Noam Chomsky and the Manufacturing of American Dissent: 2 videos

[Paul Rigby]

I'm not a JFK researcher, and have never claimed to be. However, the myth of Camelot is a fundamental part of political discourse, and the relationship between JFK and the CIA is a matter of huge controversy, frequently shifting as new documentation is "declassified" and various parties fight over meanings and interpretations.

What has shifted, Jan, about the fact of Dulles' removal as Director?

Did Kennedy issue the NSAMs in question?

And so on and so forth, as AWD might say.

Sorry, but this is profoundly unsatisfactory.

Chomsky may not have read the latest research on some matters on which he has opined in the past, and perhaps still does.

So, Chomsky didn't do his research, but you still stand by the conclusions issuing from this non-research? Do I do justice to your position?

Alternately, his interpretation of it may be different from yours.

A quite remarkably *****-esque notion. The facts of - let us keep to the path travelled here - Dulles's removal and the issuance of the NSAMs is mysteriously, but conveniently, relegated to the realm of mere opinion?

I don't consider that that means Chomsky is a "left gatekeeper" or a CIA asset.

Paul - fundamentally you seem to believe that differences of interpretation are the result of malign influences.

Inconvenient facts are systematically omitted by Chomsky in the most basic violation of intellectual scruple and procedure one can conceive. A fact, Jan, nothing whatever to do with opinion. Your inability to admit that which is manifest and unarguable is, for a researcher of your resource and intelligence, both puzzling and not a little, well, embarrassing.

In my opinion, your interpretation of the assassination of JFK as a Secret Service hit and the Zapruder film as a complete forgery is probably not correct. If that makes me an intelligence agent in your opinion, then so be it.

You'll understand my difficulty in taking seriously any one who first tells me they don't know much about a subject, then proceeds to insist that my conclusions are wrong. Call me pedantic, paranoid - in fact, anything you like - but that isn't very impressive.

Are you a somebody's agent? I don't know, and, frankly, don't care. I'm interested in the quality of argument - and the disappointing truth of your contribution to this thread is that you have none.