Noam Chomsky is a fool

[Don Jeffries]

Chomsky is to the Left what Pat Buchanan was to the Right. Both of them have a lot of cogent thoughts to offer, and provide a refreshing change to the status quo, but ultimately support the corrupt establishment itself. Chomsky won't touch JFK or 911 because that would tread into the "conspiracy" waters. He seeks to ridicule "conspiracy theorists" as much as any mainstream "liberal" does.

[Seamus Coogan]

Yeah I think Chomsky is just a pussy naive anarchic-liberal. Of course as Jim say's he's not so naive to talk total shit about JFK.
I agree with Magda he's a toss pot deconstructivist cum wad. He's made some good comments concerning the media and yup I still think Manufacturing
Consent has some good shit. But he should stick to linguists, US Policy analysis and stick JFK up his ass. I think it's good you took the shit out of him Jim, but I wouldn't bother. He's not a total fraud...intellectually dishonest in terms of conspiracy lol. But not a total fraud! I mean John McAdams lol. He can't even get US foreign policy correct. Pity the country that has to choose between such giants.

[Phil Dragoo]

Seamus

Bill Hicks would announce a mud-wrestling, death-cage match between those two JFK authorities:

Chris "Tingle" Matthews vs. Bill "Bloviator" O'Reilly

(Sub-card: Chomsky v. McAdamsky: Skull Pyramids and Skull X-Rays Are Mere Factoids to Hemorrhoids)

[Seamus Coogan]

Seamus

Bill Hicks would announce a mud-wrestling, death-cage match between those two JFK authorities:

Chris "Tingle" Matthews vs. Bill "Bloviator" O'Reilly

(Sub-card: Chomsky v. McAdamsky: Skull Pyramids and Skull X-Rays Are Mere Factoids to Hemorrhoids)

ROFL that last line had me mate.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

There is some truth to this.

Cockburn got picked up by the LA times as a columnist after JFK.

Bugliosi--who is not a conservative, but who's book is wacky--used Chomsky's Vietnam stuff to critique Stone. And there is little doubt that their followers, at places like Counter Punch and Zee magazine--a community that is much smaller today thank GOd--do not consider JFK pure enough.

But what I tried to do in the article was to show just how agenda driven and wrong on the facts Chomsky is. In other words to discredit him as a scholar and show how he is just so twisted on the topic of JFK that he is useless. BTW, in AFter the Cataclysm, I don't recall him taking back what he said about Pol Pot.

Again, I invite Nathaniel to write an appendix to the piece and submit it to ctka.

I think I will try this Jim. Of course it will involve a radical new departure for me, personally.

Coherence.

I actually think that there is a possibility that what Chomsky is doing is deliberate disinformation. I base this on the sheer number of times Chomsky makes a completely wrong reference to JFK. Think the number of Stan Musial's lifetime doubles. But what really stands out is when he driv-by's JFK right in the middle of a completely different subject. Magda is certainly correct when she points out he makes some great points on lots of other topics. That is just the point: he would not have credibility with the targeted audience if he did not. So the question then becomes is this [jfk related bs} the quo for the quid of his other writings.

However my holding out the possibility that JFK is deliberately gate-keeping is not limited to his own writing. We need to look at the overall Twentieth Centruy history of propaganda, in particular that which developed during WWII. Even earlier Walter Lippmann critiqued the Creel, primarily for his crudeness. The Morgan- Lamont subsidies to the "leftish" New Republic soon followed, with Lippmann playing a key role in that gatekeeping publication.

During WWII press control was even more systematic but had the advantage of 20 years of communications research. People shoudl be sure and read Nervous Liberals by Brett Gary on how that poet whose name I can't remember, from his job as top dog at Library of Congress, helped refine censorship so that it would be more specifically tailiored toward left-liberals. Judging from the Cary McWilliams -Fred Cook disputes of 1964-66, it seems that some of this was used on McWilliams or perhaps he had already internalized this censorship.

I will try to type something up when I get some time.

[Jim DiEugenio]

THat is a good point to begin at:is Chomsky deliberately doing this act on JFK.

IF so, why?

[Albert Doyle]

THat is a good point to begin at:is Chomsky deliberately doing this act on JFK.

IF so, why?

I realize this is probably a really bad time to enter this (lol), however I am forced to mention a possible loyalty Chomsky may have that possibly influences his bizarre Kennedy assassination denial. God help me.

[Dawn Meredith]

THat is a good point to begin at:is Chomsky deliberately doing this act on JFK.

IF so, why?

I realize this is probably a really bad time to enter this (lol), however I am forced to mention a possible loyalty Chomsky may have that possibly influences his bizarre Kennedy assassination denial. God help me.

And what loyalty would that be?

I fall on the side of disinformationist.

He knows better. For whom is he lying?

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

THat is a good point to begin at:is Chomsky deliberately doing this act on JFK.

IF so, why?

I realize this is probably a really bad time to enter this (lol), however I am forced to mention a possible loyalty Chomsky may have that possibly influences his bizarre Kennedy assassination denial. God help me.

ATTENTION: ALL posts by "Albert Doyle" must be treated as the work of at least two individuals posting over the "Doyle" signature. Detailed vidence for this phenomenon is presented on the "JFK thread worth reading" post here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...th-reading

A forensic examination of "Albert Doyle" posts from multiple threads is underway. Results will be published soon.

Until then, fail to ignore the "Albert Doyle" entity at your peril.

[Albert Doyle]

That's crazy. I'm the only person who has ever posted under my name as Charles' saying "now there's the real Albert" proved. Charles could not answer to the fact he wouldn't have identified any 'real' Albert and sincerely believed there was some kind of infiltration team trying to spook his site since that would require the good Albert he cites to be sitting back and allowing this malevolent team to access his handle. The obvious intention of this is to cry witch so often that it can be used an excuse for the censorship it is. Most honest people will see what it is being used for and what information it is intended to censor. Very McCarthyistic. Remember this is the same Charles Drago who said I was free to disagree with the majority opinion without threat and that he himself was "agnostic" on Israel's involvement. Words that probably go unheard once the sport of the witch-hunt is now the pronounced game.

The thing that stands out the most to me is this is a precise analogy to what happened to Ben-Gurion and why. What does this gross irrational over-reaction tell you about the information that is being discussed?