No content yet! ;-) Why not put up some of those missives that you email to me and others? Well, for the time being, I am putting up lots of 9/11 links anyway.
Mike Zimmer http://www.theprogressivemind.blogspot.com/
I'm an italian blogger, I heard about TGC and I was interested to know more about it. I download the .pdf file from the site. Very very very interesting material!
Hello Barrie Zwicker, first off you're awesome. I am a sociology student over in washington state bellingham, western wash. univ, and I saw your documentary (the one i never saw) on youtube. Amazing, even better then the Loosechange documentary because you just gave out so many facts face to face, one had to either deny them (which would become tiresome) or accept that they have some validity. I know in truth that my own government (or parts of it) killed 3000 americans on that day to get into the wars with afghanistan, iraq, and soon to be Iran. The stakes for my beliefs are raised because I have a brother serving as a navy medic with the marines and a sister in law in kuwait. If i believed the mainstream lies i would be doindg them a diservice. Also, it was my brother that told me about looschange anyways, so SUPPORT THE TROOPS I MUST!! I don't want to get all religious on you and call you a prophet, but I guess now adays just being a TRUE journalist is something of a prophet in itself. SOmeone that feels investigating the forgotten is important. What an impact your documentary would have made if it was broadcast on primetime on FOX! I'm sure a lot of people are uncomfortable with even considering the worst. But I didn't become a believer overnight. It took a few years and the watching of the twin towers fall (and the forgotten building number 7) over and over and over and over again to get me to believe that my own goverment would hurt and kill its own people. I always suspected that pearl harbor was allowed to happen to get us into ww2, but there is no evil army thats flying bombers over our airbases... cheney took the initiative and decided to bomb ourselves. I also like to give you kudos for mentioning the many left journalists that STILLLL won't allow themselves to beleive in the 9/11 truth movement!! I saw amy goodman yesterday and i cringed in my seat when she started talking about how bin laden should be tried for the 911 attacks.... bullshit, i gave her a note during her booksigning that said, please talk more about loosechange. I know she talked about it once, but once is not enough... no more tolken broadcasting days for fringe subjects... My country, America, is already dead and I know their is no way to bring it back... but at least the american people can know why they're fucked.
Where are you Barrie? Dining at the best restaurants in San Fran? How is it that they let a lying anti-american type like you into the u.s. when ordinary people are refused entry for 'national security' reasons? Your blog is 3 years old; the last posted comment is 9 months old. Your blog is a DEAD SITE barrie! Nothing happening! Why don't you 'pull' it the way lucky larry pulled WTC7? Where are you Barrie? Have the spooks put a scare into you? I know...they threatened to stop you from eating in all those fine San Francisco restaurants. Enjoy your meal Barrie; while Western Civilization goes down the toilet you'll be sipping a fine California red with your expertly prepared meal.
I am fom Iceland, a cuntry in with conspiricy is not a realitay nu for some reson I trust in what u say aboute the bush conspiracy, this is not my native tunge and i am dyslexic but i would like to know what u have learnd from the google video.
Barrie Zwicker is the one Truther who, until now, has confronted Chomsky most forthrightly. As such, I believe a discussion of Barrett's confrontation with him is not out of place here, and I hope that discussion will elicit some of Dr. Zwicker's reactions.
The Barrett-Chomsky Correspondence
As someone who encouraged Dr. Barrett to make public his email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, I would like to make public my thoughts on the correspondence and on its being made public by Dr. Barrett.
I regard the correspondence itself as extremely valuable for the insight it affords into the mind of an extremely influential opponent of authoritarianism, and in particular into the thought processes behind that mind's opposition to the discussion of what happened on 9/11 (what is referred to, in the correspondence, as TM, i.e., the Truth Movement) and because of the guidance such insight can offer to the Movement. Because of the extremely grave nature of the questions dealt with by the Truth Movement, I regard this correspondence as of the first importance; in politics and political science comparable, perhaps, to the importance, in philosophy, of the correspondence of Descartes and Leibniz.
I intend to use the correspondence in my own efforts on behalf of the Truth Movement, and advocate its reproduction, perhaps in pamphlet form as well as online.
Although parts of it have been put in bold by Dr. Barrett to indicate that the words are Chomsky's, because the correspondents quote each other it is still taxing at times to determine just whose words one is reading, even though one can always refer up to the nearest header. For this reason, I suggest that the different authors be distinguished by different colors.
Let me begin by examining the question of the propriety of Barrett's making the correspondence public against Chomsky's wishes.
When first made aware of Chomsky's wish that the discussion not be made public, I was puzzled as to possible reasons for this. Having read the correspondence, I have now four hypotheses as to why he might have desired this.
1.) Chomsky says: "On the substantive matters, I'd like to make clear that this is a personal letter, not to be distributed. One of the many remarkable feastures of the Truth Movement is its reliance on gossip for its extensive and passionate vilification campaigns, based on circulating personal letters, phrases extracted from interviews, etc. I'm assuming we agree on this, and so will continue." Here as elsewhere in the correspondence Chomsky contrasts the Truth Movement with previous anti-establishment movements, notably the anti-Vietnam War Movement in which he played so active a part. I too played a part in the anti-Vietnam War Movement, and if Chomsky does not remember gossip and extensive and passionate vilification campaigns from that era then his experience differs considerably from mine. Jules Feiffer alluded to the phenomenon of rivalries and bad intramural feelings common to progressive movements in a cartoon I well remember from that period, in which the characters reminisce about the various groups they participated in, with the universal summation that each turned into a "factionalist rat race." But against whom is the vilification directed? During Vietnam, vilification was directed against both the government, and against differing anti-government groups, just as today it is directed both against the government and differing Truth groups. (And, I once again deplore infighting conducted in the name of doctrinal purity.)
Chomsky mentions "circulating personal letters" as an unethical thing to do. Since antiquity, personal letters, that is, letters addressed to individual persons as such, enjoyed very little presumption of not being shared. Their information was often valuable to a wide circle, and they were frquently composed with that fact in mind. However, certain things might reasonably be expected not to be shared. Hume once said something unfavorable to Boswell about a third party, and was explicitly displeased with him when he learned that it had gotten back to that gentleman. This is a genuine discourtesy, and the expectation of this sort of reticence is perfectly reasonable. However, this complaint is entirely inapplicable to the case of the Barrett-Chomsky correspondence.
2.) Chomsky's second concern is with "phrases extracted from interviews, etc." This is apparently a worry about being misrepresented by being quoted out of context. Since Barrett has reproduced the correspondence in toto this objection also cannot apply.
3.) A perhaps related objection might be that in the personal nature of the correspondence Chomsky feels assured that he can reveal his emotions and his personal situation. The aspects of his personal situation which he reveals are that he is very busy, and part of the reason for that busyness is the fact that his wife is gravely ill. These facts redound to no one's discredit. His and his family's grief are deplorable, and I, and I am sure Barrett and all his readers, do deplore them and wish and hope for the best for all concerned. Sadness and worry are commonly made worse by secrecy, and sometimes correspondingly somewhat lightened by being shared. I hope that that will be true in this case.
4.) Chomsky says: "You certainly do NOT -- repeat NOT -- have my authorization to publish this correspondence. From ample experience, you and I both know that that will lead to another deluge of irrationality, hysteria, and fabrication in the TM gossip system. The examples you chose illustrate that perfectly. Every single one of them, without exception. And I have no interest in contributing to that, nor in responding to more falsification and misrepresentation of the kind you are unwilling to concede. I have explained to you repeatedly that, and why, I regard all of these efforts as a diversion from the task of confronting serious crimes. If you want to indulge in these efforts, fine, that's your choice. But I have the same right to choose my priorities, a fact that seems to be lost on the TM, one of the many respects in which it differs sharply from dissident and activist movements."
The reasons Chomsky gives in this paragraph for desiring that the correrspondence not be made public are that doing so will "lead to another deluge" and that he does not want to contribute to that or to respond to it. Such a deluge may or may not be forthcoming, but as Chomsky is well aware, he has no obligation to respond to it, and his part in it will have been entirely involuntary, as his statement makes plain. Such a "deluge" may be a catastrophe, but it certainly cannot be construed as a catastrophe (or even an inconvenience) for Chomsky as an individual. Nor can such irrationality, hysteria, and fabrication be attributed to Barrett, nor to anyone who does not himself speak it. There are plenty of irresponsible and irrational people in the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and other Parties, and that fact does not make those Parties responsible for every statement and action which an adherent (genuine or planted) may produce.
5.) There may be another reason why Chomsky requested that his words not be distributed. If there is, I only hope that it does not share the feature of so many "national security" matters these days: that the reason why it is secret is itself a secret.
Since these are all the substantive reasons I can think of for not making Chomsky's words public, the remaining objection (that I can think of) to Barrett's action is the fact that he said: "I will respect your wish for privacy," and then made the correspondence public.
Part of the correspondence is itself about retracting that statement respecting Chomsky's wish for privacy. Barrett alleges that Chomsky first broke his agreement to appear on Barrett's show, and offers to stand by his agreement with regard to privacy if Chomsky will stand by his agreement to speak. Chomsky responds that there is no reason why Barrett cannot simply announce that Chomsky has cancelled, and gives as his reason for changing his mind, "...I do not see any point in planning a radio event." Chomsky's final position (in the corresponence) is that he is justified in changing his mind about speaking, but Barrett is not justified in changing his mind about privacy. This is what I have heard lawyers and judges describe as a "gotcha" situation. The degree of Barrett's perfidy must be left for each reader to judge. For my part, I continue to trust Dr. Barrett's honesty completely. Indeed, the only complaint I remember having about him is that he once talked over an anti-Jewish guest on his show, and defended his Jewish friends somewhat too vigorously.
Leaving now the topic of confidentiality, one very significant feature of the correspondence, and a feature which makes it exemplary and valuable for Progressives of all varieties, is its illustration of the danger, and ease, of succumbing to the temptation of talking ad hominem. It would be a great help to the anti-authoritarian part of the world if we could all simply leave the ad hominem to our opponents. That would make it easy to distinguiish between us and our fascist friends. Of course, this is a regulative ideal, and I do not intend to hold my breath until it occurs.
One consequence of adopting this course in the correspondence would have been a prolonged examination of the role of naive physics in current political discussion. When Barrett points out that one doesn't need to be or to become a civil engineer in order to have a reasonable and justifiable opinion on the question of whether or not, as alleged in the government version of reality, objects sometimes fall up; and Chomsky replies that he lacks "the technical expertise to assess Jones's claims," the discussion could easily have returned to physics without ever mentioning Jones's claims or pretending that they presented an insuperable barrier to laymen forming an opinion. Indeed, the projected radio program could profitably have been devoted to just the physical aspects of 9/11, without ever mentioning the evidence to which Ruppert devoted his book.
Another significant feature of the correspondence is the fact that it reveals that the basis of Chomsky's opposition to 9/11 Truth (expressed, to be sure, in a widely-shared refusal to discuss the subject) is his implicit belief that the most, or perhaps only, important aspect of activism is its explicitly stated object of concern. Truthers protest the murder of three thousand, whereas he, on the other hand, protests the murder of millions. Ignored entirely is the question of who the protest is addressed to.
Pericles found it necessary to warn his fellow citizens not to ignore politics, and the fact that from his time to ours the great majority of citizens have had no time for politics, and can have no time for politics unless compelled by extraordinary circumstances, has been a truism of political scince the inception of that discipline. Sports in the US are often seen by activists as deflecting time and attention away from politics, but it is also true that the "consent manufacturing industry" (a valuable coinage of the correspondence) tries (no doubt under direction) to conflate the two, and presents the presidential election process as a World Series of Politics, in order to persuade people that their enthusiasm for their favorite team counts toward fulfilling their civic duty. Chomsky is perhaps more aware of this than anyone else, yet he refuses to examine, speak about, or help the one thing which could change this state of affairs. Instead, he denigrates it as a waste of valuable time, which could be spent writing books which will be read by the Left and a few of their enemies.
Chomsky emphasizes the Truth Movement's difference from previous activism, but only with regard to an imaginary special viciousness. A more imprtant difference is its bipartisanship. If he knew more about the conservatives who recognize the true character of the ruling junta and are part of our movement, would he consider their presence a plus or a minus? Another interesting radio show topic.
To my knowledge, Chomsky does not repeat the common charge of insanity frequently levelled against Truthers, but psychological considerations, examined in an impersonal way, can present a fruitful area of discussion. In particular, in DSM-IV there is a proposed-but-not-yet-adopted axis called the Defensive Functioning Scale (pp. 751ff.) which grades defensive mental maneuvres through levels of severity, from the level which "keeps potentially threatening ideas, feelings memories, wishes or fears out of awareness," through "a pronounced break with objective reality." I have several times presented individuals with photographs of the South Tower showing objects being thrown up and out, and had them deny what was in front of the eyes of both of us. Everyone who sees the Towers turning into dust in ten seconds and still says that they "collapsed" does the same thing. Where on the Defensive Functioning Scale any particular such response should appear is not immediately apparent, but for that reason a discussion of the question would be interesting to say the least. Social psychology, represented by the work of Solomon Asch and Herbert Kelman, is relevant as well as clinical psychology and psychiatry. (In a paper addressed exclusively to Truthers, I have discussed these matters a little. "Activists as Knowledge Workers," at http://9-11andbeyond.blogspot.com/)
Pace Michael Dummett, one cannot undo the past, but it is never too late to change one's mind. When I spoke above about our fascist friends I was not being completely sardonic. When one is open to new evidence, it becomes possible that those who were formerly opponents may become friends. This applies to everyone without exception; one's degree of resistance is controlled by one's openness to discussion. Should Chomsky, or Bush himself, for that matter, be willing to discuss 9/11 in the future, I for one would be willing to talk with him.
Donald E. Stahl (M.A. Philosophy, Ed. Sp. Counseling) 12079 Pattern Dr. St. Louis, MO 63138-1938 USA tel: 314-567-8845 http://9-11.meetup.com/4/ http://stl-911.org
"I believe, in short, in the ultimate victory of truth. I know that this sounds rather pompous, but I honestly do think it is the most likely thing to happen." ---Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, pp. 287f.
7 Comments:
Congrats Barrie... Welcome to the wonderful world of Blogging!
Barrie,
No content yet! ;-) Why not put up some of those missives that you email to me and others? Well, for the time being, I am putting up lots of 9/11 links anyway.
Mike Zimmer
http://www.theprogressivemind.blogspot.com/
Congratulations, welcome on board! :-)
I'm an italian blogger, I heard about TGC and I was interested to know more about it.
I download the .pdf file from the site. Very very very interesting material!
Regards
Hello Barrie Zwicker, first off you're awesome. I am a sociology student over in washington state bellingham, western wash. univ, and I saw your documentary (the one i never saw) on youtube. Amazing, even better then the Loosechange documentary because you just gave out so many facts face to face, one had to either deny them (which would become tiresome) or accept that they have some validity. I know in truth that my own government (or parts of it) killed 3000 americans on that day to get into the wars with afghanistan, iraq, and soon to be Iran. The stakes for my beliefs are raised because I have a brother serving as a navy medic with the marines and a sister in law in kuwait. If i believed the mainstream lies i would be doindg them a diservice. Also, it was my brother that told me about looschange anyways, so SUPPORT THE TROOPS I MUST!! I don't want to get all religious on you and call you a prophet, but I guess now adays just being a TRUE journalist is something of a prophet in itself. SOmeone that feels investigating the forgotten is important. What an impact your documentary would have made if it was broadcast on primetime on FOX! I'm sure a lot of people are uncomfortable with even considering the worst. But I didn't become a believer overnight. It took a few years and the watching of the twin towers fall (and the forgotten building number 7) over and over and over and over again to get me to believe that my own goverment would hurt and kill its own people. I always suspected that pearl harbor was allowed to happen to get us into ww2, but there is no evil army thats flying bombers over our airbases... cheney took the initiative and decided to bomb ourselves. I also like to give you kudos for mentioning the many left journalists that STILLLL won't allow themselves to beleive in the 9/11 truth movement!! I saw amy goodman yesterday and i cringed in my seat when she started talking about how bin laden should be tried for the 911 attacks.... bullshit, i gave her a note during her booksigning that said, please talk more about loosechange. I know she talked about it once, but once is not enough... no more tolken broadcasting days for fringe subjects... My country, America, is already dead and I know their is no way to bring it back... but at least the american people can know why they're fucked.
Where are you Barrie? Dining at the best restaurants in San Fran? How is it that they let a lying anti-american type like you into the u.s. when ordinary people are refused entry for 'national security' reasons? Your blog is 3 years old; the last posted comment is 9 months old. Your blog is a DEAD SITE barrie! Nothing happening! Why don't you 'pull' it the way lucky larry pulled WTC7? Where are you Barrie? Have the spooks put a scare into you? I know...they threatened to stop you from eating in all those fine San Francisco restaurants. Enjoy your meal Barrie; while Western Civilization goes down the toilet you'll be sipping a fine California red with your expertly prepared meal.
I am fom Iceland, a cuntry in with conspiricy is not a realitay nu for some reson I trust in what u say aboute the bush conspiracy, this is not my native tunge and i am dyslexic but i would like to know what u have learnd from the google video.
Barrie Zwicker is the one Truther who, until now, has confronted Chomsky most forthrightly. As such, I believe a discussion of Barrett's confrontation with him is not out of place here, and I hope that discussion will elicit some of Dr. Zwicker's reactions.
The Barrett-Chomsky Correspondence
As someone who encouraged Dr. Barrett to make public his email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, I would like to make public my thoughts on the correspondence and on its being made public by Dr. Barrett.
I regard the correspondence itself as extremely valuable for the insight it affords into the mind of an extremely influential opponent of authoritarianism, and in particular into the thought processes behind that mind's opposition to the discussion of what happened on 9/11 (what is referred to, in the correspondence, as TM, i.e., the Truth Movement) and because of the guidance such insight can offer to the Movement. Because of the extremely grave nature of the questions dealt with by the Truth Movement, I regard this correspondence as of the first importance; in politics and political science comparable, perhaps, to the importance, in philosophy, of the correspondence of Descartes and Leibniz.
I intend to use the correspondence in my own efforts on behalf of the Truth Movement, and advocate its reproduction, perhaps in pamphlet form as well as online.
Although parts of it have been put in bold by Dr. Barrett to indicate that the words are Chomsky's, because the correspondents quote each other it is still taxing at times to determine just whose words one is reading, even though one can always refer up to the nearest header. For this reason, I suggest that the different authors be distinguished by different colors.
Let me begin by examining the question of the propriety of Barrett's making the correspondence public against Chomsky's wishes.
When first made aware of Chomsky's wish that the discussion not be made public, I was puzzled as to possible reasons for this. Having read the correspondence, I have now four hypotheses as to why he might have desired this.
1.) Chomsky says: "On the substantive matters, I'd like to make clear that this is a personal letter, not to be distributed. One of the many remarkable feastures of the Truth Movement is its reliance on gossip for its extensive and passionate vilification campaigns, based on circulating personal letters, phrases extracted from interviews, etc. I'm assuming we agree on this, and so will continue." Here as elsewhere in the correspondence Chomsky contrasts the Truth Movement with previous anti-establishment movements, notably the anti-Vietnam War Movement in which he played so active a part. I too played a part in the anti-Vietnam War Movement, and if Chomsky does not remember gossip and extensive and passionate vilification campaigns from that era then his experience differs considerably from mine. Jules Feiffer alluded to the phenomenon of rivalries and bad intramural feelings common to progressive movements in a cartoon I well remember from that period, in which the characters reminisce about the various groups they participated in, with the universal summation that each turned into a "factionalist rat race." But against whom is the vilification directed? During Vietnam, vilification was directed against both the government, and against differing anti-government groups, just as today it is directed both against the government and differing Truth groups. (And, I once again deplore infighting conducted in the name of doctrinal purity.)
Chomsky mentions "circulating personal letters" as an unethical thing to do. Since antiquity, personal letters, that is, letters addressed to individual persons as such, enjoyed very little presumption of not being shared. Their information was often valuable to a wide circle, and they were frquently composed with that fact in mind. However, certain things might reasonably be expected not to be shared. Hume once said something unfavorable to Boswell about a third party, and was explicitly displeased with him when he learned that it had gotten back to that gentleman. This is a genuine discourtesy, and the expectation of this sort of reticence is perfectly reasonable. However, this complaint is entirely inapplicable to the case of the Barrett-Chomsky correspondence.
2.) Chomsky's second concern is with "phrases extracted from interviews, etc." This is apparently a worry about being misrepresented by being quoted out of context. Since Barrett has reproduced the correspondence in toto this objection also cannot apply.
3.) A perhaps related objection might be that in the personal nature of the correspondence Chomsky feels assured that he can reveal his emotions and his personal situation. The aspects of his personal situation which he reveals are that he is very busy, and part of the reason for that busyness is the fact that his wife is gravely ill. These facts redound to no one's discredit. His and his family's grief are deplorable, and I, and I am sure Barrett and all his readers, do deplore them and wish and hope for the best for all concerned. Sadness and worry are commonly made worse by secrecy, and sometimes correspondingly somewhat lightened by being shared. I hope that that will be true in this case.
4.) Chomsky says: "You certainly do NOT -- repeat NOT -- have my authorization to publish this correspondence. From ample experience, you and I both know that that will lead to another deluge of irrationality, hysteria, and fabrication in the TM gossip system. The examples you chose illustrate that perfectly. Every single one of them, without exception. And I have no interest in contributing to that, nor in responding to more falsification and misrepresentation of the kind you are unwilling to concede. I have explained to you repeatedly that, and why, I regard all of these efforts as a diversion from the task of confronting serious crimes. If you want to indulge in these efforts, fine, that's your choice. But I have the same right to choose my priorities, a fact that seems to be lost on the TM, one of the many respects in which it differs sharply from dissident and activist movements."
The reasons Chomsky gives in this paragraph for desiring that the correrspondence not be made public are that doing so will "lead to another deluge" and that he does not want to contribute to that or to respond to it. Such a deluge may or may not be forthcoming, but as Chomsky is well aware, he has no obligation to respond to it, and his part in it will have been entirely involuntary, as his statement makes plain. Such a "deluge" may be a catastrophe, but it certainly cannot be construed as a catastrophe (or even an inconvenience) for Chomsky as an individual. Nor can such irrationality, hysteria, and fabrication be attributed to Barrett, nor to anyone who does not himself speak it. There are plenty of irresponsible and irrational people in the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and other Parties, and that fact does not make those Parties responsible for every statement and action which an adherent (genuine or planted) may produce.
5.) There may be another reason why Chomsky requested that his words not be distributed. If there is, I only hope that it does not share the feature of so many "national security" matters these days: that the reason why it is secret is itself a secret.
Since these are all the substantive reasons I can think of for not making Chomsky's words public, the remaining objection (that I can think of) to Barrett's action is the fact that he said: "I will respect your wish for privacy," and then made the correspondence public.
Part of the correspondence is itself about retracting that statement respecting Chomsky's wish for privacy. Barrett alleges that Chomsky first broke his agreement to appear on Barrett's show, and offers to stand by his agreement with regard to privacy if Chomsky will stand by his agreement to speak. Chomsky responds that there is no reason why Barrett cannot simply announce that Chomsky has cancelled, and gives as his reason for changing his mind, "...I do not see any point in planning a radio event." Chomsky's final position (in the corresponence) is that he is justified in changing his mind about speaking, but Barrett is not justified in changing his mind about privacy. This is what I have heard lawyers and judges describe as a "gotcha" situation. The degree of Barrett's perfidy must be left for each reader to judge. For my part, I continue to trust Dr. Barrett's honesty completely. Indeed, the only complaint I remember having about him is that he once talked over an anti-Jewish guest on his show, and defended his Jewish friends somewhat too vigorously.
Leaving now the topic of confidentiality, one very significant feature of the correspondence, and a feature which makes it exemplary and valuable for Progressives of all varieties, is its illustration of the danger, and ease, of succumbing to the temptation of talking ad hominem. It would be a great help to the anti-authoritarian part of the world if we could all simply leave the ad hominem to our opponents. That would make it easy to distinguiish between us and our fascist friends. Of course, this is a regulative ideal, and I do not intend to hold my breath until it occurs.
One consequence of adopting this course in the correspondence would have been a prolonged examination of the role of naive physics in current political discussion. When Barrett points out that one doesn't need to be or to become a civil engineer in order to have a reasonable and justifiable opinion on the question of whether or not, as alleged in the government version of reality, objects sometimes fall up; and Chomsky replies that he lacks "the technical expertise to assess Jones's claims," the discussion could easily have returned to physics without ever mentioning Jones's claims or pretending that they presented an insuperable barrier to laymen forming an opinion. Indeed, the projected radio program could profitably have been devoted to just the physical aspects of 9/11, without ever mentioning the evidence to which Ruppert devoted his book.
Another significant feature of the correspondence is the fact that it reveals that the basis of Chomsky's opposition to 9/11 Truth (expressed, to be sure, in a widely-shared refusal to discuss the subject) is his implicit belief that the most, or perhaps only, important aspect of activism is its explicitly stated object of concern. Truthers protest the murder of three thousand, whereas he, on the other hand, protests the murder of millions. Ignored entirely is the question of who the protest is addressed to.
Pericles found it necessary to warn his fellow citizens not to ignore politics, and the fact that from his time to ours the great majority of citizens have had no time for politics, and can have no time for politics unless compelled by extraordinary circumstances, has been a truism of political scince the inception of that discipline. Sports in the US are often seen by activists as deflecting time and attention away from politics, but it is also true that the "consent manufacturing industry" (a valuable coinage of the correspondence) tries (no doubt under direction) to conflate the two, and presents the presidential election process as a World Series of Politics, in order to persuade people that their enthusiasm for their favorite team counts toward fulfilling their civic duty. Chomsky is perhaps more aware of this than anyone else, yet he refuses to examine, speak about, or help the one thing which could change this state of affairs. Instead, he denigrates it as a waste of valuable time, which could be spent writing books which will be read by the Left and a few of their enemies.
Chomsky emphasizes the Truth Movement's difference from previous activism, but only with regard to an imaginary special viciousness. A more imprtant difference is its bipartisanship. If he knew more about the conservatives who recognize the true character of the ruling junta and are part of our movement, would he consider their presence a plus or a minus? Another interesting radio show topic.
To my knowledge, Chomsky does not repeat the common charge of insanity frequently levelled against Truthers, but psychological considerations, examined in an impersonal way, can present a fruitful area of discussion. In particular, in DSM-IV there is a proposed-but-not-yet-adopted axis called the Defensive Functioning Scale (pp. 751ff.) which grades defensive mental maneuvres through levels of severity, from the level which "keeps potentially threatening ideas, feelings memories, wishes or fears out of awareness," through "a pronounced break with objective reality." I have several times presented individuals with photographs of the South Tower showing objects being thrown up and out, and had them deny what was in front of the eyes of both of us. Everyone who sees the Towers turning into dust in ten seconds and still says that they "collapsed" does the same thing. Where on the Defensive Functioning Scale any particular such response should appear is not immediately apparent, but for that reason a discussion of the question would be interesting to say the least. Social psychology, represented by the work of Solomon Asch and Herbert Kelman, is relevant as well as clinical psychology and psychiatry. (In a paper addressed exclusively to Truthers, I have discussed these matters a little. "Activists as Knowledge Workers," at http://9-11andbeyond.blogspot.com/)
Pace Michael Dummett, one cannot undo the past, but it is never too late to change one's mind. When I spoke above about our fascist friends I was not being completely sardonic. When one is open to new evidence, it becomes possible that those who were formerly opponents may become friends. This applies to everyone without exception; one's degree of resistance is controlled by one's openness to discussion. Should Chomsky, or Bush himself, for that matter, be willing to discuss 9/11 in the future, I for one would be willing to talk with him.
Donald E. Stahl (M.A. Philosophy, Ed. Sp. Counseling)
12079 Pattern Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63138-1938
USA
tel: 314-567-8845
http://9-11.meetup.com/4/
http://stl-911.org
"I believe, in short, in the ultimate victory of truth. I know
that this sounds rather pompous, but I honestly do think it
is the most likely thing to happen."
---Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, pp. 287f.
Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.
Post a Comment
<< Home