Friday, November 8, 2013
Why I outed Chomsky
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.