Noam Chomsky has been heroically exposing the crimes of the American war machine for almost five decades. For many of us, he has long been the model engagé intellectual.
I probably never would have gone to graduate school, much less accumulated three MAs and a Ph.D. and taught seven or eight subjects at several universities and colleges, if I hadn’t gotten the notion (mainly from Chomsky) that one could simultaneously teach university and serve as a fearless social critic.
But in the wake of the neocon coup d’état of 9/11, and Chomsky’s subsequent all-out support for the coup faction, more and more people are wondering: WHY is Chomsky constantly paraded in front of us as the leading critic of American war crimes? Is his work that much better than that of so many others, including William Blum and James Petras? Or are there other factors – including his compromised position on Zionism, his gloomy, passive-aggressive demeanor that will obviously never inspire a revolution, and perhaps even his participation in covering up the very information that could inspire the people to rise up and overthrow imperialism – that has made him the kind of “critic of empire” that the empire doesn’t mind having in the spotlight?
In the next few days I will be publishing a glowing review of Chomsky’s new book Western Terrorism (co-authored with my frequent radio guest André Vltchek). I will also re-publish my email exchange with Chomsky in which he demonstrates himself to be certifiably insane with regard to 9/11. In that exchange, Chomsky argues that 9/11 truth books by people like David Ray Griffin and me are benefiting from massive mainstream media PR campaigns in our favor. He also claims that even if 9/11 revisionists prove that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed in controlled demolitions, that would simply prove that Bin Laden was behind the demolitions.
The man is either stupid, crazy, or lying. And I’m pretty sure he isn’t stupid. That leaves us with only two alternatives.
Chomsky displays classic “guilty demeanor” in his many speeches and writings covering up 9/11 – arguably the world’s worst-ever war crime. (9/11 launched a 100-years-war by the US and the West against the enemies of Israel – a war that has already killed millions and will, if it continues, kill tens or hundreds of millions.)
Why would the world’s leading critic of American war crimes cover up the worst-ever American war crime? Perhaps because it was actually a Zionist war crime against America?
Could it be that Noam “the best time of my life was spent in an Israeli kibbutz” Chomsky can’t face the consequences of recognizing 9/11 for what it was? Just as he can’t face the obvious fact that the Zionist Power Configuration dominates US foreign policy?
Below is Jimmy Walter’s brand-new critique of Chomsky’s 9/11 lunacy as displayed in a University of Florida speech.
At a University of Florida speech, Chomsky proves himself
a limited hangout mole
by Jimmy Walter
Chomsky resorts to unsupported character assassination and assertions. He uses limited hangouts, lies, and misdirection to try to dismiss the scientific discussion on the WTC. : the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, the alleged perpetrators were Saudi’s (he does not use “alleged”, but implies there is no doubt despite the many reports of many still being alive and well), and only a small number of Architects and Engineers have stood up. He lies that only “a couple” of the 2000 plus A&Etruthers “are serious” and that they are not writing papers or giving talks. He dismisses the “one or two minor articles published” as if his lack of technical skill and their small numbers makes them wrong! He slurs the many educated believers and internet with implications that s=1/2 at^2 and seeing the overwhelming similarities to controlled demolitions requires an advanced degree to understand!
He asserts “overwhelming evidence the Bush administration was not involved” with totally confused & absurd statements: ~”since the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq, it would have been “total lunacy” for them not to blame Iraq for 911, “if [Iraq] were involved in any way”. He contradicts this by admitting the WMD’s claims were “wild stories” and attacking Afghanistan was “useless”. Moreover, since Bush had absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was involved, claiming the Iraqis were involved would have been easily refuted “total lunacy”.
What was total lunacy was to claim Iraq had WMD’s, it would be a cake walk victory soon over, and to bankrupt the US in a series of needless wars. But they did it anyway! They used the alleged Al-Qaeda Terrorism to create a paranoid, patriotic mind set in order to silence opponents of war, create an imperial presidency, support the Military-Spy-industrial-comple-x, take oil off the market to get the price up, to surround Russia with military bases, to support Israel’s expansion, and to dominate the Middle East.
Chomsky claims that opposing the official position on 911 is “one of the safest things you can do” and therefore the lack of published papers and talks given at universities is absolute proof that the A&Etruth people are wrong! Non-sequitur. More misdirection. The schools and editorial boards refuse to publish A&Etruth’s works or allow them to present on their campuses. Academics depend on funding! People who have opposed AIPAC and the official 911 story have had their funding cut, been fired or asked to retire without any scientific refutation of their work. Even at this talk at the UF, the moderator cuts off discussion, proof positive of the prejudice of the alleged academic community.
One can only conclude that Chomsky, an expert on logic and political subterfuge, is a limited hangout mole.