http://www.marxist.com/

      Last summer their site was full of zionist propaganda about the Iranian “green revolution”, there still is a section there called “Iran: the revolution has begun” :D Grant died several years ago, their new fearless leader is apparently now someone named alan woods. I remember reading some propaganda piece about woods meeting with Chavez in Venezuela where he tried to persuade Chavez to not engage with Iran – standard zionist crap.

    96. mary said on September 17th, 2010 at 1:35am #

      Thanks for that Hayate. Dangerous bunch esp on Iran.

      I think this is self authored
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Woods_(politician)

    97. shabnam said on September 17th, 2010 at 5:59am #

      Mary and Hayate:

      Thank you for your information. When I read a report in Persian from the latest conference in Italy and their concentration of this phony ‘left’ AND ZIONIST FRONT, I immediately suspected them. Their focus like the zionist mass murderers is on Iran, not the US or Israel and that’s enough for anyone to view them as a zionist front.

      Search in Persian sites shows that the Tortskyist group (read Zionist) has INFESTED Iranian society and is active under “Class Struggle”. They have a site Mobareze which in Persian means “struggle” both in Persian and English. It is obvious that this site like hundreds of other sites, TV station and Radio Station is funded by the ZIONIST/IMPERIALISTS mass murderers against Iranian people where they should be defeated at any const and their Iranian agent must be exposed to the world as traitor and boot lickers of the enemy of humanity, the organized Zionist Jews, who are pushing the world towards “world government” , An Iron Cage since the defeat of the Napoleon where led to dominance of Jewish plutocracy, the criminal Rothschild family and their extension Sassoon family over policies of the empire.

      http://www.mobareze.org/

      Please click on “english” to read in English the materials posted on this site, zionist front . The Iranian traitors who pose as “left” receives millions of Euro and $$$$ to maintain their lavish websites and TV stations.
      Please remember that the organized zionist Jews assisted the British empire, to bring the Ottoman empire down to steal PALESTINE. People of the world must be united against this vicious tribe and their Iranian servants and fools. DON’T SIT IDLE, INFORM OTHERS OF THE DANGER TO HUMANITY TODAY.

      I let you know about other phony ‘left’ which act as Zionist front in Iran. Apparently foolish Chaves is surrounded by the Zionist Trotskyite. Why is he so ignorant about the danger?

    98. shabnam said on September 17th, 2010 at 7:16am #

      The first issue of ‘In defense of Marxism’, a PHONY Zionist LEFT, in Persian appeared on June 18, 2010. This site most likely is not in Iran, rather is lounged abroad with the financial resources of the Zionists and imperialist financial resources of the West, like hundreds other websites against Iran. Apparently, the Zionists/imperialists are active among phony left including Iranians abroad. These groups are told to leave Palestinian issue on the site and focus only on Iran.

      http://www.marxist.com/first-issue-mobareze-tabaqati-fa.htm

      {The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) is an international Trotskyist tendency based on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Ted Grant was its chief theoretician and the person who built the organisation since its beginning. Currently, Alan Woods and Lal Khan are its main leaders and theoreticians. It was founded as the Committee for a Marxist International, but has referred to itself as the IMT since 2006.[1] The tendency is active in over 30 countries worldwide.}

    99. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 10:44am #

      Shabnam I love the way you convert the English language to your own purposes:) Often I find your choice of words a big improvement over what a native speaker of “American” would probably say. Example: “..This site most likely is not in Iran, rather is lounged abroad”.

      Somebody with a pedestrian approach to English like myself would probably have resorted to a journalese cliche like “based abroad”, instead of coming up with the much more descriptive and evocative “lounged”. A picture leapt to my mind of those lousy Trokstyike Zionist bastards lounging around by their Miami swimming pools, smoking Cuban cigars, guzzling Rum and Coca-co-LA while creatively cooking up new & improved Adventures in Hasbara:-D

    100. hayate said on September 17th, 2010 at 11:34am #

      Cheers Mary & Shabnam

      & t42 “new & improved Adventures in Hasbara”

      :D

    101. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 12:34pm #

      shabnam, whenever I hear somebody warning against “world government” I think Tea Party, John Birch Society, rightwing crackpots like that creep in Florida.

    102. shabnam said on September 17th, 2010 at 12:42pm #

      teafoe2

      you can include Noam Chomsky because he loves ‘World Government’
      as well.

    103. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 1:35pm #

      Well Shabnam, to me “world government” is a phrase that could be interpreted in many different ways.

      For instance it could mean that the entire human population of the planet Earth one day woke up and decided to convert to Islam. After doing so en masse, it was decided to institute a planetary Caliphate, or perhaps a similar institution using different terminology.

      Would you find that objectionable?

      Or to take another possibility, suppose that one day Worldwide Peace suddenly broke out everywhere, that all nations not only declared their intentions to live in peace and harmony with all other nations, but had done exactly that for several years. But after some extended period of international Peace, leaders of sovereign nations came to the realization that there were certain matters which concerned all of them, that required a degree of coordination of international policies and implementation of same, so they decided to set up some agencies directed by representatives of all countries and peoples to administer such activities more cheaply and efficiently than than previously.

      If something like this could be accomplished without the intrusion of corruption or anyone taking undue advantage of anyone else, would you find such an arrangement objectionable on principle?

    104. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 2:05pm #

      Search in Persian sites shows that the Tortskyist group (read Zionist)

      “TORTSKYIST”! I luv it!

      Shabnam, when you wrote the above, were you aware that “tort” in US Jurisprudence means “wrong”, that is, is a noun denoting a wrong action, an injury inflicted by one party on another party?

      BTW an interesting word is “tortious” which is not a mispelling of “tortuous” but is a adjective used to describe something as containing or necessitating a tort. It means something close to “injurious” but means it in a legal sense, that the something is legally injurious.

      However it would be incorrect to assume that all Trotskyists are necessarily Zionists, or that the doctrines of Trotskism always include or coincide with those of Zionism or vice versa.

      For instance, both Lenni Brenner and James Petras are Trotskyists. The late Sam Marcy, founder of the Worker’s World Party and mentor of the leaders of WWP spinoff PSL which is closely allied with Palestinian “left” elements based mainly in the Christian community, in the international coalition figure-headed by Ahmed Ben Bella, and also with the FPA in the ANSWER Coalition, was originally a member of a Trotskyist party, I believe the SWP. (?)

    105. shabnam said on September 17th, 2010 at 2:22pm #

      The ‘world government’ means destruction of other cultures and civilization to force one religion, perhaps ‘holocaust’, on others with one language and one system of government, capital dictatorship. This is not for me.
      The diversity has shrunk for the past few centuries for the worse.

    106. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 3:15pm #

      Shabnam, I have no doubt that many who urge “world government” have in mind something along the lines you describe. But the words themselves do not contain all the meanings you ascribe.

      Most of the time, here in the US, the US MSM, political arena etc, the phrase “world government” is invoked by unreconstructed US rightwingers as a boogeyman to hopefully panic hearers into supporting Teddy Roosevelt-style jingoism and military adventures, interference in the affairs of other countries, imperial expansion, Manifest Destiny, “the wytmans burden” and similar criminal behavior.

      Some Liberal thinkers advance visions of a genuine International Rule of Law, of International Criminal Courts that would prosecute real criminals like Bush and Obama, Netanyahu, Sarkozy et al. Of course most of this is just talk, not very well grounded in reality. But it is not advocacy for imposing a single religion on everybody, or a single language, or a single model of governmental institutions.

      Back during WWII, a Liberal Republican named Wendell Wilkie ran for US president against FDR. He also wrote a book entitled “One World” pleading for increased US recognition of the rights of non-WASP countries and peoples, in which he suggested a vision wherein all the political affairs of all people and nations would be settled in the context of democratic processes and institutions.

      His vision may have been unrealistic, but it was not inspired by any visible connection to international Zionism.

      Many idealistic people hope to see the UN converted into an institution which fulfills the promise contained in its Charter and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To me many of these people are overly optimistic, failing to see the innate flaws in the UN, but few are consciously motivated by sympathy with the goals of the Zionists.

      Anytime one finds oneself echoing words and concepts promoted by extreme rightwingers, IMO one needs to execute what Gen MacArthur called an “Agonizing Reappraisal”:) Check yourself, be sure you’re on solid ground.

      And yes, I’m aware that Mrs MacArthur’s son Dougie was an extreme rightwinger, the coldblooded bastard. But he did have some grasp of military matters, especially when PRC “volunteers” came across the Yalu in sufficient numbers to elevate his level of mental concentration:)

    107. teafoe2 said on September 17th, 2010 at 5:12pm #

      Attn Deadbeat, What was I saying about Chomsky.

      I was going to explain how I came to think I knew enough about the I/P “conflict” that I didn’t really need to pay a lot of attention to Chomsky in order to grasp what was going on.

      While I was hanging with the PLP bunch and hanging out a City Lights, participating in conversations with relatively knowledgeable from a Left perspective people, I got interested in Malcolm X’s quoted propositions, and after seeing him on TV giving an informal “at home” type interview, got much more interested since he was obviously such an intelligent and down to earth extremely hip person, and I apply the term Hip in the full Lester Young meaning of the term.

      But it wasn’t long before they offed him. Bummer. Went to the SF version of a Memorial Service, cold winter day. Anyway, shortly after that the Oakland Panthers hit the headlines, and the Panther paper hit the City Lights shelf by the window.

      So I started reading it, and looking at Jeff Blankfort’s photos which I had no idea or cared who took them at that point but, well funny how things turn out.

      Anyway the Panthers, Huey & them, they was also into Mao Tse-Tung as we spelt it themdays. And they had a Global Analysis. “TriContinental” was the outlook. A lot of Non-Aligned, which was already pretty passe since Bung Karno, Sukarno had been offed plus 5 hunerd K mostly ethnic Chinese supporters, Kwame Nkrumah had likewise passed over into the Dustbin of History. Marshal Tito was still in bidness, but the glow had definitely faded from the once rosy prospecks. but I digrest.

      At that time I placed a lot of hope in the Panthers, although Huey himself was clearly a Weird Kiddie. Bobby Seale seemed a lot more normal. Strange thing, I guy I knew was starting a Black intellectual-revolutionary magazine, and somehow was put in touch with Eldrige Cleaver who was still incarcerated in Q, but had written a lot of stuff which this friend of mine was interested in publishing but thought needed some copy-editing, which he prevailed upon me to take on. So I saw the mss which became Soul On Ice before it came out. I was surprised the splash it made because it all seemed pretty run of the mill to me, like stuff I’d been hearing for years places like the Porter’s Club lunch counter, shoeshine stand run by a guy who was a big fan of the Monday Jam Session joints, back of the bandstand in the musicians room at the Jazz Workshop where I used to peddle my expertly rolled sticks & bombers to the occasional Name Musician like Lou Rawls or his SF girlfriend whose pad I used to hang out at afternoons.

      Anyway I’d heard all Cleaver’s jive before, to me he was just a guy who thought up a scam, to write down a lot of common folklore on paper and call himself a Writer. Anyway.

      So in terms of ground-level organizing I was orientated toward the Panthers, but they didn’t really have much of a presence on the SF side of the bay. Later there was a San Quentin Six office in the Fillmore.

      I didn’t see any signif at the time, but looking back most of the White dudes — in those days we said “cats”, “gray cats”, “dudes” came in with RocknRoll… nearly all the white dudes I associated with then were Jewish. I mean it was mostly a Black scene, the Northern branch of the West Coast Jazz scene but with a lot less of the Shorty Rogers studio-musician psuedo-jazz bullshit. But it wasn’t only on the Music scene I knew a lot of Jews, most of who I met that was interested in politics from a similar angle as me were Jewish.

      Seems strange: all the guys I was once bosom-buddies with who I’d hate to run into again because now we’re on opposite sides of the fence, or I should say Wall. I had a girlfriend off and on several years who had just come back from a year in a Kibbutz. I never associated her with being Jewish, her last name was Christiansen, but I think she musta been, looking back.

      All these Jewish dudes I knew, nobody ever mentioned Chomsky except maybe in passing in a discussion of language-related topics, like I knew a couple dudes were into stuff like the Baltic Vowel Shift, the diffs between Latvian, Lithuanian & Courlander, when was a Latvian a Lett or a Lithuanian a Littauer, groovy stuff like that. But never got into Chomsky pro or con.

      Some of these Jewish dudes recommended me stuff to read. I remember one well eddicated fellow thought me simple minded for focussing on standard Dialectical Materialism, Marx Engels Lenin Mao etc. So he turned me onto Marcuse, Domhoff, Lukacs, Adorno, Max Weber. Also Camus, Brecht, all kinds of French symbolist poets, playwrights, Ubu Roi, Dada, Rimbaud, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Moliere, Marcel Duchamp. Took me to see the Actors Workshop do Le Balcon, then Les Noirs. But nobody urged me to read any Chomsky.

      next installment: Irwin Silber

    108. jayn0t said on September 30th, 2010 at 10:17pm #

      I agree with Deadbeat and teafoe2 on almost everything; they have backed me up on numerous occasions. But I have a confession to make. I don’t think the September 11th 2001 massacre was an inside job. Unfortunately, many of those who agree with me, Alexander Cockburn and others, following the knee jerk habits of the left, play the ‘racism’ card against those who think the US government probably did it. But it doesn’t matter whether or not it is politically correct to say a group of Muslim extremists carried out the atrocity, what matters is whether that is the most economical explanation of the facts. I happen to think it is, but I don’t defend it by attacking the motives of people who disagree with me.

      The author of this article asks whether people he admires who don’t think 9/11 was an inside job are afraid of ridicule. I have had the experience of being ‘mobbed by ridicule’ on the 9/11 question – by skeptics! Worse, I have found some 9/11 truth supporters to be so stuck in the circular logic of conspiracy, they think failure to believe their theory is evidence of something suspicious.

      President Obama took political correctness to an new low when he recently described the president of Iran’s remark that September 11th. was an inside job as ‘hateful and offensive’. I don’t care if the 9/11 Truth hypothesis is hateful and offensive, I care whether it is the simplest explanation of the facts.

    109. Deadbeat said on October 1st, 2010 at 2:00am #

      t42 writes …

      next installment: Irwin Silber

      Please do continue…