Chomskys faulty "there was no JFK assassination conspiracy" logic

[Charles Drago]

Some time ago I concluded that the fatal flaw in Chomsky's JFK-related analyses was his (NC's) unwillingness/inability to factor into his observations the admittedly non-quantifiable phenomenon that is best understood as enlightenment.

(The anti-Chomsky in this regard is, of course, James Douglass.)

Chomsky's conclusion that JFK came to and left the stage as a committed Cold Warrior is a product of such thinking -- not to mention an indication of rather primitive deep political research skills.

[Phil Dragoo]

Rethinking Camelot?

[ed. note: I was never a Camelotian; a JFK activist of the time told me I'd die unmourned in a rat-infested garret]

Speaking of Chomsky's brain:

Of all of these theories, the only ones of any general interest are those that assume a massive cover-up, and a high-level conspiracy that required that operation. In that case, the assassination was an event of true political significance, breaking sharply from the normal course of politics and exercise of power. Such ideas make little sense unless coupled with the thesis that JFK was undertaking radical policy changes, or perceived to be by policy insiders.

The scale of the presumed conspiracy should be appreciated. There is not a phrase in the voluminous internal record hinting at any thought of such a notion. It must be, then, that personal discipline was extraordinary among a huge number of people, or that the entire record has been scrupulously sanitized. There has not been a single leak over thirty years, though a high-level conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and conceal the crime would have to involve not only much of the government and the media, but a good part of the historical, scientific, and medical professions. An achievement so immense would be utterly without precedent or even remote analogue.(pg. 37)

Chomsky must assume all the gears in a transmission are aware of the cerebration of the driver as he/she inserts the key/pushes START

Or he is Bugliosi-like in his bodacious boast that if Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then Kennedy wasn't killed

One wonders in vain how Chomsky would address the problems of physics:

Oswald never owned the weapon, never occupied the "nest," never fired a shot, couldn't have effected the throat and temple wounds in the front from the rear

Is it Newthink then, that ability to hold two opposing thoughts

Johnson supposedly told the story of the teacher applying for the job before the small town school board which asked, "Is the earth round or flat?"

To which he eagerly replied, "I can teach it either way."

He's not faulty. He's simply pathological.

Some day we'll see a whole musical produced about the plotters which will have a nice long run

Simply Pathological

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5026[/ATTACH]

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I found this priceless thread.

Now "we" can post this into the Fake-Left to SHOW them how the Chomskyfication was not always there, but was an adaptation, a protective scab to ensure that the left, the group who SHOULD HAVE been most interested and who represented the dangerous source of criticism-- as witnessed in the hilarious and essential Joe Alsop, LBJ, Carr recording available at Miller Center.

I would lead -- with the Staughton Lynd article because he has name brand recognition on the left.

IMPORTANT PART: WHY SHOULD WE GIVE A RAT'S GEOPOLITICAL ASS ABOUT WHAT "THE LEFT" THINKS RE JFK? GIVEN THAT THEY ARE REALLY FAUX LEFT AND ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE CASE.

1) First of all its the Publishable left who believe the bs. I have found that a huge amount of the real left no longer are swallowing the Chomsky.
2) MOST IMP. its not about what the left thinks> when some so called "leftist" argues that JFK was not getting out of Vietnam , they always do so loudly. They are PERCIEVED AS "the progressive" with whomever they are fighting with at thinksgiving supper from Long Island to INCA's Long Beach> hence, the sheering of the policy implications that these car-washed McLeftists scream at everyone else--e.g. the mantra that JFK was "JACW" just another cold warrior is heard by the whole group and it is taken as authoritative because it comes from the mouth of someone who is SEEN AS "progressive" = NET RESULT that possible new interest is smothered with the idea that "oh well if there were no policy or historical implications to the JFK assassination, its just another death, why is that death more important than a dead Vietnamese kid, now time for a Pacifica funding break..."

So left-gatekeeping is not about the left at all. It is a scorched earth policy on the entire spectrum. Anyone who is at war needs to act on that. PRE WARREN COMMISSION REACTIONS BY THE LEFT.. before the Great Naoming...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history...s_by_left.html

[Charles Drago]

I found this priceless thread.

Now "we" can post this into the Fake-Left to SHOW them how the Chomskyfication was not always there, but was an adaptation, a protective scab to ensure that the left, the group who SHOULD HAVE been most interested and who represented the dangerous source of criticism-- as witnessed in the hilarious and essential Joe Alsop, LBJ, Carr recording available at Miller Center.

I would lead -- with the Staughton Lynd article because he has name brand recognition on the left.

IMPORTANT PART: WHY SHOULD WE GIVE A RAT'S GEOPOLITICAL ASS ABOUT WHAT "THE LEFT" THINKS RE JFK? GIVEN THAT THEY ARE REALLY FAUX LEFT AND ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE CASE.

1) First of all its the Publishable left who believe the bs. I have found that a huge amount of the real left no longer are swallowing the Chomsky.
2) MOST IMP. its not about what the left thinks> when some so called "leftist" argues that JFK was not getting out of Vietnam , they always do so loudly. They are PERCIEVED AS "the progressive" with whomever they are fighting with at thinksgiving supper from Long Island to INCA's Long Beach> hence, the sheering of the policy implications that these car-washed McLeftists scream at everyone else--e.g. the mantra that JFK was "JACW" just another cold warrior is heard by the whole group and it is taken as authoritative because it comes from the mouth of someone who is SEEN AS "progressive" = NET RESULT that possible new interest is smothered with the idea that "oh well if there were no policy or historical implications to the JFK assassination, its just another death, why is that death more important than a dead Vietnamese kid, now time for a Pacifica funding break..."

So left-gatekeeping is not about the left at all. It is a scorched earth policy on the entire spectrum. Anyone who is at war needs to act on that. PRE WARREN COMMISSION REACTIONS BY THE LEFT.. before the Great Naoming...

In essence, agreed.

[Phil Dragoo]

Nathaniel

Your link is Not Found

The "hilarious call" you reference, is it in this list:

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/...63/11_1963

[Albert Rossi]

Nathaniel

Your link is Not Found

Phil, it was there earlier. In fact, Magda also posted a page on another thread that can be used to link back to what appears to be the same page:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/WC_..._left.html

It looks like Nathaniel's link just got corrupted/elided in the copying process.

Al

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Nathaniel

Your link is Not Found

The "hilarious call" you reference, is it in this list:

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/...63/11_1963

Phil The Call is Nov 25th call 17-18

[Karl Kinaski]

Intelligent men, like Chomsky, are barefaced lairs, whenever they play the lone nut card.

KK

[Tracy Riddle]

I've spent a lot of time studying Watergate. The official story there stinks just as bad, and the defenders of it (mainstream media, mainstream academics, liberal bloggers) are just as close-minded, dishonest and abusive as Warren Commission supporters. The knee-jerk attacks on 'Silent Coup' and 'Secret Agenda' are just pathetic, especially since they have taped interviews with Adm. Thomas Moorer (and others) saying that Bob Woodward was a Pentagon briefer who worked with Alexander Haig.

[Steve Minnerly]

Intelligent men, like Chomsky, are barefaced lairs, whenever they play the lone nut card.

KK

Its hard to not come to that conclusion Karl.

How could he write a sophisticated analysis of the Spanish civil war when he was 12 years old that still amazes people today, and be so ignorant of the Kennedy assassination.