The Deceptions and DIsguises of Noam Chomsky

[Kirk Gallaway]

I remember when I first read this. I was surprised to learn that Chomsky had flirted with JFK Conspiracy then thought better of it. I did a radio interview once with him and would have asked if I had known.--Damn!    

I  see it  as really a dispassionate career choice. He had found a comfortable niche in making a good living and decided that he wasn't completely sure where the conspiracy tide was heading, and there was a danger that he might eventually be identified as a "wild eyed" conspiracy theorist. That and what Ramone refers to, he would be seen as indecisive  and late to the party, and part of his allure to his followers was his supreme certitude.

[James DiEugenio]

I agree that it most likely was a career choice on his part.

But as I say, he has never acknowledged it as far as I can see.  If you want to be silent on it, fine.

But don't attack those who hold the same beliefs you once held, and then do not explain why you did your flip.

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk:

 

When  you say you did a radio interview with him, does that mean you were the interviewer, or you were on with him as a guest?  What was the occasion?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, Yeah he was my guest, for a full hour. I have the air check somewhere on cassette. It was about 1993. All the hosts of public affairs shows had to get their own guests, and I can't remember how I got him, but it was remarkably easy, to the astonishment of my colleagues..

We talked mostly world politics. The first Persian Gulf war was the last major world incident at that time, and we talked about that, but we hit upon a lot of stuff.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, this is now the number one rated article at Kennedysandking.com.

I am really gratified about that.  I have always felt that not enough people knew about Chomsky's full background with Faurisson, and the backstory on Cambodia. And how that relates to his meanderings on JFK.

Hopefully this will have some impact.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On 6/26/2017 at 11:39 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I agree that it most likely was a career choice on his part.

Guys (Jim and Kirk):

Maybe I am missing something, but are we saying that Chomsky is/was afraid of controversy??

This is like saying that Fidel, Hugo Chavez, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and to a closer, more pertinent extent, our esteemed David Mantik (even this Humble Servant of The People) are scared to make waves.

Some people thrive in controversy. Without it, they are like the proverbial fish out of the water.

The logical career choice would have been: "Not only did The Skull & Bones [or some darker, nefarious cabal] kill Kennedy but I (and only I) discovered the following even more scandalous and shocking: [blah, blah, etc]"

-Ramon

ps: BTW, Chomsky claims that his ideological position in Linguistics (Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism) has nothing to do with his political stance. I for one say that that is bullsheet: Both are expressions of a freedom loving contrarian.

Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Here's a possibility:

[Chomsky:] "Let's see ... Pretty much EVERYBODY expects me to be a CT. Therefore, I will be the OPPOSITE!"

a.k.a. "The George Costanza Strategy". Kinda juvenile, if you ask me. Talk about "Reverse Psychology"

-Ramon

 

[Ron Bulman]

Other than a few quotes I'd never read Chomsky until a few days after this years inauguration.  A few weeks after last year's election I started looking for something more informative than what the MSM offered regarding how we had gotten to the point that what happened happened..  I came across Chris Hedges "Unspeakable", a pretty devastating and depressing analysis.  Of course I came across Chomsky in my search.  On January 20 during the inauguration in an act of frustration and rebellion I ordered three of his books in an effort to find something as far left of the right as I could.  I waded through two of the three.  He does make one think.  My naivety regarding some of the subjects was improved upon.  I did come across comments about the JFK assassination which I disagreed with and questioned.  This, and I can't find the right word, a feeling of being preached at as opposed to informed of (?)  have left me lacking desire to finish the third book. 

Not to get political here but I ultimately have found some enlightenment in the following books.

 https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Your-Doesnt-Count/dp/1631493213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498877764&sr=1-1&keywords=ratfuked

As editor of Salon the author made a big step trying to fill the shoes of founder/former editor David Talbot (Brothers, The Devi's Chessboard).

 https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498878130&sr=1-1&keywords=dark+money+jane+mayer+paperback   

New Yorker writer responds to Koch Bros. attack on personal credibility and prior article stunningly.  Not just me, 5 stars, Over 1500 reviews.

 https://www.amazon.com/Captured-Corporate-Infiltration-American-Democracy/dp/1620972077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498878677&sr=1-1&keywords=captured+sheldon+whitehouse

Billionaire 1% owned Corporate Americas takeover via Citizens United explained from the inside of our political system in detail passionately and Patriotically by the eloquent Senator from Rode Island.  Highly under read based on the number of reviews.  (I've not read NYT/WaPo reviews of it). 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ramon,

If you read my essay, the time period was 1968-69 when Ray Marcus arranged his visits and then visited Chomsky twice in Boston. And CHOmsky was convinced at that time JFK was killed in a plot.

At that time, the Vietnam War had gone absolutely haywire.  There were 540,000 combat troops there.  It had essentially forced LBJ to abandon a second term and try to find a peaceful solution (which Nixon then sandbagged with Anna Chennault).

There were protest movements and groups springing up all over the USA e. g. SDS, and Vietnam Veterans against the War. Even Cronkite had come out against the war.

OTOH, Jim Garrison had just been crushed by the MSM including Cronkite, Rather and NBC.  Take a look at what Chomsky's friend, Selwyn Bromberger, told Ray Marcus in my article. 

So, it would appear from the evidence adduced by Ray that Chomsky made his choice.  He passed on JFK and decided to wade into the Anti Vietnam War movement which was mushrooming into a successful cause celebre.

After the fiasco of the HSCA, where DIck Sprague got the same treatment as Jim Garrison, Chomsky seemed to have gotten the message.  After that, instead of keeping the JFK case on the back burner--after all he signed a petition for the HSCA--he then decided to completely remove it, and then went to all out war with its advocates.  

Ray Marcus supplies the evidence for that thesis, which, to my knowledge, Chomsky has never revealed.  For good reason. 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ramon F. Herrera]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ramon,

If you read my essay, the time period was 1968-69 when Ray Marcus arranged his visits and then visited Chomsky twice in Boston. And CHOmsky was convinced at that time JFK was killed in a plot.

I read it months ago (last year?) when you first published it, chief. Then again, let me double check.

-Ramon

Edited July 2, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera

[James DiEugenio]

This is a revised and expanded version of the article.  

I did not even title than one with his name.  As I was focused on someone else then.

There is some new material in this one, but the point I am trying to make is similar.  Chomsky passed on the JFK case even though he believed in it and decided to take part in the Vietnam protests when were much more prevalent and must more popular.

He later decided to turn on those who thought like he did once, that JFK was killed as part of a plot.  And he declared war on them, without ever telling anyone, as far as I know, that he had been convinced of their cause previously.  

IMO, there is a definite advantage to this career wise.  For instance, Cockburn would never have been allowed to be a columnist with the Nation, or the LA Times, if he had advocated for a plot in the JFK case.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On 7/2/2017 at 0:10 AM, James DiEugenio said:

There is some new material in this one, but the point I am trying to make is similar.  Chomsky passed on the JFK case even though he believed in it and decided to take part in the Vietnam protests when were much more prevalent and must more popular.

He later decided to turn on those who thought like he did once, that JFK was killed as part of a plot.  And he declared war on them, without ever telling anyone, as far as I know, that he had been convinced of their cause previously.  

IMO, there is a definite advantage to this career wise.  For instance, Cockburn would never have been allowed to be a columnist with the Nation, or the LA Times, if he had advocated for a plot in the JFK case.

Jim:

I keep on arriving to the same conclusions, again and again. Every time people in forums (Deplorables, mostly) asked me:

"Ramon, what does xyz have to do with the Latinos in the US (or about JFK, a subject that even my Liberal buddies in forums avoid with fear)?"

I wise-assly replied:

Quote

"Oh, I happen to have a Master's degree on

     CHANGING THE TOPIC TO WHATEVER SUITS MY NEEDS

... a PhD is in progress."

With that caveat in mind, let me elaborate on something that I have mentioned, in passing, to you in private. We BADLY need more fluid, readily available access to the media. We must make a concerted effort. Look how much struggle it took for the Archives incursion -my mischief- to be (finally!) mentioned in Newsweek and ONLY in the web version. Cannot send the magazine paper issue to my mom back home  :-(. The piece was hidden deep inside their website, at that. Not quite the predicted "bombshell", was it?

See for instance, Demetri Terzopoulos (details in next post, a heretofore confidential set of e-mails). Ideally, some Gaeton type of stubborn, hard-nosed, tough investigative journalist should interview him:

"Doctor Terzopoulos: There are some people (JFK Numbers) who claim that you may have solved the crime of the century, and that you don't even know it."

[Terzopoulos will be startled at this point, intrigued]

"You have developed the first realistic model of the human body's head and upper torso, for movie animation.:

  (1) "Can your research be fine-tuned in order to determine whether the victim's violent snap was caused by external forces or by his own muscles?

"and, most importantly...

  (2) "Do you have what it takes, the wherewithal to grab that task by the horns? ... [perhaps, "cojones", appealing at his manhood could be added here]. The reason my readers ask this is because your connections with the Military Industrial Complex are well known. It is right there, in your web page. Your research is sponsored by the DoD and the CIA, for starters".

Quote

"His research has received funding from the NSF, DOD, DARPA, IARPA, CIA, US Army "

    Terzopoulos Web Page

Well, Jim, the same applies to professor Chomsky. Somebody should drill him, about his historically changing positions on the crime. Perhaps Kirk Gallaway could attempt an encore?

-Ramon

Edited July 3, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ramone, So you mean an encore interview? I'd love to, but I don't have a show anymore.

It sounds like you've had a lot more exposure to Chomsky than I have. If you think the reason he's avoided this is just his general contrarian nature, that's interesting. But as I pointed out generally and Jim pointed out specifically with Cockburn. It was a mammoth career choice. I know in later days of the 60's the fallout from the Vietnam War relegated the JFK assassination investigation way  to the back burner, as it was still in it's incipient stage.It was the more obvious fish to fry for Chomsky. Not that he couldn't have courageously done both.

I did see an excerpt out of context from Robin O' Neal (who was at Dealey Plaza and the only press person upon hearing the shooting to immediately leave the press car) who said  something early on to the effect that "At a certain point, you'd have to be a fool to not consider conspiracy". He certainly toned down later, as I've seen video of events later with Lehrer (who always been a  WR advocate) and he's completely toned down and did not cast any doubts on the WC findings..

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, it made a lot of careers.  And not just Rather's.

For example, Peter Jennnings was also a reporter on the JFK case when he was up in Canada.

I have come to believe in the whole Hallin's Spheres, view of our MSM, which I alluded to in my  Powerpoint presentation on Vietnam.  Except that, as I believe happened with Vietnam, that was a subject that eventually did penetrate into the MSM, simply because LBJ and RMN allowed saturation press coverage of the war.  Later on, with Iraq, the Power Elite learned their lesson, and there was only controlled junkets allowed.  And, as some people have written, journalists who tried to break that rule were targeted, quite literally.

On the JFK case, after 1967, with the double hit by CBS and NBC in primetime, it was hard to get any fair coverage in the MSM on the JFK case.  Which was not the case before. Therefore, the avenue for prominence on the left was the Vietnam War. I mean when you can get 500,000 people in Washington, that is quite an audience.  And it happened twice.  

IMO, Chomsky and the late Alex Cockburn made a practical choice. And it worked for them.  But for me it stripped them of any kind of intellectual or moral stature.  Which is usually the trademark of left/liberal writing.  

Which is why I respect Mike Parenti and not those guys.

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ray Mitcham]

Agreed, James. In the Iraq war correspondents were embedded with various chosen units, and they were threatened that if they wrote anything which the military disagreed with they would be disembodied and lose their accreditation. The military learned the lesson of the Vietnam war when the press had a field day. Remember the films of the Choppers attacking Vietnamese villages?