Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Noam Chomsky: He has changed...

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
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.

Noam Chomsky

From: dan [mailto:xxx@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:51 AM
To: chomsky@mit.edu
Subject: Deterring democracy and your other books

Hi,

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.

Sincerely,


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)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
It was hard to tell where your email ended and his response began.. Though if im reading correctly, it may appear he wished you wanted to be active in research, instead of an outside observer. That and he concluded with, "we all know".. Well.. Perhaps the event is deeper than an inside job.. Like he said.. Its easy to claim inside job.. But if those on the inside are part of something more important to their government position, technically it wasnt an inside job. It is crazy



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Politicians come and go, but the real power is always in the same hands. It is they who hold the strings on the puppet show and it is they who perpetrate the 'crimes of state' by the use of both bribery and blackmail.

Who are 'they'? Ask yourself what group of international individuals would have power no matter who is elected.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I read/watch a lot of Chomsky.

I think he is trying to distance himself from all the insanity that is the 9/11 debate.

The same reason that Ron Paul only hints that there is more to 9/11 than we publicly acknowledge - The majority of people would instantly label you a nutcase and you'd lose any credibility you had with them if you started speaking publicly about what many of us think is the reality of 9/11.

It would be kind of silly to throw away a lifetime of work and maybe more importantly a position where these men can have a positive influence on society by pitting themselves against the mainstream on this particular issue. Too many have already lost their jobs by speaking the truth, and most have effectively vanished from the public eye...

Do you think that is what we should demand of people like Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul?

Even in his response he doesn't blatantly deny that there is more to 9/11. He is hinting to you that your attention would be better focused elsewhere, where some effect can be realized. =P

What he is saying when he tells you the "truth movement" is "safe and innocuous" is that it's a mainstream idea that allows a lot of people to think that they have no control, and therefor no liability/responsibility for the actions their government takes. A lot of people who believe 9/11 was either an inside job or allowed to happen really aren't active in their communities, politics, doing their own laundry.. So it is in effect a way to distance yourself from the "mainstream" and fit in with a group, but to never actually be active in creating change from the ground up.

I hope this makes sense, if you watch some more of those YouTube clips you can glean this if you read between the lines. Sometimes it's even pretty blatantly stated.

edit on 16-7-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 



I'm not going to reply to him, I think it's more clear now (in my opinion) that he's just protecting himself and doesn't care about the truth anymore.

Or....option "B". That option allows you to come to the realization that not all evil in the world is perpetrated by governments. Sometimes is just stupid people doing bad things for stupid reasons. Like devout religious nuts hijacking planes full of innocent people and then purposely crashing them into buildings full of innocent people in the hope that they may be part of some big imaginary world wide catharsis.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I read/watch a lot of Chomsky.

I think he is trying to distance himself from all the insanity that is the 9/11 debate.

The same reason that Ron Paul only hints that there is more to 9/11 than we publicly acknowledge - The majority of people would instantly label you a nutcase and you'd lose any credibility you had with them if you started speaking publicly about what many of us think is the reality of 9/11.

It would be kind of silly to throw away a lifetime of work and maybe more importantly a position where these men can have a positive influence on society by pitting themselves against the mainstream on this particular issue. Too many have already lost their jobs by speaking the truth, and most have effectively vanished from the public eye...

Do you think that is what we should demand of people like Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul?

Even in his response he doesn't blatantly deny that there is more to 9/11. He is hinting to you that your attention would be better focused elsewhere, where some effect can be realized. =P


edit on 16-7-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)


I don't think we should demand these great men and intellectuals to throw away their careers, that's why I said you could 'quietly' educate people just by referring them to books you wrote decades ago. But by his own admission he's never written anything about government lies or media lies.

I didn't mention in my e-mail any of the 'strange coincidences' that occurred that day, or the scientific evidence either, that shows the laws of physics failed that day... which many engineers and architects could argue at length about.

My main point was how can he NOT be a skeptic given his past writings. Why suddenly trust the government and media now? Unless, he is making some point that I am not capable of understanding.
edit on 16-7-2012 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by zaintdead
 



I'm not going to reply to him, I think it's more clear now (in my opinion) that he's just protecting himself and doesn't care about the truth anymore.

Or....option "B". That option allows you to come to the realization that not all evil in the world is perpetrated by governments. Sometimes is just stupid people doing bad things for stupid reasons. Like devout religious nuts hijacking planes full of innocent people and then purposely crashing them into buildings full of innocent people in the hope that they may be part of some big imaginary world wide catharsis.


And sometimes it is just a cabal of people who yield so much power that they can fool people like you who will always believe whatever silly nonsense this group and their friends in the media ram down their throats.

If you think the alleged 9/11 hijackers were "devout religious nuts", then you are hopelessly ignorant of what we (or, rather, some of us, that is) now know about them. The fact that you appear not to know speaks volumes about your general ignorance of the facts concerning what happened on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I read/watch a lot of Chomsky.

I think he is trying to distance himself from all the insanity that is the 9/11 debate.

The same reason that Ron Paul only hints that there is more to 9/11 than we publicly acknowledge - The majority of people would instantly label you a nutcase and you'd lose any credibility you had with them if you started speaking publicly about what many of us think is the reality of 9/11.

It would be kind of silly to throw away a lifetime of work and maybe more importantly a position where these men can have a positive influence on society by pitting themselves against the mainstream on this particular issue. Too many have already lost their jobs by speaking the truth, and most have effectively vanished from the public eye...

Do you think that is what we should demand of people like Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul?

Even in his response he doesn't blatantly deny that there is more to 9/11. He is hinting to you that your attention would be better focused elsewhere, where some effect can be realized. =P


edit on 16-7-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)


I don't think we should demand these great men and intellectuals to throw away their careers, that's why I said you could 'quietly' educate people just by referring them to books you wrote decades ago. But by his own admission he's never written anything about government lies or media lies.


By writing them in the first place are you not directing people to those ideas?

If you want a leader so badly, why not pick up the flag yourself? Everyone has a different role in creating change, exposing injustices, etc... Is it fair to expect something out of someone that we aren't capable/willing to do ourselves? (unless of course you're paying them)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   


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.


Alien hybridisation, depopulation, transhumanist, mind control, shape shifting reptilians and super solders. Is it possible that it was not an inside job, but a covert alien invasion? Animal species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate as the human population continues to grow. On the universal scale, are human that important if it means the end of life on Earth as resources dwindle and conflict escalates? Is this maybe what Noam was getting at?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


The simple fact that most if not all of the gold being held in those vaults are gone and the building keeping track of financial transactions also fell in should bring one to the conclusion that yes.. it was a heist as well.

The whole event is ish because one more or all of American intelligence agencies was in on it. It was done also when the Army was conducting war games simulations. So yea, our Army has leaks besides Geraldo Rivera.

To many damn people are scared of asking question, terrified of it's implications. And i blink, twice. The government has been doing ish like this. This is right up their ally. Especially with the Bush administration.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Guys..

This thread isn't about who holds the power, aliens, or what actually happened on 9/11.

It's about Noam Chomsky's stance on 9/11.


Why are we talking about all of these side topics (and aliens/transhumawhatsitism is a completely different sport, let alone league!) when this thread has nothing to do with those things?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


When Noam Chomsky's fails to run through the details, what are they?



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.


To stay on topic, where is the sense in Noam Chomsky's reply?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Chomsky said:


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.


This (the underlined in particular) is a hint.

Politicians and lawmakers are held to standards by the public. They cannot threaten or cajole people like Chomsky without repercussions becoming news and, even if they try to do something covertly, it is only going to be successful if those individuals within their confidence do not succumb to spilling the beans in the twists and turns of political popularity. Further to that, politicians use weapons which are available to them... military, police and the 'Alphabet Agencies' and rarely contact criminal elements to do their 'wet work'.

9/11 may have been a means toward something like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, but (imho) it remains likely that the POTUS was completely unaware of what was going down that day. That others around him might have been more clued in is a distinct possibility, but that is also something which feeds conspiracy theorists but has no definite corrolation to that fateful event.

Chomsky knows that the true puppet masters do not worry about the public and, if they were, they'd do something about it. Car accidents, suicides, poisonings and unfortunate incidents happen all the time and no-one in the media questions it. They, the real powers, cannot be held responsible if they are never ratted on or caught red-handed. The true powers on this rock use criminal elements and if, for one second, an ' operative tool' is considered a threat, they are eliminated and killed without concern. Who cares about anyone with a long rap sheet getting shot?

Chomsky isn't going to chime in on 9/11 with what he knows, because, if he did, he'd be eliminated.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Chomsky is at MIT and MIT has Bazant. MIT is supposedly the top engineering school in the US, possibly the world in terms of reputation.

I cannot imagine what is happening at the school in relation to 9/11. I am sure plenty of kids are there to get their degrees in whatever and not get involved in any controversy. But 9/11 is grade school physics so how do people smart enough to get into MIT cope with this?

Sweep it under the rug.

This is from MIT in 2002

video.google.com...

psik



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


Here: to get this on topic...



"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky


Source were I found quote


Sounds like a loser.. I havent validated that quote yet..

here is a video though..



edit on 7/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



The fact that you appear not to know speaks volumes about your general ignorance of the facts concerning what happened on 9/11.

You are correct. I and Mr. Chomsky can be construed to be ignorant when it comes to your special facts about what happened on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by micpsi
 



The fact that you appear not to know speaks volumes about your general ignorance of the facts concerning what happened on 9/11.

You are correct. I and Mr. Chomsky can be construed to be ignorant when it comes to your special facts about what happened on 9/11.


he was directly referring to your characterization of the supposed terrorists as "devout religious nuts."

They were not. You did know this right?

Remember they were drinkers and payed hookers... These were not religious people.
edit on 7/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 



They were not. You did know this right?

Remember they were drinkers and payed hookers... These were not religious people.

Really? You think because they consumed alcohol and fornicated that they were not religious? That doesn't sound like a fact - that sounds like a conclusion. One of those "special facts".



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Dustytoad
 



They were not. You did know this right?

Remember they were drinkers and payed hookers... These were not religious people.

Really? You think because they consumed alcohol and fornicated that they were not religious? That doesn't sound like a fact - that sounds like a conclusion. One of those "special facts".


Mualim religion forbids these things, so therefore not religious. Do you know what religious means? Maybe you meant fanatical?
If you do these things you DO NOT get 40 virigns.
This is no special fact if you have been paying attention.
It does matter too as per your story line. It doesn't really matter for mine, because I think they had little to do with it. I bet they thought they did though...



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 



Mualim religion forbids these things, so therefore not religious.

I guess you haven't heard by now that Islam allows for persons to engage in lesser evils in order to satisfy a greater good.

Do you know what religious means? Maybe you meant fanatical?

Actually I was writing extemperaneously so fanatical is also applicable in this case.

If you do these things you DO NOT get 40 virigns.

And from whence do you derive your knowledge of the Quaran and Islam?

This is no special fact if you have been paying attention.

Actually, this is very special and is not even factual. It is simply an opinion on your part.

It does matter too as per your story line. It doesn't really matter for mine, because I think they had little to do with it. I bet they thought they did though...

Huh?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join