Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
James DiEugenio

The Deceptions and DIsguises of Noam Chomsky

Recommended Posts

If you don't know very much about Chomsky, this will be a real eye opener.  

Startling how his backers, like Amy Goodman and David Barsamian, cover up his past.  I wouldn't go across the street to see him.

Anyway, he is in John Barbour's new film, ask I decided to put this piece together about him.

 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-deceptions-and-disguises-of-noam-chomsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - Even before I look at this, I want to say I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - I knew about Chomsky's blasé attitude towards JFK, but a lot of other stuff is new to me. Thanks for posting your essay. Even if I had not known any of his perfidy, his supercilious know it all attitude has troubled me for decades, I stopped listening.to him years ago, and think he has played right into the hands of the elite ruling class whose world view he claims to disagree with. He has been a disaster for the left.  I've likewise had problems with Pacifica and KPFA, and I've called them out several times.  

I wonder what you think of Oliver stone's latest Putin interviews. I've seen his son, Sean, on his show which airs on RT. Oliver Stone has done much great work, so I'm inclined to give him a pass because he is documenting Putin as he represents himself. I admit I haven't viewed it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul.  I also tuned out from Chomsky a long time ago.   Funny you should mention Pacifica.  In tracing Chomsky's career, he actually got a big boost there from David Barasamian, who runs  Alternative Radio, and who supplied Pacifica with programming for a long time.  Pacifica operates in about five major cities, and used to have a bigger imprint.  

The highlight of the piece I think is the whole exposure done by Ray Marcus of how intrigued Chomsky was for by his  case for conspiracy with JFK, to the point he  cancelled all meetings and then rescheduled another with Ray. And to my knowledge he has never admitted this in any of his writings or interviews. In fact, he does the opposite.  On the whole JFK thing, his lack of honesty is kind of  stunning.  If he simply said nothing, then fine.  But to deliberately mislead people, that is inexcusable.

And what to make of his association with Faurisson? And his plea that the Holocaust happened without any gassings?  And the whole thing with the Khmer Rouge and his  denial at first, and his lowballing of the fatalities to this day.  I think he has been a disaster for the Left myself.  And its partly why there is no Left in America. 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be surprising if Chomsky was a deep cover intelligence asset?

yes, the stories you mention - Cambodia, the Jewish Holocaust, are shocking. And with JFK, his decision, after being shown evidence of conspiracy, to at first avoid getting on board for political expediency, and later to, as you say, revert to his original assessment of Kennedy as a Cold warrior who was no different from his predecessors and successors, makes me question his motives. 

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, do Authors come under pressure to avoid this subject or that subject, or to not dig to deep here or there? I ask because I sometimes wonder if Chomsky or, say, Christopher Hitchens truncated their thought or expression as a result of a learned or recommended limititation. I look at both of them and I feel like one avoided some very clear implications of the historical record and the other turned his focus on a religious iconoclastic shtick that, while sensational and, perhaps, radical, is ultimately just part of the eternal quagmire of religious dogma and haughty yet detached political satire. 

I though it might be good a time to ask and that you would be a good person to ask. If we take Varnell's well known disappointment in your non-attention to certain aspects of political-socio events and poicy and add my observation that you, I believe, have stated that, at this point, you think we should avoid certain foci, like naming names as a vague example, I am left with the feeling that there are indeed limits and pressures that guide authors and thinkers.

I understand that you have areas of interest and may have just not gotten-around to this or that.

Yet, I am curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - subject for another thread, not this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - subject for another thread, not this one.

Sure, Paul, But I would boil my question down to a question of why? Why would Chomsky obfuscate the fact of conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by me not naming names.  I guess no one reads my books here. I don't know how I could be more specific than I was in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.

I think that my essay explains why Chomsky did as he did through his pal Selwyn Bromberger.  At least that is how I took it.  The work of Ray Marcus was stunning in this regard. And apparently Chomsky forgot it happened. He and his pals decided that the forces that took out Kennedy were simply too powerful to take on.  And were also too secret and covert. Whereas, by 1969, when Ray's visit happened, the resistance to Vietnam was getting very widespread and even soame MSM figures  had turned against it like Cronkite.  Remember this was after Tet.  If you read McNamara's book, even Dick Helms thought we should withdraw by then.

As per Hitchens, this guy ended up being for the Iraq war, and helped  the special prosecutor in the Clinton case.  He had nothing but idiotic remarks on the JFK case and it was clear that he did not know anything about the circumstances of the murder or the specifics of JFK's presidency.  I mean anyone who could blame JFK for the demise of Diem and his brother deserves no attention at all. It was clear that none of these guys--him, Cockburn, or Chomsky-- knew what on earth they were talking about either in Vietnam or about the Warren Commission. And its incredible that they condoned the likes of what Hoover, McCloy, Ford and Dulles had done with the Commission.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know what you mean by me not naming names.  I guess no one reads my books here. I don't know how I could be more specific than I was in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.

I think that my essay explains why Chomsky did as he did through his pal Selwyn Bromberger.  At least that is how I took it.  The work of Ray Marcus was stunning in this regard. And apparently Chomsky forgot it happened. He and his pals decided that the forces that took out Kennedy were simply too powerful to take on.  And were also too secret and covert. Whereas, by 1969, when Ray's visit happened, the resistance to Vietnam was getting very widespread and even soame MSM figures  had turned against it like Cronkite.  Remember this was after Tet.  If you read McNamara's book, even Dick Helms thought we should withdraw by then.

As per Hitchens, this guy ended up being for the Iraq war, and helped  the special prosecutor in the Clinton case.  He had nothing but idiotic remarks on the JFK case and it was clear that he did not know anything about the circumstances of the murder or the specifics of JFK's presidency.  I mean anyone who could blame JFK for the demise of Diem and his brother deserves no attention at all. It was clear that none of these guys--him, Cockburn, or Chomsky-- knew what on earth they were talking about either in Vietnam or about the Warren Commission. And its incredible that they condoned the likes of what Hoover, McCloy, Ford and Dulles had done with the Commission.

 

Thanks Jim. I read and enjoyed your article. It's important. I always felt like I was left hanging with NC. You gave a good view of the landscape around him.

Regarding the naming names comment: There is an EF thread with a comment from you that I come-upon frequently. When I read that comment I get tripped-up. I have not asked for clarification before, probably to keep from going off-topic. I'll ask about it next time.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - Trying to delete this post. You answered my question already just now.

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - did you read Jim's article? Or have you rad any of his books?

I read the article, with serious interest. NC bedazzled me when I was younger and befuddled me as I got older. Jim's article validates that process I went through and kind of settles it.

Regatding books; I am 8 months into this. I have read this forum, original documents, articles and early publications. I see this as a one-time opportunity. Taking on volumes of books really gives your mind over to authors. If you don't follow up with diverse readings you end up with a lack of diversity in your gene-pool, so to speak. I am a reader, books are not a problem. I am taking this time to view and sample the landscape. I have a set of fresh-eyes. Original sources are good for fresh-eyes, reading books changes that.

I read Garrison before I saw JFK. That was a long time ago. 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read what Chomsky wrote on the subject at the time that Stone's film  came out, it was pretty clear that he had done little or nothing on Vietnam since the Pentagon Papers were published.  That he did not have NSAM 263, and had not interviewed Prouty or Krulak. And he was not aware that there were two sets of books concerning the intelligence reports on how the Saigon regime was doing in 1963.

As Newman's book points out, LBJ knew about this double booking through his military aide Howard Burris.  And he had access to the real  documents which showed how bad the war was going.  (Jim DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 188) Kennedy was basing his withdrawal plan on the phony numbers, plus the fact that McNamara had been informed that Kennedy's intent was to withdraw since 1962.  

OTOH, LBJ was willing to commit USA combat troops since 1961! (ibid)  Indeed he had told Diem to ask Kennedy for troops in that year, even though he knew JFK did not want to hear this.  This  information is crucial.  That is, the two sets of books, and the difference between JFK and LBJ.  Because Johnson then used the the second set of books to start a set of military plans to expand the war with American air power, and then combat troops.  This was done by March of 1964. (ibid, p. 189)

If you don't know this, then you cannot be informed about why the policy changed so radically in just a few months, and why LBJ reacted as he did to the Tonkin Gulf incident. Which consisted of one bullet through one hull. He looked at it as a way to begin his air assault against Hanoi, which he did.

Now compare that to what  Kennedy did during the Missile Crisis when Castro shot down a defenseless U2 and killed the pilot. That is why I say that anyone who tries to declare that there was no difference between LBJ and JFK on foreign policy is either an axe grinder or an ignoramous.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add another point on this.  People like Sheehan and Halberstam were early critics of Kennedy from the right.  That is they wanted more American involvement in the war since they were advocates of Major Jean Paul Vann.  Vann realized in 1963 that the ARVN could not win on their own. And he was trying to spread the word through the Pentagon, which is why Kennedy did not want him addressing any generals or politicians.

 Halberstam tried to cover up this aspect of his career.  And that he was also a critic of Kennedy's Congo policy.  That he became a liberal darling later shows you what you need to know about the liberal establshment and their values, and what they knew about JFK.  

BTW, the people at Daily Kos still  think The Best and the Brightest  is a good book. So does Steve Bannon.

I show how bad it is in my PP slideshow.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 5:59 PM, Michael Clark said:

I would boil my question down to a question of why? Why would Chomsky obfuscate the fact of conspiracy?

Michael: I had professor Chomsky (the father of modern linguistics) in a lecture at MIT. Venezuelan students, sponsored by Petróleos de Venezuela (at the time the 4th. largest in the world, a company which provides the only source of income for a 32 million inhabitant country) were very interested since Chomsky knows A LOT about the oil industry's dark -intended- and nasty businesses.

IMHO (something that I have asked repeatedly to his fans in YouTube, where he contradicts himself), the fundamental reason he does not support the CT position, is the same IBM did not support many devices and software in its heyday:

              The Not-Made Here Syndrome

IOW: Since it is so big, and he did not come up with it first, it is a sheety conspiracy theory. He has allowed his massive ego to incarcerate and enslave his purported beliefs. So much for a man who claims to love freedom !!

I have seen that unbelievable, counterproductive, self inflicted behavior in the business world and could mention several famous JFK researchers who similarly simply deny a priory anything that was not their idea.

That is one of the reasons I rather stick with JFK Numbers, where all hypotheses and theories go through a Trial by Fire (with the wood provided/fanned by their reviewing peers in an OPEN environment (*)).

-Ramon

(*) That was a swipe against Boston University:

     The Kochs Get to Decide What America "knows" About the JFK Murder

 

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×