Noam Chomsky, a Conspiracy Theorist of the Highest Magnitude: Defining Conspiracy Theory, What are the Theories Behind the Conspiracies?

via chycho

conspiracy-theories

One of the main problems with our society is that words have lost their meaning. In spoken languages, the tone of a word can be used to make inferences that may be completely unrelated to the meaning of the word. This is especially true when dealing with propaganda. When certain people or organizations want to dismiss an argument, they tend to phrase words in such a way that makes them appear illogical or treacherous if given credence.

One of these words is “conspiracy”, and when put together with the word “theory” it becomes the infamous phrase “Conspiracy Theory”. Let’s take a look at the definition of these two words and try to figure out why they have been used to discredit not only people, but history, data, and facts.

The legal definition of conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal or unlawful act, or to achieve a legal act but by illegal or unlawful means.” A theory is “a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.”

So a conspiracy theory is a conjecture that two or more people may have planned an unlawful act, and if certain facts are proven to be true, then the conspiracy theory becomes reality.

As we all know, throughout history our governments and politicians have done exactly what the above states. They have conspired to obtain power, to overthrow governments, to destroy their political rivals, and to make money. Politics is littered with conspiracies but the mainstream media treats this word with contempt. Have we forgotten Watergate, Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Basra, Pinochet, Mohammad Mosaddeq, Reichstag, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Pine Ridge, COINTELPRO, Oswald and JFK, Northwoods, Condor, Iraq, 911, LIBOR, Robo-Signing round one, Robo-Signing round two, HSBC, The War on Drugs, and much more?

So in the phrase “conspiracy theory”, it is not the conspiracy that needs to be scrutinized, but the data on which the theory is based on. And this is where the problem lies. Neither the mainstream media nor those in power have any desire to investigate the theory behind the argument. If they did, many questions could arise from the investigation which in turn could be devastating for the status quo.

So next time the phrase “conspiracy theory” is used to discredit someone, just point out that the conspiracy is not in question, but rather the data being presented from the theory. Then ask them what part of the argument they disagree with. You’ll most likely find out that they know less about the theory behind the conspiracy than they know about history. This is when you can direct them to the teachings of Noam Chomsky – regarded as a leading contemporary historian, the author of over 100 books, and voted the “world’s top public intellectual” in 2005.

As for where to begin with Chomsky’s vast library, may I recommend the following video from 2006 in which he is asked what he would say to George W. Bush if he had one minute alone with him. His reply (video):

“To tell you the honest truth, I doubt very much that George Bush has much to do with policy formation, I mean, the way the President is more or less like royalty in the United States. So the Queen of England opens Parliament with a speech, right, but nobody asks whether she believes it, or whether she understands it. Her role is a ceremonial role. It’s a role that’s connected with unity of the people, patriotism, obedience, and so on and so forth. The content is something else, that’s by people who run the country.

“The people who run the country are those in political office, but much more importantly their associates and the concentrations of private economic power. That’s where the country is really run, and that shouldn’t be a big secret either. America’s leading social philosopher John Dewey, who’s right very mainstream American, he pointed out that once, that as long as we have what he called industrial feudalism rather than industrial democracy – that means tyrannical totalitarian institutions running the economy – command economies basically, instead of industrial democracy where workers control management, as long as we have that, then ‘politics will be the shadow cast by business over society’, and that’s approximately accurate. It’s not like the State has no independent choices, it does, but an amalgam.

“Exactly the role that George Bush plays in this is very dubious, questionable. In some cases like say Ronald Reagan, he probably didn’t even know what the policies where. He was reading off his note cards or the teleprompter or something like that. And Bush may have some knowledge of them but I think he’s mostly a ceremonial figure trained to act in certain ways and so on. So if I had a minute with him, I would say, you know, have you talked to god lately or something like that.”

, , , ,

  • Ted Heistman

    This is all spot on. Obama is actually smart enough to have known this early on. He even compared himself to Ronald Reagan. I am talking about the three paragraph’s of Chomsky quotes. That is a great outline of the role of the presidency.

    • BuzzCoastin

      the reason he compared himself to Raygun is
      he works for the same bosses as Raygun
      and he was trained by the same people who trained Raygun
      so let’s stop beat around the Bush family
      and point that out

  • alizardx

    One doesn’t even have to go as deep as to allege people conspiring to violate law. Particularly since the most dangerous conspiracies against the general public are legal before or legalized after the fact.

    The Powell Memo of 1971 was a reaction to the counterculture, it defined the creation of the disinformation environment we live in today.
    http://t.co/31EEz5UyOM

    http://t.co/AnygKK0xQD

    http://t.co/C1zPBxYLmv

    And in general, the participants didn’t do anything illegal, they just spent a whole lot of billions of dollars buying control of the public dialogue. They succeeded to the point where the Olin Foundation created to fund it voluntarily went out of business saying that their work was done.

    The Kochs simply updated and extended this agenda, and they’re buying a newspaper chain to continue this work which they believe is not done.

    I get the conspiracy theory reaction a lot from people I tell about this, people would rather believe “natural forces” made this happen.

    A useful look at conspiracy?

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
    Adam Smith

  • nathanielheidenheimer

    Re the JFK assassination, which Chomsky dismisses out of raw ignorance [he is not a "historian" he is a polemicist who writes articles], it is the pivotal point of US Post WWII history. Why? Because that is when the CIA and the entire national security state were teeny bobbers. There was a test of will in almost every area, Cuba, Vietnam, USSR , Brazil, Indonesia, between CIA and JFK. Chomsky argues plausible denial. Wrong. Plausible denial is viable concept for later on in the national security state, e.g. with Reagan and Iran Contra. But actual HISTORIANS [again, Chomsky is not one] have shown that the period 1952-63 was chock full of events in which the CIA was making unauthorized policies. See John Newman, University of Maryland history dept “JFK and Vietnam” See Howard Jones book Death of A Generation, See Choosing War by Logeval, See American Tragedy by Kaiser, See the great book by Gareth Porter Perils of Dominance.

    Chomsky knows nothing about JFK and the early years of the National Security State. Everything he types on these subjects is just plain wrong. Often he quotes directly from CIA sources such as Richard Helms right hand man Sam Halperin. Now go look up the meaning of the phrase left-gatekeeping. Also go read the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY BOOK by Frances Saunders called The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World Of Arts and Letters. Also The Mighty Wurlitzer by the historian Hugh Wilford. These two books focus heavily on Encounter Magazine, a CIA magazine created to Control the left during the Cold War. Study the history of Encounter magazine, and you know why there is no real left in the US right now.

    • David Duke-Astin

      I missed the part in the article about JFK, but judging from your disrespectful tone, your goal is not to educate us but to deride Chomsky, suggesting that he himself is in on the conspiracy that he critiques. Ludicrous.

      • nathanielheidenheimer

        Ummm you are suggesting that I think Chomsky was “in on” the JFK Assassination? Do you enjoy making straw dogs fast?

        I have read nearly all of Chomsky. He makes tons and tons of comments about the JFK years. They are all so one sided and contextless as to really stand out from nearly all his other comments. What he writes about JFK suggests that he has read almost nothing except for the now compeltely discredited Seymour Hersh Book.

        I used to believe What Chomsky wrote about JFK and the policies of his term. Then I read Cold history for ten years in row. Do not trust Noam Chomsky on anything at all about JFK and RFK. This was confirmed for me when I read Chomsky’s review of a new book by the historian Sheldon Stern, on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cherry picking. All of the negative comments about RFK were the ONLY thing that Chomsky selected. Meanwhile stern included many incredibly sharp descriptions re how JFK alone prevented a likely WWIII invasion of Cuba.

        Chomsky NEVER ever mentions this. Never mentions the radical disjuncture in Indonesia policy that resulted in CIA genocide. JFK was 100% pro-Sukarno. Chomsky never mentions all the detante things JFK was doing in 1963 with both the USSR and Castro. Never mentions the 1962 Steel crisis. Never mentions the neutralizaiton of Laos over CIA opposition, never mentions that all scholarship since 1992 has shown that JFK was definitely getting out of Vietnam. Never mentions that JFK was removing formal policy control form the CIA because he could see they were undermining his policies everywhere.

        Talk about taking the left’s eye off the ball. Given the history of Encounter Magazine, and given just how ineffectual todays left has become, speculation justified, but more important is that people read history instead of magazines. Go back to WWII and Cold War media history. Lots of tricks were developed. I am sorry if I am not as uniformly worshipful of Guru Chomsky as most others.

        • David Duke-Astin

          Not even close…and still hostile and disrespectful

          • nathanielheidenheimer

            Name calling prevents rational discussion. My crime is disagreeing with Guru Noam.

          • David Duke-Astin

            That was a highly irrational remark. Don’t you see that?

  • Simon Valentine

    treating it like a mathematical theory

    genera

    the genera problem

    everything is illegal except a task that is so difficult as to be humanly impossible, given a lack of timely solutions to genera problems (law as a genera problem, even if ‘entire’ and ‘complete dataset’ witnesses just like any other job or life “things break”, “one ill turn deserves another”, “push one in and one pops out”, etc.)

    each law is the same law
    each law is a loophole
    each law is a handle

    for real though explore Genus Problem (first two links on my Google are “Graph embedding” and “Genus”, these are good)

    aint much more than that
    even the unholy trinty excusophiles are dubbed inadequate n00bs
    err uh i mean holy trinity arguments are theorycrafting n00b bs

    *edit*
    consider the statement
    PROMISES EQUAL CRIME
    and consider the difficulty of achieving a counter-example

    consider i’m a politician promising nothing concerning nothing
    …nothing except my own god damned behavior
    …concerting nothing

  • alizardx

    (this post may appear twice, looks like disqus ate my first try at posting this)

    alizardx • a few seconds ago −

    One doesn’t even have to go as deep as to allege people conspiring to violate law. Particularly since the most dangerous conspiracies against the general public are legal before or legalized after the fact.

    The Powell Memo of 1971 was a reaction to the counterculture, it defined the creation of the disinformation environment we live in today.

    http://t.co/31EEz5UyOM

    http://t.co/AnygKK0xQD

    http://t.co/C1zPBxYLmv

    And in general, the participants didn’t do anything illegal, they just spent a whole lot of billions of dollars buying control of the public dialogue. They succeeded to the point where the Olin Foundation created to fund it voluntarily went out of business saying that their work was done.

    The Kochs simply updated and extended this agenda, and they’re buying a newspaper chain to continue this work which they believe is not done.

    I get the conspiracy theory reaction a lot from people I tell about this, people would rather believe “natural forces” made this happen.

    A useful look at conspiracy?

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    Adam Smith

    As for the “conspiracy theory” label itself, I use it as a tag that says “the people who own the media don’t like this” – and examine what’s behind the label with the same skepticism that I do “officially approved” facts.

  • nathanielheidenheimer

    Where is my comment? Is it censored because it criticizes Guru Chomsky’s wrong comments about the early years of the Cold War?

    • Matt Staggs

      No, not at all. The comment moderation system breaks a little weird sometimes and arbitrarily flags comments for approval. Yours was one of them. I would’ve gotten to it sooner, but I was conducting an interview. Apologies for the inconvenience.

      • nathanielheidenheimer

        My apologies I think I jumped to conclusions based on another post written after mine going up first. [although this is based on a lot of other censoring that I have experienced and also I did not conclude it finally]

  • BuzzCoastin

    “conspiracy theory” is NewSpeak for the phrase that means
    ignore the obvious and think opposite
    like when you hear Obummer family has been CIA for decades
    ignore the obvious and think opposite
    when you discover the CIA is the largest drug cartel in the whirled
    ignore the obvious and think opposite
    when you discover the Bush family are the henchmen for the Elite UberTrolls
    ignore the obvious and think opposite
    and when you ready stories like this
    ignore the obvious and think opposite

21