Somehow I missed the news when it came out last November:
Emails show convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had a tight friendship with MIT professor Noam Chomsky that spanned discussions about vacation, politics and included an apparent letter of support from Chomsky….
A WBUR review of the emails shows despite Epstein’s 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute, Chomsky stayed in close contact with Epstein into at least 2017. Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted activist and philosopher.
The apparently close social relationship between the two men, 25 years apart in age, one from the academic, the other from the financial world, only came to my attention through a YouTube interview of Whitney Webb that was only posted last week.
That put me to thinking about a YouTube of Chomsky speaking on 9/11 that was posted 18 years ago, and it’s still up. It has not aged well. Ironically, the Chomsky video and the Webb video have one big thing in common, an unfitting title. Chomsky’s is unfitting because, as we shall see, it is contradicted by virtually everything he has to say. It is, “Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic.” Webb’s unfitting title is of the bait-and-switch variety, “This is what I think happened to Epstein.” She never even gets close to telling us what that is.
I have sent her an email chiding her for it and asking for the answer to the question she raised, and I promise that I will share it with you at the end of this article. Meanwhile, let’s return to that outrageous Chomsky YouTube.
It has had over a million views and over 25k comments, and the comments are overwhelmingly negative. This one is representative:
This is not sheer logic. It is sheer oratory. He doesn’t give any regard or credibility to evidence. He just uses the word ‘meaningless’. “No one who gives any regard to science…” verbally discredits over 2000 Engineers and Architects For Truth but it doesn’t disintegrate their academic credentials. He shows his ignorance and his allegiances, not his logic.
With his track record of rejecting one secret-government outrage after another in his trite fashion as just so much “conspiracy theory,” the position on 9/11 of America’s leading pied piper of the left, Noam Chomsky, was as predictable as the sunrise.
Unfortunately, the opinion of this MIT linguistics professor still carries a lot of weight in some circles, however poorly supported it might be, and it is very poorly supported in this instance. In fact, were it to be made by someone of lesser prestige and intellectual clout, it might even be regarded as downright trivial and silly. The “sheer logic” that he invokes is that had people in the upper reaches of the U.S. government been involved, the news of it would have certainly leaked out and it would have been fatal, both for the perpetrators of the outrage and for the Republican Party.
The argument is quite similar to the one that was made to me concerning the murder of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the early days of the Bill Clinton administration:
I had just finished describing the outlines of the case for murder to a friend of long standing who I had not seen for a while. He is a professional historian of a somewhat standard liberal political orientation. “I can’t believe,” he said, “that if what you are telling me is true that Republicans like Dick Armey or Newt Gingrich wouldn’t be making all kinds of political hay over it.” The logic is impeccable if one believes that we really do have the vigorous, two-party system that we think we have.
There is something to Chomsky’s logic as well, if we really have the vigorous and aggressive free press that serves as a counterweight to power abuse in government that Chomsky would have us believe that we do. Two compelling questions immediately come to mind. Why would anyone involved in such a heinous criminal scheme leak out the information, and who could he or anyone else who got wind of it tell it to? He is assuming a very different American press from the one that is yet to report the news that the three-judge panel that appointed Kenneth Starr later ordered him to append to his report an addendum submitted by a witness in the case that totally demolished his conclusion that Vince Foster committed suicide. It is also a very different press from the one that failed to report the news that the long-secret official report on the death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal had been released and that it exposed an ongoing cover-up. In fact, the complicity of the press across the board in one major government outrage after another is a hallmark of the times. It is a fact that seems to have completely escaped Chomsky’s attention, and somehow he still manages to keep a reputation as a leading critic of the American system.
What is on display in Chomsky’s talk is really just a smattering of the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” particularly no. 11, “Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance.” As we say, “With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.” Indeed, Chomsky acts as if addressing the actual evidence is beneath him.
And this brings us to another of the techniques whose use by Chomsky might not be quite so obvious. That is no. 7, “Invoke authority.” It is not obvious because the authority that he invokes is none other than himself, and he does it with his manner. It has probably intimidated generations of students and colleagues. It is really hard to imagine anyone else propounding such complete nonsense with such surpassing confidence.
He embellishes his authoritative image by mixing in a hint of no. 10, “Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.” He does this by alluding to the various loose ends in the official 9/11 story—without specifying them, of course—and comparing them to the loose ends that one finds in even the best controlled scientific experiments. The message is that “this is something that ‘we scientists’ know about and you people of lesser intellect had best not bother yourselves with such complexities,” even if the “complexity” is something as obvious as a building falling as in a controlled demolition or a virtually untrained pilot pulling stunts that are beyond the capacity of the most experienced test pilot.
Exalted academic figure though he might be, Chomsky is not above using the old schoolyard bully technique of no. 5, calling the skeptics names. Well, he doesn’t exactly call them “conspiracy theorists,” but he says that they engage in conspiracy theories, which is pretty much the same thing, and he says it in a very dismissive fashion. It’s really an unworthy display for someone whose profession ought to give him a fine appreciation of the meaning of words. The term “conspiracy theory” was coined to contrast with the ever-popular “lone, crazed gunman” explanation for assassinations. In the case of 9/11 what we have are competing conspiracy theories, the official one with 19 young Arab fanatics armed with box cutters, and various other theories, probably the most popular of which is that it was an American-Israeli secret-government job. The question at issue is which of the competing conspiracy theories has the most veracity.
To reach that determination there is really no substitute for examining the evidence, which is to say, using the inductive method. Deduction does have its place, though, and, as it happens, it works particularly well in the 9/11 case, but it leads one to the opposite conclusion to the one reached by Chomsky. All one need do is put himself in the place of Osama bin Laden as the supposed master schemer. Is it at all believable that he would sign off on a plan that depended for its success upon the complete incompetence of America’s air defenses? And how could he count on the passengers and crew unanimously knuckling under to a few guys armed with nothing more lethal than box cutters? How could he have any confidence that his novice pilots would be able to fly and navigate these large commercial airliners well enough to carry out their very difficult mission? On its face, the plan would not work, and one really doesn’t need all that great an imagination to come up with any number of schemes that could wreak tremendous havoc that would have a far greater chance to succeed. They wouldn’t even require that the perpetrators commit suicide in the process.
We are given to believe that bin Laden was some kind of great military leader in rallying resistance fighters against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but any military leader given to attempting such hopeless schemes as this one wouldn’t have lasted a week.
“Oh, but it did succeed,” you say. Yes, something succeeded, but believing that it was Osama bin Laden’s plot really requires an exceptional degree of faith in our leaders and our opinion molders.
“Something could have gone wrong with an insiders’ plot,” Chomsky tells us, but the chances of things going wrong with the sort of outsiders’ plot they’re selling us is many times greater. And it looks like some things did go wrong with the actual plot, as opposed to the official fanciful one. For instance, Building 7 fell a few hours after Buildings 1 and 2 fell even though it was not even struck by an airplane. Is that the one that Flight 93 was supposed to hit? It is evident that Flight 93 did not crash intact into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It really looks like something went wrong and the plane had to be destroyed in the air. Something has certainly gone wrong, as well, when it can be reported that Building 7 has collapsed when it only has a rather minor fire down in one corner.
When the press is covering up for you, you have the luxury of making any number of mistakes in carrying out your plot. The president, himself, can even tell the public on more than one occasion that before he was told of the second plane hitting Tower 2, he had seen on TV images of the first plane hitting Tower 1.
As for what might happen to a real insiders’ plot leaker, as opposed to scenario that Chomsky paints, one need look no farther than the case of Eugene B. Dinkin, the Army cryptographic code operator who got wind of the Kennedy assassination plot a month before it took place. We can find Phillip Nelson’s summary of the story in “Abuse of Psychiatry in the Kennedy Assassination.”
There was a time when I admired and respected Noam Chomsky. I was wrong. My eyes were opened to Chomsky’s essential fraudulence when I became aware of his position on the John F. Kennedy assassination. I put my discoveries in writing in March and April of 2001 with “Chomsky, the Fraud” and “Chomsky, the Fraud, Part 2.”
Chomsky might even be an even more reprehensible person than even his worst critics imagine. It is a little-known fact that the friendly-fire-slain Pat Tillman had been in contact with Chomsky. Chomsky can be heard very uncomfortably confirming it here.
How about that? I was going to say it, but I find that the late J. Bruce Campbell in “Killing Pat Tillman” has already made at least one key point for me:
Tillman had naively made contact with the CIA’s Noam Chomsky to discuss his plans to reveal what he knew about the lies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the War on Terror. He was apparently also angry about the US Army’s support of the Afghan opium trade, started up by the army after the Taliban had eradicated it one hundred percent during their four-year reign. The US Army authorized the Northern Alliance to resume poppy production, according to Fox News shortly after we invaded Afghanistan. (Emphasis added)
Campbell doesn’t say how he knows that Chomsky is CIA (maybe John Coleman’s book) or what Tillman had said and was planning to say further to Chomsky, but it all sounds very plausible given what we already know. The parallels with William F. Buckley may well be even greater than we thought, because Buckley was known to have worked for the CIA.
And speaking of Chomsky’s posited 9/11 leaker, as Campbell suggests, Pat Tillman’s attempt to leak to the fake dissident Chomsky might well have been what got him killed. That’s one of the reasons the secret government creates phony critics. They serve as magnets for would-be whistleblowers. It’s really a very devious business. It’s also pretty obvious that Tillman, unfortunately, had not read my “Chomsky, the Fraud” articles.
Now here’s that promised email to Whitney Webb, to which, as of this writing, she has not yet responded. If she does, I will report on it.
Hi Whitney,
I learned a lot more about the depravity of our Jewish overlords from your latest interview “This Is What I Think Happened To Epstein” | Whitney Webb. You might have added that Ken Starr, the guy who covered up our fellow Davidson alumnus Vince Foster’s murder, was also on that Epstein defense team that got him the sweetheart deal of the century. But you must surely know that the big shortcoming of the video is that it ends up having virtually nothing to do with its headline, one of the worst examples of bait-and-switch clickbait that I have ever seen. If you’ll tell me what you think happened to Epstein, I’ll give you some information about Who Says That Epstein’s Dead? Concerning Noam Chomsky, if you haven’t read “Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11,” I think it might interest you.
Dave