Many years ago (when I was a younger man), I would be thrilled to get a reply from the great Chomsky.
But now, I was relieved to stop hearing from him. His utterances became increasingly tiresome and ugly. I might revisit the books of his that, in my youth, impressed me so much. My hunch is that one might find hints to the ugly character that lurks beneath the ostensible man of morality. My hunch is that exactly that applied to Christopher Hitchens. I suspect the only difference will be that Chomskyâs dark side was more deeply hidden than Hitchensâ.
Here is how our exchange ended:
Another logical nonsense - to expect a âdedicated killerâ to apologise; like the nonsense of expecting immoral people (jab refuseniks) to act decently (isolate themselves from society voluntarily).
Nevertheless, I am ready to meet your demand.
I apologise for making you angry.
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
It is indeed a very serious crisis, but I have no responsibility to waste time with people like you who are trying to make it worse, and who â for whatever reason â are utterly immune to plain fact. Like the fact that unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated ones. That the US has the lowest vaccination rate among the wealthy countries and is the prime hot spot in the world of any functioning society. That in Idaho â to take the state you mention --hospitals have to cancel regular treatments because hospitals are crashing under covid cases, almost all unvaccinated. And on and on.
So to repeat, I have no responsibility to waste time with people unable to comprehend that they are dedicated killers, blind to the overwhelming facts before their eyes.
Period. From now on either apology or the spam file
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
âI have no further responsibilities in this matterâ
This is a very serious global crisis, so the responsibilities of any functioning adult cannot end, certainly not at this point, and probably not for years to come.
By your own logic, your current and ongoing responsibility in the matter of covid misinformation is as follows.
The problem (from your perspective) is that I am not a lone âmoronâ. Millions of people across the world (e.g. Idaho) reject the establishment covid narrative, but you yourself buy that prescription (masks-lockdowns-jabs) as the way forward.
Here are a few bullet points of what the rejection is based on:
-
The jabs are a serious hazard to public health (as âvaccinesâ have always been). The mRNA brands donât even qualify as âvaccinesâ; indeed âgene therapyâ is more accurate. It is extremely reckless to conduct this experiment in brand new biotechnology on the global population.
-
Coercing people into making themselves subjects in a human biology experiment breaches the Nuremberg principles.
-
The danger of covid (even if we accept it as significant and not hyped) is being used for political ends - a reset of the global economy by a globalist hegemony caste; the measures (e.g. lockdowns) are not motivated by a concern for public health but by an agenda to further concentrate power and control within that caste.
From your perspective, that (and much else from the resistance) is dangerous misinformation (worse, it is âmoronicâ âconcoctionsâ âliesâ âbaselessâ âconfusionsâ âblindâ etc).
Therefore, those beliefs must be thoroughly debunked. Since you âfollow the facts closelyâ and command a global audience, you naturally have a special responsibility in that debunking exercise.
Since you âfollow the facts closelyâ you will know the output of the leading dissident scientists (e.g. Dr Mike Yeadon, to name just one). The question to you, again, is:
How did you come to the conclusion that the output of the dissidents (e.g. Yeadon) can be rejected? Perhaps you have read some articles somewhere, from eminent scientists on the other side of the fence, where the dissident output has been addressed and debunked.
I myself have provided references to illustrate why I believe what I do. I am simply asking for better references, which you wonât have missed perhaps because youâre following the covid drama more closely than me. Those better references would do the decent job of addressing and debunking the dissidence, not the indecent job of simply dismissing it as âmoronic blind baseless confused dangerous nonsenseâ. Dismissing and censoring dissidence tends to stimulate more dissidence.
By your own perspective and logic, then, you certainly do have further responsibility in this matter, as follows: Given what a major threat to humanity covid is, your responsibility is to draw upon your âclose following of the factsâ to mitigate the dissidence, not to stimulate an entrenching and expansion of morons embracing dangerous nonsense.
(Again, I feel Iâm borrowing an argument of your very own: âThe Responsbility of Intellectualsâ, written at a time when you were a Chomsky of the Chomsky-type rather than a Chomsky of the Hitchens-type.)
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
I read your letters carefully, refuted each of your claims accurately with no fallacies logical or other.
If you cannot understand, sorry. I have no further responsibilities in this matter
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
Oh dear, a very striking display of logical fallacies packed into a short space - from the worldâs most famous logician, no less.
âScience is not religion.â
Science certainly can be, and has been, a religion on past occasions: eugenics is an obvious example.
You talk as though the science behind the anti-covid measures (masks-lockdowns-jabs) is settled. Regarding masks, you must be aware of the famous Danish study that concluded there was no evidence of their efficacy. Regarding lockdowns, you must be aware of the lack of correlation between severity-of-lockdowns and severity-of-covid across states in America and across countries in the world. And you must be aware of the curious lack of catastrophic covid death across poor countries which did not have the means anyway to implement masks and lockdowns and have been extremely slow off the mark with jabbing.
And that is basically what scientists and medics are arguing about the covid measures - they have indeed become a state religion. Or perhaps a cult, where loyalty to the cult is displayed through the virtue-signalling wearing of a mask in public.
And anti-vax medics and scientists absolutely agree with you about the âoverwhelming correlation between vaccination and radical reduction of [disease]â.
But, as apparently better logicians than yourself, they emphasise the word correlation, which is crucially different to causation.
I reiterate their argument (perhaps you missed it the first time - I have the feeling that you are just skim-reading my emails and speedily, reflexively responding just to what you glean is the gist, with no interest in the substance):
There is no significant evidence that vaccines caused a reduction in disease (e.g. smallpox). Diseases (e.g. smallpox) were rapidly declining anyway, and then a âvaccineâ was introduced; and then the drug companies took credit for the ongoing decline. The decline was caused by vast improvements in sanitation (water quality), nutrition and housing, not by injecting toxins into peopleâs bloodstreams.
That does not mean that a vaccine necessarily has zero medical value for all individuals but, as a population-wide disease-control measure, it is madness. As a man of mature years, a glass of red wine every evening could be very beneficial to my health, but it would be madness to prescribe, therefore, a daily dose of alcohol to the whole population of mature men or, worse, men, women and children - exactly what the âscienceâ proposes regarding covid.
I think youâre familiar with Shiva Ayyadurai. Heâs a biophysicist. He argues that the administration of âvaccinesâ alone highlights their nonsense: people come in a massive variety of ages, shapes, sizes, gender, ethnicity and health, but a vaccine is exactly the same medication for every person on the planet.
âYou can find a few scientists who question the best established theories.â
That, if anything, is argument in my favour, not one against me. That is how science moves forward, by the nudge from a few dissenting voices. Science is not democracy, where a theory triumphs through majority-vote; but it certainly can be a religion, when the herd starts singing in unison, and a major cause for concern when both scientists and state-corporate power are doing that; and, indeed, that is why many are comparing our trajectory, now, to Nazi Germany.
Another logical fallacy (actually at the level of a child - failing to distinguish between a question and a statement): I did not âspoutâ any âlieâ about internment camps. I asked the question: When you advocate segregation of covid-jab refuseniks, would you consider internment camps a measure worthy of consideration? (because of course itâs nonsense to expect immoral people to behave decently and segregate themselves voluntarily)
Iâm enjoying my growing collection of descriptors from you: âblindâ, âconfusionsâ, âpeddlingâ, âbaselessâ, âmisguidedâ, âincapableâ, âevasionsâ, âmoronicâ, âconcoctedâ, âworld class fraudâ, âoutright lieâ.
âWorld class fraudâ is particularly amusing. I just about manage a reputation in such a small circle as my workplace. You, on the other hand, certainly do have a âworld classâ reputation, so youâre the only one of the two of us for whom itâs even possible to be a âworld class fraudâ.
Your colourful language aside, I would be interested to get your reaction/feedback to any of the references I provided. But, again, it seems youâre only interested in what you glean is my gist rather than any substance from any dissenting scientists/medics.
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
Science is not religion. You can find a few scientists who question the best established theories. In this case there is virtually no one so utterly irrational as to question the overwhelming correlation between vaccination and radical reduction of infection, spread, and of course pool for mutation.
If you have one honest bone in your body, go to Idaho, Alabama, and the other places where hospitals are overwhelmed with covid cases, virally all unvaccinated, and peddle your wares to the desperate nurses, doctors and other care workers trying to cope with the flood.
And if you are really dedicated to the task of demonstrating yourself to be a world class fraud, by all means continue to spout what you know to be an outright lie about internment camps.
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
ârefusal to vaccinate is not only causing great harm but is providing a great opportunity for the virus to mutate with possible catastrophic consequencesâ
There are many highly qualified, even eminent, scientists saying the exact opposite. For example:
-
the mass-jabbing is driving the mutations
-
the danger of covid is being massively hyped because none of the stats can be trusted; even the creator of the PCR test said itâs not fit for this purpose; even health authorities admit that there is a massively false positive rate; there is big pressure on medics to classify deaths with covid as deaths from covid
-
the jabs will precipitate catastrophic consequences when the timebomb of adverse reactions (up to and including death) goes off; even now, info and stats on adverse reactions (including death) are being heavily suppressed
Of course I appreciate that you consider such assertions âdangerousâ âmoronicâ ânonsenseâ.
My question is,
How did you reach the conclusion that the scientists who sing the same tune as government and big-pharma (advocating masks-lockdowns-jabs) have done the science correctly and all the dissident scientists have got it wrong?
(I wonât ask again my question about internment camps for jab-refuseniks again because youâve had plenty of opportunties but confirmed your determination to evade that one.)
It seems that the scale of covid-jab-refusal is high in many places (e.g. Idaho, as you mention). Therefore, from the perspective of pro-vaxxers (e.g. yourself), it is important to understand and address the science arguments that are being âpeddledâ in opposition to the state-corporate narrative, because it is the voices of scientists and medics that are leading the dissent (not because they are natural leaders but because people take the voices of experts seriously).
You have repeatedly advised me that I should debate this publicly, and you have thus, unwittingly, highlighted another major problem with the covid drama:
The public debate is impossible - because it is extremely heavily censored on all media, e.g. Facebook, YouTube.
You have said you have âno time or interestâ in understanding the dissident position, but I will give you some references anyway - because Iâm not sure you know your own mind because you have also said you donât have time for me but then keep making more time for me.
The heavy censorship on YouTube has catalysed the emergence of alternative platforms. You might like to spend some time here:
You might like to look (e.g. on brandnewtube) at output from any of the following (a small sample of leading dissident voices, in no particular order). You presumably think itâs urgent that the dangerous nonsense is debunked asap, but the problem with the rude dismissive approach (as exemplified by your own colourful language) is that that always catalyses more dissidence, which, to your mind, could cause âcatastrophic consequencesâ. (Iâm surprised to find myself saying all this stuff to you, Mr Chomsky, because you used to be a dissident yourself. Iâm reminded again of Christopher Hitchens, who also made the journey from radical dissident to chorister of the state narrative.)
-
Dr Mike Yeadon
-
Prof Luc Montagnier
-
Dr Andrew Wakefield
-
Prof Dolores Cahill
-
Dr Judy Mikovits
-
Dr Vernon Coleman
-
Catherine Austin Fitts
-
Joseph Mercola
-
WorldDoctorsAlliance
-
BarringtonDeclaration
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dissolving-Illusions-Suzanne-Humphries-ebook/dp/B00E7FOA0U/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unreported-Truths-About-Covid-19-Lockdowns/dp/1953039146/ref=sr_1_1
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
I take the view of anyone capable of looking at the very clear facts demonstrating that vaccination radically reduces infection, contagion, and death, and who understands that refusal to vaccinate is not only causing great harm but is providing a great opportunity for the virus to mutate with possible catastrophic consequences.
All of this is trivially obvious, and I canât spend any more time with someone so utterly blinded by ideological extremism that heâs incapable of looking at obvious facts.
What you should obviously be doing is going to places like Idaho, where adopting your beliefs has led to such overflowing of hospitals by the unvaccinated that by now all medical care has to be rationed. And you should be explaining to the desperate nurses, doctors and other care workers that they should stop vaccinations.
When youâve done that, publish their responses. Weâll all be interested.
Thatâs what you would surely do if you believed in what youâre saying. If you donât,âŚ
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
âEveryone agrees that fortifying childrenâs health comes first.â
Therein lies the crux of the issue. The first thing we propose to do about childrenâs health is jab them (ostensibly) to protect them from covid, which poses near-zero risk to them anyway, when the first thing we should do is fortify their health (clean air, clean water, clean food) so that they can shrug off covid even more easily than they already do.
You apparently take the state-corporate view of medicine that medical interventions (e.g. jabs) should be embraced rather than avoided.
I reiterate: we (e.g. UK, USA) could have spent the last year stamping on the corporations that weaken peopleâs health and immunity rather than stamping on citizens (e.g. lockdowns).
Your âsafe spacesâ phrase actually evokes an analogous debate, the one regarding dangerous triggering debates on college campuses. Some argue that visiting-speakers with dangerous views should be banned for the sake of preserving a âsafe spaceâ for (delicate) students. The counter-argument is: No, students should be fortified intellectually so that they can defend themselves against odious arguments rather than protected from them.
My position is indeed public, and Iâm now aware of your public position - basically the diametric opposite of mine; for example, I donât regard covid-jab refuseniks a danger to public health to whom we should therefore apply a policy of apartheid; but I am persuaded by the thousands of medical experts who regard the covid jabs as a danger, e.g. as a timebomb of blood-clots, ADE and other serious/lethal adverse reactions.
You say that you donât think discussing covid (or vaccines generally) with me is worthwhile but, at the same time, you apparently think it is worthy of your time because you keep replying. (I myself will happily continue talking to anyone who is happy to keep talking to me.)
I wonder if you will still evade this simple fundamental question:
Since it is logical nonsense to expect indecent people (jab refuseniks) to behave decently (segregate themselves from society), then what measures do you consider tenable? For example, should internment camps be considered?
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
Iâve grasped perfectly. Everyone agrees that fortifying childrenâs health comes first. No need to push that open door.
Since you oppose general safe spaces in schools from polio, measles, smallpox,âŚ, and presumably think this has some importance, then make your position public and discuss it with anyone who thinks itâs worthwhile to do so. Donât bother me.
Of course youâre concocting arguments. Namely, the one you falsely attributed to advocates of vaccine mandates in school.
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
You apparently havenât grasped what Iâve said (or I havenât been clear enough), so Iâll try again:
âProtectingâ children is the wrong starting-point. Fortifying their innate health (e.g. their immune system) is the correct starting point. Protecting should only be a strategy for those children where fortifying fails. For example, you might want to protect them through isolation from the population and/or through a vaccine jab to boost their immunity.
For your part, come out and say so (instead of evading): Do you consider internment camps an appropriate measure for anti-vaxxers who will not have the decency to segregate themselves? If not that, what measures would be appropriate?
I have not concocted any arguments. I have relayed arguments from scientists and medics who refute the narrative of establishment-science. Like you, I am not a scientist of disease and infection so, again like you, I would never write any articles myself on the subject.
You apparently believe in the safety and efficacy of the covid jabs, but you havenât posted any articles explaining the scientific basis for that (because, like me, that is not a specialism of yours), and you havenât scientifically explained, or pointed to any such explanation of, why the warnings of many scientists about the covid-jabs are unfounded, e.g. the warning that the jabbing is driving the emergence of variants.
You say, âmandates have long been instituted to provide safe spaces for children where theyâll be protected from polio, measles, etc.â, and this reveals a basic tension/contradiction from those who endorse the deployment of jabs (covid and others). It is actually, effectively, an anti-vax argument because the traditional justification for jabbing people is to provide them with immunity and protect them from an infected person next to them on the train. The mandating of safe-spaces means that pro-vaxxers (e.g. yourself) have moved on from their traditional faith in âvaccinesâ: pro-vaxxers no longer believe that jabs protect from infection (which actually concurs with the anti-vax position), but merely reduce suffering - hence the need to mandate safe-spaces because the jabbed themselves donât believe their jab has protected them
That major shift is worthy of much debate, so the debate is far from âoverâ, as you would apparently have it.
Putting the science aside, my primary interest is in the political dimension to the covid drama, where you have revealed another tension/contradiction in your position.
You say Iâm âentirely freeâ to peddle dangerous nonsense, and my understanding (from your words over past decades) is that you actually think itâs vital that people are free to do that because otherwise we donât have free speech. I think I can even quote you practically verbatim: âIf you believe in free speech then you must allow people to espouse views that you hate, not just views that you like, otherwise you donât have free speech.â
And here is the tension/contradiction in your new position: now you say that society should segregate anti-vaxxers. That means, then, that you donât want them to be âentirely freeâ to peddle dangerous nonsense, views that you hate.
Your last two sentences are bizarre. No ârequiredâ level of politeness has been set by either of us, so you should feel no need to hold back - if, say, expletives is what you have felt like using in response to my âdangerousâ âmoronicâ âliesâ âconfusionâ and âconcoctedâ ânonsenseâ (incidentally, it is, again, striking that a logician apparently thinks that colourful language adds weight to his argument). And what is the âitâ in your last sentence (âItâs overâ)? The debate about covid is certainly not over; and debate about âvaccinesâ is certainly not over - it has been raging for the last couple of centuries.
Maybe the âitâ refers to your capacity to continue engaging with me. I respect that: we all have limited time and energy and have to decide where to expend them. If that is the case, then thank you for engaging at this much length - very generous of you, especially when the other person is spouting âdangerousâ âmoronicâ âliesâ âconfusionâ and âconcoctedâ ânonsenseâ.
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
Perfectly clear. What you wrote is correct: âThat vaccine mandates in schools is longstanding practice is irrelevant unless your point is that that feature (longstanding) substantiates the veracity of the practice. My counterpoint (which I have actually borrowed from you) is that the longevity of a practice (e.g. slavery) tells us nothing about the correctness of it.â
Perfectly correct, which is why no one has given the moronic argument that you concocted⌠Rather, the mandates have long been instituted to provide safe spaces for children where theyâll be protected from polio, measles, etc.
If youâre opposed to that, come out and say so, instead of hiding behind inventions.
Much of the rest is also correct. Children should have healthy lives.
And youâre entirely free to peddle the dangerous nonsense that youâve picked up from sources that are totally refuted by massive evidence.
Not my business. If you honestly believe what youâre saying, youâll write or at least post articles about it. Iâve been more polite than required. Itâs over
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
I donât know what part of what Iâve said that youâre saying âCorrectâ to.
To âprotectâ children from disease is the wrong starting point; indeed, it is a large part of the very basis upon which the whole of western medicine (which is failing miserably) is conceived.
The misconception is that good health stems from the intervention of doctors (e.g. surgery), drugs and vaccines.
The correct starting point is that children should be fortified against disease. That requires healthy inputs to the body - clean air, clean water, clean food. The notion of âprotectionâ should only apply to those whose bodies, for whatever reason (e.g. weak natural immunity), are too weak to withstand infection.
I think youâre aware of Ivan Illichâs perspective on the professions - that they primarily serve themselves rather than their clients. The problem for doctors and drug-companies is that, if government was serious about public health, then their role would be minimal and there would be no money to be made.
What I am âpeddlingâ is certainly not baseless. I think you accept that there is indeed a large body of material (books, documentaries, etc) that does indeed provide a big base to what Iâm saying.
So what you really mean is that you reject the material that forms the base of what Iâm saying, rather than meaning that what I say is âbaselessâ.
Here, then, is the problem for you in political philosophy terms:
There is a view of medicine and how to promote public health that is diametrically opposed to the state narrative. âAnti-vaxâ is a component of that view.
You have always espoused (as far as Iâm aware) that truth should not be left to the state to determine, that competing views should be allowed, otherwise we have fascism.
It seems, then, that medical truth is a stumbling block for you. The belief that âvaccinesâ constitute fraudulent dangerous âmedicineâ should effectively be outlawed.
Here is the evasion on your part: since it is logical nonsense to expect âindecentâ people (those who reject vaccines) to behave âdecentlyâ (segregate themselves from society), then, to be not evasive, you should say what measures for the âindecentâ you think are tenable, e.g. internment camps.
Your âno time or interestâ is in this respect:
You concede that there is indeed a large body of scientific literature that debunks (or, professes to debunk, from your perspective) the state propaganda on covid. That is why you say it would need âunravellingâ - because thereâs a lot of it. You have âno time or interestâ in that exercise. Presumably your reason is because you feel convinced that such a big exercise would simply result in the foregone conclusion that the dissident scientists are simply mired in blindness, confusion and lies; and therefore the âunravellingâ would prove to have been a big waste of your time and effort.
But hereâs the problem âŚ
You happen to be dangerously wrong.
You have been very right for many decades about state propaganda regarding military aggression (and other crimes of state).
Your strong position, e.g. on Iraq, exposed the true nature of others. The Iraq invasion was a defining moment for Christopher Hitchens. He started life as a radical leftie, but at the time of the Iraq invasion, he mutated into a staunch defender of state propaganda that obfuscated war crimes. In his mind, he effectively outlawed diametrically opposed views by branding opponents of the invasion as traitors and collaborators in mass-murder (by Saddam) - not fit to be members of civilised society (just like your own smear of anti-vaxxers).
Covid is apparently your âHitchens-momentâ, where you, similarly, have mutated into a staunch defender of state-propaganda, endorsing masks-lockdowns-jabs. Your style of argument eerily echoes Hitchens: you basically just assert, repeatedly, loudly, that those who reject the âscienceâ regarding covid jabs are too stupid and dangerous to be part of civilised society. You are keeping Hitchensâ torch of bulldog exchange (belligerent unsubstantiated assertions instead of reasoned argument) alive. It seems Noam Chomsky is Christopher Hitchens for the 2020s.
From: "Chomsky, Noam
To: "rippon
Correct. If you think itâs wrong to protect children from polio, measles,⌠then come out and say so. Donât hide behind evasions.
The rest is mostly lies and confusion. You, not me, are obviously the one not interested in the covid drama and the people suffering from it. If you were interested you wouldnât be peddling baseless notions that would cause great harm if they were public and some misguided people would take then seriously â as in fact is happening, as is plain to anyone capable of looking at the dramatic evidence on vaccination and infection.
From: rippon
To: Chomsky, Noam
That vaccine mandates in schools is longstanding practice is irrelevant unless your point is that that feature (longstanding) substantiates the veracity of the practice.
My counterpoint (which I have actually borrowed from you) is that the longevity of a practice (e.g. slavery) tells us nothing about the correctness of it.
You have succinctly summarised the basis for your position on the covid drama: âno time or interestâ
Thank you, then, for indulging me this much on questions about which you have no time or interest.
If you ever do acquire any interest in any analyses that divert from the government-BigPharma line, then you could continue reading this email âŚ
There is tonnes of evidence for the alternative strategy to protect people from viral infections:
The primary cause of all illness is the toxicity of our air, water and food. The solution, then, would have been to spend a year clamping down on the corporations that are responsible for that, rather than a year clamping down on citizens (e.g. lockdowns).
Processed food (e.g. processed sugar), consumed on a massive scale, does a particularly good job of weakening peopleâs natural immunity.
There is between zero and near-zero evidence in the history of medicine that âvaccinesâ have made a significant contribution to public health. Various diseases, e.g. smallpox, were already in rapid decline before the introduction of any âvaccineâ. Then the drug companies introduced a âvaccineâ and stole the credit for the ongoing decline of disease.
The reason for the rapid decline in disease was due to the political and engineering professions, certainly not the medical profession or drug companies, that reason being vast improvements in sanitation, nutrition and housing.
The body of articles, books, etc from medics and scientists who debunk vaccines and, indeed, most of modern medicine is so large that it would be tedious to list a reasonable portion of it, and a waste of time anyway to do so for someone who has âno time or interestâ and prefers to dismiss the perspective of dissidents as âconfusionsâ of the âblindâ.
<earlier messages deleted to meet 5-filters message length limit>
) use of choice insults in lieu of substance and appeals to authority. Heâd be in the sin bin here, probably banned by now 
