CLICK HERE for 1,000 + chomsky mp3's
what really happened 9/11 TARPLEY
CLICK HERE for 1,000 + chomsky mp3's
what really happened 9/11 TARPLEY
ChomskyMp3.com
64-min-rense_Benjamin_Fulford_part1of2-First-Interview-7-7-7.mp3
50-min-rense_Benjamin_Fulford-part-2of2-First-Interview-7-7-7.mp3
july07-interview-fulford-rense-transcript.pdf
115-min-rense_Benjamin_Fulford_072307-Second-Interview.mp3
rense-fulford-7-23-07-2nd-interview-52pg-transcript.pdf
illuminati/fulford-rense-2nd-interview-transcript-7-23-07.htm
The Great Red Dragon OR LONDON MONEY POWER .pdf
CLICK
HERE FOR THE RARE HARD TO FIND - ALMOST LOST FOREVER - FAMOUS CHOMSKY VS RICHARD
PERLE DEBATE (who is
Richard
Perle?}
http://so.mp3.qihoo.com/index.html?kw=Chomsky
Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent, supports
the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
last update 2007-01-04
"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
www.globalresearch.ca 8 May 2005
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html
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.
Lannan Readings & Conversations Noam Chomsky with Tariq Ali Wednesday January 26 2005
The-corporation-hour-1of2.mp3 The-corporation-hour-2of2.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/michael-albert-april2007-amy-goodman-interview.mp3
michael-parenti-27min-mp3-race-gender-class-struggle-part1-april2006.mp3
Steven JonesWTC911-Applying the Scientific Method PDF file
The University of Edinburgh Gifford Lectures 2004/05
Professor Noam Chomsky "Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times." recorded on the 22nd March 2
original actual audio video stream: http://www.edinburgh.ac.uk/explore/video/chomsky.html
14meg 1hr 23min audio only file: http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/chomsky-Edinburgh-lecture-3-05.mp3
Noam Chomsky on C-SPAN BookTV Format:mp3 Runtime: 2h 58 min
Video Stream Rip of Chomsky's 2003 appearance on C-SPAN BookTV. Viewers call in asking questions.
chomsky-call -in-hour-1of3.mp3 10.5 megs 60mins
(at 42 min. into this file chomsky is asked fi 9/11 could have been a false
flag operation of if it could have been let happen on purpose and chomsky
responds that he is "extremely skeptical about it", that "i don't think there is
any likelihood that an action like this could have been planned <by white
house>" and " i don't really think there are any historical precedence for it"
and "if the white house had been involved in the planning of this.....it would
have certainly have leaked..... i don't think the evidence is at all compelling"
chomsky-call -in-hour-2of3.mp3 16.2 megs 90mins chomsky-call -in-hour-3of3.mp3 5.2 megs 30mins
The simple reason why I presume that the official story is probably true is that it seems to me by far the most credible one. I’ve explained why in earlier posts, and also why the whole matter is very far from high priority for me.
Since there is such a flood of letters about this matter, mostly to me personally, perhaps it is worth adding something that I’ve left out because I do not want to become embroiled in what seem to me pointless discussions, diverting energy from matters that seem to me far more important.
One of these is to focus attention on the Bush administration’s ongoing contributions to enhancing the risk of terrorism, including very serious terrorist attacks against the US. Even if the cyberspace and other conclusions about 9/11 were credible they would not begin to compare with Bush administration actions that are hardly controversial and that have or threaten far more hideous effects. In comparison with these clear cases, for which evidence is overwhelming from the most respectable mainstream sources, the involvement of the Bush administration in 9/11, if it could be supported, would amount to very little. To take an obvious example, consider the invasion of Iraq.
Quite apart from the massive crimes against Iraqis, the invasion was undertaken with the expectation, since amply confirmed, that it would increase the threat of jihadist terror of the kind that the Reaganites organized in the 1980s, as well as proliferation. Former defense secretaries (including McNamara) and prominent strategic analysts estimate the likelihood of nuclear terror in the US at about 50% in the next decade: alongside that, and its likely aftermath, 9/11 would pale into insignificance. And that’s the least of it. The policies of aggressive militarism and “transformation of the military” are, as predicted, driving potential rivals to react in ways that greatly enhance the risk of possibly terminal nuclear war, maybe by accident, maybe by leaking of WMD technology to terrorists, maybe in other ways.
All of these matters are well-established, rarely discussed, and vastly more significant that any possible Bush administration involvement in 9/11.
…I might perhaps add that this whole matter reminds of a DOD document on
declassification a few years ago. It suggests that “interesting declassified
material” such as information about the JFK assassination could be released and
even posted on the internet as a “diversion,”
which might “reduce the unrestrained public appetite for `secrets’ by providing
good faith distraction material.” The idea, according to the
(outstanding) British intelligence analyst who published the document, is that
if investigators are absorbed with the grassy knoll they won’t probe into
serious areas where they are unwelcome
--------
Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1736367.php 6 May 2005
www.globalresearch.ca 8 May 2005
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html
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."
Noam Chomsky: Controlled Asset of the New World Order
by Daniel L. Abrahamson September 26, 2005
Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.
He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.
However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.
In his book "The Conspirator’s Hierarchy," Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman’s claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky’s role as a Left gatekeeper.
Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the national debt.
Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.
What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
Tens of millions of activists worldwide still remain trapped by this scam, failing to recognize the inherent autocratic and elitist structures of Marxism-Leninism or the newer incarnation under Chomsky.
The Globalist elites and their army of social scientists at the Tavistock Institute understand that people are going to question the inequities of the current economic system. For example, why is wealth distributed so unequally between classes and countries? Why are those living in third world nations allowed to die from preventable diseases and starvation? Why does the U.S. government sponsor and direct such murderous foreign policy? Why was America attacked on 9-11?
In other words, why is the world embroiled in such violence? Who is behind all this suffering? And most importantly, what solutions would relieve the poverty and destruction plaguing the worldwide population?
Enter Chomsky, the controlled opposition, to play the role of re-direct agent. He discusses a mere fraction of the real elite manipulation and then quickly pushes his followers into dead-end solutions and alienating rhetoric. Chomsky’s hero status is further amplified by Left gatekeeper publications like Z Magazine, DemocracyNow! (Amy Goodman),The Progressive, and The Nation.
Is it a coincidence that all of those magazines receive major funding from Globalist front-groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation?
Chomsky may be the head gatekeeper, but he works alongside a network of fellow Globalist assets like Amy Goodman who do their best to appear radical while avoiding all the hardcore issues and deliberately leading the Left into oblivion.The following analysis will show that Chomsky, a deep cover agent for the New World Order, a master of black propaganda whose true motives become clear with a sober and honest examination.
911
Noam Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper in the aftermath of the 9-11 crimes, lashing out at the 9-11 truth movement and claiming any suggestions of government complicity are fabrications.
The "radical" Chomsky takes a position so deeply rooted in denial that it makes the staged 9-11 whitewash commission look like an honest study. He belligerently refuses to discuss any of the massive evidence proving government foreknowledge and participation in the crimes, claiming it would destroy the activist movements worldwide:"If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my opinion: the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly likely that nothing significant will be found. And if -- which I very greatly doubt -- something is found that would quickly send everyone in Washington to the death chamber, the left is unlikely to emerge triumphant." - Chomsky
In other words, Chomsky is telling his followers to ignore the evidence because according to him, none exists. However even if there is massive evidence, responsible activists should ignore it because it would be "the end of the Left." Chomsky’s role as a 9-11 gatekeeper goes even further as he denies each piece of evidence individually. The following examples should suffice:
1) As most honest 9-11 researchers know, 7 of the accused 19 hijackers are alive, proving the official story is a fabrication. Many of the remaining 12 were trained as U.S. Air Force bases and CIA-connected Huffman Aviation. Many of the accused "religious fanatics" acted more like degenerate contract agents, as they flashed wads of cash, visited strip clubs, drank profusely, blew cocaine, smoked weed, cavorted with strippers and had strange meetings in the drug-rich Florida keys.
Men like Mohammed Atta fit the MO of an undercover CIA drug runner: a man trained at U.S. Air Force bases, fluent in many languages, able to evade INS regulations, working with drug dealers, and receiving wired bank funds from CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence. There remains no photographic evidence of these supposed hijackers ever getting on the planes (walking through airport security does not count). Furthermore, the autopsy list of Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon listed none of the accused hijackers.
Regarding the evidence of government complicity in training the hijackers, Chomsky wrote the following:
"Nothing empirical is impossible. Thus, it is conceivable that everyone in the White House is totally insane. And in my opinion, that's what they would have had to be to try something that would have been very likely to turn into an utter fiasco, and if by some miracle had succeeded, would almost certainly have leaked, so that they would all be facing the death sentence. Possible, but not likely."
2) What about the unprecedented NORAD stand down on 9-11 which broke standard operation procedure? Over 67 times in 2001, NORAD had dispatched jets when they deviated from their flight path. In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart’s single engine Lear in depressurized, NORAD planes were flying around the vessel in 20 minutes.
But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD. Meanwhile NORAD ran at least 7 hijacking drills that morning like Operation Vigilant Guardian where commercial jets crashed into government buildings in Manhattan, Washington DC, and Virginia. These "mock" drills, designed to give live on 9-11, helped to distract the honest people within NORAD and the FAA, and to evade suspicion from patriotic investigators within the CIA, FBI, and NSA’s Echelon network.
Of the subject of the NORAD stand down, Chomsky wrote the following:
"Whether NORAD followed SOP, I have no idea, not having investigated the matter. I think the case is very weak, and diverts people from the really serious issues."
3) How about the document called "Operation Northwoods" signed off in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Generals Lemnitzer and Landsdale? These men, sworn to protect the Constitution, devised a plan to create false-flag terrorism in order to engineer a war with Cuba. Their treasonous plans included the following:
-"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
-"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
- "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation."
This document was discovered in the National Archives and has been the subject of mainstream articles by ABCNEWS and others. It stands as clear evidence that the U.S. government has designed plans to engineer terrorist attacks and blame them on foreign enemies. Yet Noam Chomsky does not think the Northwoods document matters: Operation Northwoods example is only one of many reasons for being skeptical about this: it doesn't even come close, and it was not carried out. Furthermore, there is nothing in history that even remotely resembles what is being proposed. Of course, that does not show that the thesis is impossible: nothing could show that, by definition. And if someone can put together some evidence and refute the arguments as to why it is extraordinarily unlikely, then the matter will be worth pursuing.
Chomsky’s role as the chief 9-11 gatekeeper proves he is distracting his leftist followers from the truth. Instead of facing the clear facts, he claims that 19 hijackers did it and that al-Qaeda is a real terrorist enemy. When presented with documented evidence, from living hijacker patsies to the NORAD stand down, he simply claims it doesn’t exist. He resorts to emotional "they would never do it" appeals in order to deny the obvious.
Chomsky is exhibiting far more than logical skepticism, but instead is actively engaging in disinformation.
9-11 Prior Knowledge:
Chomsky denial of government complicity in the crimes of September 11 is one thing, but he goes further, claiming the government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. Mind you, this is a position even weaker than Michael Moore’s tepid Fahrenheit 9-11, which at least tacitly suggested a degree of prior knowledge.
Chomsky’s position is untenable. For a man who prides himself on science and logic, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge mainstream media reports finds him using arguments similar to Holocaust deniers; one can show them photographs, videos, testimony, and physical evidence but the burden of proof is impossible. Such is the case with Chomsky who ignores the many government admissions of prior knowledge widely available even in the 9-11 whitewash commission report. Here is Noam Chomsky writing on government prior knowledge:
"That tells us even less. Every intelligence agency is flooded, daily, with information of very low credibility. In retrospect, one can sometimes pick out pieces that mean something. At the time, that's a virtual impossibility. By arguments like this we can prove that someone blew up the White House yesterday."
If they did not have prior knowledge, why were Cheney and NORAD running drills that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC and Virginia? Also, wouldn’t the NSA’s Echelon network have picked up the chatter?
Of course, Chomsky does not even admit the Echelon network exists. This despite the NSA’s openly acknowledged ability to monitor all phone calls, emails and satellite communication with keyword software which can identify phrases and immediately begin tracking the communication. This despite their admitted bases at Fort Meade, with sister sites in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other unknown locations.
Students of the intelligence world know full well that the NSA’s Echelon network picked up the chatter for weeks before the attacks. In fact, the NSA admitted it, saying that on September 10 agents intercepted calls from hijackers but, *ahem*, did not translate them until after the attacks. Such admissions are red herrings, clearly designed to excuse massive prior knowledge at tops levels of the intelligence circles.
What about the Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush in late August which discussed the threat of hijacked jets? What about intelligence groups like Able Danger and FBI agents like Robert Wright who warned of the flight school trainees? What about FBI agent John O’Neill’s investigation into Al-Qaeda financing which was quashed by Bush? What about attorney David Schippers who desperately tried to warn Ashcroft about the impending attacks? Why was the CIA admittedly tracking the accused hijackers since 2000? Why was FEMA running drills in Manhattan that morning out of WTC-7? Why did PNAC documents like "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" call for helpful Pearl Harbor style attacks?
Those are just a smattering of the mountain of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the U.S. government had prior knowledge. But Chomsky must deny these, because his role is to mislead and distract while chastising the 9-11 truth movement.
Before and after 9-11, the key role for the Left Gatekeepers like Chomsky has been denying the existence of the overclass which prints the money, funds and manages the wars, ships the drugs, controls entire industries, and creates the scientific propaganda which plagues society. Instead they critique mid-level minions & front corporations while speaking in glittering generalities.
In the world of Left gatekeepers, the New World Order does not exist. There are no elite plan for global government. Instead they paint the picture of a profit-motivated world in which corporations control the government. But merely blaming corporations misses the forces which own their assets, manage their resources, control their board of directors, and pull their strings.
Chomsky steadfastly denies the role of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission in the creation and management of the wars and poverty he claims to condemn. When speaking on such "conspiracies," he said the following:
"It's the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, all these other things the people are racing around searching for conspiracy theories about-they're "nothing" organizations. Of course they're there, obviously rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together-that's not a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do with the way the institutions actually function". (Understanding Power, 348)
The CFR, funded by Wall Street and the Rockefellers after WW II, is an organization openly sworn to destroying American national sovereignty in favor of world government. They have acted as the de-facto "secret team" in managing U.S. domestic and foreign policy, orchestrating wars like Vietnam and the first Gulf War.. Almost all executives in the CIA and State Department have been members of the CFR, whether it was Dean Rusk, Allen Dulles and Robert McNamara during Vietnam or Richard Armitage and George Tenet during the crimes of 9-11.
The CFR has been the dominant roundtable group pushing for a Panamerican Union by 2010 which would dissolve national borders and unite Mexico, Canada, and America under a single currency, with biometric ID cards and GPS-tracked vehicles on camera-strewn superhighways. How can Chomsky seriously claim the CFR is a "nothing organization" when their role in crafting policy is so clear? Whom is he trying to protect in denying the treasonous goals of the CFR?
Chomsky’s stonewalling on the Bilderberg raises even more suspicions. Since 1954 the Bilderberg has served as the central brain of the New World Order, the major secret gathering for Globalist agents from across the globe. Bilderberg chairmen like Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller have pushed for total global government, eugenics population control, engineering wars, and controlling the worldwide economy. Top politicians from America and Europe also undergo a grooming process at the Bilderberg. Bill Clinton went in 1991 as Rockefeller’s personal guest, and Tony Blair attended in 1993 before becoming Prime Minister. John Kerry attended in 2000, and John Edwards did two weeks before becoming the VP nominee in 2004.
Major members of the media, such as editors from the Economist, NY Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, US News and World Report are regular attendees. Yet they rarely, if ever, mention the proceedings, sworn to secrecy by their globalist masters.
Nevertheless in recent years, the truth has emerged. Major media outlets like the BBC admit the Bilderberg is planning for a one-world currency, bank, and army. Articles in Reuters and the Financial Times of London have admitted the existence of the Bilderberg, their grooming of politicians, and their secret plans for world governance. If these mainstream media reporters can admit the major role of the Bilderberg in shaping world affairs, why can’t Chomsky? Why is he holding back?
Simlarly, how can Chomsky seriously ignore the role of the Trilateral Commission, the brainchild of Globalist masters David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski? This is the same Brzezinski who helped direct the first CIA funds to bin Laden, and in his book Between Two Ages called for a technotronic society with a microchipped population.
The Trilateral Commission openly admits they are trying to control the economy through closer European-Japanese-American cooperation. They operate much like the CFR, counting the worlds top elites, politicians, corporate executives, and media barons as members. They have been instrumental in creating the destructive "free trade" agreements that are destroying America’s economy and national sovereignty in order to usher in world governance.
Journalist Jim Tucker, a Spotlight reporter with impeccable credentials, also links the Trilateral Commission to the international narcotics trade, the $500 billion-plus racket from heroin and cocaine alone which helps fund the Globalist’s house of cards.
What would motivate Chomsky to call the Trilateral Commission a "nothing organization?" Is it because they echo his goal of a world government? Or are there darker forces at work?
When balanced against over 50 years of documented evidence, Chomsky’s claims are exposed as nothing more than spurious lies and denial.
Federal Reserve
Similarly, while Chomsky bemoans the widespread poverty in America and the Third World, he has never spoken publicly on the role of the Federal Reserve. Therefore most Leftist activists are unaware of the role played by this privately owned bank cartel which prints worthless fiat currency out of thin air. Since its secret formation at Jekyll Island in 1910, and subsequent illegal passage during the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve has held the American economy hostage: creating inflation and boom & bust cycles through managed money supply and interest rates.Furthermore every dollar printed is merely debt charged to the federal government. Thus while it only costs 10 cents to print a $100 bill, the U.S. government fits the bill for the full $100 to the private Fed.
The creation of the Federal Reserve, owned largely by the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild interests has eluded the "radical" Chomsky. Furthermore he does not discuss the proven role of the Fed in creating recessions and depressions in order to purchase assets at a fraction of their value.
Chomsky ignores the role of the fiat currency system which drives down wages, inflates prices, and puts the American economy under the iron claw of a few elite families. Since the dollar is the base currency for worldwide trade and the current economic house of cards, shouldn’t these topics be discussed?
Perhaps Chomsky stays mute because a central bank fits into his ideology. After all, one of the key planks in the Marxist and Fabian socialist agenda is a managed central bank in order to control the economy. Or perhaps Chomsky fears discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that runs the world economy. For him it is easier to blast the front corporations and low-level grocery boys.
CIA
If he denies even basic government foreknowledge of 9-11, should it be any surprise that Chomsky avoids criticism of the CIA? When asked about the links between the CIA and bin Laden, and the CIA’s overt support of the Taliban, Chomsky wrote the following:"CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate) or the Taliban (also not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant."
How can Chomsky write this with a straight face? He is simply ignoring the documented evidence of CIA funding for the "freedom fighters" known as al-Qaeda, totaling over $6 billion. The cozy CIA/al-Qaeda relationship continued through the Bosnian conflict via training of the drug-peddling Kosovo Liberation Army.
What about the meetings between Taliban leaders, oil executives, and Bush administration officials from January to August 2001 to discuss building an oil and gas pipeline for Unocal? Chomsky also denies the mainstream reports from UK and French newspapers about two top CIA agents meeting with bin Laden for over ten days in July 2001 while he received dialysis at the American Hospital in Dubai.
But Chomsky goes further than that. While claiming to critique the CIA, he absolves the agency of any responsibility for its actions, from Nazi origins via Project Paperclip to heinous mind control experiments like MK ULTRA. This horrific period in CIA history, a true Rosetta stone in understanding the New World Order, is scientifically ignored by Chomsky, who sees the CIA as an innocent victim of White House orders:.
"Or take the CIA, which is considered the source of a lot of these conspiracies; we have a ton of information about it, and as I read the information, the C.I.A. is basically just an obedient branch of the White House. I mean sure, the C.I.A. has done things around the world- but as far as we know, it hasn't done anything on its own."
"There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the C.I.A. is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., along with mostly just a collection of information". (Chomsky, "Understanding Power")
Like all of Chomsky’s claims, this one is based on emotion, conjecture, and opinion. He does not cite any specifics, knowing full well that his fawning minions will accept his word as gospel.
Chomsky sees the CIA as a pathetic collection of scapegoat bureaucrats, acting as grocery boys for their master President. According to him, the CIA does not carry out secret projects on their own, and if accused of such, are innocent.
JFK Assassination/CIA role
Therefore is it any surprise the Chomsky endorses the lone assassin and magic bullet theory in the assassination of JFK? From his emergence as a guru of the Left in the late 60's, Chomsky has belittled anyone researching the anomolies stemming from the official story and Warren Commission cover-up. According to him, any examination is a complete waste of time:" The Kennedy assassination cult is probably the most striking case. I mean, you have all these people doing super-scholarly intensive research, and trying to find out just who talked to whom, and what's the exact contours were of this supposed high-level conspiracy-it's all complete nonsense. As soon as you look into the various theories, they always collapse, there's just nothing there. But in many places, the left has just fallen apart on the basis of these sheer cults". (Chomsky, Understanding Power)
Chomsky’s position puts him in the less than 15% of Americans who believe Oswald was the lone shooter. For such a self-proclaimed "anarchist" radical, Chomsky’s trust in Warren Commission’s official story seems akin to a child’s belief in Santa Claus.
The facts of course, tell a different story. While far from perfect man, Kennedy ran afoul by opposing the very forces that took over after his death. He began withdrawing 5,000 CIA "advisers" from Vietnam; fired CIA chiefs Allen Dulles and Richard Bissel; disbanded the CIA and handed over covert operations to the State Department; ordered the creation of a silver-backed government currency to break the Federal Reserve monopoly; turned down the Operation Northwoods plan to engineer false flag terrorism and blame it on Cuba; and refused to invade Cuba and launch a full scale nuclear war during the Missile Crisis, a plan favored by hawks like General Curtis LeMay.
Chomsky ignores the true history of the Kennedy presidency because it would expose te shadow government takeover after his assassination.
What about Chomsky’s claims that the CIA never acts as a rogue elephant? Do they hold up?
MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip
Chomsky has never publicly acknowledged the covert CIA mind control programs known as MK ULTRA and its many offshoots. This program alone shows how the CIA was indeed a rogue elephant, as they ran illegal campaign of propaganda, brainwashing, sex slavery, and poisoning of citizens.In 1946, Globalist bagman Harry Truman began a covert plan to smuggle top Nazi SS officers, scientists, and propagandists into America. Those same war criminals quickly became the front line for the postwar U.S. intelligence machine. Reinhard Gehlen, one of Hitler’s top intelligence chiefs, led postwar European intelligence for the CIA, becoming the darling of head honcho Allen Dulles.
Then, using his same crew of Gestapo and SS, aided by the Vatican, and sponsored by the CIA, Gehlen set up "rat lines" which smuggled 5,000 of the worst Nazi criminals into South and Central America. Butchers like Klaus Barbie, Mortin Bormann and Josef Mengele among others owed their freedom to this program.
Those same men would later aid CIA coups in Angentina, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil and other countries. After all, they were veteran experts: early Gehlen projects had included rigging elections in Italy and France. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been became U.S. citizens, many specializing in black research projects. This growing cabal of Nazi doctors found a happy marriage with the control freak elitists infesting the NSA, CIA, and black operations government.
These men birthed the MK ULTRA program, focusing on mass mind control, via drugs, hypnosis, subliminals, and pulsed electromagnetic waves. It was this mad science, spawned in the Nazi labs of Dr. Josef Mengele, that now obsessed men like Sidney Gottlieb, John Lilly, Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron.
Their most famous project was the creation of Manchurian candidates, used for political assassinations, drug transportation, espionage, and sabotage. Yet this was not limited to Sirhan Sirhan.
In fact, both Gottlieb and Cameron helped train thousands of pre-adolescent children for use in child prostitution, sex slavery, blackmail, satanic rituals and murder. Known as the Monarch Project, children were kidnaped from American streets and foreign nations and then programmed with trauma based mind control.
Other common victims for experimentation included prisoners, the homeless, and residents of mental institutions, all cherry-picked because they were defenseless. Details of this horrific and still operational program are available in rare and highly suppressed texts of Fritz Springmeier, which usually fetch over $300 a piece.
Why does Chomsky refuse to discuss MK ULTRA and its sister projects? Why does he claim the CIA was merely a pawn of the White House, when the record proves that Eisenhower and Kennedy had little, if any knowledge of MK ULTRA? Simply put: Why is Noam Chomsky covering for the CIA?
Elite Child Sex Rings
The Monarch Project of prostituting children deserves further mention (although Chomsky would disagree). In 1988 Vice President Bush was caught having 15 year-old call boy prostitutes visiting the White House late at night. The credit cards records to prove it were splashed across the front page of the Washington Times: "Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIP's with Reagan, Bush Sr."Unfortunately the star witness, Craig Spence, was suicided in his hotel with piano wire before he could testify. Book like "The Franklin Coverup" by John DeCamp have further proven the links between the CIA and Army intelligence to the elite sex slavery rings. Cases of like the "The Finders" in Washington DC, where customs agents discovered a CIA warehouse full of child porn and satanic torture, stand as yet further evidence.
In the forrmer Yugloslavia, CIA front company Dyncorp has been convicted of operating in the human slave trade and using their C-130's to ship many of the 200,000 women and children smuggled out every year. Furthermore, mainstream news outlets have shown evidence of UN Peacekeepers assisting the sex trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Balkans.
Despite the voluminous amount of grotesque evidence, Chomsky has never discussed the elite sex trade. This is an issue so shocking, so paradigm-altering, that his Leftist followers would no longer trust their loving mother government, and that is the last thing Chomsky wants. After all, if the Leftists knew that top level politicians are actually pedophiles practicing satanic ritual abuse, they would no longer trust the savior world government. The absence of Chomsky and the Left on the suffering of these children speaks volumes about their true moral character and motives.
MK ARTICHOKE/ MK NAOMI
Other MK ULTRA side projects included pushing LSD to the youth culture and attaching electrodes into prisoners heads, the latter perfected by Dr. Delgado. Adjunct programs like MK NAOMI and MK ARTICHOKE focused on genetically engineered viruses, biological agents, and radiation effects on American citizens. Common experiments included testing biological agents and atomic weapons radiation on soldiers, the mentally handicapped, people in subways, and even whole towns; putting cancer viruses into polio vaccines; and exposing pregnant women to radiation to test the effects on the fetus. These experiments have been documented as continuing into the 1980's and likely still continue today.Chomsky does not discuss these horrendous programs, because it would awaken his readers to the cruelest fact: that the U.S. government will murder its own citizens and soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of unwitting subjects simply for political gain. After all, if they would feed radiated breakfast cereal to thousands of retarded children, would these same parasitic elites not also kill more than 2,800 Americans on September 11?
Fluoride
Of course MK ULTRA lives on today in our drinking water. It was around the time of its inception, in the 1950's, that the U.S. government began adding sodium fluoride to tap water in massive quantities.. Should we be shocked? After all, the first people to use the deadly neurotoxin were the Nazis, who found it pacified the concentration camp prisoners. Now thanks to imported Nazi doctors helping our friendly neighborhood CIA, American citizens could enjoy the same privilege as those in Hitler's camps.Chomsky has never discusses the effects of sodium fluoride, nor the lead and arsenic used in water as silent weapons of pacification. As a scientist, he is apparently uninterested in sodium fluoride's proven link to cancer, leukemia, osteoporosis, Alzheimer disease, and brain damage.
So should we be surprised that he never writes about the deadly poison aspartame found in thousands of products? Or genetically modified foods and growth hormones which destroy immune systems while causing blood disorders and swelling of the organs? Or cell phones which emit deadly microwave radiation leading to cancer, vision loss, and (according to published BBC reports) altering human DNA? Or the GWEN towers which pulse deadly ELF radiation across America?
Rockefeller Pharma Cartel
The Nazi doctors who didn’t end up in American intelligence found cushy jobs in the pharmaceutical cartel firms like Merck and Eli-Lilly. Chomsky never discusses the history of these firms; nor the Rockefeller control over the American Medical Association; nor the link between mercury-tainted vaccines and brain damage; nor the deadly mind control drugs like SSRI’s (Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) and amphetamine-based Adderall/Ritalin pills pimped out to helpless children.These drugs cause bone degeneration, memory loss, suicidal tendencies and added depression to the poor kids gobbling them like Flintstone’s chewables, all at the advice of their pill-pusher death merchant doctors. Meanwhile Chomsky stays true to form, ignoring these matters and instead calling for socialized, Federally-controlled healthcare which would further subsidize the pharma cartel. This is just another example of his bait and switch tactics, a sloppy mess of disinfo and elite sponsored solutions.
Psychiatry/ New Freedom Initiative
Chomsky and his Left Gatekeepers also ignore the assault from psychiatric community, largely controlled by the Rockefellers and Tavistock Institute, who seek to define every neurosis as a mental illness in order to push more drugs. Bush has signed the New Freedom Initiative to forcibly psychologically test all K-12 students in public schools, screen them for "mental illnesses," and force the children to take the recommended drugs.This brainwashing agenda was pushed by the pharma cartel, with GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck and others investing millions in buy-offs and lobbying. But news of this extraordinary Stalinist plan never graced the pages of Chomsky's editorials, nor Z Magazine, The Nation, the Progressive, and DemocracyNow. Perhaps this is because the New Freedom Initiative fits into their goal of government-controlled socialized health care.
The New Freedom Initiative, bolder than Stalin’s wildest dreams, is just a small part of the eugenics agenda; a dominant Globalist goal which Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper bagmen aid and abet. Chomsky has never written about the sinister American Psychiatric Association, nor the role of it's former chief, Dr. Ewen Cameron, the aforementioned MK ULTRA villain and CIA child programmer.
Key aspects of the scientific eugenics movement such as population control, abortion legalization, poisonous vaccinations, and stem cell research find their most vocal advocates on the far Left of the managed political debate. Leftist college majors like sociology advocate programs like parental licensing by the state, state-controlled child care, and Chinese style childbirth laws with forced sterilization as a penalty.
Leftists call for more vaccinations in the Third World despite the admittedly tainted vaccines used by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. All of this is indicative of an infiltrated movement, a Left deeply penetrated by Globalist agents driving activists into unwittingly championing the Brave New World.
Population Control
Population control by any means necessary is a major, some would say the major goal of the New World Order, perhaps even paramount to their goal of a cashless society control grid with microchipped slaves. The chief architects of population control are Bilderberg elitists like David and Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Prince Philip, Ted Turner, Alexander Haig, and Cyrus Vance. Their Malthusian nightmare requires killing 90% of the "useless eaters" through war, genetically engineered viruses, and engineered starvation. Declassified documents like NSM 200 and Global 2000 lay the plans out with cold precision.Chomsky, the self-proclaimed radical, also advocates such depopulation methods. In Chomsky’s book "Understanding Power," a collection of his talks with activists, a crowd member asks about population control, to which Chomsky responds:
" If we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn’t going to survive much longer...Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn’t matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It’s like traffic: I mean you can’t make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of a social contract involved, otherwise it won’t work". (61)
Chomsky and other gatekeepers claim to maintain the moral high ground, but then advocate the eugenics agenda pushed by elite roundtable groups like the Bilderberg and Club of Rome. How can Chomsky claim to be an advocate for the Third World while simultaneously pushing for the managed murder agenda favored by Henry Kissinger?
Gun Control
Another one of the great successes of the Left gatekeeper has been pushing for unconstitutional gun control agenda through their publications like The Nation, Z Magazine, The Progressive, and their internet kin at DemocracyNow! & Indymedia. It is a great achievement of propaganda when the supposed radicals "opposing Bush" call for a completely disarmed American populace and inflated budget for BATF thugs in ski masks. Chomsky mock s those who support the Constitutionally endowed right to bear arms. In fact, he says it doesn’t exist:"It’s pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting." (Secrets, Lies, and Democracy)
Then later in the interview, Chomsky is asked if guns are a proper way to respond to government tyranny. He responds as follows:
"As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate. Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided". (Secrets, Lies and Democracy)
It would be one thing to hear such rhetoric out of the Fabian socialists in the Democratic party. But to have the supposed "fringe radicals" saying there is no second amendment and advocating gun seizures is remarkable. And because of globalist infiltration of the left, this policy once favored by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other mass murderers has found a comfortable home. Hence it has become common to hear activists protesting the Iraq quagmire while simultaneously calling for gun control.
Environmental Front Groups
As masters of propaganda, the Globalists have uses their Left Gatekeepers to push eugenics and population control as necessary for the environment. This has been accomplished through the phony environmental movement and Peak Oil fabrications.The Club of Rome, a globalist front group created in 1968, immediately began calling for population reduction under the guise of environmentalism. Other fronts like the World Wildlife Fund, managed by the aforementioned Prince Philip, vocally push for population control while seizing large swaths of land for "Mother Earth." Other pet projects such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would give the UN total control of energy resources, have floundered.
Past WWF board members have included Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard, Hollinger media gopher and Bilderberg member Conrad Black, Shell chairman John Loudon, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and accused drug dealer Henry Keswick.
Chomsky is one of the many re-direct agents who use the real environmental pollution problems to push for a fascist takeover by a world government. Much like the ideas discussed in the Report From Iron Mountain, he uses the threat of global warming to justify totalitarian control:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now." (Understanding Power, 388)
Here is Noam Chomsky, openly advocating a fascist takeover because the ends justify the means. This is classic problem-reaction-solution programming, as he points to the real threat of pollution and then offers the solution of tyranny
Peak Oil
As previously stated, the environmental movement was funded and amplified by Globalist oil, banking, and drug cartels, with specific help from the Rockefeller Foundation. The WWF, along with other phony NGO’s like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace consistently call for population reduction. Additionally these groups push the flat earth thesis of "Peak Oil," predicting that oil supplies will soon run out and of course...require massive worldwide population reductions.Chomsky posted an entry called "Peak Oil" on his blog in June, 2004, writing the following: "The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost."
Then in a radio interview with Steve Scherr, Chomsky said the following of Peak Oil:
" There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the U.S. here, to move toward something like sustainable energy. If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it could also be beneficial."
The "beneficial" aspects Chomsky discusses are likely the resulting population control and starvation that would ensue from such a shortage.
But in reality oil is abiotic and constantly regenerating. This, while huge wells go untapped in Russia, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sudan, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Alaska, Venezuela, Bolivia, Norway, and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, refinery capacity has been deliberately shut down by the oil oligopoly in order to create artificial supply shortages. Market prices are controlled by the Anglo-American cartel and they intend to use this as a vehicle for engineered crises. At this years Bilderberg meeting Henry Kissinger reportedly predicted $100 a barrel oil within a year. The only possible result is a complete worldwide depression.
It is within the "radical" Left that horror stories of diminishing oil find their home. Even within the 9-11 truth movement, authors like Mike Ruppert and Nafeez Ahmed have attempted to attach Peak Oil as the reason for government engineering of 9-11 and the wars in the Middle East. By polluting the activist movements with Peak Oil lies, the Globalists have created an army of strong advocates for $5 a gallon gasoline.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Another triumph of Chomsky’s disinfo campaign has been the active denial of the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon group that published radical statements calling for world war, population control, and a worldwide police state back in 2000. The signatures on the documents included Dick Cheney and cabinet members like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Dov Zakheim, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Eliot Abrams.It was Zakheim who previously ran Systems Planning Inc., which made remote-control software for commercial airliners. Also as comptroller of the Pentagon, he lost over $3 trillion of taxpayer money without explanation. Yet his corruption was not singular; after Bush took his figurehead position in the stolen election of 2000, all of the PNAC radicals became the architects of 9-11 and purveyors of pre-war lies about Iraq.
Their infamous "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" document, produced in 2000 before 9-11, reads like prophecy, calling for theater wars against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. They also admitted that "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." September 11, anyone?
They also openly called for killer viruses to wipe out large sectors of the human population. The document states: "[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
How can Chomsky and his kin ignore the statements of the PNAC cabal, whose mad plans for world domination read like the lost chapters of Mein Kampf?
If the Left Gatekeepers won’t discuss these published documents, how can we expect them to research the true history of AIDS and the potential emerging avian flu? Should we be surprised when they fail to mention the 60 plus dead microbiologists after 9-11, many of them leading researchers in emerging viruses? Should we look to Chomsky to find an expose of the heavy metals and biological agents in chemtrails?
Isreal/Zionists
Many authors of the PNAC documents were radical Zionists linked to the Likud party in Israel, who presented similar plans to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 ("Policy for a Clean Break").Chomsky, the supposed critic of Israel, has been praised by followers for his books like "The Fateful Triangle" which detail many Israeli war crimes. Furthermore he often criticizes the Isreali-linked network dominating U.S. foreign policy. But as always, Chomsky again avoids the hardcore issues, instead speaking in glittering generalities.
For example, he remains mute on the "Office of Special Plans," the ad-hoc nerve center of pre-war Iraq propaganda, run of Cheney’s office. It was here that Zionist moles like Paul Wolfowitz, Larry Franklin, Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, and Richard Perle cooked up phony WMD threats, links 9-11, and collaboration between secular Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Those same gophers, many of them assets of the Israeli Likud party and intelligence syndicate Mossad, operated a two-way spy network; just as manufactured propaganda flowed from Mossad to the OSP moles, U.S. secrets on Iran secretly floated into Sharon’s war cabinet.
In the middle of all the traitorous espionage was the mafia don of all lobbying cartels, the Israeli-controlled AIPAC. Top level AIPAC officers like Steve Rosen often acted as a go–between, then using that same fake intelligence to strong-arm the Congress where they control both sides..
All parties mentioned, from Rosen to Franklin, are now under investigation from the FBI and Justice Department for the aforementioned crimes. Major articles in the Washington Post now admit Franklin, working with Feith and Cambone, was passing secrets to Israel through AIPAC. Chomsky has never spoken publically about any of these topics, and certainly not the Mossad involvement in false-flag terror events like the USS Liberty and connections to 9-11.
Vote Fraud
When he isn’t busy covering up the facts surrounding 9-11 or the crimes of the CIA, Chomsky spends time actively denying the vote fraud of 2004, which ushered in another term for the neocon dictatorship. Chomsky often brags that he does not vote in presidential elections, noting that both sides are owned by corporations. But he has openly denied the role of electronic voting fraud in 2000 and the more prominent example of 2004. In 2004, exit polls in Ohio and Florida showed John Kerry winning by a comfortable margin, but mysteriously numbers showed a Bush victory.The room for vote fraud was immense. The Secretary of State in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, managed Bush’s campaign in the state, much like Katherine Harris did in Florida during 2000. Diebold, the company which makes most of the electronic voting machines, is crawling with former CIA and NSA members and used convicted felons to design their software. The Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell is a Bush Pioneer and wrote in a GOP fundraising letter that he was "committed to delivering electoral votes to the President."
The Diebold code is private and has been exposed as being easily hacked by Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org. In North Carolina and Georgia, machines were throwing out 5,000 block votes for Bush without explanation. But none of this seems to interest Chomsky, who finds the accusations of vote fraud to be without merit:
" I don't find the evidence compelling. An inaccurate count in itself is a random effect. As for collusion, yes, there are concerns, but concerns are not evidence. The problem that concerns you may or may not be real, but in my view, even if we take the worst case scenario, it is still marginal -- just as the Florida chads were marginal in the 2000 elections. I know of no reason to suppose that electronic voting will have more than a random effect."
Chomsky and the gatekeepers cannot discuss the fraud of electronic voting because it would awaken too many people to the total bankruptcy of the system. It is important that college activists at Berkeley think their vote for Ralph Nader counted. If they knew the entire game was rigged like a Don King boxing match, too many illusions would break down.
World Government
Chomsky plays the left gatekeeper role perfectly, presenting a false dialectic of the evil American imperialist as the antagonist aggressor, contrasted by the savior UN world government as the benevolent deux ex machina.This false propaganda model, pitting the imperialist U.S. against the godly UN fits the classic MO of "poisoning the well." Essentially, Chomsky acts as a re-direct agent: he acknowledges many crimes of American foreign policy and then offers world government and international law as the solution.
The Globalists have long been masters of such a paradigm. In the early part of the 20th century, the same Wall Street bankers crafted the doctrines of Communism. While posing as a workers’ liberation theology, it pushed for a central bank, world army, world court, world government, and the abolition of religion, private property, and the nation state.
Like other "anarchist" agent provacatuers such as John Zerzan (who helped train violent mobs to ruin the Seattle WTO protests in 1999), Chomsky has called for the elimination of private property. He argues, "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society."
In fact, Chomsky goes further, pushing for the elimination of the nation-state and national sovereignty to be replaced by a one world government:
"Well in my view what would be ultimately necessary would be a breakdown of the nation-state system- because I think that’s not a viable system. It’s not necessarily the natural form of human organization." (314)
Chomsky, echoing rhetoric from the phony Marxist doctrines, is essentially endorsing the major goal of the world elite: the breakdown of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government.
Noam Chomsky is a shameless world government pimp, and has heaped lavish praise on men like Bertrand Russell who helped designed the New World Order. Lucky for him, Chomsky has been publicly rewarded for his faithful service to the UN cause. In Febraury 2004 he received the Award of Excellence at the UN Correspondents Association Club in New York. Previous winners included Globalist assets like Mikhail Gorbachev.
UNESCO
Since Chomsky is an avowed global government cheerleader, is it any surprise he supports some of the worst UN programs? U.N.E.S.C.O, the nightmare UN vehicle posing as an "aid" organization, finds a strong advocate with Chomsky.Long a pet project of the Malthusian-obsessed Rockefeller clan, U.N.E.S.C.O projects include filtering pro-UN propaganda into American schools and with the goal of eventually merging the curriculum with Mexico and Canada in the proposed Panamerican Union; and seizing control of huge swaths of American federal lands through "UN World Heritage" sites. The first U.N.E.S.C.O chief Julian Huxley said during his tenure in 1948:
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."
But Noam Chomsky, ever the advocate of the UN, endorses the goals of U.N.E.S.C.O wholeheartedly and lambastes the evil conservatives who question its motives:
"U.N.E.S.C.O-because it’s working for the Third World-we practically put them out of business. The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against U.N.E.S.C.O. in the 1970's and Eighties- it was full of outrageous lies, totally fabricated, but nevertheless it sufficed to eliminate the Third World orientation of U.N.E.S.C.O. and make it stop doing things it was doing around the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on". (86)
PROPAGANDA
Many credit Chomsky’s "Manufacturing Consent" with being the premier study of government propaganda. In Leftist circles it is hailed as a Bible, a rite of passage for any true activist to understand the system. But again, Chomsky’s work, while appearing radical, is actually gatekeeper disinfo.Chomsky spends the entire book attempting to prove that newspapers diminish American war crimes while exaggerating those of foreign governments. Such a point is easy to prove, and he does so in his own droll and methodical method.
Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room: direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the 1950's under Operation Mockingbird.
Chomsky avoids writing about Mockingbird, the CIA program which covertly put major publishing, newspaper, and media outlets, as well as thousands of individual reporters under direct agency control. Agents included Ben Bradlee at Newsweek, Henry Luce of Time and Life, and Arthur Sulzberger of The New York Times, Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post, and Joseph Harrison Christian Science Monitor.
Shouldn’t this a significant development for a historian authoring an honest study of propaganda? After all who is to say that this program doesn’t still continue? The Bush administration has admitted spending hundreds of millions on fake newscasts and paying individual reporters like Armstrong Williams to push talking points in newspapers. What about the times they haven’t been caught? Exactly how many mainstream commentary and news outlets work with the CIA and White House?
Perhaps this is the reason why the scripts of the nightly news on ABC, CBS, and NBC are almost exactly the same, while Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times push the elitist agenda on cue (as seen most prominently in the run up to the war in Iraq).
Furthermore Chomsky does not discuss collaboration between the Bilderberg Committee and the major media outlets. Shouldn’t this concern the so-called radical anarchist, when media editors attend secret meetings calling for eugenics, world government, and a cashless society control grid?
Owners, editors and writers from Time, Newsweek, Economist, Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC and every news outlet in between have attended the world government meetings.
Furthermore, what about the influence of the CFR, which openly calls for a Panamerican Union and the end of American national sovereignty? The CFR counts amongst its members major editors, owners, and journalists in media outlets from PBS to CBS, CNN to News Corp., New Republic to U.S. News and World Report.
Aren’t these the reasons that journalists push the propaganda Chomsky identifies? In "Manufacturing Consent," Chomsky takes limited aim at an easy target. But he fails to dig deeper and examine the actual reasons why the propaganda permeates the mainstream media opinion. Clearly the influence of the CIA, CFR, Bilderberg Committee, and White House have turned major media outlets into little more than docile commissars. Furthermore, the interlocking interests of media owners with the military industrial complex have served to sway content even further.
Chomsky’s "classic" study is little more than a limited hangout project. He is merely shooting the messengers, blaming journalistic "bias" while failing to follow the trail of money, power, corruption, and black propaganda. Instead, he identifies some passive propaganda and is hailed as a brilliant analyst and purveyor of truth by the Leftist minions. But his true achievement is ignoring the reasons behind the lies, as he executes a masterful bait and switch tactic. Is it a coincidence that Chomsky’s co-author for "Manufacturing Consent," Edward Herman, has also denied any government complicity in 9-11?
While claiming to expose propaganda, Chomsky has perfected the art.
CONCLUSIONS
Chomsky and his gatekeeper contemporaries are perfect devises for the Globalists because they help define the limits of the false left-right paradigm. Much like David Horowitz, a former Leftist, currently does for the radical Right. Is it a surprise that he edited a book called "The Anti-Chomsky Reader?" It should only be natural since they both serve the same role of gatekeeper.Puppets like Horowitz, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Michele Malkin, William Kristol, William F. Buckley and their kin serve as Right Gatekeepers. They criticize the failures of liberals and Democrats and then call for Bush worshipping, illegal wars, fascist government, and giving up all of our Constitutional rights for "security." In doing so they pollute the conservative movement and help marginalize true conservatives voices like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and groups like Gun Owners of America.
Chomsky and his gatekeepers do the same thing. They write about the crimes of American imperialism and then call for population control, gun control, global government under the UN, and a totally socialized Brave New World society.
The Left gatekeepers must manage the delicate tight rope act of appearing radical while in actuality calling for worldwide enslavement and murder. In all likelihood they get a little help from the propaganda scientists at the venerable Tavistock institute in London and adjuncts of the CIA’s Mockingbird program; clearly the Left’s denial of 9-11 truths has been too coordinated too have simply been a freak occurrence.
In the mainstream it is the same with the staged battles between pawns like Democratic operative Al Franken and Republican Ann Coulter.
All of this is designed to create a tight spectrum, a masterfully crafted false paradigm to enslave the mind and give the people false choices. Thus at either extreme of the spectrum and all points in between, from Chomsky to Horowitz, one finds they are endorsing total enslavement and global government. This is the genius of the New World Order, their complete castration of free political will through carefully managed propaganda agents. The rest of the media jackals serve as willing accomplices, mere useful idiots and power hungry sycophants with massive egos and more concern for their career than the truth.
Noam Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper associates must be actively exposed for their role in the propaganda system. For nearly 40 years since they infiltrated the activist movement, these Left gatekeepers have made the activist movements impotent, territorial, confused, and ineffective. Thus instead of understanding their enslavement, many activists end up calling for tighter chains by echoing Chomsky’s calls for gun control, population control, and a world government under the UN. They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement in 9-11 and the CIA/MI-6/Mossad creation known as Al-Qaeda.
Noam Chomsky and his clique of re-direct agents mercilessly push real activists into dead-end solutions. Until they are vocally exposed, the Left will continue to remain a managed asset of the New World Order.
Daniel L. Abrahamson
Various related mp3 files
end-of-oil.mp3 oil-alter TMVideo1 TMVideo2 ArtWork
David Ray Griffin's Madison, Wisconsin lecture from C-span's website http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3
The full Clint Curtis sworn testimony
12 MINUTE 2 MEGABIT CLINTON CURTIS MP3 FILE TIM BERNARD-LEE MP3
NOAM CHOMSKY AUDIO FILE LINKS
11-15-01 Chomsky Talk at at MIT (audio)
Chomsky: Aussie Radioio 11-17-01(audio)
|
01/16/2001 |
Noam Chomsky, Propaganda and Control of the Public |
Noam Chomsky, Prpaganda and Control of the Public Mind.
|
|
01/16/2001 |
Noam Chomsky, Propaganda and Control of the Public |
Noam Chomsky, Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind.
|
|
Case Studies in Hypocrisy: |
Chomsky reveals the true motives behind America's "human
rights" policies-particularly in Iraq. |
March 13, 2000 Professor Noam Chomsky, the outspoken MIT linguistics
professor and prominent political dissident, gave a standing-room-only crowd his
views on globalization, military intervention, sovereignty and world trade as
part of
the
Johns Hopkins Symposium on Foreign Affairs. .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/speech/ram/achomsky.ram
http://www.interlog.com/~nealm/ra.html
Interview with Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive.
RealAudio
version. |
|||
With Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Produced by Globalvision. |
|||
With Shelagh Rogers. (3/21/95, 25 minutes). |
In a Q&A session following a lecture, a young person asks if capitalism,
despite its flaws, is justified because of rising living standards. |
|||
| The Common Good (Audio) |
Details the historical roots of democratic rights -- from Aristotle to the US
Constitutional Convention -- and questions the role of today's private
corporations that want to "undermine democratic functioning but ensure that
there will be a powerful state to subsidize them," as Chomsky puts it. The
complete text of this interview with David Barsamian is published in the Odonian
Press book The Common Good.
Published by
Making Contact
(9/24/97, 30 minutes).
Activists continue to call for an end to economic sanctions against Iraq -- sanctions that UN studies say kill 4,500 children under five each month. Professor Noam Chomsky, author and critic, joins to talk about U.S. "policy" in the Middle East and the media's role.
NOAM CHOMSKY Hard Choice MP3 | Real
6.26.01
These are links to the whole CDs in RealAudio format. To get only some parts, go to the above page for specific links.
The Clinton Vision , in 22 separate clips (56 mins), or the whole CD in one large file.
Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind NOTE: This is a link to the Z Mag page for this CD. Only certain segments are available in RealAudio format -- see this page for the links.
Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World, , a link to the whole CD (56 mins). The page is here.
Capital Rules , the whole CD (56 mins.). The page is here.
Class War: The Attack on Working People , the whole CD. The page is here.
Prospects for Democracy , the whole CD. The page is here.
Noam Chomsky, "The New World Order: Latin America and the Middle East", at www. freespeech.org.
Noam Chomsky, on Indoctrination and Propaganda in the US -- the Media (interview). 15.08 min.
Richard Lewontin, "Biology as Ideology / The Doctrine of DNA", The Massey Lectures for 1990.
Interview with the authors of Fear and Favor in the Newsroom, on media bias caused by corporate ownership.
"Workers Fight Gannett Evil." Union fights Gannett Corp. in Detroit newspaper strike.
The McLibel Lawsuit, against McDonald's Corp.
"A Crash Course for Citizens on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment", from British Columbia. Very interesting, but with a Canadian nationalist focus.
I c. Language and Linguistics
A. From The Cyberschool pages - two on-line A.P. English courses in Oregon, by skilled Internet teacher Fawn Bragg.
C. Chaucer
D. Streaming Video
E. My Lectures
F. Other Medieval Literature
1. Old English
- Selection from King Alfred's translation of Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Meter 6, from Florian Schleburg's page at the University of Augsburg, Germany.
- Old English version of parable of the Seven Wise and Seven Foolish Virgins (Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader, p. 64), from same page.
- The Last Survivor's Speech, from Beowulf (at this location).
- Old English Pages - Audio Corpus. A few mor OE files linked by Cathy Ball.
The following poetic passages are from Ða Engliscan Gesiþas Home Page, "Old English Aloud".
- Deor, in verses. Verse 1; Verse 2; Verse 3; Verse 4; Verse 5; Verse 6a; Verse 6b.
- "The Funeral of Scyld Scefing", from Beowulf. Verses 26 to 31; Verses 32 to 37; Verses 38 to 42; Verses 43 to 46; Verses 47 to 52.
- The Battle of Brunanburh. Get the individual verses from the page itself.
2. Middle English
- The first fit of Sir Gawain and the Grene Knight, from U. GA.(female voice)
- The same text, from the University of Vermont (male voice -- Albert C. Baugh?)
- A different male voice, from the third fit, also U. VT.
- Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (ca. 1360): lines 713-739.
G. Literature, General
H. Bob Price's Lectures
III. The Vietnam War
1. Protest Songs of the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Movement Era
IV. Politics.
A. The Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution
B. Michael Parenti
C. Other Political Tapes
V. Other Academic Lectures
VI. The Internationale!
VII. Other Audio Files
Rare interview with Christopher Lydon on WBUR's The Connection. Note: Unfortunately we only have the first half-hour of this interview. (4/12/99, 60 minutes). |
Audio from Class War
RealAudio requires the
RealAudio 3.0
player. Get the ToolVox player.
| Track | ToolVox | RealAudio 14.4 | RealAudio 28.8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Play the entire disc (56 minutes) | RealAudio 14.4 | RealAudio 28.8 | |
| 1. Intro by David Barsamian (2:28) | ToolVox (44K) | RealAudio 14.4 (142K) | RealAudio 28.8 (271K) |
| 2. Profits before People (1:28) | ToolVox (28K) | RealAudio 14.4 (89K) | RealAudio 28.8 (172K) |
| 3. Culture of Solidarity (3:39) | ToolVox (68K) | RealAudio 14.4 (220K) | RealAudio 28.8 (421K) |
| 4. Praise for Our Magnificence (2:53) | ToolVox (54K) | RealAudio 14.4 (174K) | RealAudio 28.8 (334K) |
| 5. The Undermining of Unions (2:53) | ToolVox (54K) | RealAudio 14.4 (175K) | RealAudio 28.8 (334K) |
| 6. Crime Pays | ToolVox (37K) | RealAudio 14.4 (120K) | RealAudio 28.8 (230K) |
| 7. Economy Up People Down (1:07) | ToolVox (22K) | RealAudio 14.4 (69K) | RealAudio 28.8 (131K) |
| 8. The Globalization of Production (3:35) | ToolVox (66K) | RealAudio 14.4 (217K) | RealAudio 28.8 (413K) |
| 9. Class War (4:06) | ToolVox (76K) | RealAudio 14.4 (249K) | RealAudio 28.8 (473K) |
| 10. Driving People from Defiance to Compliance (1:14) | ToolVox (25K) | RealAudio 14.4 (77K) | RealAudio 28.8 (148K) |
| 11. Technology as a Weapon (2:02) | ToolVox (39K) | RealAudio 14.4 (125K) | RealAudio 28.8 (238K) |
| 12. The Fortune 500: Unaccountable Private Power (5:51) | ToolVox (103K) | RealAudio 14.4 (340K) | RealAudio 28.8 (646K) |
| 13. Social Policy: Welfare for the Rich (6:40) | ToolVox (122K) | RealAudio 14.4 (402K) | RealAudio 28.8 (766K) |
| 14. Propaganda: Corporations Are Your Friends (5:42) | ToolVox (105K) | RealAudio 14.4 (345K) | RealAudio 28.8 (657K) |
| 15. Potential for Fasicsm (2:36) | ToolVox (49K) | RealAudio 14.4 (159K) | RealAudio 28.8 (304K) |
| 16. What Is to Be Done? (0:53) | ToolVox (18K) | RealAudio 14.4 (55K) | RealAudio 28.8 (107K) |
| 17. Oklahoma City and Anti-Politics (5:47) | ToolVox (106K) | RealAudio 14.4 (350K) | RealAudio 28.8 (665K) |
| RealAudio
and Video: Noam Chomsky Unless otherwise stated, all links require
RealPlayer from RealNetworks.
|
WBUR in
Boston interviews Noam Chomsky
Opinions
on Yugoslavia and Kosovo.
LISTEN HERE
Propaganda and Control of
the Public/01/16/2001
The US, Kosovo and History [click
to listen]
Noam Chomsky
Chomsky analyzes the reasons behind the US's intervention in Kosovo and looks at past historical precedents for foreign intervention around the globe.
downloadable audio files
the following Chomsky event audio transcripts consist of two parts: Noam Chomsky's speech and the Q&A session following the speech. Each part is approximately one hour long and is further divided into four 15-minute segments (for a total of eight files).
The digital audio format is MP3 and each file is approximately 13MB for a total of over 100MB. WARNING: these files can take an hour or more each to download!
MP3 players are readily available for free online. A good place to start looking for your own free MP3 player is at www.mp3.com. Popular MP3 player titles include Sonique, Winamp, and UltraPlayer.
|
The Lecture |
The Q & A |
| chomskyqa_01of04.wma | |
| chomsky_02of04.wma | chomskyqa_02of04.wma |
| chomsky_03of04.wma | chomskyqa_03of04.wma |
| chomsky_04of04.wma | chomskyqa_04of04.wma |
Parent Directory 14-Sep-2001 12:26 -Chomsky88pt1.ram 05-Aug-1999 13:37 1k
http://www.noam-chomsky.com/
Click Here to learn how to
simultaneously download mp3 files and play in sequence
http://www.world-of-chomsky.com/
| 1. |
 |
Noam_chomsky_-_vs_-_george_bush stream.paranode.com, 4 min 46 sec http://stream.paranode.com/imc/alberta/noam_chomsky_-_vs_-_george_bush.mp3 |
| 2. |
|
Chomsky_porto_alegre_feb2003_lb uk.indymedia.org, 55 min 11 sec |
| 3. |
|
Washingtondc IndyMedia - Chomsky Vs Bush Iraq www.dc.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 4. |
|
Chomsky_nov_4_02_talk boston.indymedia.org, 22 min 13 sec |
| 5. |
|
Chomsky_nov_4_02_talk boston.indymedia.org, 22 min 13 sec |
| 6. |
|
Independent Media Center - Chomsky Vs Bush Iraq, indymedia.org www.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 7. |
|
Questions and Answers - Noam Chomsky-Houston 10-18-02 mke.indymedia.org, 86 min 50 sec |
| 8. |
|
- Chomsky Intro Houston101802 mke.indymedia.org, 22 min 35 sec |
| 9. |
|
- Noam Chomsky-Houston TX 101802 mke.indymedia.org, 67 min 59 sec |
| 10. |
|
Cultual Imperialism-Links and Sources Cited - Noam Chomsky on
Globalization (full audio interview), Cultual Imperialism-Links and
Sources Cited www.arts.arizona.edu, 14 min 21 sec |
| 21. |
|
Seattle Indymedia - Chomsky Vs Bush Iraq, Seattle Indymedia -
webcast news seattle.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 22. |
|
Independent Media Center - Chomsky-1970, indymedia.org www.indymedia.org, 56 min 43 sec |
| 23. |
|
Government In The Future, Noam Chomsky - Feb 16/1970 www.kpfx.org, 56 min 43 sec |
| 24. |
|
Chomsky_vs__bush__iraq, la.indymedia.org la.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 25. |
|
Chomsky_vs__bush__iraq, la.indymedia.org la.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 26. |
|
Chomsky_vs__bush__iraq stream.paranode.com, 4 min 46 sec |
| 27. |
|
Chomsky_vs__bush__iraq stream.paranode.com, 4 min 46 sec |
| 28. |
|
Boston IndyMedia - Chomsky-vs-bush-iraq boston.indymedia.org, 4 min 46 sec |
| 29. |
|
Mayday IndyMedia - Government In The Future, Noam Chomsky - Feb
16/1970 www.indymedia.org, 56 min 43 sec |
| 30. |
|
Boston IndyMedia - Chomsky 1 metafilter.com, 28 min 44 sec |
| 31. |
|
Chomsky- Gravitate server1.sxsw.com, 4 min 9 sec |
| 32. |
|
Chomsky- Gravitate, SXSW 2002 Bands bands sxsw.com, 4 min 9 sec |
| 33. |
|
Enlightenment Principles, Noam Chomsky www.indymedia.org, 3 min 20 sec |
| 34. |
|
Who Killed Noam Chomsky?, TV audio.musicbuilder.com, 5 min 35 sec |
| 35. |
|
Mayday IndyMedia - Enlightenment Principles, Noam Chomsky www.indymedia.org, 3 min 20 sec |
| 36. |
|
Http://www.frognet.net/~absent/NoamBennet.mp3, Chomsky to Debate
William Bennett 5/30 5:20am : SF www.sf.indymedia.org, 8 min 19 sec |
| 37. |
|
Case Studies In Hypocrisy:U.S. Human Rights Policy - U.S. Prisons, Noam
Chomsky: Prisons in America : SF Indymedia sf.indymedia.org, 6 min 19 sec |
| 38. |
|
Between The Lines Week Ending 5/3/02, Between The Lines www.wpkn.org, 29 min 1 sec |
| 39. |
|
Index of /sound, radioproject.org www.radioproject.org, 56 min 21 sec |
| 40. |
|
Program:Narco Cover, Program:Narco Cover www.radioproject.org, 79 min 54 sec |
| 41. |
|
>>EVIL VS. EVIL (mp3), The Ancient Ecstatic Brotherhood of
PARANOISE www.paranoise.com, 3 min 15 sec |
| 42. |
|
Clarence: Cultura e Spettacolo - Società delle Menti - Audio Files (), Clarence:
Cultura e Spettacolo - Società de www.clarence.com, 3 min 40 sec |
| 43. |
|
Fierce Invalids Home From..., Tom Robbins www.clarence.com, 7 min 44 sec |
| 44. |
|
Part 4, G7 Welcoming Committee Records - News www.g7welcomingcommittee.com, 27 min 6 sec |
| 45. |
|
Part 1, G7 Welcoming Committee Records - News www.g7welcomingcommittee.com, 36 min 21 sec |
| 46. |
|
Part 3, G7 Welcoming Committee Records - News www.g7welcomingcommittee.com, 25 min 41 sec |
| 47. |
|
Part 2, G7 Welcoming Committee Records - News www.g7welcomingcommittee.com, 24 min 34 sec |
| 48. |
|
Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot www.clarence.com, 10 min 58 sec |
| 49. |
|
G7 Welcoming Committee Records - Releases, G7 Welcoming Committee
Records - Releases www.g7welcomingcommittee.com, 3 min 52 sec |
| 50. |
|
If I Told Him, Gertrude Stein www.clarence.com, 3 min 36 sec |
Noam Chomsky
- Welfare for the Rich - in the United States, our tax dollars supply social
welfare for the very rich, while the poor experience the rigors of the free
market. 1.1 megabytes in length.
Noam
Chomsky - Delusion - writers employed by the corporate media are not
necessarily conscious of engaging in deception. Instead, they are completely
persuaded by corporate propaganda. Otherwise they would not be employed. 1
megabyte in length.
Noam
Chomsky - Indoctrination of the very young into the system. How the system
earmarks children for success or failure by their tendency to conform, obey, and
be passive spectators (America's ideal worker). 1.2 megabytes.
Noam
Chomsky - Labor Struggles of the early American factory workers who wrote
that the new spirit of the Age was, "Gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
900k.
Noam Chomsky - Authoritarian Structures work to control the public mind and
crush independent thinking and turn human beings into passive consumers of
mass-marketed products. 300k.
Noam Chomsky
- versus King George the First - exposes the embarrassing facts that Bush
Senior conveniently omitted regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. 4.4 megabytes.
Noam
Chomsky - Free Market Fantasies - what precisely does it mean to be a
conservative in favor of the free market? 5.7 megabytes.
Noam
Chomsky - Hypocrisy: Good Terror - there is "bad" terrorism and "good"
terrorism, according to America's rulers. The "good" terrorism is practiced by
American allies, such as Turkey, who commit atrocities against millions of
"irrelevant" people. 1.8 megabytes.
Noam Chomsky
- Old Wine, New Bottles - 1.1 megabytes.
Noam Chomsky -
Detering the NAFTA debate - 5 megabytes.
Noam Chomsky - Responds to a Question - 3.5 megabytes.
Noam Chomsky - The Globalization of Production
Noam
Chomsky - The Clinton Vision (13)
Noam
Chomsky - The Clinton Vision : Corporate Attack on Working People (14)
Noam
Chomsky - The Clinton Vision : Social Disintegration (17)
Noam
Chomsky - The Clinton Vision : Labor Loses in Clinton (20)
Noam
Chomsky - The Clinton Vision : What We Can Do (22)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (1)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (2)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (3)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (4)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (5)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (6)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (7)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (8)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (9)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (10)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (11)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (12)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (13)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (14)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (15)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (16)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (17)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (18)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (19)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (20)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (21)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (22)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (23)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (24)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (25)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (26)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (27)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (xx)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (dis)
Noam
Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind (zz)
Noam
Chomsky - Prospects for Democracy : U.S. Repression II (10)
Noam Chomsky
- Free Market Fantasies (05)
Noam
Chomsky - Culture of Solidarity - why labor unions are important to a
democratic society.
Noam Chomsky
- Torture - The Clinton Administration violates Article 14 and forcibly
returns the Haitians to their torture chamber.
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (01) Destroying American Industrial Unions
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (03) The Business Press Explains
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (07) Tyranny is Pure Freedom
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (08) Strikebreakers
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (09) In the Case of Mexico
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (10) Crime Pays
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (15) The Wealthy Classes
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (16) Return to the Trenches
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (17) A Vicious Class War
Noam
Chomsky - Capital Rules (18) Selling the Capitalist Story
Noam
Chomsky - Case Studies in Hypocrisy (2-09)
Noam
Chomsky - Case Studies in Hypocrisy (2-10)
Noam
Chomsky - Case Studies in Hypocrisy (2-11)
Noam
Chomsky - Case Studies in Hypocrisy (2-12)
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (05) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (07) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (09) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (10) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (11) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (16) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - Class War (17) - The Attack on Working People
Noam
Chomsky - on Terrorism and the Media - Damon created this MP3 of Noam's
speech at FAIR's 15-year anniversary. (See
http://www.fair.org/chomsky-town.html). He spoke for about an hour about the
war(s) on terrorism and the media. Thanks, Damon! 14 megabytes.
Noam Chomsky: Controlled Asset of New World Order (continued)
by DANIEL L ABRAHAMSON (RENSE.COM)
However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a
different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles,
appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest
activists.
Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left Gatekeeper, using his
elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
His formula over the years has stayed consistent -- Blame "America" and
"Corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which
pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction.
Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers
the solution of world government under the United Nations.
In his book "The Conspirator's Hierarchy," Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a
deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr.
Coleman's claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky's role as a
Left Gatekeeper.
Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government
complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore, he claims that the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are
"nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal
Reserve and its role in manipulating the cycle of debt.
Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent
scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the
obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for
humanity.
What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for UNESCO,
and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the
UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
Chomsky's role in the propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to
present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired
solutions of the elite.
Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated
a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property
and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
Tens of millions of activists worldwide still remain trapped by this scam,
failing to recognize the inherent autocratic and elitist structures of
Marxism-Leninism or the newer incarnation under Chomsky.
The Globalist elites and their army of social scientists at the Tavistock
Institute understand that people are going to question the inequities of the
current economic system.
For example, why is wealth distributed so unequally between classes and
countries?
Why are those living in third world nations allowed to die from preventable
diseases and starvation?
Why does the U.S. government sponsor and direct such murderous foreign policy?
Why was America attacked on 9-11?
In other words, why is the world embroiled in such violence?
Who is behind all this suffering?
And most importantly, what solutions would relieve the poverty and destruction
plaguing the worldwide population?
Enter Chomsky, the controlled opposition, to play the role of re-direct agent.
He discusses a mere fraction of the real elite manipulation and then quickly
pushes his followers into dead-end solutions and alienating rhetoric.
Chomsky's hero status is further amplified by Left Gatekeeper publications like
"Z Magazine," "DemocracyNow!," "The Progressive," and "The Nation."
Is it a coincidence that all of those magazines receive major funding from
Globalist front-groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation,
Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation? Chomsky may be the head
gatekeeper, but he works alongside a network of fellow Globalist assets like Amy
Goodman who do their best to appear radical while avoiding all the hardcore
issues and deliberately leading the Left into oblivion.
The following analysis will show that Chomsky, a deep cover agent for the New
World Order, a master of black propaganda whose true motives become clear with a
sober and honest examination.
911
Noam Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper in the aftermath of the
9-11 crimes, lashing out at the 9-11 truth movement and claiming any suggestions
of government complicity are fabrications.
The "radical" Chomsky takes a position so deeply rooted in denial that it makes
the staged 9-11 whitewash commission look like an honest study. He belligerently
refuses to discuss any of the massive evidence proving government foreknowledge
and participation in the crimes, claiming it would destroy the activist
movements worldwide:
"If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my opinion:
the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly likely that nothing
significant will be found. And if -- which I very greatly doubt -- something is
found that would quickly send everyone in Washington to the death chamber, the
left is unlikely to emerge triumphant."
In other words, Chomsky is telling his followers to ignore the evidence because
according to him, none exists. However even if there is massive evidence,
responsible activists should ignore it because it would be "the end of the
Left." Chomsky's role as a 9-11 gatekeeper goes even further as he denies each
piece of evidence individually. The following examples should suffice:
1) As most honest 9-11 researchers know, 7 of the accused 19 hijackers are
alive, proving the official story is a fabrication. Many of the remaining 12
were trained as U.S. Air Force bases and CIA-connected Huffman Aviation. Many of
the accused "religious fanatics" acted more like degenerate contract agents, as
they flashed wads of cash, visited strip clubs, drank profusely, blew cocaine,
smoked weed, cavorted with strippers and had strange meetings in the drug-rich
Florida keys.
Men like Mohammed Atta fit the MO of an undercover CIA drug runner: a man
trained at U.S. Air Force bases, fluent in many languages, able to evade INS
regulations, working with drug dealers, and receiving wired bank funds from
CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence. There remains no photographic evidence of
these supposed hijackers ever getting on the planes (walking through airport
security does not count). Furthermore, the autopsy list of Flight 77 which
supposedly hit the Pentagon listed none of the accused hijackers.
Regarding the evidence of government complicity in training the hijackers,
Chomsky wrote the following:
"Nothing empirical is impossible. Thus, it is conceivable that everyone in the
White House is totally insane. And in my opinion, that's what they would have
had to be to try something that would have been very likely to turn into an
utter fiasco, and if by some miracle had succeeded, would almost certainly have
leaked, so that they would all be facing the death sentence. Possible, but not
likely."
2) What about the unprecedented NORAD stand down on 9-11 which broke standard
operation procedure? Over 67 times in 2001, NORAD had dispatched jets when they
deviated from their flight path. In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart's single
engine Lear in depressurized, NORAD planes were flying around the vessel in 20
minutes.
But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator
for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD. Meanwhile NORAD ran at least 7 hijacking
drills that morning like Operation Vigilant Guardian where commercial jets
crashed into government buildings in Manhattan, Washington DC, and Virginia.
These "mock" drills, designed to give live on 9-11, helped to distract the
honest people within NORAD and the FAA, and to evade suspicion from patriotic
investigators within the CIA, FBI, and NSA's Echelon network.
Of the subject of the NORAD stand down, Chomsky wrote the following:
"Whether NORAD followed SOP, I have no idea, not having investigated the matter.
I think the case is very weak, and diverts people from the really serious
issues."
3) How about the document called "Operation Northwoods" signed off in 1962 by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Generals Lemnitzer and Landsdale? These men,
sworn to protect the Constitution, devised a plan to create false-flag terrorism
in order to engineer a war with Cuba. Their treasonous plans included the
following:
- "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to
continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
- "Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban
agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement
also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
- "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation."
This document was discovered in the National Archives and has been the subject
of mainstream articles by ABCNEWS and others. It stands as clear evidence that
the U.S. government has designed plans to engineer terrorist attacks and blame
them on foreign enemies. Yet Noam Chomsky does not think the Northwoods document
matters:
"Operation Northwoods example is only one of many reasons for being skeptical
about this: it doesn't even come close, and it was not carried out. Furthermore,
there is nothing in history that even remotely resembles what is being proposed.
Of course, that does not show that the thesis is impossible: nothing could show
that, by definition. And if someone can put together some evidence and refute
the arguments as to why it is extraordinarily unlikely, then the matter will be
worth pursuing."
Chomsky's role as the chief 9-11 gatekeeper proves he is distracting his leftist
followers from the truth.
Instead of facing the clear facts, he claims that 19 hijackers did it and that
al-Qaeda is a real terrorist enemy.
When presented with documented evidence, from living hijacker patsies to the
NORAD stand down, he simply claims it doesn't exist. He resorts to emotional
"they would never do it" appeals in order to deny the obvious.
Chomsky is exhibiting far more than logical skepticism, but instead is actively
engaging in disinformation.
9-11 Prior Knowledge
Chomsky denial of government complicity in the crimes of September 11 is one
thing, but he goes further, claiming the government had no prior knowledge of
the attacks. Mind you, this is a position even weaker than Michael Moore's tepid
Fahrenheit 9-11, which at least tacitly suggested a degree of prior knowledge.
Chomsky's position is untenable. For a man who prides himself on science and
logic, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge mainstream media reports finds him
using arguments similar to Holocaust deniers; one can show them photographs,
videos, testimony, and physical evidence but the burden of proof is impossible.
Such is the case with Chomsky who ignores the many government admissions of
prior knowledge widely available even in the 9-11 whitewash commission report.
Here is Noam Chomsky writing on government prior knowledge:
"That tells us even less. Every intelligence agency is flooded, daily, with
information of very low credibility. In retrospect, one can sometimes pick out
pieces that mean something. At the time, that's a virtual impossibility. By
arguments like this we can prove that someone blew up the White House
yesterday."
If they did not have prior knowledge, why were Cheney and NORAD running drills
that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC
and Virginia? Also, wouldn't the NSA's Echelon network have picked up the
chatter?
Of course, Chomsky does not even admit the Echelon network exists. This despite
the NSA's openly acknowledged ability to monitor all phone calls, emails and
satellite communication with keyword software which can identify phrases and
immediately begin tracking the communication. This despite their admitted bases
at Fort Meade, with sister sites in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and
other unknown locations.
Students of the intelligence world know full well that the NSA's Echelon network
picked up the chatter for weeks before the attacks. In fact, the NSA admitted
it, saying that on September 10 agents intercepted calls from hijackers but,
*ahem*, did not translate them until after the attacks. Such admissions are red
herrings, clearly designed to excuse massive prior knowledge at tops levels of
the intelligence circles.
What about the President Daily Briefing given to Bush in late August which
discussed the threat of hijacked jets? What about intelligence groups like Able
Danger and FBI agents like Robert Wright who warned of the flight school
trainees?
What about FBI agent John O'Neill's investigation into Al-Qaeda financing which
was quashed by Bush? What about attorney David Schippers who desperately tried
to warn Ashcroft about the impending attacks?
Why was the CIA admittedly tracking the accused hijackers since 2000? Why was
FEMA running drills in Manhattan that morning out of WTC-7? Why did PNAC
documents like "Rebuilding America's Defenses" call for helpful Pearl Harbor
style attacks?
Those are just a smattering of the mountain of evidence proving beyond any
reasonable doubt that the U.S. government had prior knowledge. But Chomsky must
deny these, because his role is to mislead and distract while chastising the
9-11 truth movement.
CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission
Before and after 9-11, the key role for the Left Gatekeepers like Chomsky has
been denying the existence of the overclass which prints the money, funds and
manages the wars, ships the drugs, controls entire industries, and creates the
scientific propaganda which plagues society. Instead they critique mid-level
minions & front corporations while speaking in glittering generalities.
In the world of Left gatekeepers, the New World Order does not exist. There are
no elite plan for global government. Instead they paint the picture of a
profit-motivated world in which corporations control the government. But merely
blaming corporations misses the forces which own their assets, manage their
resources, control their board of directors, and pull their strings.
Chomsky steadfastly denies the role of the Council on Foreign Relations,
Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission in the creation and management
of the wars and poverty he claims to condemn. When speaking on such
"conspiracies," he said the following:
"It's the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations,
all these other things the people are racing around searching for conspiracy
theories about-they're "nothing" organizations. Of course they're there,
obviously rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with
one another, and plan together-that's not a big surprise. But these conspiracy
theories people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do
with the way the institutions actually function."
(Understanding Power, 348)
The CFR, funded by Wall Street and the Rockefellers after WW II, is an
organization openly sworn to destroying American national sovereignty in favor
of world government. They have acted as the de-facto "secret team" in managing
U.S. domestic and foreign policy, orchestrating wars like Vietnam and the first
Gulf War.. Almost all executives in the CIA and State Department have been
members of the CFR, whether it was Dean Rusk, Allen Dulles and Robert McNamara
during Vietnam or Richard Armitage and George Tenet during the crimes of 9-11.
The CFR has been the dominant roundtable group pushing for a Panamerican Union
by 2010 which would dissolve national borders and unite Mexico, Canada, and
America under a single currency, with biometric ID cards and GPS-tracked
vehicles on camera-strewn superhighways. How can Chomsky seriously claim the CFR
is a "nothing organization" when their role in crafting policy is so clear? Whom
is he trying to protect in denying the treasonous goals of the CFR?
Chomsky's stonewalling on the Bilderberg raises even more suspicions. Since 1954
the Bilderberg has served as the central brain of the New World Order, the major
secret gathering for Globalist agents from across the globe. Bilderberg chairmen
like Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller have pushed for total global
government, eugenics population control, engineering wars, and controlling the
worldwide economy. Top politicians from America and Europe also undergo a
grooming process at the Bilderberg. Bill Clinton went in 1991 as Rockefeller's
personal guest, and Tony Blair attended in 1993 before becoming Prime Minister.
John Kerry attended in 2000, and John Edwards did two weeks before becoming the
VP nominee in 2004.
Major members of the media, such as editors from the Economist, NY Times,
Newsweek, Washington Post, US News and World Report are regular attendees. Yet
they rarely, if ever, mention the proceedings, sworn to secrecy by their
globalist masters.
Nevertheless in recent years, the truth has emerged. Major media outlets like
the BBC admit the Bilderberg is planning for a one-world currency, bank, and
army. Articles in Reuters and the Financial Times of London have admitted the
existence of the Bilderberg,
their grooming of politicians, and their secret plans for world governance. If
these mainstream media reporters can admit the major role of the Bilderberg in
shaping world affairs, why can't Chomsky? Why is he holding back?
Simlarly, how can Chomsky seriously ignore the role of the Trilateral
Commission, the brainchild of Globalist masters David Rockefeller and Zbigniew
Brzezinski? This is the same Brzezinski who helped direct the first CIA funds to
bin Laden, and in his book Between Two Ages called for a technotronic society
with a microchipped population.
The Trilateral Commission openly admits they are trying to control the economy
through closer European-Japanese-American cooperation. They operate much like
the CFR, counting the worlds top elites, politicians, corporate executives, and
media barons as members. They have been instrumental in creating the destructive
"free trade" agreements that are destroying America's economy and national
sovereignty in order to usher in world governance.
Journalist Jim Tucker, a Spotlight reporter with impeccable credentials, also
links the Trilateral Commission to the international narcotics trade, the $500
billion-plus racket from heroin and cocaine alone which helps fund the
Globalist's house of cards.
What would motivate Chomsky to call the Trilateral Commission a "nothing
organization?" Is it because they echo his goal of a world government? Or are
there darker forces at work?
When balanced against over 50 years of documented evidence, Chomsky's claims are
exposed as nothing more than spurious lies and denial.
Federal Reserve
Similarly, while Chomsky bemoans the widespread poverty in America and the Third
World, he has never spoken publicly on the role of the Federal Reserve.
Therefore most Leftist activists are unaware of the role played by this
privately owned bank cartel which prints worthless fiat currency out of thin
air. Since its secret formation at Jekyll Island in 1910, and subsequent illegal
passage during the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve has held the
American economy hostage: creating inflation and boom & bust cycles through
managed money supply and interest rates.
Furthermore, every dollar printed is merely debt charged to the federal
government. Thus while it only costs 10 cents to print a $100 bill, the U.S.
government fits the bill for the full $100 to the private Fed.
The creation of the Federal Reserve, owned largely by the Rockefeller, Morgan,
and Rothschild interests has eluded the "radical" Chomsky. Furthermore he does
not discuss the proven role of the Fed in creating recessions and depressions in
order to purchase assets at a fraction of their value.
Chomsky ignores the role of the fiat currency system which drives down wages,
inflates prices, and puts the American economy under the iron claw of a few
elite families. Since the dollar is the base currency for worldwide trade and
the current economic house of cards, shouldn't these topics be discussed?
Perhaps Chomsky stays mute because a central bank fits into his ideology. After
all, one of the key planks in the Marxist and Fabian socialist agenda is a
managed central bank in order to control the economy. Or perhaps Chomsky fears
discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that runs the world
economy. For him it is easier to blast the front corporations and low-level
grocery boys.
The CIA
If he denies even basic government foreknowledge of 9-11, should it be any
surprise that Chomsky avoids criticism of the CIA? When asked about the links
between the CIA and bin Laden, and the CIA's overt support of the Taliban,
Chomsky wrote the following:
"CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate) or the Taliban (also
not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant."
How can Chomsky write this with a straight face? He is simply ignoring the
documented evidence of CIA funding for the "freedom fighters" known as al-Qaeda,
totaling over $6 billion. The cozy CIA/al-Qaeda relationship continued through
the Bosnian conflict via training of the drug-peddling Kosovo Liberation Army.
What about the meetings between Taliban leaders, oil executives, and Bush
administration officials from January to August 2001 to discuss building an oil
and gas pipeline for Unocal? Chomsky also denies the mainstream reports from UK
and French newspapers about two top CIA agents meeting with bin Laden for over
ten days in July 2001 while he received dialysis at the American Hospital in
Dubai.
But Chomsky goes further than that. While claiming to critique the CIA, he
absolves the agency of any responsibility for its actions, from Nazi origins via
Project Paperclip to heinous mind control experiments like MK ULTRA. This
horrific period in CIA history, a true Rosetta stone in understanding the New
World Order, is scientifically ignored by Chomsky, who sees the CIA as an
innocent victim of White House orders:.
"Or take the CIA, which is considered the source of a lot of these conspiracies;
we have a ton of
information about it, and as I read the information, the CIA is basically just
an obedient branch of the White House. I mean sure, the CIA has done things
around the world- but as far as we know, it hasn't done anything on its own.
There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the CIA is some
kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record
shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes
carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called
"plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want
it to look like we did, those guys in the CIA did it, and we can throw some of
them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the CIA, along
with mostly just a collection of information.
(Chomsky, "Understanding Power")
Like all of Chomsky's claims, this one is based on emotion, conjecture, and
opinion. He does not cite any specifics, knowing full well that his fawning
minions will accept his word as gospel.
Chomsky sees the CIA as a pathetic collection of scapegoat bureaucrats, acting
as grocery boys for their master President. According to him, the CIA does not
carry out secret projects on their own, and if accused of such, are innocent.
JFK Assassination/CIA Role
Therefore is it any surprise the Chomsky endorses the lone assassin and magic
bullet theory in the assassination of JFK? From his emergence as a guru of the
Left in the late 60's, Chomsky has belittled anyone researching the anomolies
stemming from the official story and Warren Commission cover-up. According to
him, any examination is a complete waste of time:
"The Kennedy assassination cult is probably the most striking case. I mean, you
have all these people doing super-scholarly intensive research, and trying to
find out just who talked to whom, and what's the exact contours were of this
supposed high-level conspiracy - it's all complete nonsense. As soon as you look
into the various theories, they always collapse, there's just nothing there. But
in many places, the left has just fallen apart on the basis of these sheer
cults."
(Chomsky, Understanding Power)
Chomsky's position puts him in the less than 15% of Americans who believe Oswald
was the lone shooter. For such a self-proclaimed "anarchist" radical, Chomsky's
trust in Warren Commission's official story seems akin to a child's belief in
Santa Claus.
The facts, of course, tell a different story. While far from perfect man,
Kennedy ran afoul by opposing the very forces that took over after his death. He
began withdrawing 5,000 CIA "advisers" from Vietnam; fired CIA chiefs Allen
Dulles and Richard Bissel; disbanded the CIA and handed over covert operations
to the State Department; ordered the creation of a silver-backed government
currency to break the Federal Reserve monopoly; turned down the Operation
Northwoods plan to engineer false flag terrorism and blame it on Cuba; and
refused to invade Cuba and launch a full scale nuclear war during the Missile
Crisis, a plan favored by hawks like General Curtis LeMay.
Chomsky ignores the true history of the Kennedy presidency because it would
expose te shadow government takeover after his assassination.
What about Chomsky's claims that the CIA never acts as a rogue elephant? Do they
hold up?
MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip
Chomsky has never publicly acknowledged the covert CIA mind control programs
known as MK ULTRA and its many offshoots. This program alone shows how the CIA
was indeed a rogue elephant, as they ran illegal campaign of propaganda,
brainwashing, sex slavery, and poisoning of citizens.
In 1946, Globalist bagman Harry Truman began a covert plan to smuggle top Nazi
SS officers, scientists, and propagandists into America. Those same war
criminals quickly became the front line for the postwar U.S. intelligence
machine. Reinhard Gehlen, one of Hitler's top intelligence chiefs, led postwar
European intelligence for the CIA, becoming the darling of head honcho Allen
Dulles.
Then, using his same crew of Gestapo and SS, aided by the Vatican, and sponsored
by the CIA, Gehlen set up "rat lines" which smuggled 5,000 of the worst Nazi
criminals into South and Central America. Butchers like Klaus Barbie, Mortin
Bormann and Josef Mengele among others owed their freedom to this program.
Those same men would later aid CIA coups in Angentina, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil
and other countries. After all, they were veteran experts: early Gehlen projects
had included rigging elections in Italy and France. By 1955, more than 760
German scientists had been became U.S. citizens, many specializing in black
research projects. This growing cabal of Nazi doctors found a happy marriage
with the control freak elitists infesting the NSA, CIA, and black operations
government.
These men birthed the MK ULTRA program, focusing on mass mind control, via
drugs, hypnosis, subliminals, and pulsed electromagnetic waves. It was this mad
science, spawned in the Nazi labs of Dr. Josef Mengele, that now obsessed men
like Sidney Gottlieb, John Lilly, Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron.
Their most famous project was the creation of Manchurian candidates, used for
political assassinations, drug transportation, espionage, and sabotage. Yet this
was not limited to Sirhan Sirhan.
In fact, both Gottlieb and Cameron helped train thousands of pre-adolescent
children for use in child prostitution, sex slavery, blackmail, satanic rituals
and murder. Known as the Monarch Project, children were kidnaped from American
streets and foreign nations and then programmed with trauma based mind control.
Other common victims for experimentation included prisoners, the homeless, and
residents of mental institutions, all cherry-picked because they were
defenseless. Details of this horrific and still operational program are
available in rare and highly suppressed texts of Fritz Springmeier, which
usually fetch over $300 a piece.
Why does Chomsky refuse to discuss MK ULTRA and its sister projects? Why does he
claim the CIA was merely a pawn of the White House, when the record proves that
Eisenhower and Kennedy had little, if any knowledge of MK ULTRA? Simply put: Why
is Noam Chomsky covering for the CIA?
Elite Child Sex Rings
The Monarch Project of prostituting children deserves further mention (although
Chomsky would disagree). In 1988 Vice President Bush was caught having 15
year-old call boy prostitutes visiting the White House late at night. The credit
cards records to prove it were splashed across the front page of the Washington
Times: "Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIP's with Reagan, Bush Sr."
Unfortunately the star witness, Craig Spence, was suicided in his hotel with
piano wire before he could testify. Book like "The Franklin Coverup" by John
DeCamp have further proven the links between the CIA and Army intelligence to
the elite sex slavery rings. Cases of like the "The Finders" in Washington DC,
where customs agents discovered a CIA warehouse full of child porn and satanic
torture, stand as yet further evidence.
In the forrmer Yugloslavia, CIA front company Dyncorp has been convicted of
operating in the human slave trade and using their C-130's to ship many of the
200,000 women and children smuggled out every year. Furthermore, mainstream news
outlets have shown evidence of UN Peacekeepers assisting the sex trade in the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Balkans.
Despite the voluminous amount of grotesque evidence, Chomsky has never discussed
the elite sex trade. This is an issue so shocking, so paradigm-altering, that
his Leftist followers would no longer trust their loving mother government, and
that is the last thing Chomsky wants. After all, if the Leftists knew that top
level politicians are actually pedophiles practicing satanic ritual abuse, they
would no longer trust the savior world government. The absence of Chomsky and
the Left on the suffering of these children speaks volumes about their true
moral character and motives.
MK ARTICHOKE/ MK NAOMI:
Other MK ULTRA side projects included pushing LSD to the youth culture and
attaching electrodes into prisoners heads, the latter perfected by Dr. Delgado.
Adjunct programs like MK NAOMI and MK ARTICHOKE focused on genetically
engineered viruses, biological agents, and radiation effects on American
citizens. Common experiments included testing biological agents and atomic
weapons radiation on soldiers, the mentally handicapped, people in subways, and
even whole towns; putting cancer viruses into polio vaccines; and exposing
pregnant women to radiation to test the effects on the fetus. These experiments
have been documented as continuing into the 1980's and likely still continue
today.
Chomsky does not discuss these horrendous programs, because it would awaken his
readers to the cruelest fact: that the U.S. government will murder its own
citizens and soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of unwitting subjects
simply for political gain. After all, if they would feed radiated breakfast
cereal to thousands of retarded children, would these same parasitic elites not
also kill more than 2,800 Americans on September 11?
Fluoride
Of course, MK ULTRA lives on today in our drinking water. It was around the time
of its inception, in the 1950's, that the U.S. government began adding sodium
fluoride to tap water in massive quantities.. Should we be shocked? After all,
the first people to use the deadly neurotoxin were the Nazis, who found it
pacified the concentration camp prisoners. Now thanks to imported Nazi doctors
helping our friendly neighborhood CIA, American citizens could enjoy the same
privilege as those in Hitler's camps.
Chomsky has never discusses the effects of sodium fluoride, nor the lead and
arsenic used in water as silent weapons of pacification. As a scientist, he is
apparently uninterested in sodium fluoride's proven link to cancer, leukemia,
osteoporosis, Alzheimer disease, and brain damage.
So, should we be surprised that he never writes about the deadly poison
aspartame found in thousands of products? Or genetically modified foods and
growth hormones which destroy immune systems while causing blood disorders and
swelling of the organs? Or cell phones which emit deadly microwave radiation
leading to cancer, vision loss, and (according to published BBC reports)
altering human DNA? Or the GWEN towers which pulse deadly ELF radiation across
America?
Rockefeller Pharma Cartel
The Nazi doctors who didn't end up in American intelligence found cushy jobs in
the pharmaceutical cartel firms like Merck and Eli-Lilly. Chomsky never
discusses the history of these firms; nor the Rockefeller control over the
American Medical Association; nor the link between mercury-tainted vaccines and
brain damage; nor the deadly mind control drugs like SSRI's (Prozac, Zoloft,
etc.) and amphetamine-based Adderall/Ritalin pills pimped out to helpless
children.
These drugs cause bone degeneration, memory loss, suicidal tendencies and added
depression to the poor kids gobbling them like Flintstone's chewables, all at
the advice of their pill-pusher death merchant doctors. Meanwhile Chomsky stays
true to form, ignoring these matters and instead calling for socialized,
Federally-controlled healthcare which would further subsidize the pharma cartel.
This is just another example of his bait and switch tactics, a sloppy mess of
disinfo and elite sponsored solutions.
Psychiatry/ New Freedom Initiative
Chomsky and his Left Gatekeepers also ignore the assault from psychiatric
community, largely controlled by the Rockefellers and Tavistock Institute, who
seek to define every neurosis as a mental illness in order to push more drugs.
Bush has signed the New Freedom Initiative to forcibly psychologically test all
K-12 students in public schools, screen them for "mental illnesses," and force
the children to take the recommended drugs.
This brainwashing agenda was pushed by the pharma cartel, with GlaxoSmithKline,
Eli Lilly, Merck and others investing millions in buy-offs and lobbying. But
news of this extraordinary Stalinist plan never graced the pages of Chomsky's
editorials, nor Z Magazine, The Nation, the Progressive, and DemocracyNow.
Perhaps this is because the New Freedom Initiative fits into their goal of
government-controlled socialized health care.
The New Freedom Initiative, bolder than Stalin's wildest dreams, is just a small
part of the eugenics agenda; a dominant Globalist goal which Chomsky and his
Left Gatekeeper bagmen aid and abet. Chomsky has never written about the
sinister American Psychiatric Association, nor the role of it's former chief,
Dr. Ewen Cameron, the aforementioned MK ULTRA villain and CIA child programmer.
Key aspects of the scientific eugenics movement such as population control,
abortion legalization, poisonous vaccinations, and stem cell research find their
most vocal advocates on the far Left of the managed political debate. Leftist
college majors like sociology advocate programs like parental licensing by the
state, state-controlled child care, and Chinese style childbirth laws with
forced sterilization as a penalty.
Leftists call for more vaccinations in the Third World despite the admittedly
tainted vaccines used by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. All of this
is indicative of an infiltrated movement, a Left deeply penetrated by Globalist
agents driving activists into unwittingly championing the Brave New World.
Population Control
Population control by any means necessary is a major, some would say the major
goal of the New World Order, perhaps even paramount to their goal of a cashless
society control grid with microchipped slaves. The chief architects of
population control are Bilderberg elitists like David and Nelson Rockefeller,
Henry Kissinger, Prince Philip, Ted Turner, Alexander Haig, and Cyrus Vance.
Their Malthusian nightmare requires killing 90% of the "useless eaters" through
war, genetically engineered viruses, and engineered starvation. Declassified
documents like NSM 200 and Global 2000 lay the plans out with cold precision.
Chomsky, the self-proclaimed radical, also advocates such depopulation methods.
In Chomsky's book "Understanding Power," a collection of his talks with
activists, a crowd member asks about population control, to which Chomsky
responds:
"If we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn't going to
survive much longer...Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn't
matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It's like traffic: I mean you can't
make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of
a social contract involved, otherwise it won't work." (61)
Chomsky and other gatekeepers claim to maintain the moral high ground, but then
advocate the eugenics agenda pushed by elite roundtable groups like the
Bilderberg and Club of Rome. How can Chomsky claim to be an advocate for the
Third World while simultaneously pushing for the managed murder agenda favored
by Henry Kissinger?"
Gun Control
Another one of the great successes of the Left gatekeeper has been pushing for
unconstitutional gun control agenda through their publications like The Nation,
Z Magazine, The Progressive, and their internet kin at DemocracyNow! &
Indymedia. It is a great achievement of propaganda when the supposed radicals
"opposing Bush" call for a completely disarmed American populace and inflated
budget for BATF thugs in ski masks. Chomsky mock s those who support the
Constitutionally endowed right to bear arms. In fact, he says it doesn't exist:
"It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit
people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to
the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the
times interprets them as permitting."
(Secrets, Lies, and Democracy)
Then later in the interview, Chomsky is asked if guns are a proper way to
respond to government tyranny. He responds as follows:
"As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all,
this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government
has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no
way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's
morally legitimate.
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more
benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while
one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition to gun
control, I think it's sadly misguided."
(Secrets, Lies and Democracy)
It would be one thing to hear such rhetoric out of the Fabian socialists in the
Democratic party. But to have the supposed "fringe radicals" saying there is no
second amendment and advocating gun seizures is remarkable. And because of
globalist infiltration of the left, this policy once favored by Hitler, Stalin,
Mao, and other mass murderers has found a comfortable home. Hence it has become
common to hear activists protesting the Iraq quagmire while simultaneously
calling for gun control.
Environmental Front Groups
As masters of propaganda, the Globalists have uses their Left Gatekeepers to
push eugenics and population control as necessary for the environment. This has
been accomplished through the phony environmental movement and Peak Oil
fabrications.
The Club of Rome, a globalist front group created in 1968, immediately began
calling for population reduction under the guise of environmentalism. Other
fronts like the World Wildlife Fund, managed by the aforementioned Prince
Philip, vocally push for population control while seizing large swaths of land
for "Mother Earth." Other pet projects such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would
give the UN total control of energy resources, have floundered.
Past WWF board members have included Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard,
Hollinger media gopher and Bilderberg member Conrad Black, Shell chairman John
Loudon, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and accused drug
dealer Henry Keswick.
Chomsky is one of the many re-direct agents who use the real environmental
pollution problems to push for a fascist takeover by a world government. Much
like the ideas discussed in the Report From Iron Mountain, he uses the threat of
global warming to justify totalitarian control:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way
understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10
years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have
a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only
method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because
there's just no other alternatives right now."
(Understanding Power, 388)
Here is Noam Chomsky, openly advocating a fascist takeover because the ends
justify the means. This is classic problem-reaction-solution programming, as he
points to the real threat of pollution and then offers the solution of tyranny
Peak Oil
As previously stated, the environmental movement was funded and amplified by
Globalist oil, banking, and drug cartels, with specific help from the
Rockefeller Foundation. The WWF, along with other phony NGO's like the Sierra
Club and Greenpeace consistently call for population reduction. Additionally
these groups push the flat earth thesis of "Peak Oil," predicting that oil
supplies will soon run out and of course...require massive worldwide population
reductions.
Chomsky posted an entry called "Peak Oil" on his blog in June, 2004, writing the
following: "The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do
with timing and cost."
Then in a radio interview with Steve Scherr, Chomsky said the following of Peak
Oil:
"There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the
oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the
U.S. here, to move toward something
like sustainable energy. If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're
just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so
the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it
could also be beneficial."
The "beneficial" aspects Chomsky discusses are likely the resulting population
control and starvation that would ensue from such a shortage.
But, in reality, oil is abiotic and constantly regenerating. This, while huge
wells go untapped in Russia, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sudan, Cuba, Indonesia,
Iraq, Alaska, Venezuela, Bolivia, Norway, and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally,
refinery capacity has been deliberately shut down by the oil oligopoly in order
to create artificial supply shortages. Market prices are controlled by the
Anglo-American cartel and they intend to use this as a vehicle for engineered
crises. At this years Bilderberg meeting Henry Kissinger reportedly predicted
$100 a barrel oil within a year. The only possible result is a complete
worldwide depression.
It is within the "radical" Left that horror stories of diminishing oil find
their home. Even within the 9-11 truth movement, authors like Mike Ruppert and
Nafeez Ahmed have attempted to attach Peak Oil as the reason for government
engineering of 9-11 and the wars in the Middle East. By polluting the activist
movements with Peak Oil lies, the Globalists have created an army of strong
advocates for $5 a gallon gasoline.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Another triumph of Chomsky's disinfo campaign has been the active denial of the
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon group that published
radical statements calling for world war, population control, and a worldwide
police state back in 2000. The signatures on the documents included Dick Cheney
and cabinet members like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Dov Zakheim, Donald
Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Eliot Abrams.
It was Zakheim who previously ran Systems Planning Inc., which made
remote-control software for commercial airliners. Also as comptroller of the
Pentagon, he lost over $3 trillion of taxpayer money without explanation. Yet
his corruption was not singular; after Bush took his figurehead position in the
stolen election of 2000, all of the PNAC radicals became the architects of 9-11
and purveyors of pre-war lies about Iraq.
Their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document, produced in 2000 before
9-11, reads like prophecy, calling for theater wars against Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea. They also admitted that "Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." September 11,
anyone?
They also openly called for killer viruses to wipe out large sectors of the
human population. The document states: "[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare
that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
How can Chomsky and his kin ignore the statements of the PNAC cabal, whose mad
plans for world domination read like the lost chapters of Mein Kampf?
If the Left Gatekeepers won't discuss these published documents, how can we
expect them to research the true history of AIDS and the potential emerging
avian flu? Should we be surprised when they fail to mention the 60 plus dead
microbiologists after 9-11, many of them leading researchers in emerging
viruses? Should we look to Chomsky to find an expose of the heavy metals and
biological agents in chemtrails?
Isreal/Zionists
Many authors of the PNAC documents were radical Zionists linked to the Likud
party in Israel, who presented similar plans to Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 ("Policy for a Clean Break").
Chomsky, the supposed critic of Israel, has been praised by followers for his
books like "The Fateful Triangle" which detail many Israeli war crimes.
Furthermore he often criticizes the Isreali-linked network dominating U.S.
foreign policy. But as always, Chomsky again avoids the hardcore issues, instead
speaking in glittering generalities.
For example, he remains mute on the "Office of Special Plans," the ad-hoc nerve
center of pre-war Iraq propaganda, run of Cheney's office. It was here that
Zionist moles like Paul Wolfowitz, Larry Franklin, Douglas Feith, Stephen
Cambone, and Richard Perle cooked up phony WMD threats, links 9-11, and
collaboration between secular Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Those same gophers, many of them assets of the Israeli Likud party and
intelligence syndicate Mossad, operated a two-way spy network; just as
manufactured propaganda flowed from Mossad to the OSP moles, U.S. secrets on
Iran secretly floated into Sharon's war cabinet.
In the middle of all the traitorous espionage was the mafia don of all lobbying
cartels, the Israeli-controlled AIPAC. Top level AIPAC officers like Steve Rosen
often acted as a go-between, then using that same fake intelligence to
strong-arm the Congress where they control both sides..
All parties mentioned, from Rosen to Franklin, are now under investigation from
the FBI and Justice Department for the aforementioned crimes. Major articles in
the Washington Post now admit Franklin, working with Feith and Cambone, was
passing secrets to Israel through AIPAC. Chomsky has never spoken publically
about any of these topics, and certainly not the Mossad involvement in
false-flag terror events like the USS Liberty and connections to 9-11.
Vote Fraud
When he isn't busy covering up the facts surrounding 9-11 or the crimes of the
CIA, Chomsky spends time actively denying the vote fraud of 2004, which ushered
in another term for the neocon dictatorship. Chomsky often brags that he does
not vote in presidential elections, noting that both sides are owned by
corporations. But he has openly denied the role of electronic voting fraud in
2000 and the more prominent example of 2004. In 2004, exit polls in Ohio and
Florida showed John Kerry winning by a comfortable margin, but mysteriously
numbers showed a Bush victory.
The room for vote fraud was immense. The Secretary of State in Ohio, Ken
Blackwell, managed Bush's campaign in the state, much like Katherine Harris did
in Florida during 2000. Diebold, the company which makes most of the electronic
voting machines, is crawling with former CIA and NSA members and used convicted
felons to design their software. The Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell is a Bush Pioneer
and wrote in a GOP fundraising letter that he was "committed to delivering
electoral votes to the President."
The Diebold code is private and has been exposed as being easily hacked by Bev
Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org. In North Carolina and Georgia, machines were
throwing out 5,000 block votes for Bush without explanation. But none of this
seems to interest Chomsky, who finds the accusations of vote fraud to be without
merit:
"I don't find the evidence compelling. An inaccurate count in itself is a random
effect. As for collusion, yes, there are concerns, but concerns are not
evidence. The problem that concerns you may or may not be real, but in my view,
even if we take the worst case scenario, it is still marginal --
just as the Florida chads were marginal in the 2000 elections. I know of no
reason to suppose that electronic voting will have more than a random effect."
Chomsky and the gatekeepers cannot discuss the fraud of electronic voting
because it would awaken too many people to the total bankruptcy of the system.
It is important that college activists at Berkeley think their vote for Ralph
Nader counted. If they knew the entire game was rigged like a Don King boxing
match, too many illusions would break down.
World Government
Chomsky plays the left gatekeeper role perfectly, presenting a false dialectic
of the evil American imperialist as the antagonist aggressor, contrasted by the
savior UN world government as the benevolent deux ex machina.
This false propaganda model, pitting the imperialist U.S. against the godly UN
fits the classic MO of "poisoning the well." Essentially, Chomsky acts as a
re-direct agent: he acknowledges many crimes of American foreign policy and then
offers world government and international law as the solution.
The Globalists have long been masters of such a paradigm. In the early part of
the 20th century, the same Wall Street bankers crafted the doctrines of
Communism. While posing as a workers' liberation theology, it pushed for a
central bank, world army, world court, world government, and the abolition of
religion, private property, and the nation state.
Like other "anarchist" agent provacatuers such as John Zerzan (who helped train
violent mobs to ruin the Seattle WTO protests in 1999), Chomsky has called for
the elimination of private property. He argues, "that some form of council
communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial
society."
In fact, Chomsky goes further, pushing for the elimination of the nation-state
and national sovereignty to be replaced by a one world government:
"Well in my view what would be ultimately necessary would be a breakdown of the
nation-state system- because I think that's not a viable system. It's not
necessarily the natural form of human organization." (314)
Chomsky, echoing rhetoric from the phony Marxist doctrines, is essentially
endorsing the major goal of the world elite: the breakdown of national
sovereignty in favor of a one-world government.
Noam Chomsky is a shameless world government pimp, and has heaped lavish praise
on men like Bertrand Russell who helped designed the New World Order. Lucky for
him, Chomsky has been publicly rewarded for his faithful service to the UN
cause. In Febraury 2004, he received the Award of Excellence at the UN
Correspondents Association Club in New York. Previous winners included Globalist
assets like Mikhail Gorbachev.
UNESCO
Since Chomsky is an avowed global government cheerleader, is it any surprise he
supports some of the worst UN programs? U.N.E.S.C.O, the nightmare UN vehicle
posing as an "aid" organization, finds a strong advocate with Chomsky.
Long a pet project of the Malthusian-obsessed Rockefeller clan, U.N.E.S.C.O
projects include filtering pro-UN propaganda into American schools and with the
goal of eventually merging the curriculum with Mexico and Canada in the proposed
Panamerican Union; and seizing control of huge swaths of American federal lands
through "UN World Heritage" sites. The first U.N.E.S.C.O chief Julian Huxley
said during his tenure in 1948:
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global
in extent... It can stress the transfer of full sovereignty from separate
nations to a world political organization Political unification in some sort of
world government will be requiredto help the emergence of a single world
culture."
But Noam Chomsky, ever the advocate of the UN, endorses the goals of U.N.E.S.C.O
wholeheartedly and lambastes the evil conservatives who question its motives:
"U.N.E.S.C.O - because it's working for the Third World-we practically put them
out of business. The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against
U.N.E.S.C.O. in the 1970's and Eighties- it was full of outrageous lies, totally
fabricated, but nevertheless it sufficed to eliminate the Third World
orientation of U.N.E.S.C.O. and make it stop doing things it was doing around
the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on. (86)
PROPAGANDA
Many credit Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" with being the premier study of
government propaganda. In Leftist circles it is hailed as a Bible, a rite of
passage for any true activist to understand the system. But again, Chomsky's
work, while appearing radical, is actually gatekeeper disinfo.
Chomsky spends the entire book attempting to prove that newspapers diminish
American war crimes while exaggerating those of foreign governments. Such a
point is easy to prove, and he does so in his own droll and methodical method.
Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room:
direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the
1950's under Operation Mockingbird.
Chomsky avoids writing about Mockingbird, the CIA program which covertly put
major publishing, newspaper, and media outlets, as well as thousands of
individual reporters under direct agency control. Agents included Ben Bradlee at
Newsweek, Henry Luce of Time and Life, and Arthur Sulzberger of The New York
Times, Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post, and Joseph Harrison Christian
Science Monitor.
Shouldn't this a significant development for a historian authoring an honest
study of propaganda? After all who is to say that this program doesn't still
continue? The Bush administration has admitted spending hundreds of millions on
fake newscasts and paying individual reporters like Armstrong Williams to push
talking points in newspapers. What about the times they haven't been caught?
Exactly how many mainstream commentary and news outlets work with the CIA and
White House?
Perhaps this is the reason why the scripts of the nightly news on ABC, CBS, and
NBC are almost exactly the same, while Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times
push the elitist agenda on cue (as seen most prominently in the run up to the
war in Iraq).
Furthermore Chomsky does not discuss collaboration between the Bilderberg
Committee and the major media outlets. Shouldn't this concern the so-called
radical anarchist, when media editors attend secret meetings calling for
eugenics, world government, and a cashless society control grid?
Owners, editors and writers from Time, Newsweek, Economist, Washington Post, New
York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC and every news outlet in between have attended the
world government meetings.
Further, what about the influence of the CFR, which openly calls for a
Panamerican Union and the end of American national sovereignty? The CFR counts
amongst its members major editors, owners, and journalists in media outlets from
PBS to CBS, CNN to News Corp., New Republic to U.S. News and World Report.
Aren't these the reasons that journalists push the propaganda Chomsky
identifies? In "Manufacturing Consent," Chomsky takes limited aim at an easy
target. But he fails to dig deeper and examine the actual reasons why the
propaganda permeates the mainstream media opinion. Clearly the influence of the
CIA, CFR, Bilderberg Committee, and White House have turned major media outlets
into little more than docile commissars. Furthermore, the interlocking interests
of media owners with the military industrial complex have served to sway content
even further.
Chomsky's "classic" study is little more than a limited hangout project. He is
merely shooting the messengers, blaming journalistic "bias" while failing to
follow the trail of money, power, corruption, and black propaganda. Instead, he
identifies some passive propaganda and is hailed as a brilliant analyst and
purveyor of truth by the Leftist minions. But his true achievement is ignoring
the reasons behind the lies, as he executes a masterful bait and switch tactic.
Is it a coincidence that Chomsky's co-author for "Manufacturing Consent," Edward
Herman, has also denied any government complicity in 9-11?
While claiming to expose propaganda, Chomsky has perfected the art.
CONCLUSIONS
Chomsky and his gatekeeper contemporaries are perfect devices for the Globalists
because they help define the limits of the false left-right paradigm. Much like
David Horowitz, a former Leftist, currently does for the radical Right. Is it a
surprise that he edited a book called "The Anti-Chomsky Reader?" It should only
be natural since they both serve the same role of gatekeeper.
Puppets like Horowitz, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Michele Malkin, William
Kristol, William F. Buckley and their kin serve as Right Gatekeepers. They
criticize the failures of liberals and Democrats and then call for Bush
worshipping, illegal wars, fascist government, and giving up all of our
Constitutional rights for "security." In doing so they pollute the conservative
movement and help marginalize true conservatives voices like Alex Jones, Ron
Paul, and groups like Gun Owners of America.
Chomsky and his gatekeepers do the same thing. They write about the crimes of
American imperialism and then call for population control, gun control, global
government under the UN, and a totally socialized Brave New World society.
The Left gatekeepers must manage the delicate tight rope act of appearing
radical while in actuality calling for worldwide enslavement and murder. In all
likelihood they get a little help from the propaganda scientists at the
venerable Tavistock institute in London and adjuncts of the CIA's Mockingbird
program; clearly the Left's denial of 9-11 truths has been too coordinated too
have simply been a freak occurrence.
In the mainstream it is the same with the staged battles between pawns like
Democratic operative Al Franken and Republican Ann Coulter.
All of this is designed to create a tight spectrum, a masterfully crafted false
paradigm to enslave the mind and give the people false choices. Thus at either
extreme of the spectrum and all points in between, from Chomsky to Horowitz, one
finds they are endorsing total enslavement and global government. This is the
genius of the New World Order, their complete castration of free political will
through carefully managed propaganda agents. The rest of the media jackals serve
as willing accomplices, mere useful idiots and power hungry sycophants with
massive egos and more concern for their career than the truth.
Noam Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper associates must be actively exposed for
their role in the propaganda system. For nearly 40 years since they infiltrated
the activist movement, these Left gatekeepers have made the activist movements
impotent, territorial, confused, and ineffective. Thus instead of understanding
their enslavement, many activists end up calling for tighter chains by echoing
Chomsky's
calls for gun control, population control, and a world government under the UN.
They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement
in 9-11 and the CIA/MI-6/Mossad creation known as Al-Qaeda.
Noam Chomsky and his clique of re-direct agents mercilessly push real activists
into dead-end solutions.
Until they are vocally exposed, the Left will continue to remain a managed asset
of the New World Order.
_____________________________________________________________
*** Daniel L. Abrahamson can be reached at DLAmedia@yahoo.com
MustListen.com http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18986/1/Countdown-SpecialComment-Libby.wmv/
Steven JonesWTC911-Applying the Scientific Method PDF file
http://www.google.com/search?any
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/seniors/ Judicial Council Handbook for Conservators. The law says you must have a copy of this handbook
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf
freedom-to-fascism-137min-total-part2of2-42mins.mp3
freedom-to-fascism-137mintotal-partof2-55mins.mp3
Russo/freedom-to-fascism-137min.mp3
JFK-on-secret-societies.mp3 the-arcade-fire-naive-melody-5min.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2637636539837098620&q=bruce+lipton
many good must listen mp3: http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/bestof.php
---------------------------------------------
North American Union exposed during Senate Debate YOU TUBE VIDEO
---------------------------------------------------
Must see '911 mysteries' 90 min video
911mysteries-60min-pt1of2.mp3 911mysteries-30min-pt2of2.mp3
----------------------------------------------
Famous study / report on the millions of death caused by the practice of western
medicine
Death
by Medicine By Gary Null
LaLucha/pdf-files/death by medicine.pdf
----------------------------------------------------
kpfk somethings happening plays "America from freedom to fascism" film's audio http://64.27.15.184/parchive/pls.php?mp3fil=1171
--------------------------------------------------------
See the 911truthbristol.com,eminem, mos def and immortal
technique "Bust Bush" video dialog.
CLICK TO SEE VIDEO: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5959363953955396469&q=bush+eminem
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN / DOWNLOAD EMINEM BUSH KNOCKED DOWN THE TOWERS MP3 SONG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLICK HERE
TO START VIDEO
"An error isn't a mistake, until you refuse to correct it." -
JFK
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
“The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”
President John F. Kennedy
Address to newspaper publishers
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961
_________________________________________________________
click-here-to-play-bush-killed-jfk-video
click-here-to-play-bush-killed-jfk-audio.mp3
_______________________________________
A very clean if not the clearest version of the Zapruder film.
Watch the Driver William Greer turn around and shoot the finishing blow to
President Kennedy.
click-here-to-see-william-greer-shoot-jfk
______________________________________________________
central-banks/71min-international-bankers.mp3
central-banks/73min-bankers.mp3
g-edward-griffin-42-min-international-bankers-videoplay
g-edward-griffin-42min-international-bankers.mp3
___________________________________________
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/911related/loose-change.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/911related/911review.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/911related/loose_change4cd.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/central-banks/71min-international-bankers.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/central-banks/73min-bankers.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/JFK/jfk-killed-by-bush-cd.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/JFK/bush-killed-jfk.mp3
david-ray-griffin=sept2005-911testimony-to-congress-hearing.mp3
david-ray-griffin-911-american-empire-2005-religion-and-ethics.mp3
_____________________________________________________________________
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/mckenna-related/shamans-of-the-amazon.mp3
____________________________________________________________
ClickHere For SaturdayNightDJ.com CLICK
HERE FOR TWIN TOWERS PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION
must_read
Click on following link to see Charlie Sheen speak on 911 controlled demo of
twin towers:
Charlie-Sheen_911-CNN-march23-2006.wmv
click here to download mp3 file of al gore-jan162006 MLK day speech 60mins
or copy and paste in browse address http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/gore-jan162006-MLK-day-speech=60mins.mp3
Al Gore Speech Audio Podcast The speech which you will hear in this podcast was given today, January 16, 2006 by Vice President Albert Gore. It is the one of the two most amazing speeches I have ever heard in my life. Think of the power of Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic Presidential Convention, and you’ll get a clue, but this speech is much more important, for in this speech, Al Gore set the frame for the investigations that will lead to the impeachment of George W. Bush, and for the reclamation of Congress in 2006 that will make those impeachment hearings possible.
Al Gore had the courage today to say what we have all been thinking. George W. Bush has engaged in grave violations of the law in the pursuit of unprecented power, and he must be held accountable. We, the people of the United States of America, have the responsibility to restore the rule of law that President Bush has laid to waste.
Thank you, Vice President Gore. By jclifford
Irregular Call To Action:
17 MB: Podcast of Al
Gore’s Speech
MP4 Format if you can get it: A
Podcast of Al
Gore’s Speech
In an address delivered in Washington to multiple standing ovations, Vice President Al Gore repeatedly attacked the Bush Administration for the expansion of executive power -- the ability of the government to wiretap its own citizens without legal authority and kidnap Americans abroad.
His speech -- which compares the wiretapping of Martin Luther King to the broad surveillance now imposed on Americans by President Bush -- called on Congress to resume its oversight responsibilities, and enjoined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor. Gore was to be introduced by former Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who has advocated for the constitutional right to privacy.
The full text of his speech follows:
Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.
In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.
As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses. It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored in our country.
And that is why many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences insofar as it is possible to do so and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.
It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all of our people.
And on this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during that period.
The FBI privately labeled King the "most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country" and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide.
This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted this long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, was instrumental in helping to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.
And one result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there was indeed a sufficient cause for the surveillance. It included ample flexibility and an ability for the executive to move with as much speed as the executive desired. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of affording a level of protection for American citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue whenever it is necessary.
And yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on, and I quote the report, "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit domestic intelligence collection."
During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President seemed to go out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but in the next breath declared that he has no intention stopping or of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, "the law is king."
Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint, under the rule of law.
And make no mistake, the rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed, and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy, and avoid error. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion to power.
A commitment to openness, truthfulness, and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes, that we would otherwise make. Recently, for example, we learned from just declassified documents, after almost forty years, that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. Now the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.
Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism. When in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable.
And remember that once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.
The President's men have minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General, for example, openly conceded that the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting does require a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the Administration claims, instead, that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.
But, this argument simply does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that is why they consulted with some members of Congress about the possibility of changing the statute. Genl. Gonzalez says that they were told by the members of congress consulted that this would probably not be possible. And so they decided not to make the request. So how can they now argue that the Authorization for the use of military force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Indeed, when the Authorization was being debated, the Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress refused to agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made clear statements during the debate on the floor of the house and the senate, respectively, clearly stating that that Authorization did not operate domestically. And there is no assertion to the contrary.
When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the President and the Congress."
This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case during the Korean War.
It is this same disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.
For example, as you know the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, that person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer-even if he wants to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. The President claims that he can imprison that American citizen -- any American Citizen he chooses -- indefinitely for the rest of his live without an even arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned. No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our constitution. It must be rejected.
At the same time, the Executive branch has also claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture and have plainly constituted torture in a widespread pattern that has been extensively documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.
Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. And, in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were completely innocent of any criminal charges whatsoever. This is a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then - until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, and our own laws against torture.
The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals on the streets of foreign cities and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture. Some of our traditional allies have been deeply shocked by these new, and uncharacteristic patterns on the part of Americans. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home office about the cruelty and senselessness of the new U.S. practice that he witnessed: "This material we’re getting is useless,” he wrote and then he continued with this – “we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's extravagant claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
The fact that our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is, itself, deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore a healthy constitutional balance.
For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it. Similarly, the Executive Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. And when the Supreme Court disagreed, the President engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the Court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected.
A conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive branch's handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle, and I quote him, "at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."
As a result of this unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for America's democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized.
These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.
For more than two centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in large part by our founders' wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which, as you know, serves to check and balance the power of the other two.
On more than a few occasions, in our history, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled "constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live together under the rule of law.
The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has, of course, been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group who exercise that power without the informed consent of the governed.
It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was, in his memorable phrase, "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union, he was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.
There have of course been other periods in American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents. And when his successor, President Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses, in his first inaugural he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation... [S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."
President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a shameful low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, of course, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of those abuses experienced by Dr. King and so many thousands of others.
But in each of these cases throughout American history, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, our nation recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.
But, there are reasons for concern this time around, that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a globe where there are nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter- intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. But, as Justice Frankfurter wrote in that famous Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."
A second reason to that believe we may be experiencing something new -- outside that historical cycle -- is that we are, after all, told by this Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to "last” in their phrase, “for the rest of our lives." And so, we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will, in this case, persist in near perpetuity.
Third, we need to be keenly aware of the startling advances in the sophistication of eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to easily sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and then mine it for intelligence. And this adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies grows. Those technologies do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways that are both subtle and profound.
Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is real and the concerted efforts by terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction does indeed create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power conferred by the Constitution to the any President to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat. And it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not. But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for many years and producing a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.
And there is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential power is exactly what our Constitution intended.
This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary, cannot be checked by Congress. And President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, both domestic and foreign. And when added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and subservient judiciary is ironically accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish a form of dominance in the world.
And the common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive branch employees.
For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.
Ironically, that is exactly what happened to the FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's assertion that Martin Luther King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division testified that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated within the FBI and pressured. And I quote: "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I (he continued) discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men (he continued) were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."
The Constitution's framers who studied human nature so closely understood this dilemma quite well. As Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)
In any case, quite soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. And the false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.
Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." 2,200 American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality.
And indeed, whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to gross mistakes and abuses. That is part of human nature. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded. It is human nature -- whether for Republicans or Democrats or people of any set of views.
Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still does not know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have led to the identification of most of the others. One of them was in the phonebook. And yet, because of incompetence, unaccountable incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.
It is often the case, again, regardless of which party might be in power, that an Executive branch, beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power, responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.
Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. That’s why many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And that is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If his attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, then our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have imagined possible.
This same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance has characterized the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.
In a properly functioning system, the Judicial branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties, adhered to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process -- by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch.
The President's decision, for example, to ignore the FISA law was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. And yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take matters to it and did not even let the court know that it was being bypassed.
The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive - a supporter of that so-called unitary executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not - and I respect the fact that some of the co-sponsors of this event do. I do not – but whatever your view, we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking.
And the Administration has also supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the President's nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration has demonstrated a contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn.
But the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive to attain this massive expansion of its power.
I was elected to the Congress in 1976, served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate, presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate after I had graduated from college.
The Congress we have today is structurally unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished and outstanding Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored to know them and to have worked with them. But the legislative branch of government, as a whole, under its current leadership now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the Executive branch. It is astonishing to me, and so foreign to what the Congress is supposed to be.
Moreover, too many members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate on the issues, but instead raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.
Moreover, there have now been two or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.
The role of the authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed as bills, anymore. Everything is lumped into a familiar single giant measure that is not even available for members of Congress to read before they vote on it. Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely disallowed during floor consideration of legislation.
In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?" In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.
And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give; and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.
So the willingness of Congress to challenge the Executive branch is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the Administration. The Executive branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and too often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.
Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and sometimes the leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to the vice-president.
Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking sufficient action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program. Many did.
Moreover, in the Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption that some have fallen vulnerable to.
The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg threatening the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.
It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by the Executive Branch now threatening a radical transformation of the American system.
I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country. But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must also be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has accompanied these efforts by the Executive branch to dominate our constitutional system.
We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-must examine ourselves. We - as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and hollowing out and degradation of American democracy! It is time to stand up for the American system that we know and love! It is time to breathe new life back into America’s democracy!
Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will" America’s based on the belief that we can govern ourselves. And exercise the power of self-government. The American idea proceeded from the bedrock principle that all just power is derived from the consent of the governed.
The intricate and carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.
And when the Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States - that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.
And it is "We the people" who must now find, once again, the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution. And here there is cause for both concern and for great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates.
Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is now applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. And its dominance has now become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second television advertisements, and they’re not the Federalist Papers.
The political economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.
The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the Executive branch to believe it can and should control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.
The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain secrecy in its operations. After all, if the other branches don’t know what is happening they can't be a check or a balance.
For example, when the Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But, rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration withheld facts and actively prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it had sought from the principal administration expert who had the information showing in advance of the vote that, indeed, the true cost estimates were far beyond the numbers given to Congress by the President. And the workings of the program would play out very differently than Congress had been told.
Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress approved the program. And tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing- all over the country- with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out. But the American people, who have the right to believe that its elected representatives will learn the truth and act on the basis of knowledge and utilize the rule of reason, have been let down.
To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training, whatsoever. Today, one of the leading scientific experts in the world on global warming in NASA, has been ordered not to talk to members of the press, ordered to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive branch can monitor and control what he shares of his knowledge of global warming. This is a planetary crisis – we owe ourselves a truthful and reasoned discussion.
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment’s notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when the last generation had to fight and win two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it’s up to us to do the very same thing!
We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, and I quote: "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We’ve had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive branch has violated other laws.
Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of this special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by the warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President, and it should be a political issue in any race -- regardless of party, section of the country, house of congress for anyone who opposes the appointment of a special counsel under these dangerous circumstances when our Constitution is at risk. Secondly, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of authority in these sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should, of course, hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.
It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.
In closing, I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established by the people and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.
As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."
Thank you, very much.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/video-9-11-58mins.mp3
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/video-9-11-60mins.mp3
http://www.iamthewitness.com.nyud.net:8090/Smith23Jan2006_1.mp3
http://www.iamthewitness.com.nyud.net:8090/Smith23Jan2006_2.mp3
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html
http://www.iamthewitness.com.nyud.net:8090/Smith12Jan2006_1.mp3
http://www.iamthewitness.com.nyud.net:8090/Smith22Dec2005_1.mp3
David Ray Griffin
speech from 10/15/05 : NYC TWO I HOUR AUDIO FILES that evidence the 3 three
steel skyscrapers that collapsed in New York City on Sept 11, 2001 did so as a
result of controlled demolition, that the airplanes crashes provided the cover
but were not the cause of the collapse: Also excerpts from Dr Steven Jones
2/1/06 speech at Utah Valley State College
IF LINK FAILS cut and past url in
browser windows.
HOUR 1:
http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/physics-of-tyranny-ug293-hour1mix.mp3
HOUR 2: http://jokebook.com/Chomsky-mp3-storage/physics-of-tyranny-ug293-hour2mix.mp3
EndOfOil.info
TYPEORCOPYANDPASTEhttp://jokebook.com/EndWars/documents/end_of_the_bing.htmNTOBROWERWINDOW
TYPEORCOPYANDPASTEhttp://jokebook.com/EndWars/documents/world-empire.pdfINTOBROWERWINDOW
TYPEORCOPYANDPASTEhttp://jokebook.com/EndWars/documents/AfterOil.pdfINTOBROWERWINDOW
the simplest explanation is to be preferred until it is forced to be abandoned due to new information
mustlisten.com
