Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chomsky: Far-Right Threat Is No Joke
Noam Chomsky, the world's leading dissident intellectual, has warned the grievances exploited by far-right extremists need to be taken seriously by their left-wing opponents.
Speaking at the annual Amnesty International lecture in Belfast, Professor Chomsky noted: "There is now a mass of people with real grievances who want answers and are not receiving them. A common reaction in elite educated circles and much of the left is to ridicule the right-wing protesters, but that is a serious error.
Dr Chomsky said history had shown it was a grave mistake not to answer the calls of people mired in poverty, who are susceptible to the argument that rich liberals are giving their money to illegal immigrants and the shiftless poor.
He gave his sombre address on Friday evening to a capacity audience at Queen's University.
Later, he forecast that the rift between Washington and Edinburgh over the release of the Lockerbie bomber would blow over. Responding to a question from the Sunday Herald, he suggested American anger was bluster and the Obama administration would have been relieved that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had dropped his appeal.
"The appeal was going to bring in evidence from US intelligence casting serious doubt on the whole trial," he said.
He added that he had sympathy with those who suspect a politically driven cover-up concerning Lockerbie.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
67 Comments so far
Show AllOnce again, the Kassandra of American politics speaks truly. What progressives need to do is point out the true criminals: the corporate elite funding the tea baggers, etc., as a sop to distract attention away from their myriad misdeeds.
"the corporate elite funding the tea baggers"
This is one thing Noam is right about. You need to stop beleiving this kind of stuff, its simply not true. These folks are real and they are out there working hard...just ask old DeDe. They aren't funded by any "elite" They are kicking sand in the face of the RNP.
So prime tea bagging organizers Fox News and the Orwellian named "Freedom Works" (among others) are not well paid shills of the corporate elite? Child Please!
Interesting. Chomsky says he has sympathy with those who suspect a cover-up concerning Lockerbie . . . but not with those who suspect a cover-up concerning 9/11.
I have the utmost respect for Noam Chomsky and think he is one of the most important and necessary anti-establishment thinkers, but this is the one issue where I can't agree with him. His refusal to accept any possibility of complicity by factions in the US government, the military, or the CIA/Mossad, is somewhat exasperating.
There is good reason to doubt Magrahi's guilt for the Lockerbie bombing. The evidence against him and his co-accused (who was acquitted) was never very strong. I cannot say if that amounts to a cover-up, but it did mean that a successful appeal against conviction was not unlikely, had it gone ahead, to the great potential embarrassment of the British and US governments.
On the other hand, no credible evidence has been produced to show that 9/11 was anything other than what it seems to be - 19 fanatics taking advantage of poor US standards of airline security to devastating effect.
"On the other hand, no credible evidence has been produced to show that 9/11 was anything other than what it seems to be - 19 fanatics taking advantage of poor US standards of airline security to devastating effect."
where is any credible evidence to back up this lunatic conspiracy theory?
all you have is some monkey's say-so.
SHOW ME THE BOXCUTTERS!!!
We cannot show you the boxcutters. They are locked up in the Bush garage with the weapon that murdered Kennedy. Under heave guards from Bushs C.I.A. buddies.
We can't show you the box cutters because an official whitehouse spokeman just told me this is classified information and it would jeopardize our national security.
NOTIONAL security.
The whole 'box cutter' issue arose out of an alleged phone call from Barbara Olsen (aboard flight 77) to her husband Ted Olsen (who changed this story many times since), aboard the jet that allegedly hit the pentagon. The story was proven to be a fabrication. During the Moussaoui trial it was shown that this call lasted 0.0 seconds, meaning no such call took place. That means that there were no box cutters. Also, the FBI seized all video footage of the Pentagon impact, and it was withheld from the public on the grounds that it was evidence in a criminal trial against Moussaoui. If the video evidence supports the tale of 19 hijackers, and a commercial jet hitting the Pentagon it would have long ago been released. If it supported the arguments for war against two nations, and a perpetual war against (currently ill defined) 'terrorism' it would most assuredly have been released to the public. To this day that evidence is classified, and we still assume that 19 hijackers with box cutters did this, in spite of the fact that the whole tale has been proven, in a court of law, to be a fraud.
Chomsky dissents only as far as he can without threatening his career, his family, and possibly his life. He sees no value in uncovering the truth about events which set the course of history. He's right about an awful lot of things, and in fact my own thinking about history has been greatly affected by him. This is why I am so confused about his reactions to issues such as these. They are utterly inconsistent with what I understand about him.
no credible evidence has been produced to show that 9/11 was anything other than what it seems to be
--------------------------------------
I'm inclined to take the word of an experienced, well-respected professor of experimental physics (Dr. Steven Jones) that the available physical evidence doesn't support the Official Conspiracy Theory, and that an actual forensic investigation is needed. He could have recanted when threatened by the university administration for questioning the OCT, but he didn't. He sacrificed his career instead, which lends his words a great deal of weight with me. Plus the circumstantial evidence casts strong doubt (I'm being charitable) on the OCT. There were too many convenient anomalies that just 'happened' to coincide that day.
The government lies do not demonstrate the truth or falsehood of any one story or another --- except the one the government supports, which we may confidently dismiss as false: were it true, they would say something else.
On the other hand, even if said Saudis actually did fly said planes into said buildings, that would in no way eliminate the possibility of a false fire event. All levels of complicity on the part of a wide range of people might come out in investigation.
Investigation and inquest would be nice.
I must say I share what I take to be Chomsky's frustration that so many so much more obvious capital crimes that require less investigation go without prosecution or inquest. After all, how many murders should it take to put Cheney and Bush in jail? We have such abundant, thoroughly documented evidence that they entered into war by fraud and deliberately cost the lives of well over a million people. Why should we prosecute the 9/11 attack and not the murders of American soldiers tricked into going to Afghanistan and Iraq, or the murders of Americans at Katrina, or the murders of the poor people of the newly occupied countries?
"Why should we prosecute the 9/11 attack and not the murders of American soldiers tricked into going to Afghanistan and Iraq, or the murders of Americans at Katrina, or the murders of the poor people of the newly occupied countries?"
Agreed.
I've got no problem with Chomsky's frustration at the lack of prosecution for easily provable capital crimes. That this is the case is beyond dispute, and yes, these assholes could be sent upriver forever based on well established criminal acts, all without delving into 9/11.
But, legally speaking, obstruction of justice and cover-up of crime IS accessory to that same crime. While we may never be able to prove who actually executed the attacks of 9/11, we can certainly prove who covered it up, and we can prosecute for that. That there has been a cover-up is beyond dispute.
There is credible evidence.
I saw a program on c span where chemists found explosive material on the ground in the building material.
"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
I am not into conspiracy theories but something does stink about 911.
The papers written about these findings are on line I believe.
SECRETARYBIRD, I agree with your first paragraph. There is much reason to doubt the official ruling in the Lockerbie case. In fact, CD ran an article a couple months ago that spelled out all those doubts.
I don't, however, agree with your second paragraph. VDB, MAIREAD, and BIRDIE came to my defense while I was away, so I will politely second their notions that the official story is the one lacking in any credible evidence (the FBI itself has gone on record admitting that), while PLENTY of evidence exists to question it. And as far as your "19 fanatics" are concerned . . . 7 of them have been proven to still be alive. They were interviewed by newspapers and TV around the world, expressing their shock and incredulity that their faces were all over the news. Either that is one very incredible feat of suicide-bombing (imagine the potential -- be a suicide bomber and SURVIVE!), or it is a ridiculous lie continuously parroted by those who still believe the official story.
Peace,
John
"(imagine the potential -- be a suicide bomber and SURVIVE!)"
suicide bombers, unlike drone pilots, cannot be repeat offenders.
I find this rather interesting and suggestive:
------------------------------------
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
----------------------------------------
It's from the Operation Northwoods plan.
We have so much in common with the teabaggers right now, we HAVE to agree with them when they are right.
They are saying no the the war, bailing out the banks and the public option as written by the Wall St. health industry.
The thing is, their source of information is the same source that got all of us into this mess.
Let's look at some out-of-the-box solutions!
I have talked to some of the tea baggers and while there are some wacko's among them I found most of them just totally fed up. Many are Alex Jones and Ron Paul supporters. I would argue, that what is needed is a coalition of moderate right and moderate left, then you could see change you could REALLY believe in.
Excellent ideas!
What's "moderate"?
For all I know, you do not use the word to designate people who wish to continue to occupy 3 nations, maintain hundreds of military bases, burn the largest per-capita share of carbon in the world, blow the tops off mountains irradiate the Earth -----
------- well, you know the drill ------
but the word has come to indicate people who support positions now espoused by senators, congresspersons, sitting presidents, and other perpetrators of capital crimes.
Don't you think you should at least wash the word before you use it? Good intentions and lovely potential aside, that word "moderate" is stickier than a used condom.
BARDAMU: Thanks for your input. Maybe I did not make myself clear. I have supported third party candidates for many years but unless there is a broad coalition of the electorate that are fed up with Republicans and Democrats their will be no viable third party in American politics. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, Cynthia McKinney, Bernie Sanders, are some of the people I was talking about and I probably should have used the word progressives, but when I said moderates I meant people that are fed up and could be swayed to join with progressives.
I know quite a few tea-baggers. Some of them are friends of mine. And believe me, there is NOTHING at all moderate about them; they are wild, far rightwing, racist, Cheney-loving wackos who are militantly anti-abortion but wanted to execute just about everyone left of Ghengis Khan--at least those they don't know personally.
Yes a lot of them are crazies, and your tea bagger friends sound like they belong in that catagory, but do not paint them all with the same brush as I have talked to some who are misguided but intelligent and they were persuaded to at least listen to me.Folks,we need to stop preaching to the choir and try to build a broad coalition; otherwise, even though we speak the truth, we are no better than the right wing nut cases that only listen to what they want to hear.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I have seen and spoken with many Republican teabaggers and I have yet to hear any of them complain about the bank bail-outs or Bush's various wars. They complain vociferously about the need for more tax cuts for themselves. It must be the Libertarian components of the teabaggers who have enough sense to complain about the bank bail-outs.
Right wing AM radio jocks are criticizing the bailout and what they are calling Obama's war. Actually saying "what are we there for?".
They are right when they say public option is bad!
They don't like Obama; I don't like Obama. However, for different reasons than theirs.
There are all \ kinds of tea-baggers. Remember the movement is paid for and directed by right-wing corporations and people like Richard Viguerie and Roger Ailes. You know, monsters. But within the movement are a range of people - it's true that they are focused on being anti-Obama and rarely direct a word against the war or the rich - they've bought the line they've been fed. But if you get some of them talking about the wars and the bailouts, they are strongly against them, too. (Although they sometimes say, "well, the war is terrible, but we can't quit now.")
I'm just saying we need to reach out to these people. It won't be easy, and many times it won't get us anywhere. But sometimes it will. And just making friends with some of them might come in handy if they start to turn into a fascist army.
re Lockerbie: "American anger was bluster"
otherwise they'd be renaming it Freedom Whiskey.
Would that be from the makers of Victory Gin?
Freedom on the rocks.
Indeed, all common people are "fed up". This is not a right wing or left wing thing, although there are those on both sides (Fox News, the RNC and DNC) who would try to exploit the movement for their own agenda.
In fact, much of the in-fighting is manufactured in order to divide Americans and distract them from the real issue.
We are nearing a time when common Americans will ignore right and left wing pundits, ban together and march on Washington and Wall Street and DEMAND an accounting. Because both parties are owned by the wealthy elite, the "DEMAND" will be met with the usual police/military force.
The end result will either be similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union in 1991, where the will of the people prevailed, or will resemble many other instances throughout history, from Poland to Checkoslovakia to Chile to Tiananmen Square, where a superior military force is able to quell the voice of the poeple, if only for the short term.
Bring America Back !!!!................!!....Hay Buddy, WE are the LEFT--those other three you have in your parentheses are The RIGHT !!! In the past 9 years,
the behaviour of the DNC is exactly lockstep with the Neocon radical right wingers.
True, but the point is, really, it is "us" against "them".
"Them" being the wealthy elite and their willing serfs, loyal pundits and servile politicians.
"Us" being...everyone else.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
-Warren Buffett
"Us" stopped realizing there was a class war going on in the 60s. The wealthy never stopped...
If people watched the Hitler documenty,-- in the beginning, it was the Wack-o's like Glenn Beck and Palin, who doing the previous administraion stired up others to follow, gain more power by gathering the naive to join in, as was done in Germany, years ago,- and the rest is history, even with the discrimination against certain type of people. Do we really want the facist state that "Beck" wants?
Do we really want the facist state that "Beck" wants?
-------------------------------
No, of course not. But the one doesn't inevitably follow from the other. Coalition politics can be quite focused. A friend from work years ago was both a feminist and religiously pro-life. We easily cooperated as feminists, even though we were diametrically opposed on the issue of Choice. We were old enough by then to understand that disagreement needn't demonise; that people can be wrong and *still* be honest, kindly, decent, and admirable. We knew, and accepted, that we might one day find ourselves on opposite sides of the line in a clinic defence, and that it would be okay and wouldn't spill over onto the rest of our relationship. We've not seen one another in twenty years but I still use the term 'pro-life' today to honor her just as she, I would bet, still uses 'pro-Choice' to honor me.
Dream on, Baby-killer.
By now, she wants you to rot in Hell, and is wearing either her "Screw the Caribou! Drill Alaska!" or "Drill through their @$$ ...for cheaper gas!" polar bear cub T-shirt from the Glenn Beck studio store:
https://members.premiereinteractive.com/ows-img/glennbeck/pages/28585/41410.htm#
Wake up and smell the tea bag.
You certainly have an active, though unwholesome, imagination.
"We've not seen one another in twenty years"
Give her a call - you might be surprised how *pro-lifers* have aged in these wingnut echo-chamber decades. Don't assume people are "just like me but with different opinions"; some minds are truly damaged.
Perhaps your imagination needs some work. Here's an exercise: imagine how Glenn Beck would have appeared as a co-worker in 1989.
The ones who join in are not naive, Maddy, they're utterly stupid thus easily manipulated. That makes them all the more dangerous because they're fanatics and will do anything they're told.
The ones on doubt concerning 9/11 need only do a lot of Research, especially the Bush/Saudi/ bin laden conection.
It's interesting 9/11 happened after the bin laden member of Afghanistan refused Bush the right to put in the oil pipe line, and the Royal members of the Saudi's and the bin laden family just happened to be on visit with Bush SR. A no fly was put out but the bin Ladens, and Saudi's were allowed to fly. Also, up to when the towers fell, Marvin Bush, Bush's younger brother was a principal part of the Securacom Security co. for the World Trade Center.
I think by now we all know how very dangerous these clowns are and criminally insane to boot.
Isn't it clear that our governance is corrupt through and through, both the Democrats and the Republicans, with but a very few exceptions that are marginalized?
This is what people are reacting to ... the stench of money in our "pay to play" corporatocracy.
Both parties coddle the banksters enabling the biggest heist in history. They ramp up even more wars as the American people sink into an economic black hole.
The Democrats answer to 8 years of Republican incompetence and looting, Barack Obama, runs the same programs and policies that Bush ran ... just more efficiently and with better PR ...
Is it any wonder Americans are angry and will listen to people that voice that anger, whoever they might be?
One can understand the anger of Americans to what has occured in our country, but the Radicals are of no party, but their own.History will show it was the angry in Russia that ended up forming communism, the ones in Germany that formed the Nazi's. The Palins and Becks are leading into the same direction. We need to stand up and fight for our rights, but be very careful whom we follow.
Dr Chomsky said history had shown it was a grave mistake not to answer the calls of people mired in poverty, who are susceptible to the argument that rich liberals are giving their money to illegal immigrants and the shiftless poor.
But it is not those mired in poverty who are doing all the shouting. It is the relatively affluent who are the "town hall" shouters. They are the ones who are afraid of immigrants and the shiftless poor.
The majority of listeners to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc... (and I while I don't know the numbers, I would guess the majority of teabaggers) are actually poor to lower middle class. I know the friends I have that are hard-core right-wing, are all close to the poverty line. And yes... they have MAJOR grievances. Real wages are down, working hours are up, vacation time down, health expenses up, child care up, housing costs up, schools are getting worse, you can't turn your TV on without being lied to, etc etc etc... Life is getting worse for people, they realize life is getting worse, and they are out looking for answers. Unfortunately, the answers they are getting from the right-wing media are distortions and designed to turn people against the government (government is theoretically a place PEOPLE have input and thus people have to be made to think it is some alien force, not a place they have input). The main reason life has gotten so tough for these people (the concentration of power and wealth into an increasingly small minority) is just not something that can be said in the corporate media. Why? Massive corporate institutions own the media, they get their funding from other massive corporate institutions, and thus they aren't going to blame themselves for the problems. so... Chomsky is right... as always... the people who are right wingers aren't right wingers by nature... they have been conditioned to be so. If they are given another answer to why life is so hard in the richest country the world has ever seen, a large percentage of them will leave the movement. But, that answer hasn't come with a microphone large enough to reach them...
It is not the affluent. It is a growing angry working middle class that is tired of having all their tax dollars handed to rich banksters and welfare mothers while their schools crumble and their bridges collapse, and their retirements disappear before their very eyes. They're tired of working long hours, only to be bogged down by hefty health insurance payments while criminals and illegal immigrants get health care for free.
The anger is justifiable. Unfortunately, the establishment Republican Party is filling their sails with it, and fanning the flames of discontent in order to harness this anger to win the coming elections. But the establishment Republican Party has absolutely no intention of changing the status quo, and it's likely we will get another Bush who is fiscally irresponsible, and who continues to expand the power of the federal government.
As for these town hall shouters, at least conservatives are out there doing something! What is the liberal middle class doing? Crossing their fingers that Obama will turn from a sniveling corporate worm into a butterfly and change the world?
It disgusts me that the majority of so-called liberals were lured by the partisan pied piper into supporting the bailouts. It was mostly Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who stood against the bailouts. Now, these liberals get that same dogshit look on their faces when they hear about the bankster bonuses that Republicans get when you ask them what happened to the WMD's in Iraq. Can we get over our little partisan fairy tale and quit pooh-poohing the other side to the tune played by our manipulative media?
There is one true struggle right now in the United States. The people vs. an out of control federal government which does not serve the will of the people.
While I applaud Glenn Beck for writing an instruction manual for his guests, I wonder if they really have enough time to read all of "Arguing with Idiots" before going on air...
As Chomsky knows from experience, one problem is that cons can manufacture consent through their vast right wing MSM megaphone while libs still struggle to be heard and must resort to sound bites.