Episode 32: JFK - Noam Chomsky Said the Quiet Part Out Loud 😮

Well, well, well. If it isn't what any sane person would have expected anyway. Maybe it's time to rethink Rethinking Camelot.

➡️ It doesn't count as "debunking" something if you simply say, "Who cares? It doesn't even matter."
➡️ It doesn't count as "debunking" if you say, "Sh*t happens in life. Weird coincidences occur even in science."
➡️ It doesn't count as "debunking" to say that 9-11 and the murder of JFK are irrelevant now.
➡️ We see this same narrative play out in relation to Epstein: "First response is that it is none of your business." 

😐


Links:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1125110/14127319

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo

https://www.buzzsprout.com/2289560/14197941

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/17/jeffrey-epstein-moved-money-for-noam-chomsky-paid-bard-president-botstein-150000-report-says/?sh=3d75fdd06a61


Need more? You can visit the website at: https://consaracytheories.com/ or my own site at: https://saracausey.com/. Don't forget to check out the blog at: https://consaracytheories.com/blog. 

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

Welcome to con-sara-cy theories. Are you ready to ask questions you shouldn't and find information you're not supposed to know? Well, you're in the right place. Here is your host, Sara Causey. 

Hello, hello, and thanks for tuning in. In tonight's episode, I will be talking about a video clip of Noam Chomsky at a leihatt Mosh a vilog meeting in Budapest. I've looked around to try to determine what year this video was taken. I haven't been successful in determining what year it was, but it's clearly Noam Chomsky. In said video clip, he talks about 911, as well as the murder of JFK, and gives his perspective on both events. We're told in the video that he quote, debunks 911, and JFK, but he doesn't do any debunking at all. Pour yourself up a frosty beverage of choice, and we'll saddle up and take this ride. This video clip is only about eight minutes long, but it sure is revealing. I think, in my opinion, whenever possible, content creators, regardless of whatever you are, if you're some big hoity toity, academic. You're a blogger, you make videos for Tiktok, you have a podcast, whatever platform it is that you're using. I think you should own up to your biases, because we all have them, and I think that the more direct we can be with the audience, the better off. I'm not going to sit here and say that for me, I fall into the Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh camp. I just simply do not I don't think that JFK was perfect. And as I've said publicly before, I renounce this idea that we would all be living in Utopia if JFK had lived, if he had made it to a second term and been able to implement more of his agenda, we would suddenly be in some futuristic society that looks like something from the Jetsons. I don't think so. I think that's highly unrealistic. I also don't fall into the camp of people that want to recast Kennedy as a saint. He was a God amongst mere mortals, and he was just the best person that ever set foot on planet Earth. That's being hyperbolic in one direction. But neither do I agree with the people that try to cast him as the worst villain, the most hideous rogue. And I don't think it's fair for us to discount everything that he was trying to do, that he did do, and the things that he intended to do, perhaps in his second term, had he been elected, simply because the guy had a lot of sex. I really don't care about naked pool parties and, oh, he slept with call girls. And isn't that scandalous? I mean, maybe it's just not a big focus in my life. So I want to own up to that. That's the perspective that I'm coming from. One of the last episodes of this flavor that I did over on my daytime broadcast was where I talked about Noam chomsky's book rethinking Camelot, where he asserts that the death of JFK, it didn't mark some big shift in policy, because JFK wasn't going to mark some big shift in policy. He wasn't going to cancel the Vietnam War. He was just going to be the same old piece of piece of shit Warhawk that we've had before and since. I also talked to a lesser degree about Seymour hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, because there was a reader who wrote in to Seymour Hersh to question this idea of rough justice, if Kennedy was this sack of shit dude that just went around banging anything in sight. And he was thinking about removing Castro. Did he have it coming? And then whenever Seymour Hersh is like, well, we could say it was a form of rough justice. We could say maybe it was karma that got this guy, the reader who wrote in originally, was like, Whoa, shit. No man, whoa, wait a minute. I didn't mean it like that. I was kind of asking you the question. I wasn't trying to imply that I knew that I needed to have a nighttime space, a more personal space, to get into these kinds of issues. Because people that are tuning in for a business blog, they want to know what to do, what to do if you have a client who doesn't want to pay you on time, what to do if you have a client who is a backstabber? How are you going to get better? When do you know that you need a business coach? People that are looking for that type of content, that those types of op eds, they're not necessarily caring about what Noam Chomsky and Seymour Hersh have to say about JFK. But I think it's important for us to disclose these things. If you think that Kennedy is a piece of shit, and you want to write a book saying, Here are all the reasons why I think he's a piece of shit, then just own it. Put it out there. Let us know where you're coming from. Don't bury the thesis or try to hide something or be surreptitious about it. Oh, I thought he was great. But then when I got started, I really. He was a piece of shit. Okay, sure, of course you did. I think back again, something else I've talked about before Peter manso's gargantuan biography of Marlon Brando. And I remember an interview that Peter Manso gave about that book, because, my God, it is a huge, huge, thick book. It's like every time Marlon Brando farted in his life, we're supposed to know about it. And I remember Manso saying I went into this with one image of Brando in my head, but then as I began to do my research and I talked to people that he knew, acquaintances, friends, etc, this different picture emerged, and I really felt like he was just less than we all imagined. And I thought, God, what an insult. I don't know why, but for me, that cuts deep. If somebody says this guy was a bastard, he was a sack of crap, we should all just dispose of him and be done with it. I feel like that's actually less insulting than somebody coming out and saying, You know what, I liked this guy. I had some admiration for him, and then when I got into the research, I realized that he was just a big fucking disappointment to me. That cuts deeper. It reminds me of when you're a kid and your parents send you to your room. You know, if they yell at you and they freak out, we can't believe you did this. We're so mad, you're grounded for a week. That's one thing. But when they just say, You know what, just go to your room. We're we're not even mad. We're just so disappointed that always felt worse, didn't it? To be considered a disappointment to somebody seemed a lot worse, a lot harsher than if they just simply said, You know what, I'm really mad at you right now. I need you to get out of the room till I cool off.

So I saw this video clip. I didn't see the whole video, but I saw this video clip in John Barbour's film. That's a follow up to the garrison tapes. So the one, the part two of the garrison tapes that he released in 2017 and I thought, Ah, well, no wonder. No freaking wonder. As John Barbour says, in his opinion, rethinking Camelot is long on title, but it's short on facts. And I think that that's accurate too. I just I'm not seeing it from my research, from my voracious reading. And as I always say, I am not a professional researcher on this topic at all. There are people that have devoted their entire livelihoods to talking about JFK, his legacy, his life, his penis, apparently, and his legacy in terms of being a peacemaker instead of a warmonger, I don't fit into that category at all. I'm just a voracious reader and somebody with an interest in the topic, and in my voracious reading on this on this topic, I have just not found evidence that tells me the guy was a bloodthirsty war hawk. Maybe down the road, I will find that evidence, and my mind will change, and I'll come on the air and say, You know what? I found this, and it has changed my opinion. I just haven't found that so far. I'm not seeing the evidence that he wanted to hit the nuclear button and blow up half the world. There were people on his staff who did want to do that. So to me, it's like if he had really wanted to get us into a bunch of wars, if he had wanted to drop a nuke on the Soviet Union, he could have done all of that. If he had wanted to drop a nuke on Cuba, he could have done that, and he didn't. So for me, rethinking Camelot fell flat, and my perception of it which could be wrong, but my perception of it was that it seemed to be a refutation of Oliver Stone's film, JFK. Because one of the points, not the whole point, to be clear, but one of the points made in Oliver Stone's film, is that JFK wanted to bring troops home from Vietnam and not have this full scale Vietnam War that is such a scar on our nation's history, the 1000s of people who died or came back injured from that. It's horrible. Perhaps that wouldn't have happened if JFK had stayed alive and been elected to a second term. It wasn't his intention to have a Vietnam War. It seems to me that rethinking Camelot is merely a retort to that we're going to get our standard left wing academic to come out and write a book to say what Oliver Stone purports in the film is bullshit. JFK was just another war hog. You could compare his administration to that of Ronald Reagan, same old, same old. It doesn't even matter. Doesn't matter that he got murdered. It doesn't matter that he's dead. Just brush the dust off your shoulders and keep moving on. All of you peons who got upset by watching Oliver Stone's film can just calm the fuck down, because nothing would have actually been different. That's my perception of it as further evidence of this point in the introduction, he writes, Camelot became a favorite image of liberal intellectuals entranced by the years of glory cut short cruelly by the pop pop of JFK, just at the time when he was about to go on to marvelous achievements. Murdered for that reason, according to many admirers in. This book is concerned only with what actually happened, which accords poorly with the legend. It touches on the Pop. Pop only obliquely, taking no stand on the culprits, except negatively. The evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. The main focus here is on Vietnam. A core part of the Camelot myth is that Kennedy was planning to end the war. End quote, why would that even be necessary if you were purely coming at this from the perspective of I think Kennedy was a war hawk, and I do not believe that he would have canceled the Vietnam War. I think he would have gotten us embroiled in it, just the way that LBJ did. Why would you even need to say anything about the Pop Pop. I mean, just long pause there, because to me, there's no need in a book of this flavor where you're going to say, this is not about the pop pop, and I'm not going to take any stand on the culprits, except to say it was negative. Oh, but then I'm also going to add the evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. Why would you even need to say that? I mean, that rang all kinds of alarm bells when I checked out the book to read it, I made special note of that because I'm like, This is fucked up, in my opinion. Why? Why do you need to say that it was not the evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with any long, lasting policy consequences. I smell a rat there, guys, I really do in this video clip at this meeting, someone from the audience, has written in a question about 911 and the person posing the question is like, it seems that the shrub family really benefited from 911, do you think there's anything to the notion that the shrub family was involved, directly or indirectly? And Chomsky sort of goes at this like, Okay, well, let's take this one step at a time here. We can't really say that it was just the shrub family that benefited, because all nations benefited from what happened. He actually says, yes, they benefited. But does that tell you anything? No, because every authoritarian nation benefited. It just became an excuse for every other country to impose regulations, to use this attack for their own benefit. And I'm not going to completely disagree with that just because I disagree with a variety of other things. And he says, I don't necessarily disagree with that point. I think that you have a lot of countries that look at it as never let a good crisis go to waste. So even if you had nations that were not involved, of course, an attack like that becomes an excuse to take away people's personal liberties, to take away their privacy, you get people scared. I talked about this in my cross of crossover episode. Why England slept where JFK is talking about violent shocks. It takes violent shocks, not only to change an individual's mind quickly, but to change societal minds quickly. You get a violent shock like that. You get people scared out of their wits, they're willing to give up anything. So it makes sense to me that other nations would say this is an opportunity for us to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, and eliminate certain rights and liberties and privacies in our own country. I don't necessarily hate that response. I would disagree with the idea of, like, Well, I mean, does it tell you anything? Did the shrub family benefit from it? Yes, but does that tell us anything? No, it's a bit like, uh, really. I mean, anytime a crime is committed, the detective is going to look at means motives and opportunity. I mean, that certainly gives you a motive, and it also tells you, given where it happened, given the country that it happened in, and who was in charge at that time, there could also potentially be the opportunity. It seems naive to me and reductive to just simply say yes, that group of people benefited from it, but that doesn't really tell us anything when it comes to the issue of Was it planned in particular? Did the shrub family know anything about it? Was it planned ahead? Oh, this seems to me extremely unlikely. They would have to be insane for something like that. He says, We have a very porous system with the media, so even if they had tried to plan something like that ahead of time, it would have leaked. People would have known about it. There's no way it would have been kept secret. And so then, if the information had leaked out that they were planning this event ahead of time, they would have been brought before a firing squad, and that would have just. In the end of it, I actually think I laughed out loud when I watched this video for the first time before I sat down and re watched it to sit and record this podcast episode, I think I actually laughed out loud at that part, because I was like, Yeah, sure. What planet, dude.

Of course, they won.

You really think that there's some kind of justice for these fat cats and their cronies of the powers that be brought before a firing squad. By who? I mean, there are laws that were set forth at Nuremberg that get violated all the time. We violate our own laws all the time. You just have these constant declarations of a state of emergency, and then people's rights and their privacies and their liberties come right out the window. Oh, we're allowed to do that because it's state of emergency. Who would have brought them before a firing squad? I mean extremely long pause there, so you could think about it. I really find that to be absolutely ludicrous. He also said that the shrub family would have been persona non grata, and the Republican Party and the event itself would be too unpredictable. There's no way that you could predict that the plane would actually hit. So you're talking about variables that are just too unwieldy. Now around the 406, mark in this video, I am not clear on what he says. I don't want to make an accusation here, because I'm not clear, and it could be a situation where I'm not hearing it clearly, and I want to be honest about that. I'm not sure if he says happened, or he says happy, because he's talking about it's too unwieldy. If you're gonna have a plane hit the WTC, you don't even know that that it's going to actually do that. And he says, either it happened that it did, or he says, I'm happy that it did. I'm not certain which one he says there, I would just encourage you to watch for yourself and try to figure out for yourself what he says there. It's, it's, frankly disturbing. He goes on to point out left wing conspiracy theorist which, hey, you know nowadays, this video has to have been several years old. It does not look current. Nowadays, any type of conspiracy theorist is automatically branded as a right wing conspiracy theorist, which makes no sense to me. But such are the times in which we live, whether you're actually on the right wing or you're not, if you challenge any official narrative, right wing conspiracy theorists. Okay? He talks about left wing conspiracy theorists and says, oh, you should see the emails that I get. People are up in arms about 911, you have people saying that it was fake. You have people saying that the shrub family planned it in advance, and so he's being rather pejorative, in my opinion, about such people. He says, if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would automatically discount the evidence. Hmm, gonna stroke my long imaginary devil beard. Thoughtfully here for a second. You know, that sounds an awful lot like something that happened whole few years ago where we were repetitively told, trust the don't ask. What's in the stabby. You just do it. You just take it. You put on your mask, you sanitize your hands constantly. You spray the outside of your groceries with disinfectant. You don't leave your freaking house and you don't ask any questions. You trust us, anybody with a background in the sciences would know the evidence is not valid. He points out that even a scientific experiment in a lab will have weird things, coincidences, anomalies, things that you just can't explain. He suggests that we read nature and technical journals, and we will see there that people often write in about unexplained phenomenon within controlled experiments. That's a bit like saying some people believe in ghosts. Some people believe in paranormal phenomenon. Therefore, 911, and the murder of JFK don't matter. How do you even draw a line, a straight line from one to the other. But you know, he tries, God love him, I guess so in his thesis here, because you're going to have unexplained phenomenon, you're going to have weird coincidences that happen even in labs, even in controlled scientific experiments, when you have a sort. Real life event that just happens naturally. It just happens outside of a lab. Of course, you're going to have unexplained phenomenon. It seems to me that his idea of debunking, I'm using debunking. Hearing huge, gigantic air quotes debunking something is to say shit happens. Sometimes we have weird, freaky coincidences, don't probe, don't ask any questions, sit down and shut up, because sometimes Shit happens. He says he feels like the evidence about 911, in terms of conspiracy theories, or that it was planned ahead of time, that the shrub family had some involvement. He just thinks that any you know evidence of that could just be thrown to the side. And he points out that he's a more isolated voice on the left in that regard. And about the 710 Mark, he makes this comment like having these conspiracy theories about 911 is just a diversion. It's diverting people away from more important issues. And even if it's true, even if their conspiracy theories are true, who cares. Um, would you really say that about 911, if the conspiracy theories are true? Oh, well, fuck it. Who cares. I mean, uh, I I'm not often speechless, as you well know, but good God, I don't how do you even respond to something like that, even if the evidence is true, even if you're telling me it was a conspiracy theory and you can prove it. Who gives a shit? It doesn't matter Whoa, from there. So if he hasn't insulted you enough by saying, Who gives a shit about 911, even if you can prove that it was a conspiracy, who gives a shit doesn't even matter if that's not insulting enough, if you're not sitting there right now going, Oh my God, who does this? Who says this? Well, let's throw another shrimp on the barbie. Let's, let's put another shrimp on the insult Barbie while we're at it. From there is where he segues into his comment about JFK, and as he calls it, the tremendous energy that's been put into trying to figure out the murder of John F Kennedy here, I don't need to doubt my ears at all. He very, very clearly says, Who knows and who cares? And he says it in a flippant way, like, am I right? Guys, come on. He's like the drunk guy at the party that's trying to get everybody on his side about something, who knows and who cares? Am I right? Well, not in my opinion. He goes on to say, I mean, plenty of people get killed all the time. What does it matter if one of them happened to be John F Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that it was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is overwhelming, and after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband or the mafia, who cares? It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. So he wraps up by saying, essentially, if you have an interest in what actually happened on 911, you have an interest in getting to some semblance of truth on who murdered. JFK, that's just a waste of time. You're diverting attention away from the real issues, whatever these nebulous real issues are, onto things that just don't matter very much anymore. Again, I'm just going to leave a long pause there so you can think about that for a second while I collect my thoughts. For me, it doesn't count as debunking something to simply say, Who cares, it doesn't matter. Same is true. To make it more personal, who cares? I don't care about that topic. It's not relevant to me. That's not what debunking actually means. It doesn't count as debunking if you say you know what, shit happens in life, sometimes shit even happens in a controlled experiment inside a lab. Weird coincidences occur even in science. Of course, they're going to occur in nature. I mean, come on, guys, why do we really care? It doesn't count as debunking to say that 911, and the murder of JFK are irrelevant now, and Bill Hicks had integrated some of that into his stand up as well, with people who would say to him, Oh, come on, Bill, who cares? Why are you still going on about that? I mean, he was talking about that in 93 which would have been 30 years after the pop pop so, you know, 60 years on, people definitely still feel that way. And Bill's retort was like, well, then quit telling me about Jesus. If you want to talk about a shelf life on something, why are you still going on about the murder of Jesus? Controversial, I know, but that's how billix was,

but that's the thing. Like, how can you really say that these things are irrelevant now, for someone like me who's more on the you. The Jim Garrison slash John barber side of things as to what I actually think happened that day. Of course, it's relevant. This is something that Brent Holland touches on in his book, from the Oval Office to Dealey Plaza. His his thesis is that it was not a coup, that it Yes, it was a conspiracy, but it was not a coup. And one of the things that he writes is like, You mean to tell me that everybody since then has been some kind of controlled person that's just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex, and I'm sat out, and you're like, yes, that's exactly what we're trying to tell you, and that's exactly why some of us are so passionate about making these points. I don't make any money sitting out here doing this. It takes up my time, my energy, and I pay money to have this podcast hosted, to sit here and do this. It means something to me to try in my life to not be a shithead, because we get enough of that. We get enough of the gaslighting and the nonsense for mainstream media. I'm only one voice, and I am a small voice. I am a teeny tiny fish in a humongous pond, maybe a tadpole. I mean, a teeny, tiny tadpole, but at least if there's somebody out there that hears this and thinks, you know what, I think I'm gonna crack open a book about this topic, hallelujah. And then we see a similar statement from him that plays out in response to his relationship with old Epstein. And I wouldn't normally bring that up, that's the thing, but he makes that comment there at the end about a jealous husband, whether it was a jealous husband, or it was the mafia that did it. Who really cares? A jealous husband? This goes back to the Seymour Hersh, dark side of Camelot thing. JFK, 24, 7365, penis. That's all he did was FX, if you see him in a television interview, it must be a hologram. When you watch the peace speech at American University. It must have been a body double, because the real JFK only used his penis. 24, 7365, I've said before that something I have noticed with the clutch my pearls, I'm morally outraged crowd, is it seems to be men, overwhelmingly men, as opposed to women, which is the opposite of what you think. You would think that the female side of things would be more likely to say, well, the guy had a really attractive, seemingly sweet wife. He had a couple of kids. Why did he feel the need to go out and have sex with other women? I am morally offended by this, but typically, what you see are the people getting up on their hind legs about JFK sex life. Are dudes like, Why does a straight dude care so much about what JFK was doing with his own penis? On that note, I mean, there have been articles that appeared. I'll drop a link to one from Forbes, which is a major mainstream news publication, Jeffrey Epstein moved money for Noam Chomsky paid Bard President Botstein $150,000 report says, and in responding to this, they're talking about the Wall Street Journal when they say the journal here, when the journal first asked Chomsky About his connection with Epstein, he replied by email. First response is that it is none of your business or anyone's. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally. Now the timeline that they put up here is that Epstein had already had some charges placed against him. He was known in the world as being a pervert and a trafficker and messing around with underaged girls, not grown ass, women, adults, consenting adults, but young, young girls, teenage girls. So why would you want to be in that person's orbit at all. Now, Chomsky said that his first wife had died. They had been married for a long time that he didn't get into finance. He was not a numbers and a money guy, so he had asked Epstein for some financial advice, and that's all that it was at the top line here in this Forbes article, Jeffrey Epstein paid $150,000 to Bard College President Leon Botstein, and moved $270,000 for linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, shedding further light on the relationship between the late disgraced financier and major academics who met with them multiple times after he was a registered sex offender. End quote, does he one of the excuses that we get a lot from people who have been named as having any connection at all to Epstein, whether they flew on the Lolita Express or they ever went to his creepy Island or not if. People that had any dealings with him at all? Well, we didn't know we had some type of dealing with him before all of this was public. We didn't know what he was doing. We disavow. We disavow. We disavow. It's a bit worse after the man has been publicly convicted and is a registered sex offender, and then you're still in his orbit. Like, why and then, why are you taking money from him? It's just weird. But hey, hey, chomsky's response to everything is, I don't know, and I don't care who gives a shit, even if 911, was an inside job, even if the shrubs were involved, whoever really killed JFK, who gives a shit? I will purport that I'm debunking something by just simply saying, Who knows and who cares? Oh, just putting my head against my knee right now, just, God, what a world. I feel like it's important for us to know these things, because I would hate for somebody to read a book thinking I'm just getting the straight facts. This person has no bias. This person is just trying to be as objective as possible when, meanwhile, in my opinion, that individual is running a clear agenda. They are trying to besmirch a legacy. They are trying to discredit Oliver Stone's film, then the question becomes, well, who's paying for that? People don't do that free of charge. They might get threatened into doing it, but they don't do it for free. Whether they are being blackmailed into doing it, or somebody's paying them a huge sum of money to do that, people typically don't just wake up one morning and say, I think I'm going to spend a lot of time researching somebody that I absolutely hate and then write a hit piece just for shits and giggles.

Contemplate that at your leisure. Stay a little bit crazy, and I will see you in the next episode.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast and share it with others.