Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

[reprehensor]

On Saturday, August 12, 2006, Webster Griffin Tarpley interviewed Canadian author and media critic, Barrie Zwicker, who has a new book coming out about 9/11, "Towers of Deception". During the 2nd hour of the interview, starting at the 35:00 minute mark, Tarpley encouraged Zwicker to express his views about Chomsky's reluctance to engage in skepticism of the official 9/11 narrative. Here is a partial transcript from the interview:

MP3 Download:
2nd Hour - 6.86 MB

Webster Griffin Tarpley: ...now Barrie, I can't hold back any longer... I want to ask you about the thing that strikes me as one of the most relevant, most fascinating features of this book, and that is the detailed refutation and expose on the role of the "Left Gatekeepers" in general, and of Noam Chomsky in particular... and what I'm wondering is, as you're thinking about answering this question, in the Los Angeles conference, people saw this on C-SPAN, they saw you in those four C-SPAN broadcasts at the end of July, beginning of August, you were reading off a list of the gatekeepers, and I wonder, I'm not sure whether you have that in the book or if you have a copy with you ...

Barrie Zwicker: Actually I've got my book open to that very page, and I did receive a lot of response from people who caught that little bit at the end of that marvelous panel of which you were such an important part... and lots of people have phoned me and said, "I really liked what you said, Barrie." Because I tried to be reasonable, and say that we should encourage the Left media to write articles and we should urge them, and we should cajole them, and then if they don't perform, then we should get after them, we should chase them, we should drop our subscriptions and so forth... escalate the thing.

Noam Chomsky... this does appear to be one of the most fascinating parts of the book for a lot of people and I'm frankly even a little surprised myself at how well this is being received. I think that a whole lot of people had intuited that there's something wrong with Chomsky. That there's something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left... but 9/11 came along, it's a Litmus test, I swear it's a Litmus test for every individual, every organization... where do they stand on 9/11?

And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely...

Continued:
http://www.gnn.tv/B17577

[Bolo Boffin]

1. JOTS!

9/11 a litmus test? Okay...

I just wish having to believe outright falsehoods wasn't the test of whether or not you were a progressive liberal. I wish supporting universal healthcare or a woman's right to choose or any number of other traditionally progressive ideas was enough of a litmus test to prove your progressive credentials.

Oh, brave new world...

[dailykoff]

2. Chomsky is a good salesman.

Unfortunately most of the stuff he sells is crap. :shrug:

[Make7]

5. .

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Just out of curiousity as to what you mean, would you provide a few

examples?

[dailykoff]

11. There's a weirdly out-of-touch quality

to Chomsky's political analyses, like he hasn't paid attention to anything that's actually happened for the last forty or fifty years. Here's an example:

Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste
By Noam Chomsky
International Relations Center
Tuesday 08 March 2005

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/9584

Not helpful IMHO. :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

12. That's a pretty good analysis of what happened IMHO

From the article by Chomsky;

"Why don't people care if the election is stolen? The reason is that they don't take the election seriously in the first place. They reacted about the way that people react to television ads. It's a mode of delusion. If the Democrats want to succeed in that game, they're just going to have to figure out better ways of delusion."

Do you have a better analysis? Or can you point to a better analysis?

I can point to Mexico where people obviously do care if their election was stolen. Do you see a difference between reaction in the US and in Mexico to a stolen election? Why do you suppose that difference exists? I think Chomsky hits the nail on the head.

[dailykoff]

14. I think people DO care that the election was stolen,

which Chomsky denies ("Bush got 31%, Kerry got 29%"), and people DID take the election seriously.

Claiming we're all "deluded" is a way of blaming the electorate instead of addressing specific problems that need to be fixed, like corrupt electoral machinery.

But what I really object to is Chomsky's utterly bogus insinuation that the candidates were interchangeable, which is dead wrong and a huge disservice to the majority of Americans who supported Kerry in '04.

[rman]

24. Candidates and Parties are mostly interchangeable on the big issues,

such as a foreign policy aimed at exploitation of poor nations (ie NAFTA), and a domestic policy aimed at privatization, deregulation and stratification of income. The discussions are about when, where, who and how much "Free Trade", privatization etc - not about yes versus no.
Representatives in both parties tend to comply to the wishes of big business because those provide the jobs in the states. Some less so than others, but the difference is marginal compared to true representation of the interests of The People.
A very few exceptions are candidates like Kucinich, but those don't nearly get the airtime that the other candidates get, making them virtually irrelevant in presidential elections.

[rman]

23. Chomsky is saying election campaigns are run like advertising;

very little if any attention to the issues, much playing on the electorate's emotions. Kindof like toothpaste commercials.

How's that weirdly out-of-touch?

[mirandapriestly]

16. MIT and the defense contractor Raytheon

are closely linked. Raytheon is linked to 911 and that is probably why he won't say anything about 9-11.

[Make7]

20. Do you even know who Noam Chomsky is? ( n/t )

[dailykoff]

21. The MIT connection does give one pause. (n/t)

[rman]

22. What, there's no manufacture of consent, no atrocious US foreign policy?

No Cointelpro?
Because as you know (or should know), that's the sort of things that Chomsky "sells".

What is the basis for you assertion that Chomsky sells crap?

[Ferry Fey]

3. "diaboligarchy" -- great neologism

I can't find any other online references to it, so I guess it's probably Zwicker who coined this great new term: "diaboligarchy."

It'll descend into the morass of general namecalling and lose its effectiveness soon enough. So for the moment we must savor its its descriptive power.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. This is a poor idea to promote a "with us or against us" dichotomy.

People are much more complex than that, and it's not productive to the 9/11 truth movement to engage in this character assassination by guessing at the motives of people who might not actively participate in the movement.

There are many on the right and left who fall on either side of the 9/11 question. Attacking someone for "refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever," is the same as attacking someone for choosing to become involved in looking into...

People choosing to look or not look isn't a reason to attack them.

We who consider ourselves part of or empathic to the 9/11 truth movement need to focus on the goals of getting at the truth, and not on revenge.

[Jazz2006]

7. I don't see how it helps his cause to go after Noam Chomsky.

Barrie Zwicker: Noam Chomsky... this does appear to be one of the most fascinating parts of the book for a lot of people and I'm frankly even a little surprised myself at how well this is being received.

From the article at the link:

Chomsky’s recommendation that people practice intellectual self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you’ll need to defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order, he is worth 50 armored divisions. And I do believe that.

I don't know why Zwicker is surprised at the reaction. Character assassination sells. And I don't see how going after Noam Chomsky for the crime of not getting involved and not believing in the conspiracy theories helps the cause of those who do.

[democraticinsurgent]

9. Sorry, Zwicker is correct

Maybe 9/11 shouldn't be a litmus test, but really, if you have studied 9/11 seriously and with a truly open mind, there's nothing that holds together the Official Conspiracy Theory.

What exactly did happen? We don't yet know for sure, but the clues are pouring in.

But when leaders of the left, like Chomsky (and Kos, Salon, Mother Jones, and even DU, which only lets us talk about it "down here") take stands in favor of the OCT, it does a real disservice to the truth.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. i have to disagree with you on the us against them mentality put forth

by Zwiker.

This is counter productive to the 9/11 truth movement for a whole lot of reasons. I haven't seen Chomsky attacking people for demanding our government tell us the truth. And I haven't heard Chomsky ridiculing or attacking people who believe that some in our government may have involvement in 9/11. if you have, please provide a link

Really, if you look at the last two Presidential elections with an open mind there is nothing which lends credibility to the assumed winner. So do we attack the Scholars for Truth for not taking the lead in the election reform movement? Should we try to make them pay for their obvious unwillingness to champion that cause?

I am very glad DU is willing to provide us with a forum to discuss 9/11, and I also applaud DU for the times when they do allow 9/11 truth stories to make it to the greatest page. This has been happening with increased frequency lately and I strongly support this. I hope you do too.

[democraticinsurgent]

18. Yes, DU should be commended for the 9/11 forum

And I am appreciative that the 9/11 threads are surviving longer in the main part of DU.

Still, the 9/11 forum is the basement and it is unfortunately populated by certain posters whose job it seems to be to swat down all forms of 9/11 truth seeking. So it's a pretty unpleasant place to actively post, which is why I don't do it too often.

What would be way better would be for Kos, Salon, and DU to really open up on 9/11. The Kossacks, especially, seem horribly brainwashed on this subject. That's way too many activist Democrats who aren't getting exposed to the whole picture.

I am not that familiar with Chomsky, by the way. I was just appreciative of Zwicker's sentiment for reasons expressed already.

[Jazz2006]

13. I understand your point, but

I do not think it is helpful to Zwicker's cause to attack Chomsky by using the "with us or against us" dichotomy and by accusing Chomsky, in effect, of being the biggest baddest enemy to the cause, for much the same reasons as John Q. Citizen has expressed in his posts on this thread. In addition, Chomsky has a large following, and an attack on him may very well turn off people who may otherwise have paid more attention to the cause.

[democraticinsurgent]

17. It's complicated

Zwicker is right in saying that Chomsky's disinterest in 9/11 truth--given his position as some sort of leftwing sage--does provide tremendous cover to the neo-cons. It's not unlike the cover Lieberman provides.

I think John Q's point about the 9/11 truth movement being responsible for championing election fraud is disingenuous. I doubt there are ANY 9/11 truth seekers who believe the last three elections were fair and just. That they aren't making it the issue of their choice isn't relevant. What is relevant is that Chomsky's stature and his influence over all things left means that millions of people look to him for answers on big and important subjects. That he is apparently glossing over 9/11 given the mountain of evidence that Bushco was in on it AND its relevance to the state of the USA circa 2006 does seem irresponsible. I think that is Zwicker's main point.

However, I haven't read his book and I will look forward to doing so.

[Jazz2006]

19. I understand the point that Chomsky's disinterest

may look to some as though he's giving cover to the neo-cons, but it seems to me that if he doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories, he is not doing the left any disservice by saying so over and over again publicly.

I disagree with you that John Q. Public's point was disingenuous. He was making the very valid point that it is just as wrong for the CTers to call upon Chomsky to publicly tackle the conspiracy theory issues as it would be for Chomsky to call about them to publicly tackle the election fraud issues. That said, I also take your point regarding the stature and influence that Chomsky has, which people like Zwicker and the "scholars" do not have.

And I would, perhaps, agree with you on that being Zwicker's main point if it weren't for the fact that he feels it necessary to absolutely demonize Chomsky in the process by saying:

Chomsky’s recommendation that people practice intellectual self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you’ll need to defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him.

I think he'll gain more disbelievers than believers by calling Chomsky out like that. That's why I said above that I think it doesn't help your cause.

[democraticinsurgent]

28. Agree to disagree, I guess

I am not 100% in lockstep with Zwicker, again, i've only read what you've read. And he probably is a little rough with his verbiage. Chomsky is an important man who's contributed mightily over the years.

However, the key point for me is that anyone who's really looked at the available facts should know that the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk. So for Chomsky--or anyone who's (willingly or unwillingly) in a high stature position (hello, Kos) in the activist left to support the OCT is in fact hurting the truth movement.

Sorry, John Q and Jazz. There really is a big difference between Chomsky publicly dissing the 9/11 truth movement and the 9/11 truth movement not actively pushing election fraud truth. Again, I doubt there is anyone who disbelieves the 9/11 OCT who doesn't also disbelieve the official election results of the past two presidential cycles. But: nobody's asking them/us so far as I can see.

Remember one thing: the 9/11 truth movement is not about adherence to a certain consiracy theory. It starts with looking at the facts which debunk the OCT. The onus is on Bushco to prove their theory and they haven't bothered. The 9/11 commission is already on record stating they covered up discrepancies in order to keep the peace. And David Ray Griffin's "Omissions" book takes their report apart piece by piece, leaving it in total rubble. Factual rubble.

So this is just one of those things where we disagree. Let me say to all three of you who've debated me on this point: thank you for the incredible civility. Unfortunately in the 9/11 forum this is the exception, not the rule. ;-)

[Jazz2006]

30. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree, but

I disagree with your subsequent additions as well.

I think that you're wrong about those, just as I think you're wrong about attributing things to Chomsky that he never said.

Edit to delete 90 percent of what I wrote because it probably wasn't necessary and because if it was, it will be as relevant tomorrow as it may have been tonight.

[rman]

25. Anyone familiar with Chomsky can/should know

that Chomsky does not want to be and does not consider himself to be a leader of the Left, nor one who provides answers and solutions other than encouraging people to investigate, to think for themselves and to be politically active. He encourages 'anarcho-syndicalist' (decentralized) activism - ie cooperating grassroots-movements rather than centralized organization, because the latter is more vulnerable to being compromised - which is one reason why does not want to be a "leader".

[Make7]

8. The enemy of my enemy is my ...... enemy? ( n/t )

[reprehensor]

15. Video: Chomsky on 9/11

Short (8 minutes total) video of Chomsky replying during Q & A to 9/11 prior knowledge/orchestration question;

YouTube videos;

Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4&NR

Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR

[rman]

26. "they'd have to be insane"

On other occasions Chomsky has said they are "perfectly sane within their insane frame of mind".

Btw, it's not that Chomsky simply does not do conspiracies - see Union Busting and Cointelpro.

[HamdenRice]

27. Chomsky is blinded by structuralism

I don't think it is so much that Chomsky is a purveyor of disinformation; it's that he is a purveyor of an extremely limited theoritical world view.

That world view is structuralism. Keep in mind that Chomsky is one of the fathers of structuralist linguistics -- the idea that there are underlying structures of thought that transcend language.

He has taken that theory into political economy -- that there are underlying political and economic structures that dictate historical outcomes and the behavior of states and state actors. Normal politics are therefore an epiphenomenon -- a Kibuki theater that hides "what's really going on."

That means political actors are largely interchangeable. To Chomsky, it doesn't matter who is in charge -- Democrat, Republican -- it doesn't matter because they have to respond to the underlying political and economic forces.

This in turn leads to the underlying ethical and moral bankruptcy of his world view: Chomsky does not believe in individual evil. He talks a lot about the criminality of US foreign policy, but it is a criminality of the system, not of individual decision makers. He talks as though he is all about ethics, but it is a deracinated, abstract ethics of states.

George Bush is no more evil, say, than a great but flawed leader like Lyndon Johnson. Both were mere Kibuki actors playing roles that led one inevitably to escalate the Vietnam War, and the other to invade Iraq.

But in my view there is individual evil. Johnson was tragically mistaken; Bush is tragically evil. Alberto Gonzales act of writing a memo justifying torture, in my view, was an act of individual evil.

So for Chomsky the individuals behind 9/11 are unimportant. He doesn't care who did it. Impersonal structural forces caused it to happen. While his insights sometimes seem breathtaking -- and he has clearly enthralled and bewitched Amy Goodman -- ultimately his theory leads people into paralysis. He is always ending his talks with an exortation to his audience to organize. But the underlying message is, what good would it do to organize to, for example, impeach George Bush, when he is just one powerless actor. For Chomsky's audience, unless you can change the entire "system" all at once, you are engaged in a useless shadow play. And since in fact the system cannot be changed all at once, that leads is followers to be largely passive, waiting for the Nirvana of complete revolution.

[dailykoff]

29. Bingo, you so nailed it

Structuralism is one more f'ed-up crypto-fascist ideology that conveniently lets f'ed-up crypto-fascists off the hook.

:puke: