Anarchadia: Do you see a link between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood which has been considered in retrospect as manipulated by western interests to destabilize the Middle East?

Noam Chomsky: I don't know of any evidence for a relation, and I'd be cautious about the term "destabilize". It's a term of imperialism. Thus Obama praises the brutal dictator Mubarak because he "stabilizes" Egypt, and opposes the Muslim brotherhood because they are calling for democratic elections, in which they are likely to do well, thus "destabilizing" Egypt.

Anarchadia: What is your opinion on this quote: "Nor was that all. Sound beatings of the Moslem Brotherhood organizers who had been arrested revealed that the organization had been thoroughly penetrated, at the top, by the British, American, French and Soviet intelligence services, any one of which could either make active use of it or blow it up, whichever best suited its purposes. Important lesson: fanaticism is no insurance against corruption; indeed, the two are highly compatible." Quote from Miles Axe Copeland, Jr. "The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970".

Noam Chomsky: Miles Copeland is not very reliable.

Anarchadia: Well neither is Obama, but sometimes the pieces fit together. I mean true, this sort of mentality benefits the Islamists, Chinese and Russians... but was it not this sort of meandering from the projected truth about Vietnam, which woke us from the extreme anti-communist fervor the American populace had been living in for the last 20 or 30 years?

Noam Chomsky: On Vietnam, the meandering was towards reliable fact and understanding. Takes better evidence than this, in my opinion.

Anarchadia: It is harder to have reliable facts today, because everything which is factual and needs to stay a secret, is marginalized. The first thing you said about Copeland, was that he was unreliable. But, if you take the true nature of anyone, everyone is unreliable, right?

Noam Chomsky: It's true that quantum physics is not 100% reliable, nor is astrology. But there is a difference. Afraid I don't follow the rest.

Anarchadia: It is my opinion that marginalization is a weapon for keeping things on the down low. If you take three specialists, from different parts of the world, let's say: Iran, U.K and Israel, all three will come up with different conclusions while looking at the same facts. Yet the one who is backed by the interests that be, will be the person who is considered most linear (on the mainstream level). Do you have any comments on this?

Noam Chomsky: I've written extensively on these matters, and don't have much to add. We know that outside of narrow areas of logic and mathematics, nothing can be definitively proven. From that fact deeply confused post-modernists go off into fantasies about conflicting narratives, no truth, etc. In fact, it's been understood for centuries that we can make sensible (if not certain) judgments quite often - about the matters you mention, for example. On Wikileaks, if you read yesterday's newspapers you can see that the main thrust was interpreted differently in the NYT and the London Financial Times, the world's leading business daily. That's fairly systematic, and understandable, a tiny example of what I and others have documented in great detail. The US-UK coup in Iran was not only known at once, but celebrated in the press - the NY Times, for example. I've often quoted it. Some take the Warren Commission as accurate, many question elements of it, or even all of it. That has nothing to do with the question of general significance: was there a high-level conspiracy with policy consequences? To that the answer is: No, with very high probability, a matter that I've written about in detail. The Truth Movement receives unusually high publicity as contrasted with genuine activist critique of state crimes. Simply compare Griffin's exposure on CSPAN, etc., to that of activist dissenters. The reason may be that it is welcomed by power systems, much as JFK conspiracy theories have been (as we know from internal documents), because it diverts energy and attention from ongoing crimes of state. If he or anyone could present a coherent account of what they think happened, one that is not undermined by the most elementary considerations, - and I suppose others - would pay some attention to it. I was closely involved with leaking the Pentagon Papers, and am very glad they came out, but in fact they had almost no impact on the decisions by the business world and the government to slowly withdraw from Vietnam, which had already been taken. A great deal is indeed marginalized. I've written thousands of pages on the topic, as have others. But I think you are ignoring the most significant examples and keeping to some which, while fashionable, are not of much importance.

Anarchadia: I absolutely see what you mean. I am 23 years old and not as informed, but I try to be. I am a constant activist, and am outraged by the indecency with which law abiding citizens are treated (protest parks, ultrasounds, escrow police spying and dressing up imitating violent activists such as the black blocks, heavy armor, gas, etc...­). Democracy is being sold off to private contractors, and we protest to no avail (France). I also see what you mean when you say that the truth movement is somewhat cathartic: The Truth Movement has a tendency to lure people towards the Tea Party which has been very highly publicized, and even clamored by the crooks over at Fox News. Example: Alex Jones has a tendency to be able to explain things that other Media Organizations can't (I am a very rational person and definitely see through Infowars political and advertising strategies, which are populist sometimes and very far from fact). Yet, the Infowars website surprises me from time to time with a decent sourced article; but then, Alex Jones goes on to supporting the tea party and the terror advertisers who advertise on the Infowars website. Have you heard of Alex Jones?

Noam Chomsky: I don't know much about Jones. The little I've seen, not enough for a serious judgment, seemed to be pretty wild. On 9/11, the coincidences, etc., may seem remarkable, but they are normal. Look at any complex historical event through a microscope, and that's what you'll find, even breaches of security that go far beyond 9/11 in significance. E.g., it was just revealed that Clinton lost the code that authorizes launching nukes, which means that for four months, the USSR could have launched a surprise attack, destroying the US, with complete impunity. A few years ago a nuclear-armed bomber flew across the country, violating the highest security controls. A malfunction could have destroyed most of the country. Etc. That's why scientists do experiments instead of studying videotapes of what's happening outside the window. It's why historians hotly debate events that have been intensively studied. The TMers do not seem to understand the nature of evidence - and also, do not understand why they are laboring to show that Saddam or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, inadvertently of course. That requires following a simple argument. Your hypothesis that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 but didn't try to stop it is weak enough so that the evidence is almost irrelevant. But it still assumes that they are utter lunatics, or else they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, as has been pointed out over and over. I'm afraid your other assertions vanish in much the same way as these, or what you claimed about concealing the Iranian coup, when subjected to scrutiny. If you'd like to believe these things, that's your business. But if you want anyone to take your speculations seriously, you'll have to make a case. I've written about most of the matters you mention.

What you say has shreds of truth. Thus, of course the US had oil in mind in invading Iraq (and was compelled to abandon its major war aims in this respect, as we have seen). The concept "false flag" has become popular with the TM, who uses it in ways that make it almost meaningless. Of course governments invent ways to frighten populations into obedience to pursue aims of dominant power centers. We hardly need these rather random speculations to establish that. It's topic of extensive serious work.

Anarchadia: I admit, every point I've tried to make has for the most part been an assertion. Scrutiny is what keeps my opinions objective. I don't pretend to know the truth behind these events, but I have an insatiable need for truth, and am always searching for it. On the - Clinton losing the code incident - don't you find this story is politically motivated? To release such information, especially today when America is positioning itself against China and Russia? This seems like they are inciting fear into the American mind (again) about: "what if Russia (China, Iran) attacked us". I find it insane how much war fomentation is going on these days. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an Ex-CEO of one of the largest military contractors in America and abroad, I mean talk about conflict of interest (they sold weapons to Taiwan against China's firm request not to, that is a direct breach of National Security). Democracy has been taken hostage by military profiteers, pharmaceutical/chemical corporations, big banks and their arm of hijacked government the Federal Reserve (whoever can pay for the expensive campaigns and shoes of opportunists such as Sarah Palin). Political prostitution is at an all time high. So when you say that there is a very small chance that 9/11 was caused by western interests I have to disagree. If you look at any complex situation through a microscope you can also get lost in the complexity. "Tout est relatif". This goes both ways. When you talk about the Bush Family as lunatics, I disagree; I see them as somewhat intelligent. They know exactly what they are doing. And why they are doing it. I met Carla Del Ponte last year here in Lyon, France, and she talked about her meeting with President Bush (when she was trying to get war criminals of the former Yugoslavia extradited). She says he seemed very concerned in person and said "Carla I will personally look into this, I promise". She never heard from him again. This I think clearly depicts a very good liar instead of the stupid yet powerful imbecile of a president everyone has been making him out to be. His father was the head of the CIA. That is a very strong asset. The U.N. has also been hijacked by political prostitutes and we live in a far more nefarious world than the transparent one you tend to proclaim when assertions are made about 9/11, Kennedy, etc...­ The internal organization in charge of supervising the U.N. has been suspended since 2009. Surely this is more important than an idiotic playboy president like Clinton losing the Nuclear codes? I mean after all it is people who invest their pride on this logic and transparency you talk about, who voted for Clinton. Surely there is a reason why Wikileaks has published more scoops than the New York Times has in a decade? What is your opinion on movements who are for auditing the FED and the the DOD? Also, those who are against organizations such as Bilderberg (and their claims that Obama secretly went to a meeting with Hillary Clinton)?

Noam Chomsky: You misunderstood. I didn't talk of the Bush family as lunatics. You did. More precisely, as I wrote, that is what follows from your speculations. Who do you propose to audit the DOD and the Fed? It would be amazing if Obama hadn't met Clinton, and why should it be advertised? There's no known significance to Bilderberg apart from the fact that rich and powerful people like to get together. Can't comment on the rest. By that kind of reasoning one can reach any conclusion. These are not what count as evidence and argument, in any form of rational inquiry.

Of course you don't believe that Bush is a lunatic. Rather, the theory you proposed implied that he is a lunatic. One of many reasons why it's hard to take the TM seriously. Nothing wrong with a civilian audit, but such proposals require mass popular support. To recapitulate, I pointed out that the theories proposed by the TM, and your much weaker one too, implied that the Bush administration were all lunatics; not just Bush the individual, but all of the planners. I'm glad we agree that the conclusion is unacceptable. It therefore follows that all the theories are too...­

NOTE: After having spoken to Noam Chomsky about September 11 and the Truth Movement, I was more lost than ever: how can such a brilliant man (who I agree with on so many levels) be so opposed to a theory like 9/11 is an inside job? Is the movement and its abundant flux of information truly discreditable? OR has the mainstream media discredited so many points and used such strong rhetoric of ridicule towards TM that even intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky can't believe it? I got the impression that Chomsky just hasn't really looked into the facts about Sept. 11, simply because of all the false facts TM has incorporated into its rhetoric (which are easily exploitable by the spin doctors). I noticed that the media never directly discredited the TM. They acted as though it were of minor interest and could discredit itself. It can! Like the Norman Mineta video: if watched in full it is completely insync with Cheney's story (there are a few mistakes but not enough for indictment). So if there is a conspiracy behind September 11 Noam Chomsky is right about the fact that whoever orchestrated the event was very intelligent, and to solve the puzzle it will take true intellect and hard work to crack. But now that it has been discredited, we must become very careful: it took years to popularize the notion that Pearl Harbor was a false flag attack and we still don't truly know for Kennedy (although in my opinion the event was very suspicious). If George Bush Sr. and his entourage got away with the assassination of a U.S president, then yes, Bush Sr. was definitely not a lunatic!

Source: Anarchadia.com