26 November, 2006

911blogger kids email exchange with Uncle Chomsky

You proclaim that to challenge the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK as
being anything other than as officially described would be the "Death of
the Left". No, sir people you are becoming the "Death of the Left",
because you and the other foundation funded "Leaders" have been
politically castrating the political Left. And all with the anaesthetic of
half-truths and micro revelations that steam valve just how corrupt things
are. So the “Death of the Left” will be the slow political impotency that
no longer inspires new generations to challenge the things that need
challenging the most, “politically correct” or not. Above all though your
constant dismissal of the 9/11 issue is frankly vomit inducing. There are
credible, valid and rational reasons to doubt the official narrative
describing that attack, yet you plead ignorance and show distain for such
a critical subject, why? Beucase of this enigmatic stance of yours I
actually now sympathise with those who would call you a gutless,
visionless charlatan and coward.

And you might find that rather somewhat impolite, but given that you abuse
your influence by actively discouraging debate and investigation into this
issue, which helps to prevent the emergence of vital truths about acts so
heinous, I don’t believe politeness in this case deserves a relevancy any

Most Disgusted,
Dem Bruce Lee Styles

Fri, 11/24/2006 - 4:37pm


Here's his reply;

"Since I have never taken the position you describe, I cannot respond to
your letter."


And here's my second;

Well, regardless you must have heard by now that the state of Venezuela
recently passed a resolution declaring that to the countries’ official
judgement, the 9/11 attacks were quote “self-inflicted”;

“Venezuela's president continued his criticism of President Bush after the
pro-Chávez legislature declared that the 9/11 attacks were


I am well aware of your publicly stated opinion that you believe sceptics
of the official 9/11 narrative are citing “arcane and dubious theories” as
the basis for their objections (http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779). Do you
now intend to extend that courtesy to President Hugo Chavez (who highly
praised your latest book at the UN, which is perhaps foolish of me
mentioning because you undoubtedly know that) and the Government of

Personal assessments of your particular stance on this issue like mine may
be worthless to you, but this is not an issue to rationalize away
opposition and vital questioning. Wars are being waged, civil liberties in
multiple countries are under threat and great damage globally is being
done, all with the justification of the event in question. Is it not right
to demand absolute scrutiny of that event, when so much is at stake?

I believe there are a number of understandable reasons as to why you may
not wish to contemplate such a disturbing notion. And I’m sure you might
also be conscious of not wanting to venture into something that you may
think might tarnish your credibility and reputation. But I think these
grounds for inactivity on this issue are erroneous, indeed it is difficult
to contemplate but I feel the need for a new investigation outweighs that
discomfort, and is in fact a duty at this stage.

Please at the very lest devote some attention to this matter, I believe
C-Span’s Book TV is airing a recent event titled “9/11 and American
Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out” with speakers David Ray Griffin, Peter
Dale Scott, Peter Phillips, Kevin Ryan and Ray McGovern. The program times

“Friday, November 24 at (EST) 4:00 pm and Saturday, November 25 at (EST)
3:30 am and at 10:00 pm”

If those times are inconvenient for you the website 911blogger.com will be
hosting the video of the broadcast within the next few days or sooner I’d


Thanks for your response,
Dem Bruce Lee Styles


Here's his second reply;

I wasn't aware of the Venezuelan government's resolution, and have no idea
what their reasons are, so can't comment on them.

You're quite right that 9/11 is being exploited to provide a pretext for
some of the crimes of the Bush administration, though the most serious
ones, which really threaten species survival, precede 9/11. Those who
oppose those crimes have two clear choices: (1) take energetic action to
bring them to an end; (2) engage in debates over the question of the
responsibility for 9/11. My priorities happen to be (1), and I think one
of the most harmful effects of the Truth Movement has been to draw
enormous energies away from such efforts. But I don't have the arrogance
to demand that others accept my priorities.

Those who prefer (2) know exactly how to proceed. E.g., those who believe
that the physical evidence is significant should do what everyone else
does who reaches some conclusions physical evidence: submit a paper to a
serious professional journal raising the issues, and raising questions
about the reports of the professional society of civil engineers and
others -- an action that carries not the slightest cost, contrary to what
adherents of the Truth Movement like to believe about themselves. To my
knowledge, there is not even a single submission. The remainder of the
evidence should also be evaluated by those who regard debate over
responsibility as a higher priority than action to bring serious crimes to
an end.

I've been involved in political activism for 60 years, but have never run
across anything like the extraordinary self-righteousness and arrogance of
the Truth Movement, for example, its amazing claim that those who don't
find its assertions credible must be concerned about tarnishing their
credibility, etc. It's apparently inconceivable that they simply disagree.
As for tarnishing credibility, that's a joke. Adopting the position of the
Truth Movement does not even remotely compare with the consequences of
actions that I and other dissidents undertake routinely, even putting
aside organization of direct resistance and facing the likelihood of long
prison sentences. Have Falk and Griffin suffered any repercussions for
their book, for example? Or Scott? Or any of those who are offered quite
unusual exposure in the media, as in the example you mention?


Now CHRIS writes to Chomsky:

heres one i just wrote to him. i even kept my anger in check! hahaha:

I'll keep this short. You owe it to yourself to read
this book(Towers of Deception:The Media Cover-Up of


but im sure you wont since you have shown you cant grasp the concept of
"false flags" and dont(or refuse to allow yourself to) find them
important. You have stated numerous times that there are "more important
things". I can respect that even if I dont quite buy it. That said, you
should at least read the chapter that Barrie Zwicker wrote about you and
"gatekeepers"(he wrote the chapter because like myself and many others he
once respected your work but is perplexed by your silence on certain
issues). I dont know if anyone has brought this book to your attention,
but Zwicker has you pegged perfectly. I await your typically haughty
response. Chris R.

Submitted by Chris on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 5:00pm.


Noam Chomsky answers:

Thank you for the reading suggestion. Though perhaps you will find it
"haughty," I do not have the arrogance to instruct you to shift your
priorities to matters that I think are far more important, and am
intrigued that advocates of the "Truth Movement" do feel that it is their
right to issue such instructions from on high. In 60 years of activism,
I've never come across anything like it.

I don't know you, but I do see something of Zwicker's work, and have had
discussions with him, and am aware of his disregard of issues that seem to
me far more significant than the one he devotes himself to with such ardor.
However, I am not "perplexed" because he makes his own judgments, rather
than following mine. And though at one time I was "perplexed" that Truth
Movement advocates, from their lofty position, feel entitled to issue such
orders and are "perplexed' when others don't follow them, I know longer am.
I've come to undertand that it is a component of the Truth Movement.
In brief, we have two choices: (1) act to bring to an end crimes of state
that are vastly worse even than participation in 9/11 would be, for the
most part bipartisan, and supported by Canada, UK, etc.; (2) engage in
debates about the background for 9/11. Of course, (2) is far easier, as
anyone with any activist experience knows. But if you think it more
important than (1), by all means follow your own judgment, without my
being "perplexed" about your silence and inaction on matters that seem far
more significant to me.


Chris writes again:

Just as haughty and condescending as I thought you
would be, you do not dissapoint sir. In 60 years of
activism you have never been confronted with a
movement(one you do a terrible job of hiding your
disdain for. Is that fear I smell?) such as ours, one
that sees through your BS. You must hate technology,
specifically the internet, which makes it so much
easier to see what purpose steam valves like yourself
serve. Oh and Noam, you have more than enough
arrogance for all of us. The 9/11 truth movement(sort
of like the JFK movement that you also curiously
oppossed. I see a pattern. Still think it doesnt
matter who killed JFK? Yeah, hes just a cold warrior
and his death had no real geopolitical effect right?)
threatens establishment dissidents like yourself, I
understand that, but to call the unexplained murder of
3000 innocents(I know, you have done so much activism
for so many innocents in the past, whats 3000 lives
right? Especially when they are american lives right?)
unimportant is an insult on so many levels to so many
people. I dont need to tell you what 9/11 lead to and
how many deaths and injustices it spawned and still
spawns. Still you find it unimportant. I dont expect
you to broach the subject of 9/11 with full honesty,
but do you really have to disrespect the people that
are trying to find real answers? How about that
chapter Zwicker wrote on you? Did you read it? He had
you pegged didnt he? Chris R.


Chris says:

looks like Chomsky is offended. again he fails to respond to any of the
substance of my e-mail and chooses instead to turn it around on me. this
guy is good:

If you ever decide that you have some serious comment or query,
I'll be glad to consider it, and respond, as I do to maybe 100 every
If you prefer to ignore and evade every word in response to your charges,
and to react with nothing more than a stream of insults,
that's OK, but there is really no need to waste your time and mine.

Submitted by Chris on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 7:31p


Chris writes again:

I made valid points and valid criticisms. Im sorry you
failed to respond to any of the content in my e-mail
and decided to take it as an insult. The statement on
your arrogance might have been a bit much, but that
was only in response to your bashing of an entire
movement. I know you dont like to be painted with a
broad brush, neither do I. I do find it interesting
that you failed to respond to any of the points I made
in both of my e-mails though. Par for the course I
guess. Chris R.


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, November 26, 2006


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude you come off as a loon. I am surprised he even bothered to give you a serious response, given your premises.

Sun Nov 26, 04:49:00 am UTC  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites