A Series by Joe Giambrone
Some may be following my ongoing challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky and his clearly misleading spin regarding the September 11th controversy. Or perhaps not, since none of the outlets which publish his every utterance, like clockwork, will dare publish criticism of the deified thought leader. No rebuttals may appear. My previous pieces established how Chomsky transforms matters of vital public interest, crimes, facts, glaring cover-ups of Congressional reports, into matters of his own personal opinion, which he dismisses and disregards to set an example for others.
My challenge is as much with the deception from Left so-called “alternative” media as it is with Chomsky personally. The demonstrable bias and deliberate misleading of readers (see below) motivates my pieces, such as this one. Many readers, whom I come across, are clearly misled, deluded, and yet proudly ignorant for some odd reason. More on that later, too.
How can an editor look himself in the mirror after being shown to be a serial liar? And a liar not on some trivial gibberish—this isn’t Kardashians—but on the “new American Century,” mass murder, and wars into the foreseeable future?
Media censorship has aided and abetted the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks after the fact. The solution to that editorial guilt is simple self-deception. Censor out the problem (evidence, logic), and so there is no problem; voilà.
Noam Chomsky helps to manufacture conformity. The Professor’s great expertise in media itself is problematic, as so-called “alternative” media looked to him personally for marching orders. It thus empowered Professor Chomsky to define the limits of permissible discourse post-September 11th of 2001.
Chomsky participates in the same Manufactured Consent he once seemed to oppose. The Left foundation-funded press is a different beast than corporate news media, which he and Edward S. Herman wrote about, but its uniformity and its unwillingness to correct itself when shown to be demonstrably wrong is dangerous and a massive institutional failure. The disinformation put out regularly by the Left “alternative” media brings real-world catastrophic implications. War propaganda, in its myriad forms, entails consequences.
Early in the 2000s, Noam Chomsky told the world to ignore the September 11th cover-up.
Result: The entire American Left turned off its critical faculties and let Deep State domestic terrorists get away with their “new Pearl Harbor” and their “Project for a New American Century.” Public opposition to them died out. We became a bi-partisan, unrestrained empire that wages unlimited war around the world with impunity. This is sold to the public every day in the name of “defense.” Never forget 9/11, and the bombing can commence on the next target.
Professor Chomsky and the deciders in so-called “progressive” media helped erase the 9/11 controversy from history. They did the bidding of the imperialists, either intentionally or as useful dupes. Probably it was a combination.
The 9/11 cover-up, an undeniable reality, became a censored topic as it is today. This piece will most certainly NOT be published at The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, Truthdig, Alternet, Fair, Z-Magazine, et al., just as over a decade’s revelations about the 9/11 attacks have been conspicuously omitted from those same journals. The public was marshalled to look elsewhere and to ignore the greatest Treason in the history of this country. The natural enemies of such a crime, the watchdog press, the 4th estate, were transformed into dulled-down head bobbers, stenographers, who like obedient lapdogs pointed elsewhere on command.
That is why it is my well-considered view today that Professor Noam Chomsky is probably the most dangerous propagandist in the Western World. He has directed numerous adherents toward ignorance rather than knowledge, toward opinion and speculation, rather than toward verifiable facts.
This should not be a surprise to people who have challenged Chomsky previously, as when the JFK assassination controversy became the focus of his ire. Chomsky went to work selling his trademark catch phrase: “Who cares?”
Yes, “who cares?” If the CIA blew the President of the United States’ head off in broad daylight, erased reality from history, and created a false reality for the next century? Who could possibly find that problematic? Certainly not Professor Chomsky.
“Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make?”
–Professor Noam Chomsky
Chomsky cannot find a reason to “care” about any of that, and neither should you. Chomsky similarly came to a pointed lack of empathy regarding the September 11th attacks:
“I mean even if it [a September 11th government conspiracy] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.”
–Professor Noam Chomsky
Sound familiar? He doesn’t “care” about that either, and neither should his many followers. And guess what? They don’t. The magic spell worked. Proud champions of the most grotesque ignorance imaginable they are bolstered by the marching orders of their idol, and little else. One might wonder what it is Professor Chomsky actually does “care” about?
The JFK hit determined who was actually going to be in charge of the American empire: a democratically elected President or Deep State, unaccountable murderers.
Chomsky also had no basis whatsoever for claiming it “extremely unlikely.” The 9/11 cover-up is not only likely, but real and challenged by many in Congress, even today. Chomsky’s reckless and speculative opinions have substituted for hard facts. He pointedly avoids the facts of the cover-up, and that should be a red flag. Many on the Left have behaved like gullible children accepting his vague speculation while ignoring facts from the FBI and the Congress.
An odd position, Professor Chomsky claims time and again not to “care” about subjects that he writes entire books about. His books have come at the Kennedy and at the 9/11 issues from some strangely oblique angles, avoiding the actual evidence of cover-up and complicity. His books are carefully crafted to establish a general uncaring. Don’t care about John F. Kennedy and his “Camelot” presidency; he was a jerk unworthy of your sympathy. The point is dismissal, not enlightenment about the crime. Chomsky flatly refuses to explore the many glaring anomalies, discrepancies, and suspicious facts involved with those two ongoing cover-ups.
Professor Noam Chomsky plays a role, and it is akin to Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. He is a supposed leader of the opposition, but it turns out—for Winston Smith anyway—to be not the case.
If Professor Noam Chomsky didn’t exist, the Deep State would have to invent him. He has misdirected a significant portion of the American and global public. They have accepted his flawed logic and rhetoric in place of hard facts. Fanciful talk has substituted for evidence regarding the crime of September 11th, the crime of the century. Minds have closed to any alternative sources of information whatsoever, a state of insular ignorance among his tribe that is staggering to behold. Talking to these people one-on-one—his many defenders—is an exercise in psychological extremism, something very much like the Helsinki Syndrome. That is not meant to be an exaggeration.
“What you say to the people collectively in that receptive state of fanatical abandonment remains in their mind like an order given to someone under hypnosis, which can not be wiped out and resists all logical argument.”
As an exclamation point to the Left Gatekeeper phenomenon, the last time those 28 redacted pages seem to have appeared at The Nation (online), was in July of 2003. There, Robert Scheer, currently of Truthdig (sic) fame, wrote a piece of propaganda that appears to say one thing, but actually says quite a few others instead.
“Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the United States should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq…”
“Embarrassed?” A curious word indeed. Not complicit? Treasonous? Felonious? Not a crime, apparently to give “aid and comfort” to the Saudi sponsors of the September 11th attacks, according to Scheer and The Nation propaganda organ. No plain stating of the facts of criminal complicity ever made it into print. An opinion about Bush’s alleged embarrassment was all that was said.
“…Bush diverted the war against terror.”
There is no “war against terror.” That is accepting the ridiculous neocon framing of the discussion. Scheer just sold the concept that a “war against terror” was a real thing. More propaganda.
In a shocking bit of hammering home his dubious message, Robert Scheer repeated the previous silliness:
“Quite an embarrassment if the censored pages reveal that the Bush Administration covered up the Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks.”
No, Robert Scheer. That’s high Treason, as defined in our Constitution, Article 3.
While Scheer attempted to spin away these shockers as inconsequential matters of saving face (echoes of Chomsky?), apparently The Nation found even that line of social engineering a bit too risky. This unresolved controversy disappeared from its pages in 2003 and has now been absent for almost 13 years since.
The Perfect Storm of Ignorance
This is not to imply that the Left has been unique in its willful blindness. It seems every niche that you can name has an angle to play regarding the September 11th attacks, spinning them one way or another, and usually for (assumed) partisan political gain.
The Deep State, however, is bi-partisan and persists across administrations, obviously. The two political parties have similar goals, if different game plans to achieve global dominance. Beyond Republican “neocons,” one can merely recall Democratic Party stalwart, and Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright lamenting: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
It seems quite clear to me that the bi-partisan nature of the 9/11 Treason is the number one reason they got away with it. It was never just Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and that assumption is as erroneous as most others.
The San Diego hijacker cell arrived in America during Bill Clinton/George Tenet’s reign. Tenet’s CIA hid the known Al Qaeda members from the FBI. George Tenet was then kept on as CIA Director by Bush, after the stolen election of 2000. While Tenet made claims of his “hair on fire” in the summer of 2001, because of so many glaring warnings of impending attacks, the truth was more of a ‘pants on fire’ scenario. The San Diego Al Qaeda cell was protected from exposure right up until the 9/11 attacks actually occurred.
In addition to the complaints of FBI Agents involved in trying to stop 9/11, even the Counter-Terrorism Adviser to the White House, “Czar” Richard Clarke has flat out accused Tenet and “fifty” CIA officers of hiding the hijackers from him and thus allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. That’s corroboration, but that’s not the version we see repeated ad nauseum whenever the September 11th attacks appear in print.
Where is the call to arrest George Tenet for aiding and abetting the September 11th terrorist attacks? Why are these life and death matters of actual “national security” brushed aside and ignored? Tenet was given a shiny medal for his efforts, and every CIA officer who helped mislead the FBI was promoted.
By the way, where’s Chomsky when you need him? Fact after fact, but old Noam can’t bring himself to “care.”
News media repeats the watered-down, official 9/11 for dummies story without any qualification to inform readers about ongoing and criminal cover-ups of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report, and the rest of it. Most media fail to note the sham nature of the 9/11 Commission, which was “set up to fail” as admitted to by two of its so-called Chairmen. It was in fact rigged behind the scenes by Bush operative Philip Zelikow, who censored it and fired staff who wouldn’t go along with the sham. Senator Max Cleland resigned so as not to be a part of another “Warren Commission.” None of this information is particularly difficult to locate, and so there is no excuse for its curious absence in any discussions of the September 11th attacks throughout the media, left, right and centrist.
Some editors have made clear mistakes in judgment, which they refuse to correct for, ignoring all the evidence that has since emerged after their initial opinions were formed. Others simply rejected the disinformation and half-truths floating around out there among the amateur sleuths of the 9/11 Movement, the FUD that seeded the debate with false leads. Many issues turned out to be simply out-of-context mistakes. Much is currently unknown, owing to multiple cover-ups, including the criminal destruction of World Trade Center evidence.
All these factors combine in a perfect storm of American ignorance. The Swiss cheese media biases the discussion against fighting to uncover the truth. Truth has been downgraded, myths elevated.
This climate of ignorance is dangerous to us all. Without truth we live in a world of myths and lies. Be they official lies, ideologically based speculation, or knee-jerk rejectionism, the dismissal of true facts is antithetical to democracy. It is a strategy to disempower all of us, and to shift power toward those who maintain secrets. Rule by myths and cover-up represents the complete collapse of the democratic model of governance. It is no trivial matter.
“Who cares?” Mr. Chomsky. I do.
Take everything you hear from your pet sources of political news with several grains of salt. Left and “progressive” media have been just as reckless and false as any other news sources you might name. Challenge their assumptions, especially when you can prove them wrong, no matter who is making the false claim.
No one has disproven a God damned thing I’ve said in this entire series so far…)