Noam Chomsky is a highly regarded thinker whose book "Manufacturing Consent" led the way in understanding how governments manipulate public opinion through the media. So when he came out against the "9/11 conspiracy theory" I was puzzled. It seemed a perfect opportunity for him to prove his point. Instead, he disregards the research as irrelevant, likening it to the pursuit of "who killed JFK".
What am I to make of this? Mr. Chomsky seems to care about injustice. He's proven that he's willing to stick his neck out to speak uncomfortable truths. So why would he be unwilling to speak out against the George W. Bush government in this matter when it seems so clear to so many that a crime was committed? To see him speak, watch this short youtube video: http://youtu.be/TwZ-vIaW6Bc
I'm not sure why Mr. Chomsky takes the tack he does but here's what I'm currently thinking: he probably DOES believe it was a planned, intentional SCAD or "State Crime Against Democracy". He only says it's "unlikely" because he thinks the plan for a SCAD of such magnitude would have leaked out beforehand. He also says Bush's government would never be that reckless because if people found out then the Republicans would be "put before a firing squad", a quaint notion. But notice how he also explains how the American government and all other governments with an authoritarian bent stood to gain from the event with their post-9/11 anti-terror campaigns.
Mr. Chomsky eventually says "What does it matter?" which sounds horribly callous to me. It matters to me and to lots of other people because thousands of innocent people died that day and in the wars that followed. So why would he say that? I think what he wants us to hear is that by insisting on outing the true story of 9/11 we are taking energy away from - and possibly dangerously compromising - work for social justice worldwide. This man is an intellectual who, for decades, has been on the front lines of exposing government corruption leading to the deaths of millions of people in American-backed wars. So why expect him to care about the 3,000 or so who died in 9/11? He has been trying to wake us up for years, yet it's this event that seems to be doing what he could not achieve.
If, as I gather, Mr. Chomsky would prefer non-violent dissent by educated intellectuals who fully understand the issues from a historical perspective, he is right to tell a little white lie about what he really thinks about what happened that day. "Truthers" are coming at this from an emotional perspective and that worries him. He probably fears that the more people believe it was a SCAD the more anger will build up, the kind of anger that could make a population unstable, irrational and hard to control with the usual "everything is ok" spin. Maybe a certain amount of that spin is needed right now to prevent hysteria so that people can continue to think rationally. After all, with the new powers government now has to fight terror "at home", it's not a time to act rashly. Maybe Mr.Chomsky is like the bandleader of the orchestra that played while the Titanic sank. He knows whose fault it is, he knows the ship is going down, but he's not panicking and he doesn't want us to either.
The question is, what would happen if a majority of Americans believed they were lied to not just by the Bush government but by other governments before his? What if they stopped watching TV long enough to do some research? Under normal circumstances they would vote for someone else. But what happens if they lose confidence in democracy altogether? What if they believe their votes are rigged or wasted and just stop voting like some people recommend? What if they find out their attitudes are being manipulated by the media? What if they completely lose faith? The result could be bad for everybody. We need to prepare a life-boat before we jump ship. We need to put our energies into building a new sustainable system, not stand berating the captain for hitting the iceberg. After all, we (the voters) put him behind the wheel.
I buy that argument. After all, much of the physical evidence that might have helped an impartial investigatory body to draw conclusions about what happened on 9/11 was quickly gathered up and shipped off to China to be melted down. We may spend huge amounts of time, money and energy trying to get to the bottom of it. Maybe what Chomsky is saying between the lines is that it's best just to assume they did it and got away with it and then use your anger to try to build a new vision for the future. I am going to give that some thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment