I am in email contact with a very nice and thoughtful guy who is just coming to understand the power of the writings of Noam Chomsky. That is where I began my journey in 1989 or so. I merely stumbled on Noam as he gave a lecture at American University (which I caught on CSPAN). He was saying things I had never heard before … or been able to hear, anyway. My mind had been opened a little by reading things I was not used to reading, ideas that upset me in my right wing and deeply religious upbringing.
So I was mentally adrift, and Chomsky took me on a beautiful journey.
I will always be grateful for that, but the journey ended on 9/11. Chomsky used all of his power and influence to insist that the official version of events that day was the only truth to be had. That is nonsense. It is absurd. He’s wrong, but much worse than merely being wrong, he is so obviously smart enough to know he is wrong. That is what is so troubling. He is willfully lying.
My first reaction was resignation – Chomsky must know that he is only tolerated because his appeal is to a select few, perhaps 3% of the population that can read and process complicated prose. We are contained. But if he were to cross a line, to come out and say what is plainly true about that day, that it was a false flag operation, then his university position, his tenure, his platform would be taken away. The empire tolerates a lot, but not that.
But even if that understanding of his behavior is the correct one (others say not), it is still an act of cowardice, and so I long ago stopped reading his writings. (He’s quite old now and doesn’t put out much anyway.)
But I thank him for helping me start my journey. The important thing is not him, or any one person of influence, but the journey itself. We are always on our own.
There are some amazing people out there doing amazing work in the shadows. Tomorrow or sometime down the road I have to put up some of that work for others to see. It is simply dumbfounding, which was my state of mind when I first encountered Noam … can it be? Can this be that? Is that a lie? Is anything true?
This will be fun, and yes, I am quite ready to endure some ridicule from the peanut gallery…
…. which reminds me …
… I said something obviously true – that reading Pogie is to encounter two voices, the one that writes blog posts, and the one that comments. He either suffers dissociation, or is not writing his own posts. It can be no other way.
Perhaps hypnosis would help – him. Not me. I know my own thoughts, my own voice. I used to write under a pseudonym when commenting on the blogs. I did not want to use my true identity for privacy purposes. Matt Singer, of all people, outed me. Somehow, he knew who I was and was able to figure it out because of the way I write. (He can only have read stuff I wrote in the Billings Gazette, the only place I had ever been published.) He addressed me by my real name at the Left in the West blog one day – freaky! I don’t think I know him, but he sure knew me. (SK told me over lunch one day that Singer is one very smart dude.)
This is not complicated. When people write, unless they plagiarize, they speak in a unique voice. Most people cannot write well, so who cares? But think about it: does anyone ever mistake Kralj for someone else? Swede? Eric? JC? Mathew Koehler? Skink? Me?
With Pogie, there are two voices. It is that simple. One must be the real one, the other not, and it is not hard to conclude that if the jackass who leaves those acid-drenched comments were able to do so, he would cloak. But he cannot help himself.
As to who writes his blog posts, I only speculate that it is the Montana Democrats who also write Montana Cowgirl posts. But it could be anyone else – his wife, Polish Wolf, one of his students. It’s pretty basic stuff, Democrats good, Republicans bad, but it is well done drivel, not the kind of stuff that appears in blog comments.
Folks, this stuff is pretty obvious.