Kenn Thomas says what?

[ondafritz]

There is/was a breach by people who committed treason to our country, based on that, in my view. The war games along with the national disgrace known as the 9/11 Commission Report are what lead me to openly question that someone(s) inside of our government committed high treason and war crimes on their on people.

On this point I'm in total agreement. The Bush junta has been involved in crimes that make Nixon look like a fucking saint. These criminals are breaking laws every day, and they're not done yet. I fear that the worst is yet to come from these scumbags, they know no bounds and their depravity is simply stunning.

Hey wait.... since when are we allowed to swear?

Who kept me in the dark on this?

(a conspiracy I think!)

 

[cottonzway]

Cottonzway,

For my money, the "biggest event in the history of our country" is probably our use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When it comes right down to it, this action will likely go down in history as the beginning of the end of the American empire. I realize that anyone can debate this point, and I'm certainly willing to concede that 9.11 was the most important political event in my lifetime (so far), but the fact remains that the U.S. has been the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, and against civilians, to boot. We make big noises about WMD, but to date, the US is the only country that's ever put them to use, a rather dark mark on our history, especially after all of the horror of WWII and the otherwise noble things the U.S. did in Europe to stop the Nazi agenda. 70,000 people died from the direct blast in Hiroshima, slightly less in Nagasaki, many more died the the weeks that followed. That's an order of magnitude greater than the direct deaths of 9.11. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of 9.11 - someone I personally knew, Daniel Lewin, was the very first person to die that day, so I have some very strong feelings about the events of 9.11, as well as how history will regard the events of that day, and the truth of what actually went down. In the end, I suspect that the American psyche would implode if the actual truth of that day is ever revealed.

David,

You make a very good point of our use of nukes on other people. It is a shame that we will never live down in the east even if most of us do not acknowledge that. The reason why I point out 9/11 is it is the starting point of what has happened in this country since this time.

It’s started two illegal wars that has killed 700,000 people in Iraq, on the books. Who really know how many have been killed in Iraq and the surrounding countries. It’s a starting point for extreme fear mongering and pretty much genocide to Arab people. I see my a good amount of my fellow Americans as ignorant fools who say “Glass Parking Lot!” and can’t even find Iraq on the map. They know they just want to kill people and don’t even know why.

It’s started the total destruction of our constitution. People want to focus on the bill of rights being totally compromised, but also what about Habeas Corpus and Posse Cogitates? The destruction by articles of evil like the US Patriot Act (in particular Section 802), HR 6166, HR 5122, and the latest Directive 51that put us in a position our country has never been in since in was created.

It’s allowed the private sector of the military industrial complex to do whatever the hell they want. Halliburton can have “Cost +” programs that encourage stealing from American taxpayers and at the same time provide unsafe water to our troops that have disease in them. DynCorp can be involved in sex slavery ring for children. Bechtel can try to privatize rainwater in 3rd water countries and charge these poor people for rain water. KBR can feed the troops unhealthy food and allow the food halls to be bombed because even after several bombing because insurgents know the exact feeding time because they won’t change to a 24 cycle because they get paid on number of soldiers fed and not if they get killed. Yet ALL of them get, no-bid contracts for billions of dollars.

It’s allowed our economy to turn to shit. We have seen our dollar fall further and further since 9/11. Now we are really starting to see it come to home. The sub-prime market is about to blow out. The hedge-funds will soon follow. We have to borrow money just to stay in war and now China is no longer going to lend to us because of the dollar falling and have came out and said publicly that they will begin to liquidate the $1.4 Trillion dollars of our debt into things other then dollars if we don’t get the F out of the middle east. On top of that if/when we go into Iran they are going to defend Iran through the growing alliance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

It’s caused fear and apathy to US citizens. Our society is not what is used to be and all of this comes from the 9/11events. That among many other points is why I call it the most important event in US history. It is what has spawned out of the event that is much more damaging then the events themselves.

 

[BrandonD]

I'm going to bite my tongue and do my best to keep my political comments off of here.... but to equate Chomsky, one of the most intelligent men who has ever walked on the face of this earth, an important thinker and someone who understands language better than most of his peers (see his theory of generative grammar and his book "Syntactic Structures"), with morons and inbreds such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, is just beyond the pale. Chomsky has proven himself time and again in the realms of hard science, and for my money, his thoughts and writings on the political structure of all of this planet are as close to actual truth as anyone is EVER going to get. He's a personal hero of mine (a fact that he would likely disapprove of, as he's very much against cult of personality), and is going to be widely quoted hundreds of years from now, unlike these other subhumans.

Here's another one of my strange (but not paranormal) stories which is very topical here.

I also happen to consider Mr Chomsky one of my heroes. I own 63 of his audio lectures and just about any video documentary that has featured him. I consider him a man of great intellectual and moral integrity. I was even a dork enough to put a picture of him in my myspace under heroes (along with Houdini, Sherlock Holmes, and Andy Warhol).

Then one day I went to a website which claimed that Chomsky is basically dissuading people to look into 9/11, and his position on the matter is that 9/11 basically happened just as it was told by the administration. But as a side note he added that we basically asked for it because of our uber-savage foreign policy over the decades.

This seemed very questionable, but intriguing, so I went online to look for Chomsky's comments on 9/11. I found almost none at all, and those that I found were extremely dismissive and even derogatory towards those people that thought something shady was going on behind 9/11.

This was extremely upsetting and confusing to me because I sort of looked up to him. How could something be *so bloody obvious* to me, and yet someone of his intellectual caliber could not see it? It made no sense at all!

So I decided to go right to the source. I sent an email to him and asked him personally why he did not believe that the cover story for 9/11 was distorted AT BEST, and more likely a complete lie.

He actually wrote back to me. He responded that the republican party attacking its own territory had no precedent, and so the republicans wouldn't risk such a thing. It wouldn't be worth it to them because having no precedent, they would have no assurance that it would work.

This seemed like such an odd response, because it felt like the response of someone who was not as smart as Chomsky obviously was. It was almost as if he was blowing me off as some dumb guy who just wanted to be told by Chomsky that everything is kosher.

First of all, his entire argument rested on the supposition that the Republican party was behind 9/11. Where did he get this idea? I certainly didn't say it!

So I responded back to him with a very lengthy email. Stating firstly that I agree it's very unlikely that the republican party was behind 9/11. But I don't believe that the republican party was behind it, and there's no reason to jump to this conclusion. He's well aware of the criminal element within our own government, which he has compared to the mafia on numerous occasions. It's this criminal element, which sees no party ties or even national ties, but only money and power, that was very likely behind 9/11. Just because some of them happen to belong to the republican party does not imply in any way that they hold a single republican value. They are criminals, exactly as he has described. And these criminals have PLENTY of precedent for shady terrorist actions.

I gave the analogy of a casino operating as a front for a mafia organization. All the major employees of the casino are hired and placed there by the mafia organization, because they're people who can be trusted to protect the organization. The casino can get in trouble, perhaps even the president of the casino gets fired, but this has no bearing on the mafia organization. They just hire another president. This is why I obviously don't think the republican party was behind 9/11.

At the end I said that I was not presuming to teach him anything. In fact, I assumed that he was well aware of all this because alot of it I learned from him!

He responded with a generic form letter that said he would be out of town for several months and to write back when he returned. I never did.

Something just does not smell right here.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

As to the comment itself, it comes at the end of a long, somewhat rambling statement about the unlikelihood of a real 9/11 conspiracy. I suspect it was part of an offhand dismissal, with nothing more meant by it. But those who believe in that conspiracy would be quick to seize upon it as something significant. It's even possible he misspoke, as people do, but that's something that you wouldn't know unless you actually asked him or examined his other statements in more detail, I suppose.

However, it does seem out of context from the rest of what he was saying.

This was my thoughts exactly when watching it.

 

[CapnG]

Then what does Kenn do? Toward the end of the interview he says the level of social discourse and education in this country has fallen due to who? Bush. That's right, Bush has singlehandedly made America dumber and lowered the social discourse, using his mass mind control and wizardry powers I suppose.

Que? Were we listening to the same interview? That's not what I got from it at all. Granted, I was working while I listened but basically, my understanding was that he was saying the fact Bush is a retard is representative of the current level of intellectual discourse in the US (ie only morons would elect a moron president...twice!).

And let's be honest here, Bush IS a moron. In this day and age, most of us have little-to-no expectations when it comes to politicians, at least beyond the local level where they can still be held (theoretically) accountable. But I would think most people would agree that as a bare minimum requirement, the man who is (allegedly) in charge of the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth should at least be able to pronounce the word "nuclear".

Start from there and move on down the line with his policy record and it's not so hard to see where Mr. Thomas is basing his arguments or why Miss South Carolina thinks Americans have poor geography skills because of something to do with Iraq, South Africa and a lack of maps.

Interesteing side note, Kenn seems to have made the same mistake alot of other people have while criticizing Miss South Carolina, namely that 1/5 is NOT 5%. I wonder what the percentage of Americans who can't work out percentages would be...?

 

[DBTrek]

Que? Were we listening to the same interview? That's not what I got from it at all. Granted, I was working while I listened but basically, my understanding was that he was saying the fact Bush is a retard is representative of the current level of intellectual discourse in the US (ie only morons would elect a moron president...twice!).

It seemed to me that he was blaming Bush for creating people like the SC beauty queen. Specifically when he said:

"This girl's expectation about public discourse from birth, from the time she was 12 when George Bush became president is reflected in what she said".
Timecode: 53:35

followed by:

"Ever since he's been on the public scene, people are dumber".
Timecode: 53:51

This valuable insight comes after his diatribe about "troofers" blaming Bush for everything. I feel he has earned exalted title of "Clown", for violating his own stated position in less than an hour.

. . . the Korff stuff was funny though. That was the shows hidden gem IMO.

 

[BrandonD]

Something just does not smell right here.

I just watched that embedded Chomsky video, and he pretty much paraphrases exactly what he said to me in the email.

You guys honestly think that he brought up good points?

His arguments rest ENTIRELY on the assumption that the current Republican administration planned the 9/11 attacks. How can they be good points? If the Republican administration was not behind it, then they ALL fall apart!

A bit of analysis of his other comments:

He claims that "the conspiracy" would get out? That secrets are hard to keep?

People ALREADY BELIEVE that a few dozen people concocted this elaborate plan, were able to successfully keep it secret, and were able to successfully pull off the attack.

So according to the prevailing 9/11 story, it is already ACCEPTED that a small group of people can conspire to attack the US, successfully keep it secret, and successfully pull it off.

Take the above accepted scenario. Now replace these two-dozen Muslims with two-dozen people from another country.

How does this scenario become ANY less believable?

Now replace these two-dozen Muslims with two-dozen men who are actually knowledgable of the innerworkings of US defense. Does it become any less believable? It actually becomes MORE believable.

This is all absurd reasoning on the part of Chomsky, and what honestly disturbs me, is that I feel almost certain that he knows better. Out of any major public figure, he is the man that *should* know better. For the life of me I can't understand why a man who has dedicated his life to opposing state-sponsored violence would hold the position that he is holding.

As I said before, something just does not smell right. When I got his email responses I got a sick feeling in my stomach, this feeling that perhaps he was not the person that I thought he was. I don't necessarily believe this, because everyone's entitled to mistakes.

It's truly a strange place that we're living in.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Breaking news! Miss SC has new answer.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

A reminder that, if you want to embed a YouTube video, make sure there are no word spaces between the and the closing command, which is . Also if there's anything beginning with an ampersand, remove that and all letters/codes after that. OK?

 

[cottonzway]

Brandon,

You pretty much sum up on what I made my points on Chomsky. I don’t want to harp on this because it was not at all my main point, but I made my “Left Gatekeeper” comment because I feel that is 100% correct. I don’t claim he is doing this “on purpose” but it has went on for sure for the 9/11 topic. Not just those comments I posted or others he has made, but his silence on issues about the topic. Most likely it has to do with a very intelligent man not willing to accept something he does not want to believe, there for to him it does not exist. This type of mentality can be directly related how people think about the paranormal.

 

[BrandonD]

Brandon,

You pretty much sum up on what I made my points on Chomsky. I don’t want to harp on this because it was not at all my main point, but I made my “Left Gatekeeper” comment because I feel that is 100% correct. I don’t claim he is doing this “on purpose” but it has went on for sure for the 9/11 topic. Not just those comments I posted or others he has made, but his silence on issues about the topic. Most likely it has to do with a very intelligent man not willing to accept something he does not want to believe, there for to him it does not exist. This type of mentality can be directly related how people think about the paranormal.

That's my feeling on his position too. He refuses to acknowledge the wealth of material supporting the secret collusion of wealthy men spanning various nations in organizations such as CFR and Bilderberg. He considers these organizations to be benign and boring! And if he refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a group of elites taking steps to march us into a "new world order", then I guess by definition he must refuse anything that supports this premise.

But the thing that doesn't make sense to me is that this idea of a group of elites subversively taking steps to enlarge and absolutely secure their global power structure is simply the *logical extension* of Chomsky's cynical (but realistic) view of power politics and human motivation.

 

[cottonzway]

I see Mr. Thomas signed up for the site (or at least someone using his name) and I hope he engages us on this topic.

 

[Kenn Thomas]

This is the level of debate on this list? Geez, sorry I signed up.

DBTrek up there doesn't seem to understand the difference between recognizing the deleterious effect Bush has had on pubic discourse and blaming him for 9/11. Between that, the other people who can't seem to follow the discussion, the insults to Moseley, the repeating of all the standard false-dialogue faux pax of the troofers (although right on to Rickson for defying the left/right tunnel visions), and the lack of understanding that Chomsky's work on grammar and syntz was a Pentagon funded spy project, how is this discussion list different than anything on the internet?

There's only an hour of show to cover a lot of ground, listers. Rest assured, Steamshovel Press has dealt carefully and thoughtfully with these topics, especially the real 9/11 issues (in issue #22) and Chomsky (in the anthology Popular Alienation). I can't read every word on the air.

 

[David Biedny]

This is the level of debate on this list? Geez, sorry I signed up.

DBTrek up there doesn't seem to understand the difference between recognizing the deleterious effect Bush has had on pubic discourse and blaming him for 9/11. Between that, the other people who can't seem to follow the discussion, the insults to Moseley, the repeating of all the standard false-dialogue faux pax of the troofers (although right on to Rickson for defying the left/right tunnel visions), and the lack of understanding that Chomsky's work on grammar and syntz was a Pentagon funded spy project, how is this discussion list different than anything on the internet?

There's only an hour of show to cover a lot of ground, listers. Rest assured, Steamshovel Press has dealt carefully and thoughtfully with these topics, especially the real 9/11 issues (in issue #22) and Chomsky (in the anthology Popular Alienation). I can't read every word on the air.

Kenn, are you saying that Chomsky is nothing more than a government operative? Seriously?

"Insults to Moseley"? How so?

 

[valiens]

Glad I saw this video because the only two things I've ever disagreed with Chomsky on were the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Otherwise, his politics are brilliant and his books on language are beyond important, they should be required reading for every Miss Teen USA.

But now I see his point, which is that it doesn't matter if Kennedy was assassinated or 9/11 was an inside job because that stuff happens all the time throughout history. So even if he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, it's irrelevant either way because it's still another shot fired in the imperialist war. It's a symptom of the larger issues that have been brewing for decades.

This makes sense... unless the truth is that there's a fascist secret government that underlies the system and it's now rearing its ugly head in an unprecedented public power grab. So flip a coin. It all kinda sucks.

 

[Kenn Thomas]

Moseley wasn't insulted on the show (unless you count my remark that he looks like an underground cartoon), just on this list. Someone said he he was nuts. He just sent me a copy of Saucer Smear, with a mention of Maury Island but no mention of the book I wrote on the topic (the only such book). I wrote him calling that a provocation.

Chomsky's salary comes from MIT, which gets more Pentagon dollars than any other university in the country. His original work on grammar and syntax was done to develop an espionage tool. He cops to it. Calls it "alienated labor". Also, he's spent decades dissing the JFK assassination research community, turning away a lot of thoughtful people who might otheriwse have contributed a great deal.

 

[DBTrek]

DBTrek up there doesn't seem to understand the difference between recognizing the deleterious effect Bush has had on pubic discourse and blaming him for 9/11.

I would be interested in hearing how you can tie the 'deleterious effect' you see taking place in public discourse directly to Bush. Other than the fact that the man was president when you saw the SC Beauty Queen video, what do you base this on? I see no cause/effect relationship between the average citizen being rather dumb, and the president being rather dumb. When the masses are dumb, the odds are your leaders will be too, since they arise from the larger population.

Do you think, perhaps, that the SC Beauty Queen was a genius back in 1999 when Clinton was in office? Were all the really ignorant people we bump in to on a daily basis smarter back in 1999?

If not, how do you tie this phenomenon to the presidency? And how is blaming Bush for this 'deleterious effect' any less silly than blaming him for singlehandedly masterminding 9/11?

 

[David Biedny]

Moseley wasn't insulted on the show (unless you count my remark that he looks like an underground cartoon), just on this list. Someone said he he was nuts. He just sent me a copy of Saucer Smear, with a mention of Maury Island but no mention of the book I wrote on the topic (the only such book). I wrote him calling that a provocation.

Chomsky's salary comes from MIT, which gets more Pentagon dollars than any other university in the country. His original work on grammar and syntax was done to develop an espionage tool. He cops to it. Calls it "alienated labor". Also, he's spent decades dissing the JFK assassination research community, turning away a lot of thoughtful people who might otheriwse have contributed a great deal.

My guess is that Moseley would probably laugh at the "nuts" comment, and likely agree with it. I'll let Gene chime in here, as he's old friends with Jim. So he didn't specifically cite you in conjunction with his mention of Maury Island, and that falls into the category of "provocation"? Please tell me that you're saying this with tongue in cheek.

As far as Chomsky somehow being a tool of the of the Pentagon, that's ignoring his work in left-leaning politics, and his rather outspoken stance against many iterations of the administration. To be honest, I can understand his issues with the conspiracy world in general, though I also tend to think that JFK was indeed killed by much more than a lone operative (I can hear Krazy Korff grinding his teeth somewhere)... Chomsky has a full plate, and to put him in the "Gubmint Operative" box is reaching a bit, IMO. Of course, I've already been accused of being an NSA operative myself, as well as being a UFO "debunker", and then there's this little dittie, from the website of William Kennedy, someone who was on the show last year:

The Paracast hosted by Gene Steinberg and David Biedny. Topics include the Alabama Church arsonists were practicing Satanists, The Skull and Bones Society as Satanic group. Description of Bohemian Grove pagan Owl God ritual. Satanic Serial killers and much more! (David Biedny did computer work on Bohemian Grove member Arnold Schwarzenegger's film Terminator 2 and has personally profited from from a Bohemian Grove member business. This explains his bias in favor of this organization in the interview. Why would he bite the hand that feeds him? This constitutes a journalistic conflict of interest!

This is two steps shy of being completely batshitinsane, so go figga...

 

[Aaron LeClair]

There is/was a breach by people who committed treason to our country, based on that, in my view. The war games along with the national disgrace known as the 9/11 Commission Report are what lead me to openly question that someone(s) inside of our government committed high treason and war crimes on their on people.

On this point I'm in total agreement. The Bush junta has been involved in crimes that make Nixon look like a fucking saint. These criminals are breaking laws every day, and they're not done yet. I fear that the worst is yet to come from these scumbags, they know no bounds and their depravity is simply stunning.

Hey wait.... since when are we allowed to swear?

Who kept me in the dark on this?

(a conspiracy I think!)

Yeah, I been left in the dark too about it too. Now I can post the Carlin and Bill Hicks vids I've been wanting to, it looks like.

 

[Kenn Thomas]

I wonder how Moseley would feel about having a header entitled James (Clown) Moseley coming at him a half dozen times?

Of course my "provocation" comment was humor.

I'm not trying to put Chomsky in a box, but face it, he's funded by the Pentagon. What does that say about his so-called critique of any given administration? He doesn't have a critique of anything particular. Everything is subsumed in the vagaries of "insititutional analysis". He wrote a book called, I think, Camelot Revisited, in which he took hammer and tong to JFK's administration. Same complaints, rich elites, imperialism and so forth. If you buy that, why would you think the Kennedy assassination is important at all?

(I don't know much about Korff, except that he got all bent out of shape because of the hippy cult in Switzerland that sells UFO photos, but the term "lone operative" is oxymoronic and now tries to represent himself as some military guy.)

But Chomsky's like Bill Moyers, another supposedly progressive thinker who was LBJ's press secretary. Is there any wonder why the left is in such disrepute?