posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:29 AM
Before 9/11 I was interested in news and politics and I would watch CNN all the time, and basically believe everything that the media said at face
value. I have an eccentric step father who'd never watch the news, and I didn't understand why.
Then I read a book by Noam Chomsky that changed my reality about how the US government operates. The book is called 'Deterring Democracy'. I believe
it is the same book that Hugo Chavez held up high at the United Nations.
Recently while looking through some 9/11 threads I came across some YouTube videos of Noam Chomsky on the issue of 9/11 that really shocked me. How
can someone who spent decades writing about how the media lies and how the government does one thing while saying another... have nothing to question
about the official 9/11 story as told by the media? The same media he lambasted for decades.
I asked him two days ago, his reply was short and I guess to the point, he wrote a few remarks in bold:
Thanks for your letter. On 9/11, a few comments below.
From: dan [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:51 AM
Subject: Deterring democracy and your other books
My name is Daniel. I read your books 'Deterring Democracy' and Manufacturing Consent' about 13 years ago when I was 15 years old. Those books really
opened my eyes.
I was already interested in politics and my father was also interested. I would watch CNN or read the press every day for at least 2 hours. After
reading your books, especially 'Deterring Democracy' I forced my mother, father and brother to read them too. I think your books really opened my eyes
to the reality that the media and government can lie to people in unison to push their agenda.
You are an intellectual and I don't feel I need to quote you on what you've written about how the media and government works.
My question to you is why, on the issue of 9/11, are you not a skeptic of the official story as told by the Bush administration and by the media? To
not be skeptical, given what you have written in your books over the decades... well, I just do not understand that. Your books details a pattern of
behavior by the US government and the mainstream media that I can only call prophetic, given how things are today.
I am not an activist and I don't have an agenda in asking you these questions. I live in Shanghai, China and I'm not left or right, I am an outside
observer. I am just shocked that you take the stance that you do regarding 9/11.
What stance? Have you seen a word I’ve written on the topic?
Not to offend you, but I can only think that it is to protect your esteemed (and definitively deserved) position at MIT.
This is a common claim among those who think that 9/11 was an inside job. It is a most remarkable reaction, revealing how little they know about
dissent and protest. And of course is highly offensive. In fact, claiming that 9/11 was an inside job is one of the safest and most innocuous
positions that one can take. In contrast, people who have a serious concern with crimes of state and want to do something about them constantly take
real risks, myself included. I won’t run through the details, but if you ever become interested in crimes of state and doing something about them,
you’ll quickly learn what all of us know. This is really shocking. I hope you come to understand that.
There might not be definitive evidence that 9/11 was an 'inside job' but you could at least 'quietly' educate people about the true nature of
government by referring them to the books and articles you have written in the past.
I can’t refer them to books and articles because I’ve never written a word about these matters. I have responded to personal letters, and
questions in public events, pointing out fallacies. Nothing more.
Then people can make their own conclusions.
So that's it really, maybe I wasn't polite... I don't know, but to say that claiming 9/11 was an inside job is 'safe and innocuous' is just... it
doesn't make sense to me. And perhaps he hasn't written about it (that begs the question, why not?) but what he has said on the subject is clear.
How can someone who spent their life exposing the crimes of the US government be so defensive and silent on what is the probably the biggest
conspiracy of all time? Read what he wrote about Vietnam. He had no problem exposing government and media lies that led to that war, and numerous
others throughout South America and elsewhere. Today, what he wrote is more true than ever... which is why I say the genius material he wrote in the
past is prophetic.
I'm not going to reply to him, I think it's more clear now (in my opinion) that he's just protecting himself or simply doesn't care about the truth
anymore. I honestly used to tell people that the smartest person alive is Noam Chomsky. I guess he's not the bravest, or maybe he's making a point
that I can't understand. But his current stance is so out of touch with his past self that it's like Ronald McDonald suddenly telling children that
McDonalds is unhealthy.
edit on 16-7-2012 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)