A moderator's message to Joseph Mcbride and Michael Griffith.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Chris, you're still missing my point about what concerns me in this instance. Please read my

message again, including the quote from JFK:  "Let us not

be afraid of debate or dissent -- let us encourage it."

At the risk of me sounding silly, I think I do understand your point. I have heard JFK say it in other speeches. There is a lot going on that stifles dissent, its never been more obvious than this past two years. I do think there is a bad culture here, it needs solving. We’ve never had this online footprint before that is potentially so damaging. 

[Joseph McBride]

Thanks, Chris. I agree with you.

Civility and being willing to listen to others in discussing and debating

issues are important to everyone, including to those seriously

researching the assassination. We see the effects

of dissident voices on the assassination routinely

being stifled by the mainstream media. We don't

need that here.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Ron Bulman]

On 11/3/2022 at 4:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Plus, didn't you refer to Noam Chomsky as a total loon, or something like that? Knowing that Joseph has respect for the man?

While not the gist of this thread I found this ironic.  I gave up trying to keep up with Michaels long diatribes a good while back and have no idea of the basis of his statement.  But having read Josephs most recent book Amazon.com: Political Truth: The Media and the Assassination of President Kennedy eBook : McBride, Joseph: Kindle Store, I chuckled regarding his "respect" for Chomsky.  A few examples.

"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination" the left historian Noam Chomsky said in a 1993 interview.  "I mean I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make?"  . . . "it's just like the killing of anyone else.  . . .  but why is it an issue for the popular movements any more than the latest killing on the streets of Hoboken?"

"Chomsky is not alone in such contemptuous rhetoric." . . .  "It's hard to understand why political pundits like Chomsky (and Cockburn) who have treated such a major American historical event as a presidential assassination so flippantly could expect to be taken seriously in writing about history."  . . .  "Chomsky speciously dismissed the evidence that NSAM 273 secretly made a radical change in Vietnam policy two days after the assassination."   . . .  "Chomsky's willful misreading of NSAM 273 enables him to conclude, "Nothing substantial changes as the mantle passes to LBJ,"  . . .  "Chomsky's overwrought passion against Kennedy blinds him to nuances about JFK's evolution from a Cold Warrior to a leader with a more complex perspective."  From pages 252 - 255.

"Chomsky's rewriting of history enables him to falsely claim that "Changes of Administration, including the Kennedy assassination, had no large-scale effect on policy,"  Joseph felt worthy of quoting:  "JFK assassination researcher Michael D. Morrisey observed in 1993.  "Chomsky after all his 'radical dissent' and acid condemnation of others as being mind[-]controlled, would now have to admit that he himself was more mind[-]controlled and duped and propagandized to the most important political event of the century than a large portion of the population. . .  He is simply afraid to see that he has been magnificently, thoroughly, royally screwed."

(To summarize):  "Chomsky, MIT faculty since 1955 . . . has "joked" that his salary throughout the years has been paid by the military-industrial complex.  His exalted reputation as a maverick political historian and gadfly to the establishment has its limits."

"And yet despite his calculated blindness in refusing to see the pattern in modern American history leading from November 22, 1963, to January 6, 2021, Chomsky had no problem recognizing January 6 as the culmination of an attempted coup by Trump."  Pages 347 - 349.

[Anthony Thorne]

Barrie Zwicker - who once interviewed Chomsky for Canadian TV (watchable on Youtube) - had a long chapter on Chomsky in his book TOWERS OF DECEPTION. An excerpt is below - 

Quote

 

The Ostensible Mystery of Chomsky, JFK and 9/11

Like many on the Left, for years I lived in puzzlement as to why Chomsky could not or would not recognize the mountain of evidence that JFK could not have been killed by a lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. I had encountered many others on the Left who said they were "mystified" and "bewildered" as to his decades-long obstinacy and adamancy in the JFK assassination, especially because their belief was that Chomsky valued evidence above all.

Then a friend gave me a little-known book by E. Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us, 23 which contains evidence that Chomsky indeed was exposed to a coherent collection of evidence undermining the official Warren Report version of what happened to JFK. In one of the appendices was a first-person account by citizen investigator Ray Marcus, detailing his attempts to have Noam Chomsky seriously study evidence Marcus has assembled. In early 1969, Marcus met Chomsky with "a portfolio of evidence, primarily photographic, that I could present briefly but adequately in 30-60 minutes."

He believed this evidence "carried sufficient conviction to impress most intelligent and open-minded people." The one-hour meeting was extended to between three and four hours when Chomsky had his secretary cancel the rest of his appointments for that day. Chomsky showed "great interest in the material. We mutually agreed to a follow-up session later in the week." Marcus then met with Gar Alperovitz. At the end of their one-hour meeting Alperovitz said he "would take an active part in the effort if Chomsky would lead it." The "effort" would be an attempt to reopen questioning about the provenance of JFK's death. A long second meeting with Chomsky and a colleague, MIT philosophy professor Selwyn Bromberger, followed. After the meeting Bromberger said: "If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly ... if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule."

Marcus provided further information to Chomsky, which Chomsky acknowledged. Chomsky then left on an extended trip abroad, saying in a final note, "I'm still open-minded (and I hope will remain so)." Marcus reports: "I never heard from his again. In recent years he has on a number of occasions gone on the record attacking the critics' position and supporting the Warren Report."

There's a great deal of supporting evidence in History Will Not Absolve Us from author Schotz, from Vincent Salandria, from Ray Marcus and from legendary investigative reporter Fred Cook that, following JFK's assassination, Chomsky and other leading lights of the Left simply would not acknowledge the evidence that interests opposed to Kennedy's stands for peace, rapprochement with the USSR, normalization of relations with Cuba and other progressive policies had the means, motive and opportunity to kill him. If these leaders of the Left were overcome with fear, then I for one cannot continue to honour them for bravery. But I shoved my disappointment and puzzlement off to one side and returned to my state of denial.

Chomsky can be Illogical and Unfair

Then someone recommended Chomsky's book Rethinking Camelot. There I found abundant proof that Chomsky could be Illogical, contradictory and unfair in ways I could not previously have imagined. I was attempting to resolve for myself (no one in my circle could explain it) the mystery of why Chomsky would dismiss the now even larger mountain of evidence that JFK was executed by elements of the state. But in Rethinking Camelot Chomsky, 30 years after JFK's assassination, takes great pains to study documents concerning Vietnam policy circa 1963, rather than rethinking the central event. His conclusions smack of a mind made up and a certain meanness. "The belief that JFK might have responded differently ... is an act of faith, based on nothing but the belief that the President had some spiritual quality absent in everyone around him, leaving no detectable trace," he says. "The extensive record of newly-released documents ... undermine much further the already implausible contention that [JFK's assassination] caused dramatic changes in policy (or indeed, had any effects)." 

He thus dismissed the trajectory of Kennedy's policies condensed well by Michael Parenti in his book Dirty Tricks.29 "JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Khrushchev on Cuba, and his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for a re-examination of US cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with US steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency, his warm reception at labour conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right."

Yet Chomsky claims to this day that US policy on Vietnam would have been no different had Kennedy lived. This claim is flawed for four reasons. First, no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt such a thing one way or another, so at best he is no better than those he criticizes for claiming the opposite. Second, on the balance of probabilities, everything we know about JFK (see above passage) suggests that he was already following and would have continued to follow the more peaceful and sane directions he had established for himself, which could hardly exclude Vietnam. Third, his general trajectory was away from escalation of the war. The Pentagon Papers document Kennedy's intent to withdraw. They refer to the Accelerated Model Plan ... for a rapid phase out of the bulk of US military personnel" and note the administration was "serious about limiting the US commitment ..." But "all the planning for phase-out ... was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January 19 to March 1964." Parenti notes that this "new thinking" was the reversion to a war course that came "after JFK was killed and Lyndon B. Johnson became president."

On page after page of Rethinking Camelot, Chomsky inserts assertions where examination of evidence is called for. He states on page 38, that those who reject the lone assassin thesis of JFK's death "have recognised that credible direct evidence is lacking..." This is a priori rejection of large amounts of evidence, including direct, such as the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat, to name just one example. A good deal of this evidence is even found in the appendices to the Warren Commission's Report. Chomsky's usual diligence in finding obscure contradictory information fails him on the Kennedy assassination. But even after making scores of admittedly angry marginal notes in Rethinking Camelot, I reverted to a stance of total respect for Chomsky's work. I see now that I was deep denial, no different from that of someone who adulates George Bush and dismisses successively all reasons to fault him.

It took 9/11 to shake me out of my denial. Even then, I see retrospectively, the process was painfully slow. Finally Chomsky's sustained rejection of evidence, his sustained use of the term "conspiracy theory" to describe the work of those seeking the truth about JFK's assassination (and the other assassinations of the 1960s), and 9/11, and his diminishment of the role of leaders such as JFK and his brother, and of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., became a pattern I could no longer ignore. Writing this book opened my eyes further.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Anthony Thorne

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Barrie Zwicker - who once interviewed Chomsky for Canadian TV (watchable on Youtube) - had a long chapter on Chomsky in his book TOWERS OF DECEPTION. An excerpt is below - 

 

This is interesting when one takes into account that Chompsky claims to be an anarcho syndicalist yet supports the centralized Federal Reserve. 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

This is interesting when one takes into account that Chompsky claims to be an anarcho syndicalist yet supports the centralized Federal Reserve. 

 

James Di Eugenio has done some great work showing another side of Chomsky. 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

On 11/3/2022 at 3:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Plus, didn't you refer to Noam Chomsky as a total loon, or something like that? Knowing that Joseph has respect for the man?

 

 

I apologize if I mischaracterized Joseph's feelings toward Noam Chomsky. I've long thought, without checking, that Chomsky is what Americans call liberal. I'm not sure why I thought that because I've never really read any of his writings or anything about him.

Anyway, I saw Joseph quoting him. And since Joseph appears to be liberal, I assumed that he had respect for the man. And maybe he does, but I don't know that.

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I apologize if I mischaracterized Joseph's feelings toward Noam Chomsky. I've long thought, without checking, that Chomsky is what Americans call liberal. I'm not sure why I thought that because I've never really read any of his writings or anything about him.

Anyway, I saw Joseph quoting him. And since Joseph appears to be liberal, I assumed that he had respect for the man. And maybe he does, but I don't know that.

 

The reason people would characterise Chomsky that way is because he made a big effort to criticise US foreign policy. I felt a bit like you. “Manufacturing Consent” is a good book. Some here have delved into Chomsky’s darker side and it isn’t very pleasing. He has mocked JFKA researchers and diminished its importance.

[Paul Brancato]

As a spokesperson for the American ‘left’ he’s been a disaster. Even his supercilious tone is damaging - yawn. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 11/3/2022 at 6:52 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Sandy, Michael is being deliberately disingenuous.

No, I am not. Your views on the war are far left, whether you realize it or not. Even the more mainstream liberal books on the war, such as those by Karnow and Hastings, reject the wild, nutty claims of Chomsky, Prouty, etc. 

Now, all this being said, if I'd known that you would be so offended by my identifying the nature of your views on the war, I would have dropped all the adjectives and simply urged you to post those views in the thread on Stone's recent documentaries and the Vietnam War.

[Matthew Koch]

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

James Di Eugenio has done some great work showing another side of Chomsky. 

Thanks for the forward, I think someone did a article for K&K if I'm not mistaken, I never read it, mostly because I've already been down that rabbit hole as a 911 researcher. In that same University of Florida Q&A he tells someone that 911 has been debunked and if serious people want to come forward and use the scientific method then maybe that might be interesting or something like that which is very disingenuous (My father was the County Engineer for Douglas County Colorado for 20 years and he signed the Architect and Engineers list of people asking for a new investigation I've met Richard Gage a dozen times there are lots of qualified people who signed the list)

When I was in my early 20's I used to read 'Hegemony or Survival' by Chomsky during my lunch break and there was an old guy at my work who used to make fun of me "UH OH!! WE"VE GOT A RADICAL HERE!" but nobody know what he was talking about except me, lol. I've read like 5 Chompsky books and I think Manufacturing Consent is the only thing of interest he has added to the conversation. I've come to see him as an intellectual gate keeper because back in my more leftist days you had to have had read books by him and Zinn etc to get liberal people to take you serious. The more I got into 911 truth the more and more I saw these guys as either gatekeepers or weenie sell outs, I think most are the latter. Chompsky is interesting since he works for the thing he is supposedly against, The Military Industrial Complex. I posted the clip because the Federal Reserve and 911(Later in the QnA) pulled the mask off enough that I think he created an ideological cover and is just a establishment marxist. When I saw what he said about JFK "Who cares" that sealed the deal for me. People who are liberal like JFK people of are Communist don't. Paul mentioned "Even his supercilious tone is damaging - yawn." That is very true anyone who has read a Chomsky book knows this, which is why I giggle that his name is Moan spelled backwards because I used to moan with boredom while reading his books, that is why I got to the point of just reading it during my lunch break, his writing is too dry. I prefer Michael Parenti 

[Ron Bulman]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I apologize if I mischaracterized Joseph's feelings toward Noam Chomsky. I've long thought, without checking, that Chomsky is what Americans call liberal. I'm not sure why I thought that because I've never really read any of his writings or anything about him.

Anyway, I saw Joseph quoting him. And since Joseph appears to be liberal, I assumed that he had respect for the man. And maybe he does, but I don't know that.

 

Sandy, my post about Joseph's (lack of) respect for Chomsky wasn't pointed at you.  The chuckle I mentioned was at myself regarding what you write above.  I've posted this sometime ago so some might remember.  After the 2016 election I was depressed, worried about the future, wondering if there was any hope left.

Looking for guidance I googled US democratic writers, US liberal writers, etc.  Guess who came up.  I'd heard his name but not much else.  Pretty much the darling of the left they said.  I ordered three books.  I slogged through two of them.  They were admittedly deep for me in concept at points.  But some of what I read made me think, huh? I was less than impressed regarding any guidance or hope for the future.  I never finished the third one.

Then I read an article at I think Kennedy's and King by Jim or one of his guest writers about Chomsky that confirmed and expanded my doubts about him.

Joseph's book kind of finished nailing his hide to the wall for me.  His book is recommended reading for all in many respects.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Michael Griffith]

On 11/3/2022 at 10:30 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Sandy, I appreciate your point, but it's not the glib political labeling that's the real problem,

it's the blatant attempt of a poster to shut down speech someone disagrees with.

I should have just avoided all adjectives and suggested you post your views in the thread that I suggested. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Michael Griffith