5 Filters

Chomsky: bizarre responses in my exchange with the 'great man'

I fully agree with you that anti-vax advocacy should not be criminalized, an outlandish proposal I had never heard of.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:51 AM Rippon wrote:
If we assume you are correct that I have misrepresented you regarding coercion and mandates, then we are basically in agreement on the crucial question of compulsion.

We both agree that no one should be coerced or mandated to do anything; but private premises should have the right to insist on anything they like of visitors (e.g. wear a mask), exactly as places of worship often insist (as is their right) that visitors remove their shoes.

This means that the only crucial question left is regarding free-speech, which is the question, raised by Matt Hancock (UK parliamentarian), that sparked this exchange of mine with you.

Hancock advocates the criminalisation of anti-vax speech on the grounds that it is dangerous misinformation.

TheExposé pointed at the irony that, with the criterion of ‘dangerous misinformation’, then, in time, it could be Hancock who finds himself in the dock - due to his advocacy of toxic jabs, homicidal isolation of care-home residents, and fatal mass-prescription of Midazolam.

Now, free-speech is another topic (in addition to geopolitics) that you are highly noted for; so it is compelling to ask you:
Do you agree with the principle of criminalising anti-vax speech?

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, May 1st, 2023 at 5:59 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote:

It’s true that I have little interest in people like you who are energetically supporting the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.

If you can bring yourself to understand the concept “ratio” you’ll be able to stop writing these missives.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:10 AM Rippon wrote:
If we excise the unnecessary reference to me personally, then you have effectively said you have no interest in the career/vocation of those who are killing hundreds of thousands of people.

That is a remarkable turnaround in your attitude to the world because, clearly, in the past, e.g. invasion of Vietnam, invasion of Iraq, you followed, and wrote stridently about, the vocation of certain persons (e.g. apologists for Bush-Blair, e.g. NYT, BBC) precisely because their output facilitated the killing of hundreds of thousands. Your good record of correct commentary on life-and-death matters of global significance is precisely why people take an interest in what you say regarding this new global issue, where, apparently, the biome of the planet has suddenly changed so drastically, and rendered humanity at threat from a disease so remarkable, that measures unprecedented in human history were deemed necessary.

The lives of millions are at stake. The threat might be from pathogens (e.g. covid) or from establishment forces (big-pharma, big-food, global governance, e.g. WHO).

Surely everyone (e.g. yourself) should be interested in what is being said by whomever they perceive as the enemy of humanity. For example, surely you should be interested in pointing (for the benefit of deluded people such as myself) to some of the literature (if it exists) that thoroughly debunks the prodigious catalogue of anti-vax scholarly work. (The only help you have provided so far is the recommendation to revisit high-school maths to ensure one understands ‘ratio’.)

------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, April 30th, 2023 at 9:58 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote:

Thank you for the response. I have no interest in watching as you pursue your criminal career, a vocation that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. And to see more evidence of your quite remarkable inability to comprehend the notion of ratio.

Send these missives to the right address: professional journals. Not my business.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 12:51 PM Rippon wrote:
You have articulated well another way in which the pro-vax position actually concurs greatly with the anti-vax one.

Your first para illustrates exactly this anti-vax argument:

Even if they did what they profess, vaccines are nonsense because they represent a perpetual game of whac-a-mole due to variants/mutations. Thus, the only solution to disease is to equip the body (clean air, clean water, clean food) to neutralise any pathogen through its own mechanisms, rather than indulge in an arms race against an infinite array of threats (mutations).

And, indeed, ‘arms race’ is a good analogy because, exactly as with the professed mitigation of military threats, the only sector to benefit from the military arms race is the military-industrial-complex; and they benefit precisely through their failure to mitigate the threat, because then the Russians/Chinese simply ramp up, thereby ‘forcing’ our MIC to ramp up further, i.e. more money for more boondoggle projects at Lockheed et al.

Analogously, Pfizer et al benefit further precisely through their failure to eliminate the threat of a disease, because then they receive more money for developing and selling a new weapon (vaccine).

And, analogously again, the only lasting way to eliminate a military threat is to deal with the environment, i.e. diplomacy.

So that is the military equivalent of germ-theory vs terrain-theory, where the latter focuses on the environment (air, water, food); whereas vaccines are simply an infinite money-spinner of ‘aircraft’ vs ‘anti-aircraft’ weapons.

It seems you are wedded to the perspective on public health of the WHO-bigPharma complex. But, curiously, you reject the perspective of the MIC on geopolitics.

Another way in which you basically concur with anti-vaxxers is regarding your (unwitting) belief that vaccines have piffling efficacy. You believe the efficacy is piffling because you don’t believe your jab has protected you from the person next to you on the bus unless that person too is covid-jabbed - because that’s the pro-vax position: no one is safe until everyone is jabbed. That is, you believe that the only ‘protection’ provided is against people who, by your logic, are not even a threat in the first place.

It seems you are determined to consider only establishment media because you have (repeatedly) emphasised “the standard professional literature”.

You seem oblivious of the notion (enunciated by Ivan Illich, et al) that the professions and institutions are by their very nature deeply flawed. You yourself, over the decades, have been making precisely that point about certain professions and institutions, e.g. politics, media. But you seem impervious to the notion that deep flaw could apply to the medical establishment.

You have chanted a standard mantra of that establishment: “The evidence is overwhelming that vaccination has saved huge numbers of lives.” (You choose to ignore the prodigious body of scholarly work that debunks that.)

You are apparently determined to ignore scientific and political analyses that challenge the establishment, e.g. WHO.

Here’s another tiny sample of such challenge:

Covid vaccine-injured Class Action Lawsuit filed in Federal Court of Australia

The WHO’s efforts to gain sovereignty over nations during public health emergencies: European symposium last week

WATCH: Covid “vaccines” and all-cause mortality

------- Original Message -------
On Friday, April 28th, 2023 at 2:12 AM, Noam Chomsky wrote:

As usual, you are misunderstanding everything. All of this is in the standard professional literature. There was, as I said, unanimous agreement among international authorities about vaccination. To the surprise of scientists, as you can learn from the literature, the virus took a totally new path. Rapidly mutated, with variants like Omicron that don’t respond to the initial vaccines. There is now concern among serious scientists about how to proceed with new vaccines.

It’s obviously not a mandate if some organization requires vaccination. A hospital, a sports organization is entitled to seek protection. It may offend you, but there are people who follow the unanimous advice of international authorities, not privileging your opinions.

On the anti-vax community persistent lying about my views, you continue to suppress my many explanations of a one-line statement in an interview, spelling out just what I told you in my last letter, and have explained dozens of times. I recognize that the truth is of no interest to a committed anti-vaxer.

The rest is so obviously beside the point that I won’t bother to comment. I’m glad that by your silence you concede that you had completely misunderstood the crucial matter of ratios, and why your argument leads to banning of all medical practices. The efforts at evasion here do you little credit.

The evidence is overwhelming that vaccination has saved huge numbers of lives. If you want to persist in your criminal career, that’s your business, not mine.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 3:13 PM Rippon wrote:
The problem in our exchange seems to be that you are apparently not seeing any alternative-media reporting.

I myself am seeing non-msm content and that is why much of what you say is, to me, clearly flatly wrong, e.g. “there is unanimous support for vaccination internationally”

That does not square with (for example - one example of many) this:

“Switzerland withdraws all Covid vaccination recommendations”

“Switzerland stops the Covid vaccinations: all vaccination recommendations have been withdrawn, doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions – but then bear the risk of liability for vaccination damage.”

We apparently have different knowledge (or ‘knowledge’) in other respects too. For example, it is headline news that the world’s leading tennis player, Novak Djokovic, may not be able to compete in the US Open again because, currently, one still needs proof of being covid-jabbed to enter America. That is certainly a mandate that applies to anyone who is currently outside US borders, and presumably it applies also to American citizens currently outside America.

Maybe your counter-argument would be semantic - along the lines that that requirement does not meet the definition of ‘mandate’.

We both assert of each other that the other (you, me) is advocating views that are killing many people. That assertion about anti-vaxxers has existed for many decades in msm. I am highlighting this new phenomenon: it has now become a significant assertion about pro-vaxxers precisely due to the effects of covid-jabs. (Prior to the mass roll-out of covid-jabbing, that assertion about pro-vaxxers was very marginal and not taken seriously.)

It is not currently a criminal offence to advocate harmful views regarding medical practices (e.g. covid-jabbing) or medical non-practices (e.g. not jabbing people). The point of the original story I linked was that, now, our parliamentarian, Matt Hancock (former Health Secretary), advocates that anti-vax views should be criminalised due to the (alleged) harm they cause. The story makes the point, ‘Be careful what you wish for’ because the opinion (of the public or the experts or both) of what causes harm could change, which means that, then, pro-vaxxers could be the ones finding themselves in the dock.

I simply forwarded that warning to you, a pro-vaxxer.

We apparently have different understanding about whether you have or have not been misrepresented.

I asserted: “you yourself have argued that the un-jabbed should reside in areas segregated from ‘civilised’ society.”

And you have called that a lie.

But my assertion is perfectly fair according to your words from your mouth in this video (watching from 3:25 to 4:50)

The unvaccinated should have the decency to remove themselves from the community. If people refuse to remove themselves, then measures have to be taken to safeguard the community. Obtaining food is their problem. If they become destitute, then you’d have to secure their survival, just as you do with people in jail.

NC: Thank you for confirming that you are opposing medical procedures generally

You want to put words into my mouth and/or you are not capable, again, of comprehending the dissident position. The dissident position is what you are calling ‘anti-vax’, but ‘anti-vax’ is misleading because it suggests opposition to people’s choice to ingest any drugs. The dissident position is not anti anything but pro free-choice, e.g. no apartheid consequences for those who reject establishment propaganda. You are capable of comprehending that when the establishment is the MIC (military) but not capable of comprehension when it is the PIC (pharma), perhaps due to your religious faith in medical scienticsm.

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, April 27th, 2023 at 9:37 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote:

Forwarded it here because the other address is not working.

I don’t like to be unkind, so I haven’t mentioned the obvious: In your case it’s not potential criminality. It’s actual criminality. You are advocating views that are demonstrably killing a great many people.

In my case there is no potential criminality, just your inability to follow simple logical arguments. Below, once again. But I’m not going to repeat the obvious forever. I have other things to do, and if you are incapable of following a simple argument, too bad.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chomsky, Noam - (noamchomsky)
Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:22 PM
Subject: Fw: [EXT]potential criminality on your part
To: Noam Chomsky

From: Rippon
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:32 AM
To: Chomsky, Noam
Subject: Re: [EXT]potential criminality on your part
External Email

Another striking failure of logic.

Any medicine being banned does not follow at all “by this argument”.

It follows trivially. You argument is that there is mounting evidence of harm from vaccines. That is a truism, which follows from the fact that there is more evidence. By the same truism, as evidence mounts there is more evidence of harm from every medical procedure (including drugs, surgery, etc.).

Moving on to another truism, the critical question is the ratio of success to harm. In the case of the covid vaccine, as evidence accumulates the evidence become even more overwhelming that the success is vastly greater than the harm, so that this is one of the most successful medical procedures of recent years. That is of course why there is unanimous support for vaccinational internationally among professional societies and journals, National Academies of science, etc. They are all capable of following the simple argument that you cannot seem to comprehend.

You apparently cannot follow the argument, even as someone ostensibly trained in logic.

For example, how does it follow “by this argument” that respecting the Nuremberg code implies banning any medicine?

So totally irrelevant that I can’t even imagine what is confusing you.

You state “anti-vax advocacy” but you do not even understand the anti-vax position. Anti-vaxxers never argue that anyone should be “banned” from the opportunity to take any jab. Whereas it is pro-vaxxers who wish to deny choice to others by insisting on mandates that make everyone do to their bodies what they have chosen to do to their own. Moreover, pro-vaxxers reveal their own disbelief in their own message: they clearly don’t believe their jab has any decent efficacy because they do not feel it protects them from an un-jabbed person, hence they want only jabbed people in society.

I know of very few who have insisted on mandates. Briefly in Austria for a time. My own view, loud and clear, is that it’s up to the individual. The rest reveals once again your inability to understand the position that those who refuse vaccination and masks have an elementary human responsibility to honor the concerns of the institutions that require them, like health facilities. The non-vaccinated and un-masked are not gods who are free from minimal human responsibilities.

Indeed, you yourself have argued that the un-jabbed should reside in areas segregated from ‘civilised’ society.

The fact that a lie circulates in the anti-vax commiunity does not make it true.

You reveal your profound ignorance again because (from your faecal nugget of comment) you are apparently unaware that there is indeed an issue with “all of [establishment, allopathic] medicine”, illustrated by, for example, the fact that iatrogenic illness is one of the leading causes of illness and death; overall doctors are harming more people than they help.

Thank you for confirming that you are opposing medical procedures generally

What follows, then, by this argument, is that the medical establishment cannot be trusted and people should have free choice about following their mandates (e.g. ‘take a covid jab’). That is “just logic”, whereas you have made a thoroughly illogical leap by inferring “by this argument” that any “medicine should be banned”.

Thank you for confirming that you agree with my long-standing position that people should have free choice about vaccination.

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, April 27th, 2023 at 4:25 PM, Chomsky, Noam

By this “argument,” all of medicine should be banned.

When anti-vax advocacy descends to this level, there is no need for comment.
From: Rippon
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:25 AM
To: Chomsky, Noam
Subject: Re: [EXT]potential criminality on your part
External Email

You have stepped into the minefield, which I have pointed out has the potential to explode you, by using the word ‘ratio’.

That is, you advocate for jabs using a statistical argument, the notion that a certain statistical parameter can justify pressuring people into taking a medication. But statistics is perhaps the most corrupted branch of all science (illustrated by the adage, “lies, damned lies, and statistics”).

You also mention “efficacy”. It seems you are oblivious of the controversies surrounding the practices of Pfizer et al in measuring efficacy - deceitful arguments based on statistics. (I can’t remember the details, but with such crudeness as asserting, say, that a medication is highly effective, slashing mortality by 50%, because, before the roll-out, two people died from a disease but, after the roll-out, only one person did; conveniently neglecting to mention that the sample population contains thousands.)

And you persist with your denial (which, in time, might prove to be holocaust denial) by using the word “recommended”. That is, you continue to deny that people were coerced into taking jabs, not merely “recommended”. You continue to deny that the Nuremberg code of medical ethics has been breached.

And you continue to violate your very own code with your servile phrase “relevant authorities”. You yourself, for many decades, before you degenerated into what you are now, railed against the supposed ‘authority’ of ‘relevant’ voices. You yourself highlighted the groupthink of the “relevant authorities” - NYT, Washington Post, BBC, Guardian, etc.

It seems that the reason why you can’t see that is because you persist in your religious faith of scientism. You can see how dangerous groupthink can grip the political establishment regarding foreign policy (e.g. Ukraine, right now), but your religious faith in science blinds you to that possibility with the medical establishment.

“Same errors you made before” (to borrow your own trite words), “just logic”; and, again, it is stunning to see the world’s most famous logician failing miserably at … logic.

You persist with the same line (delusion) about what the evidence shows. My suggestion is that you start backtracking on that line because, whenever the truth about the global crimes (e.g. covid jabbing) currently underway becomes widely apparent to ordinary people, then, whilst you won’t be as culpable officially as any Health Minister (e.g. Matt Hancock in the UK) because you are merely a commentator, not policy-maker, ‘pitchforks’ will nevertheless be pointed in your direction because, given your global status, you will be seen as one of the major propagandists supporting the criminals, e.g. the mafia family called ‘Pfizer’.

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, April 27th, 2023 at 5:34 AM, Chomsky, Noam wrote:

Same error you made before. For any medical procedure or medicine, the more it is used, the more there will be evidence of harmful effects. That’s just logic.

The relevant question is the ratio of success vs harm. Here the evidence continues to mount overwhelmingly demonstrating efficacy. That’s why vaccines are recommended universally by relevant authorities.
From: Rippon
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:40 AM
To: Chomsky, Noam
Subject: [EXT]potential criminality on your part
External Email

Dear Mr Chomsky,

I wish to draw to your attention to this extract from an article here in the UK:

while the Online Safety Bill and the consequences of it will mark a concerning shift toward criminalising dissent and eroding our fundamental right to freedom of speech, it will also allow the courts to do something many people in this country have been demanding for the past few years.

Because what Matt Hancock (former UK Health Secretary), who orchestrated the cruel and criminal premature deaths of the elderly and vulnerable during the alleged pandemic, doesn’t realise, is that if his demand is made law, he himself could face prison time because he has been spreading propaganda, lies, misinformation and disinformation about the Covid-19 vaccines since December 2020.

/full article here:

This relates to a point I tried to make to you in our previous discussion:
You too need to be careful what you say about ‘covid’ and the ‘pandemic’ and ‘vaccines’; because the political climate around these matters is shifting (in light of the increasing recognition of the harm being done by the jabs), and it might shift so much that you yourself might become recognised as the ugly (possibly criminal) propagandist (e.g. for big-pharma) that you have become.

You have had plenty of opportunity to learn from the dissident literature (with plenty of direct links provided to you) around vaccines, covid, covid-jabs and the Great Reset; and for someone of your scholarly credentials, that would have been quite a trivial task. You made a deliberate, perhaps calculated, choice not to do so.


Amazing to see he is still paraphrasing Pfizer ‘research’, and seemingly astonished at how viruses mutate.

Hey Rippon great that you were able to confront him so that he had to defend his position, so that we could all see his basic assumptions. Chomsky the supposed anarchist is articulating the authoritarian technocratic philisophy: the experts should rule. He’s a technocrat himself so he’s simply defending his class. Just as with Big Tobacco, with the covid vaxx you will have plenty of ‘scientific evidence’ to support your position, though you rightly point out other scientific studies, the majority at this point no doubt are ‘scientifically’ pro vax.

Also the constant moralizing tone and accusations are typical of technocracy, that’s how the justify it, and market it. You’re going to kill everybody because you are ‘on the side of’ global warming, climate change, anti vaxxers. It’s really a shitty tactic. The maskers angry at those not wearing the mask are simply repeating Chomsky and BigPharma/State marketing.

The ‘ratio’ he simply ‘assumes’ is true and uses it to justify whipping you with ‘killer’ accusations. Kudos for sticking with the exchange!

Chomsky’s defense for not considering alt theories for sept 11th is another aspect of his technocracy: he ‘cannot look into it because he is not an expert in building demolition’.

This solidifies my opinion that the real threat for humanity is technocracy and technocrats, clearly Chomksy’s self righteousness is extreme, but it’s typical for technocrats. We are not experts, we should bow down to the experts, to do what the experts say, to support their privileges, their power. Chomsky wants us to be slaves to the technocracy, and the technocracy will justify it with Chomsky’s ‘logic’: you want to kill millions by your refusal to obey our ‘science based’ rules!


What Everyman says.

Indeed Chomsky is not ‘expert’ in medicine or buildings. But he is highly accomplished in the interpretation of established untruths by those who know better.

The vaccines are to flatten the curve. They are to protect the vulnerable. The vaccines will stop transmission - you won’t even get the virus! (Fauci, TV doctors, Rachael Maddow, Biden). The vaccine administers harmless spike proteins! They stay in your arm! They’re gone in a couple of days!
The vaccines have been subject to the usual standards of testing, the utmost rigour! (Just you wait 75 years, you’ll see).
The…press releases are overwhelming!
etc etc.

Another sad thing about this is that Chomsky is betraying his own legacy, with a vengeance.

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to seek the truth and expose lies”

He has changed this slightly:

“Trust the liars.”

Well done on persevering, Rippon. Chomsky is not going to connect with evidence anytime soon.


I’ve no idea if this is true, but some claim that Chomsky is on the passenger manifest for numerous flights to Epstein island (just about everyone else was)

Apparently these passenger manifests are still available online.

It might be a hit job. Thesedays it’s very hard to tell what is true and what is not.

Not true as far as I can tell. Have nearly a thousand names as contacts and probably 150 names for flight logs. Noam Chomsky is in neither.



The relevant question is the ratio of success vs harm. Here the evidence continues to mount overwhelmingly demonstrating efficacy. That’s why war is recommended universally by relevant authorities.

A couple of weeks ago we learned Chomsky was hanging out with Epstein, who seemed to be a go between also for Chomsky to have dinner with Woody Allen.

Now we learn Epstein was ‘moving money’, $270,000, for Chomsky. At no charge. No explanation why Noam didn’t do it ‘the normal way’ (ie talk to his bank).

Very strange!

1 Like