Open Letter to Noam Chomsky by Zahir Ebrahim

Wednesday April 09, 2014
To:, MIT Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus)
Dear Professor Noam Chomsky,
Hello. I am writing this open letter to you both as your former student at MIT who got at least some of his inspiration to stand up to the narratives of power from your considerable teachings, and on account of your being a public intellectual influencing public opinion worldwide and therefore also accountable to the public for your opinions.
I have made the following unpleasant observations in my article and which I continue in this letter. I would like to ask for your response. Unless you claim intellectual unaccountability and no personal responsibility for influencing public opinion, and such a gross charge surely will never be justly laid upon you as a responsible teacher and moral guide of the American peoples, I would like to request a public rebuttal.
'... This is how and why the most prominent moral detractor of his own American nation today, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, for instance, gets anointed “arguably the most important intellectual alive” by the empire's own mouthpiece, the New York Times. This intellectual who boldly teaches others the responsibilities of intellectual, rehearses at great length in his prolific writings past crimes and past lies of the American empire for which nothing much can be done today. But for matters current affairs not fully driven to their intended fait accompli, such as the imperial mobilization to world government under the catastrophic terror event of September 11, 2001 as pretext, and which can effectively be derailed in a public chain reaction if the most prominent intellectuals of America boldly stood up and called the Big Lie for what it is, Dr. Noam Chomsky assiduously totes the establishment's own absurd line on who dunnit. The fine moral intellectual shows no inclination to challenge the imperial core lie whatsoever. Instead, strangely for someone billed as the most important dissenting intellectual, finds specious arguments to support the empire's core lie. His stock following of dissenting rebels, as well as other nations who look up to him for guidance, lap it up convinced that when the most strident detractor of empire also agrees with the empire's blaming of 9/11 exclusively on Islamofascist terrorist, then it must be so.

This highly venerated scholar of America known throughout the world as America's left-liberal conscience, whose many books sell worldwide just with his brand name affixed to them, and even get waived from the high podium of the United Nations by presidential figurine condemning the excesses of American hegemony, also behaved in an analogously unforgivable manner when president John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The brilliant moralist of America, employed for lifetime in America's most prominent high technology educational institution which gets virtually all of its research funding and operating budget from America's vast military-industrial complex as the natural extension of the American national security state, had, at the very inception of his scholarly career, dutifully parroted the establishment's absurd narrative of the “lone gun-man” dunnit.

At that time in the 1960s and 1970s, just as in this generation in the aftermath of 9/11, the American public was in great moral angst to learn who really was responsible for that catastrophic terrorism on their beloved soil. The public behavior was fully controlled by the state's full spectrum control of the narrative then, just as it is today. It was accomplished then, just as it is today, with copious help from the full gamut of manufactured respectability from left to right. All intellectuals echoed the core narrative of empire then, just as they do today when it is of utmost urgency to immediately analyze, question, and publicly challenge the dubiousness of state narratives before the hidden motivations behind the crime get fully actualized into fait accompli by the public's acceptance of the core narrative.

The public's easy acceptance of any tortuous past without any great pangs of guilt, as well as any abhorrent present without any great murmur of protest, with the Superman intellectuals of empire engineering both consent and dissent to govern the public mind, is the brilliant success of Mephistopheles in mass behavior control.'
Professor Chomsky, as a teacher of US foreign policy and expert in political theories behind statecraft, you cannot be unaware that echoing of the core lies of the state while critiquing its effects, is explained by political science most perceptively. The endeavor is highly utilitarian, as you can see, since it remains ineffective in derailing imperial mobilization when the core pretext and core lies are kept intact. That kind of dissent principally serves the continual enabling of imperial mobilization very well while retaining the necessary illusions of free speech and advanced democracy which constitutionally tolerates dissent.
This worked in extending the Vietnam War then, when the focus was cunningly put off by the incoming administration from the national security state being the first likely criminal to have so successfully subverted the presidential security detail which enabled president Kennedy's assassination – an impossibility for America under the Cold War calculus of intense security without the requisite means, motive, and opportunity which only the national security state can bring to bear. And it worked today when the focus is once again most cunningly put off from the national security state having the means, motive, and opportunity to covertly execute “operation canned goods” on September 11, 2001 and believably blame the catastrophic terrorism on controlled patsies suitably duped for that purpose.
No one who has studied the history of the Third Reich, and the detailed narratives of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals as well as you have Professor Chomsky, and I know this first hand because we have in the past communicated on the topic of victor's justice, can remain so naïvely uninformed of the political utility of self-inflicted terror. Especially when it openly and most visibly launches the most barbaric imperial mobilization using it as the pretext, and against all intellectual and rational sense of international as well as criminal law.
What is the explanation? The only reasonable one that any prosecuting attorney would put forth is that the moral agent is a covert asset of empire. I find this conclusion most distasteful. I hope that is not the case.
Irrespective of that determination, because of your public stance, you are partly responsible for all the evil which follows in the imperial mobilization from that retention of core lies, as your own humble contribution to the making of the public mind. Of course, only according to measure. That measure to which you are accountable, and no more than that, is what I ask you to account for publicly in the public interest. A Robert H. Jackson today, right alongside imperial scholars manufacturing consent as the propaganda philosophers of the new Reich, would surely also be prosecuting imperial scholars manufacturing dissent as its covert agents. The precise observations he might make is what I have made. Which any sensible person ought to make.
For writing this bold and unusual open letter and requesting a public response, I offer no apologies. You misguided dissent by your egregious omission to standup to the Big Lie as per your own self-proclaimed responsibility of intellectuals because of which people looked up to you. You thus directly prolonged the Big Lie which also accrues more evil to your own account! My peoples, Muslims, have been mercilessly killed worldwide in the multiplicative effects of imperial mobilization by your willfully continuing to retain the core lie that it was “militant Islam” and “OBL” that successfully invaded the armed to the teeth sole superpower on 9/11 instead of the national security state with collusion of its surrogates. Thus you express no real dissent with the core axioms of imperial power while speciously pretending to do so by protesting its wars. Exactly similar to your previous retention of the state's core fable in the Kennedy assassination while protesting the Vietnam War with considerable vigor. In both cases, if I recall correctly, you hath even proclaimed that what does it matter who dunnit, to minimize any real questioning of the official narratives and to keep focus on protesting their effects instead, the wars themselves.
The common behavior patterns only spell calculated behavior in the eyes of a good public prosecutor, and not one of mere happenstance, especially for a Superman who proclaims: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies” (Responsibility of Intellectuals). And: “the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them.” (Power and Prospects).
Perhaps you were thinking of some other audience and not your own American public enjoying the constitutional liberties which permitted them dissent and free speech? If so, please state so that this is why, instead of bringing the American peoples the truth and exposing lies, you brought them the core narratives of power commencing from the immediate aftermath of 9/11 no differently than that “vulgar propagandist” whom you so anointed (in an interview to Evan Solomon, CBC, December 9, 2003), Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University. As a result of this incestuously self-reinforcing “truth-telling” in which both the empire's officialdom and its finest detractors echo each other, you can explain to the American people that now even if they wanted to, they could no longer make a difference because the United States today is a legally sanctioned police-state. You can continue to critique that effect too, the police-state, just as you do America's hegemony, but by not questioning the Big Lie when it was timely to do so, you also played your role in enabling police-state USA.
Indeed, not just arguably, for there is no need for that caveat, you are the most important intellectual alive for power that runs America.
Awaiting your forceful reply, the strongest of rebuttals, explaining once again to the public mind the responsibility of intellectuals as moral agents and under what conditions should they echo the core narratives of empire. It is a lesson you omitted to teach at MIT when I had the pleasure of being a mostly silent student in your off-beat foreign policy classes. Then, the brave Americans talked a lot, and I mostly listened, shyly, as a foreign student coming from Gen. Zia ul Haq's police-state that had just hanged its elected civilian prime-minister with America's blessings; arguably quite dazzled by all this intellectualism of boldly confronting the lies and villainy of power being so openly taught in America as the beacon of advanced democracy to the rest of the world. I had to subsequently learn of Machiavelli and the Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent as the two most essential tunes of the Mighty Wurlitzer for an advanced democracy to function, on my own.
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States of America

- ### -

First Published Wednesday, April 9, 2014 09:00 pm 1877

Open Letter to Noam Chomsky by Zahir Ebrahim | Project