My article Guilty demeanor: The private 9/11 emails of Noam Chomsky has generated a lot of comments and emails.
These can be divided into two categories:
(1) People who are furious at Chomsky’s bizarre, apparently mendacious statements about 9/11 (the vast majority of people who actually read the article).
(2) People who tell me, “I stopped reading as soon as I got to the part where you tell him you’ll keep his emails private. How could you betray the confidence of such a great man?”
Here is my answer to group two.
When I told Chomsky I would keep his emails private, I assumed he would be writing in good faith. It was only after he had repeatedly demonstrated bad faith, implicated himself in obstruction of justice and misprision of treason, broken (under false pretenses) his promise to appear on my show, falsely called me a liar, and continued to lie even after the truth was made plain, that I decided to publish his emails. At that point, I felt that he no longer deserved to be treated with respect; and that the public interest that would be served by publishing the email exchange vastly outweighed all other considerations.
Obstruction of justice and misprision of treason? Here is a statement of Chomsky’s that qualifies: “I prefer to devote my time to combatting (sic) the crimes of empire, not to learning enough civil engineering to evaluate a claim about building 7 which, if correct, would clearly point the finger at Osama bin Laden…”
“Would CLEARLY point the finger at Osama Bin Laden”?! Chomsky, who literally wrote the book on 9/11,* must know that even the 9/11-coverup-enabling FBI officially admits that there is no evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11; and that the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7, which barely requires a grade school science education to understand, and which was incompetently covered up by the US government and Zionist-dominated media, had to have been done by insiders. Chomsky’s statement above in boldface is a bald-faced lie, designed to obstruct justice on behalf of the criminals who perpetrated mass murder and high treason on September 11th, 2001.
As the title of my article suggested, it isn’t just the blatantly criminal statements that Chomsky makes in this email exchange that could be entered as evidence in a court of law; it is also his nervous, duplicitous, passive-aggressive style that functions as a textbook case of what criminologists call “guilty demeanor.”
Chomsky is one of the most influential individuals in the world. He presents himself as a critic of imperialism and its crimes, and is promoted as such, far more than anyone else, by the empire’s own propaganda ministry- especially its controlled-opposition outlets. If he is in fact guilty of covering up the very crimes of empire that would, if publicized, lead to real change, his status needs to be re-evaluated. His email exchange with me should help trigger that re-evaluation.
* * *
*Chomsky’s 9/11 is THE book that most shaped the attitudes of those Americans who are critical and suspicious of their government and its military-industrial complex, and prevented them from seeing the obvious inside job; it did more to buttress the official myth of 9/11, and enable the murder of millions of people, than any other single act of communication, including the 9/11 Commission Report.
you can count me in for the no 1 option.
I recall Elie Wiesel adopting a similar position re the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians – "I don't have the knowledge/expertise to comment on this issue" (or words to that effect).
Thanks Kevin,
If the students had any idea of what a criminal traitor he is they would be heckling him and not applauding. If more people had any idea where this Zionist fascism is taking us they would be up in arms instantly.
I can't believe that our world has come to this…….they have enslaved us. Our children will curse that we slept.
Keep doing what you are doing………….
I remember what my comments were about, before they were mysteriously deleted (at VT):
I was speculating:
– Chomsky could simply be mistaken wrt 9/11. I've found, these (subconscious) blind spots appear in the minds of the most logical of people.
– I believe Bush Sr may well have orchestrated the bombing or the WTC on 9/11
– I think Bush Sr. and gang were still worried about those missing heat seeking(?) missiles the Mujahadeen (later rebraded as "al Qaeda") refused to give back, even for millions, gave our glorious leaders the heebeejeebees, keeping them up at night.
PS — Like most things I come across in the "news" (hah!), I wonder about that downed airplane over long island way back…you know, the one with lots of witnesses saying they saw a streak of light up to it.
I've thought for a while, now, that Chomsky must be DEEP COVER CIA, or something of that sort, as it isn't credible that someone of his intelligence could possibly believe the official stories of 9/11 and the JFK assassination. He is a gatekeeper of the worst kind, mollifying the intelligentsia to stay in line with the degenerate status quo.
Kevin, you are right and I am glad that you posted his emails. I knew he was a fraud when he stated on Democracy Now! that "it doesn't matter who did 9/11".
I don't listen to Noam or Democracy Now any longer. Thank you for all your efforts!
Regret (for various reasons!) I am not in Madison, and could not hear you speak there.
I did get to read your lengthy e-exchange with Meister Noam Chomsky. NC was an early hero of mine, going back some 45 yrs when I encountered him as a grad student in Cambridge, MA, and he was beginning his mission as an anti-war/anti-imperialist spokesman (catapulting himself on his well-deserved rep for his Linguistics studies/theories). But, I have been troubled for years by his stance on 9/11. So, I was glad to see you "taking him on" re that issue.
There is no doubt Chomsky is an intellectual heavyweight, but I think in terms of pure ratiocination, you got the better of him in the exchange! You made your positions clear from the beginning, NC assented, and then he gradually began to back-track, until he began to huff-and-puff about it. You kept your composure, even as Mr. C was losing his. It was as though he felt he had conceded too much at the beginning, had exposed himself too much (thinking he might easily outwit you if difficult subjects emerged in the interview) and then, realizing he could not "outwit" you, he withdrew unto his own majesty.
A sad performance on his part.
Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch was also well-known for his refusal to countenance any discussion of 9/11, any challenge to the official narrative. (His heirs to the throne seem to have taken on that position, too.) Too bad.
But, fortunately, obstinate fellows like you carry on in the best tradition of Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Voltaire, et. al.
Thank you!