"Watch Noam Chomsky Set 9/11 Truther Straight"

[JackRiddler]

By the way, I am sick to death of hearing about Godwin's effing so-called Law, so here's MacCruiskeen's Law, which has the virtue of being always both applicable and just:

The first person to use the word "truther" in any context has lost the argument and must eat his own shorts, regardless of what state they are in.

(Yes,"his". It will inevitably be some prick with a penis. This too is a Law.)

Agreed. Few terms get me more sick to death. However, this one came out of the 9/11 truth milieu. People wore fucking t-shirts. What about the case in which a person proudly describes himself as a truther?

[MacCruiskeen]

What about the case in which a person proudly describes himself as a truther?

Then he too has lost the argument and must eat his own shorts, regardless of what state they are in.

The Law applies equally to all. No favouritism.

[IanEye]

Way to win friends and influence people. Ffs.

"How's your Paranoia, Brian?" - Bob Dylan

et - I am sure the thought has crossed your mind, but reading what you have assembled here, the whole thing smacks to me of the 60 Minutes Bush TANG thing. Where the whole thing is a set-up and every aspect is controlled by the same PuppetMaster.

Meaning, Mr. Maher knew the hecklers would be there, knew their "agenda", because it was from the same Pro Wrestling script he was reading from.

The DU bloggers unsuing comments? Paid for by the same people, much as the "hey, Rather's lying because the font wasn't around then, blah blah" comments were paid for.

Again, perhaps my mind is too steeped in paranoia. But I frequent a blog where I am supposed to give actual credence to the idea that Sidney Aaron Chayefsky was a CIA stooge and all of the talent and effort that went into making the film "Network" was merely to provide a distraction from an article in Rolling Stone about Mockingbird. All of this in '77, Carter's first year in office.

The same Rolling Stone that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, ran full page ads in all of the Trade mags stating "Perception - Reality".

Under the Perception title was a pic of a bong toting hippie. Under the Reality title was a pic of Reagan at the mic. Below all of this was the copy that informed the potential buyers of ad space in Rolling stone that, despite many people's perception of the magazine, the reality was the majority of their readers voted for Reagan. So, "Hey, corporate America!! Don't hesitate to buy ad space here and shill your razor blades and deodorant!!"

In the end, the "Truth" of the matter is a synthesis. RS readers did smoke a lot of pot and a lot of them voted for Reagan. Just ask Ann Coulter the next time you see her at a RatDog concert. Especially if the venue is Bohemian Grove, I hear those tickets are real hard to come by.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that as a faithful RI reader, I try to be as rigorous as I can be. How deep can I go when I ponder the whole "Politically Incorrect" heckler flap? As deep as I go when I become wary of someone who wants me to cry foul at "Network" in order to support a magazine that in '85, Reagan's first year of his second term, was actually trying to get me to consider Michael J Fox, Don Johnson, and Bruce Willis as viable musical alternatives. There they were on the cover of RS, month in, month out, with guitars in their hands.

At which point, I told Rolling Stone to go fuck itself and bought something called SPIN, a magazine put out by a pornographer's son which, in the first issue I bought, had an article by Geza X which taught me point by point how to "DIY" make my own music and put it out myself. I should also be honest and say that I had never heard of the Stooge's "Fun House" album until I read an article in SPIN by Henry Rollins that was so laudatory of the album I had to check it out myself.

These days when I happen to pick up an issue of SPIN I usually say to myself, "this magazine sucks now", and Rollins is doing voice over gigs for GM. such is Life. Hi - Ho.

Evil forces infiltrate spaces constantly. Sometimes they even infiltrate spaces they already "own". Be rigorous. Be intuitive.

The well you drank fresh water from a year ago may now be poisoned.

Things fall apart.

[MacCruiskeen]

and increasing irrelevance of 9/11 skepticism to the majority.

Hm, I don't think you get out much.

First of all, fuck off for starting with an insult. [...]

Jack, take it easy. Nordic was not being in any way insulting. He was just responding slightly sardonically to your own very angry post. And my own recent experiences here in Germany, and in Britain and Italy, mirror his in California pretty exactly. A lot of change takes place silently. People (usually people with penises) who would never ever admit they are wrong during an actual argument will often be thinking (and arguing) quite differently months or years later.

Parameters shift, often barely perceptibly. Lies get more and more numerous and obvious, injustices get more and more intolerable, and people gradually see things differently when it all starts to affect their own lives more and more directly. And then recent history gets re-assessed.

Example: Five years ago, or certainly ten, Russell Brand would merely have been sniggered at for what he said to Paxman. Today, over 5,000,000 people have watched that interview on YouTube in less than three days (probably twice as many saw the original broadcast), and approval for Brand is running at well over 90%. Not only that, they are talking about it with real passion and excitement.

Example: Five years ago, or certainly ten, the words "capitalism" and "revolution" were never used in polite company, or if they were used then only with a knowing smirk. Today, the hacks and the clerks and the Honoratioren are forced to use them at least half-seriously whether it pleases them to do so or not.

Example: Karl Marx too is now again mentionable and increasingly read and discussed by very young people. (Sales of Das Kapital are up by something like 1000% in the last few years.)

The times they are... Well, they're certainly not what they were in, say, Autumn of 2003, that's for sure.

[brainpanhandler]

Whoever called him "senile" was factually wrong, and wrong in the other way too.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but you needn't be so circumspect if you are. And you can even use a full size font if you want. It's not like I've never been wrong or have a hard time admitting when I am.

[MacCruiskeen]

Whoever called him "senile" was factually wrong, and wrong in the other way too.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but you needn't be so circumspect if you are. And you can even use a full size font if you want. It's not like I've never been wrong or have a hard time admitting when I am.

Qué? bph, I assure you was not attacking you personally in the small font. And I wasn't being circumspect, I was just pushed for time while typing and I simply couldn't be bothered checking back to see exactly who had used the word, because it's not about anyone's personality. In any case, as far as I know you have never given me any reason to be angry with you personally. I wasn't even particularly angry. I just thought the word was wrong. It was, very decidedly, a side-issue, hence the smaller font.

Peace, peace, peace. We will all need our energy for the coming insurrection, and I don't think any of us have any real enemies here. Let's not fight shadows.

[brainpanhandler]

Whoever called him "senile" was factually wrong, and wrong in the other way too.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but you needn't be so circumspect if you are. And you can even use a full size font if you want. It's not like I've never been wrong or have a hard time admitting when I am.

Qué? bph, I assure you was not attacking you personally in the small font. And I wasn't being circumspect, I was just pushed for time while typing and I simply couldn't be bothered checking back to see exactly who had used the word, because it's not about anyone's personality. In any case, as far as I know you have never given me any reason to be angry with you personally. I wasn't even particularly angry. I just thought the word was wrong. It was, very decidedly, a side-issue, hence the smaller font.

Peace, peace, peace. We will all need our energy for the coming insurrection, and I don't think any of us have any real enemies here. Let's not fight shadows.

I didn't take it as a personal attack. Really, I didn't. But I'm curious in what other way I am wrong. Take it as a sign of respect that I even want to know. You can pm if you wish.

[MacCruiskeen]

bph, Noam Chomsky has been very important in my life, since I was a teenager. I just don't like to hear him called senile, because a) he simply isn't, he's still mentally fitter than most people can ever hope to be; he's just very old and recently widowed, but he has too much style & integrity & self-respect ever to make his private troubles a public issue; and b) I think it's wrong a second way because "senile" is also an insult, especially in the context of a disagreement, and no old man deserves to be insulted that way, least of all him.

I've made it obvious, here and elsewhere, that I disagree with him very strongly about 9/11. I am not saying he is above criticism; I'm saying he's one of the people who taught me what criticism means. (I want to post Michael Parenti's remarks about Chomsky's attitude to "conspiracy".)

Feel free to PM me too, bph, especially if this is still in any way unclear. I really have no bone to pick with you. All the best.

[swindled69]

At all costs undermine and facilitate the continued dysfunctional discourse of Building 7 and the plausibility of it being a shining example of controlled demolition and you will continue to destabilize the movement of truth.

Meanwhile at the Pentagon.....


Chomsky might have some worthwhile things to say, sometimes, but a lot of other people have better things to say most of the time.

[brainpanhandler]

All the best.

10-4

[KeenInsight]

Isn't "chompsky" a "left" gate keeper or some such thing?

Here is what "chompsky" says about the JFK assassination:

If somebody could show that there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high–level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event. Other than that it’s just like the killing of anyone else.

I get it, he speaks of peace and failure of policies - but there IS a rhyme and reason behind "events" in history. Hell, for 1,000 years nobody even knew that the Pharoah Ramses III was killed in a conspiracy by his son. In reference to 9/11, I think there is enough to show that it did benefit the National Security State, EVEN IF they were not directly involved, but either way we actually don't know WHO did it or who wired those buildings with explosives as heard by witnesses, it could have terrorists on intelligence payroll/training, who knows? Just in the same way we don't know who all the shooters were at Dealey Plaza.

[Project Willow]

Push, push, push, struggle, wrangle, re-position, force, push....

This thing MUST have parameters. If I can't see them, I'll make them.



Oh, the safety of a box, a label, a solid boundary! Sides, known and defined, mean safety. Insecurity waits outside, in pre-pounce pose.

Can't we have a category, a classification, a description of things that yet have none obvious at any given time? Would the concept, the word, override the need? It's worth a try, especially in regards to humans, who are full of grey yet prone to posturing in black and white.

....................

Just riffing in general and placed here because conceptions of Chomksy prompted a reminder of the idea.

[Nordic]

and increasing irrelevance of 9/11 skepticism to the majority.

Hm, I don't think you get out much.

First of all, fuck off for starting with an insult. [...]

Jack, take it easy. Nordic was not being in any way insulting. He was just responding slightly sardonically to your own very angry post. And my own recent experiences here in Germany, and in Britain and Italy, mirror his in California pretty exactly. A lot of change takes place silently. People (usually people with penises) who would never ever admit they are wrong during an actual argument will often be thinking (and arguing) quite differently months or years later.

Parameters shift, often barely perceptibly. Lies get more and more numerous and obvious, injustices get more and more intolerable, and people gradually see things differently when it all starts to affect their own lives more and more directly. And then recent history gets re-assessed.

Example: Five years ago, or certainly ten, Russell Brand would merely have been sniggered at for what he said to Paxman. Today, over 5,000,000 people have watched that interview on YouTube in less than three days (probably twice as many saw the original broadcast), and approval for Brand is running at well over 90%. Not only that, they are talking about it with real passion and excitement.

Example: Five years ago, or certainly ten, the words "capitalism" and "revolution" were never used in polite company, or if they were used then only with a knowing smirk. Today, the hacks and the clerks and the Honoratioren are forced to use them at least half-seriously whether it pleases them to do so or not.

Example: Karl Marx too is now again mentionable and increasingly read and discussed by very young people. (Sales of Das Kapital are up by something like 1000% in the last few years.)

The times they are... Well, they're certainly not what they were in, say, Autumn of 2003, that's for sure.

Thanks, MacCruiskeen, for addressing that.

Yes, the people of whom I'm speaking aren't either of Jack's stereotypes, they are pretty much otherwise nonpolitical folks who have decided to look into the situation and have discovered the rather OBVIOUS ridiculousness of the Official Fairytale and the overwhelming evidence that our wonderful government covered up what really happened. They don't necessarily know why, or how, but they know when they're being lied to, and they fucking know they're being lied to.

And they don't talk about this unless it comes up, and they know they won't be laughed at or talked down to if they bring it up.

It really seems like a vast majority of people, to me, but maybe the people I meet are fucking weird. One thing is most of us are in the entertainment business, so we manufacture fiction and bullshit and propaganda on a daily basis, so maybe that's part of it. And I'm talking about people in the trenches, not the above-the-lines.

[Nordic]

Also:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair

I think this has applied to Chomsky for a long long time.

[smiths]

well i dont think thats right about Chomsky ^^, its not self interest, its a bias he picked up along the way and hasnt been able to shake off,

Manufacturing Consent was the first alternative book i read, it would be fair to say it blew my 17 year old brain