Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper

Author Topic: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper  (Read 20343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« on: January 19, 2009, 06:26:42 PM »
Concerning Noam Chomsky...

He is a total f**king asshole piece of shit NWO controlled opposition traitorous elite scumbag.

He also is the most likely suspect in the execution of Pat Tillman.  If you ever want to get suicided, just find out some hardcore info about the NWO and put your trust in Noam Chomsky.

AJ interviews Chomsky parts 1-5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXFX8bM6s8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctZBtf9Y4f4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aygXdCsYO5s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwjK07gEpCM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0APTn1EPg9E&feature=related

"I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar."

Noam's M.O. is to blame the founding fathers and the structures of the United States for problems.  He is following the communist playbook hook line and sinker.  The reason why there is popular support of this is because of international banking and royal family elites that control 99.9% of what we hear, see, and read.  He just blames the founation of America and never talks about the illegal federal reserve, the circumvention of the constitution, the occupation of this country by a foreign threat, etc.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline spangler

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,741
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2009, 06:41:06 PM »
I appreciate the post, and Noam often writes about something that is not in the main stream.

But...

He is a total f**king asshole piece of shit NWO controlled opposition traitorous elite scumbag.

He also is the most likely suspect in the execution of Pat Tillman.  If you ever want to get suicided, just find out some hardcore info about the NWO and put your trust in Noam Chomsky.

I hear you Sane.

I almost wrote a disclaimer at the beginning of this post dealing with Chomsky's liabilities.

It was my hope that we could separate chaff from grain on him here, although you are perfectly correct in pointing out his serious shortcomings.

I was, and am, willing to forgive all that (for now) because he is so good on this issue. The plight of the Gazans is more important than Chomsky's flaws imo and I am willing to sacrifice on one account to gain another, more urgent one.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2009, 06:46:42 PM »
I hear you Sane.

I almost wrote a disclaimer at the beginning of this post dealing with Chomsky's liabilities.

It was my hope that we could separate chaff from grain on him here, although you are perfectly correct in pointing out his serious shortcomings.

I was, and am, willing to forgive all that (for now) because he is so good on this issue. The plight of the Gazans is more important than Chomsky's flaws imo and I am willing to sacrifice on one account to gain another, more urgent one.

Yeah, but you almost have to identify the disinfo or people take the poison with the food.  I think as long as people realize that his NWO role is to bash the foundations of America then they may be able to separate shit from shinola.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline spangler

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,741
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2009, 06:53:25 PM »
Yeah, but you almost have to identify the disinfo or people take the poison with the food.
 
You're right. You do have to guide people through gatekeepers like Chomsky. Very prudent of you to make clear that he does in fact pose a danger on a number of other scores.

Quote
I think as long as people realize that his NWO role is to bash the foundations of America then they may be able to separate shit from shinola.

I think they will too and that's why we're here  :)

Maybe someday we'll have it in us to put up a Gatekeepers' section on this forum to help people read these pied pipers properly.

Offline grapecrusher1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2009, 07:00:50 PM »
I appreciate the post, and Noam often writes about something that is not in the main stream.

But...

He is a total f**king asshole piece of shit NWO controlled opposition traitorous elite scumbag.


First of all have you ever seen manufacturing consent?
secondly do you think your outburst is appropriate?
thirdly did you fully read what was written? (It took me a couple times because he is comprehensive)
fourthly have you just assumed what your "leader" is telling you is absolutely correct about chomsky?  -- after all he has been arguing vigourously for the "right side" since the beginning of time (you can watch debates from the early seventies)
Listen I have my reservations too but his voice has been morally rectifying through decades of vacuum.  


"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2009, 07:48:32 PM »
First of all have you ever seen manufacturing consent?


huh?

Quote
secondly do you think your outburst is appropriate?


When it comes to Chomsky?  ABSOLUTELY!

Quote
thirdly did you fully read what was written? (It took me a couple times because he is comprehensive)

Yes, I even quoted part of it above.

Quote
fourthly have you just assumed what your "leader" is telling you is absolutely correct about chomsky?

What leader?    

Quote
-- after all he has been arguing vigourously for the "right side" since the beginning of time (you can watch debates from the early seventies)

I have watched his debates from the seventies.  He was a snot nosed ego maniac back in the seventies and now he is a full fledged NWO control op. If you look back at my posts (not recommended unless you have a few weeks of free time), you will see that I have even posted his debates from the seventies on this forum.

Quote
Listen I have my reservations too but his voice has been morally rectifying through decades of vacuum.  

I have no idea what that means.


--------------

Look, there are few people that I completely go off on.  I do not do this concerning naive intellectuals that mistaken situations and are just not aware.

Noam Chomsky is a full fledged agent.  A complete anti-freedom fighter.  He has been doing this shit for over 30 years and it is really aweful.  He knows everything about false flag terrorism, controlled opposition, the constitution, and the declaration of independence.  Instead of defending this country that has given him so much, he actively fights against it by collapsing theories and spreading disinformation concerning liberty and freedom.  It is disgraceful and I will expose the bullshit.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline grapecrusher1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2009, 08:26:48 PM »

huh?

Your answer for point one and two are quite adolescent and pitiful given your position.  "Absolutely" I justify my childish tirade attack on Chomsky-- you say.  Yet you dont address the commentary at hand  and just dismiss it because you have made your decision about chomsky because your leader has and you are his minion.  Right?   No matter how accurate and morally right Chomsky is?

Where do yo u get this snot nosed ego maniac from?  once again such a stupid thing to say about a man who is a monolith of knowledge.  The man speaks like an encyclopedia reads!


Straightforward question, albeit the easiest one.  Have you seen Manufacturing Consent?  Yeah me too and it was done a long time ago. way before either of us were conscious probably.  So the boy says "he is an agent, he disagrees with the notion of the elite in power, he must be a part of it."  Because chomsky doesnt espouse the NWO concept doesnt mean he is their agent.  Get a grip, think critically on your own and write with more maturity.  People seem way more intelligent when they dont punch the expletives in. 

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2009, 08:39:32 PM »
I'll be straight foward. That article doesn't mention anything about who's money created Isreal, although it goes through a whitewashed history of it. It does not mention Lord David de Rothschild nor does it mention that Israel is a pawn as the US is now a pawn. It seeks to blame Zionism when in actuality Zionism is another tool of the elites to create war. They are not Zionests, they are Lucifer Worshippers.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2009, 10:01:09 PM »
Your answer for point one and two are quite adolescent and pitiful given your position.  "Absolutely" I justify my childish tirade attack on Chomsky-- you say.  Yet you dont address the commentary at hand  and just dismiss it because you have made your decision about chomsky because your leader has and you are his minion.  Right?   No matter how accurate and morally right Chomsky is?

Where do yo u get this snot nosed ego maniac from?  once again such a stupid thing to say about a man who is a monolith of knowledge.  The man speaks like an encyclopedia reads!


Straightforward question, albeit the easiest one.  Have you seen Manufacturing Consent?  Yeah me too and it was done a long time ago. way before either of us were conscious probably.  So the boy says "he is an agent, he disagrees with the notion of the elite in power, he must be a part of it."  Because chomsky doesnt espouse the NWO concept doesnt mean he is their agent.  Get a grip, think critically on your own and write with more maturity.  People seem way more intelligent when they dont punch the expletives in. 



"Yet you dont address the commentary at hand  and just dismiss it because you have made your decision about chomsky because your leader has and you are his minion."

What commentary at hand, Chomsky is a piece of f**king shit.  What leader are you speaking of? Why are you being so cryptic?  Who is this enigma of a leader you allude to?

Noamy uses his intellectual abilities to dissuade millions from seeing the true masters of war.  He blames the founding fathers for the genocides caused by Rothschild/Rockefeller/Beatrix/CFR/Bilderberg.

Please educate yourelf on this manipulator and controler of opposition to tyranny:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml

More truth about this piece of shit:

http://drewnathan.blogspot.com/2007/02/noam-chomsky-and-his-fake-liberation.html
My favorite quote: "Noam Chomsky has infected otherwise good minds with false solutions and strawman arguments. He blithely ignores a litany of counter-evidence and refuses to entertain anything that doesn’t fit in his small box of corporate corruption and an abrasive militarization."

More truth about how he has been scapegoating the true masters of war concerning Israeli-Palestinian relations for almost 3 decades:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article143519.html
My favorite quote: "In the field of US-Israel-Palestine relations he has been a virtual human tsunami, washing like a huge wave over genuine scholarly works in the field that contradict his critical positions on the Middle East, namely that Israel serves a strategic asset for the US and that the Israeli lobby, primarily AIPAC, is little more than a pressure group like any other trying to affect US policy in the Middle East. For both of these positions, as I will show, he offers only the sketchiest of evidence and what undercuts his theory he eliminates altogether."

Also inside, the history of his zionist roots (how interesting)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No matter how accurate and morally right Chomsky is?"

Chomsky is a part of a monolithic luciferian cult called the New World Order.  He has no morals, ethics, and no soul.  He uses naive quasi-intellectuals and disenfranchised patriots to plant seeds of anti-American sentiment throughout this country and others.  He is helping the NWO to destroy the very foundation of this country and I will discuss it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Where do yo u get this snot nosed ego maniac from?  once again such a stupid thing to say about a man who is a monolith of knowledge.  The man speaks like an encyclopedia reads! "

Here is the snot nosed egomaniac debating another egomaniac in the 1969.  They do not offer 1/100th of the truth that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. exposed and they are completely void of any emotion concerning the genocide of millions.  They simply go back and forth with an unwinable dialog so that the aufdience can be mezmerized with the complexity of the stuation.  It is an extremely effective NWO/CFR/Bildreberg method of controlling opposition to genocide.  THe obvious answer to any genocide is STOP!  But these master of war apologists make is so confusing that people are paralyzed to focus their energies against it.

Of course these two puppets engaged in this debate a full 5 years after MLK gave his stellar speech, Why I oppose the War in Vietnam (true patriotism and true bravery-he was executed a year to the day after giving that speech).  And they could not muster the same obvious necessity to end the genocide immediately. BTW-happy MLK day!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Straightforward question, albeit the easiest one.  Have you seen Manufacturing Consent?  Yeah me too and it was done a long time ago. way before either of us were conscious probably."

I do not remember seeing "Manufactured Consent" (I finally figured out that you were talking about a documentary).  I probably have in the past, but like I said, I do not remember.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"So the boy says "he is an agent, he disagrees with the notion of the elite in power, he must be a part of it."  Because chomsky doesnt espouse the NWO concept doesnt mean he is their agent.  Get a grip, think critically on your own and write with more maturity.  People seem way more intelligent when they dont punch the expletives in."

That is not where I based my opinion!  I based it on examining the past 30 years of dissenting voices to media lies and seeing that Noam has been put on an alter to control opposition.  He is completely exposed in the links I provided and interviews (have you watched/listened to them?).

Please research this before you become a Chomsky cultist who will never see the obvious insanity of genocide no matter how complex Noam makes it.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline grapecrusher1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2009, 06:41:09 PM »
As far as those links you have sent me -- what a farce.  This is what you have presented as your evidence?  I had thought looking through other threads your critical thinking skills were up to speed.  We seem to agree on a fair bit including that "representative being from the Illuminati" enlightening ATS. 
But as far as your sources ---the first is credibly weak, the second is a blog (hah), the third is some online article by some journalist Jeffery Blankfort (a pro-palestinian jew).  He like others (including you) have some axe to grind just like any group of people will criticize their leaders for not doing more, shortcomings, should have done this, blah blah.  Now what do these unknown gibberers say.  Not much really, every one of these damning arguments is feeble and hardly worth confronting   basically they are saying that Chomsky just blames everything on the American Corporate Powers (hmm isnt that the NWO really) instead of the Rothschilds or AIPAC or Israel.  Other inanities include saying he comes from Zionist roots.  I beleive that he did say that -- he grew up in a jewish household in a Philadelphia ghetto during the war and faced pleny of racial tension and now he criticizes israel, what?.  I don't think i saw one quote from his books or writings just verbal quotes and usually partial sentences so things could easily be taken out of context and conjecture is facilitated.  The calibre of these arguments were frail at best.  One guy was dwelling on Chomsky not signing some petition.  Another talked about how chomsky said trade sanctions would not be very effective because they generally harm those that are innocent, exactly.

Sane, Just because it is in print doesn't mean its substantiated or gospel.  Look at how weak some of these arguments are.

My initial irritation was how you just started spouting off about "he is NWO @#$$" with base ad hominem attacks without looking at what he says.  I am unsure why the initial post has disappeared, because it is relevant for that reason.  I by no means think I am an expert on Chomsky nor do I subscribe to his "cult".  I have serious reservations with his position on 911, as I do Zinn, Goodman and other intellectuals.  I have spoken to one of the foremost truth movement people in Canada about this.  I had suggested that Chomsky and co. did not want to marginalize themselves further in their efforts.  This retired professor, who knew chomsky, claimed these academic scholars require highly substantiated evidence when speaking or writing.  There cant be any grey areas because they are working on the fringes and criticizing powerful entities.  They cant start discussing bilderberg etc controlling the world they will get laughed off the stage.  They also have to be very careful look at finkelstein losing his tenure.

You claim to have "studied" this left phenomena for 30 years and yet cant recall the groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent which was fundamental to educating many on propaganda how it works, why it is used, and the fact that it really exists and isnt just for germans and russians.  I have looked over your information, painfully, i would suggest you watch this documentary and really ask yourself if this is an agent working on behalf of satanists.  I guarantee it will hurt your brain less then what has been inflicted upon me and you may enjoy it and gain something.

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2009, 02:27:32 PM »
As far as those links you have sent me -- what a farce.  This is what you have presented as your evidence?  I had thought looking through other threads your critical thinking skills were up to speed.  We seem to agree on a fair bit including that "representative being from the Illuminati" enlightening ATS. 
But as far as your sources ---the first is credibly weak, the second is a blog (hah), the third is some online article by some journalist Jeffery Blankfort (a pro-palestinian jew).  He like others (including you) have some axe to grind just like any group of people will criticize their leaders for not doing more, shortcomings, should have done this, blah blah.  Now what do these unknown gibberers say.  Not much really, every one of these damning arguments is feeble and hardly worth confronting   basically they are saying that Chomsky just blames everything on the American Corporate Powers (hmm isnt that the NWO really) instead of the Rothschilds or AIPAC or Israel.  Other inanities include saying he comes from Zionist roots.  I beleive that he did say that -- he grew up in a jewish household in a Philadelphia ghetto during the war and faced pleny of racial tension and now he criticizes israel, what?.  I don't think i saw one quote from his books or writings just verbal quotes and usually partial sentences so things could easily be taken out of context and conjecture is facilitated.  The calibre of these arguments were frail at best.  One guy was dwelling on Chomsky not signing some petition.  Another talked about how chomsky said trade sanctions would not be very effective because they generally harm those that are innocent, exactly.

Sane, Just because it is in print doesn't mean its substantiated or gospel.  Look at how weak some of these arguments are.

My initial irritation was how you just started spouting off about "he is NWO @#$$" with base ad hominem attacks without looking at what he says.  I am unsure why the initial post has disappeared, because it is relevant for that reason.  I by no means think I am an expert on Chomsky nor do I subscribe to his "cult".  I have serious reservations with his position on 911, as I do Zinn, Goodman and other intellectuals.  I have spoken to one of the foremost truth movement people in Canada about this.  I had suggested that Chomsky and co. did not want to marginalize themselves further in their efforts.  This retired professor, who knew chomsky, claimed these academic scholars require highly substantiated evidence when speaking or writing.  There cant be any grey areas because they are working on the fringes and criticizing powerful entities.  They cant start discussing bilderberg etc controlling the world they will get laughed off the stage.  They also have to be very careful look at finkelstein losing his tenure.

You claim to have "studied" this left phenomena for 30 years and yet cant recall the groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent which was fundamental to educating many on propaganda how it works, why it is used, and the fact that it really exists and isnt just for germans and russians.  I have looked over your information, painfully, i would suggest you watch this documentary and really ask yourself if this is an agent working on behalf of satanists.  I guarantee it will hurt your brain less then what has been inflicted upon me and you may enjoy it and gain something.



Umm, dude, the guy is a self proclaimed zionist.

He diffuses genocides from Vietnam to Gaza.  He is controlled opposition. These are facts.  If you think he is some kind of god of anti-establishment then sign up for his classes.  But his main purpose is to divert truth when really critical awakenings in this country occur.  Some of his greatest achievements were Vietnam, South American, JFK, OK City, Waco, 9/11, Iraq, and the US/UK connections with Israel.  He is a master of deception and very skilled in preventing true knowledge of simple issues like genocide.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2009, 02:46:54 PM »
Where Noam will not roam:

Chomsky manufactures consent,

supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

last update 2008-08-25

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.
 

Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.

The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.

Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.

Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.

Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.

 Chomsky in his own words


9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East | United States | US Foreign Policy

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity (see,http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission. ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

[note: the Complete 9/11 Timeline does not focus on the physical evidence, Chomsky is either ignorant of the issue or steering people into a false dichotomy]

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all – rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a “war without end,” and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now ‘the Americans are in the same fight.’ Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what’s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism – which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor – which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

 Chomsky supports the Warren Commission cover-up


JFK Conspiracy: The Intellectual Dishonesty and Cowardice of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky (Michael Worsham, The Touchstone. Feb 1997) www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm

in early 1969 Mr. Chomsky met with several Kennedy experts and spent several hours looking at and discussing assassination photos. Mr. Chomsky even cancelled several appointments to have extra time. There was a followup meeting with Mr. Chomsky, which also lasted several hours. These meetings were ostensibly to try to do something to reopen the case. According to the Probe article, Mr. Chomsky indicated he was very interested, but had to give the matter careful consideration before committing.
After the meeting, Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, said to the author: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule." According to the author, Mr. Chomsky had given every indication that he believed there was a conspiracy at these meetings. However, Mr. Chomsky never got involved with trying to reopen the case.

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria
www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/sal1web.htm

www.webcom.com/ctka/pr197-left.html

Chomsky and his good friend and soulmate on the JFK case, Alexander Cockburn went on an (orchestrated?) campaign at the time of Stone’s JFK to convince whatever passes for the left in this country that the murder of Kennedy was 1) not the result of a conspiracy, and 2) didn’t matter even if it was. They were given unlimited space in magazines like The Nation and Z Magazine. But, as Howard Zinn implied in a recent letter to Schotz defending Chomsky, these stances are not based on facts or evidence, but on a political choice. They choose not to fight this battle. They would rather spend their time and effort on other matters. When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion.
CTKA believes that this is perhaps the most obvious and destructive example of Schotz’s “denial.” For if we take Chomsky and Cockburn as being genuine in their crusades--no matter how unattractive their tactics--their myopia about politics is breathtaking. For if the assassinations of the ‘60’s did not matter--and Morrisey notes that these are Chomsky’s sentiments—then why has the crowd the left plays to shrunk and why has the field of play tilted so far to the right? Anyone today who was around in the ‘60’s will tell you that the Kennedys, King, and Malcolm X electrified the political debate, not so much because of their (considerable) oratorical powers, but because they were winning. On the issues of economic justice, withdrawal from Southeast Asia, civil rights, a more reasonable approach to the Third World, and a tougher approach to the power elite within the U.S., they and the left were making considerable headway. The very grounds of the debate had shifted to the center and leftward on these and other issues. As one commentator has written, today the bright young Harvard lawyers go to work on Wall Street, in the sixties they went to work for Ralph Nader.
knowing, that our last progressive president was killed in a blatant conspiracy; that a presidentially appointed inquest then consciously covered it up; that the mainstream media like the Post and the Times acquiesced in that effort; that this assassination led to the death of 58,000 Americans and two million Vietnamese; to us that’s quite a consciousness raiser. Chomsky, Cockburn and most of their acolytes don’t seem to think so.
In the ‘80’s, Bill Moyers questioned Chomsky on this point, that the political activism of the ‘60’s had receded and that Martin Luther King had been an integral part of that scene. Chomsky refused to acknowledge this obvious fact. He said it really wasn’t so. His evidence: he gets more speaking invitations today ( A World of Ideas, p. 48). The man who disingenuously avoids a conspiracy in the JFK case now tells us to ignore Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Stern and the rest. It doesn’t matter. ...
... what Probe is trying to do here is not so much explain the reaction, or non-reaction, of the Left to the death of John Kennedy. What we are really saying is that, in the face of that non-reaction, the murder of Kennedy was the first step that led to the death of the Left. That’s the terrible truth that most of these men and organizations can’t bring themselves to state. If they did, they would have to admit their complicity in that result.

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1736367.php 6 May 2005

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.
Ever since the events of 9/11, the American Left and even ultra-Left have been downright fanatical in combating notions that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks or at least had foreknowledge of the events. Lately, this stance has taken a turn towards the irrational.
In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky has made an incredible assertion:

"There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen."

 

[note: The "it would have had to involve a large number of people" claim is a tired cliche that completely ignores the role of compartmentalization in covert operations, something Professor Chomsky has probably read about during his long career.
On the other hand, the "Left Denial" article is generally very good about the strange myopia of the "left" about 9/11, but it is marred by a strange focus on alleged, unprovable assertions of temperature inside the burning towers that supposedly means they were demolished, and most of the web links for additional information are bogus. The "Left Denial" article ignores the evidence about foreknowledge, warnings to insiders, the stock trades on United and American Airlines just before 9/11, the anthrax attacks on the media and the Democrats, the motivation of Peak Oil and creating the pretext for invading the Middle East oil fields, among other issues that have very strong evidence for complicity. These omissions allow the leftists in denial to avoid the issue of complicity. ]

Published on Thursday, October 30, 2003 by Reuters
U.S. Dissident Says Bush Needs Fear for Re-election
by Anthony Boadle

HAVANA - U.S. linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky said on Wednesday that President Bush will have to "manufacture" another threat to American security to win reelection in 2004 after U.S failure in occupying Iraq.
Chomsky, attending a Latin American social sciences conference in Cuba, said that since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration had redefined U.S. national security policy to include the use of force abroad, with or without U.N. approval.
"It is a frightened country and it is easy to conjure up an imminent threat," Chomsky said at the launching of a Cuban edition of a book of interviews published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, when asked how Bush could get reelected.
"They have a card that they can play ... terrify the population with some invented threat, and that is not very hard to do," he said.
After the "disaster" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush could turn his sights on Communist-run Cuba, which his administration officials have charged with developing a biological weapons research program, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of linguistics said.
Chomsky said the military occupation of Iraq, to topple a "horrible monster running it but not a threat to anyone," was a failure.
"The country had been devastated by sanctions. The invasion ended sanctions. The tyrant is gone and there is no outside support for domestic dissidence," he said. "It takes real talent to fail in this endeavor."
Chomsky said it was reasonable to assume the Bush administration would try to "manufacture a short-term improvement in the economy" by incurring in enormous federal government debt and "imposing burdens on future generations."
The Bush administration was a continuation of the Ronald Reagan presidency that declared a national emergency over the threat posed by Nicaragua's leftist government in the 1980s, he said.
"The same people were able to present Grenada as a threat to the survival of the United States the last time they were in office," Chomsky said, in reference to the U.S. invasion of the Caribbean island in 1983 to thwart Cuban influence.

from the archives: Noam Chomsky & JFK
no longer on line?

In January of 2002, Noam Chomsky was asked the following question by an audience member at a speaking engagement for FAIR in New York: "Is there credible evidence that some part of the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?" His answer: "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it." As a matter of fact, the accusation of evidence for USG complicity had been made just days before by former top German minister and widely recognized intelligence expert Andreas von Buelow in an interview with Tagesspiel, adding weight to a number of independent investigations that had already been very effectively raising serious questions for several months. No, not quite an "internet theory."
For those who had spent every spare minute of their time for months studying the issue of 9/11 prior knowledge and discovering the utter absurdity of the official narrative, Chomsky was obviously out to lunch. But, you can't fault him for not being consistent. His attitude, post-9/11, is in many ways a repeat of an episode a decade ago, when he and a handful of other "leftist" figures signed onto a savage establishment media attack on Oliver Stone and his film JFK, which brought an interpretation of the JFK assassination conspiracy to the public. In addition to defending the Warren Commission report's "lone gunman" findings, these anticonspiratorialists made a peculiar far-fetched hedge, claiming that the assassination did not result in any significant changes to US policy or the political power structure, and hence need not concern Left political analysis in the slightest!
Hmmm. Not only have the latter arguments been very soundly demolished by recent (mainstream) historical work, but another recent news item made light of the whole situation, although it slipped by with very little notice during the uproar over Israel's incursion into Palestinian territory last Spring. This was the completion of a top-flight official scientific study of audio recordings from Dealey Plaza, reported in the Washington Post, which finally confirmed the existence of a second gunman at the notorious "grassy knoll" with almost total certainty (repeating the results of a similar study carried out for the House Assassinations Cmte. in the 1970s). So, now science has spoken: those who continue to accept the "lone gunman" findings of the Warren Commission Report are, well, frauds.
Still, a lot of people seem gullible enough to believe that "America's leading intellectual dissident" can be trusted to give them the real scoop on 9/11; his lightweight pamphlet, '9/11', has been a bestseller, becoming for many the default "dissident" view of the "War on Terror". Meanwhile, a number of political scholars and security experts are now openly discussing the very strong evidence suggesting that 9/11 was probably an inside job and the al Qaeda terrorists were setup patsies, with the overwhelmingly critical implication that the trigger for the "War on Terrorism" was a fabricated deception. Chomsky, true to form, seems to pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
There is one piece of documentation, however that Chomsky did seem to find interesting, which he made sure to include in his book's appendix: The US State Department's Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, from the Office of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism.

Noam Chomsky disdains to consider such a conspiracy ("I think such speculations lead us away from issues of prime significance, not towards them . . . Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort."). But I find such a conspiracy from the inside of the U.S. government far more likely than the absurd cartoon which is the official story--made up of physical impossibilities, incapable pilots, hard-drinking Muslims, indestructible passports, et cetera--a cartoon that both Corporate and supposedly "Left" media continue to parrot and thereby promote.
An interview with 9/11 antiwar author Don Paul
By Bob Feldman www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/061303Feldman/061303feldman.html

Michael Parenti on Noam Chomsky and JFK, as a characteristic example of Left anticonspiracism:

Conspiracy Phobia on the Left www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html

Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation (Citizens for the Truth About the Kennedy Assassination, May 1994) www.webcom.com/lpease/media/cockburn.htm

My Beef With Chomsky (Michael Morrissey, Sep 2000) www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/chomcorr.htm
Concerning Chomsky's arrogant evasions of fact and truly bizarre double standards about trusting official sources, in regards to several critical conspiracy issues (including the JFK assassination). Also, he points out Chomsky's change of mind from his keen interest in the JFK assassination in the late 60s, something he doesn't seem to have anything to say about these days.

Rethinking Chomsky (Michael Morrissey, May 1994) www.realhistoryarchives.com/media/chomsky.htm
Rethinking Camelot (Boston: South End Press, 1993) "Noam Chomsky's worst book. I don't think it merits a detailed review, but we should be clear about the stand that 'America's leading intellectual dissident,' as he is often called, has taken on the assassination. It is not significantly different from that of the Warren Commission or the majority of Establishment journalists and government apologists, and diametrically opposed to the view 'widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals' (p. 37) and in fact to the view of the majority of the population."

Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and The Nation (Gary Aguilar, PROBE. Sep 2000) www.webcom.com/ctka/pr900-holland.html
A very detailed and lengthy rebuttal of Max Holland (who has been featured in The Nation) and his defence of the Warren Commission. On the subject of the JFK assassination, Holland is roughly in the same camp as Chomsky and Cockburn.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2009, 02:50:36 PM »
Masters of Deception:

Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and the

9-11 Conspiracy Industry.

by James DeMeo, Ph.D.

http://www.orgonelab.org/MastersOfDeception.htm

16 January 2004

Article submitted to the Carnival of German-American Relations.




The Austrian psychiatrist and 1930s anti-fascist author Wilhelm Reich once noted (I paraphrase) "The Big Lie gets lots of public attention and is carried forward as in a big parade, with many hungry listeners, while the truth must come limping behind on crutches, struggling to catch up, panting with its tongue hanging out." So it appears a similar situation has developed internationally, with respect to historical events during and after World War II, and most especially after the 9-11 terror attacks against the USA. While the reader may be accustomed to believing that Big Lies only originate within "the establishment" or "mainstream", history shows us many examples where little lies which begin far outside the mainstream, over time slowly grow and gain acceptance to become a new "Truth" which at least within a certain variable percentage of the population can hardly be questioned. Both Stalinism and Hitlerism in the 20th Century had such modest origins, eventually leading to the greatest social destructions and genocidal slaughters of recent history. So it seems the first years of the 21st Century offer us yet another set of tempting falsehoods, with large numbers of "hungry listeners". Several articles in mainstream newspapers have recently highlighted one facet of the matter, in the uncritical and eager acceptance of 9-11 conspiracy theories: "Anti-US books find an eager audience among German youth" (Christian Science Monitor, 10 Dec. 2003), "9/11 Conspiracy Theory Books Dominate Debate at Frankfurt Book Fair" (Deutsch Welt, 10 Oct. 2003), "Conspiracy Theories about Sept.11 get Hearings in Germany" (Wall Street Journal, 29 Sept. 2003).(1) While it would be an error to think the problem is only in Germany -- it is not -- the growing acceptance of this particular "non-mainstream" Big Lie is clearly more widespread in Europe and the Middle East than the USA.

For those who are unaware, the 9-11 conspiracy books mentioned in the articles claim, among other over-the-top ideas, that:
* Bush and the CIA, with help from Mossad, organized to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon, either independent from Osama Bin Ladin (OBL) and the various Islamic hijackers, whose names were artificially inserted into the passenger lists, or by duping them into the action.
* Alternatively, the WTC Twin Towers were exploded by demolition charges from the inside, and that is how they crashed down to the ground. The airplanes, which may have been flown into the towers by "remote-control", having been "taken over" electronically by the CIA or some other nefarious government agency, were incidental events designed to cover up the internal explosions. It was done by the Jewish landlord to collect insurance money.
* No Jews were killed in the terrorist attacks, as Mossad radioed secret instructions to all of them, not to go to work that particular day.
* No jet crashed into the Pentagon, nor into the rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania farm field. A cruise missile or something similar hit the Pentagon, and the farm field.
* All of the above, or parts of them, are evidence of a wider plot by the Bush Family, working secretly with the Bin Ladins and other high-up wealthy Texas and Saudi oil barons and corporate elites, and/or with the Jews, to control the world.

While the casual observer might consider these charges with some amazement -- given that most are recycled plots from the Nazi era, and given all the eye-witness testimony and photographic evidence, and all the evidence which has since been made public by investigative journalists, government officials and in court records, plus the willing video- and audio-taped boasting confessional speeches of various al-Qaeda operatives, including OBL himself -- it is nevertheless a fact that the books presenting these ideas are best-sellers, translated into many languages with hundreds of thousands of copies being snapped up, in Europe at least, and with nearly a third of Germans under the age of 30 believing they are true. My own trips to Europe, and conversations with many individuals since 9-11 supports the charge that many people believe this material -- in fact, my own small e-newsletter and OBRL-News Blog occasionally receives hot and angry emails from readers who object to my posting out information which is critical of these theories, or which documents the very real conspiracy, of Osama Bin Ladin's al-Qaeda group actually organizing the hijackings with a deliberate aim towards mass-murder. Part of the problem, as I will discuss, is that the 9-11 conspiracy books do not stand alone in making such fantastic charges. In fact, they are what might be called the "icing on the cake" of a larger onslaught of historical revisionist accusations, circulating for many years since even before 9-11 and originating from within neo-fascist far-Left and Right-wing political groups, which attempt to tarnish the USA and Israel as engaged in a much larger and ongoing conspiracy of conquest and empire. For those who already have accepted the various outrageous accusations over some years, then the 9-11 conspiracy material is only an additional small step.

The above-cited newspaper articles rekindled personal observations made during a trip to Europe in September 2003. While in Berlin, I was casually window-shopping on Kurfuerstendamm, a magnificent tree-lined street with shops of every description, and wandered into the large Hugendubel bookstore, which is something like the large Barnes & Noble bookstores in the USA. There, I was immediately confronted with a display table at the front of the store, on which were piled perhaps 40 different books specializing on the subjects of America, Israel, 9-11 and terrorism. About 90% of them were anti-American and anti-Israel in tone, easily determined by the cover materials and descriptions, with many conspiracy-theory books filled with speculative assertions about international plots to control the world, about "Bush" or the USA attacking itself on 9-11. The books were deliberately located in the most prominent place out front, indicating a privileged significance and high sales. A few of the books were rational and well-constructed reports by historians or journalists who had done a lot of leg-work and homework, such as the very important work by Fouda and Fielding Masterminds of Terror which documented the voluntary and quite boastful confessions on al-Jazeera TV of the top two Al-Qaeda 9-11 plotters, Ramsi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the latter of whom also had shadowy connections, along with Bin Ladin and other al-Qaeda figures such as Ramsi Yousef and Abdul Rahman Yasin, to the Iraqi-supported terror bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Abdul Rahman had actually fled to Iraq and received protection and support from Saddam Hussein after the 1993 bombing. The book detailing that evidence The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks by Laurie Mylroie, was not to be found at Hugendubel, and truth be told it is hard to find in the USA as well. These and similar books provide an abundance of factual details and documentation on the very real conspiracy of al-Qaeda and related Islamic groups undertaking a long string of terrorist actions against both American and Israeli targets, over many decades, and getting big money, logistical support, recruits and considerable encouragement from behind the curtain from various terror-supporting states, to include Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other wealthy Islamic sheikdoms awash in petro-dollars. Sometimes this support is not concealed at all, as one finds among the international system of Wahhabist Mosques, supported by the Saudi Royals, which spew forth hatred of everything Western and modern and non-Muslim on a daily basis, openly asserting that such influences and people should be wholly subjugated or wiped off the face of the Earth. This is a very real and quite dangerous conspiracy, which finds support also from the radical Left and Right wing extremists in both Europe and the USA. More frequently, such political support within the Western nations is expressed by spreading disinformation which tries (as usual) to "blame the victims" of 9-11 for their own deaths.

But this is not the "conspiracy theory" being disseminated by the various books I saw at Hugendubel , or read about in the above-mentioned newspaper reviews, the ones which claim Bush did it, or that no Jews were killed. One might argue those kinds of reports are so ridiculous from the prima facia evidence presented to our own eyes, for those who saw the airplanes crash into the Twin Towers and Pentagon, or who heard the many Jewish names being read aloud by their surviving relatives during televised memorial services on 9-11-2003. Also, most of these theories were being circulated on global internet within less than 24 hours after 9-11, before the smoke had even ceased to pour from those open-air crematoriums, by individuals who happily engaged in all kinds of wild speculations or claimed to have "inside knowledge". Certainly, no research of any kind had been undertaken by the various internet-accusers, but those emails happily bounced around the world for weeks and months, being refined and expanded until many of them later appeared in full-length books. Why should one need to bother wasting time to rebut them? The answer is, because so many people are attracted to them, creating real-world problems regarding credibility and international relations at many levels, not only between governments, but as I touch upon below, between ordinary people. Most of the 9-11 conspiracy books, I knew from my own readings and research, were derived from the various internet missives, composed mainly of cherry-picked "facts", or half-truths and undocumented claims used to support wholly speculative accusations against America and Israel, and which systematically excluded any contrary evidence or eye-witness observation which went against their prefabricated conclusions. Some also carried the stench of Jewish conspiracy theory. In fact, many of the front-table conspiracy books are propagated by authors who hold concealed or quite open sympathies for Stalinist communism and/or neo-Nazi Holocaust-denial, often with a considerable sympathy and apologism towards the Islamic radicals and terror bombers -- this is the background emotional-ideological foundation for the awful hatred directed against the USA and Israel, to "j'accuse" where the evidence is slim or non-existent, blaming the victims, and to willfully ignore where the evidence is abundant and solid.

Continuing my walk in Berlin, around the corner to Kantstrasse at the Zweitausendeins bookshop, known for many excellent and unusual books which often cannot be found from other publishers, a literal shrine had been created in the bookstore display window for a best-selling book (with DVD and fold-out poster) by Mathias Broeckers,(2) which accused the USA of undertaking the 9-11 attacks upon itself. A special "flow-chart" of the conspiracy was also on display, included with the book, showing a little smiley-faced President Bush cartoon at the top, fitted with a Hitler mustache and hair-cut. Bush is, according to Broeckers, the "true reincarnation of Hitler" -- not Saddam or the Iranian Mullahs, nor Kim Jung Il or the Chinese dictators of the Tienanmin Square massacres. From that statement alone one can gauge the intensity of emotional rage and contactlessness behind the widespread international social hysteria about "Bush" (put into quotation marks, because it really isn't about "Bush" at all). The Zweitausendeins internet web page featuring the Broeckers book also carries other books on similar themes, including a conspiracy book on Pearl Harbor, and a missive targeting the USA/Israel "oppression of Palestine" by Noam Chomsky, and so forth.(3) Items once marginal and which no serious historian would reference now are best-sellers, though one can search in vain for equal presentation and publicity of the rebuttals to such propaganda. They simply do not get published, or if so, don't sell as well.
 

In the 1990s and under the encouragement of myself and Prof. Bernd Senf of Berlin, Zweitausendeins had republished many out of print natural scientific works by Wilhelm Reich,(4) whose Mass Psychology of Fascism(5) documented the profound similarities between the extreme Left and extreme Right politic, both being against human freedom, love and life, and both only interested to obtain power, and willing to use any and all means necessary to get it. Reich was one of the authentic non-mainstream natural scientists whose work was hotly controversial and therefore attacked by nearly everyone. His work is heavy with well-researched and objectively demonstrated findings and solid supporting facts, from which no political extremist, left or right, nor any Islamic fanatic, could find anything to feel good about. Perhaps, for this reason, his books have never been "popular", and the evidence of his being attacked and suppressed is no "conspiracy theory". As R.D. Laing once noted, "He assaults our narcissism in almost unforgivable ways. Freud was cool. Reich is Uncool".(6) He forces us to look directly at unpleasant things about ourselves, and we do not like it. By 1932, Reich's anti-fascist writings had stirred such controversy and opposition that he was banished by the German Communist Party, thrown out of the International Psychoanalytical Association (which was trying to "get along" with the Nazis), and put onto a Nazi death list. Quite an accomplishment for one year. Zweitausendeins did an excellent job in making some of Reich's later natural-scientific works available in the German language for the first time. They also published one of my own books referencing Reich, Der Orgonakkumulator. Ein Handbuch(7) and another I co-edited with Prof. Senf, Nach Reich: Neue Forschungen zur Orgonomie.(8) For a time it seemed they might help break open the long public silence on Reich's important sociological and natural scientific findings, which after WW-II were maliciously attacked and publicly distorted by Stalinists in the USA, and actually "banned and burned" by the power-hungry US Food and Drug Administration. Zweitausendeins even considered to translate and publish my major work, Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child-Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, in the Deserts of the Old World(9) a global cross-cultural study of human behavior and social violence which identified the region of North Africa, Middle-East and Central Asia -- which roughly parallels the Islamic world -- to be the most socially repressive and violent cultural region on Earth. This analysis was undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s, but due to academic barriers it required an additional 10 years before it could be published. It fully vindicated Reich, laid down a natural scientific understanding about the "why" of hysterically violent Islamic reactions to Western social freedoms, but in so doing, offended nearly every major theorem of modern sociology, psychology and anthropology. My work also became unforgivably "uncool".

   

Interest in my Saharasia discovery had grown over the years, and I was invited to lecture in Europe on many occasions. After 9-11, all that began to change. During one lecture trip to Berlin in 2002, I was pelted with questions derived from the conspiracy theorists -- Didn't Eisenhower massacre a million German Prisoners-of-War? Wasn't it proven that FDR knew well in advance about Pearl Harbor? Didn't the USA provoke the Japanese, and Churchill provoke the Germans? Wasn't the USA now going fascist? Didn't Bush steal the last election? And wasn't 9-11 the result of a big American plot? No, I replied, with amazement that people had no embarrassment to ask such questions in public, without undertaking a lot of serious homework on the subjects, so as to really know. Especially in Germany. These kinds of statements, as well as others expressing fascination in old Nazi propaganda and apologetic defenses of the Islamic terrorists began to spring up in private conversations and correspondence, quite voluntarily and usually out-of-context from the subject under discussion, in a manner I found most alarming.

Later on, during my 2003 Europe trip, I presented my Saharasia discovery, emphasizing Reich's earlier discoveries, to the Congress on Matriarchal Studies in Luxemburg.(10) I expected some lively discussion and even pointed debate on the central issues. After my talk, I was instead verbally assaulted by several feminist scholars who ignored my discussions against female genital mutilations, arranged marriages and "honor killings" of women. Nor were they interested in hearing my arguments against the totalitarian Islamic dictatorships or the extreme patriarchal authoritarian family structures predominating within the Islamic world -- no, they were angry that my cross-cultural analysis and maps had demonstrated the Islamic world to be the major global region which harbored such things, that I had abandoned "multicultural understandings" and "value-free social science", and that my ideas were therefore "dangerous". Many speakers at the Congress held the view of America and/or Israel as the "World's Greatest Danger To Peace" (opinion polls from Europe have said as much), and of course most of the conspiracy theory suggested the Islamic radicals were really nothing more than "freedom fighters", certainly "desperate innocents" regarding terrorism, which the Jews and Americans had only been exaggerating about... and in any case, wasn't Israeli and American foreign policy responsible for the terror attacks? So what in the world was I doing, showing maps and cross-cultural evidence suggesting otherwise? After my lecture, the Minister of Women's Affairs for Luxemburg, who had been in attendance, apologized to me with much embarrassment for the rude treatment I had received, saying she had never before seen such an outburst of hatred towards a speaker. I reassured her, I was accustomed to controversy, and knew also that others attending the Congress, including the organizer who had invited me to speak, were no strangers to such controversy. Controversy can be constructive, productive, forcing everyone to engage the facts and burn away the weak points in their arguments and theories. But controversy which only stimulates personal attacks which avoid and evade discussion of the issues is something altogether different. Given the intensity of the attacks, for the remainder of the Congress, I made sure (in the spirit of the American pioneer Wild Bill Hickok) to "keep my back to the wall".

Near the coffee bar, one large German fellow from the audience approached me, literally shaking with rage as he informed me that the "World Behavior Map" I had shown during my lecture was validating "Bushes Achse des Boesen " -- the Axis of Evil. Somewhat astounded at this remark, I had to admit there was something to it. I told him my maps had been prepared in the 1980s, from data collected by the anthropologists going back to around 1900. This was well before Bush or 9-11, I informed him, but I had to agree, it was no accident that the most socially violent cultures which were identified in my maps were also the fountain-heads of international terrorism. I asked, "what about Saddam Hussein and the millions he has killed? Don't you think he really was an evil character? Or the ethnic genocide and miserable treatment of women by the Talibans? What about the concentration-starvation death camps in North Korea, filled with political dissenters?" My suggestions that the modern terrorists and terror-supporting states were predominantly Islamo-fascist or totalitarian communist regimes brought only the most dismissive denials, and the even more incredulous accusation that I must be "a CIA agent, come to spread confusion". Thankfully, I had more supporters than detractors in the discussions. Too many in attendance had their own horror stories to tell about life in the Islamic or communist utopia. In any case, the reader will get the picture, of how those who would claim the identification of "progressives" or "intelligencia" sometimes leave behind their capacities for critical thinking.

That same week, Der Spiegel magazine published a major expose on the worst of the 9-11 conspiracy books, focusing upon the popular books by Broeckers, Gerhard Wisnewski, Andreas von Buelow, and Thierry Meyssan,(11) detailing the falsifications, fabrications, half-truths and lies-of-omission (the worst kind, as Orwell noted), as well as the whole-cloth fairy-tales. For awhile, it seemed the European intellectual scene would be completely over-flooded by the conspiracy materials, without any counter-critique whatsoever, when Der Spiegel waded into the quagmire with the article "Panoply of the Absurd",(12) revealing quite magnificently the most obvious distortions and fabrications, and in so doing, considerably drained the swamp. However, Der Spiegel did not touch two of the larger and probably more radically "serious" but willfully deceptive critics of the USA, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, whose influence and book sales have soared in inverse proportion to their factual content. Fans of these two fiction-writers certainly will protest to hear them described as having abandoned factual emphasis, so I shall give a few of the essentials, with web links for access to the full load of devastating, though "struggling to catch-up" truth. Like the 9-11 conspiracy-theory books, these two authors appear to have a much larger audience in Europe than in America.

Noam Chomsky is best known for his missives against the USA and Israel, who are misportrayed as the cause of all the world's problems.(13) In this, he echoes the Islamo-fascists who rail against the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan", an idee fixe so intellectually nailed to the floor that he successfully avoids any mention of the genocidal butchery and crimes committed by the "Saharasian" Soviet Union, Red China and the multiple branches of the COMINTERN (100 million dead from that nasty bunch)(14) -- except perhaps to either blame their crimes on the USA and Israel, or deny that they occurred at all. But most people reading Chomsky won't know about his friendly relations with the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, except perhaps in France where those relationships have been more widely exposed. Chomsky wrote a glowing endorsement-foreword to a 1980 French-language autobiography by Robert Faurisson, who is best known for his many writings which claim the Holocaust never happened and the Nazi gas chambers did not exist.(15) In 1984 Chomsky gave the publishing rights to one of his books to a French neo-Nazi publisher, rescuing it from bankruptcy,(16) and he co-authored another book with a radical terrorist apologist, Edward Said, published in 1983 by a notorious neo-Nazi publishing house in the USA.(17) His books and audiotapes are openly sold and/or indexed on neo-Nazi websites, along with the writings of Adolf Hitler and nearly every historical revisionist and Holocaust denier imaginable, with no apparent embarrasment or objections by Chomsky.(18) And as late as 1986 he allowed one of his articles to appear in the Journal of Historical Review, mouthpiece for the antisemitic neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review, which gives favorable attention to most all his other writings.(19) There is more.

Until most recently I had no idea about the extent of Chomsky's activities in this direction, as in the USA and probably in most of Europe as well, he successfully passes himself off as a "radical anti-capitalist" and "rational social critic" from the political Left. Full documentation on this matter is presented in the well-researched book by Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers.(20) The book also is posted on-line by the author, who is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. Deborah Lipstadt, a powerful anti-fascist scholar who had done battle with the neo-Nazis on many occasions, also addresses the sordid Chomsky-Faurisson matter,(21) and most any book factually discussing modern antisemitism and Holocaust denial will include discussion of Chomsky. His die-hard supporters, however, either claim Chomsky's actions are a "defense of free-speech rights for Holocaust-deniers" (certainly it is much more than that), or they don't want to know about it at all. His distortions both in supporting the Holocaust deniers, and then trying to misrepresent his support as merely "defending free speech" is part of a larger pattern of misrepresentations which permeate his entire body of writings. Internet provides a veritable index-list of specific rebuttals to Chomsky's claims and writings, correcting his multiple distortions of historical and recent events. Other resources which go into much critical detail on Chomsky's distortions and lies of omission, include the work edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Anti-Chomsky Reader (published in late 2004), and the essay The Top 100 Chomsky Lies compiled by Paul Bogdanor, which is available online.(22, 23)

Having read some of Chomsky's materials years earlier, with a critical eye for their accuracy (they were, without my knowing it, carefully expunged of any reference to his European flirtations with the neo-Nazis), and having been deeply disappointed at nearly every page, I can give my own personal endorsement for all the above-listed illuminating critiques -- indirectly they also stand as a harsh critique of all the various revisionist-history and conspiracy books which rely so heavily upon Chomsky, or which repeat identical themes. Before immersing myself in this material, I noted at many places where Chomsky's divergence from genuine scholarship was profound -- denying the Cambodian killing fields and blaming the USA and Israel for all the world's problems was bad enough-- but I could not then quite put my finger on the deeper emotional constellation from which it sprang. My background is actually the natural sciences, and prior to 9-11-2001, my only research into modern social analysis was the product of my earlier Saharasian discovery,(9) which primarily dealt with history and ethnography up to about 1900 AD. However, the spectre of the airplanes crashing into the twin towers provided a powerful impetus to throw myself into investigation of this new territory, which increasingly has demonstrated a deep emotional alliance between left-wing and liberal political groups and the Islamic radicals. With much distress, I also discovered a few of my friends and contacts in Europe really believed Chomsky to be an authentic researcher, overflowing with "facts". I also found my own quantitative work on the origins of violence question being increasingly attacked by advocates of Chomsky's and similar revisionist ideas. So I could not really escape an open dealing with the matter, even if I chose to avoid it (I don't). The revelation of Chomsky's tango with the Holocaust-deniers, in addition to his overt Stalinism and apologism for Islamic extremism, finally clarified the situation. The new social movement he represents has confirmed precisely Reich's dictum about the functional identity of the extreme Left and Right, but also exposes a deeper-lying "common functioning principle" of Islamic-Saharasian totalitarianism, the connections between which I have most recently demonstrated both historically and geographically. (24)

The above revelations, and a good examination of the specific critical materials cited, should provide the ultimate discreditation of Chomsky's writings for anyone with genuinely liberal sentiments (ie, concerns about genocide, justice, human rights, freedom, honesty, genuine scholarship, defeating totalitarianism, etc.). If it was possible to do so by email and internet, I'd wish to post a skull and crossbones sign on his publications, and similar works of historical revisionism, in the spirit of Santayana's Law, that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". With my own eyes, I have seen people take a deep drink from the revisionist's poisoned well, only to rise up having been wholly blinded to the authentic history of the 20th Century, and begin throwing hate at Americans, "the Jews" and Western democracy in general, a new form of generalized "scapegoating" among those who enjoy all the benefits the West can offer, while simultaneously openly supporting some of the most blood-soaked dictators and totalitarian fanatics one could imagine. The strange phenomenon of Western intellectuals, movie-stars and antiwar activists, throwing hate at Bush, imperfect leader of the free world, and then jetting over to give a big friendly hug to mass-murderers like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jung Il also can be traced back to similar poisoned wells, which legitimize bringing to the surface all the buried anger and rage people carry in their guts, and transform the character no less than wearing of the mythical "Ring" of Tolkien. They would have us believe, the world would be a better place if only the West, the USA and Israel in particular, had not existed. Chomsky's widespread network of imitators and supporters, who uncritically parrot his distortions (25) don't seem bothered by his helpful support for the crass Jew-hatred and historical revisionism of the Holocaust deniers, nor about the fakery discovered in his citations by Coen, Horowitz, and others (22, 23)... but full details are now OUT, never again to be put back under the cloak. The main point here is, that his writings have been a major impetus for nearly all the hate-America, hate-Israel, hate-the-West publications of the last years following 9-11, when the Bush people were shocked out of their isolationist stupor and actually started to do something to hold the international Islamic terror brigades responsible for their murderous actions.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2009, 03:01:13 PM »
Do you think that Noam is the inventor of the exposure of manufactured consent?

It has been exposed for hundreds of years.  This country was founded on exposing manufactured consent, WTF?

Noam has taken an old theory, related it to some current events and got appointed as an NWO controlled opposition agent.

This is the New World Order Modus Operendi.  It is shocking that you do not see this as is is beyond obvious.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Online Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,276
Re: Noam Chomsky the NWO controlled opposition gatekeeper
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2017, 06:56:49 AM »