Article: The Pied Piper of the Left & Leftist Contradictions Undecided

But I became one of those Left puzzled, even mystified, as a result of Chomsky's insistence for more than 40 years that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. This puzzling anomaly took on new significance after 9/11 with Chomsky's opposition to questioning the official 9/11 story -- which questioning he says is a huge mistake for the Left.

As I studied his work even more closely under the intense illumination of 9/11, I became increasingly amazed at the patterns, dealt with in this chapter, that emerged from his body of work. Disbelief turned to shock. I feel I have been duped. I feel embarrassed that mainly I duped myself, that I had been in denial. With these realizations came anger from feeling betrayed by someone I welcomed into my innermost sanctum of trust.

One of my emotional tasks is not to go overboard, like the jilted lover who seeks revenge. Trying to be reasonably...

Zwicker discusses emotions, anger and rekindling with friends to study whereby he says:

I also hope you have friends as thoughtful and honest as mine whom to discuss the intellectual, political and emotional aspects of Chomsky and his work. I must say I now find it creepy.

Zwicker leaves that and, on page 184, he says of conspiracy theory:

Every person who says or writes "Oh, that's just conspiracy theory" in response to a question or claim about 9/11 should be challenged immediately. The phrase, in that tone, is counterfeit currency. To allow it to stand leaves the person using the phrase the framer of the discourse, and devalues the discourse and the target. It is to expose its illegitimacy and enable more reasoned discussion to proceed.

He goes on to describe why in four ways if used pejoratively the phrase fails.

From page 190 - 224, Zwicker sites Chomsky in title after title as an expose of Chomsky's words and actions; too much to start quoting here but will capture a few:

Quote from the Title: "A Below-The-Belt Blow:"

Third, the phrase as a psychological below-the-belt blow. It is justified to describe the term "conspiracy wacko" as a weapon of psychological warfare.

Psychologist Floyd Rudmin writes:

The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivation and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labelling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

Again the Psychologist is quoted in respect to as Zwicker puts it:

"If more people than before suspect high-level conspiracies, Rudmin puts forward an intriguing theory as to why. Conspiracy theorizing arises, he says, when:

a. Significant political or economic events change relationships in society;
b. Contradictions in the explanation of these events are noticed by ordinary citizens;
c. Curiosity and then concern are aroused, and;
d. Further information is sought under the presumption that power is being abused and deception is being deployed.

Zwicker says of the Media and quotes Rudmin again:

Conspiracy theory is "deconstructive history" because it is rebellion against official explanation and against orthodox journalism and orthodox history.

Zwicker points out some interesting vintage Chomsky where disagreement cannot be made, almost to whatever he speaks of, yet he uses conscious planning and bad planning defaults; not opposites. Zwicker, at one point, says:

But he never -- it should not be controversial to point this out -- connects the jingoistic, racist, fear-based so-called 'War on Terror,' heavily reliant on fear of (Muslim) religious fundamentalism, with the events of 9/11, even though the events of 9/11 are the linchpin for the so called 'war on terror.' In other words, he provides a masterful analysis of the overall problem generically, while avoiding engagement with the specific toxic core that fuels it. And this avoidance is unbending. The contradiction is total.

He writes, too:

[...] It took 9/11 to shake me out of my denial. Even then, I see in retrospect, the process was painfully slow. Finally Chomsky's sustained rejection of evidence, his sustained use of the term 'conspiracy theory' to describe the work of those seeking the truth about JFK's assassination (and the other assassinations of the 1960's), and 9/11, and his diminishment of the role of leaders as JFK and his brother, and of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., became a pattern I could no longer ignore. Writing this book opened my eyes further.

These 34 pages are worth reading as Zwicker deconstructs Chomsky's word-play from his own book 9-11, and of his contradictions and statements, Zwicker says:

A deconstruction of Chomsky's output reveals a complex and brilliant interplay. It could be characterized as 'bait-and-switch.' In a bait-and-switch operation, the victim is enticed, then victimized in some way. In this construction, the bait Chomsky offers the Left are his critiques of American foreign policy and propaganda systems of establishment. These are substantial and continuous offerings that earn him admiration and trust among most Left. His 'switch' is to redirect his followers on the Left away from questioning particularly toxic and revealing operations of sinister forces behind the scenes, away from evidence, even, concerning 9/11, and before it the assassinations that decapitated the Left in the 60's.

Obscuring that this is his role are propaganda techniques, briefly addressed above, and his personal attractiveness.

Zwicker talks, too, about the Q-factor of likability, which Chomsky surpasses.

What Zwicker describes in his book about Noam Chomsky very thought-provoking and worth the effort to read as a view from the other side of popular opinion. We will end here with a few final and important quoted points.

One of Chomsky's trademark comments is about the power of the people. While appearing to empower dissent, in most of his books and lectures he channels Left energy into a stupor of amazement over past miss-deeds of the Empire and brilliant articulations of the general picture of today's world, which any thinking Leftist can see without the help of Chomsky. His recent comments about Venezuela, again welcome, are nevertheless a case in point.

Some friends of mine on the Left find it difficult to understand that I am not rejecting Chomsky's massive work of critiquing the American Empire. It's not an either/or proposition. On can (and should) critique the Empire vis a vis East Timor, for instance, and strive to expose some of the most toxic domestic work, such as 9/11. The toxic work powerfully aids and emboldens the Empire in its drive toward ever more militarism, repression at home, and global domination. The events of 9/11 are also the Empire's Achilles Heel, if exposed. The records shows Chomsky strives to prevent the Left from thinking about, let alone exposing, this toxic work. The reality is that Chomsky's ruling out of any investigation into 9/11, which could finally accomplish a real shake-up, is at odds with the implied purpose of his foreign policy critiques - to reveal, oppose and displace the Empire.

Germane here is the truism that 'the most powerful disinformation is 90 percent true.'

A final note, relating to chapter 5:

If Noam Chomsky had been at the Tattered Cover Bookstore in November 2002, or others like it, his would be the only hand among an audience of 200 Americans to be raised in support of the official story. For shame.

The following is 9/10 rule from a work of fiction, Chainfire, by Author Terry Goodkind: "Wizard's Ninth Rule."

A contradiction can not exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole.

To believe in a contradiction is to abdicate your belief in the existence of the world around you and the nature of the things in it, to instead embrace any random impulse that strikes your fancy - to imagine something is real simply because you wish it were. A thing is what it is, it is itself. There can be no contradictions. Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.

In reality, contradictions cannot exist. To believe in them you must abandon the most important thing you possess: your rational mind. The wager for such a bargain is your life. In such an exchange, you always lose what you have at stake.