Fact-Free Luminaries: Chomsky’s Chumpskies

Episode Four:


“911 is irrelevant, Yes it was a tragedy, but not more so than the myriad of tragedies the US has visited upon the poor people of the world.” –James Protheroe, Real News Network Facebook Page, April 6, 2016

by Joe Giambrone

Perhaps with the renewed interest in those 28 redacted pages, as a result of 60 Minutes’ decision to broadcast, thirteen years late to the party, we may see some important changes soon.

Previously, I provided Professor Noam Chomsky a fair opportunity to explain himself and to defer to Senator Bob Graham, an actual expert and insider who has been fighting since the start to uncover the facts of the covered-up 9/11 report he helped to write. Undeterred by Professor Chomsky’s stone silence, I am amused at the message board inanities of his numerous allies. These self-styled vigilantes soon swarm and clumsily attempt to defend his honor. The Professor’s guerrillas exhibit regimentation, repeated so often that I could make their specious case for them, but why not let them speak for themselves?

One should probably know what the debate is all about first if one is to argue publicly about matters of mass murder and pretexts for war; but no. This is clearly not the case here. That anachronism called integrity would suggest that gravely important issues such as these require special care, actual investigation, and accuracy. These are life and death matters of war, atrocities, and an open-ended casus belli, the green light for the U.S. to bomb the world.

Make no mistake. Chomskyites, those wild-eyed true believers in Noam, do not know anything at all about the September 11th cover-up, nothing whatsoever. I have not met a single one of the Professor’s defenders—in over a decade—who was even aware of the existence of the censored 28 pages, which expose Saudi (and potentially other) state supporters of the 9/11 hijackers, quite the loose end left dangling. Forget substantive debates about their meaning; the Chomskyite must first discover the very existence of the cover-up. As Professor Chomsky never explicitly mentions the cover-up it does not exist in their minds.

Not one of them could be bothered to read the source, any source. Unfazed by his demonstrated and now glaring ignorance, the typical Chomskyite rejects factual evidence so adamantly he becomes belligerently hostile to the prospect of having to read any.

“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” -Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome

“911 is irrelevant”

Two of Noam Chomsky’s defenders, in the exchange on The Real News Network’s Facebook page, called the September 11th attacks “irrelevant.” That was, coincidentally, Professor Chomsky’s dubious message, as documented previously in this series. They merely parroted his response, “I mean it doesn’t have any significance.” That was Chomsky’s answer to evidence of criminal complicity by US officials in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen in the first place. No “significance” is the Professor’s final word on the prospect of September 11th high Treason.

This ridiculous bunk, the idea that 9/11 is allegedly insignificant, fails the laugh test.

The Chomskyite attempts to use a straw man argument, citing the scale of the carnage and comparing it to other atrocities with higher numbers of casualties. That sort of thoughtlessness is irresponsibly simplistic.

The number of bodies produced in that single event is not what makes September 11th relevant. The policies enacted because of it are what makes 9/11 relevant, policies still in effect such as the authorization to use military force: open-ended global war powers, an endless drone assassination campaign, NSA surveillance of the population, and the USA PATRIOT ACT, which erased fundamental freedoms from the Bill of Rights. Those are more than sufficient—and significant—to call “bullshit” on Professor Noam Chomsky’s straw man fallacy. But there are quite a few other cancerous policies directly justified by the September 11th attacks, or enduring only because of its cover-up.

September 11th widow and America’s greatest so-called “truther” Kristen Breitweiser details that special relationship between the US and the tyrannical Saudi monarchy. She might remind Professor Chomsky of her findings.

“In short, it seems that as long as you are an ally of the U.S. and not a named state-sponsor of terrorism, apparently you can underwrite all the mass murder you want and get away with it.” -Kristen Breitweiser, “Obama of Arabia”

Some might consider that significant although perhaps not Professor Chomsky’s disciples. We need only examine her first point of six to complete the annihilation of the Professor’s illogic.

“1. The U.S. has sold nearly $100 billion worth of weapons to KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Our defense contracting industry makes large campaign contributions  to ex-presidents, presidents, potential presidents, and various members of Congress.”

All of this is highly significant, ongoing, and one might dare to suggest problematic. The Saudi money spigot also directly corrupts US politicians, as do their many lobbyists and PR offensives. All of this crap should have been history by 2003 at the latest.

Lastly, the very real prospect of officials allowing attacks to occur domestically for political and economic gain cannot ever be considered “irrelevant.” If it could happen once, it could happen again, and again. An imperial power like the United States will always have violent, willing enemies. They are to be expected. The machinations of those entrusted with stopping them is where our real problems lie, as was glaringly exposed in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. However, that would entail another lengthy discussion full up with those pesky and most unwelcome facts.

Institutional (Non) Analysis

Since 2002, when numerous revelations about the Bush Administration’s non-performance to defend the country on 9/11/01 emerged, I have been hearing the repeated excuse of some mythical construct called “Institutional Analysis.” I first heard this term on a charter bus on the way to an anti-war demonstration in Los Angeles. It was the blanket excuse employed by some in the anti-war movement of the day to avoid looking at the hard evidence related to the September 11th attacks. This was Noam Chomsky’s prescription; for what? I’m still working on the answer to that one. Did his “Institutional Analysis” stop the war on Iraq, perchance or have any other demonstrable positive effect, ever?

There may be some textbook definition of this idea that seems to make sense on the surface. In practice, where the jetliner meets the skyscraper, this concept has been employed solely to promote ignorance, not knowledge, and to tell pseudo-intellectuals what they should and what they should not investigate, like a lever or a switch.

This specious philosophy, letting thought leaders choose the institutions and the details worthy of inclusion in one’s mind, choosing the topics of dissent essentially, serves as an ideological blinder.

Here is how Chomsky’s philosophy is explained:

“[Chomsky’s] interest and research is focused on exposing institutional corruption as it relates to policy. He’s a big picture academic and believes getting caught up in conspiracy theorizing about the chicanery of individual or party machinations is a distraction and unproductive means of substantially challenging power.” -eYeDEF on Alternet.org

Because he’s having so much success leading the revolution? Wow. Unfortunately, in the real world, where we all have to live, the “chicanery of individual or party machinations” is how things get done.

Chomsky’s default response to any and all crimes of the state is to blanket ignore them? He simply cannot be bothered with details about criminal wrongdoing? He and his ilk believe themselves above all that? The “big picture” avoids whatever evidence the “big picture guy” deems insignificant.

That’s borderline insanity, and a large pitcher of Kool Aid. It seems more like a convenient excuse to ignore controversies, no matter how important they happen to be. But Noam Chomsky has not ignored 9/11 entirely. He has gone out of his way to create specious arguments about it, as documented.

We, in America, live under a framework of laws. It starts with the Constitution. When government officials violate them, the default response is not to stick one’s head up one’s own posterior. That could be called intellectual cowardice if seen in a slightly different shade of lighting. No, that’s exactly what it is in any lighting.

The deliberate willful ignorance of Chomsky and company is pervasive and is confirmed by another of his many defenders:

“JFK assassination and 9-11 are irrelevant in the large scheme of things. Institutional analysis based on cold hard facts is a better place to dedicate resources. Not on things most people won’t believe no matter how good your facts are.” -Hextor X Delgado, Facebook Page, April 6, 2016

Filled with fallacies, the relevance question has already been addressed, and nuked.

Here Hextor confuses his textbook with what Chomsky has actually done. Chomsky is fact-free and blissfully ignorant of the cover-up of the September 11th attacks, having yet to acknowledge its reality. He rejects any and all “cold hard facts,” and he does not want to know; he does not want to get involved. His adherents are even more factually deficient, unable to demonstrate any knowledge of even the cursory details of the congressional report’s cover-up.

Noam Chomsky wants absolutely nothing to do with the “cold hard facts” of 9/11 and has become a verbal contortionist in response to them. He, and they, use this “Institutional Analysis” excuse as a means of avoiding the “cold hard facts,” not of studying them. We’re right at the border of Double Speak now.

It’s not that Noam Chomsky cannot accuse the US government of committing crimes. In his hastily pumped out book 9-11, released barely a month after the attacks, he wrote:

“The author of course is not suggesting that the term is apt; rather, that the [Kosovo] crimes were masked as ‘humanitarian.'” -Noam Chomsky, 9-11, p.12

It’s permitted in Chomskyland to accuse the US government of perpetrating crimes against foreign lands, but not domestically. Citizens are apparently fair game.

In a plot twist, Chomsky then backpedaled away from the very concept of crime:

“The proper term would be ‘crime’-perhaps ‘crime against humanity,’ as Robert Fisk has stressed. But there are laws for punishing crimes: identify the perpetrators, and hold them accountable, the course that is widely recommended in the Middle East, by the Vatican, and many others. But that requires solid evidence, and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 15 years ago? For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like ‘war.'”

So, to Noam Chomsky it’s crime, but it’s not crime. The master linguist argues in favor of vagueness, not specificity. The “dangerous question,” to him is holding individuals accountable for their actions. Better to err on the side of lawlessness?

Chomsky does label himself some flavor of anarchist. Does an anarchist accept the idea that crime and conspiracy (crime by two or more people) are real? It seems that’s the next question to pose to him.

If Noam Chomsky’s anarchist dogma is at the heart of his willful blindness, then people should be aware of it and judge his positions accordingly. Does Noam Chomsky believe in the legitimacy of the rule of law? And if not, why are so many “progressives” and “liberals” in thrall of him when they clearly do not share his radical principles?

Lastly, Hextor x Delgado made another false claim about what “people” will allegedly believe. Recall he said, “Not on things most people won’t believe no matter how good your facts are.”

By 2004 “66 percent” of Americans believed that John F. Kennedy was killed as “part of a larger conspiracy.” That’s a supermajority.

So that’s another demonstrable falsehood from the cult of Chomsky. As the main subject of my ongoing debate challenge is cover-up, the specious idea that Americans would disbelieve the facts after the cover-up is exposed has no support to it. It is further speculation, and reckless at that. These people live within tangled speculative webs that guide them to oppose truth and justice on nearly every front. Somehow Professor Noam Chomsky and his philosophy are at the core of it.

“Conspiracy Theory”

The great hex, linked directly back to the CIA in 1967 when its Warren Commission fraud fell apart, is to accuse anyone you cannot debate honestly—with facts and evidence—of being a dreaded “conspiracy theorist.” This is the new American Witch: the outsider/demon. This tool is provided to slander independent dissenters, people who actually exercise a few of those vaunted “freedoms,” notably the freedom of thought.

The Chomskyite, however, cannot differentiate a theory from the factual public record. He is not alone in this state of confusion, but as an apparently literate thinker, that sort of immaturity is simply unacceptable. It creates a hostile, negative public space for dissenters.

The Chomskyite’s first line of ideological defense is to make false accusations, seeing theories where they are not posited. He sees phantom “conspiracy theories,” and this amounts to an ad hominem accusation unrelated to the evidence or to the original point, a non-sequitur to boot. These people swim in a sea of fallacies.

There is nothing theoretical whatsoever about the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry report cover-up, and there never was. There are at least half a million hits associated on Google for anyone to explore (“28 redacted pages”). It’s not hidden. Its existence is not debatable. It’s certainly not theoretical. Here it is exposed in The New Yorker, and here in Vanity Fair. This is actual US history that affects us all, whether you prefer to ignore it or not, whether your ideology allows you to think it or not. Or whether you’re just plainly ignorant of major events that have occurred since 2001 and should be learning rather than typing.

An adult must choose to make a crucial distinction in order to become a rational thinker. He or she must separate facts from opinions. If one cannot assess facts versus the opinions of pundits, professors, or whomever, then one simply cannot think for himself. He is led around by the dominant myths and is little better than a piloted drone.

In 100% of my challenges to Noam Chomsky and his peanut gallery I begin with the unassailable cover-up and Senator Graham’s legitimate complaints, versus Noam Chomsky’s already examined obfuscation and baseless speculation.

“Chomsky doesn’t want to get into 9-11 conspiracy theory…” -Hextor X Delgado, Real News Network Facebook Page, April 6, 2016

And we’re off and running. The cover-up of facts is not a theory. No matter how many times I bang it out on their screens, literally putting it in front of their faces, they seem incapable of grasping this simple truth. Anyone beyond the third-grade level should comprehend this, but not the ideologically mesmerized.

Noam Chomsky misleads people by ignoring the fact of the 9/11 cover-up. His devotees take his cues and then expound upon them.

“You do realize that is a conspiracy theory blog that is taking short quotes out of context right?” -Alex Alvarez, Real News Network Facebook Page, April 6, 2016

And just because you type it means zip, Alex. Nothing theoretical about the cover-up. Taking quotes from Noam Chomsky must then be “out of context,” although there is no responsibility for the Chomskyite to demonstrate how any meaning was allegedly changed. So, the infallible Professor simply cannot be quoted at all. He’s above that. Very convenient (for a cult).

They come out of the woodwork, all variations on a theme:

“Maybe Chomsky ‘refused to debate you’ because you’re just another schmo on the internet with conspiracy theories. Arrogant, much?” -David Ward, Real News Network Facebook Page

Reminds me of the Clone Army from Star Wars Episode 3.

But you, Dear Reader, should comprehend by now that the outrageous, criminal cover-up of Saudi financing and logistical help to the named hijackers is no theory. A whole lot of Chomskyites assume that it is, however. What does this tell us about them? And about Chomsky’s effect on their cognitive abilities?

And on the basic academic honesty of all concerned?

Also, my debate challenge was an olive branch, a last ditch offer for him to do the right thing and to acknowledge Senator Graham’s existence. Failing that concession by Chomsky my work will proceed and is proceeding toward a book.

Next customer, “eYeDEF” on Alternet.org, “Noam Chomsky: What Bernie Sanders Should Do Next,” March 20, 2016:

“If you bothered to actually read anything from Chomsky’s immense body of work you’d be aware of its quality and unique perspectives he’s offered in reshaping the way the left thinks about US policy and its own government.” -eYeDEF on Alternet.org

A wordy bloke, but slinging the unfounded character accusations, as expected. “eYeDEF” had no idea who I am nor what I’ve read. I read Manufacturing Consent in the late 90s, and let’s not forget the immense (dominant?) contributions of Edward S. Herman. I’ve read tons of articles from Chomsky, seen and critiqued numerous videos, read sections of his JFK ”Camelot” book, etc. I was, in fact, pitching this very series of articles about him, and so the false claim that I hadn’t even read Chomsky was slop.

Further, and this is the big one, “reshaping the way the left thinks” is exactly the subject of my critique. How can eYeDEF hit the nail on the head and yet miss the target simultaneously? Cognitive dissonance? The subject of this series is Chomsky’s effect on “reshaping the way the left” doesn’t think. To think would require factual evidence and study. Chomsky’s rejection of facts is the crux of the problem.

“You’re cherry picking two events from history that have spawned cottage industries built on conpiracist-fueled speculation.” -eYeDEF

I’m allegedly “cherry picking,” a strange use of that phrase, two of the most significant events of the past sixty years: the JFK assassination and cover-up, and the September 11th attacks… and cover-up. What’s the common denominator here?

There may be “cottage industries” as he puts it, but that’s irrelevant to my entire challenge to Professor Chomsky and company. So, eYeDEF has introduced an irrelevant commentary to avoid the actual charge. I have simply demanded that Noam Chomsky acknowledge the reality of the 9/11 cover-up so that his legions of followers will finally pull their heads out of their asses.

This eYeDEF is also wrong on why these controversies exist. Glaring government cover-ups prompted citizen activism to expose them. The so-called “cottage industries” evolved in part to fight against the government’s actions, and in part to support them, some covertly, by putting out nonsense theories. This honey-pot ploy is old school S.O.P. in the world of intelligence, in order to smear political dissidents.

Why self-described “leftists” would be carrying water for the CIA and in support of government cover-ups—serially—is at the heart of my distrust of Noam Chomsky et al. And frankly his own statements betray his untrustworthiness.

This Chomskyite has been sold the idea that those two events, JFK & 9/11, are allegedly unimportant, by Chomsky himself. That is complete nonsense, as the CIA blowing the President’s head off and erasing reality from the public mind is staggering in its implications. If they can do that and get away with it, what can’t they do? The 9/11 cover-up, as already addressed above, is the cornerstone of the “new American Century,” our actual belligerent foreign policy to last 100 years. To claim as Noam Chomsky does is either grossly wrongheaded or deceptive.

“Chomsky is not interested in engaging in conspiratorial speculation because, like I said, he’s an empiricist.” -eYeDEF

Pay dirt! This quote has it all.

False on its face. So false, this could be direct evidence of delusion in action. In regards to the 9/11 attacks Noam Chomsky is no “empiricist.”

I am an empiricist.

Senator Graham is an empiricist.

Paul Thompson is an empiricist.

Kevin Ryan is an empiricist.

Jon Gold is an empiricist.

Empiricists actually look at the evidence, even if that evidence—gasp—points at government wrongdoing.

Noam Chomsky speculates repeatedly to claim that the Bush Administration was innocent—something he clearly has no way of knowing—and THAT is my main and most damning evidence against him. His followers’ default, and erroneous, position is to claim that Chomsky doesn’t want to get involved with the idea of conspiracy, but he is decidedly involved, and not neutral at all. He concocts phony exculpatory arguments in the government’s favor.

Noam Chomsky mislabeled his baseless opinions as “overwhelming evidence,” and that should shock all. To the dedicated Chomskyite, however, this must simply be unthinkable. If Chomsky says his opinions are “overwhelming evidence” then it must be so.

Chomsky’s speculative fallacies have been out there, easily searched. This claim by eYeDEF is 180 degrees backward. If the truth be shown and accepted this Chomskyite would be forced to concede Chomsky’s odd behavior and out-of-character aberrations in this case. On 9/11 he is anything BUT an “empiricist.” His numerous defenders seem even less tethered to reality and not concerned in any way with empirical evidence.

“The last thing he needs is to be marginalized as a 911 truther.” -eYeDEF

Except that leaves Professor Noam Chomsky a clear and disgraceful 9/11 liar.

We all had to take sides in 2002 when all those damning FACTS emerged. To refresh your memory:

“I was surprised at the evidence that there were  foreign governments  involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.” –Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Here is a heavily redacted version of some of the FBI’s evidence. [Update: the 28 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report with some lingering redactions.]

Professor Noam Chomsky chose lies, obfuscation, and reckless wordplay instead of standing up for truth and justice. He turned his back on the victims’ families—those “truthers” who forced a second September 11th investigation only to watch it devolve into a farcical cover-up. Professor Chomsky chose his side, aligning himself with covert mass murderers who cover their tracks by any means necessary. He helped the scum of the earth by misleading his sizable audience when what we desperately needed was the truth. That was the end of Professor Noam Chomsky’s credibility; his actions have been indefensible.

A Hostile, Anti-Intellectual Environment

So much for the myth that these people are the dissenters, fighting for truth and/or justice. I never dreamed that demanding the truth about a mass murder in America would invite so much flak, bile, and utter stupidity from regular citizens. Ignorance is forgivable, but wholesale, militant, willful ignorance is idiocy in action.

Perhaps it’s a sign of social collapse, the end of progress and enlightenment. Their comments speak for themselves.

“Fuck off joe…” -Calum Rssll, Real News Network Facebook Page

“Joe you have no understanding of the issue.” -(entire comment), James Protheroe, Real News Network Facebook Page

“Ooh, what’s the cover-up and the “controversy”? We wait!” -“Name,” Raw Story

“When was the last time you had a coherent thought?” -rlibos, Raw Story

“You mean that garbage propaganda you posted for us to read or maybe it’s video who cares anyways I’m not checking it out and I doubt anyone else here is either.” -Bill Hampton, Youtube

“Dude, ignore this guy. If you check out the link he posted you’ll find that it’s 9/11 truther bullshit. He’s just butthurt that Chomsky doesn’t endorse his conspiracy theory.”-Brokensteel216, Youtube

“and your (sic) a dick” -andcouncil1, Youtube

nonsense  tongue emoticon
oh noes I’m stupid and I NEED TO WAKE UP I’M A SHEEPLE
lmao” -Kevin Stevenson, Real News Network Facebook Page

Aggressive, uninformed, yet falsely believing themselves to be knowledgeable: “Ignorance is Strength?” I have yet to engage in an actual debate with any of them that includes evidence.

That is but a tiny sampling of what factually grounded dissenters face today in the land of the free. And those are the pro-Chomsky crowd, so presumed literate. Social engineering is a dangerous, destructive force. It has made false-flag terrorism literally unthinkable, despite whatever the facts are: those are labeled irrelevant apriori. Propaganda has normalized an irrational bias: faith-based speculative reasoning.

“The American people don’t read.” -Allen Dulles

In a future installment, I will explore Operation Gladio, a “forty year” long spree of false flag terror attacks across Europe according to the BBC investigation. Noam Chomsky has said nearly nothing about the exposure of Gladio, which was the brainchild of NATO and the CIA. Numerous bombings are documented, and Chomsky is aware of that reality, as he is credited for providing a couple of contact names in Daniele Ganser’s book NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe.

Gladio never went away. It was also never broadcast to the American public by its “free” press/media. And so its citizens remain blind to that disgusting history of state-supported mass murder. The U.S. public, propagandized constantly, clings to false myths about what its government is and is not capable of carrying out, covering up, and/or simply allowing to happen.

“The redaction of the twenty-eight pages has become a coverup by two Presidents, and coverup implies complicity.” –Sharon Premoli, Co-Chair of 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism

· Part One:  A Public Challenge to Noam Chomsky 

· Part Two:  Noam Chomsky & the War on Straight Answers

· Part Three:  Toxic Beef: Sacred Cows & Left Gatekeepers

· Part Four:  Fact-Free Luminaries: Chomsky’s Chumpskies

· Part Five: 28 Pages of Treason


Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s