{"id":268531,"date":"2023-05-06T06:04:46","date_gmt":"2023-05-06T06:04:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=268531"},"modified":"2023-05-08T07:14:25","modified_gmt":"2023-05-08T07:14:25","slug":"chomskys-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein-and-suspected-9-11-mastermind-ehud-barak-exposed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=268531","title":{"rendered":"Chomsky’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein\u2014and Suspected 9\/11 Mastermind Ehud Barak\u2014Exposed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kevin Barrett \u2013 The Unz Review May 4, 2023<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In early summer 1992 I caught the documentary film Manufacturing Consent<\/em> when it opened in San Francisco\u2019s Castro Theater. That film changed my life. It showcased Noam Chomsky, an accomplished linguistics professor, and his analysis of corporate media propaganda. Manufacturing Consent<\/em> convinced me that the American academy could tolerate, and indeed celebrate, serious social criticism. If Chomsky, a radical opponent of America\u2019s most powerful institutions, could not only survive but thrive in academia, speaking truth to power and building a huge audience along the way, why couldn\u2019t others do the same?<\/p>\n

Before that screening, I had been a profoundly alienated bohemian haunting the margins of academia, so disgusted by all of America\u2019s institutions that I could scarcely have imagined working for them. (Learning the facts about the JFK assassination at age 16 can do that to a person.) But Chomsky\u2019s example inspired me. It made me want to join him and the other academic critics of US empire, convince our colleagues of the truth of our arguments using logic and evidence, and help the USA return to its anti-imperial roots and then some.<\/p>\n

So it was largely thanks to Chomsky that I entered a Ph.D. program in 1995. But by then I had noticed two glaring anomalies in his political thought. The first, and most important, was that his analysis of the JFK assassination seemed insane. Chomsky argued that the assassination was obviously a conspiracy, and not the work of a lone nut as the official story has it\u2014but that it didn\u2019t matter who killed JFK, because the assassination didn\u2019t change any policies! Since he felt it was so utterly unimportant that the president was murdered by conspirators powerful enough to force their ludicrous cover story on the world, Chomsky evinced no interest whatsoever in identifying the perpetrators, and discouraged his followers from further interest in the topic.<\/p>\n

\u201cTake for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don\u2019t know who assassinated him and I don\u2019t care, but what difference does it make?\u201d \u2013Noam Chomsky<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The other anomaly involved the question of Palestine. Though Chomsky has verbally sympathized with Palestinian suffering, and admitted the justice of the Palestinian cause, he has vociferously obstructed the two most promising strategic efforts that could help Palestine defeat Zionism: The boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) movement, and the campaign to expose Zionist control over US Mideast policy.<\/p>\n

Alison Weir once asked Chomsky <\/a>why he opposed BDS and why he had falsely claimed that it was bad for Palestinians (who almost unanimously support it). \u201cThe reason is very simple. It\u2019s so utterly hypocritical that it\u2019s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, \u2018Look, you\u2019re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you\u2019re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record\u2026\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Would Israeli hardliners ever actually say such a thing? And would it matter even if they did? Of course not. Here again, Chomsky is spouting sheer nonsense, prefaced by the obligatory disclaimer \u201cit\u2019s very simple.\u201d When someone as seemingly intelligent as Chomsky says such things, there are really only two possible interpretations: Either he is suffering from some bizarre mental dysfunction, or he is lying and gaslighting us.<\/p>\n

Chomsky\u2019s occasional habit of emitting streams of discombobulated blather repeatedly surfaces when he is asked about Israel\u2019s control of US Mideast policy. As James Petras<\/a> writes, \u201cNoam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy.\u201d The nonsensical gnome ludicrously argues that US policymakers\u2019 enslavement to Israel actually serves US national and imperial interests. For him, Israel is basically a powerless appendage of US empire. Chomsky\u2019s implicit subtext is that anyone who notices Israel\u2019s death grip on US foreign policy, including Walt and Mearsheimer, Alan Hart, James Petras, J. William Fulbright, James Abourezk, Paul Findley, and indeed every honest and informed analyst who has considered the question, must be \u201canti-Semitic.\u201d<\/p>\n

My issues with Chomsky\u2019s repeated bouts of apparent insanity came to a head after 9\/11. In November 2001, Chomsky published a \u201csurprise\u201d bestseller. Entitled 9\/11 <\/em>and republished ten years later as 9\/11: Was There an Alternative?<\/em>, the book basically repeats Chomsky\u2019s vacuous diatribes about the JFK coup d\u2019\u00e9tat\u2014\u201cit doesn\u2019t matter who did it, do NOT look behind the curtain\u201d\u2014and applies them to 9\/11.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf if it were true [9\/11 conspiracy theories], which is extremely unlikely, what difference does it make? I mean, it doesn\u2019t have any significance.\u201d \u2013Noam Chomsky, interview with David Barsamian<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

While I was participating in the rise of the 9\/11 truth movement from 2004 onwards, I noticed that Chomsky was growing ever-more-strident in attacking truth-seekers and insisting that it didn\u2019t matter who did 9\/11. In 2008 I invited him on my radio show, which led to an exchange of emails <\/a>culminating in his last-minute refusal to appear. I was flabbergasted by Chomsky\u2019s seemingly insane statements and positions. When he finally started lying outright, I concluded that he must be acting in bad faith. I published the private emails in their entirety because I thought the world needed to know the truth about the evident gross immorality (or, charitably, insanity) of America\u2019s most celebrated (fake) dissident.<\/p>\n

Then in 2016 I gave a talk at the Left Forum on \u201cWhy Chomsky Is Wrong About 9\/11<\/a>.\u201d Though my criticisms of Chomsky were quite restrained in tone, given his appalling betrayals, I was banned from the Left Forum the following year. Apparently going to the Left Forum to criticize Chomsky is like going to the Vatican to criticize the Pope.<\/p>\n