That there’s something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it’s a Litmus test, I swear it’s a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?
And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, "There’s gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky." And apparently I’ve articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter.
And I do believe, that he is, an "agent of disinformation". Now, I don’t say "disinformation agent", which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an "agent of disinformation". And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures… dismissive ness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He’ll say things like, ‘Oh well, we don’t know who did 9/11, but it really doesn’t matter,’ and then he’ll just go on!
And that is a point where in a just, in an intellectually honest world, someone would say, "Hold it right there, Noam. Just hold it right there. WHY does it not matter, who did 9/11?"
But of course when he’s speaking before an adulatory crowd, they just accept this, he throws out these great dismissive phrases, and just continues on. And one of the tricks of his trade, is of course that he’s written this immense number of books, he’s incredibly prolific, I have 16 of his books myself, and in each of those books if you look toward the end, you’ll find these massive numbers of footnotes, and he’s renowned for tracking down these obscure facts from obscure journals and documents, and so people assume, when he’s doing public speaking, that everything he says is equally well-researched, equally well-footnoted, equally valid… and it’s not. He makes all sorts of just vague, sweeping generalizations, dismissive statements, complete mis-weighting of things, where something is very important he’ll dismiss as unimportant and vice-versa.
He throws up a smokescreen by way of always talking, and I don’t disagree with him on this… it’s an effective one, in any of his talks he’ll talk about Granada, he’ll talk about El Salvador, he’ll talk about East Timor… no question, he was blowing the whistle on those for a long time, he harks back to them, but you know what?